Don’t you see double standards here??? Don’t you see you messed up with your own comment…
Nothing to discuss with you anymore, I’m not wasting time with trolls like you.
I’m playing 1 spawn… Doesn’t matter CAS kills me or tank (mostly high tiers). Right after my spawn protection disappears I’ll get bombed or spawncamped so what’s point of giving free kills to enemy?? Better join next session.
1 Like
I run full loadout. That’s why I’m not too concerned.
Most of the ground units you see deployed (howitzers, heavy/medium/light tanks, etc.) are not actively fighting aircraft (even SPAAs are not always in use for anti-air purposes (wannabe TD use is common)). Counting the howitzers/heavies/etc serves no real purpose because they play no substantial role in the number of aircraft killed.
A far larger, relevant fraction of the aircraft played (likely well beyond 50%) are engaged in anti-GFs work, not just combat air patrol work, especially if the oft-repeated claims about CAS are taken as legitimate. That is the basis of the approximate calculations here and, while rough, this review does generate usable data.
Um, no…I just restated what I stated before. Nothing about what I said changed…it was basically the same post twice.
All that really proves is that you never understood what I said…there was never any “double standard”, as I explained the difference at hand was how the data was filtered and the limits that imposes.
Spoiler
This is the mentality that leads to defeats…so it’s not much of a surprise.
Somehow it’s my fault that you don’t understand the situation I explained…twice. Yeah, sure…I’ll just make things simple, accept your concession and let matters go.
The more embarrassing bit here is that is you resorting to petty namecalling rather than anything more substantive…but I suppose that it’s coping.
The only thing my comments show is a fine grasp on how WT works presented in a balanced and fair-minded manner with the calculations explained (I even pointed out the limitations of them!)…that’s about the furthest thing you could get from a troll, lmao
Cling to anti-intellectualism, that works so well!
It is easier to whimper than win and takes less effort to play the victim than be a victor.
You’re free to choose your own route, I don’t care.
Moreover, why did you sumarize the deaths of planes from other types of units? Still, it not make sense
2 Likes
The sums involved were tallied because they were relevant to the count. The ‘accident’ sums were left out because they were possibly intentional bailouts or crashes.
Lmao, nope…my understanding of WT is just well beyond your own. You’ve made that painfully apparent, even before you started openly violating forum rules such as here.
Your difficulties at understanding all of this are your own issue, not anything related to me nor “trolling”…do not attempt to blame me.
As I said before, when you look at the results of aircraft and are seeking the exchange rate of aircraft based upon the number of tanks killed versus aircraft lost to all enemy fire, you count all of number of tanks killed by aircraft and compare it to the number of aircraft killed by ground and air units during this time.
While imperfect due to data filtration limits (air to air only fighters are not separated), this will deliver rough figures that are close enough to be usable. Ground versus ground results are not included because they are irrelevant to determining the numbers related to aircraft…almost none of the GFs involved were even targeting aircraft, as only SPAAs are specifically designed to counter aircraft or regularly used for this purpose.
This has been repeated many, many times…hopefully you understand what’s said, how it works now and how/why it’s limited. Hopefully.
Lmao…this demonstrates that you don’t understand what’s written:
What I had said states that [air-to-air-focused] fighters (which may theoretically harm an open tops) are counted (despite doubts of its actual involvement in attacking GFs)…yet here you didn’t understand that.
To determine aircraft yield for a given result (ground units) versus the loss rate (to all enemy fire), you calculate the number of tanks killed versus the number of aircraft lost to all causes…which is all that was done.
The 70k ground units killed by other ground units has no bearing or relevance on this manner because those ground units were not likely to be practically capable of targeting aircraft, nor engaged in such action. For about the third or fourth time…they had no relevance to aircraft.
Once again, the actual premise was number of tanks killed by aircraft versus the number of aircraft lost to all enemy fire (air + ground fire).
The reality is this: you did not understood the framing of what I said originally, nor the calculations of what was involved or how/why those calculations were/are made. Maybe now you’ll get it…or maybe you’ll lash out again. We’ll see I guess!
Okay i said I’m not going to waste time with trolls, but 1 more question: where did i violated forum rules?
I didn’t called you “dumb” i said “if you where dumb” there’s difference between “you are dumb” and “if you where dumb”
About your “skills” of understanding WT and overall statistics, i think who reads this will understand everything without further continuing.
Your statements is wrong and doublestandarted. You said most planes are going for other planes, but half of them are going for tanks and it should be included, but ground units are going for ground and air too and it’s irrelevant. Just vibranium logic man.
Anyway
Good luck and good night 😴😘
1 Like
It really wasn’t.
My comment was about ground vs air compared to air vs ground stats, not overall air stats lost to ground and air.
Sorry that You have misunderstood the topic and needed to bloat this one even further like always.
If we were talking about how effective air vehicles are overall in Ground RB then sure, such comparison could take place, but we are talking about ground vs air to air vs ground comparison. Air vs air stats don’t have anything to do with that same with ground vs ground ones.
There are more than 50 comments made because You refuse to understand that people are talking about ground vs air compared to air vs ground stats, not air vs air ones.
There is no reason to bloat and destroy this topic any further. @Forum Moderators
4 Likes
Pointless to talk with him, he’s just trolling and flagging what he can’t answer.
1 Like
Lmao…again with that tripe? Spare me…trying to help you understand the game better =/= trolling.
As for the rules…it seems highly doubtful you read those either…something to invest your time in!
Anyone who puts the time in to actually read and understand will see them as I have. It’s just how the data is and what it says–simple.
Lmao:
-
What I said is correct and there is no double standard (or ‘double standardarted’)
-
I said most aircraft are likely ascribed as going for ground units…but some of the tally included were likely clean air-to-air fighters engaging other aircraft and included because data filtration limits prevent them from being excluded
Hilariously, you complained just a little while ago that defending (clean) fighters which could theoretically (and admittedly plausibly) attack open topped GFs were not included (they were), which justified including such aircraft in this count (as I had–albeit because of the data filtration limits).
Without prompting, your own holdings on the matter validated my methodology…yet you didn’t even realize it lmao
Nope, just ‘fully sound’ logic…perhaps one day you’ll grasp all of this in full. You didn’t even realize you’d concurred with the results, lol
There you go again…trying to blame me for others’ issues. Others’ poor understanding of matters isn’t my fault. Blaming me for their issues is bogus and we all know it.
(Currently, the thread has 1848 posts and you are the most numerous poster with 177 posts…you’re ~10% of the thread by yourself. You have no place telling anyone about bloating here, lol)
I suppose you didn’t read the context of this…but what’s being discussed here are my comments, what I stated (backed by the data) and what I have discussed since. Your comment isn’t really relevant here, despite its flaws.
As was the case years ago: you still don’t understand this data set, how to analyze it or what it means…it still eludes you and you apparently don’t even know it. Rather than bloating the thread with that self-evident matter, just leave that stated and let it go (PM me and I’ll attempt to assist you again).
I’d rather you focus on War Thunder for Nintendo 64 than write up screeds like this…it’s a more useful application of your time, even though it looks like the 1990s.
Nope…I’ve just been trying to help you out with a fuller, more accurate grasp of matters. Being knowledgeable and informed isn’t trolling…nor is flagging rule violating content a problem (it’s what you’re supposed to do).
Back to what you said before…you’ve already conceded: you admitted you had no substantive counterargument to what I said (as was obvious by the petty name calling too). I have simply proven my point moreover since…as was the case years ago, my comments stand and will keep standing because they’ve been validated. I can smile about that because I know wise readers will read and understand them as I have.
One day you’ll understand and you’ll be better off for it.
They do say it’s hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it’s damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person. So the best case of action here is to just stop arguing with you because there will never be an end to this discussion otherwise
3 Likes
It’s hard to argue with what is said when it’s backed up by the facts.
Amusingly enough, Despair just complained that I hadn’t included clean fighters in my tally (untrue) and demanded I include them…after complaining that I had included clean fighters in my tally (true).
His gaffe there was an embarrassing tell that someone had replied without reading or understanding…and that seems sadly commonly on the forums these days. Informed, thoughtful posts seem to be just too advanced for many these days…just how it is I guess.
My advice to people trying to argue against fact is to not do it…arguing against fact will be a loss for you and an embarrassing loss at that. That’s why I only deal in fact, as I have and that’s why what I say is trusted.
You know, after playing the game for a long time, and then reading this thread, all that springs to mind is :
“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
2 Likes
Biggest problem:
CAS is killing more tanks then any weapon in CA mode and TO mode supporters are facing CAS supporters who refuse to give up they favorite weapon in battle.
2 Likes
CAS mains just cannot live without inflicting unnecessary suffering onto tankers
2 Likes
Maybe above 9.X+ among the mess of imbalance that the high end of the perpetually features…but certainly not below that range. Guided weaponry was always going to be problematic because it reduced/removes the importance of individual players’ skill (which doesn’t bode well with the severe importance of module grinding also at that range).
The high tiers’ problems are their own…let’s not pretend generalizing that range’s problems to the whole game is accurate.
The whole topic of TO seems to be largely by the wayside now…I haven’t seen any threads on it recently. In retrospect, 2019 seemed to TO’s big year given Gaijin’s acknowledgement and offer at the time.
TO advocacy seems bascially extinct if public posts are taken as any indication…because complaining about CAS is not in itself TO advocacy.
To pursue TO, you have to press Gaijin to implement TO. That requires its own discussion wholly independent of things as-is. Furthermore, TO advocates should try selling the concept on its own merits–not relying on “I don’t like CAS!” line which has been tried by previous TO advocates for nearly a decade…and yielded nil results.
The trigger queue concept has been mentioned recently and raised many times over the past few years. Despite its practicality, TO advocates have said almost nothing on the trigger queue…or much of anything about TO.
As I’ve stated before, I’m open to seeing TO but TO advocates in years past and more recently seem wholly uninterested in doing anything pursue the idea. It seems like they’ve given up.
Okay, so tell us this.
1: How many AIR players are eliminating GROUND players?
2: How many GROUND players are eliminating AIR players?
The stats are right here:
Please read it off.
To begin with, that table depicts RB GFs. In RB GFs, all of the players use ground vehicles prior to any potential respawns in others or air vehicles. There’s really no such thing as an ‘air player’ in RB GFs…only tankers and tankers who (also) fly.
Without seeing a data on this historical data, offhand I recall it is probably from 2017…prior to helicopters’ existence, nevermind their proliferation and that of highly accurate guided weaponry.
According to the table:
- 6,219 ground units were logged as destroyed by aircraft
- 7,351 aircraft were destroyed by enemy fire (ground + aircraft)
Due to data filtration limits (lack of specificity), we cannot see exactly what types of vehicles killed GFs/AFs. It is reasonable to assume most of the aircraft kills by ground units are attributable to SPAAs. At the same time, there is really no way to know what the composition of the types of ground units killed by aircraft might have been.
Thus, the best way to determine overall results is by looking at the death data combined, as I have presented previously. While this has its own limitations (primarily what fraction of the aircraft involved had no engagement with tanks), it is the best avenue for analysis with the data as it is given.
More aircraft were lost in these battles to all causes than tanks lost to aircraft…and aircraft cost much more SP too. Beyond that, the number of tanks lost to aircraft was about 10x lower than the number of tanks lost to other tanks. Overall, the results of aircraft didn’t measure well against their considerably higher costs (especially as they lack capture point influence).
As the possibly willful nature of many ‘accidental/unknown’ deaths cannot be determined and the same readings on tanks are being not counted, those can be excluded from each to maintain consistency.
All of this taken together casts tremendous doubt upon CAS hype (certainly of that time)…especially given that similar results exist today below 9.X. If we had an analogous table today, I suspect it’d generate very similar readings.
I didn’t ask, read the table.
How many GROUND PLAYERS from GROUND VEHICLES defeated AIR PLAYERS that are in AIR VEHICLES.
2 Likes