CAS problem

[warrior412]

@GALWAYLION-live

Funny, because it’s all clear to everyone else that AIR to GROUND eliminations far exceed GROUND to AIR.

That ignores the context and half of the equation, rendering your perception of it incorrect.

You have to take a macro view of the data, looking at the kills and costs (losses) of aircraft to understand their effectiveness, given how the data is (not) filtered to give direct answers about SPAAs’ effectiveness (which was the original goal given).

Once again:

@warrior412

Because of the very limited filtration of the data, the kill data had to be parsed out by its totals (kills to all causes) or it would be skewed by its own limitations. Once again: most ground vehicles are not even trying to target aircraft (many lack practical means to do so), so it would be ridiculous to try counting them as though all ground vehicles do.

The deadliness of animals and hunters aren’t judged by rifle kill counts for a very simple reason: animals do not use rifles!

It’s silly to try to judge the effectiveness of ground vehicles versus aircraft when most GVs aren’t even trying to target aircraft nor are they expected to. To review things in the manner you keep talking about, you would need a strict tally of SPAAs’ portion…and even that has its own flaws and limitations (non-AA SPAA use could skew the data set).

To understand data properly, you have to understand its context, its setup (a la filtering) and its limitations. Without that, flawed analyses inevitably come about. You cannot simply compare dissimilar figures because you believe they show the same sort of tallies.

As mentioned before, I explored what the data said for other angles too and posted about it…but it was never possible to try the angle you asked about because the filtration isn’t there.

@GALWAYLION-live

you keep adding in random statistics like accidents and air to air eliminations

Humorously enough, I excluded accidents from the tallies of all vehicles and stated as much. That you are apparently unaware of that tidbit, small as it is, is telling.

I can only say you had best reread what I wrote…you are greatly mistaken about what was said and why. That is hindering all of what follows…

@GALWAYLION-live

You want to act like an intellectual and write out five pages of nonsense

I write out thorough posts and they hold up…that’s just my style and I stick with it. There’s no act, just facts.

Some people might call that being an intellectual, but I’m too modest to strut.

[gangsterism]

@Pangolin_Fan

Pretty much every interaction with forum CAS haters ends up like this.

❎ Called nonsense because your logic is flawed
✅ Called nonsense because you disagree with them

out of all CAS defenders, you shouldnt be saying this
ive never seen one sentence about CAS that was logical

@warrior412

@GALWAYLION-live

You want to act like an intellectual and write out five pages of nonsense

I write out thorough posts and they hold up…that’s just my style and I stick with it. There’s no act, just facts.

for the sake of both your own time, this debate will never achieve anything

[Herojure24]

Yeah he did not bring them up but he was the one that argued the most using those stats and his weird interpretation of them.

[Zulizia]

@Ghost_of_TelAviv

Yea i know how the game works, i still don’t understands how this relates the drones we are talking about.

Its arguably the most broken combination in the game? Being able to spawn 2 Fully Loaded CAS aircraft with 400SP is insane, especially when certain CAS aircraft can easily overwhelm and overpower even the new AA systems. Thats the only real overpowered thing the drone can do.

@Ghost_of_TelAviv

Funny, when you say the same about aircrafts, the CAS hater horde gets mad.

Yes and no. USSR has the Kh-38MT/ML, and I don’t really ever see Mixed battles in GRB (if ever), meaning CAS is heavily skewed towards them. Furthermore not everyone can spawn CAS, as you need to research the air tree or heli-tree (not everyone wants to grind for hundreds of hours for something in a game mode they dislike / grind the obnoxious amount of RP needed to get and spade a helicopter) or get 750SP to spawn a UCAV, where you can only kill one or two tanks before j’ing out or spending the rest of the match flying back to the airfield and back. Whereas if you’re in a BR that has recon drones, you likely own or have the capability to research a light vehicle with the feature. You also likely have an SPAA, HE-VT or an autocannon (w/ or w/o IRST). So I wouldn’t say its applicable to aircraft in this case.

Should probably say that I do not hate CAS, I use the JAS39C as a CAS/CAP aircraft in a fair amount of my matches.

[Zulizia]

*every interaction ever in these forums. There’s like 5 people total acting in good faith, the rest is insults or bad logic.

[Cookies_Juicebox]

Probably because others also argued using those very old stats with their interpretations against him? They saying not to use that old data when they are also using that old data 💀That old stats talk needs to be dropped if that’s the case.

[SirinKaslana]

“Fighter Jockeys”
I don’t particularly care about CAS not being able to do anything. Even better then. CAP shouldn’t spawn with ground belts or any ground attack ordnance, air target belts and air-to-air missiles. That’s all they should get and all they should do, clear the skies and leave the tank killing to ground players. I fly CAP in my British lineup because British SPAA are subpar compared to their counterparts in other nations and its just far, far more effective to fly CAP. Nothing pleases me more than to shoot an SU-30 out of the sky the moment it spawns as I patrol the enemy team’s air spawn in my Gripen.

¬Hunter

[Zulizia]

Just playing the Gripen or XF-2A in a pure CAP role is enjoyable. I love both Ground and Air, so being able to shut down (mainly Russian) CAS after playing a MBT or IFV is enjoyable.

[T4T]

“Why do I have to take the plane in GROUND MODE?”

This is roughly the answer you will hear from TO fans.

[Ghost_of_TelAviv]

@Zulizia

Furthermore not everyone can spawn CAS, as you need to research the air tree or heli-tree (not everyone wants to grind for hundreds of hours for something in a game mode they dislike / grind the obnoxious amount of RP needed to get and spade a helicopter)

If people show up with unclomplete lineups thats their decision and problem.

[RunaDacino]

I can grab a plane.

Play only that single plane.

After I hit research limit to a point I no longer find suitable for my blood, I grab a new plane 2 ranks above.

Repeat until end of the line.

Never once in the plane flying career was I forced to grind boats or tanks.

Why can’t the same be true for planes?

In fact, even if I care to fly planes - what if I prefer flying my planes in different game modes?

What if I prefer Ground RB but only know to fly air arcade?

What if I want to play ground SB but I cannot because of the lineup system forcing me to play on specific days, so I play ground RB but I’d rather not fly planes without SB controls and cockpit view?

Why must I fly a plane? Planes are massively different to tanks, require an entirely different mindset and I dare say, entirely different mission and map design to be fun.

Flying a Boom & Zoom high-speed aircraft in ground-RB is painful. Mustangs are a lot of fun on a 64x64 and 128x128 kmxkm maps. And not just map size, but mission length. At most 25 minutes, more like 12 vs dedicated game mode that can be up to 3 hours but averages 1.5.

They’re almost useless in a 8x8km sand pit.

[2112SLM]

@warrior412

There is no fallacy nor issue–regardless of any supposed qualms had with the data itself–with reflecting upon 2017 matters with contemporary data for the purpose of discussion, especially as a response to someone else as was the case here.

Yes, there is a fallacy as the data is out of context unless you can prove that it applies today. By comparing it with today’s data.
Which you cannot, which you admit to, yet you still use it as data that can be not only appropriate but trusted.
That is the fallacy you are using to justify your leaning into that data, and the fallacy from which you continue to argue.

@warrior412

Now ‘other’s ignorance’ (your term) is somehow my fault 😂

If others do not have what it takes to read what is plainly written, that’s their issue not mine.

No, others ignorance is not your fault, but you are using false information, or information that you know cannot be verified with fact today, and trying to convince others that it is somehow relevant today. That is a conscious act on your part and that is not only where the argumentative fallacy comes into play but is where you are being not only intellectually dishonest but disingenous and that is where your fault lies; where your argument falls flat.
Basically, for weeks I watched you lean into dis/misinformation and pass it off as relevant, and even factual, all the while you knew it was both not relevant nor factual.
Now you want to blame others for your own willful ignorance? Yes, it is willful ignorance because even knowing that data was not relevant you ignored that fact and used it as such.
Unless…You were blissfully ignorant of the lack of relevance?

@warrior412

All in all, I’m not sure why you keep bothering me with this…others’ problems aren’t my worries. If you have some valid criticisms to bring up with what I said, you can raise them right after you take the others to task for applying the 2017 data to 2025.

I keep bothering you with this because for weeks I watched you lean into this data as factual for today.
That is dishonest and I have a problem with that. If you do not wish to be called out for promulgating mis/disinformation then do not promulgate it as factual and applicable to today, which you were doing.
That is, indeed, valid criticism and is more applicable to this debate than your “relevant data”. I chose you because you lean into that data as the truth, even though others may have brought it up.

Don’t be dishonest and then lean into it and I will not call you out for doing so.

Oh…Stop trying to deflect from your own sins by pointing out others. This is about your argument, not anyone else’s.

[Pangolin_Fan]

@RunaDacino

Never once in the plane flying career was I forced to grind boats or tanks.

Why can’t the same be true for planes?

Do you want that to be true for planes? The reason it isn’t is because ground, air, and naval are all completely different modes.

[RunaDacino]

Freudian slip.

Why can’t the same be true of tanks?

GRB CAS situation so annoying, I subconsciously think of tanks as discount planes that have negative climb rate.

[warrior412]

@2112SLM

Yes, there is a fallacy as the data is out of context unless you can prove that it applies today. By comparing it with today’s data.

I’m not sure how/why you’re having so much trouble with this: I never claimed the 2017 data to be reflective of today. My commentary referred to what the 2017 data meant in 2017…that’s it.

Other people attempted to say the 2017 data was still relevant to the current day…but I didn’t. Thus, your premise here is baseless. Talk to the people who actually did that if you have an issue with it.

@2112SLM

No, others ignorance is not your fault, but you are using false information, or information that you know cannot be verified with fact today, and trying to convince others that it is somehow relevant today. That is a conscious act on your part and that is not only where the argumentative fallacy comes into play but is where you are being not only intellectually dishonest but disingenous and that is where your fault lies; where your argument falls flat.

I dealt with the data responsibly, acknowledged its limitations and its unsuitability for reflecting on today; that is why I only ever spoke about it from the context of 2017 and never claimed it to be reflective (ergo relevant) to today.

My posts and argument stand strong and there was never any ‘intellectual dishonesty’ or disingenuousness on my part.

You can talk to the guys who did latch onto partial bits of the data to spin, claim it to be relevant currently and resort to other nonsense including rule violations if such things bother you so much…but don’t pester me with these false accusations.

@2112SLM

Basically, for weeks I watched you lean into dis/misinformation and pass it off as relevant, and even factual, all the while you knew it was both not relevant nor factual.

“For weeks”

Interesting…it’s only been ~14 days since the other people who brought up the 2017 data did so. Yet here we have the exaggerated billing of weeks. That’s specious at best.

I did nothing untoward with the data, openly acknowledged its limitations and never claimed it to apply to 2025…no misrepresentation from me, quite the opposite. I’m about the only one who discussed the data in an honest, straightforward manner.

@2112SLM

If you do not wish to be called out for promulgating mis/disinformation then do not promulgate it as factual and applicable to today, which you were doing.

Again, that is a fake claim. I never tried to say 2017 data spoke for 2025…so your entire premise falls apart.

If anything, you are being dishonest by pestering me for merely discussing the data while others did try to claim it for today as you take no interest in them.

Perhaps you’ve jumping on the bandwagon because you never read what I wrote…or maybe you’re doubling down because you began with this before reading all I said–I don’t know.

Either way, I know informed readers’ll acquit me because all I’ve said was justified and reasonable.

@2112SLM

Oh…Stop trying to deflect from your own sins by pointing out others. This is about your argument, not anyone else’s.

No sins from me, only sense.

If you truly have an issue with the data being discussed (which is my only relation to it), talk to the ones who began the tangent and claimed it as relevant to 2025 or don’t talk about it at all.

@JuicyKuuuuki already called out what I said before…you can either accept the discussion of the 2017 data (all I did with it) or complain of all talk about it (which I have repeatedly offered you). Trying to single me out for an entire tangent started by others is just bogus and everyone knows it.

[Pangolin_Fan]

@RunaDacino

Why can’t the same be true of tanks?

because they’re two different game modes, they’re not the same

Tanks wouldn’t work well in ARB, but planes work well in GRB. It’s literally as simple as that.

It’s not well tank players needs grind planes so plane players should need a grind tanks.

[RunaDacino]

I should be able to play tanks because I want to play tanks and have zero consideration or motivation to fly my planes.

If I want to fly my planes, I’ll do so in dedicated game mode.
That’s what I do currently. Whenever I think of playing GRB, I remember it devolves into planes so I skip the middle man and fly my planes directly.

That’s frankly ridiculous.

[Pangolin_Fan]

ARB is bad for strike aircraft, hence why “just skipping middleman” doesn’t work for many planes.

[RunaDacino]

Then you should be advocating for a Realistic Control Mode game mode that favour strike aircraft.

I’d recommend playing sim otherwise, not to zomb but in a group with escorts because there IL-2, B25, B26, P47(CAS loadout) and A20 and similar are absolute bonkers for winning matches if the team keeps them safe and unbothered. NPC tanks give most ticket bleed for time & effort and there’s a lot of them and they also affect how future objectives spawn (they shift the “frontline” around.

I’ve had numerous games turn into two teams going all-out trying to kill IL-2/Il-8/etc at the end while their team was protecting them while both teams were absolutely drained of tickets. It’s a lot of fun.

[PompousMagnus]

@RunaDacino

I should be able to play tanks because I want to play tanks and have zero consideration or motivation to fly my planes.

Ok then don’t complain when I bomb you then, just because you choose not to partake does not mean the whole game should change to suit YOUR needs. Get bent.

Flying CAS is fun and part of what makes the game appealing. You don’t like it there is the door.