Marine

*sigh* I suppose I can't blame you for not knowing much cause not everyone is Greek but let me explain a few things.

First off, The Peloponesian War was between Athens and Sparta, not Persia and Greece.

Secondly, the battle itself from 300 was known as a the Battle of Thermopylae and it DID exist BoP, to the scale its written about in fiction and legend? No. But some 3000-7000 Greeks held a chokepoint against a persian army numbering around 100,000 - 1,000,000 (this number historians have never been able to confirm, they assume its around 100k - 250k) for three days before being surrounded and killed.

Third and final, The battle of Troy most certainly took place, and several prominent Greek Warlords and Kinds took part in the fight, chiefly Aiax the Greater(or Ajax), Achilles, Ulysses(or Odysseus) as well as Heracles(or Hercules). Now of course its legend that Achilles was "invincible" but historically he was perhaps the best warrior in the Greek army, and was infact responsible for dueling and slaying Hector at the gates of Troy and then parading his dead body from his chariot before being feathered by hundreds of arrows. Oh and btw. If you've ever watched the movie, Ajax (the big guy with the hammer) did not die at Troy. He fought Hector twice, both times Hector fled, and it was not a push from a fake Achilles that fought off the Trojan forces it was Ajax who hopped from ship to ship rallying the men and fighting off as many as he could.

 

The only thing close to a historical document about these events is Herodotus' The Histories, and even that is suspect since it was written a couple centuries after these events. Basically, there was a Troy, and we know close to nothing about it, Ajax killed himself after Achilles dishonored him in some way, the Romans are the descendants of Troy, in the Battle of Thermopylae there were 6,000-7,000 Greeks and when the Persians found out how to surround the Greeks all but about 1,300 stayed, including 300 Spartans. After this battle there was a giant sea battle in which the Athenians and other Greek ships defeated a large group of Persian ships using the same bottleneck strategy. After this defeat Xerxes left Greece and his land army to their own devices, and unlike in the movie, it wasn't just one big old charge that defeated them, the Greek army was being routed and was in retreat when they noticed how disorganized the Persian army was, about-faced and then defeated the Persians.

 

Spot on. And Ajax was dishonoured by Ulyssess. They competed for Achilles' "fabled" armor after his death. Ulyssess says "Whoever can get their rock closest to that island will take the armor." So Ajax agrees given that he was an olympic champion, throws it, and then Ulyssess skips his stone sending it farther than Ajax. (Cause he was a trixy little hobbit)

 

Lol. Those are the mythical interpretations, I suppose.

At the Battle of Marathon, Xerxes' father was defeated and killed after the Persian landing. This was a battle won almost completely by the Athenians and their allies. Sparta was hardly involved. Supposedly after the battle a messenger ran 26.2 miles to tell the Republic that the Persians had been defeated, and then died from the exertion (and arrows).

After that, Xerxes set about to complete his father's goals and launched a massive assault upon the Greek peninsula. He was met by small contingents of soldiers that were holding a number of mountain passes (supposedly the "300 Spartans" were part of this strategy) including a contingent at what was called "Hell's Gate." This is a real place, although it looks nothing like what it did in the movie. For one, it's not on the coast .

Following these engagements, the battle of Platea did take place and Xerxes was defeated solidly and sent packing. I believe the battle is known under a number of different names. My source is "100 Battles that Changed History" if anyone is interested in reading about it. It's pretty much a dictionary of a bunch of battles all the way from the establishment of the first Chinese Empire and the fighting of the Japanese Shoguns all the way to Gettysburg and the Battle of the Bulge.

A number of awesome facts and interesting battle layouts are mentioned, including the number of soldiers involved on each side, etc. It's rather interesting to see how forces that are sometimes outmatched 10:1 (The Scottish versus Cornwallis) can defeat a foe, even sometimes with poor weaponry and subpar battle tactics.

But I would say the 300 movie is based in about 40% fact.

 

erm, back to topic please?

 

The bayonnette is a stupid idea. The bayonnette was placed on the old aged guns to finish with an enemy. That was just symbolic. Or mostly used in a body-to-body fight.
But the marine only shoots far away from the enemy, so the bayonnette is useless.

Also the shield ! Why did they design it ? A shield for a medic that's OK for most of the people, not for a marine.

 

If I remember correctly, the shield is fitted to its suit, to the left shoulder, so all the Marine needs to do to block attacks is to turn right. I think it's a cool add-on but I agree that the bayonet is useless if they don't have a melee and a ranged stance for us to choose from. If we had, and the marine could fill the melee role among the Terran, then :thumbup:

 

Seriously how can we add a bayonnet on this gun ? Normally the marine in the game must follow the marine in the cinematic. Or is it the inverse ? We see a new marine with a ... rectangle gun, with has no relationship with the original gun. However in the original gun there was designed the classic gun and a launch-grenades. Watch the intro of Brood War : there is a marine who launched two grenades against two zerglings, and they blew up. However the marine inside the game can't launch grenades.
It's too bad because with the new gun we can't imagine to put an add-on, an upgrade to this weapon. Like the launch-grenades.

 

A bayonet would fit that gun nicely

 

see that "weird 2 legged robot figure" under the nuzzle? the bayonet will fit nicely there

 

Yeah i agree @BnechbReaker, there's clearly a place to fit one .

However I'm opposed to the whole idea of the bayonet, mainly coz it's displays is abominable. But if the thing was to become manually or auto-attached, along with bit of function-animation on melee, I'd have no issues wit it. But it's like @kuvasz said:

 

Byonet is stupid and it should be removed.

 

so does shield...just reminding.
marines should stick to the old fashion ones,the ones that only uses a gauss rifle,bayonet makes them looks like pussies.

 

Yeah cause all the pussies I know have 9 inch knives designed for killing and tearing apart flesh. I lawl at you good sir.

 

*9 inches? what kind of marine do you think i am?*

 

Nah don't lawl,I just prefer bullets than knifes and my God you know pussies that kills?plus you wrote "all the pussies I know",sounds to me like you must be happy to have more than one pussy killing friends there.

 

If Blizzard really does not care of our thoughts, if this company will let the bayonnet on the marine's gun I suggest to use it so.

I mean the marine shoots against units far away from them, but if a zergling for instance attacks a marine, body-to-body, the marine must use his bayonnet. I don't see a marine shooting on a zergling next to him. And the bayonnet should give more damages than the gun.

So I guess what you are thinking about ? If the bayonnet gives more damages than the gun, let's use the marine in body-to-body fights ! ... That should be not so easy.

ANYWAY I AM AGAINST THE BAYONNET AND THE SHIELD !

 

Lmao @ Hadean.

I've liked the Shield and Bayonet from the start.

Added a more realistic feel to the rine.

 

They should make a poll whether members would like marine's shield/bayonet to stay in the game or what.

 

i'd like to see bullets remove a limb as easily as a knife