CAS problem

Game Discussion Realistic Battle
1975

The 3,412 aircraft killed by aircraft were included in the loss tally…they were counted.

It’s very simple:

Emphasis mine…we’re looking at the matter of how many tanks are killed by aircraft and at what losses to enemy aircraft/ground fire aircraft encounter in the sessions during that pursuit.

The data is only detailed another to allow for broad analyses (it cannot tell us exactly how many aircraft were committed to CAP or CAS) and these limitations have already been noted.

That is the limit of what the data can say…there’s really no going further with it as-is and that prevents an in-depth analysis of other research aspects like air-to-air effectiveness (which is also more complex than a simple exchange rate calculation).

Nope, I did not report your comment.

Spoiler

If I’d actually reported you, there’d be a marker saying as much in the lower right corner…none there.

Chances are you got hit by the false flaggers who are rampant on the forums and commonly stir up trouble even over innocuous posts. Those are the trolls and they should be punished for abusing the flagging feature.

Back when I posted frequently, they were relatively common (even more so by PM). The new forum is smaller and inferior to the old forum, so I don’t post as much (and thus am not seen or conversed with so often).

I explain matters to help others and that’s a reward in itself…the compliments are just a bonus when they come along.

I believe you mean poindexter…I can confirm I have always been studious, but otherwise that phrase doesn’t fit. I’d elaborate, but given it is off-topic it’s best l save the rest for my biopic.

1976

Come on guys when will you realise he just does not want to see it?? He will keep arguing until the dawn of time and you cannot change his mind. Just accept it. Some people and arguments are lost causes and you will just stress yourself out for no reason.

Let the guy live in his delusions.

3 Likes
1977

I have seen nothing to ‘change my mind’ because what I’ve stated stands proven and validated…correct. Adhering to the facts is neither a lost cause nor a matter of delusion…it’s just doing what’s reasonable and proper.

I’m just a straight shooter, regardless of how popular the truth may be at a given time.

1978

This entire debate has been based on SPAA effectiveness on aviation. THERE IS NO NEED TO INCLUDE AIR ON AIR ELIMINATIONS BECAUSE THEY ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION! Are you intentionally daft or are you this SpEd that you cannot comprehend the simple argument of Air vs Ground eliminations?

1 Like
1979

Don’t bother and let him have the final word, that makes him happy so it will be healthy for the topic as no more bloating and destroying of it will continue.

Everyone knows what stats show and prove, there is no reason to prove to flat earther that earth is not flat.

2 Likes
1981

Think what you will and see the world through your own lens I really don’t care.

1982

I like this chart, AA kills about 1.5x CAS kills, CAP is even less effective, and ground on ground goes just fine as the ground mains like

1983

Nah, I was raised by a single mum, I revel in this sort of pettiness. It’s like I was made for this.

1 Like
1984

Lol, pressing Gaijin adding TO mode like waiting another 5 year before they add it to keep the players happy.

1 Like
1985

Couldn’t careless what that guy think or say since he agreed or disagree make zero impact for the outcome. Like why would anybody care for someone so unimportant that his pet cat unfollowed him on Instagram?

2 Likes
1986
Spoiler

I did not characterize or frame my analysis in the manner you suggest…I discussed the number of ground units destroyed by aircraft and the number of aircraft lost to all causes to achieve that tally.

When you are analyzing the exchange rate (kills versus losses) of aircraft and enemy ground units, you must factor in all of what killed the aircraft or you’ll have a botched comparison.

Actually, the main issue others seem to have with my posts is their very advanced nature…a lot of people here seem to be struggling to keep up. To your question, we cannot look at SPAAs’ effectiveness (the table doesn’t class SPAAs on their own).

The nearest analysis we can do is look at what all ground units managed. Even so, we can discuss it if you’d like:

Spoiler

Aircraft deaths to ground units (no type specified): 3,939 aircraft killed
Ground unit deaths to aircraft: ----------------------------> 6,219 ground units killed

By these numbers, the kill share of ground units versus aircraft is about 63% of the value of the kill share of aircraft versus ground units. More directly, the tally is ~10 ground units lost to aircraft for every 6 aircraft lost to ground fire.

Another important aspect that weighs in on this effectiveness analysis is SP costs; these vary widely, but GFs (even respawns) cost considerably less than aircraft.

Because the table does not specify the nature of the ground units, we must consider all types and their full range (which varies by match BR) because the reality of the data is that it could be attributed to any mix of them:

Spoiler

Ground unit costs:

  • SPAA: 70-110 SP
  • Heavy/Medium/Light Tank: 100-160 SP
  • SPG: 90 to 130 SP

Aircraft costs:

  • Aircraft (clean fighter without bombs/rockets/AP ammo): 480+ SP
  • Aircraft (with bombs/rockets/AP ammo): >480 SP

Ground units require only about 15% to 33% of the SP costs of even the cheapest aircraft (nevermind more expensive aircraft) but yield about two-thirds the kill share of aircraft. Accruing 63% of the kill share for 15-33% of the cost is a marked advantage for cost-effectiveness. Furthermore, despite their lower costs, ground units possess the main means of influencing the match while aircraft lack this (capture point interaction).

Based upon this, we can see that a team could potentially lose multiple ground vehicles in the pursuit of destroying a single aircraft and emerge with the advantage as long as the aircraft ends up killed.

Back in 2017 (that data table is circa 2017), myself and numerous took advantage of the above realities…

Spoiler

…it was a strategy to coax the enemy team into aircraft…then gun them down with SPAAs and aircraft. By killing players in aircraft rapidly, they would have limited SP to respawn with and it’d often force them out of the match.

The above was prior to the 2018 SP costs changes, which have damped the effect of this strategy by allowing cheaper GF respawns…but someone like @JuicyKuuuuki really has the potential to carve up enemy teams’ SP even today.

As in the other analysis, ground units’ results are quite respectable.

1987

I wanted to know what this was about but it goes so far back I gave up.

1988

At the moment we have some vehicles that can change the whole outcome of the game and be spawned a few moments after game starts:

Spoiler

image
image
image
image

Not to mention the big bombs, that don’t even have to be aimed at specific vehicles but rather general area and dropped outside of SPAA effective range:

Spoiler

image
image

All done in Ground RB.

4 Likes
1989

Let me just add something here.

Some people simply refuse to be wrong, they’re not even discussing the idea anymore, they’re just finding ways to avoid admitting being wrong. I don’t even know which one of you I’d agree with or which one is factually right but at this point either one or both of you are arguing all day long just REFUSING to be wrong, quit typing and go touch some grass lmao

1 Like
1990

Indeed–I just explained another set of them right here.

What I stated previously has again been validated, as the facts speak for themselves. :)

Continually making fake, nonsensical claims only destroys your own credibility…it doesn’t do any damage to others.

People who make up fake claims can never be trusted to do a serious and sober analysis of data (as I just did above) and be believed. Integrity matters…so don’t sell it out for cheap nonsense like fake claims.

As I said, it seems like TO advocacy has basically died off.

Mechanically, the trigger queue idea seems like the best angle to work for TO while the idea of ‘TO rallies’ in custom battles appear to be a nice idea to demonstrate interest in the concept as well as perform very basic (and informal) dry runs of the idea.

However, none of that goes anywhere if nobody lobbies for it…so TO faces a very uncertain future.

1991

I dunno man, using data from 2017 is misleading at best.

The game, vehicles, damage system and weapons have changed significantly since then. It’s most certainly not proven and validated.

1992

I was not the person who put forward that 2017 data sheet for discussion here, nor did I claim it to be a definitive reflection of current realities (at best, there are perhaps similarities).

I was responding to others and commentating on the table, not trying to hold it as gospel about the present.

Perhaps above 8.X in 9.X+…I would agree with that. Below 9.X, I’d have to say generally no. Aside from radar SPAAs and helicopters, little has fundamentally changed.

To validation…I refer to this post with its detailed analysis (the second I’ve done on the 2017 data sheet in recent days).

1 Like
1993

That’s a lot of words to say that CAS absolutely dominates ground. Again, bare statistics shows that planes beats ground. Tanks costing less (and SPAAs moreso) does not counter CAS play.

1 Like
1994

cough hull break cough

There have been significant changes to how damage is applied via bombs. It’s been changed multiple times in fact. Hell, overpressure has been re-worked since then as well.

The changes since 2017 are so significant as to render any attempted analysis of data from then meaningless. Then attemping to apply the results of that to the current situation is effectively useless.

1995

Thoughtful, thorough analyses do indeed feature a lot of commentary and explanation…that’s par for the course.

Regarding that 2017 table: more aircraft are lost to enemy fire than tanks to enemy aircraft…at the same time, GFs killed ~2 aircraft for every 3 GFs killed by aircraft.

Neither of those figures portrays domination…particularly when the matters of cost effectiveness (with SP) and influence (capture zone interaction) are considered.

There is simply nothing about this data suggesting the sort of ‘absolute dominance’ that you suggest and I say that as someone who faced what was supposedly ‘the worst’ of it at the time by playing 4.X-5.X Germany (the natural habitat of F6Fs, P-47s, Typhoons, etc.) around when that table was fresh.

You’re entitled to your own opinion and perception about what the percentages mean…but, by the same token, I’d still say the 10x greater likelihood of dying to another tank is a bigger worry for your tank.

When I spoke about the 2017 data, it was referred to as historical data and discussed in its own context (not pertaining to nowadays).

While I see plenty of parallels, including similar results and trends personally, I do not claim that the 2017 data represents today’s realities as-is.

1 Like