Hoing defined ?

[The Fugitive]

I re utter my point.

So all the generals - from General Robins Olds, a fighter pilot ace in 2 or more wars is a lame pilot.

That's my opinion that people are crying. And cannot handle the head on dogfight.

Learn from it and move on.

Crying about it because you get shot down does you no good in dealing with the dogfight.

You will still be the lame duck getting shot down again to cry some more and post another (HO) head on post.

Bottom line LEARN AND MOVE ON.

<S> GGHOST

What an idiot..... AGAIN !!! you can NOT compare WWII with a game !  Gen Olds and many other did what they had to do as their duty. If its your life or the other guys you take what ever shot you get. However....and I'll type this slow... This is a game, the point being is to play, and playing means fighting. It is lame game play to HO due to the FACT its a skilless shot.


Boner says it well....

Most of the time I will try to steer clear of firing on the merge, only to receive a snoot full myself.(deflection shot )

But every now and then I will get some one who actually wants to fight and we merge multiple times without firing a fq shot.

The best fights I've had are when both of us are jockying for the 6 o'clock shot.

The Ho shot or FQ shot on the merge are performed by guys who want the kill, not the fight.

I'm finding it harder and harder not to pull the trigger on the merge.

And whether they were a common tactic in WW2 or not, they are extremely prevelent in this game, and I guess its something that I have to live with. Like it or not.

[GGhost]

I am going to take the high road and not call you any name. Your actions in your name calling says it all.  .... Fugitive

Grow up!

<S> GGHOST

[mtnman]

When it comes to aerial combat, there are two very basic ideas that form the foundation for every other aspect.

Shoot the other guy, and don't get shot yourself.  

The reason to avoid the HO isn't because it's a cheap shot- you should avoid it because it's dangerous, and it breaks one of the two basic rules (don't get shot).

Unless you're getting ganged, or have reached a point of not having enough E to manuever, avoiding HO's isn't tough at all.  I'd class it as a simple, basic, beginner-level exercise.  Chop throttle to slow down and land, pull out of your dives early enough to avoid augering, and try not to let the other guy shoot you.  

If you give the other guy a shot-solution, you should expect him to fire.  For him to not fire would cheapen the fight.  If my merge is so poor as to offer a "beginner" an opportunity to end the fight at it's very beginning, how "advanced" are my skills?

Give me a good reason why a 12 O'clock shot isn't exactly as legitimate as a 6 O'clock shot, or a 10 O'clock shot, or a 3 O'clock-high shot.

You're not supposed to let the other guy shoot you!  No matter what!  It doesn't matter if he's above you, below you, next to you, behind you, in front of you, in a blue plane, or a red plane, wearing funny goggles, drinking beer, or whatever!  You're not supposed to let him shoot you!  If you're getting shot, you're not doing what you're supposed to do!

[mtnman]

What an idiot..... AGAIN !!! you can NOT compare WWII with a game !  Gen Olds and many other did what they had to do as their duty. If its your life or the other guys you take what ever shot you get. However....and I'll type this slow... This is a game, the point being is to play, and playing means fighting. It is lame game play to HO due to the FACT its a skilless shot.


Boner says it well....

The very fact that it is a game, is another reason why the HO is a valid tactic.  If I play a game of chess with you, and decide to not put you're king in check-mate at my first opportunity, the game is a lie.  What if I pass a legitimate game-ending move, and you end up beating me?  Is your "win" valid?  No!  You only won because I "allowed" you to continue playing.  What's the point of allowing the game to drag on when one opponent blew it already?

Same for the HO...

[mtnman]

They've been getting more accurate since I started playing. What you say about them missing used to be true for me most of the time too. The *practiced* HOer is now a fact in AHII.

(Quote was in reference to HO shots being easy to avoid)...

To paraphrase the way this sounds to me-

The beginner pilots used to be pretty easy for us experienced pilots to dodge and kill.  But now, the beginners are getting better, and us more-advanced players are having a rough time of it.  Those dirty buggers keep killing us before we even get a chance to open our cans of Whup-Azz!

It isn't fair!  It isn't a valid tactic!  How can I demonstrate my aerial prowess if he won't even let me start?

If the beginner pilots won't let the advanced pilots into a position where the beginner has little or no chance of winning something is wrong! 

They shouldn't be allowed to shoot us in the face before we get a chance to shoot them in the back!

----------------

If you require the other guy to not shoot you when you give him an opportunity to do so, in order for you to get an opportunity to shoot him, your tactics are flawed at a very basic level...

And, if you expect him to pass the shot on you (the HO), is it fair for him to expect that you'll pass the the shot on him (the 6-O'clock)?

[StokesAk]

It would be nice if the noobs didnt get merging and Hoing confused.

"You came for the HO so i shot"

"Its called a merge"

[waystin2]

If you require the other guy to not shoot you when you give him an opportunity to do so, in order for you to get an opportunity to shoot him, you're tactics are flawed at a very basic level...

Hello Mtnman,

This is signature line material Sir.

<Salute>

[Rich46yo]

Theres seems to be an increase in the suicidal HOs in the game. In actual war Pilots HO'd but they surely cared if they were shot down and/or killed.

I see this flying IL-2s. Like today a spit came in with all kinds of Alt on me yet settled for an HO, rammed the IL-2 as well "very common". While they often will inflict a lot of damage to the IL-2 its very unlikely they will survive the encounter too. Most of the time they will ram my IL-2 as well.

The real question is "why"? Why would you do that when flying something like a Spit that is capable of dancing around an IL-2 and slaughtering it with even medium skill? Thats what gets me about a lot of these players who live by the HO. They dont try and develop skills that gives them other options. Its almost like they are just out to ruin everyones elses day without playing to survive their own selves. In fighters you see this a lot when players give away all their E and Alt. just to come level with you and head right in. Why would you do that?

[BnZs]

The accuracy I'm speaking of is not a thing associated with true *beginners*.

The specific tactic I'm talking is basically HOing as soon as it becomes clear the opponent will *not* be going for a HO shot. If the HOee always returned the favor to the HOer, there would be almost 0 chance of anyone having a working airplane at the end of it, and who got the kill would always be a coin toss. The fights would be very short indeed...THAT is the reason more than any other not to go for a HO in AHII if any other options are open, and why people can't understand this is beyond me.

However, a certain % takes advantage of the % who understand this and who would rather not go nose-on for M.A.D destruction in situations where it is conceivably possible, and takes cheapshots.

The idea that there is any practical way to merge where an opponent bound and detirmined to HO absolutely can *not* conceivably take an aimed shot is something of a myth. Yes, the largest % are more likely to screw up and put themselves in an awkward position rather than do any damage, but hell, most of the time that is true of most making a pass at your 6 as well.

Something I will mention again, I believe the very effectiveness of the HO pass as a firing solution is somehow an artifact of simulation and not something true to life.

(Quote was in reference to HO shots being easy to avoid)...

To paraphrase the way this sounds to me-

The beginner pilots used to be pretty easy for us experienced pilots to dodge and kill.  But now, the beginners are getting better, and us more-advanced players are having a rough time of it.  Those dirty buggers keep killing us before we even get a chance to open our cans of Whup-Azz!

It isn't fair!  It isn't a valid tactic!  How can I demonstrate my aerial prowess if he won't even let me start?

If the beginner pilots won't let the advanced pilots into a position where the beginner has little or no chance of winning something is wrong! 

They shouldn't be allowed to shoot us in the face before we get a chance to shoot them in the back!

----------------

If you require the other guy to not shoot you when you give him an opportunity to do so, in order for you to get an opportunity to shoot him, you're tactics are flawed at a very basic level...

And, if you expect him to pass the shot on you (the HO), is it fair for him to expect that you'll pass the the shot on him (the 6-O'clock)?

[mtnman]

Something I will mention again, I believe the very effectiveness of the HO pass as a firing solution is somehow an artifact of simulation and not something true to life.

Hmm, I think you could be on to something there- 

In real life it's doubtful that anyone would merge so close nose-nose when there was a high likelyhood of getting shot and dying.  In a simulation, we're often more careless in our merge, and allow ourselves to get into the other guys sights because we think he "shouldn't", or "wouldn't dare" shoot us...

It may not be anything artificial in terms of modeling, accuracy, or lethality, but rather an artificial "attitude" that makes us think it's ok to merge in what would/could otherwise be seen as a suicidal manner.

[LLogann]

You guys still have this thread going........ WHOA


So what if somebody were to say that statistics from pilot records of the US Army Air Corp from WWII have more instances of ho's spoken on then dogfights?

Not that I'm saying that....... But I think I'd put some coin down on that bet.

[Murdr]

Head on Dogfights of World War II does happen and is part of being a true fighter pilot.

So this will happen in this game, since it happens to be a combat simulator game of WORLD WAR II.

You assume AH was ment to simulate WWII, it has never attempeted to do so in the main. Nore has it ever been the goal to do so.

There is a drastic diffence between simlating WWII Aircraft and a simulation of WWII.

HiTech

We make a game around WWII planes and vehicles. We do not try to simulate WWII. Simulation of WWII is one of   CT's goal's. Then things like ho's start to be used much more like they were in the war. Once there is a substatial penalty on death. And you can win with out shooting down the other guy. Then the choice of to HO or not becomes a very diffferent equation.

The "real WWII HO" argment breaks down as HT says because the facts of the situation are different.  A pilots goal was to complete his mission.  In the game, you do not get "graded" on completing mission objectives.  You get "graded" on damaging or destroying the enemy and their facilities.   If a pilots mission was to escort bombers, then their success did not depend on killing the enemy.  Only on preventing the enemy from killing the bombers.  In AH the measure of sucess dynamic is much different, as is the consequence for taking the risk of flying straight into the enemies guns.

But at the same time, it is a valid tactic...

Not sure what you mean by HO's being "turned on" in AH.  In general, I would say you're taking the wrong approach.  When you say, "I will only fire when I see the enmy start to shot, cuz I know I'm gonna die," that to me sounds like you always make the same approach to the merge - barreling straight into the guy hoping that he doesn't take the shot.  Once he fires, you decide to return fire, but by that time, you're at a big disadvantage.     You need to decide before then whether you'll be taking that shot or not.  That should be a tactical decision, not an ethical one.  You need to make a split second risk assessment and choose the tactic that best fits the situation.  If you always go for the HO or never go for the HO, you're using a sub-optimal strategy.

Generally, in a 1v1 you want the other guy to commit to the HO shot.  If he's going to push, you want to pull unless maybe he's a boxer wanting to trade blows with a puncher.  The idea is to bait him into a low % HO shot in order to gain angles and position on him.  Let him overcommit and set him up for the counter.  Going low on the merge is a great way to accomplish this because because he has to really bury his nose to get enough lead for a shot.  You pull a lead immelman there and if he also pulls an immelman after the shot, you'll already be in his hind quarter following the initial merge.

IRL I would say that HO's are more effective than in the game even though they probably result in a higher % of shootdowns in the game.

As to anecdotes about head-ons, just grab a book of WWII air combat anecdotes.  You won't have to look too hard.  An amusing anecdote regarding the tactic can be found in James Howard's "Roar of the Tiger". 

"The Fourth had been flying P-47 Thunderbolts since that spring, so Blakeslee came to us as a veteran who could speak with authority based on experience.  Don proved very durable.  By the end of the war, he had accumulated a thousand hours of combat flying, more than any other American fighter pilot.

"In Blakeslee's briefing that afternoon, he explained we had three tactics to use against the enemy: (1) shoot down the enemy plane (or be shot down), (2) make the enemy fighter break off an attack first, (3) if the enemy fighter fails to break off, continue on a collision course.

"We were stunned.  Did he mean we should deliberately ram the enemy head-on?

"Blakeslee hesitated for emphasis and then said, "We never turn away from a head-on attack.  If we do, the word will get back to Luftwaffe pilots that the Americans break first in a head-on pass.  They will then have a psychological advantage of knowing beforehand what we will do."

"A young pilot in the front row asked what would happen if the German pilot followed the same orders.  Blakeslee looked down at the young man with a contemptuous smile and said, "In that case you've earned your flight pay the hard way!"

People also seem to forget how with no collisions in AW, you would could head on in AW flying right threw the apponent with no worries of impact.


When a change was made to the randomly throwing out hits was the end of my FW flying days. Not because I liked to head on, but it took a very valid tatic away. In those days I would use a pure head on when ever I was at a disavantage. I.E. just finished a fight, slow on dec. and a spit is comming in. You can be sure I would take the head on in that case, because it was my only option if the guy wanted to fly right at me, and I had no speed to turn or manuver with him. But even more important than the pure head on was how it totaly removed the rope a dope. Against a resonable aponent ropes and using the vertical became almost inposible, because everone would just wait, and point there nose at you knowing there chances of being hit was very low, even thow they were stalled was required no lead to shoot them.

And create another frustration,  move the play advantge to the slow turn fighters.

 I rember very well the no head on code in AW, as a ropa doper in FW, and F4's it me very frustrated me greatly to have a guy supspended totaly still in mid air, and not be able to shoot him because he had his nose point some what towards me.

2nd the aim point between AW and AH are drasticly different.
3rd in AW you didn't have to worry about colliding with the other guy.

Finaly If you are just fairly new, and aw was the last thing you played, You still have realy bad habits about the merge that you need to adjust.

HiTech

There is one advantage against maneuvering against a plane going for a head-on shot that is present here but not in a real fight and that's lag.  I can't believe I'm the only one who gets warm fuzzies as I'm halfway through an immelman looking staight back and seeing a guy still firing his head-on shot.  He ends up losing a lot of angles at the merge by going for the shot.  It's kind of like Andrew Jackson dueling, take the other guy's wild shot and then calmly make him pay.



------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations

I really disagree with the justification of "Hey, they did it in WWII".  This isn't WWII.  Intentionally exposing yourself to the enemies guns, which is what a HO does, is inherently risky.  It "might" be the best tactic for a given scenario, but odds are that it is likely a poor choice.  I think Pyro's comment in bold sums that up pretty well.

At the same time.  I will not give free passes to someone trying to lead turn a merge poorly.  If they leave me an easily achievable shot, I will take it.  I consider it doing them a favor by letting them know they just messed up.  But I will not go out of my way to chase a shot on a well executed lead turn.  Actually I am probably too busy doing my own lead turn.

I will HO when the situation calls for it, but odds are I'll have a better option most of the time.

[WMLute]

The "real WWII HO" argment breaks down as HT says because the facts of the situation are different.  A pilots goal was to complete his mission.  In the game, you do not get "graded" on completing mission objectives.  You get "graded" on damaging or destroying the enemy and their facilities.   If a pilots mission was to escort bombers, then their success did not depend on killing the enemy.  Only on preventing the enemy from killing the bombers.  In AH the measure of sucess dynamic is much different, as is the consequence for taking the risk of flying straight into the enemies guns.

But at the same time, it is a valid tactic...

I really disagree with the justification of "Hey, they did it in WWII".  This isn't WWII.  Intentionally exposing yourself to the enemies guns, which is what a HO does, is inherently risky.  It "might" be the best tactic for a given scenario, but odds are that it is likely a poor choice.  I think Pyro's comment in bold sums that up pretty well.

At the same time.  I will not give free passes to someone trying to lead turn a merge poorly.  If they leave me an easily achievable shot, I will take it.  I consider it doing them a favor by letting them know they just messed up.  But I will not go out of my way to chase a shot on a well executed lead turn.  Actually I am probably too busy doing my own lead turn.

I will HO when the situation calls for it, but odds are I'll have a better option most of the time.

spot on.   

[BnZs]

Mntman

I was thinking more of the OODA loop. Consider the steps Is that speck an airplane? Is that airplane an enemy airplane? Should I fire? What is the relative heading? Aim... *BAM*

In iconless reality, I suspect two planes on a near-collision course would often go from being specks to passing each other in a twinkling  before fire, or accurate fire, could be delivered.

Hmm, I think you could be on to something there- 

In real life it's doubtful that anyone would merge so close nose-nose when there was a high likelyhood of getting shot and dying.  In a simulation, we're often more careless in our merge, and allow ourselves to get into the other guys sights because we think he "shouldn't", or "wouldn't dare" shoot us...

It may not be anything artificial in terms of modeling, accuracy, or lethality, but rather an artificial "attitude" that makes us think it's ok to merge in what would/could otherwise be seen as a suicidal manner.

[Chalenge]

If the act of HO demonstrates lack of skill then why is it so many people cant do it? 

I want to be clear too. If you turn HO and fire at me I will let it slide maybe once but the second time you do it Im going to shoot every time I have a shot. I know what you mean about skill though because I see one Niki in particular attack in HO only while at the same time using his twisty stick to spray in as large a pattern as possible (shotgun style).