>build a destroyer
>don’t give it land attack capability
this kind of incompetence is comical

>>64017544 (OP)
>pic so smol
What is it

>>64017544 (OP)
>this kind of incompetence is comical
but not as comical as your bong obsession

>>64017549
He's warriortard, also known as battleship schizo and armatard.

>>64017544 (OP)
Destroyers destroy submarines. They don't need land attack capability.

>>64017544 (OP)
I see a gun right there.

>>64017552
Of course its a brap huffer day

>>64017553
>th…they don’t even want it bro. Having 80 cruise missiles on tap is just too much firepower

I’d work on a destroyer

>>64017544 (OP)
what the hell? What’s the reasoning

>>64017544 (OP)
destroyer? i hardly even know er!

Outshot by a Burke by a factor of 14 to 1. Type 45s just aren’t very good

>>64017581
Bong destroyers are purely defensive ships for carrier AA screens.
The frigates are their land attack element.

the sun will never set on the british empire because it will always live on in braphuffer's head

>>64017544 (OP)
Destoryer? I just met her.

>>64017597
Bongs are just very cheap. The frogs launched 5x more Asters (then, in typical frog fashion, started complaining that drone hunting is too expensive).

>>64017597
Jesus that’s bad

>>64017598
They are purely defensive because they lack offensive capability. That’s a flaw not a feature

>>64017597
That really doesn't say anything about hardware performance without knowing more info about the op. The drones could have simply been in one ship's sector and not the others'. Wouldn't make sense to have two ships in the exact same place doing the exact same thing.

>>64017633
This is cope

I thought we told off this dork months ago.

>>64017544 (OP)
Either use a trip and suck up the ridicule like a man and take your bans with dignity or go away, you give proper autists a bad name. And stop saving thumbnail, the only thing that invites mockery more than posting a thumb is being you.