Eric Hartmann was a HO'er...

[Reaper90]

Then why do around 90+% of the people I merge with in the MA try to HO?

IMHO, because 90+ percent fall into one of 3 categories, or a combination thereof:

a) they have little to no skill or ability and need a quick hit to kill or wound
b) they think they'll be HOed and will come out on the "short end of the stick" if they don't shoot first
or c) they just don't care.

This is my point exactly! Sadly, a significant portion of the community would be happy with killing one guy and dying themselves, it seems.

I don't disagree, and it is sad.

[Soulyss]

I don't understand why anyone who's confident in their ability to engage their opponent with success would trade that chance for what is essentially a 50/50 proposition by allowing the other plane a gun solution as well.

[Saurdaukar]

I don't understand why anyone who's confident in their ability to engage their opponent with success would trade that chance for what is essentially a 50/50 proposition by allowing the other plane a gun solution as well.

Exactly.

If I am going to spend 5-10 minutes getting to a fight, why would I let the outcome of my time investment be decided by chance.  I might as well go play online blackjack.

[shiv]

How bout this?  Carrying a lot of speed a Corsair is dead 6 and 2K back of a Spit5.  Spit5 turns left, and chops throttle to swing his nose back on the Corsair.  Corsair fires at 600  as the Spit's nose is swinging back around but before the Spit can get get guns on him.  Then the Corsair goes up to avoid the HO from the Spit5.

I see variations of this from time to time, substituting a Zeke, FM2, etc for the Spit5.  And every once in a while the other pilot will claim to have been HOed.  I think not, because if the other plane had gotten his nose around earlier  - outside of gun range that is- I would be dodging, not shooting as we closed.  But since the nose was still turning inside guns range and the other pilot doesn't have a solution yet, I'm firing.

I may just be a HO-er though.

[The Fugitive]

The fact that you think "honor" refers to a preferred style of AH2 play speaks volumes about your lack of it.

What the heck are you talking about? I never said anything about ""honor" refers to a preferred style of AH2" I did mention that having people "with honor or class" in the game would be nice but it isn't going to happen. Having people with honor and class would tend to cut back on the garbage you see on 200, as well as how people play the game... kinda like honest people don't "bend the rules".

You also don't know a thing about duels, or jousting. You're just spewing ignorance, but what else is new?

What am I mistaken about in duels and jousts?

A duel was most often set up to solve a dispute of "honor". In my mind I was thinking of pistols so take 10 paces "turn and fire! one with the luckiest aim wins" (luckiest because the black powder guns most often used were notoriously in accurate.)

And Jousts where two "knights" on horseback running full speed head on, trying to unhorse his opponent.

So where did I have this info wrong? Maybe you need to improve on your reading skills.

[LLogann]

Well K/D isn't necessarily a reflection of skill and I'm not claiming to be particularly skilled myself. No, but I did sir.  <S>

I don't know what your K/D is as I don't know what your CPID is.  I don't know what a CPID is....... (K/D-4.0)


Ho'ing only bothers me now and then. Usually when I'm 1v1 and the guy hits me.  I actually agree with you wholeheartedly... In a 1v1, ho's should be seen far less, and most player's should agree... Unless I'm already pw'd, leaking bad, out of gas, I'll do everything I can to stay clear of even coming near a head-on merge.

With that said........ SA..... It's a 12 vs 5, Bish being 5.....  t1 is a level 12 head-on, t2 is high 3, t3 is 3k back low 6...........     t1 is getting ho'd heck yeah because I'm not even paying attention to him.  t2 is all in my view.  Gotta look back forward and fast, look away, look back, 1k.........800....... Open fire as I look away towards t2 and pull up and right.

Sure that is an extreme example that just about every last one of you will say is clearly a ho situation.  But it validates the idea that a ho needs to happen from time to time. 

And I just thought of this....... Base Cap.........  How many people complain about getting ho'd on 200 while they are over an enemy base? 

[rod367th]

Whoever said it wasn't done in real life, didn't have a clue.

That being said, using it as an excuse for doing it in a cartoon game doesn't work either, as we don't risk dying.  We have nothing to lose by actually engaging in air combat.  No country will be destroyed, no civillians killed etc.

The second we only get one life and we're done playing AH afterwards forever, then you can use real life HO'ing as your justification.

Til then, it doesn't work for me





complaining about a ho in this game is the biggest joke in game. Just Cause you don't want to ho and is your way to play. doesn't mean others less of a person or less of a player. Because he or she decided to ho. 200 and all channel would be cleaner and polite if HTC mutes players text or vox for saying or typeing HO.

 Everyone pays same amount to play and is entitle to play thier way without some idiot complaining they ho them. If you get ho'ed You were at fault 99% of time. not person your complaing about. Even if you get ho'ed while on enemy's 6. should salute guy for saving countryman.

 75% don;'t even know dif between a Real nose to nose Joust and snap shots or lead shots. and Ho Was taught in manuals of USnavy and army airforce. not just a few pilots. even chuck yeager lost a ho with a 190.

 So if some kid or adult wants to HO and you fly nose to nose with him even for a second and give him a chance to HO you shoul;d complain about your bad habits not on how he wants to play the GAME.

 Seeing guys complain about ho on 200 or all channel I know 99% its guy complainings fault for getting ho'ed not the guy winning the joust. Don't want to Joust don't point nose at enemy's nose.


unless your paying said players account for him. let him play his way and say Salute  good shot wtg and continue.



Just like when i play poker i know the guy complainin gabout a guy being a donkey or river rat is the A$% hole not the so called donkey. You never want a donkey to leave the game. or here in  ace's high If guys first move is a HO and you can't beat him or lose to A Ho your the one that needs lessons not him.

[JunkyII]

If you are arguing that HOs are ok......your wrong....

[WMLute]

Just thought of Dicta Boelcke... sections 2 and especially 6 
Many might call Boelcke "HOer" as well...

How does either of these apply to a head on attack?????

2: Allways carry through an attack when you started it.

6: If your opponent dives on you, do not try to evade his onslaught but fly to meet him.

#2 is just stating it is better to stay and fight than it is to break off and give your opponent your six.  Sticking with the fight and hoping the guy you are fighting screws up is much better than giving up your six and surrendering all advantage to your opponent.

#6 has to do w/ noobs having a tendency to turn and run when they see an opponent, especially one diving on them.  You have more options if you turn to face the nme than if you run and give up your six (see #2 above).  It is about overcoming the desire to run and face your attacker but it does NOT say you should go nose on guns blazing.  (which, as I allready have shown, is a poor move and one that should only be used in limited situations or complete desperation)

There is nothing in the Dicta Boelcke that inferrs one should HO the nme.  I am agast you would even suggest that it does.

[BlauK]

WMLute,
I did not say Boelcke would encourage anyone to go HO, I said many might interpret it that way. That is because HO seems to mean so many differetn things

Still those 2 rules can often/sometimes lead to possible HO situations, can't they? The first to attack follows no 2 and the one being attacked follows no 6.

I personally dont follow no 2 to the letter. I often fake attacks and break the attack if the situation does not seem favorable, but there is a certain point, beyond which no 2 should be followed, even if it becomes a HO. By trying to evade I have often lost in such situation.

More often I follow no 6. That may cause an HO and it leaves the decision to the attackers hands.

I suppose many parts of Dicta Boelcke can also be interpreted in various ways... as more general or as exact tactical moves. Is "attack" an engagement or a pass? "Turning into the enemy" is not same as going nose on with him, but only means what... hanging around instead of runing?

[BnZs]

A duel was most often set up to solve a dispute of "honor". In my mind I was thinking of pistols so take 10 paces "turn and fire! one with the luckiest aim wins" (luckiest because the black powder guns most often used were notoriously in accurate.)

If by "notoriously inaccurate" you mean capable of hitting a dinner-plate sized target at 25 yards every time, then you are correct. Not up to today's handgun standards, but still a lethal weapon. Some men were far more feared as duelists than others. Not luck.

[LLogann]

"Head-on attack, however, exposed one directly to the enemy's guns. "   Actually he does make many mentions concerning the reasoning behind head-on's but also takes the time to point out the danger in it.

There is nothing in the Dicta Boelcke that inferrs one should HO the nme.  I am agast you would even suggest that it does.

[WMLute]

(whew)

Ya' had me worried there for a min BlauK.

<Salute>

"Head-on attack, however, exposed one directly to the enemy's guns. "   Actually he does make many mentions concerning the reasoning behind head-on's but also takes the time to point out the danger in it.

Finish the quote.

Head-on attacks or head-to-tail attacks required little or no calculated deflection in aim. Head-on attack, however, exposed one directly to the enemy's guns. Far safer and more effective to have one's target and bullet stream all traveling in more or less the same direction. This required little or no 'leading,' and exposed the target to a greater concentration of fire.

He is saying that while a head-on attack was easy to aim, it put you infront of the nme guns and was not "safe" and you should instead attack from behind.

Which for me is the MAIN reason a HO is a horrible idea.  Why would anybody put themself infront of the bad guys guns on purpose?  It just isn't safe (or smart, or put your plane in good position for the rest of the fight).

[LLogann]

And yet still.........  You haven't mentioned Rule 5.......... That's why you still have agast.........

Finish the quote.

He is saying that while a head-on attack was easy to aim, it put you infront of the nme guns and was not "safe" and you should instead attack from behind.



(LLogann I want to take this time to say that I respect you and your flying with the highest regard!!!)

At the same time, you are trying to cloud the actual words said in the dicta.   

Turn and run, or ho?  Answer that!!! 


And thanks for the compliment Lute!!!   

[Wreked]

Anecdotal references of pilots I've seen over the years have also indicated that; besides the guns issue; there was a great fear about collisions to the point that they even discussed it amongst themselves and concluded the disadvantages of HO's far out wieghed any perceived advantage. They flew so as to not allowing themselves to be put in that situation.

Once again the feeling from them I got was that if you are in a HO situation it is of your doing.

....takes 2 ta HO eh!