Head-On's and Vulching

[discod]

This is a real question.  I really want to know the answer or what you think.

I hear a lot of guys taking crap for getting into a Head-On fight or for Vulching and I don't understand why.

The reason I am confused is because I have read several books, and I have a whole series of WWII fighter plane video tapes and none of them ever refer to Hoead-on's or Vulching as "dishonorable" or "wussy" or anything else bad.

THE HEAD-ON FIGHT
I have several videos of actual fighter pilot training movies used during WWII.  And YES the instructors tell the trainees to avoid the HO whenever possible but not because it's "dishonorable" or "un-gentlemanly" but because its the most "DANGEROUS" method of attack.  Duh.  Why would anyone who's life is actually on the line fly directly at 30mm canon fire when they have the option of getting behind, below, on top, or to the side where the are NO GUNS?

My analysis is that since we play a GAME and no-ones life is in actual danger, the HO is more common because even though it is the most dangerous attack, who cares if you die cause you'll re-gen in a few seconds.

But is seems ironic to me that shooting an opponent down from an angle where they have no  defense (such as in the back) is acceptable but shooting them down in an HO where they actually can fight back is not acceptable.  PLEASE EXPALIN WHY.

THE VULCH

I have hours of actual gun film from WWII and the Vulch seemes to be one fo the most common attacks.  In fact the P51 and P47 are credited for destroying thousands of planes on airfields as they were trying to lift off or even before they had a chance.

Now the ironic thing is that in these films the pilots were considered to be some of the bravest pilots in the war becasue of the danger from Ack Ack fire from the ground.  And after watching the films it is obvious that it was a freaking gutsy thing to do.

But in our game it is considered "Wussy", "lame", "cheap" etc.

Now I'm keeping an open mind on the issues cause I realize that a GAME is much different than historical events.  But the object of both seems to be the same "Destroy the enemy".  

So could someone please explain how those things have become "unacceptable" in the gameworld?  Is it because we are score based?

[RAM]

HO is sometimes a smart move.

HO is most of the times a stupid move.

Some people don't like to see stupid moves, even when 80% of the times give them the fight.

I was in latest group...but well I dont mind any more  

------------------
Ram, out
Erg/JG26 homepage


You think you know the REAL RAM?

 

[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 09-26-2000).]

[-duma-]

I found it extremely funny in WarBirds H2H when one guy insisted on flying head-on with me in a 3 round fight.

He was flying a KI-43.

I was flying a Hurri IIC.

Even Typhoon vs A6M head on is a more even match  

[Yellojkt]

I got nothing against either on of them. I'll vulch anyone thats on my buds six or someone thats flying out there checcking the mountains out  As for HO I rather have a 50% chance against an energy fighter than 0% chance trying to evade him in Corsair or something like it. Sometimes after the first pass if you make it, you can turn it into an offensive attack if your lucky.Just my opinion.

------------------
Yellojkt
-XO- Night Hawks

[miko2d]

 Discord,
 Since HO is just pointing the cannon at the enemy and hoping he dies first, it relies on blind luck and because of that gives advantage to the inexperienced pilot.
 It is much easier to HO then to outmaneuver him in ACM and your success rate against an experienced player is 30/70 in  vs. 1/99 in normal fight.
 The main points against HO: in real life a newby would run away rather then attacking at  30/70 odds unless he has no other choice.
 People who choose HO rather then a normal fight may get a chance to score a kill, but lose an opportunity to learn ACM.
 Since the absense of "Fear of Death" is a reality in AH, good players have to deal with that. You cannot always evade a HO, but it is definitely possible.
 I can see how irritating it be to lose a streak of 50 to a guy who can't land, but that is how it stands.

 Vulching - some people insist on taking off from a CAPed field to disrupt it's capture. That is stupid and irritating. The attackers had to fly for a while and fight to ensure air superiority. If a plane is lost or runs out of ammo, it would have to fly all over again. At the same time a defender can keep taking off every few seconds instead of flying from another field and arriving with altitude. At the same time they dare to accuse "vulchers" of their "cowardly" behavior!
 As you can see, absense of a "death penalty"  is a main factor here, same as a HO. Since you can't do anything about it in MA, you have to take out the Fighter Hangars to prevent that.
miko
 

[Lepton]

I'd agree that the combination of no real fear of death and the stable/effective long range gun platforms we fly make Head On attacks more common (and more successful) than in WWII. Regardless, they were a legit, if dangerous attack profile. The biggest problem that I see is the tendancy to take that shot rather than trying to actually outfly your opponent. I often see folks who have a clear advantage take an HO shot, which not only often blow their edge, but gives the opponent a shot as well. I also understand the frustration of having a much less skilled opponent blow you out of the sky even as you try to avoid the HO shot.

[Renfield]

Hey Discod,

There is a single, very important point to remember about an HO - Simple geometry - in an HO situation, *both* airplanes are HO-ing each other.

All this crap from a few vocal yokels about HO this and HO that ignores the point that they are just as guilty of an HO as the other guy.

Another point about HOs is that most simply aren't. If you are coming in off angle, it isn't an HO and only one will lay guns on the other.

On the other hand, HO situations are chancey as pointed out by a couple above.

But whatever you do, don't let the idiots who bleat about HOs get to you - if it was an HO, they are just as "guilty" (if you want to call it that) as the other guy and could have avoided the HO situation as much as the other guy. Instead, they take the HO shot and when they die, they then go on the offensive and complain.

Unfortunately it is that simple. The HO whiners are just being dorks. No more. No less.

[Renfield]

 

Originally posted by RAM:
HO is sometimes a smart move.

Like when I kicked your butt in the TOD???  

[LJK Raubvogel]

It always takes 2 to HO  

------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
Luftjägerkorps

[Ozark]

I miss the real RAM!  

[funked]

People don't like to lose.  When they lose in a humiliating way (shot in the face or shot on the runway), they squeal about it.

[LePaul]

Exactly right, Funked.

Hey, Ive been torn to pieces rolling down the runway.  It takes skill to get down the runway in between waves of incoming fighters.  But to those that get creamed a few times, some get all pissed off.  Nevermind its OK if they are the ones vulching another!

What I find amazing is games that are called FFAs/Free For Alls, yet as the game progresses, the whiney players complain and want rules against vulching, no bombers, etc etc.  So now, its Free For Some!

Usually such players on my games get the .Exit treatment and their seat is quickly filled  :-)

Paul

[LLv34_Snefens]

My opinion is, take any shot you can get if you want. Make up your own decision what is fair within game's rules.

Don't squeak about it if others don't.

[This message has been edited by LLv34_Snefens (edited 09-26-2000).]

[Vulcan]

Hmmm takes two to HO huh?

What about those HO-ers who will absolutely throw everything they have got into a HO shot.

I both love and hate HOers. I love them because they sometimes blow everything for that HO shot and then I can tear them apart from their 6. Then, being the warm hearted person I am - I like to openly abuse the failed-HOer I have just shot down on Channel 1.

I hate them because sometimes they give up all E speed whatever and spray like crazy and land a lucky HO shot.

It doesn't necessarily take two to HO. What pisses me off is when I do try to avoid the HO and the other guy sacrifices all to get it. What impresses me is when I see an enemy not take the HO, then I know I'm in for a REAL fight.

[Karnak]

I HATE people who accuse others of HOs just because the fatal shot came from 1, 2, 10, 11 or 12 o'clock.

I've been in dogfights and after hauling her around I obtained a snap shot on the other guy.  I hit, he goes down and promptly replies with "Nice HO dweeb".

That is NOT a HO.

A HO is when you come in straight, no significant turns are done and try to swat him and the egress.

Furthermore, if you are BnZing an A6M5b in your P-51, he has every right to HO you because if he doesn't he has NO chance of survival.  Its just a matter of time.

I think that the HO accusers are a MUCH bigger blight that the HO'ers themselves.

Sisu
-Karnak