Unofficial Trainers - Read This Please

[DoNKeY]

Did you read my earlier post up the thread a bit?

They start off 50/50 in importance, but the closer you get to stallfighting the more important angles become because the angle you are at when you both go E bankrupt is "cast in stone". Only a flagrant mistake can change it from that point on...If you run out of E while you are in a bad position you're going to have a really hard time making that angle up stallfighting. He's going to have to make a huge mistake or a lot of little ones. Conversely, if when you run out of E you're angle is good and you're just a tug away from a lead shot, you're going to pop his arse the first second he falls off the edge.

I'll have to look for it, I don't have much time right now, and I'd like to respond so as to give you time to think about your reply...

The closer you get to stall fighting, the more important E fighting actually becomes, or else, as you said, the two duelers would fly around endlessly trying in vain to gain angles.  The more E you manage (and in most cases save up), the more options you have over your opponent, and as he approaches having just enough E to stall fight/ keep from pancaking, the bigger this advantage that you hold becomes.

donkey

[Murdr]

   I just said that!

 

[DoNKeY]

  I just said that!

 

My bad, I didn't see you post it while I was thinking of my response.

[Zazen13]

I'll have to look for it, I don't have much time right now, and I'd like to respond so as to give you time to think about your reply...

The closer you get to stall fighting, the more important E fighting actually becomes, or else, as you said, the two duelers would fly around endlessly trying in vain to gain angles.  The more E you manage (and in most cases save up), the more options you have over your opponent, and as he approaches having just enough E to stall fight/ keep from pancaking, the bigger this advantage that you hold becomes.

donkey

Ahh, I see where we are misunderstanding one another. I am simply extrapolating the Co-E/Co-Alt initial relative E state all the way down to the point of the stallfight for the purpose of illustration. Only by keeping that a constant can you really compare. The assumption is the pilots are evenly matched therefore none is able to obtain a substantial energy advantage on the other so they reach the E bankrupt state together. Once there the effort of one to "get off" the angle and create some E results in the other doing the same or gaining positional angular advantage while the other tries to create E relative to the him.

But, I see where you are coming from. If two pilots duel and there is a significant skill disparity or one blows the merge, then definitely once the other uses the skill/merge advantage to change the engagement at it's core from Co-E/Co-Alt to some other state of relative E disparity, maintaining and/or not allowing the underdog the chance to negate that advantage would be very important. More important than angles because anytime you please you could use that excess relative E to create an angle almost at will. That's why I used the term relative E states in my initial posts, so long as the relative E differential net sum is zero and neither can manipulate it otherwise angles are the equal or greater consideration especially so as E drops in unison and option/opportunities to create it unilaterally decline proportionately.

[DoNKeY]

Ahh, I see where we are misunderstanding one another. I am simply extrapolating the Co-E/Co-Alt initial relative E state all the way down to the point of the stallfight for the purpose of illustration. Only by keeping that a constant can you really compare. The assumption is the pilots are evenly matched therefore none is able to obtain a substantial energy advantage on the other so they reach the E bankrupt state together. Once there the effort of one to "get off" the angle and create some E results in the other doing the same or gaining positional angular advantage while the other tries to create E relative to the him.

So you're saying that the two pilots will go 'round and 'round in a bankrupt E state until one person goes over the edge and pancakes, because whatever pilot A does to gain an advantage in anyway, pilot B will match that?

[Rolex]

So you're saying that two politicians will go 'round and 'round in an intellectually and ethically bankrupt state until one person goes over the edge and pancakes, because whatever politician A does to gain an advantage in anyway, politician B will match that?

Fixed.

[Zazen13]

So you're saying that the two pilots will go 'round and 'round in a bankrupt E state until one person goes over the edge and pancakes, because whatever pilot A does to gain an advantage in anyway, pilot B will match that?

As in my 17 minute stallfight example yes, that can very well happen. If both, in an E bankrupt state, ride the edge perfectly in the exact same plane/load they will absolutely by definition remain in a stalemate indefinitely. From there only two things can break the stalemate. Either one plane "gets off the edge", meaning he tries to not ride it as hard either attempting to dredge up a bit of E or for a fear of pancaking then gives up angular advantage/lead for a shot to the one that is still riding it fully. Or, one of the pilots "loses the edge" stalls out and pancakes. 

[2bighorn]

Zazen, if you're in true stalemate then by definition your heading angle is either 180 or 0 and aspect angle of 90 degrees. At stall speed it would take more than a few turns to gain angles for a shot.

Practical example of E management in stall fight would be stinky lufbery. You could stick to max turn possible and hope you ride the edge better and catch up, or loosen up a bit, gain speed and right before being shot go into high yoyo, which other guy couldn't follow up.

There are more examples (think of rolling scissors).

In any case it comes down to the same choice Murdr described earlier. It's up to the pilot and situation (here comes SA) when he'd go for E or angles advantage. It is in no way speed dependent and not only it is possible to manage E at stall speeds, it is very important to do so.

It is nearly impossible to describe difference between E and angles fight with pure ACM terminology anyways, hence I really don't categorize them as such. It comes more down to how you approach that particular fight you're in, i.e. aggressiveness and resulting risk.

And as Murdr mentioned, good pilots will constantly adapt/change depending on how the fight is progressing. They're not "style dependant".

[Zazen13]

Zazen, if you're in true stalemate then by definition your heading angle is either 180 or 0 and aspect angle of 90 degrees. At stall speed it would take more than a few turns to gain angles for a shot.

Why? A stallfight stalemate could occur if I am just 1 degree shy of getting lead on someone for a shot. We could go 5 million turns, if neither make a mistake I will never "catch-up" the one degree I need to pop him...

[2bighorn]

Why? A stallfight stalemate could occur if I am just 1 degree shy of getting lead on someone for a shot. We could go 5 million turns, if neither make a mistake I will never "catch-up" the one degree I need to pop him...

If you're only 1 degree shy, you have significant angles advantage and even if E states are the same, you have many options on how to utilize that angles advantage and/or convert some into E advantage.

It is by no means a stalemate.

[Zazen13]

If you're only 1 degree shy, you have significant angles advantage and even if E states are the same, you have many options on how to utilize that angles advantage and/or convert some into E advantage.

It is by no means a stalemate.

Umm, ever hear the saying, "Miss by an inch, miss by a mile"? Wether you are 1 degree away from pulling lead or 180 degrees, the result is the same. The only difference is catching up 1 degree only requires he make a tiny mistake, catching up 180 degrees requires he make a proportionately larger mistake or a succession of smaller ones that add up.

[mechanic]

In theory i agree with that zazen, but in practice the situation is close to impossible. There is no way that two pilots can continue to fly exactly the same for 5 million turns thus creating your stalemate, it just will not happen. It would be unlikely that two pilots, even of equal skill level, could manage to replicate each others moves precisely beyond 5 turns.

[Zazen13]

In theory i agree with that zazen, but in practice the situation is close to impossible. There is no way that two pilots can continue to fly exactly the same for 5 million turns thus creating your stalemate, it just will not happen. It would be unlikely that two pilots, even of equal skill level, could manage to replicate each others moves precisely beyond 5 turns.

I did it for 17 minutes once, as I described earlier. I've had it happen many times for over 5 minutes. I never thought to count the number of complete 360 revolutions we had in the 17 minute one, but it had to be 75 or more I would guess...Part of the reason I pancaked was my arm was sore as hell...

[2bighorn]

Umm, ever hear the saying, "Miss by an inch, miss by a mile"? Wether you are 1 degree away from pulling lead or 180 degrees, the result is the same. The only difference is catching up 1 degree only requires he make a tiny mistake, catching up 180 degrees requires he make a proportionately larger mistake or a succession of smaller ones that add up.

Switch from 2D to 3D. Making mistakes (or not) is only one part of equation. E management which you claim is not needed is part of it as well. So are ACM and SA, gunnery, stick control smoothness, creativity, aggressiveness and so on.

It's a skill set if you want to call it that way and applies to all fights in all arenas. How much of each and relation among them varies though.

As Batfink says there are not two AH pilots to be completely matched in all categories. Therefore, most of the times one always wins.

[Zazen13]

Switch from 2D to 3D.

We're talking stallfights on the deck, those are almost 100% in the horizontal.