Wait.... I thought War Machine was supposed to be a badass

[Robbie_Jee]

But it doesn't make sense, I mean, if I had the money to make two more war machines that can fight in equal grounds with Iron Man or 20 that are going to be defeated no problem...I think it makes more sense to have less.

I know what point you're trying to make, but considering everything, it doesn't make that much sense.

You're right. Just two - maybe three - War Machines like Rhodes' would have been more effective than the HUNDREDS that were in that scene.

It's about cost effectiveness, presumably these machines are funded by US tax dollars and doing that means passing various over sight boards and it's easier to sell them on 1,000 War Machine units for X amount of dollars than it is to sell them on two units for that same price even if by going for more you get less fire power.

Also two war machines can't win a war, you need an army of them. They're ineffective against the Ultimates but as infantry units in traditional warfare situations they'd be very effective

You're forgetting about all the Hydra soldiers, tanks, fighters and those deadly Wasps that made up the majority of the Hydra forces.

[thwhtGuardian]

On a technical level, they shouldn't have been weaker than a stealth jet or a Rocket Man.

They could have still been canon fodder, along with the wasps and every other Hydra unit. But HOW weak they were was just ridiculous, incredibly cliché and unrealistic when you see how they fair in comparison to normal strength humans and previous mass produced technology that's been presented in the UU before. I respect your opinion but you're just coming up with excuses for an army of War Machines that were clearly a load of rubbish. As I said before, I know they had to be weaker than Rhodes' War Machine, a lot weaker in fact, but as weak as they were, is clearly unrealistic and an incredibly cliché plot device.

It all comes down to Humphries' lack of care for what Luke Ross was drawing. The balance wasn't right. And I'm surprised you say otherwise. Regardless of what sometimes happens in the usual dumb, high budget American action movies. No offense. It's just really, really bad. :)

It isn't just in high budget American action movies; it's real life. Mass produced units never match up well against smaller, better equipped and more highly crafted units, that's just how it is for all the reasons I listed above and there's nothing unrealistic about that. And they didn't seem any more disposable than the wasps, they were destroyed with ease and in abundance as well. As for the Hyrda soldiers them selves? The explanation for why they were treated with relatively kid gloves was given in story; they were mind controlled civilians and were to be spared as much as possible so comparing how they faired to the war machines and wasps isn't exactly apples to apples.

You're right. Just two - maybe three - War Machines like Rhodes' would have been more effective than the HUNDREDS that were in that scene.


You're forgetting about all the Hydra soldiers, tanks, fighters and those deadly Wasps that made up the majority of the Hydra forces.

Having two wouldn't have been more effective for budgetary reasons though, and because these are military units that's part and parcel of their concept. No one is going to okay the cost for only two units, not when they have to justify their expenditures. On top of that from a strategic reason two units isn't good business either; that's tantamount to only buying two rifles or two jets neither of which is going to win you a war.

I'm not forgetting anything either, those other units play into why the War Machines were weak as well, in that they were not intended to be the main threat; they were cast in the role of disposable enemy. There's nothing wrong with utilizing that role on any technical level; you wanted them to be stronger because that's how you like them to be portrayed but that's not a critical comment on any technical level, it's just a personal preference. There's nothing wrong with expressing that preference either, but that doesn't make what Humpries did "wrong" but rather that what he did was not to your taste and there's a big difference between those two types of statements.