Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
DFD-R4: 1009 vs. 349, 510 vs. 765
#7
#349 for sure. I've wanted combat patrol aircraft a la Generals for so long. Aircraft would turn into a viable attack force instead of acting as secondary attack craft. This would make them much more useful for attacking clusters of units and even bases.

And I support #765 on the basis that it would actually be used. Multiple turrets on one vehicle would be neat and all, but really. How often would it actually be used?
I'm what Willis was talkin' about.


Messages In This Thread
DFD-R4: 1009 vs. 349, 510 vs. 765 - by Renegade - 03.10.2010, 21:37:07
RE: DFD-R4: 1009 vs. 349, 510 vs. 765 - by Orac - 04.10.2010, 00:26:57
RE: DFD-R4: 1009 vs. 349, 510 vs. 765 - by Beowulf - 04.10.2010, 19:26:36
RE: DFD-R4: 1009 vs. 349, 510 vs. 765 - by AlexB - 10.10.2010, 00:51:50



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)