Reviewing the "HO"

[CAP1]

I know his flying quite well, yes he's darn good. I was just describing various scenarios I've found myself in and in which head on shot might be justified.


Yes, you did 

yea.....<in my best maxwell smart voice> sorry 'bout that chief. 

[HatTrick]

I didn't read this whole thread but I did read the original post.  I had heard through the grapevine that HO shots were frowned upon here so the first few engagements where the opportunity presented itself, I did not fire.  The response was every single opponent fired at me.  Six or seven times that happened before I said screw it, I'm going to shoot too. 

[The Fugitive]

I didn't read this whole thread but I did read the original post.  I had heard through the grapevine that HO shots were frowned upon here so the first few engagements where the opportunity presented itself, I did not fire.  The response was every single opponent fired at me.  Six or seven times that happened before I said screw it, I'm going to shoot too. 

You can be part of the problem, or part of the solution.  I prefer not to shoot in a head on situation. That being said I work at not EVER being in a head-on situation.

[CAP1]

I didn't read this whole thread but I did read the original post.  I had heard through the grapevine that HO shots were frowned upon here so the first few engagements where the opportunity presented itself, I did not fire.  The response was every single opponent fired at me.  Six or seven times that happened before I said screw it, I'm going to shoot too. 

i do my best to avoid them. there have been a couple of times when i thought i had a decent shot planned out, and the con got his nose 'round faster than i expected, and i ended up face shooting him...soon as i realized, i'd let go of the trigger.

 i used to be halfway decent at dodging them before i took a few months off, but now, i'm a bit rusty. what i always have had a problem with, is converting their missed ho attempt into my advantage. i know others do it very well, but i've not yet managed it.

[humble]

Cap to me this is the grey area...

If you have established position then you have the right of way. I fenced in college and if we view that as "dueling" then there is an obligation to defend before you can attack. If you've clearly got guns and the guy turns into you to "square up" then as far as I'm concerned you can light them up all day. I see this all the time with zekes and hurricanes that turn back into me and then get all blustery when I take a 30 degree nose off FQ shot. If someone turns back into you then they need to adjust there movement to defend against any FQ shot the expose them selfs to...

[CAP1]

Cap to me this is the grey area...

If you have established position then you have the right of way. I fenced in college and if we view that as "dueling" then there is an obligation to defend before you can attack. If you've clearly got guns and the guy turns into you to "square up" then as far as I'm concerned you can light them up all day. I see this all the time with zekes and hurricanes that turn back into me and then get all blustery when I take a 30 degree nose off FQ shot. If someone turns back into you then they need to adjust there movement to defend against any FQ shot the expose them selfs to...

well.....here's the thing though. it's me mis-judging i think. i see you coming 'round, and i think i'm going to get guns first......but as it turns out, you're turning for me, and just as i squeeze the trigger, i realize you've got guns on me too.

 there are some i don't mind taking that shot on. i feel that you would not take that shot...in fact, i think i;ve fought you when you didn't, nor did i.
 fighting in mw, you almost always know who you're fighting, and know how they fight. i had a blast in that fight against imlitup. every time i fight you, it's a blast. same with cobia. there are a bunch of others too.....probably as many people that you know you'll get a good clean fight out of, as there are that you won't.
 i do understand what you're saying though......this is actually a very good conversation in this thread. 

[Demetrious]

I covered this topic in this post, and I think it's worth reading again. In summary, I say that the problem is not HO shots, it's the newbies who completely fail to understand ACM and think they're playing Doom. Since these people are so hilariously predictable, manipulating them is easy, making them easy kills:



The only person an HO is bad for is the person using it. The only way the squeakers are going to learn this lesson is from more experienced sticks who set out to teach it (by blowing their tails off.) This is exactly why experienced sticks say "It takes two to HO."

By it's very nature the HO should be a problem that solves itself, because people using it are only punishing themselves. If they are not being punished, it's because they were fighting somebody who hops on the 200 and whines about sportsmanship instead of studying the problem of the merge. Yes, that's a brash statement, but it needs to be made, because that's the only way HOing could have become the problem it is.

We really, really, really need to make up a very concise post that explains the essential nature of the DOOM-mentality-HO'er, why they are only punishing themselves, and the extremely expedient way to turn annoying HOers into easy kills, which can simply consist of the above image from In Pursuit. Then a mod should sticky the post. Every BAAAW HO thread would be given a link to said sticky and then (in a perfect world) locked by a moderator.

And then the problem would resolve itself.

[df54]

 

  if the opportunity presents itself i'll headon even in a 9u even though its not 
 a tactic i normally use.

[TequilaChaser]

# 1 - I would never encourage anyone wanting to learn online WWII AirCombat Sim Flying to purchase or read   "In Pursuit"

# 2 - The below image from a 1943 Fighter Gunnery Training Manual of the USAAF, specifically shows that it has only ever taken one person to "HO" meaning Head On attack



anything closer to nose to nose is a "JOUST"

[Demetrious]

# 1 - I would never encourage anyone wanting to learn online WWII AirCombat Sim Flying to purchase or read   "In Pursuit"

Then that would make you unique in my experience. I have never, ever, ever heard anybody badmouth "In Pursuit." Most of it reads like "Shaw's lite."

# 2 - The below image from a 1943 Fighter Gunnery Training Manual of the USAAF, specifically shows that it has only ever taken one person to "HO" meaning Head On attack

I was unaware that one pilot was capable of dictating both his, and the enemies, course. Does he have a second stick in his cockpit that he uses to fly the other guys plane? 

I assume you didn't get that "Training Corps" logo in your avatar from a crackerjack box, so I'm certainly not dismissing you out of hand, but I must request that you elucidate your points further.

[The Fugitive]

Then that would make you unique in my experience. I have never, ever, ever heard anybody badmouth "In Pursuit." Most of it reads like "Shaw's lite."

I was unaware that one pilot was capable of dictating both his, and the enemies, course. Does he have a second stick in his cockpit that he uses to fly the other guys plane? 

I assume you didn't get that "Training Corps" logo in your avatar from a crackerjack box, so I'm certainly not dismissing you out of hand, but I must request that you elucidate your points further.

So what your saying is you fly your flight and no matter what the "enemy" does you don't change? You must loose a lot of fights!

If I go vertical in a 109 and your in an FM2 I just forced you to either follow and die to the "rope a dope", or made you nose down to try to get me to follow you giving me a rear quarter shot. I can dictate what some of your moves are going to be and use that to set up my shot.

[humble]

to be honest if you fly the merge as presented in that diagram the only folks you'll be killing are the "zip codes"....if the rest of the book is similar i'd say it'll probably do more harm then good....

I'm certainly not going to speak for TC but lets look at your issues from my admittedly less then uber perspective.

1) It shows mirrored approach, by itself thats unrealistic. As a general rule a "good merge involves a lateral and vertical offset. 95% of the time you'll have no problem establishing an early offset. 4% of the time the other guy will "square up" late to mirror you in a dueling merge. This 1% shown is the scary guy who absolutely is not going to do what your showing.

2) At the merge you have established no advantage of any type and are simply labeling the other guy as "stupid". We have no plane type here but for argument lets say he's in an A5 and your in a spit IX we'll put the fight at 5k since most fights in AH are lower.

Leaving everything "as is" till planes reach the "3" in the diagram...post merge mid turn...the spitfire is dead vs any half decent AH pilot almost 100% of the time...I'd say 70%+ of the player base eats that "merge" up all the time and 1/2 of the other 30% most of the time....just fundamentally poor stuff...

[Demetrious]

If I go vertical in a 109 and your in an FM2 I just forced you to either follow and die to the "rope a dope", or made you nose down to try to get me to follow you giving me a rear quarter shot. I can dictate what some of your moves are going to be and use that to set up my shot.

Because we were totally talking about vertical manuvering in a tail-end chase. Oh, wait, we weren't. We were talking about the head-on initial merge, which has been the primary topic of conversation for the last twelve pages. In the head-on initial merge- at co-alt and co-energy, which is what we are discussing- there is simply no way an opponent can force you to accept a head-on pass, because of the angles and the closure speed involved. For them to force this, despite whatever manuvering you attempt, would require them to fly a strong lead-intercept, get in front of you, and then somehow fly backwards to stay in front of you.

It does "take two to HO."

to be honest if you fly the merge as presented in that diagram the only folks you'll be killing are the "zip codes"

That is exactly what that pictured merge is designed to do- exploit the predictable course of noobs. Any proper merge used against competent pilots should involve a defense against merge snapshots that should be suitable to defend against the "piper on target" guys. Once you've got their number you can prosecute a fun fight, or extend through and come 'round for a quick lesson in merge mechanics with your friendly noob HO'er.

....if the rest of the book is similar i'd say it'll probably do more harm then good....

"In Pursuit" covers real-world fighter tactics... but as applied in a game with cartoon planes. In other words, it specifically addresses the age-old problem of HO'ers with simple instructions on how to kill them.

[humble]

I'm sorry but what you posted in the diagram has no bearing on HO's, it is the singularly most unrealistic merge diagram I've ever seen...your not dawgers wingman....are you?

[grizz441]

I'm sorry but what you posted in the diagram has no bearing on HO's, it is the singularly most unrealistic merge diagram I've ever seen...your not dawgers wingman....are you?

That merge works quite well in the MA against baby seals working at full throttle.  In fact, it is a very solid way to approach the merge in the MA imo.  Against a capable pilot you will most likely be torn to shreds though