No, you started summing selected columns because it fits better to support your arguments. And the statistics are written out quite clearly.
Only one of your calculations is correct, that is 7,351 planes were lost.
yeah, this discussion is definitely like a conversation between a deaf and a mute.
I have the impression that the problem that has been completely ignored is that as subsequent “eras” were introduced, the CAS problem evolved. Currently, the biggest problem is at the “top” - where one Su-30/34 changes everything. And there is no effective counter-weapon against it, to tell the truth.
You cant focus on ground threats when you got wiped by an orbital strike.
Nor can you do anything to prevent it.
Ground vehicles cant fight against CAS and whether there is a SPAA is not relevant
I did not count accidents and the data set referenced refers only to RB GFs.
I do not have the means to filter the historical that way…offhand, I believe the airfield AAA was counted under the ‘ground’ billing.
A player by the name of Sidiros was the overseer of the site that generated that data at the time; I believe he is inactive nowadays.
Without delving into the topic of airfield location too deeply…I do not believe a 20 km movement of the airfield (that’s a 40km greater distance for a sortie) is justifiable at prop tiers–particularly if SP costs were to remain as they are. Even for early jet tiers that’d be a hard bargain.
As this isn’t a thread about airfields, I’ll leave it at that.
To the matter of bombs…many (most?) bomb releases seen in game occur below 1000ft AGL. Often bomb detonations (usually 500kg+) pose a far greater danger to aircraft than to tanks, even when distances are similar. This is problematic, especially given that tanks have their repair mechanic as an effective buff while aircraft do not.
Based on this, I suspect the relationship of bomb detonations and aircraft is modeled incorrectly…it appears highly doubtful that it’s modeled correctly as-is.
Who is denying you the ability to play your tanks? Nobody is blocking you from playing your tanks, you can do so to your heart’s content!
What other tankers (or, commonly, tankers who fly) are explaining is the two most obvious active countermeasures you can take…not ones you must pursue. You are free to use SPAA, CAP or whatever…or to pass on it. As I said earlier, you can often simply ignore CAS and get away with it–the odds are in your favor.
You can make your own selections as you wish, however you wish…but you are responsible for what happens as a result of your choices. That’s how it is in life and in WT.
I understand the data very well; it’s been discussed on and off for many years and it’s been the centerpiece of many arguments many times.
The data, when read for what it states, discredits CAS hype. Certainly in reference to its own time and arguably it serves as evidence discrediting it in the bigger scope of time too.
If you’re below 1000ft AGL with a bomb of ~500kg or larger, you’re likelier more prone to blast damage than a ground vehicle at a similar distance (which also enjoys tanks’ repair mechanics, forgiving as they are).
If you’ll point out which calculation of mine you claim is incorrect, perhaps we can look into the matter further. As-is, I stand by what I said.
As the ever-changing, one-upping of higher tiers (especially 9.X+) goes, I’d be inclined to agree with you. The top echelons of the game have always been ‘problematic’ on balance and probably always will be:
When you have ___ with their ___ one-upping ___ and their ___, you’ll inevitably have ___ on top until ___ with their new ___ arrives…and so on.
That’s the problem with ever-increasing technologies…every advantage is eventually countered. Balance is ‘hard to achieve’ at best.
Edit: Embarrassingly, some false flaggers have been at it again…they need hobbies.
You forgetting that I can keep getting shit on by AGMs when I was trying to play something I enjoyed the most, are we even playing the same game? Also your entire WT experience made up of 70k matches seal clubbing half the lobby who just got the game 6 hours ago, should only start talking when you gain more experience playing different br to understand how bad things are, else you would look like someone who genuinely don’t realize you are out of your depth.
To be honest, I believe that, on one hand, Gaijin intentionally ties rewards to survival time to extend players’ playtime, resulting in far lower rewards for aggressive kills followed by death compared to securing a single kill and then idling for 5-10 minutes. This encourages players to camp rather than engage in vehicle interactions. Secondly, I think ground battles could draw inspiration from clan wars by allowing players to use fixed-wing aircraft (with restricted loadouts) at the start of a match. This would make interactions between anti-air and air vehicles more meaningful. When both sides have a certain number of anti-air units and fixed-wing aircraft, ground attack would no longer be the primary focus. Instead, the priority would shift to surviving, engaging enemy fixed-wing aircraft to protect ground forces, rather than the current one-sided domination of ground targets. Additionally, increasing the distance between airfields and the ground combat zone could also be a mitigating solution.
none of this nuance matters though.
i go play tank and i blow up because of a plane 20 km away.
not everyone wants to rot in an SPAA, its as simple as that
Movimento es Vida, Movement is life. Keep on the move and your total deaths to CAS will drop like a rock. Also looking up every once and awhile will help too.
Do you just hate solutions? Do you think I’m just talking out of my ass? Moving is what people do. Look at any professional player or even youtuber and you’ll see that they don’t stick in one spot for more than 1 minute. If other tanks are keeping you from rotating and repositioning, then you failed from the beginning.
Ok, because like i said - we talk about different topics.
Deal with that (from data): To destroy 7,351 air units, 74,700 ground units had to be destroyed.
But who flies like that with that setting? The planes are “softer” (?) and I don’t know what’s so shocking about that?
I haven’t forgotten the problems of the guided weaponry tiers, as my comment above makes clear:
In fairness to you, that exact post was posted about a minute prior to your own…but I’ve repeated the same sentiments before.
As is verifiable by public record, the actual truth I have played RB GFs extensively from 1.0-8.X (with a little dabbling into 9.X-10.X in RB AFs too). I’ll eventually move into the 9.X+ range that you’re currently complaining about when I bother to, though your own portrayal of it is very bleak and uninviting. (Why should I want to go there?)
Here’s the reality and we both know it: new players don’t get to meet me at 7.X ‘within 6 hours’ nor do all who play beneath 8.X get seal clubbed strictly by playing.
When they play against someone like me (capable and experienced as I am, I will humbly say I am not a deity who wipes players off the map as you suggest), they can still harm my vehicle as you or anyone else could. To correct you, a large portion of players playing below 7.X have as many games played as myself and often more too…there are plenty of experienced players at these ranks and it is simply cringey top tier elitism to suggest otherwise.
The more amusing point is this: you complain about others telling you what to play…yet now you complain about what I play. I say people are free to play what they wish…you say I shouldn’t play ___.
For someone who insists upon your freedom to play whatever you wish, your demand others not do that–lest they face ‘sealclubbing’ accusations–is certainly inconsistent.
I’m entirely qualified to say all that I have said, as my record testifies.
Considering that I addressed top tier, the nuance does matter: 9.X+ is a mess.
That much I can say wholeheartedly–it’s visible a mile away.
Speaking of big-time CC, I bet you came across this guy named Spookton, he is not a camper and look what happened to his tank? you get bombed from just playing the game and there is nothing better you can do not to die to CAS when you are in your tank, this is a player who actively moving and survives long enough to get bombed every game. Don’t try to gaslight like we got the game since yesterday and doesn’t know how to play?
Because only a small amount of the ground units involved could ever be assumed to be trying to target aircraft for destruction, that is–at best–a problematic figure to put forward.
For the same reason, the aircraft figure is tricky to pin down exactly because some of the aircraft involved were not trying to target ground units–many were undoubtedly hunting other aircraft exclusively. Thus, counting these artificially alters and skews the figure on effectiveness…but without adequate data filtration, we have to continue on with this as-is.
This is why the best (albeit imperfect) way to calculate the yields of aircraft are by aircraft lost (to enemy fire, not counting accidents) versus ground units destroyed by aircraft. It’s not a perfect solution, but it appears to be the best way to handle the data given its limitations.
In games below 9.X, low passes such as these are very commonplace…without hard data, I’d say they’re probably more common than higher altitude efforts.