[Suggestion] Make the Flash Passively Faster

Trump? A decent President? And there you have the reason behind just about every stupid thing you said. Finished with you. But then again weakening the country and alienating us from all of our allies would be good for you in the long run wouldn't it? You are insane. Trump has done nothing at all for our country save for shame it. He is a confirmed racist who abuses the office.... Example, anytime you order someone who works for you NOT to testify against you, and the courts have to summon them under penalty of PRISON TIME, and then he FIRES them for disobeying him, you are looking at a criminal. Why don't you let him run your country? We are about to impeach him, and soon he will need a place to flee. Hahahaha! As Scroff already said, speed will beat power every day of the year so long as the speed can keep its pace indefinitely. Why do you think E.S.F.'s are so lethal to tanks? If you watched the video, (which something tells me you did not have the sense to....) You would have seen the balance drives are powerful enough to withstand side impact kicks, and even a massive mud tire, WHILE ON ICE!!!!! Two forward facing Recoil-less Rifles (KEY WORD, RECOIL-LESS) would do very little in the way of disrupting stability It may slow it down a bit if you did not have the rear vents open, but other than that, it would have no balance issues due to recoil or firing. A M134 may push it over eventually with maximum R.P.M. sustained fire directly from either side during a turn but that is not how the vehicle would engage a target. That is a: "HOLY CRAP YOU GOT THE DROP ON ME!!!" Position to fire from. A soft target is about the only thing that would be able to do so, so a short burst is all that would be needed to cut the target in half. Otherwise most of the Gatling Guns recoil would be forced to the rear of the machine, easily compensated by the motors. For safety reasons or to not overwork the system, simply reduce the R.P.M. of the Gatling Gun motor. Issues with production for vehicles like this were only an issue because the balance compensation technology was not there yet. Today? People are building things beyond what is needed in their back yards and garages.

If I want you to regurgitate what the media says, I'll let you know.

Recoilless rifle, any of several antitank weapons developed during World War II. They are lightweight and can be operated by one or two men. Recoil was eliminated by allowing part of the propelling blast to escape to the rear. Disadvantages are a low muzzle velocity and consequent short range. (Brittanica)

And if you've ever fired a recoilless rifle, you'd know there's still recoil. Besides, those things do not work against tanks anyways, so......

I still missed the part of how you get the drop on them by riding a motorcycle behind their ranks. Sounds like a bad video game to me.


Then the question remains: if this is such revolutionary technology, why is there no such thing in development? You're gonna tell me you're the only strategical genius?

Its simple war strategy: fear. What is more fear inspiring, a tank or a motorcycle? If you have a whole army of motorcycles, no matter how powerful they are, people will attack you. They underestimate you. If you have a whole army of tanks, no matter how weak they are, you are automatically discouraged from fighting it.

Its very simple, really. No war beats a war. If you have giant nukes that you like to blow people up with, people will stop picking fights with you. If you fight them, they surrender. They have a form of the value of life and death. If you had an army of tank busting motorcycles, you encourage war. They'd come up to fight you, and you don't want people to die. Plus, if your men die or you encourage war, that takes a hit on the economy and the people's faith in you. Its a bad move.

Now, as for your points against motorcycles having a tank buster attached to them, all I can say is that you overthink it. Lower stability than usual? Wider wheels.Detachable counter weight. Detachable Tank Buster. Need to get the jump on a tank? Smoke screen shooter. Increased speed. Quieter engine. Not enough damage? Bigger gun. Faster gun. Honestly, shoot something enough in the right place and you are gonna take it down. Usually. If all else fails, bust through the armor and shoot the driver with your handgun. I mean, if its explosive, it should break the armor or at least dent it, if it is powerful enough.

My point is, you overthink it.

There's no such thing as overthinking in war. And all the upgrades you suggest basically turn the thing into a tank or a HUMMER. I'll excuse your first paragraphs that made little to no sense - if motorcycles really were that powerful (and worked), you don't think everyone would be using them instead of tanks?

Well, we can tell you're not up to date with military technology. By that, I mean you're about 100 years behind. Angling, thicker armor, new materials, new defensive/offensive mechanics - as I said earlier, in WW2, most allied tanks couldn't even make a dent in the German's armor. I'll let you imagine how powerful tanks are now.

I hate to break it to you for the 1000th time, you are never going to be able to sneak around with your attack motorcycle, shoot the tanks open and finish off the 5 man crew inside the tank with your handgun. This us real life, not fast and furious we're talking about. Let's add that to the fact that technology has been developed to make stationary (or slow moving) tanks near invisible to both radar and the naked eye; you'd probably be long dead before you even figure out where the tanks are.

I'm sorry to tell you that just because something is explosive doesn't mean it can break armor. Sure, depending on the tank, it might trigger the detachable armor to blow off the tank, but it's never actually going to do significant damage - unless you want to add a more powerful gun at the exchange of speed and overall vehicle shape. Basically turn the motorcycle to a tank or HUMMER.

Do some research before twisting reality like that loool.

Hot DANG, you made me wave the Vanu American flag with that response. I could not have said that any better myself, and you KNOW how I like to type. Well flipping DONE! In a real fight, you almost never have to worry about what you enemy shows you on the battle field. It is the crap they DIDN'T that you need to be concerned with as that is the lethal threat.

Which leads me to the answer of YOUR question. Just because YOU have not heard of something does not mean it is not in development nor does it mean it does not already exist. If a human can hold one of these and fire them standing up, these mounted onto the vehicle frame would not be much of anything as far as recoil is concerned even if you fired both at the same time Gatling Style.

You would not hear of a war machine like this because they would almost completely render a tank obsolete. Electric motors are powerful enough to reach distances in upwards of 150 miles. Hybrid drive technology has been active for over a decade now. A dual drive unit would be in order. A standard fossil fuel chain driven motor, for highway/convoy purposes, and 2, wheel mounted, electric motors for extreme acceleration, high speed, and silent combat performance. Here is a perfect example of the engines I am talking about.

The jet noise you hear from the car, is not the car. It is the air displaced by the car as it tears around the track at over 198 Miles an hour. The only noise an electric motor produces is a slight whine not dissimilar from that of a remote control car. This can be EASILY silenced further a it is not much noise to begin with. So now imagine the enclosed bike I showed you, equipped the the way I stated, using only 2 of the 8 wheels and less than an 8th of the weight... It would be able to go dead silent miles outside of the engagement zone and stalk the tanks for MILES in dead silence, before then using its insane ability to accelerate to top speeds, attack and retreat. There is no loss of life for the person fielding a unit like this. There is another reason why you will not hear of military breaking weapons. Escalation. Eventually war is going to phase itself out. The weapons on the battle field will eventually become so powerful, it will be pointless to use them. In order to be able to still be able to use war as an option, you (as a Developer) have to use a little forethought as to what you introduce to the world, as your enemy will absolutely build a counter for it. Escalation is the very reason why Nukes are not on the table for real as a true military tactic, and is THE ONLY reason we have not had a new Biological War. If tanks are no longer an option because of a new single seat, super weapon, that will later be equipped to be driver-less to abolish the need for risking human life, what will the enemy use to combat that? Best case scenario, they develop something smaller, faster, more heavily armed and armored. Worst case scenario, you back them into a corner, they decide they have nothing, except their nukes to combat you and make preparations to USE them for their last stand; which leads you are riiiiight back here...

No, as I discussed earlier, everybody will NOT use them. As I discussed earlier, the part you cut out of your quote, people won't use motorcycles instead of tanks because you'd fight a motorcycle, not a tank. You aren't going to risk lives or a war just because you can win it. I don't care if you have tank busting motorcycles - you won't mass produce them because the other nations will choose to pick a fight with you. If you have an army of motorcycles, that inspires war. "Hey, we can take them!" No, no you can not, and then you die trying. The Motorcycle nation will lose the support of their country because you just baited a war for no reason and risked lives for no reason. Tanks stop wars from happening. You go quietly into the night, or you choose not to start anything with the Tank Nation anyways, because you think you are going to lose. Doesn't matter how weak the tank is or how strong the motorcycle is, you are scared of the tank.

Also, as I have said before, you are overthinking it. You are like, "No way you can sneak up on a tank." Well, lets say you could. If you have a powerful weapon, even something to just crack the armor enough to get shots into the cockpit, you are going to neutralize that tank. At least you have the possibility of it. You don't have to literally blow up the tank to render it useless. No driver means no tank. Then, you can just steal the tank or whatever. You are like, "No way you can put a powerful enough weapon on a motorcycle." Well, lets say you could. Then you can break away that armor and kill the driver and other operating crew. If the weapon pierces the tank's hull, you could end up hitting the crew anyway.

I am not trying to turn a motorcycle into a tank or a hummer. They are both bigger targets that are easier to hit. I am trying to keep it a lightly armored motorcycle. My gosh, dude. Also, you don't have to be rude. Also also, I don't care about your research. Logically and theoretically, it could work, once you work out any issues. If the issues aren't big enough to stop you from taking on a tank, then you are fine.

Thank you for this. TRspy007 is too concerned about what could go wrong. He isn't concerned about what could go right. That is what I find about most people here on these forums. They always dismiss your ideas because they think that A, B, and C can go wrong. They don't care about how to make it go right.

Anytime.

smh

Let's say I could be a trillionaire and we could travel faster than the speed of light. What does fantasizing help us with in real life?

You want it to carry a huge cannon, and you said you wanted to add tons of protection. Lightly armored vehicle == vulnerable to the tank's heavy machine guns.

Yes you are, and the fact that you don't care about research, supported facts and everything literally proves your reasoning is flawed and illogical. No, it can't theoretically work, neither can you fix the issues that prevent it from working. As I said, if it could work, armies would've implemented them long ago.

Wrong, I don't care about your research. Never said I wanted a huge cannon, just something armor piercing. Never said I wanted tons of protection. That was Exileant with the C-1.I

i have said this 3 times now: ARMIES TRY TO AVOID A WAR! You arent going to mass produce tank busting motorcycles because then more people will fight you! Needless war and death! Tanks fight and stop wars, no matter how weak or expensive! Even if a motorcycle could beat a tank, people would choose to fight the motorcycle because a tank is scarier! I hope to not have to mention this AGAIN!

And I was just giving him an example how under-powered the Flash really is, on a game where civilization has perfected anti-gravity in an effort to stop his whining. The types of weapons you COULD place on even a bike with just 2 wheels in our time far and away blows away the bike displayed in this future. This constant nerfing of it has to stop. All I want is a Halberd For it, so I can get at infantry and vehicles just a touch easier. As it stands now, a Halberd P.P.C. or even a Comet attachment would be welcome and not at all out of place. You can say what you mean 500 times, and sadly, he still will not get it. It is called selective reading. It might be time to let him wallow in his ignorance. He is STILL a Trump Supporter.... And if you can stick to THOSE guns after all that has been revealed, only God can help him... With that, he is all yours.

Yes, please don't say something like that again, that was the dumbest thing I ever read. they try to avoid wars which they can lose, which is the reason there are very few countries at war, and those that are are allies with USA, Russia or China. War is good for business, you really think governments worry about useless deaths???? Quit being so naive. Instead of ignoring the facts, you should do some research before sprouting absurd nonsense.

Dude listen to your last sentences. Does that sound logical to you? Like, seriously? I'd expect more serious reasoning from a 4 year old.

Wrong, wars do NOT help an economy. Only in the few and extreme cases like WWII and the Great Depression does it help the economy. Countries avoid war unless they are looking for world domination. Now, the government may not care about the individual lives of the people killed in action, but they care about the support of their people. Without support in a democracy, you get voted out. That's bad for you. That's common sense! If you lose the support of your people, who may be divided over your efforts to start a war, you could even start civil unrest. Nobody wants that! You also don't want to incite war by looking weak, because if you do that, you like ripe for the taking. So yeah, invest in these slow powerhouses of metal instead of motorcycles, so you look stronger than everyone else and you are feared. What is wrong with you?

War do help economy, that's why america created a never ending "war" in the middle east. No country seeks world domination, since the bigger your territory becomes, the harder it is to maintain control over it, hence the collapse of the roman empire, and the one of Alexander the Great before it.

Not every country lives in a democracy, and you could definitely argue "democracies" aren't democratic at all. You can't even check if the guy got elected by votes anyways.

And no, we aren't fighting the Punic wars; no country decides not to attack another because "they have bigger tanks" or "look weak". We have technology, we have hydrogen bombs, planes, air carriers, no one worries about "this country has more tanks". You could have an army of motorcycles, they'd be destroyed just as easily by air bombardments.

What's wrong with me is that I'm using logic, facts and reasoning to debate something completely absurd that has absolutely no evidence to form something greater than a weak, stretched out version of an idea.

War does not help economy. They only have a short-term positive effect before things go downhill, hence why you don't want a long war. The only economic gains are when you actually take over something of theirs, like their land, their wealth, or their resources. Countries did seek world domination, and the fact that you then go on to mention an example of one who did, albeit a warning example, goes to further prove my point. Hitler did, along with some other goals. It doesn't matter if it is hard to maintain if that is your goal, hence why I said "unless they are looking for world domination." In the case that they are, they don't care about a war, because that is what they want.

I said "Without support IN A DEMOCRACY", which means I was talking about A DEMOCRACY! If you are in another form of government, the consequences of a bad decision could stem from assassination, revolts, strikes, civil unrest, and other forms of violence. In a democracy, these things can still happen, but everyone believe "the people have the power", so they can choose the other method of trying to vote someone out.

The main causes for war are:
Economical Gain
Territorial Gain'
Religion
Nationalism
Revenge
Civil War
Revolutionary War
Defensive War

If you are trying to go for economical gain or territorial gain, you choose your battles wisely. You want someone easily conquered for economical gain, while still getting a good plunder, and for territorial gain you want the land, which also takes preparation. You don't try to take wealth or land from someone who is going to kick your butt in a war. You choose your battles wisely. If someone has a strong military, you aren't going to attack them for those reasons. For the reasons of Religion, Nationalism, and Revenge, you simply couldn't care less because you have something against them and want a fight. You still prepare, don't get me wrong there, but you are going to fight that war regardless. You have a vendetta against them. Anyways, if that country is too strong to beat, so you won't be able to take their land, their wealth, or their resources, you will most likely not fight them. If you are fighting on the basis of revenge, you aren't pulling any punches, so you are throwing all you got at them.

I was using the "bigger tanks" loosely. You can use that to mean a bigger, more powerful anything. If they have bigger bombs than you, you don't want to pick a fight with them, or else they'll drop it on you. If they have stronger planes than you, they will use it against you. If they have bigger tanks than you, they will use it against you. This army has bigger chariots than you, and they will use it against you. This arms has guns, and we have bows. Lets not fight them. That has been proven through history. Sure, an army of tank busting motorcycles would be destroyed by dropping a nuke on it or air bombardment. DUH! So would a tank! Thats not even a good argument to use!

The whole premise of this discussion, of your argument, was that the Flash shouldn't be able to destroy an MBT. Well lets look at the data. In this world, you can generate a vehicle using nanites. Your Flash, aka the quad bike, is easily destroyed and is the only vehicle where the driver is exposed. The MBT, aka the big tank, is very resilient against attacks, but is slow. In this world of Planetside, the future, they have figured out a way to use nanites to generate vehicles and they have found a way to attach weapons to it using those nanites, all through the touch of a console. Could a quad that had the same top guns of a tank destroy the tank? Can a tank using only the topguns destroy a tank if it shot it in the back? That is literally all the Flash has to rely on, when paired with the Wraith cloak. They have figured out this technology. In real life, you may be right. You may not be able to strap a powerful enough weapon onto a motorcycle or quad and fire it while moving, but this is the future where you can go nearly invisible, have a jetpack, emit a thingy that heals people, infinitely spawn ammo packs that work for every single weapon, and have a personal shield that absorbs damage. You really question something as basic as putting a gun on a quad bike?

A gun that can kill MAIN BATTLE TANKS on a CLOAKING bike? YES

You just don't get it. The gun can kill main battle tanks whether or not it is mounted on a Flash or not, correct? All you would need to kill solely with a top gun such as the Fury is to get behind them, but those are all just top guns. If it was mounted on another MBT, then you'd win if you got the flank, because you have 2 cannons and health to rely on. If it was a sundy that flanked an MBT and had 2 Furys attached to their roof, you'd kill the MBT even faster than the Flash. If you are a Heavy Assault, Light Assault, Medic, or Engineer, if you are on a Turbo Flash, you can rely on the Fury AND your AV capabilities included in your class loadout, such as C4 or tank mines.

The Infiltrator on a Wraith Flash has to fully rely on one Fury, and they have no health to dip into if they get hit once or twice. They are exposed and dead. You just don't seem to get that. Your argument isn't truly against the Flash; it is against the weapons. If the weapons were weaker, you would have to sit around for a while trying to finish off a MBT, but no. The weapons are the same across all vehicles. That's just what I don't think you get. Even if you get behind the tank and start doing damage, there is nothing stopping them from immediately turning around and blowing you up. They can turn around and blow you up pretty fast due to the turning speed of that cannon, and with the punch it packs, you are dead in one hit, and you don't seem to care.

You also don't seem to get that cloaking isn't an aggressive ability. It is more of a defense mechanism. All it helps you do is close the gap. When you get close, the only thing you have to rely on is your Flash's weapon, because without it, you have no source of AV.

And people used to use Sunderers just like that. The term Battle Bus was not given to them because they sat around spitting out soldiers.... As Scroff said in so many words: Cannons and turrets have no speed restriction, at ALL. So again, if you die to a single flash moving at the pitiful speeds they move now, you need to up your game people. They need a built in turbo, just like the Harasser, Liberator, and Magrider. *Slams fist* PLEASE AND THANK YOU!!!!!