X3M

P is awesome in my lab Any way, you have a box in the periodic system with transition metals. But there are 4 that are not in that box (outside of the box), yet still behave in the same way. The reason for this is already explained (these atoms have obesity compared to others ) The transition metals don't need to have obesity for having multiple shells offering valence electrons. That is the difference for outside and inside the box. The green ones are the 4 outside the box. The pink IS the box.

For a main group element, a valence electron can only be in the outermost electron shell. In a transition metal, a valence electron can also be in an inner shell. P is a transition metal that is outside the box (just like C, S and Se). Meaning that it has valence electrons from more then one shell. The outer shell provides 3, the inner shell provides another 2. PCl3 and PCl5 are both stable molecules this way. The reason why P offers more shells to contribute to bonding. In comparison to neighbours that also might offer more shells, but don't. Are a bit too complex to describe. It has to do with the configuration of the shells (each electron has a ranking, some ranks miss electrons). But also shape and energy levels are important. These 3 factors determine where the shell is positioned. In simple terms, if the second shell falls outside of the halogen equivalent. It can be used for making bonds. By seeing how you can tell those molecules apart. You are heading towards being the biochemist. Although, the nasty tasting part isn't the chloride itself It is the combination of that benzene ring with chloride. Where the chloride is probably locked in the molecule. You like salt, right? Salt is more chloride in comparison. Hmmm, according to the wiki. It is a good medicine in various area's.

And then you say you have trouble with math...? Silly you. You have just given an answer to my question that is, logical, understandable and not an easy answer for others to give.

I feel that a game with hard counters is easier to balance than a game with soft counters. C&C TD is a game with mainly hard counters. One unit can obliterate another unit. But gets obliterated by yet another unit. WC2 is a game with mainly soft counters. And well balanced. But their bloodlust spell is a mistake in design. They did it wrong in many aspects. I wonder how your game will turn out.

http://www.musclefreaksnutrition.net/2a-3a-epithio-17a-methyl-5a-androstan-17b-ol/ Don't loose your libido. The molecule structure of this organic compound looks weird to me. But I am sure a bio chemist can tell a normal chemist where the working parts are to be found in this molecule structure.

Looks like you are right. So if he has turrets. All he needs is to order the bazooka to support in firing. 2 turrets or 1 turret with 2 bazooka. What would do more damage if you manage to keep the turret while it was meat?

Why didn't you use a bit of bazooka support for your turrets, against the medium tanks? Do the MRLS first shoot infantry instead of the base in that mission?

many game developers backport features from their newer games to older ones, like with Doom/Doom2 (engine updates), Quake/Quake2 (OpenGL renderer), Warcraft2/Starcraft (Windows support, Battle.net support, right-click action, production queuing and much much more features from SC) Half-Life/Half-Life2 (Source engine) and much more. Heck, even westwood did that with C&C/RA - windows port, higher resolution! they just forget/were too lazy to fix stuff they knew need to be fixed Don't forget the unreal engine. When that one was ported back to the original Unreal. Awesome improvements where seen in the game.

Rifle Infantry Light Infantry Minigunner Minigun Infantry Rifle Men I have seen these 5 names for the exact same unit. Although, I think that the Rifle names are from RA. The other 3 are certainly seen by me in TD.

didn't they intended to crush sandbags/bwire but never do so? They did in red alert. And shooting walls too! Back then I expected them to program this into C&C 95. But they never did.

Well, I still had one of the older versions running. So I certainly need to reinstall DTA now.

The light tank/flame tank combo is one of the best choices against the AI. Those flame tanks actually being meat shield against the medium and mammoth. However, would this combo beat the rush that at least holds recon bike's? Any way, flame tanks are very effective against structure's too. And that is what makes them so satisfying.

It would actually have been awesome if the light tank of NOD was an APC as well. An APC with an cannon instead of a chain gun is still something original in the RTS series. (hint for the modders out there)

Zooming out further and further. Starts to feel like you play TA instead. I rather play games where you wonder about "what's in the dark?".

This is the child, if it comes to wrecking armor.

Are you able to disable them in the game? I mean, no one builds walls. Except for these kind of tricks. Setting their tech level to 98 or something would be enough. If it is possible to do for a custom map.

The AI ignores walls that you build. You can build from walls. I got the enemy construction yard by taking over one of the hand of nods, then a sandbag was placed before I sold the hand of nod. The AI kills my infantry, but ignores my sand. I extended the line of sandbags just enough, that I could build a new hand of nod, and spam engineers right next to the construction yard. This tactic can be stopped if the AI is triggered to destroy all sandbags or other walls. Maybe for another mission, since you reached the trigger limit. IF, a trigger is possible.

I always, ALWAYS, sell a captured building right away if it is an assault engineer. Only if a structure is isolated, I keep it... If you see a chance of using triggers to get rid of sandbags, be my guest. That will make my job harder too.

Are entire albums ok? In that case: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X88Y6XoCsnU

Hell yeah, kg*m/s² Or in other words. N When you put some force into things you go... ... ... Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn!!!!!

Fine, its hover than. Your the Belgian guy, you're probably know better . Next oddity, children may give the advice to an expensive equipment army to send the .... hover.... over water. While taking a risk for a storm to take it down. Those 50 will be remembered. The game speed oddity? Slow speed is slow time strategy. Fast speed is fast time strategy. It is odd indeed that you can change the game speed. Maybe Westwood figured that some players might get bored?

True. And perhaps it is that players expect the hoover MRLS to be used on water. This due to the video that the game shows. (A faster, longer ranged, hoover MRLS) In the game itself however, I never used the water path's if not needed. Which is practically every skirmish game. Only single player missions where designed in such way that the hoover MRLS had a good job in going by water. But I do remember games where the ion storms shows up every 10 minutes. Which is anoying as hell when using hoover/air. Enough about the gaming experience. It is a choice for the player. In real life however, this unit would not be used. That is the odity.

ore_truck and Allen262 would have had a like from me if it was possible. ore_truck has made a valid logical point that is from the game. Veins. This reason makes up for the risk of using the unit above water. Allen262 because he simply agrees with me as well. Nyerguds, would you use this unit in real life if you know that a storm would instantly kill it when above water? Would you not rather use some sort of amphibious unit instead? From my point of view, I would now rather have both the hoover MRLS and a amphibious MRLS as choices. Hoover for going over veins, amphibious because the storms. If you need to cross both, well, hoover is the best choice.

When you have troubles with Chemistry, ask me. Any way, could you please post the questions instead? If we know the correct questions, we can give you the right answers. One might shout, that both graphs are incorrect. But the first one is depending on what the exact question was. I remember that we had to make retarded graphs first for "learning" process. Then we had to discard and start over. Such lovely times.

Mechs, I don't know. Waste of fuel I guess. If they where walkers like the dragoon, than it is for keeping the unit relatively small compared to the power it has. If done right, walkers should be able to get through terrain where normal tanks can't get through. Like a mechanised ant. Even the walkers of star wars give me question marks. The space station with gravity is a good question. Aircraft into clouds? In a war zone, you don't know if there is another aircraft nearby. You might collide with others. Radar doesn't always help in this. On the other side, clouds give good hiding cover against certain AA weapons. So it is again a good question. But which game gave this question rise? In real life (yes, I did fly for a short ammount of time) if your airplane has the simple instruments, you need to rely a lot on your visual skills. Engineers are a cheap and efficient way in conquering an enemy base. You simply need to know how to use them efficiently. Although in real life, this is impossible. Some guy walks in and says, this is our structure now. I think it would have been logical if a commando could enter a building, and simply takes out every one. The structure becomes neutral. The commando comes out. And the player should send in other infantry. Just like how you can kill personal of tanks in generals, and then send in one of your own men. Even Dune2 had more logic with infantry entering structures. Tiberian is an alien plant that absorbs all minerals from the ground. These minerals are very high concentrated now. Thus tiberian is a good source to get your metal and other stuff from. This is the only supposed to be, illogical thing of the game series. I think some other aspects of the game need to be explaned more properly by the creators. Just like why they have a hoover MRLS instead of a amphibious MRLS.