Large Ship Contest
Moderators: Dr. X, ikensall, fredde
It seems to me that, a battlecruiser being a cross between a fast, lightly armed/armored cruiser, and a heavy, slow Battleship, that there are two types of battlecruiser.
The "fast battleship" or offensive battlecruiser.
And the "Ultra-heavy cruiser" or defensive battlecruiser.
I am going for the "fast battleship" type, a fast cruiser, with below standard armor, and above standard weaponry.
Plus a hanger.
The "fast battleship" or offensive battlecruiser.
And the "Ultra-heavy cruiser" or defensive battlecruiser.
I am going for the "fast battleship" type, a fast cruiser, with below standard armor, and above standard weaponry.
Plus a hanger.
"If someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill them right back." -Malcolm Reynolds
@Ray/Mike/Stubby, you are not an idiot. Yes, Natalya is cool.
@Dilanski, this is not the thread for talking about that Awesomeness Construction known as the AC. Why do people want to defame this thing. It is one of the (but far from the only) best Lego Pieces on this site.
@Tuefish, sounds great and I wish I could match the use of Lego needed but at the moment I need all mine for something else. I look forward to seeing this though. I would agree with Stubby and say the class below and above are fluid and as Stubby pointed out their are many similarities but just enough of a difference to satisfy either of these classes depending on how you construct it (Heavy Battlecruiser/Light Battleship)
@Greenkey, Urgh! Damn, he has a point. I'm away to hide from the crushing reality of it all. (One Warhead Internet Cookie on route young sir). Yeah, people can do what ever they like (I think I summed that up with my pocket battleship/smallcraft above) but if you want to be taken (semi) serious then having a guide is no bad thing, especially if you're not to sure of the whole ship class structure and would like to know. Perhaps with a note on the Fluidity of the classifications.
@Dilanski, this is not the thread for talking about that Awesomeness Construction known as the AC. Why do people want to defame this thing. It is one of the (but far from the only) best Lego Pieces on this site.
@Tuefish, sounds great and I wish I could match the use of Lego needed but at the moment I need all mine for something else. I look forward to seeing this though. I would agree with Stubby and say the class below and above are fluid and as Stubby pointed out their are many similarities but just enough of a difference to satisfy either of these classes depending on how you construct it (Heavy Battlecruiser/Light Battleship)
@Greenkey, Urgh! Damn, he has a point. I'm away to hide from the crushing reality of it all. (One Warhead Internet Cookie on route young sir). Yeah, people can do what ever they like (I think I summed that up with my pocket battleship/smallcraft above) but if you want to be taken (semi) serious then having a guide is no bad thing, especially if you're not to sure of the whole ship class structure and would like to know. Perhaps with a note on the Fluidity of the classifications.
- dilanski
- Now with added tractor fetish
- Posts: 1914
- Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:41 am
- Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain & FUCK THE DUP
- Contact:
This is 'White glint' a medium NEXT,ok it is a very advanced NEXT but its still similair to any other AC. Natalya's Mech has no similarity to it (i know its not supposed to be it)
This is Stasis Ostardva's AC, once again Natalya's Mech is nothing like it.
This is a Gundam, its similiar to an AC at first glance but theres a few details that make it a Gundam, first the large head, look back at Stasis and white glint and you will see there heads are smaller in proportion to there bodies aswell as the Gundams arms are smaller.
I also tried to find another picture that shows that AC's are smaller than Natalya's mech, bt couldn't find it.
So case closed natalya's Mech isn't an AC.
Almond Status: ACTIVATED
- james+burgundy
- I tend to just pile the shit on myself
- Posts: 2933
- Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:34 pm
-
- Battlefield General
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 9:41 pm
- Location: Chicago's Suburbs
- Contact:
-
- Champion
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:18 am
- Location: Tim Hortons
- Natalya
- I've trolled before.
- Posts: 4671
- Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:57 pm
- Location: Atlanta
- Contact:
I like how you didn't post a picture of the starting AC from Armoured Core III (PS2). Thing looks a lot like mine. Just because you can build weird looking ones, especially in these later games, doesn't mean that the older ones have nothing in common with mine.
Seriously, look at this shit. AC didn't always mean "weird pseudo-humanoid robot with weird appendages." AC's should be known for their incredible variety if nothing else.
The one thing you can say mine has that no AC has would be the armour skirt around the upper legs. That's the only strictly-dungam feature.
Seriously, look at this shit. AC didn't always mean "weird pseudo-humanoid robot with weird appendages." AC's should be known for their incredible variety if nothing else.
The one thing you can say mine has that no AC has would be the armour skirt around the upper legs. That's the only strictly-dungam feature.
▲
▲ ▲
"Ya gotta remember, Soryu's a brutal thug, ain't got no finesse like Shinji."
▲ ▲
"Ya gotta remember, Soryu's a brutal thug, ain't got no finesse like Shinji."
WOT! Dilanski tailoring bit's of information from the net that only suits his point?.. NOoooo! Say it 'aint so Joe! Why, it sounds just like his Battlecruiser/Battleship argument to me. Perhaps when you look stuff up you should take in what it's trying to tell you instead of trying to make it fit your argument. Oh, the humanity.
- james+burgundy
- I tend to just pile the shit on myself
- Posts: 2933
- Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:34 pm