CAS problem

[ULQ_LOVER]

The stats he is citing are from an old website that gathered data from users.

Same site showed that:

When it comes to ground vs air balance, ground units were destroyed by air 6219 times, while air units were destroyed by ground 3939 times, meaning that as devs confirmed in one of the news, the balance is shifted towards the air having the upper hand.

Not to mention the funny thing that according to this data ~24 % of air deaths was caused by “accident”.

And not to mention that data was gathered long before overpressure mechanic was added which again shifted the balance more toward the air.

So again, even the “historical data” showed that aircrafts destroy more ground units than other way around.

[ゴトランド]

Still doesn’t answer the SPAA role in GRB anyway.

Tell me what can SPAA do beside shooting CAS. What else can they do if the enemy doesn’t have CAS or have actually decent CAS up.

Tell me in a situation where the game can be balanced by spawning in another tank to have a chance to win the game but there are CAS up. And you are in a SPAA , what else can you do ?

I listed every reason why SPAA are bad a lot of time , few of them were direct respond to you , you simply ignore other people and shove an entire 17 minutes of your gameplay down my throat with you killing mentally dented CAS player that can’t be bother to dodge the obvious SPAA. Or even scout the ground before going in.

You keep yapping as if I didn’t list my reason to why SPAA are bad and most of the time it is not worth spawning them in. You literally ignored the problem to yap some random stuff. I don’t care , one person actively being a knuckler dragger and decent at SPAA does not change the fact that CAS are still stronger than SPAA

Just because some dented CAS player give you easy kill and you repost it on here does not change anything.

The problem with CAS go way deeper into GRB than just “Spawn SPAA and get good bro , I can do it meaning you can”. SPAA gameplay are faulty and boring as hell. Not to mention the reward for taking down CAS.

Then address all of these Yuuki, if not next time if you see me. Just ignore me , your dented spot is caving in everytime you speak

[warrior412]

@ULQ_LOVER

When it comes to ground vs air balance, ground units were destroyed by air 6219 times, while air units were destroyed by ground 3939 times

Unsuprisingly, you’re not calculating aircraft effectiveness correctly because you’re not counting half of their deaths…which is exaggerating their results wildly.

7,351 aircraft were lost to destroy 6,219 ground units (and some fraction of the aircraft killed). Aircraft had (at best) around a 1:1 exchange ratio and perhaps not even that. If we count the 2,361 bail outs/crashes recorded, the exchange rate drops even further.

@ULQ_LOVER

Not to mention the funny thing that according to this data ~24 % of air deaths was caused by “accident”.

That number is not terribly surprising or wild, as most normal games’ results even today showcase.

Players crash or leave their aircraft often, because aircraft are harsher on the controls than tanks (aircraft don’t just run into buildings or obstacles and stop like tanks do), aircraft deal with compression and structural failure (tanks do not) and aircraft do not enjoy tanks’ ability to heal from any non-fatal damage anywhere with FPE and parts unlocked (aircraft must return to base). If you don’t think these things will result in a substantial reading, you don’t understand the data, game or both.

@ULQ_LOVER

And not to mention that data was gathered long before overpressure mechanic was added which again shifted the balance more toward the air.

Yeah…it’s doubtful that’s had any substantial effect on the data. Aircraft are more likely to get killed by their own bomb blasts than tanks a few lengths away from them nowadays. That’s why you have to set delay fuses–aircraft face more of a threat from overpressure than ground vehicles do.

@ULQ_LOVER

So again, even the “historical data” showed that aircrafts destroy more ground units than other way around.

Incorrect…just as you misread the data years ago, you have again.

The biggest item that table validates is the reality that tanks have pretty much always accounted for 10x as many tank kills as aircraft do and that this has never really changed, despite all of the CAS hype.

[warrior412]

@gangsterism

this is true when youre balancing the game with statistics. but this is a videogame, and people play it for enjoyment.
it doesnt matter what “low” percentage of ground vehicles get killed by CAS.
those vehicles get killed by something they cant do anything against, and thats it

Gaijin does balance the game by statistics (which does have its flaws)…and, generally speaking, players do have some means to counteract the enemy, be it a ground unit or aircraft.

As defeats go, few people are happy to see them happy or experience them…but that’s just how it is. When you’re about 7-12x more likely to be killed by a tank than an aircraft, that’s where the real threats are coming from. (In WT, you can often get away with flat out ignoring the skies in favor of focusing on ground threats based on this probability.)

@gangsterism

SPAA is only effective when youre the SPAA, and some tanks dont even have MGs (or have MGs that do nothing, dont have angles, etc)
there is practically no defense against CAS unless a teammate SPAA gets a lucky hit, which wont happen, and shouldnt be required to happen

While I’d say the ability for SPAAs, MGs and other measures to work is higher than you suggest, it really only exemplifies the importance (but not requirement) of a well-rounded team.

Beyond that, there’s always the Fighters First concept to level the playing field by providing even more defensive options.

@RunaDacino

From whence does @warrior412 claim that only ~10% of ground vehicle deaths can be attributed to air vehicles in GRB or GSB? We don’t have any easy to scrap statistics for such.

Manual counting nowadays (@PointyPuffin did some last year at scale too) and historical data where the data filtration was decent.

Beyond that, you are correct–data filtration is lackluster.

[ULQ_LOVER]

@warrior412

Unsuprisingly, you’re not calculating aircraft effectiveness correctly because you’re not counting half of their deaths…which is exaggerating their results wildly.

7,351 aircraft were lost to destroy 6,219 ground units (and some fraction of the aircraft killed). Aircraft had (at best) around a 1:1 exchange ratio and perhaps not even that. If we count the 2,361 bail outs/crashes recorded, the exchange rate drops even further.

ULQ_LOVER:

As I have said:

@ULQ_LOVER

When it comes to ground vs air balance, ground units were destroyed by air 6219 times, while air units were destroyed by ground 3939 times

That is just what stats are showing.

@warrior412

7,351 aircraft were lost

Sorry but again, You are using wrong numbers as I’m comparing ground vs air to air vs ground stats, not air vs air ones.

@warrior412

That number is not terribly surprising or wild

Maybe for You, I have much different experience so if You have any data to back up what You are saying, feel free to show it!

@warrior412

Yeah…it’s doubtful that’s had any substantial effect on the data.

Of course it has as anyone playing the game understand the difference when You can destroy an open-top by simply aiming the bomb/rocket near it and when You can’t.

@warrior412

Incorrect…just as you misread the data years ago, you have again.

Please tell me from where You gather data, because as I have shown:

Ground units died to the air: 6219 times
Air units died to the ground: 3939 times

In simple terms 6219 > 3939

Meaning that much more deaths was caused by air when it comes to the comparison than other way around.

If You fail to read the data shown or still try to use air to air deaths, then should we count ground to ground deaths too?

@warrior412

The biggest item that table validates is the reality that tanks have pretty much always accounted for 10x as many tank kills as aircraft do and that this has never really changed, despite all of the CAS hype.

But again no one talks about how mode is made because this is why only around 10% of the deaths of all ground units historically was caused by the air.

We are comparing ground vs air to air vs ground stats, not air vs air or ground vs ground ones. If You want to discuss how mode is made, then that is not a good place for it.

[warrior412]

@ULQ_LOVER

That is just what stats are showing.

The statistics show aircraft results as 7,251 aircraft lost for 6,219 ground units killed.

In a strict reading of the results (presuming that all aircraft were intending to hit GFs as some claim–which is a reach), that’d mean aircraft have a negative exchange rate.

You must consider all causes of deaths to assess effectiveness, not just your chosen ones.

@ULQ_LOVER

Maybe for You, I have much different experience so if You have any data to back up what You are saying, feel free to show it!

I pretty much never leave my aircraft (except, rarely, at the base) and seldom crash (unless it’s an unserious night).

As I stated…I was referring to matches as a whole considering other players’ results. You need to read the whole post before replying…you missed that part.

@ULQ_LOVER

Of course it has as anyone playing the game understand the difference when You can destroy an open-top by simply aiming the bomb/rocket near it and when You can’t.

Open tops are relatively few compared to armored vehicles, whereas the effect of bomb blasts is pretty much universal to aircraft (their type doesn’t matter, only their position does).

@ULQ_LOVER

Please tell me from where You gather data, because as I have shown:

Ground units died to the air: 6219 times
Air units died to the ground: 3939 times

In simple terms 6219 > 3939

Meaning that much more deaths was caused by air when it comes to the comparison than other way around.

If You fail to read the data shown or still try to use air to air deaths, then should we count ground to ground deaths too?

All of the data I cited came from that same table and is plainly visible. If you do not comprehend what was said with the figures that were plainly provided by that table and commentated on by myself…it cannot be helped.

You failed to read the data, I dealt with it just fine. (If you need assistance with it, contact me via PM…don’t bloat the thread.)

@ULQ_LOVER

But again no one talks about how mode is made because this is why only around 10% of the deaths of all ground units historically was caused by the air.

Incorrect, particularly given how the hype portrays matters. If the hype was correct (or even reasonable), aircraft should account for a far greater percentage of tank deaths than 1/10th of what other GFs account for.

That the data historically and now manually collected and observed doesn’t reflect anything close to what the hype portends (below the mess of 9.0+) signals CAS hype has always been exaggerated. (Based on the 2017 data about 5.7 during all of

[ULQ_LOVER]

@warrior412

The statistics show aircraft results as 7,251 aircraft lost for 6,219 ground units killed.

The statistics show that 3939 aircrafts were lost to ground units while 6219 ground units were lost to the air.

Meaning that overall aircrafts destroy more ground units than other way around.

This is what I’m saying from the beggining.

@warrior412

You must consider all causes of deaths to assess effectiveness, not just your chosen ones.

When talking about effectivness against certain type, You don’t count other types in, that is just misleading, otherwise we would need to count ground vs ground stats too.

@warrior412

As I stated…I was referring to matches as a whole considering other players’ results.

So You should have something to back it up, still waiting!

@warrior412

Open tops are relatively few compared to armored vehicles

Considering most of SPAA at lower B.R. are open-top that makes a huge difference.

@warrior412

You failed to read the data, I dealt with it just fine.

The only one that failed something, is the one not being able to understand that we are talking about ground vs air to air vs ground stats, not air vs air ones.

You can’t decide if an air unit is effective agains the ground by how it deals with the air. Otherwise spitfires would be the best planes around.

@warrior412

Incorrect

Sorry but I know what I’m discussing.

If You are going to still argue that the number 3939 is bigger than 6219, or that air vs air stats are being discussed, there is no point in further replying. I hope @Forum Moderators are going to clean the topic further on if the replies are going to be just in order to bloat and destroy the topic.

Data is visible for everyone

So anyone wanting to see what historical data showed about ground vs air to air vs ground stats, can see it.

[warrior412]

@ULQ_LOVER

The statistics show that 3939 aircrafts were lost to ground units while 6219 ground units were lost to the air. Meaning that overall aircrafts destroy more ground units than other way around.

@ULQ_LOVER

When talking about effectivness against certain type, You don’t count other types in, that is just misleading, otherwise we would need to count ground vs ground stats too.

Incorrect…your analysis is flawed because you’re ignoring half of aircrafts’ operational realities and that inhibits assessing their yield rates.

You don’t have to count ground-ground stats when you’re looking at how aircraft fare…

@ULQ_LOVER

So You should have something to back it up, still waiting!

I’ve already posted it–you need to reread. I will not bloat the thread with repetition because of your mistakes.

@ULQ_LOVER

Considering most of SPAA at lower B.R. are open-top that makes a huge difference.

SPAA =/= all ground units.

@ULQ_LOVER

The only one that failed something, is the one not being able to understand that we are talking about ground vs air to air vs ground stats, not air vs air ones.

You can’t decide if an air unit is effective agains the ground by how it deals with the air. Otherwise spitfires would be the best planes around.

As was the case years ago, you don’t understand the data and discussion.

@ULQ_LOVER

there is no point in further replying.

I will reply as I please–I’m not the one posting confused replies and mistaken perceptions due to bad readings.

@ULQ_LOVER

So anyone wanting to see what historical data showed about ground vs air to air vs ground stats, can see it.

They can see it–and they’ll see what I said is entirely valid. You would too if you read it properly.

[RunaDacino]

@warrior412

The statistics show aircraft results as 7,251 aircraft lost for 6,219 ground units killed.

If you’re counting accidents,

Do you have any way to differentiate ASB & GSB, ARB & GRB?

Do you also have a way to differentiate dying to airfield AAA? Because I swear, that’s the worst part of trying to fly in GRB the rare times I thought to try and fly CAP. I dive on CAS, shoot them down and move to extend. After a mere 5-7 kilometers of shallow climb at ~6-8 m/s at 600 km/h, my plane turns yellow or dead because some amazingly smart person decided to put an airfield right next to the battlefield.

Moving those stupid airfields back some 20 km even at prop tiers would solve a significant amount of my complaints voiced earlier in the thread, alongside forcing airfield spawn. 20 km distance means a ~4 minute time to arrive at the battlefield at a leisurely 300 km/h constant IAS climb you’d expect in most 3.0+ aircraft. Heavy/Strategic bombers get to keep their high altitude spawn, but they still need to make the distance.

Also regarding bombs,

I fail to see how those would affect aircraft other than when you dive on a bomber and they carpetbomb the ground beneath them and hit you through splash damage. With a bomb releaes altitude around 500-900 meters, you shouldn’t be anywhere near your own bomb’s splash radius.

[JuicyKuuuuki]

If I’m reading this data correctly,
In the end I was correct that Tanks/SPAA die to CAS 5% to 20% of the time and the remaining 80% to 95% tanks dies from tanks. They fluctuate over time.

As for that difference on 6,212 and 3,939, makes sense since a lot of players struggle shooting them down.

[ULQ_LOVER]

@JuicyKuuuuki

If I’m reading this data correctly,
In the end I was correct that Tanks/SPAA die to CAS 5% to 20% of the time and the remaining 80% to 95% tanks dies from tanks. They fluctuate over time.

It is very old data so I wouldn’t take it for granted, but data shows just how GF RBs mode works as in order to spawn in a plane You first have to die in ground unit.

@JuicyKuuuuki

As for that difference on 6,212 and 3,939, makes sense since a lot of players struggle shooting them down.

And many times don’t have a chance to do so, like nashorn against an air unit that doesn’t attack him from an angle he can aim at.

[StaszekJones]

@warrior412

If you don’t think these things will result in a substantial reading, you don’t understand the data, game or both.

i belive u dont understand what are you saing…

@warrior412

The biggest item that table validates is the reality that tanks have pretty much always accounted for 10x as many tank kills as aircraft do and that this has never really changed, despite all of the CAS hype.

oO

@warrior412

Yeah…it’s doubtful that’s had any substantial effect on the data. Aircraft are more likely to get killed by their own bomb blasts than tanks a few lengths away from them nowadays. That’s why you have to set delay fuses–aircraft face more of a threat from overpressure than ground vehicles do.

If you try to land on tank roof, yeah.

@warrior412

Incorrect…just as you misread the data years ago, you have again.

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.

@warrior412

As was the case years ago, you don’t understand the data and discussion.

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.

[gangsterism]

@warrior412

(In WT, you can often get away with flat out ignoring the skies in favor of focusing on ground threats based on this probability.)

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

[БЕИ]

@gangsterism

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

We want more space to play tanks!

The responses we get:

CAS mains 1: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 2: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 3: play CAP bro
CAS mains 4: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 5: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 6: play CAP bro
CAS mains 7: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 8: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 9: play CAP bro
CAS mains 10: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 11: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 12: play CAP bro
CAS mains 13: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 14: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 15: play CAP bro
CAS mains 16: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 17: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 18: play CAP bro
CAS mains 19: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 20: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 21: play CAP bro
CAS mains 22: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 23: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 24: play CAP bro
CAS mains 25: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 26: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 27: play CAP bro
CAS mains 28: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 29: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 30: play CAP bro
CAS mains 31: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 32: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 33: play CAP bro
CAS mains 34: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 35: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 36: play CAP bro
CAS mains 37: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 38: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 39: play CAP bro
CAS mains 40: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 41: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 42: play CAP bro
CAS mains 43: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 44: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 45: play CAP bro
CAS mains 46: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 47: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 48: play CAP bro
CAS mains 49: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 50: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 51: play CAP bro
CAS mains 52: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 53: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 54: play CAP bro
CAS mains 55: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 56: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 57: play CAP bro
CAS mains 58: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 59: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 60: play CAP bro
CAS mains 61: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 62: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 63: play CAP bro
CAS mains 64: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 65: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 66: play CAP bro
CAS mains 67: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 68: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 69: play CAP bro
CAS mains 70: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 71: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 72: play CAP bro
CAS mains 73: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 74: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 75: play CAP bro
CAS mains 76: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 77: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 78: play CAP bro
CAS mains 79: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 80: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 81: play CAP bro
CAS mains 82: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 83: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 84: play CAP bro
CAS mains 85: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 86: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 87: play CAP bro
CAS mains 88: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 89: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 90: play CAP bro
CAS mains 91: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 92: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 93: play CAP bro
CAS mains 94: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 95: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 96: play CAP bro
CAS mains 97: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 98: play SPAA bro
CAS mains 99: play CAP bro
CAS mains 100: play SPAA bro

[warrior412]

@RunaDacino

If you’re counting accidents,

Do you have any way to differentiate ASB & GSB, ARB & GRB?

I did not count accidents and the data set referenced refers only to RB GFs.

@RunaDacino

Do you also have a way to differentiate dying to airfield AAA? Because I swear, that’s the worst part of trying to fly in GRB the rare times I thought to try and fly CAP. I dive on CAS, shoot them down and move to extend. After a mere 5-7 kilometers of shallow climb at ~6-8 m/s at 600 km/h, my plane turns yellow or dead because some amazingly smart person decided to put an airfield right next to the battlefield.

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.

@RunaDacino

Moving those stupid airfields back some 20 km even at prop tiers would solve a significant amount of my complaints voiced earlier in the thread, alongside forcing airfield spawn. 20 km distance means a ~4 minute time to arrive at the battlefield at a leisurely 300 km/h constant IAS climb you’d expect in most 3.0+ aircraft. Heavy/Strategic bombers get to keep their high altitude spawn, but they still need to make the distance.

Also regarding bombs,

I fail to see how those would affect aircraft other than when you dive on a bomber and they carpetbomb the ground beneath them and hit you through splash damage. With a bomb releaes altitude around 500-900 meters, you shouldn’t be anywhere near your own bomb’s splash radius.

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.

---

@БЕИ

We want more space to play tanks!

The responses we get:

[snip]

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.

[warrior412]

@StaszekJones

i belive u dont understand what are you saing…

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.

@StaszekJones

If you try to land on tank roof, yeah.

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).

@StaszekJones

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.

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.

@StaszekJones

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.

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.

[gangsterism]

mfw writing 10,000 words to say “well youre right, its not really balanced”

[warrior412]

There is plenty of nuance in what I said…but I’ve always been pretty upfront about my thoughts on 9.X+.

About the only constant of high tiers over the years has been ‘problematic’ balancing…and not just ‘air versus ground’ either.

[БЕИ]

@warrior412

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.

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.

[Agir_No1_Cute]

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.