You do sound like a very reasonable guy, yes. Never knew OP meant operational perspective. A military term. Guess you guys read more than I do about that side of things, eh?
Naive at best? Well, I haven't read it all through in detail but I imagine it was used as a defensive throwaway remark. What's the real argument here anyway? There's no real right or wrong point as far as I can see, just two differing perspectives. I doubt your points are all that at odds with each others. I imagine you and Fire Falcon both have a wealth of knowledge and valid perspectives that would help enlighten the more militarily/gaming ignorant like me.
I'm the last person to be giving advice in not taking things personally though I'd probably just ignore the naive remark. In its context it doesn't really stand for anything. As for synergism, I like and have respect for both infantry battles and vehicles in BF2. I prefer vehicles 9 times out of ten for pretty much what I feel Fire Falcon is driving at despite all the problems I've moaned about in balancing terms. I do enjoy infantry only and started to get into it more but could see how that was subject to some abuse too as well as requiring a silly amount of running around. It's a shame they couldn't have allowed just jeeps (minus gun turrets maybe) though I suppose it'd still be carnage with road kills galore.
No need to drag out this matter any more. As far as I see, there's no issue anyhow. It's always nice to see differing perspectives and the more people posting here the better. Let's try and be patient and show each other a bit more courtesy and leeway for explanation? These are just games we're talking about afterall.
Pages in this thread: 
Print Thread
deleted
