Reviewing the "HO"

[mtnman]

Mtnman dislikes wingman fighting?
Whenever yourself and your partner in crime Saber are flying together, you will both attempt to fight a 1v1 whenever possible.  If you are the engaged fighter, Saber will back off and not interfere, with expectations to fight the next bogey encounter.  This sounds like wingman flying, specifically the Fighting Wing Doctrine.

I think we're a lot more "loose" than you envision.  "Flying together" is generally more of a situation where we're logged in at the same time, and fighting in the same fight.  We're generally in the same sector, often within about 1/2 sector of each other.  Seldom maintaining eyesight, or more than a general awareness of each others location, though.

In the event that one of us wants/needs assistance with a multi-on-one situation, there's probably a 10% (at best) chance the other has even a slight hope of getting there in less than 2 minutes.  An even more remote chance when you consider we'd normally need to fight our way there, and probably aren't going to be above 2-3K if we've been fighting even a little bit.

Occasionally, we actually decide to fly as dedicated wingmen.  That lasts for take-off and climb-out, at best.  It'll be forgotten when we find an opponent, when we split to get out of icon distance of each other.  In a horde situation, we make more of an effort to see each other occasionally, since it's more likely one of us will get in trouble.  When one of us dies (most hops), the wingman idea is gone until we accidentally find ourselves near each other again.

There's no "backing off", normally.  A situation like you describe above is a "once every two months" scenario.

[kilo2]

1. When they fire first.

The second is more complicated. If you are diving on a plane and he pulls straight vertical into you. This move forces you to either give up alt to the con, and your advantage, or forces you take a cheap shot. I take the cheap shot but I think the move really forces your hand.

Kilo, in number 1 your already in a bad position if your waiting for him to shoot first. You shouldn't be in front of his guns. And for number 2, if they pull up I hi yo or loop to stay on top. Each time they pull nose up they are burning more E than me and it's only a matter of time before they die.

While you won't admit it you do fly to HO. That is what your doing in both cases mentioned. Using ACMs to get into a better position is what we are talking about.

Sometimes ho merges happen. If I see tracers I will fire or will take a Ho shot in future merges.

When they pull straight up they immelman at the top of their straight vertical pull and wait for you to come back up giving them enough time to gain some speed. Basically you just gave them altitude or a shot on the way back up.

There is no reason to pull straight vertical into you. They are using the HO to their advantage expecting you not to pull the trigger. Cheap move and I will take the cheap shot every time.

[Sonicblu]

Firedrgn,  I believe most of the posts and ideas in this thread are in what is called violent agreement. Based on lack of defining.

Only by defining one step at a time will there ever be a consensus and or agreement.

One post about a ho the next responds about a HO but all the verbiage is about FQ shots.

To frame and point of view or make a proper argument some things must have a definition.

There is a lot going on in this thread and way to much for a new player because there is not defining. That is why we get some players saying Hoing is ok while other say no its not. But it is not that simple.

The argument here has become a generalization of its not advantageous to HO. MY question is advantageous to WHO? It is only disadvantageous if you MISS the HO.

All the arguments not to HO for the new player are from the perspective of why its not good for the better player or the vet that knows ACM. The timeline for and reasons become frozen in time. The vet knows this be the new player hasnt learned it yet.


The new player that does not know any or little ACM best chance for survival is to HO and kill or damage other plane. The new player does not know what ACM is yet.

There is NO such thing as "attempted HO." IT either happened or IT did not happen. All we are saying with attempted HO is that one plane pressed for a Head ON attack but failed to damage or kill other plane in one pass. OF course that is disadvantageous for the player that missed a shot.  The new player needs to see WHAT did happen,to learn not to make that mistake. So He makes his Head on attacks more precise. This is the nature of what happens in the Main arenas. It only becomes Disadvantageous to HO when you miss, or the Other guy fires back and hits. So lets get better at HOing  is the mentality of what this thread is trying to fight. Beacause it is a natural "fight or flight" psychology.

Lets explore. The disadvantage of the attempted HO.
1.  If you miss you just practice at getting better at Hoing. ( the new player does not think first to learn acm, because of when you are IN the fight your brain goes to the "fight or flight" mode first, and you can only be competent to you level of training never above that level in a fight. The new player will naturally take the easiest shots. ) Because his only level of training training is here is the trigger here is the gun sight. It is a natural reaction. " Plane in gun sight pull trigger". I do not believe from personal experience that a majority of new players will link I missed the shot I need to out fly the other guy at this point. If they do THEY STOP HOing.
2. The other player fires back at you. This is where a new player can start to learn that hey its not a good idea to HO, because the other guys can kill, or damage my plane. So how do I avoid this situation? Once they ask this question they can begin to learn. IMO.

So if there are some that are hoing its is only because they think it is still the best decision for them. OR they have not linked in their brain that it is really what is getting them killed.

One more thing to get this back on topic all the discussion on any FQ shot needs to start new thread.

[Kermit de frog]

I don't go for the HO.  If I did, i wouldn't consider it dis-honorable in the least.  I don't avoid the HO for any reason having to do with "honor".  I avoid it because it isn't a very good option, and is far too likely to get me damaged.

As far as teaching people to avoid it, I'm all for that!  But, it has to be there as an option, in order to teach someone to avoid it...  That doesn't mean someone needs to take it, just that it needs to be an option.  The best tool to use in teaching someone to avoid the HO, is the HO.

Teaching people better options than HOing isn't the same as creating a game-wide stigma against the HO as a valid, useful tool to keep fights "honest", and somewhat realistic.  Tying the HO to any negative emotional judgment is detrimental to overall fight-quality IMO; while having it just plain exist, while teaching people better options is conducive to better, more realistic fights, IMO.

So, in order to have good, realistic fights in AH, we need people who are willing to take the HO shot.  Without it as a possibility, fights are devastatingly artificial IMO.  While I feel we need the HO, I'm not saying I want people to HO, or that I'd teach people to HO.  More that it's a "necessary evil".  An adversity to overcome.  

To me, a wilderness needs wildlife (and "normal" conditions), that are native to the area.  Snakes, bears, sharks, heat, wind, trees, sand, drought, whatever.  They're all part of the wilderness.  Removing any them because we don't like that aspect of the wilderness, makes the wilderness "less" than a wilderness.  If you tell me "I went camping in the wilderness" and I find out you had plumbed water and/or that the wildlife was removed, I wouldn't agree that you'd camped in the wilderness.  If you fought, and I found out you'd removed the HO as a possibility, I wouldn't agree that you'd fought.  I'd feel that you'd done something "less".

Our "fights" are already drastically "less" than true dogfights.  Our best fights are already artificial and "gamey", even though (by necessity, ability, and mechanical limits) they're the best we can do.  I'm not a proponent of making them overall more artificial and "gamey", based simply on someone's "choice", or by limiting someone's "choice".  Now, choosing to self-limit I can see (as in "I won't HO"), I can see as noble.  But not limiting through stigma (as in "Hoing is something only dweebs do", or "Hoing is a lame tactic", or "You're a dork because you Ho'ed me").

The HO is as critical to our fights as the stalls, grounds, etc.  They're all something to overcome, something to triumph over.  It's not a far cry to say "Fights are better if nobody HO's, and if we can't stall, or collide, or hit a tree (or get ganged)..."  If we removed those elements, though, our fights would be "less" than they currently are, IMO.

The more you articulate your thoughts, the more I see you and I in agreement.  I also believe the HO is necessary by others, but not by oneself.  If no one took the HO shot, some people would take advantage of that by gaining additional angles knowing you won't take the HO/FQ shot.  I also believe taking the HO shot will strengthen your opponent, thus I want my opponent to perform it on me.  At the same time, I want my opponent to know that his HO shoting ways are strengthening me, so that he can improve, thus create a greater challenge for everyone.

Mtnman, have I not proven, using your words, that you do not look for the HO shot and do fly as wingmen?  You and I are on the same path, just at different points.

[dmdchief]

This conversation has taken place on numberous times ever since AW shut down and all of those players came over to Aces High.  All you heard was no HO, that is cheating, you can't HO it was not allowed in AW.  THIS is the source of this arguement and always has been.  The really good pilots want no HO as they know they are going to get the kill and then after the lessor skilled pilot gets killed several hundred times, he finds something better to do with his 16.00 a month.  The really good pilot just stays in the game and waits on some other newbie to kill, but with the HO the newbie's stay around longer hence some of them like me have been here ever since version 1 in 1980, been paying for monthly sub ever since.  There will never be an end to this.

SALUTE
Frank Williams

[humble]

Actually the original post makes no mention of a "HO" being good, bad or ugly. It is an attempt to put the shot within the context of overall ACM. The more even the odds the less likely the "HO" is to generate a positive outcome vs a quality opponent. As circumstances shift the HO becomes potentially more viable. At some point in a 1 vs many engagement any move you make creates an opportunity for some opponent so shooting the guy immediately in front of you can't be faulted. As we try and look at a "FQ" shot vs a HO we fins that most HO shots are really very low deflection FQ shots. The key element here is if they occur in the framework of correct ACM or if you are sacrificing position for what often appears to be a shot but is actually a trap.

I think that outside of a duel or 1 v 1 where a general agreement specific to the 3/9 line exists that any shot correctly achieved should be taken. The real key as it relates to this thread is trying to nurture the concept that a focus on the HO or FQ shot at the expense of learning better ACM can be a detriment to a players longterm enjoyment of the game...

[mtnman]

Wow!  Three posts in a row I agree with!

But no, Kermit, I wouldn't say I fly as a wingman, except in a very rare, minimalistic aspect.  I'd say it's safer to say I despise flying as a "team", and don't consider a 2v1 to be a "fight", if I'm one of the "two".  Even when Saber and I morph into the 2v2 mode (briefly), I won't help him with his biggest, most immediate threat.  Say he's got an LA 400 off his six, and a spit 800-1200 off.  I'll help with the spit, but he's on his own with the LA.  If the spit pulls off, he'll get no more help, period.  If I kill the spit I'm out of the fight immediately, even if the LA is going to kill Saber.  I won't fight the LA 2v1, as I consider that to be ganging.  If Saber kills the LA, he wouldn't even consider ganging (er, helping me with) the spit.  Say a fight begins with Saber and I against 3 or 4.  Once we kill a few and we're down to 1 opponent, one of us breaks out (to avoid ganging the last guy).

If I broke it down, I'd say an estimate that 1% of my play is "team oriented" or "wingman oriented" is an overstatement by a large margin.  It's a 30 second incident, every few weeks type thing.  I have such an aversion to it that even having equal numbers of friendlies to enemies in the area bothers me to the point where I'll land and/or switch teams.  Saber and I spend a lot of time flying in the same vicinity, but almost zero time flying in any semblance of a "team".  Even flying in the same vicinity is based primarily on the fact that we enjoy the same type of fights, under the same terms, rather than any intent to work together.

As I stated earlier, there are a few times I'll engage in "wingman" activities.  But they're very rare, and I don't enjoy them at all unless we're fighting at least equal numbers.  If I was in a "great" wingman battle, I might find it entertaining for a minute or two, kind of.  Surely not longer than that.  It just isn't my cup of tea.

[Kermit de frog]

1...2...3 Yes!  I was in the 3 last posts you agreed with. 

Mtnman, I find your way of flying interesting, so I have more questions. 

Let me see if I understand your way of gameplay.
Your view individualism is strong, and you despise teamwork, but will team up when necessary, and view it as a necessary evil.  This a correct generalization of your views? 
While I am also of strong belief in individualism, my thoughts on teamwork differ since I believe it to be of a greater challenge to oneself and everyone around you.

Here is my view on teamwork:
Teamwork is individuals coming together with a common purpose, with the individuals leading the team instead of the other way around.  Flying as a team, you are responsible not just for yourself, but also for your teammates, while also understanding that your teammates are not responsible for you.  The individual is encouraged to learn team tactics, thus improving your own skill level and raising the base line of skill within the team.

I too tend to fly alone most of the time, but I am always on the watch for others willing to team up with a common purpose.  If there is no purpose or willingness to team up, then I fly alone.  I enjoy both flying methods.  Mtnman, I enjoy flying exactly as you have described your own flying, and I also enjoy employing other types of wingman tactics.  It is as if you are stepping into another world of enjoyment. 

I hope by understanding your views, I can articulate my views in a better way, thus having you remove your skepticism, ultimately succumbing to my hidden beliefs to join the new world order of collectivism.   

[Kermit de frog]

<snip>
Tactic-wise, argue it all you want.  But if you declare that you only fire from behind the 3/9 line for any reason having to do with "honor", "warrior codes", increased "grade" or "value" of fight, etc, and then apply tactics that I see as "dishonorable, non warrior-like, and degrading the value of a fight, is it ok if I'm skeptical? 
<snip>

How I choose to fight when winning is the same as when I'm losing.   What a man does in desperate times reveals his true character. 

Mtnman, after further thought, I think I see your view better.  While I see the honor in your flying and very much respect it, my gut tells me you are missing something.  Perhaps a change in plane would help widen your vision and help you see the challenge teamwork provides in creating and maintaining good fights.  If I feel there is no challenge teaming up in corsairs due to personal skill levels, perhaps a group of P40s would be warranted or simply different wingmen.

I am wiling to fly alone, as a team and never take a HO shot, all for reasons of honor.  Do you still feel skeptical of my reasons?

[mtnman]

How I choose to fight when winning is the same as when I'm losing.   What a man does in desperate times reveals his true character. 

Mtnman, after further thought, I think I see your view better.  While I see the honor in your flying and very much respect it, my gut tells me you are missing something.  Perhaps a change in plane would help widen your vision and help you see the challenge teamwork provides in creating and maintaining good fights.  If I feel there is no challenge teaming up in corsairs due to personal skill levels, perhaps a group of P40s would be warranted or simply different wingmen.

I am wiling to fly alone, as a team and never take a HO shot, all for reasons of honor.  Do you still feel skeptical of my reasons?

The corsair is the only plane I'm interested in in AH, and that's based 99.9% on the way it looks.  I think the rest are ugly, so I don't fly them. Seriously.

There are a few others I see as "somewhat OK looking", so I'll fly them occasionally, lol.  Those include the B25, B17, P51, and maybe the P40.  Interest-wise, they're so far away from the F4U I can't stomach them for long though.

Challenge-wise, I wouldn't mind if maybe there were different FM's for the F4U, so some were easier to fly, and some were more difficult?  But that goes against my desire to have them just be as accurate as possible, so that's not a good option in my mind either...  I suppose as long as they look like a good visual rendition of an F4U, I'd fly them though.  I've never flown a real one, so who am I to say what "accurate" means?

Team-wise...  Been there, done that.  There was a several-year stage I went through where I loved the team aspects of the game.  Base capture, and specifically wingman-based fighter tactics.  Having spent enough time with them, I don't have a problem morphing into that role again when necessary.  As Saber learned the game, he wanted to learn enough that he could do the same, so I taught him.

If I changed planes, I still wouldn't change tactics.  I have no interest in wingman-based tactics.  It's a weakness of mine, as a trainer, I'm sure.  I have trouble teaching things I don't feel like doing, or teaching.  So, I seldom teach those tactics at all.

I don't see it as missing anything myself, because I've already been down that road.  I don't want to go back. 

AH, for me, is about flying an F4U around and shooting the red guys.  And I don't want no stinkin' help, lol!

[Bubbajj]

If your opponent is in a Hurc, Typhy, Tempy, 110, 190, Chog, your gonna get HOed, just prepare for it. Geez.

[Kermit de frog]

Perhaps I'm in this teamwork stage you speak of, for how long, who knows, perhaps forever.  How you do not see that the P40 is far sexier than the corsair is beyond me!

I will enjoy flying honorable with a wingman, against your lone corsair, with the hopes that Saber will join the party to rescue you. 

Now where did Zap go...

[ink]

If your opponent is in a Hurc, Typhy, Tempy, 110, 190, Chog, your gonna get HOed, just prepare for it. Geez.

obviously you still judge the plane and ignore the stick, I fly the Hurri almost exclusively, and you will be very hard pressed to EVER see me HO, Not saying I never HO, there are times, say if I am fighting multi cons and I avoid one to see another face shooting at me I will open up on him, but most times even when I am extremely out numbered I will NOT HO!!!!

[Saber]

I will enjoy flying honorable with a wingman, against your lone corsair, with the hopes that Saber will join the party to rescue you. 






we do communicate when in fights and how many are around us, if  where close to each other we will help each other out, but never on a 1v1.

[Bubbajj]

Ok, 98% of the time, if your opponent is in a Hurc, Tiffy, Temp, 110, 190 or Chog, you're gonna get HOed, Just prepare for it. Double Geez.