Karnak, you consistantly ignore the fact that if a plane dies to a non AA vehicle, THEN ITS HIS FAULT. He was flying stupid, and died because he f****d up. If you make low-angle strafing runs AT THE FRONT OF A TANK, then its your own fault when a 75mm round come crashing through your cannopy.
Fact is that aircraft should only die to tanks IF THEY ARE BEING DUMB, or if they have neglected base defense to the point that they are coming under shell fire on take off or laning.
In either case, it is directly the aircraft's fault that he is coming under shell fire. Either he made an incredibly poor tactical choice, or he was slow to respond to warning.
However, the GV can do EVERYTHING perfect, and still die to bombs. In many cases, its entirely out of the GV's hands if he lives, or dies to that A-20. He can only directly affect his chances by possitioning himself in a possition that is difficult to bomb (eg, in the corner formed by 2 cliffs), an if that doesn't work, he has to pray that the A-20 is a poor aim.
This means that the GV has to chances to LIVE, only one of which is under his control, compared to the aircraft, which has only to chances to DIE, both of which are under his control.
No matter how you try and twist it, there is simply no way to justify penalizing the GV's, when aircraft alreay have a larger impact on them, than they do on GV's.
And challenge brings up an exellent point: given how things work in AH, its only natural that GV's kill more GV's than aircraft do. Just as aircraft kill more aircraft than GV's do.
But still, you say wirblewinds are a problem, despite the fact that don't count for even close to the majority of aircraft kills. And despite the fact that aircraft kill a proportional number of GV's, you say that what I'm really after is invulnerability to bombs when I say bombdweebs are a problem.
A double standard there, Mr. Karnak? Where has your integrity gone, you used to be so much fun to debate with.
