Post by saltin on Jul 26, 2015 13:49:14 GMT
This is getting boring.1st you insist:
1/"Tanks are for attack only",they are not it was shown how they can attack and airstrike.Kind of a fun tactic actually.
2/"Patton is better", he is not, he doesnt have the hps or the air firepower for the task.
3/"Montgomery is going to get nuked anyways so no need to use him" laughable argument,this can be said of any general,Montgomery has the best health and can take nukes better than most.
4/"I see no reason talking about air strikes in 1960" You can still airstrike targets outside city range.Also missiles count as air.
5/"The city have splendid air defense" you are not looking hard enough,missile defense is still very weak in almost all cities,missiles ARE airforce.
In conclusion every single one of your arguments has been shot/missile struck/nuked by several of us here yet,you will not recognize any of our posters points or mine and keep insisting that air power is obsolete and that we don't need air.
We went just from a simple post about Montgomery general being a valid and fun choice and alternative or complement to Goring to these crazy grand theories about the universe ...oh wait about how everything air being obsolete in the 1960 or something similar.
Can we give it a rest? Montgomery is a decent choice for an air general,this was shown here and he was also voted as perfectly acceptable by the much larger chinese wc3 community,it was an email from one such player that even got me thinking about Montgomery.
So please learn to loose arguments gracefully,it shows much more character that way.
