Can we stop throwing bones to air abusers in ground realistic?

I’m not sure what you mean by associates who agreed with me (lots of folks do) nor the relevance of that.

Specifically referring to what @FlyingDoctor said above, he spoke about a situation of neglect (concession of the aerial flank).

If a team leaves the skies uncontested and undefended, it’s very predictable that the enemy will use that opening to attack their foes and they are wise for doing so. If a team focuses all of its attention on only certain aspects of the battlefield while neglecting others, they are inevitably subjecting themselves to vulnerabilities and thus increasing the odds of defeat.

You can install a fantastic security system with all the windows locked up, the roof booby-trapped and the A/C ducting monitored to avoid a Die Hard rerun…but if you leave the front door wide open, John McClane can still walk right through.

Same principle…you must be cognizant of all angles enemies can come at you from or you are neglecting those things (thus inviting defeat).


What exactly are you basing this opinion on, and whom is it you think that of?

Is it because of the dismissals that have come from others, or do you genuinely not appreciate the other point of view, compared to some numbers you’re finding somewhere?

1 Like

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


It’s a bit sad that even someone who tries to engage with you genuinely is just wrong, on every account.

1 Like

Welcome to the forum!

Fighters First would undercut the grievances of that spiel that complain about having to use GFs prior to protective fighters…all the more reason to implement FF. It’s simply a more practical angle at TO’s goals.

The subject isn’t of a matter, the user is. Suggestions should be put forth as suggestions, not discussions, and if it’s in discussions then I shouldn’t need to be called every name under the sun, implied that I am skill-less, desperate or whatever the heck anyone thinks of anyone who merely opposes thier opinion.

The user I was responding to, entered the forum in the most aggressive and abusive manner possible, and still finds ways of calling everyone names and abusing them for merely holding an opposing opinion.

I don’t have issue with genuine suggestions, but these constant threads aren’t, and they ALL have the same thing going for them… Those ‘affected’ come in and berate and attack anyone who dares to oppose them.

This isn’t engagement. This isn’t discussion.


At the forum, you need to have a thick face, I recall you were the ones who taught me that lol (remember that time I mentioned all lizards being mean, it was you who I responded to I think…), as thicker face means they are less affected by personal attacks, I can make an example of who has the thickest face of all time IMO, even thicker than T95 face plate that he is immune to all personal attacks, a guy name starts G… I think you already knew who. I honestly don’t consider stat checking to be abusive, whenever it gets pulled into an argument you know you’ve made claims like you understand the problem better but your record says you didn’t, like I don’t even play 11.7 and if I suddenly talk about how easy it is to defeat Pantsir in my jet then someone going to pull my stats, then I deserved it because I have no credibility.

The issue is assuming that the stats cover all and are enough to dismiss the advice from someone telling someone to actually get good at the game they are genuinely struggling at.

I genuinely asked what basis and who you thought of what for, for a reason…

1 Like

This will be avoided. The key questions always are and if you trawl these “conversations” there is a pattern of it showing the Advocacy don’t really want the solutions they ask for.

I agree with the part that only player kills should count.

Forgot to mention J out and crashes should of course be counted too.

Say what you will about CAS but the air to air combat in ground rb is low key more fun than air rb for me, and obviously I get the bonus of playing some tanks before I spawn in a plane. Plus I can do gun runs to take out ifv’s and such to counter them when they are either sniping or on their way to a sniper spot

1 Like

how many SP is a Z-10 w/ 16 TY-90’s…

I have no idea, probably the same.

Considering what they’re capable of exploiting A/A wise that’s crazy if true. My Tomcat is expensive with just two phoenixes. Around 700 I want to say. Considering SPAA are cheaper because they are less capable at destroying ground targets in ground battles, A/A missiles should be cheaper for the same reason. Sounds like we all agree here somewhat. Although I guess that’s why that Z-10 load-out would be so cheap

Yeah… CAP SP cost reduction would be the single greatest Buff for Anti-CAS. Drives me nuts that my Tornado F3 with no A2G potential outside of a single 27mm Cannon has a higher SP cost than an Apache with 16 Hellfires.

They could really do with overhauling SP costs for aircraft

Especially at low/mid tiers where MGs from aircraft can deal with a lot of ground units… right.

You conveniently left out where they mentioned their Tornado’s SP, the supersonic jet. God I hate facing that thing in low brs. Obviously this SP reduction isn’t just black and white for all BRs. Use some common sense here. A reduction of SP cost for planes w/ A/A near the BR’s of vehicles we’ve mentioned.

So You only want to reduce costs from up what B.R.?