Tired of being HO'd

[humble]

I've done it, it works. leave it at that. no need for big details guys. and I'm not digging myself in a hole, quit posting your dumb comments at me Fugitive, your losing your reputation, at least with me    .

I'm a bit curious here Buck. I've played for 15+ years and like Lute I'm still learning. While the "moves" you outline can certainly defeat a HO attempt they have significant apparent drawbacks in that the eliminate (or seem to at least) your ability to exploit potential advantages. The folks your arguing with are generally recognized as being in the collective top tier both as pilots and as students of the game. It would appear you've got a chance to expand your horizons instead of defending tactics that exchange one potential disadvantage for another. "It works" is a relative term, some things work better then others do. There is a point where sound tactics isn't quite enough. However against 95% or more opponents sound fundamentals carry the day 95% of the time.

While plane type and initial circumstance can influence the outcome sound tactics can and will carry the day a significant % of the time even when confronted by a "superior plane" in a position of advantage. As mentioned your promoting what is generally considered a less then optimal choice.

[Buck]

I'm a bit curious here Buck. I've played for 15+ years and like Lute I'm still learning. While the "moves" you outline can certainly defeat a HO attempt they have significant apparent drawbacks in that the eliminate (or seem to at least) your ability to exploit potential advantages. The folks your arguing with are generally recognized as being in the collective top tier both as pilots and as students of the game. It would appear you've got a chance to expand your horizons instead of defending tactics that exchange one potential disadvantage for another. "It works" is a relative term, some things work better then others do. There is a point where sound tactics isn't quite enough. However against 95% or more opponents sound fundamentals carry the day 95% of the time.

While plane type and initial circumstance can influence the outcome sound tactics can and will carry the day a significant % of the time even when confronted by a "superior plane" in a position of advantage. As mentioned your promoting what is generally considered a less then optimal choice.

Thanks for at least replying in a nice way humble, sure many of you have played for over 10 years, i understand that perfectly well. but i heard from someone a long time ago, say that pulling down was at most times the best thing to do if a pilot was ho'ing you from a higher level of altitude. all i can point out is, i try to dogfight the best i can, and try to plan ahead in every dogfight. I've always liked helping others learn the game better, i remember a long time ago, like 6 months into playing the game  , i was in the (Training Arena) just messing around, someone asked for help with tanks, i was willing and said i would help him out. with just a little help from me and what little experience i had at the time, managed to teach him how to drive the tank, an showed him how to aim and fire the gun.

Like i said, I'm just another member that likes the game very much, and offer any help i can to others if needed, i have a squad of my own, and most are rookies, i don't train, i help them. I'm not much with tactics, as you guys can tell by me making a fool out of myself by trying only to explain. i didn't know that mntman was a trainer, my apologies sir.


My I'D is (CrzyGunZ), my old one was GunOrRun.

<<S>>

[The Fugitive]

I've done it, it works. leave it at that. no need for big details guys. and I'm not digging myself in a hole, quit posting your dumb comments at me Fugitive, your losing your reputation, at least with me    .

You may think they are "dumb" comments, but like Mntman said we are just trying to keep the info correct here. While you did point out diving under a HO is a good comment the hard beak is not. Seeing as this is a "training" thread the info posted here should be correct. If I post something that is wrong here I would hope someone would correct me.

[humble]

The hardest thing to do is differentiate between advice, experience and training. I'll try and explain where the original information you got comes from (based on generally accepted ACM principles). Any merge has a couple of key components. One is the concept of separation and the second is a corresponding application of principle based on the decision of relative E state. As a general rule we want some type of offset both horizontally and vertically. In effect we don't want to fly right at the bogey. This separation is normally developed early in the merge at distance of 5.0 down to 2.5. So the concept of diving from a higher con in a merge is related to establishing that spacing.

Once we have separation then we need to decide if we're +E or -E...if your -E and try and "go high" the bogey will fly up your tail. If your +E and go angles you'll most likely overshoot and fly in front. So as a general rule we make a lead turn if we're going angles...which means we use that separation to start a turn into the bogeys path before we cross. If we're +E then we fly an offset path to try and entice the bogey into pulling hard for a low % shot and following us around to set up a vertical move called a rope. Properly applied both of these choices serve to defeat a "HO" by presenting a very poor shot window...while also contributing to a winning position for the ensuing fight.

The entire idea here is not just to present a tactic but to put it in the context of "best practice"...

[Dawger]

The hardest thing to do is differentiate between advice, experience and training. I'll try and explain where the original information you got comes from (based on generally accepted ACM principles). Any merge has a couple of key components. One is the concept of separation and the second is a corresponding application of principle based on the decision of relative E state. As a general rule we want some type of offset both horizontally and vertically. In effect we don't want to fly right at the bogey. This separation is normally developed early in the merge at distance of 5.0 down to 2.5. So the concept of diving from a higher con in a merge is related to establishing that spacing.

Once we have separation then we need to decide if we're +E or -E...if your -E and try and "go high" the bogey will fly up your tail. If your +E and go angles you'll most likely overshoot and fly in front. So as a general rule we make a lead turn if we're going angles...which means we use that separation to start a turn into the bogeys path before we cross. If we're +E then we fly an offset path to try and entice the bogey into pulling hard for a low % shot and following us around to set up a vertical move called a rope. Properly applied both of these choices serve to defeat a "HO" by presenting a very poor shot window...while also contributing to a winning position for the ensuing fight.

The entire idea here is not just to present a tactic but to put it in the context of "best practice"...

You don't always want separation at the merge. It depends on the fight you are planning. You wouldn't give turning room to a bandit you know wants an angles fight.

[mtnman]

Thanks for at least replying in a nice way humble, sure many of you have played for over 10 years, i understand that perfectly well. but i heard from someone a long time ago, say that pulling down was at most times the best thing to do if a pilot was ho'ing you from a higher level of altitude. all i can point out is, i try to dogfight the best i can, and try to plan ahead in every dogfight. I've always liked helping others learn the game better, i remember a long time ago, like 6 months into playing the game  , i was in the (Training Arena) just messing around, someone asked for help with tanks, i was willing and said i would help him out. with just a little help from me and what little experience i had at the time, managed to teach him how to drive the tank, an showed him how to aim and fire the gun.

Like i said, I'm just another member that likes the game very much, and offer any help i can to others if needed, i have a squad of my own, and most are rookies, i don't train, i help them. I'm not much with tactics, as you guys can tell by me making a fool out of myself by trying only to explain. i didn't know that mntman was a trainer, my apologies sir.


My I'D is (CrzyGunZ), my old one was GunOrRun.

<<S>>

You're not making a fool of yourself, and you don't need to apologize.  I'm not taking any of this personally, and I sure hope you're not either.

It can often be difficult to grasp "intent" when it comes to wording in a post.  What may be meant as "funny" can easily be seen as an attack...  My use of questions in my earlier post could easily be taken incorrectly.  I asked those questions in an effort to get you to look at and think of things from a different perspective.  Looking back now, I can see where they could have looked like I had a "snotty" attitude.  Trust me, that isn't/wasn't the case.

As trainers, we see posts in this section from a slightly different perspective than most people.  That's why we take pains to try to keep everything as accurate as possible, and point out "flaws" when we see them.  We're not doing it as an attack.  When it comes to teaching people, one difficulty we run across quite commonly are bad habits, which generally arise from following poor advice, or from having a poor understanding of what's going on, and why.  It's often more difficult to "un-train" these habits than it would be to teach them better practices right from the start.

That doesn't mean your opinion and advice aren't welcome!  We all started out the same way, and I've been the "target" of correction many times!  I'm a believer in the idea that to truly learn something, you need to teach it.  That doesn't mean that as the teacher you won't make mistakes!

It takes guts to toss your ideas out for review.  Don't stop doing it.  Just don't take it personally if someone else steps in to help you help others.  Honestly, your point was valid, and IMO, led to a whole lot of learning opportunities in this thread.  Keep at it!

[mtnman]

You don't always want separation at the merge. It depends on the fight you are planning. You wouldn't give turning room to a bandit you know wants an angles fight.

Actually, you just plain always want separation, period.  If you don't have separation, you both fall to the ground.

You bring up a very important point though.  While separation is good, and necessary, you can have too much of a good thing!  Merging too close gets you face-shot.  Merging close, but with too much space can allow your opponent to turn into you using lead pursuit to gain a shot or a good position (although at a cost in E, which he may or may not be able to afford).

On the other hand, sometimes giving the guy who wants to use angles enough room to hang himself with is a great way to win as well.  If I'm flying a lesser-turning plane than my opponent, keeping the fight "tight" can be suicide.  In that case, I may want to open things up quite a bit.

[Buck]

You may think they are "dumb" comments, but like Mntman said we are just trying to keep the info correct here. While you did point out diving under a HO is a good comment the hard beak is not. Seeing as this is a "training" thread the info posted here should be correct. If I post something that is wrong here I would hope someone would correct me.

Roger that Fugitive, correcting i don't mind, but always make sure you don't go overboard with your correcting. I'm sure you've made some mistakes Fugitive, and been corrected as well when you first started on this forum.

[Buck]

You're not making a fool of yourself, and you don't need to apologize. I'm not taking any of this personally, and I sure hope you're not either.

It can often be difficult to grasp "intent" when it comes to wording in a post.  What may be meant as "funny" can easily be seen as an attack...  My use of questions in my earlier post could easily be taken incorrectly.  I asked those questions in an effort to get you to look at and think of things from a different perspective.  Looking back now, I can see where they could have looked like I had a "snotty" attitude.  Trust me, that isn't/wasn't the case.

As trainers, we see posts in this section from a slightly different perspective than most people.  That's why we take pains to try to keep everything as accurate as possible, and point out "flaws" when we see them.  We're not doing it as an attack.  When it comes to teaching people, one difficulty we run across quite commonly are bad habits, which generally arise from following poor advice, or from having a poor understanding of what's going on, and why.  It's often more difficult to "un-train" these habits than it would be to teach them better practices right from the start.

That doesn't mean your opinion and advice aren't welcome!  We all started out the same way, and I've been the "target" of correction many times!  I'm a believer in the idea that to truly learn something, you need to teach it.  That doesn't mean that as the teacher you won't make mistakes!

It takes guts to toss your ideas out for review.  Don't stop doing it.  Just don't take it personally if someone else steps in to help you help others.  Honestly, your point was valid, and IMO, led to a whole lot of learning opportunities in this thread.  Keep at it!

All you've said made sense and was easy to understand, but if my suggestions and idea's are mostly wrong, i don't know as if theirs any need to keep at it, because i don't want to lead anyone in the wrong direction.

[whipster22]

OK semi hijack would it be considered dweebish if you HO'd a CV with torps 

[humble]

You don't always want separation at the merge. It depends on the fight you are planning. You wouldn't give turning room to a bandit you know wants an angles fight.

as Mt said you 100% always want separation. Especially in an angles merge, failure to create separation in an angles merge is the #1 beginner mistake. The greater the likely hood of an E fight the more important the angle off is prior tp the merge. The greater the chance for an E fight the more you want a parallel offset vs a lead turn...

*** at edit ***

A couple of clarifications.

1) Separation occurs in 3D so we're looking at a combination of both vertical and horizontal components.

2) Separation is greatest well before the actual merge in an angles engagement, the entire objective of seperation in that instance is to have the room to generate a lead turn in some plane.

Tactics will reflect not only initial relative E state & positioning but plane type and pilot disposition. I often offer my 6 in an angles merge vs specific planes. One of the best examples is in a hog vs a spitfire where very few spit drivers can slow the plane down. Combine this with the perception that the hog will be fast and its easy to set up a "bad merge" that give the spit reason to pounce before the hog can run away...only to find itself in a rolling scissor immediately on the merge 75 mph too fast for the fight at hand. In that instance I'm wider and slower then normal and in a low G slightly nose down turn that screams kick me I'm a noob...

Now while it works most of the time vs the kazaa/bruv of the world it often is a tad embarrassing...

[Dawger]

as Mt said you 100% always want separation. Especially in an angles merge, failure to create separation in an angles merge is the #1 beginner mistake. The greater the likely hood of an E fight the more important the angle off is prior tp the merge. The greater the chance for an E fight the more you want a parallel offset vs a lead turn...

*** at edit ***

A couple of clarifications.

1) Separation occurs in 3D so we're looking at a combination of both vertical and horizontal components.

2) Separation is greatest well before the actual merge in an angles engagement, the entire objective of seperation in that instance is to have the room to generate a lead turn in some plane.

Tactics will reflect not only initial relative E state & positioning but plane type and pilot disposition. I often offer my 6 in an angles merge vs specific planes. One of the best examples is in a hog vs a spitfire where very few spit drivers can slow the plane down. Combine this with the perception that the hog will be fast and its easy to set up a "bad merge" that give the spit reason to pounce before the hog can run away...only to find itself in a rolling scissor immediately on the merge 75 mph too fast for the fight at hand. In that instance I'm wider and slower then normal and in a low G slightly nose down turn that screams kick me I'm a noob...

Now while it works most of the time vs the kazaa/bruv of the world it often is a tad embarrassing...

Nope...That is incorrect.

He (mtnmn) stated that you need enough separation not to collide, which is a bit of humor I would think.

He implies that you have to have separation at the merge to prevent getting shot. That is demonstrably false. All you have to do to prevent getting shot at the merge is not provide the bandit a shot opportunity. That is geometry not distance. In fact, once you are inside the bandit's turn circle he CAN'T shoot you. Closer is better in this case.  Maybe he doesn't know how to pass close aboard a bandit at the merge without getting shot. Maybe he does. I don't know.

I know how to do it and it is a useful tool when I want to deny the bandit turning room for a lead turn. And you want to be as close as you can when you use it because the closer you are to him when you pass the more out of position he will be if he goes angles at the merge.

It is a very big part of 2 v 1 tactics to be able to execute a merge close aboard without getting shot in the face. It is the basis for setting up most of the follow on maneuvers following an offensive split.

[humble]

I'm sorry, one of us is clueless and I don't think its me. Separation refers to tactics in the merge prior to "crossing props". Separation is specific to either parallel offset in the case of an E merge or a lead turn for an angular merge. It in no way reflects how far planes are apart at the "merge" itself. In fact at the extreme there is actually no merge since the lead turn actually places the aggressor behind the opponents 3/9 line. As a side note it is statistically impossible to entirely deny a shot window on the merge...end of story.

What you can do is present a difficult low % shot that creates a tactical problem if your opponent pursues it. Flying close to the target on a reciprocal heading is about as inefficient a merge as possible under all circumstances...especially 2 on 1.

[mtnman]

Nope...That is incorrect.

He (mtnmn) stated that you need enough separation not to collide, which is a bit of humor I would think.

He implies that you have to have separation at the merge to prevent getting shot. That is demonstrably false. All you have to do to prevent getting shot at the merge is not provide the bandit a shot opportunity. That is geometry not distance. In fact, once you are inside the bandit's turn circle he CAN'T shoot you. Closer is better in this case.  Maybe he doesn't know how to pass close aboard a bandit at the merge without getting shot. Maybe he does. I don't know.

I know how to do it and it is a useful tool when I want to deny the bandit turning room for a lead turn. And you want to be as close as you can when you use it because the closer you are to him when you pass the more out of position he will be if he goes angles at the merge.

It is a very big part of 2 v 1 tactics to be able to execute a merge close aboard without getting shot in the face. It is the basis for setting up most of the follow on maneuvers following an offensive split.

No, the separation I'm referring to is the space/distance between the planes, which you obviously must have.  Without separation, you have a collision.  Until you collide, you have separation.  After you collide, and bounce or tear apart, you have separation again.  Separation can be measured in miles, meters, feet, inches, whatever.  Without any separation, though, you're done fighting.

Specifically, you're describing controlling or manipulating the amount of separation present at a particular point in your merge.  You have separation, and you need it, you just don't want too much for the case you're describing.

And that's where things get tricky...  How do you describe separation between the different planes, and at different points in the fight?  If you both took off from separate fields at the same time, you'd have maybe 25 miles of separation horizontally, but little or none vertically.  During a fight, separation will shrink and expand, in three dimensions.  As soon as it reaches "zero" or "none", though, you're dead.

If you look back at your own post, you'll see yourself describing separation.  Words like close, close, close aboard all describe distance (separation).  Can you even have geometry in a fight without distance? 

[humble]

Dwager,

I'm not trying to be confrontational, but either your approaching the same issue with different terms or something doesn't add up. In an "angles" merge the single most important variables are relative E state and degree's of angular gain at the merge. In order to generate angular gain at the merge you need to have a lead turn component. Now in "dueling" merges its often a race for the deck followed by mirrored obliques such that significant similarity exists. This is normally as much more artificial scenario then a merge between dissimilar planes with different e states. At the extreme there is no real merge, but the underlying principles still apply. I've posted this before but in my mind its a classic -E open vs a  superior plane. In effect you have a move out of plane to set separation followed by a move back into plane with a lead turn so premature it effectively creates an overshoot instead of a merge. Without the jog out of plane the lead turn and overshoot isn't possible...
http://az-dsl.com/snaphook/P40vN1ki.ahf