Dont think plane....think ACM

[Anaxogoras]

chess implies an even start and equal resources while air combat almost never is even or equal in nature

No, that is a false.  White starts with an edge.  All of opening theory in chess is about White trying to make something of the first move while Black tries to gain parity or turn the tables.  It is a game of imbalances and trade-offs, and in that way is even more comparable to ACM than most think.

[humble]

1) while chess is uneven in the sense that white plays for the win and black the draw. In a match sides alternate so the presumption of overall equality is there (although admittedly not 100%)

2) While you'll decide your options you cant control the environment around you. So yes you control your plane choice, starting position and where you fly based on the information available to you. You can use that do generate an advantage or multiple advantages (to some degree). But players on different sides do not have equal variables to manipulate. From ENY to numbers to relative skill and play style of countrymen on at a given time. To a large degree choice of plane determines the style of play or at least the potential success for a variety of styles. In effect the object is to create an uneven playing field not a level one.

[Steve]

1 But players on different sides do not have equal variables

The field is even in that you can  choose what side to fly for.

[PFactorDave]

I think you're all pushing the semantics a little more then needed at this point.  I think we get the general idea.  Back on point now!

[Kazaa]

Don't think plane...think ACM.

1) ACM over plane type, even an A-20 can "get around" well enough to T&B

...

[mechanic]

Enemy mistakes.  Most of us are too much in the habit of attributing successes to our own skill instead of the shortcomings of the enemy.

a good fighter always plans on the shortcomings of the enemy

[Prayerz]

When comparing this game to chess and to say balance is everyone is equal as to starting in the tower, might be correct then and there if everyone were to up at the same time. When one plane has a headstart, IE they up at different times, thats like giving white 4 moves before black can make 1.

[PFactorDave]

It's unfortunate that this thread has degenerated into an arguement over an analogy, rather than a discussion of the original topic.  Welcome to the internet, I guess.

[Murdr]

For what it's worth.  I had a euro guy come in the TA one time who just wanted to duel with a trainer for a bit.  He was very good on the fundamentals.  He did all the right things.  He was getting perplexed though because I still kept getting solid first shots on him.  I explained that while maneuver for maneuver, he was doing the right things, he was also very agressive at trying to take the most direct route get his guns on me.  What I was doing was positioning myself in a way where if he tried to get guns on me in one maneuver, he would have a flight path overshoot, and then I would exploit it. 

He came up with the chess analogy.  As he put it, he was only thinking about the next move, where I was thinking two or three or four moves ahead.  Which was in essence, spot on for the reason I was gaining the advantage.

[Masherbrum]

No, you're missing the point.  Let me put in another way: 1vs1, it's frequently easier to kill an antique with another antique than with a hotrod.  It's more of a challenge to kill a Spit9 with a 190D9 1vs1 than viceversa.  Even more strange, it's easier to kill a Spixteen with a 109F-4 than with a 190D-9.

Stop this "ACM conquers all" nonesense.  What sort of acm does a 190D-9 use to beat a Spit9 in a 1vs1 fight, short of the Spit9 pilot making a big mistake?  You don't want to talk about aircraft because talking about aircraft forces specifics, and when we get to specifics your position doesn't hold up.  Using ACM to get a win out of a bad situation always supposes that the opponent screws up.  It's great when it happens, but foolish to rely on it.

I've turn fought 2 La7's while scraping my Ta-152 wings on the water.   Not just a single turn either.   I shot both down while witnesses were in disbelief.   

Also, I enjoy the Ki-61 immensely.   I'll turnfight ANY ride in the planeset and make anyone's life hell while in it.

"It's the Indian, not the Arrow."   10 times out of 10.   

[Shane]

"It's the Indian, not the Arrow."   10 times out of 10.   

pretty much...  "cartoon planes don't kill cartoon pilots.  cartoon pilots kill cartoon pilots."


our planes are just tools, meant to be used, abused and confused. <bite me i had to add something to make it meteric!!>

Here are the raw materials:  air frame, guns, ammo, fuel, ord (if any), map.  It's up to the architects of the air to create a masterpeice - or more commonly, something only the most loving of mothers would post on the fridge.

[Kazaa]

It's not just the pilot and it's not just the plane, it's both. 

[Anaxogoras]

It's not just the pilot and it's not just the plane, it's both. 

I hate to get into one of these arguments, but here I am.  I agree with the above statement.  If aircraft type didn't matter there would be no motivation to upgrade, improve, and replace aircraft with higher performance models.  This is such an easy reductio ad absurdum [cheap shot] only the biggest narcissists refuse to admit it [/cheap shot].

[Yenny]

^_^ if plane doesnt matter like some claimed! I'm still waiting to see someone out turn my La-7 in their D9 like they claimed!

[humble]

^_^ if plane doesnt matter like some claimed! I'm still waiting to see someone out turn my La-7 in their D9 like they claimed!

ACM does not always equal "out turn". The la-7 is a very formidable plane and is close to double superior to the 190D at lower alts. Its a fairly even matchup on the deck with the 190D having a slight edge at middle level alts. Given equal pilots the 190D should win or draw on fights starting above the deck but its an interesting matchup.