christophercles 0 Posted January 17, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (King Kong @ Jan. 16 2002,02:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The MP-44 was only for VERY elite troops like Blitzkrieg or high ranked Gestapo officers(you could compare it to an OICW in that time).<span id='postcolor'> It doesnt matter that it was for the elite people, kalishnakov still stole the design from the 44. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Flugel 0 Posted January 17, 2002 nah i would go for playability over realism, becuz blow tanks up with just one shot isnt any fun. Thats like editing C&C Red Alert and make every antitank weapon do 400% damage vs armour. Imagine how dangerous it would be to ride a tank: every RPG/LAW man in the neighbourhood results into a nice 3rd person view with a famous quote below. Maybe realistic, but i prefer the tank to be something that boosts my feeling of security. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Noone 4 Posted January 17, 2002 @Flugel Yeap, that is also a valid opinion. That's why we are still considering some kinf of compromise maybe... @christophercles "i am saying that the ak would never be my choice in a battle if i had the choice" And have you been in battle ? Because some people including myself here are speaking from personal experience, so the question is : are you ? "kalishnakov still stole the design from the 44." What parts of the design ? The gas return mechanism, the reciever ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
