Food for thought ...

[Changeup]

I just think peoples' threshold for disrespect is set oftentimes way too far in the other direction.  Yeah, when a guy manhandles me, beats down my E, and takes a wing from dead behind me in an odd orientation (or worse yet, doesn't even have to do anything extreme to saddle up), I know he's beaten me badly.  I just don't see why him getting his guns on me at any point outside of that cone in front of my plane where I could conceivably pull to shoot is any less of a beating.

Wiley.

As I said, I agree in principle so getting back to the HO which is not what you were talking about.

Me punching you in the back of the head is a win too....but not a respectable one.

Ultimately to each his own.  No one will change but this thread has delivered some very good answers.

[Skyyr]

Skyrr won't get it.  But to prove my point he should go to the DA with Kappa flying an A5 against Skyrr in a zeke.   That would give him some idea about actual skills vs a/c based skill limitations.

That's a pretty big assumption, on all accounts. I'm also surprised you suggested someone else, instead of yourself, to take me to the DA.

[Skyyr]

I was enlisted .... because I enlisted. I met a few officers that could set the example.  

This is a game, mate. But there ARE better methods you should have garnered from real life.  

Pfff... some of the best officers I worked with were Green to Gold. They still had nothing on WOs.

[Arlo]

Pfff... some of the best officers I worked with were Green to Gold. They still had nothing on WOs.

Warrants know what it's like to work for a living. 

I still met a few commissioned O's (with no enlisted time) who were natural leaders.  That being said, I also met those that weren't. 

[Changeup]

That's a pretty big assumption, on all accounts. I'm also surprised you suggested someone else, instead of yourself, to take me to the DA.

It's no assumption at all.  It's a fact.  I've seen you both fly and fought you both.  No question in my mind you in a Zeke and Kappa in an A5 you'll lose 8-10 fights.  Maybe all.  Obviously I'm speaking for Kappas willingness to spend his time fighting you and that's not up to me so it probably would never happen unless you opened your mouth to him.

I never said I was skilled in the planes you gave as examples.  Kappa is more skilled in an A5 than anyone in the game in my opinion and in the opinions of other great sticks I've seen fight him in the DA.  

That being said, I'll join you in the DA anytime you want same planes.  All you have to do is ask.  Then, we can merge and both of us will go straight up as far as we can, cartwheel and rinse and repeat until we both end up on the deck 30 minutes later.

[The Fugitive]

The reason for avoiding the HO came about originally in sims in pure 1v1 duels on the INITIAL pass, where a lucky single round would stop the fight before it even started. Usually "cold guns" (or "cold pass") was called to allow both pilots to set up their merge to their preference and allow for a truly equal-ground starting point. Once the merge occurred, anything was (and should be) fair game. And why shouldn't it be? If the opponent can gets their guns on you after the merge, that's YOUR fault. Head-on passes are actually a valid tactic and they were used in WWII, especially by aircraft that grossly out-armed their opponent (namely the Germans in their Wurgers).

This rule has been true in every single flight sim I've flown (including Fighter Ace, CFS1+2, WWII Online, etc.)... yet for some reason this community has a homophobic aversion to EVERY type of head-on pass for no logical reason, as if it's somehow dishonorable.

Never mind the fact that it quite literally takes two complacent pilots to perform a head-on pass, this is a air combat simulator. Projecting moral superiority and crying about a head-on pass while attempting to kill your opponent by shooting him in the back is most hypocritical stance I've seen yet in a flight sim.

CORRECT! but it only takes one idiot to pull the trigger and end what COULD be a fun fight.

Please, by all means explain how someone flying an A5 with 20 and 30mm cannons is less skilled if they choose to head-on a P-51D (or, even better, a KI-43). The A5 has little worry of damage and a split second of hits will rip that 43 apart.

In fact, it makes so much sense to do so that the Germans actually used this tactic. It's all about strengths vs weaknesses and if your opponent has little chance of damaging you, while you have a much greater chance of downing them, why not?

Turning against a faster, more maneuverable aircraft is statistically less sound and in fact does not make sense to pursue when repeated head-on passes are on option.

Your statement doesn't hold up to an examination of history or to actual military combat tactics.

I'm not promoting head-on passes as a valid tactic 24/7, but they have a valid and useful application that most overlook because of their predisposition.

he is less skilled because he can't maneuver to get his kill shot from behind the 3-9 line. Any Bozo can fly around in a 190 and spray and pray and get kills, it takes skill to do it WITH OUT shooting from in front of the 3-9 line.

[Arlo]

That being said, I'll join you in the DA anytime you want same planes.  All you have to do is ask.  Then, we can merge and both of us will go straight up as far as we can, cartwheel and rinse and repeat until we both end up on the deck 30 minutes later.

That's much better than volunteering someone else to prove your points for you.  

[Changeup]

Pfff... some of the best officers I worked with were Green to Gold. They still had nothing on WOs.

The best lessons I ever received were from chiefs....who had BTDTGTTS. 

I'll give you that.  The best O's I knew were mustang but the best officers period were those that led from the front.  I always wondered why the enlisted folks spent sooo much of their time critiquing officers in positions of responsibility and in jobs they'd never had or done themselves;  especially when the good ones were the COs and XO's in their COC that insulated them from their mistakes from division or squadron.  It always seemed caddy to me for men and women who proudly called themselves professional soldiers.   Small is probably a better word.

[Changeup]

That's much better than volunteering someone else to prove your points for you.  

The entire point was missed on you so your editorial is mute.  Please don't try to recover because it's been asked and answered already.  The funny thing is I'd never see you in the DA, lol.

[Tilt]

OK. So HO's are bad..... But some (lots?) folk do them.

Our "experten" here consider that these folk should be shown the error of their ways by expressing various levels of "distaste" for the HO. Indeed bringing such words as "respect" or even " honour" to support this attempt to dissuade the "perpetrators". That this will somehow discourage such practice.

Yet after years of such "expression" the HO is still with us...........

The futility of such expression has yet ( it seems) to be understood

That an adversary may indeed attempt a HO is part of gameplay.... That dealing with the possibility of a HO attempt is a part of  this games ACM.

Lamenting  its presence here, PM'ing the perpetrator , scolding on 200 have had ( after some 14 years) no effect.

A cynic might think the lament was only a vehicle for the  expression of "how great I am".

Perhaps our experten could show by their deeds that the HO attempt was indeed futile...... That by acquiring ACM skills they are not easily seduced into accepting an opponents HO attempt and enjoy greater success through this. That when we all see a HO debate on 200 we might quietly note to ourselves that clearly both parties lack a certain level of ACM.....  both the perpetrator attempting it and the player with unsufficient ACM to avoid it.

Else perhaps our "experten" can find some other form of positive motivation for these hapless perpetrators of the HO ...............  or else perhaps our experten just learn to live with it .........

[Midway]

OK. So HO's are bad..... But some (lots?) folk do them.

Our "experten" here consider that these folk should be shown the error of their ways by expressing various levels of "distaste" for the HO. Indeed bringing such words as "respect" or even " honour" to support this attempt to dissuade the "perpetrators". That this will somehow discourage such practice.

Yet after years of such "expression" the HO is still with us...........

The futility of such expression has yet ( it seems) to be understood

That an adversary may indeed attempt a HO is part of gameplay.... That dealing with the possibility of a HO attempt is a part of  this games ACM.

Lamenting  its presence here, PM'ing the perpetrator , scolding on 200 have had ( after some 14 years) no effect.

A cynic might think the lament was only a vehicle for the  expression of "how great I am".

Perhaps our experten could show by their deeds that the HO attempt was indeed futile...... That by acquiring ACM skills they are not easily seduced into accepting an opponents HO attempt and enjoy greater success through this. That when we all see a HO debate on 200 we might quietly note to ourselves that clearly both parties lack a certain level of ACM.....  both the perpetrator attempting it and the player with unsufficient ACM to avoid it.

Else perhaps our "experten" can find some other form of positive motivation for these hapless perpetrators of the HO ...............  or else perhaps our experten just learn to live with it .........

HOs are not "bad" if you consistently win them.

Losing to a HO is bad.  

[Arlo]

The best lessons I ever received were from chiefs....who had BTDTGTTS. 

I'll give you that.  The best O's I knew were mustang but the best officers period were those that led from the front.  I always wondered why the enlisted folks spent sooo much of their time critiquing officers in positions of responsibility and in jobs they'd never had or done themselves;  especially when the good ones were the COs and XO's in their COC that insulated them from their mistakes from division or squadron.  It always seemed caddy to me for men and women who proudly called themselves professional soldiers.   Small is probably a better word.

Less time than you imagine. It's not the job, rank or position. It's the man. So now you seem to get what the word leadership means .... in action.

That's an awful lot of re-posturing you just did to not be an admitted change of position or a clarification of what you meant to say.  

[Arlo]

The entire point was missed on you so your editorial is mute.  Please don't try to recover because it's been asked and answered already.  The funny thing is I'd never see you in the DA, lol.

Well, it's true I didn't live there for two years in a 'DA squad' like yourself before signing up for the forum and asking other players how to set cockpit views.

From an earlier post you may need this: http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/acm-merge/merges_.ahf

 

[Changeup]

Less time than you imagine. It's not the job, rank or position. It's the man. So now you seem to get what the word leadership means .... in action.

That's an awful lot of re-posturing you just did to not be an admitted change of position or a clarification of what you meant to say.  

I always got it.  I just took great care of my men and mission and never had to worry about scuttlebutt.  At the end of the day,  the very few times it did happen the line was clearly demarcated as to why those people were enlisted and rendered career ball and chains. 

We sure had a few beers laughing about the griefers who defined leadership but couldn't perform it.

[LCADolby]

Else perhaps our "experten" can find some other form of positive motivation for these hapless perpetrators of the HO ...............  

Non-HOers are more successful (kill and survive,) in general within the MA and 1on1, I would have thought that success should be motivation enough.