Keep in mind ... it's a 2 way street ... a Close Attack is a crap shoot in more ways than one ... Trying to avoid a collision can make trying to shoot down an attacker a secondary priority ... Giving him the advantage ... in his firing solution and/or in position following the merge. An aggressive attacker can play the odds of escaping a collision and gaining advantage under the present collision model. If he's assured that ANY collision will kill him ... Things change. Do you want to simulate WWII engagements or Play Chicken ???
It would work 100% the opposite, the thought process would be,
If I break off and he does not,he will maybe kill me with his guns , I die, he may collide with me, I die.
If I don't break off, I may kill him with my guns, I win, If i collide with him, we both die and at least he does not win.
I.E. Not breaking off on the merge will win you more fights if both would die at collisions. And there would be more death overall do to collisions, and less realism.
HiTech