CAS problem

[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.

[Fragal]

Give tank only mode please - k fanks

[Agir_No1_Cute]

I have never quite understood why deploying fighter aircraft for air superiority in ground battle historical mode requires such a high point cost. I believe that allowing SPAA and fighter aircraft to work together to protect ground forces could effectively prevent enemy attack aircraft from harming friendly ground units while also safeguarding friendly attack aircraft entering the battlefield.

[AlanHR]

Some fighters, even with their default belts, can shred many ground vehicles. Especially in low BRs when .50 cals are present rather early.

Also, it was tried in some events, and it didn’t turn out so well because if one side establishes air dominance early, the other side cannot do much against that.

[Agir_No1_Cute]

The following is my personal understanding and opinion, intended solely for discussion. In my view, aircraft with default belts capable of effectively penetrating tanks could have their point costs increased. Additionally, in theory, when both sides have aircraft, they should engage each other rather than having the opportunity to attack ground targets, especially with SPAA present (at least in Cold War and higher battle ratings). Regarding the perspective that one side’s aircraft can establish an early advantage, I believe that even if these air superiority aircraft survive, they cannot switch to ground attack loadouts, making them less impactful in the mid-to-late game, particularly when the enemy has SPAA, which significantly enhances the importance of anti-air defenses. Lastly, I recall that squadron battles have a mechanism allowing aircraft and tanks at the start. This rule set could potentially be slightly modified and applied to Ground Realistic Battles (GRB).

[Hudler]

@Pangolin_Fan

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

“my gamemode is bad so i will unload my frustration on other people in different mode to destroy it and bully tankers”

This is basically the whole cas crowd mentality.

[AlanHR]

I somewhat agree with you, but as I have said, .50 cals come into play rather early, basically from the beginning of the USA tech tree. Even default belts are deadly for most ground vehicles that early. Also, some tech trees have big gaps in those assets.

There was an African event in the past, and when Allied planes established air dominance, it was essentially game over. P-40s were shredding all the vehicles there, and the Axis side didn’t have a proper air counter at that BR.

As much as I agree, it might help in some BR ranges, but it may also be devastatingly bad in some other BR ranges. This would be quite hard to balance through all BR brackets.

[Ghost_of_TelAviv]

@Hudler

“my gamemode is bad so i will unload my frustration on other people in different mode to destroy it and bully tankers”

This is basically the whole cas crowd mentality.

Lmao, what you guys make in your head is something else.

Nobody i know who likes CAS, myself included, is doing it to bully anybody. It’s part of the game and it’s fun to use everything it has to offer.
But i like your hatedriven narrative.

[2112SLM]

@warrior412

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.

And just how is that data reflective or representative of today. If it is not reflective or representative it should not have been used or referenced in any way, shape or form. If you cannot see that, even though you leaned into it, that is not my problem for pointing out the argumentive fallacy of using that data, it is yours for leaning into it or even referencing it.

@warrior412

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.

Yet you leaned into it as if it was relevant to today. Your failure was even referencing it or leaning into it when it was used by another. You confirmed mis/disinformation. That is willful ignorance.

@warrior412

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.

No, you did not. Referencing data that is eight years old in any way other than to say: “That is crap data as it pertains to this argument and should only be seen as crap data,” is the only responsible way to deal with it. You leaned into it and even now defend your use of it. That is intellectually dishonest as it had no bearing on anything that applies today. At all.

@warrior412

“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.

How many weeks is 14 days? Here we are, you still defending the use of the data as relevant and you defending your own use of that data.
It is not at all specious. What is specious is you asserting that 14 days is not weeks.

@warrior412

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

No it does not. Because you used it. The fake claim is any use of that data, in any way, shape or form unless it is to expose that data as not appropriate for use in this debate today. You did not do that. Despite your (now) disclaimers, you referenced that data in order to bolster any argument you have on this subject.
Again: intellectually dishonest and now you are backpedalling because you are being called out for using it.

@warrior412

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.

No, I watched you lean into that data before I responded. I saw your “disclaimers” that were weak at best, but still used that data to justify your view today.
You are still leaning into it by defending your specious actions in leaning into that data in the first place. You are backpedalling faster than a DB lining up across from Tyreek Hill.

@warrior412

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

Other than than you leaning into the 2017 data, I have no argument with what you said. The problem is that on using data that you admit is not apropo to the discussion today, anything you say afterword is tainted by that sin of using specious data to bolster your view.

@warrior412

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.

If you do not want to be called out on it, then don’t knowingly put yourself in a position to be called out for it.
And no, using data you admit to not being appropriate is not sensible. Unless, of course, you need it to be sensible so you can defend what is indefensible.
I chose you because you have been the one who has been leaning into it the most and I am not going to have the same conversation with everyone who has improperly and fallaciously used that data to bolster their argument.
“Bogus” is using that data in any way, shape or form. Don’t point your finger at me for taking “bogus” actions when you are the one who actually took bogus actions.

[warrior412]

@2112SLM

And just how is that data reflective or representative of today. If it is not reflective or representative it should not have been used or referenced in any way, shape or form.

Lmao…I literally said in that excerpt it was not reflective today and that I was only ever referring to what it meant in 2017. I’m not convinced that you are reading what you’re replying to…because that’s a pretty stark miss.

As for your second sentence, take it up with people who started talking about the 2017 data (and claimed it reflective of present day) and then we can talk…because complaining about me while giving those people a clean pass is utterly bogus.

Not sure why you’re fixated on me, but no one buys it as legitimate.

@2112SLM

Yet you leaned into it as if it was relevant to today. Your failure was even referencing it or leaning into it when it was used by another. You confirmed mis/disinformation. That is willful ignorance.

No, you did not. Referencing data that is eight years old in any way other than to say: “That is crap data as it pertains to this argument and should only be seen as crap data,” is the only responsible way to deal with it. You leaned into it and even now defend your use of it. That is intellectually dishonest as it had no bearing on anything that applies today. At all.

Not at all. If others cannot read properly, that’s their issue–not mine.

@2112SLM

It is not at all specious. What is specious is you asserting that 14 days is not weeks.

14 days is, to the day, the threshold of what could be billed as “weeks.”

Considering the real issue at the heart of that claim is others’ reading abilities, I don’t really care about it either…I did nothing untoward.

@2112SLM

No it does not. Because you used it. The fake claim is any use of that data, in any way, shape or form unless it is to expose that data as not appropriate for use in this debate today. You did not do that. Despite your (now) disclaimers, you referenced that data in order to bolster any argument you have on this subject.
Again: intellectually dishonest and now you are backpedalling because you are being called out for using it.

Nope, lol and backpedalling? The disclaimers/limitations were noted and in place at the time. 😂

@2112SLM

No, I watched you lean into that data before I responded. I saw your “disclaimers” that were weak at best, but still used that data to justify your view today.
You are still leaning into it by defending your specious actions in leaning into that data in the first place. You are backpedalling faster than a DB lining up across from Tyreek Hill.

There is no issue with speaking about how it was in 2017 based on 2017 data.

You (supposedly) object to the 2017 data being used at all…but say nothing to the people that tried applying it to 2025. That is…telling.

@2112SLM

If you do not want to be called out on it, then don’t knowingly put yourself in a position to be called out for it.
And no, using data you admit to not being appropriate is not sensible. Unless, of course, you need it to be sensible so you can defend what is indefensible.
I chose you because you have been the one who has been leaning into it the most and I am not going to have the same conversation with everyone who has improperly and fallaciously used that data to bolster their argument.

Spoiler

“Bogus” is using that data in any way, shape or form. Don’t point your finger at me for taking “bogus” actions when you are the one who actually took bogus actions.

Spoiler

Despite you saying discussing the data (something everyone involved did) is wrong and that others were wrong for trying to apply it to 2025…you’re only interested in little ol’ me.

Why am I not surprised? lmao

There is no problem with (roughly) discussing 2017 with rough 2017 data and there never has been…that’s just plain analysis and it’s how you look at information for its relevance to its time.

When you bother to criticize those that tried using 2017 data to talk about 2025, then and only thereafter can you expand your criticism to anyone who discussed the 2017 data. I can safely ignore any and all further complaints until then…because they’re selective when there’s no basis for such targeting. Selective criticism has no legitimacy and we both know it.