Anti-Air: Easy or Not?

Mwahahahaha!

I love you.

pilots like to talk about skill but tell me this when you have an enemy that can move in 3 dimensions at will and can do so fast, turn on a dime and not be held to real flight physics and pull off stunts that would stall real aircraft. with all that in mind could you reliably hit a dumbfire at an ESF 300m in the air or higher?

part of the problem with AA in general is because air can move is so many ways that would not be possible for a real aircraft using flak or bullets is alot harder to predict the air's possible course changes. when you are restricted by real physics it's alot easier for AA to predict your moves because your choices are far more limited.

pilots talk about skill but forget that they are faster, more heavily armed and armored and expect at those speeds for AA to have to have as much skill in a different way then they have had to learn to become good pilots.

lock-ons are unreliable unless the terrain outside bases is barren of any cover over a story tall. hossin was designed to be hell for air and it turned to be a haven. lockons should have a tracking delay on them so the user can fire them like a regular rocket launcher between structures or cover so they are not immediately rendered useless because the rocket veered to the left or right tracking the target off the bat.

skyguards need a damage bonus against aircraft within 200-300m. if an ESF tries to confront a skyguard with a divebomb and fails the skyguard should have the DPS to destory them.

I think AA is in a good place right now love my skyguard to death when there is to much enemy air to fly away with. Overtime I got used to where they are going to be and fire there normally I can keep hitting them all the way to the render distance. Skyguard does not need a damage boost within any Meters if you plan to run AA should always bring Top armor, if a silly pilot decides to dive bomb you just reverse or go forwards while shooting them. They will either slam into something or get out in serious injuries, peg them once or twice more and bam fireworks.

As the ESF which I've been told I do it wrong, just stick low to avoid most AA seems silly and is in certain situations. As long as you flank them approach from the side or swoop all the way around to strike from the rear most AA will be freaking out looking for you. Can use the same strategy against zergs and armor works on basically anything. Just know your limit and don't be greedy unless you used it just to transport there then go for it let it blow up and let them think you died.

Hopefully anything I said can help you deal with the threats if not then get a auraxium cookie for being awesome.

As someone who really enjoys War Thunder, I wonder what PS2 pilots could tell me about the following terms as they apply in the context of PS2?

Engine shutoff
Engine heat
Water temperature
Fuel Mixture
Airframe Stress
Wing Stress
Stall
Flaps
Landing Gear
Control Surfaces
Gun jams



I mean really... you can't think that flying in PS2 is all that skillful if you've never tried to evade fire while waiting the 15 seconds for your guns to reload (if they let you reload mid-air at all), only able to turn slightly right because your rudder was shot out... while your engine is on fire.

Moderately easy to hit, a bit challenging to deter, LOL ARE YOU KIDDING ME-hard to kill. Move deter under the third description as well if it's a Lib or a Gal.

Ok.
Hornet ESF counters tanks.
Lightning is a tank.
Skyguard is a weapon for the Lightning
So Hornet ESF counters Skyguard.

Where is the Problem?
The ESF is mobile, has more damage and a lot higher skill floor & ceiling.
The Skyguard has better armor, FAR greater range and can't be possibly any easier to use.
Contrary to popular belief ESFs can't facetank Skyguards and die in a couple seconds, even maxed Flak will die easily, propably somewhere around 10 seconds.
Also the ESF is visible (and can be engaged by) anything in 800 distance including more Skyguards and enemy ESFs while the Lightning can use terrain for cover.

I'm playing since beta, and not even once was I killed by a single ESF while in a skyguard.
On the other hand I have killed several Skyguards solo with my ESF, I know its possible.
But if an ESF can hover beind you a couple metres above ground and shove 4 hornets up your tailpipe it is really not an issue of your weapon.

"But ESFs can fight anything and they are so powerful"
No, an ESF can fight exactly what it is equipped to fight.
If there was a dedicated one-man anti-tank aircraft I would blow you up with that and I would still hear the tears falling.

I hate to say it, because its usually just bias and arrogance, but it really is an issue of L2P. L2P and teamwork (which is OP - ESPECIALLY with all sources of G2A fire)

G2A is too easy to use to be powerful, if you want "deadly" AA convince the devs to make some kind of Lightning AP cannon that has the Skyguards elevation angle.

Problably because in a general context it is heavily unbalanced in the favour of Air (so a solo ESF A2G farmer always has nearly 100% of the initiative).

You might drive off a bad pilot with a single AA lock-on, but a good pilot will just work around it and continue what he/she is doing (a really good pilot can manage to keep killing through 2-4 AA lock-ons, especially if they have flares).

You will drive off most pilots with an AA MAX, but then you're left wasting much of your resouces for 30-60 seconds of firing and the Air just moves on to an easier target.

Pulling a Skyguard is really only a sensible option if you want to spend a while doing nothing but AA, which often can be very boring as again Air will tend to just go elsewhere if there is too much/any AA (well boring up until an AP MBT, AP Lighting or Vulcan Harrasser appears behind you anyway, then it gets exiting for a very short time).





Which is to say it is often very unsatisfactory and unrewarding to do AA, so for example if you're being zerged it is always more likely someone will pull out AV (because they are likely to actually get some kills with it) than AA, even if there's plenty of targets for both around.

The real problem still stems back to SOEs horrible decision to roll the Reaver and Mozy from PS1 into the all-in-one ESF in PS2. In the current context the ESF should be A2A only (without the G2A guns or the G2A rockets) and the Valk should be the G2A airframe, as this would make the game play and balance much better.

Although a more realistic option at this point would be to add a WASP type pure A2A fighter to prey on G2A ESFs running without support (the WASP would be very fast, very light and near immune to AA, but then equally have no G2A capabilities at all) as this would make solo G2Aing more risky and balanced.

Ahh Colonel, my favorite air hater

Well, what does PS2 say about tanks getting hit with an anti-armor missile in the engine or infantry standing next to several explosions caused by 14mm HE rounds?

Gimme realistic firepower and I'll take realistic damage for it .

And now a quick forecast in case those changes get implemented:

------------------------------ <- me
\ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \
<- enemy tanks that never saw me coming.

Edit: OH boy, the forums don't like my formatting. THAT looked a lot better before

As I've said before, I'd be okay with that. Aircraft should be glass cannons. They should have very dangerous firepower... but be incredibly expensive and vulnerable to just about anything.

So let a Hornet OHK or 2HK a tank.
A single 40mm flak hit would also kill an ESF and cripple a Liberator. A SAM would knock them out of the sky.

And of course I'd have to have access to a mobile SAM vehicle with a 450km range.

Guys -- we are off the topic. I am partly guilty about this as well. But yes -- we are far and away off the topic.

Back to OP: I will reiterate.

AA is easy to use. Hard to kill with alone. Easy to kill with alone.

Your statement -- while it is not 100% accurate (and I think no one's argument is 100% accurate -- not mine either) sounds pretty close to reality to me.

Hah, the only thing your 450km range is gonna do is keep the A2A fighters off my back. I'm gonna do a Skywalker, hug the ground flying below radar and hunt womp rats tanks in the canyons.

I think most people get frustrated when using AA partly the results i would guess. I use to always carry an AA launcher but more and more recently i don't use it for several reasons.

The biggest is that It's not as effective as before. Seeing ESFs, liberators flying above the 300m mark to rain death annoys the hell out of me. Hell i've seen gals flying really high so no one can see them or lock onto them properly and it looks like people are randomly spawning out of thin air on roofs. The only other option is to pull a max/skyguard and that's expensive and time consuming. To top it off you're purely AA role and you're ineffective to a more constant threat: ground targets. A cheaper option is to simply ignore it, seek cover and concentrate on the infantry who can capture the points. Experienced pilots simply just fly behind cover and come back for more. I always knew that as a lone AA launcher user it wasn't going to bring down air targets unless its a lucky shot, but the fact that pilots can simply shrug it off without the need for flares and the launchers simply explode on my feet when i fire it just pisses me off. In the old days they were OP and at least i stood a chance to shoo them away or score some points (sometimes a hit would net you as much as a kill (100xp)) but now its meh.


The second reason air is too target rich or empty for its use. Too many air support and you're a sitting duck. I've seen times when the lock on fails and/or other pilots kill you and the whole wicked plan is ruined. Sometimes there are too few to target and although i could use it for ground targets, i might as well use a decimator or a default launcher. A lone sky guard will not get its returns targeting a few ESFs and would be dog meat against overwhelming numbers.

But all being said, its not as bad as before so i can live with what we have. But being infantry, i would like a few more solutions, like an engineer aa turret, sky mines or tracer darts (for the infiltrator or as a secondary weapon at the cost of the side arm) that would allow ANY launcher to lock onto that target that has been tagged. Would save the problem of needing to switch classes and get more people to work as a team to deal with the air problem. Hopefully. As for the sky guard, it needs a bit more utility or sources of exp when there are no air targets. Sitting in a convoy watching for air targets that may never arrive is boring and unrewarding, a partol bonus would be nice. Sitting in the skyguard to earn certs, although Will be open to abuse. Simply spawn one, go to some remote region, afk and come back swimming in certs.

Bring it! I laugh in the face of your puny PGMs!

Oh its ON now.
You stay in that plain, but as soon as you enter terrain where I can approach flying NOE, I'll be coming for ya.


I had to google PGM.
Since I'm TR it is more likely that I will simply saturate the area with ordnance and hope something hits.
SOE/DGB kinda forgot about that "high accuracy, high velocity, high ROF, low damage" trait our weaponry is supposed to have.

Alright, sorry.
Its a very simple way of viewing things but look at it like this and it might help understand my point.

Every combination of weapon and the platform it is mounted on gets 7 statistics:
Range
Accuracy
Firepower
Ease of use
Mobility
Durability
Cost

You get the first point free, and you can put a total of 20 points in it.
Cost is the exception, having no starting value, being negative and basically being -1 for 50 nanites.

ESF (Hornets) gets something like this:
Range 3
Accuracy 6
Firepower 10
Ease of use 2
Mobility 10
Durability 2
Cost -7

The Skyguard looks like this
Range 7
Accuracy 6
Firepower 3
Ease of use 8
Mobility 4
Durability 5
Cost -7

Same points, totally different stuff.
One is hard to use, powerful, fast and fragile
The other one is easy to use, has a huge range, is cumbersome (in comparison) and rather durable.

So basically what you are saying is that skyguard should always kill ESf and ESF should never be able to run away from skyguard?

I fly a lot, and im decent at it and i certainly don't kill skyguards with my ESF. Even if i run A2G skyguards kill my ESF before i can even unleash a whole volley of rockets and a single volley wont kill a tank unless you hover behind it 3 feet off the ground which will get you killed very fast.

It was wrong of anyone to ever use the word "counter" in this game. Thats a thing that belongs in rts games not in mmos.

Obviously you do not fly. Your post shows that you are completely ignorant of how the flight game works.

Ill tell you what. Ill get in my skyguard and you get 2 friends, you all pull ESF so there will be 3 of you, and lets see if you can kill me before i shoot you down.

Please, because i like free certs.

no i'm saying if one ESF is stupid enough to attack a skyguard without support it should have a high chance of dying, try driving a skyguard around for a while you'll see that the skyguard is freshmeat for other tanks unless it sticks to other ground focused lightnings or MBTs.

no i'm not falling for that trap, AA is only powerful against those that can't fly worth a damn and linger or crash if three expert pilots attacked my skyguard with hornets i would be dead without other players supporting me. one good pilot in a skyguard would easily be able to beat 3 newbie pilots.

I don't need first hand experience as a pilot to know that AA is broken because it's a killing game and skyguards are underperforming against aircraft. aircraft have high armor, speed and health and if they do overextend or are loosing against an AA operator they can afterburn away which in a similar situation in a tank you would perish.

This is a killing game any weapon that is niche and fails to perform well in that role is broken.

I think though that you have to be a bit more concrete and a bit less arbitrary with your point allocations. For example, your cost allocation makes sense, because it is based on solid numbers. As for the rest of them... I'm not exactly sure how you got the numbers you did.

How I would look at it:
Effective Range- Range at which an average user can get 50% hits.
Accuracy- Average user accuracy.
Firepower- Maximum DPS against common, stock target (with reloads).
Ease of Use- No idea how to quantify this. Maybe average BR inversed?
Mobility- Top speed.
Durability- TTK against common counter.
Cost- Nanites.

A "10" would be the highest score out of the bunch, while the other would get the percentage remaining. For instance, say one weapon had 700 DPS and another had 350 DPS. So the first weapon would rank "10" and the second would rank "5".

With those parameters, let's see how Hornets stack up against Skyguards. All the stats are from stock, unupgraded vehicles and weapons.

ESF (Hornets)
Effective Range- 425m (me in the VR trying to hit a sitting Lightning)
Accuracy- 60.97%
Firepower- 816 DPS (versus rear of Lightning, assuming 150% damage modifier)
Ease of Use- 15.57
Mobility- 321km/h (with stock Afterburners)
Durability- 3.91 seconds (versus Skyguard)
Cost- 350 nanites

Lightning (Skyguard)
Effective Range- 550m (me in the VR trying to hit a sitting ESF, 100m tacked on to account for ground intercept)
Accuracy- 28.1%
Firepower- 610.91 DPS (versus ESF)
Ease of Use- 33.7
Mobility- 70km/h
Durability- 4 seconds (versus Hornets)
Cost- 350 nanites

And the adjusted scores.

ESF (Hornets)
Effective Range- 7.7
Accuracy- 10
Firepower- 10
Ease of Use- 4.6
Mobility- 10
Durability- 9.8
Cost- 0
Total- 52.1

Lightning (Skyguard)
Effective Range- 10
Accuracy- 4.6
Firepower- 7.5
Ease of Use- 10
Mobility- 2.2
Durability- 10
Cost- 0
Total- 44.3

It's of course debatable about how much each category is worth relative to the other, and if they were weighted differently it would change the totals.

But based on this comparison, the Skyguard is at a disadvantage. Areas to buff the Skyguard might include accuracy (tightening CoF or increasing velocity), firepower (increase DPS), and mobility (increase speed of Lightning). The last one is probably not as feasible to implement, so buffing Skyguard accuracy and firepower seem to be the routes to go.

That's a pretty reasonable way of looking at it. The numbers that you picked, however, are purely arbitrary. I agree with a lot of them to be sure. However, we all rank everything differently. Lightnings are able to change direction and muck up aim with their great braking and accel (better than ESFs). Hence, I'd give them a tad more mobility (top speed is not all there is to mobility. There is a reason people run mobility frames as opposed to racer frames on both ground and air vehicles.) I would also count the ease of use higher as flak is literally the easiest weapon to use in the game.

Chingles up there states his reasoning behind the values he gives which is good, but it too is an arbitrarily established metric. (And again only measured DPS to a tank's weak spot to skew the math. There really should be a range to provide accurate math. And damage ranges to include potential damage to aircraft in the interest of accuracy when it applies.)

Of course, any values I assign would also be arbitrary. But, I like the idea from which you are discussing them -- so if we all were able to agree on a metric it would make these discussions much more to the point and less biased.

That being said, I think you should include the effect of weapons as part of the list. Think of it as status effects. It is not included in the list -- you need 8 catagories. Also, since you are including the platform that the weapon is being employed from -- you should add a 9th catagory denoting visibility/targetability. For example; flashes would be a 10 as they are the smallest, hardest to target, see, and hit. Gals would be a 1 as they are the biggest, easiest to target, see and hit.

The issue players have on both sides, is in all reality can be summed up with the fact that they will not be honest with themselves. Lets look at both points of view and see why they are wrong:

Pilots, the people who fly or the crew that rides with them.

1. First thing is the ESF. Look at the amount of skill you need to fly one of these things effectively. If you are equipped with Rotary Nose gun, Tomcats or Coyotes, Dogfighting Frame, Flares/Fire Sup., ect. And you encounter a ground attack ESF with AI nosegun and rocket pods... you will lose if they know the reverse manuever and you don't.

The same thing can't be said of tanks. If you come across an expert tanker outfitted with HEAT and AI secondary, and you have AP and AV secondary.. chances are you've got a better than even chance. Sure the better tanker has a chance of beating you. But its not a forgone conclusion like it is with ESFs.

And you know what? The ESF pilots want to keep it that way. They want to keep being a special snowflake. They want the ESF to take extra skill over any other vehicle in the game. And you know what's worse? When you complain about them doing their thing to ground forces, they tell you to get in a ESF and come at them.

No other vehicle in the game requires hours of practice and possibly tutoring and watching videos, just to be somewhat competitive. I know what its like to be on both sides. I used to be a decent pilot, unfortunately its one of those things that if you don't use it, you lose it. And I'll get to why I lost it and possibly why other's have later in this post.

2. Second thing, and this applies to many vehicles in general. Is what use do they have? I'm going to keep this as a Air vs AA discussion by only talking about Air in this case, but it can apply to ground vehicles too. But anyway, back on topic. Let me ask this, what purpose does the ESF, Valkyrie, Liberator, and Galaxy have in the game?

Galaxy gives a transport and spawn capability. Very useful in organized and semi-organized play.

Valkyrie gives transport and limited spawn capability... its use is limited.. and chances are it can be replaced by a Gal. Its no coincidence that you hardly see complaints about the Valk.

Liberator and ESF can kill Sunderers. That's useful right? That's really where their usefulness ends though. They are good at it. But they aren't always used for it. I mean lets face it. When you're attacking a base, how many defenders pull Sunderers? They don't (they should, but they don't). So what the f- is the ESF and Lib doing in an attack?

They're cert farming. Again lets be honest.. what the heck is an ESF supposed to do when attacking a base. Obviously the defenders aren't pulling vehicles. So Dalton rounds, Shredder shells, ESF rockets, and so on are bombarding the spawn room. Spawn suppression I suppose is a fancier name. Its a cert farm.

Infantry don't like being farmed. But how useful is farming? Its gets you certs of course. But killing someone every 10 seconds seems a bit useless. And well again.. lets be honest. It is. No one's taken a base by using non-Galaxy air assets. Unless it was pre-lattice ESF ghost capping. But we know everyone's opinion on that.

For all the arguments pilots make. A good majority of them are just cert farming. They're being dishonest about it. But how often are ESFs and Libs used by organized players? Not often. Sometimes.. they can be useful as a show of force against a massive zerg. But that's pretty damn niche isn't it? And I see way too many Libs and ESFs to be seeing them perform niche roles.

3. Many pilots are solo players. This sort of ties into the cert farming thing. Because again.. lets be honest.. a solo player can't capture a base on their own. Definitely can't do it flying in the air. But why would they join a team? Last time I flew a successful ESF run I had 20 kills before dying (suicide due to rearming ammo... an accident behind friendly lines, not enemy action). I didn't do this really in any support. I was just dinking around and 'farming' some infantry. Did I help anyone capture.. no my platoon was 2 bases away. I was being useless. Couldn't really be useful since they were stomping a mudhole into the VS at the time. So theirs my excuse for that.

Course.. thats what we get when we talk to solo players is excuses. The difference is, I'm honest when I do it. Not saying there is anything wrong with soloing in the air. Play how you want. But at least be honest with others and especially yourself when you do it. You have the right to be useless in this game. You really do. I have no right, nor does anyone else to tell you to play differently. We really don't. So why hide it? When I do it, I don't. Its fine.

Anyway there's a good couple of points of pilots being dishonest with the community. Now its time to turn the tables and look the the so called 'victims'. The grounded infantry.

1. Lock-ons. Pilots hate them. Infantry love them. Try flying over any battle, ANY battle. Even one that hasn't seen air in over an hour. Chances are you will get at least one to two lockon messages per squad. That means out of 12 people 1-2 are packing a lockon. That's if no air has been over the battle in a minute. Do one successful pass and the number will double.

That means out of one platoon, you can expect 4-8 lockons. Thats even before the leaders tell their people to pull them. Once that happens.. good game. Where are infantry being dishonest? When they say they don't have the counter.. get the f- out of here... one platoon can kill two libs nearly instantly.

2. Flak. This is really the nasty part of flying. You don't get much of a warning. And with the tickrate of the server being derpy, you sometimes see chunks of your health fall off before you realize you need to go evasive. There's three different sources of flak. MAXes, Base Turrets, and Skyguards, well and sometimes Sundies but I'll lump it in with a Skyguard.

Base Turrets and Skyguards are not so bad to deal with. But there's one issue I do have with them. They have a large spread, high rate of fire, and a decent velocity. It makes them really easy to use. Because of how easy they are, they're really super effective in numbers. Exponentially so.

One Lightning can deal with 1 ESF, even able to kill it. It can deter two ESFs.
Two Lightnings can outright kill 2 ESFs or one Lib and deny the area to 4-5 ESFs
Three Lightnings will instagib anything not a Galaxy and deter up to a dozen aircraft
Anymore than that, and Air is useless in a 1km area. The only thing that can function is max altitude Gal drops.

Why are infantry being dishonest here? Because they believe their one Skyguard should be able to do the work of 3. They won't admit it, not even to themselves. But look at what they want AA to be able to do. They want to kill any one thing that comes in range.

3. MAXes, there is something about the MAX that gives it its own section. The ability to shoot from a spawn room or near it. Effectively nullifying any return fire. You will see this in any base attack involving air. MAXes in the spawn room firing from safety. Some bases allow for them to get some decent angles and deny air and be impervious at the same time. I don't need to explain how dishonest this is. Everyone knows its wrong. But they'll go to lengths to justify it.

4. Location. This is the final thing that infantry won't be honest about. How many control points are uncovered in the game. Meaning they are exposed to air. I think there is about half a dozen on each continent except for Hossin and Esamir. So about 15 or 18 control points in the entire game that are exposed to air. There might be more. But it isn't a large percentage considering there is over 200 bases in the game.

Point here is, infantry whether attacking or defending can be utterly immune to air by simply being at the objectives. Open ground is where most infantry are killed by air. This is where they are being farmed. But here's the ironic thing. Why are infantry in open ground? Because they are farming other infantry either on foot or mounted in a vehicle.

So the farmed are complaining about being farmed by farmers while they are farming farmers themselves? Sounds like to me they just don't want to pay the piper once in a while. Again... farming is a 'legit' playstyle. You can farm all you wish.. but lets not be a hypocrite and say pilots can't farm too.


So with that being said.. this is where the discussions all come from on both sides. They are being dishonest with each other and themselves. The real problem is how the vehicle play is affecting the game. It actually doesn't outside farming certs.

When I used to run with Recursion about a year and a half ago, and then some of my short stints with Hav0c in some of their public platoons. I never really used air in some of our organized pushes outside of the Galaxy. I mean we took to piloting ESFs for fun, and had some interesting skirmishes with.. Future Crew I think it was? But a skirmish wasn't serious base taking or alert winning, it was just for fun.

Reason I bring that up is you will not see Libs and ESFs used in organized play. Occasionally there's a base here or there where it might be useful. But for the most part, its a waste of time, certs, and takes a man off the ground where the real action is happening at an objective.

ESFs, Libs, and Valk's to some degree have no role. Medics have a Role. Engineers have a Role. Even Heavies have a role when it comes to capturing a base. ESFs and Libs really don't. Every base you go to, you have a reason for medics, heals and rezes. Every base you go to you have a use for engies, ammo and turrets. Heavies will tank damage (shield makes them stand out) and have high volumes of fire. And so on. But what about Libs and ESFs?

I said earlier that they are good at taking out Sundies. But that's defensive action more often than not. What if the enemy doesn't have a sundy to take out? They're floating around when they could ditch the damn things and help on the ground if needed.

I have ideas on how to make them better and actually serve a role. But I'm not going to repeat it here. Its not going to happen because the game is three years old and its development is complete minus a few patches and maintenance and a few extra baubles to buy in the depot.

But the reason I post this is so both sides can get an idea of what they are doing wrong. Maybe come to terms with it and understand the situation between the two, really doesn't matter and isn't that terrible as long as you are honest with the situation. Though I have to admit, that is wishful thinking. When someone is being dishonest with themselves, its hard to convince them otherwise. They'll believe themselves over a stranger. But some of us are truthseekers and will see this and maybe put 2 and 2 together and come to their own conclusions.

I can say this though. I have no agenda here. I know what is effective, I know what will win an alert. I know what will lose an alert. I know what matters. And I know that Air vs AA is not part of that equation and in reality is a useless debate when it comes to actually winning something.

Those who cert farm and are disrupted by AA or Air will disagree of course. And well they should. They're playstyle is affected by the issue of Air vs AA. But at the end of the day, they're going to have to realize that while its a legit playstyle (as in they're allowed to do it). Balance doesn't and shouldn't revolve around them.

honestly i feel like the launchers are probably the worst AA options available, walkers/bursters/skyguard all out class them by a mile.

that said they are all incredibly easy to use now frankly i find them too strong i fly a bit but i am no ace, but i am almost always running an AA sunderer.

the people who whine about AA being underpowered are the people who never use it or jump in to an uncerted ranger and get made when the can one clip a liberator.

the one complaining about libs are the one who refuse to ever man an AA gun and take the "let some one else do it approach"

people expect to jump in to these guns and land every shot with out ever putting in the time to learn the velocity/spread/lead distances

in short the people who complain about the AA/Air balance are just really really bad at using either