Ethics of HO Shooting.....

[Aspen]

MA is like a bar fight.  Bar fights where guys punch it out 'till someone loses then go back inside and have a beer together can be great fun.  Bar fights where one guy pulls a knife and shanks a couple guys are totally different.

[Wiley]

It's not a duelist mentality, it's a sporting mentality.  If you view this game as a sport, you're more apt to forgo face shooting because it doesn't require any skill other than making sure your lead is under the target and not waiting too long to shoot.  Would you rather have an arena filled with sporting types who like to test their skill in maneuvering their aircraft to gain advantages or dice rollers who count their HO shot stats and have figured that they win more than they lose, so the results dictate they continue face shooting as a front line tactic to win?  There is nearly infinite replayability in this game with the former, and not so much with the latter. 

Or, alternately, in the course of testing their skill in maneuvering their aircraft, they could improve their ability to avoid the HO.  If you merge in such a way it doesn't matter whether the guy takes the shot or not, the HO "problem" magically disappears and you can concentrate on fighting.

You still get a certain amount of one pass haul backside to contend with, but that's what fast planes and altitude were made for.

Wiley.

[Triton28]

Or, alternately, in the course of testing their skill in maneuvering their aircraft, they could improve their ability to avoid the HO.  If you merge in such a way it doesn't matter whether the guy takes the shot or not, the HO "problem" magically disappears and you can concentrate on fighting.

You still get a certain amount of one pass haul backside to contend with, but that's what fast planes and altitude were made for.

Wiley.

Sure, but we both know that sometimes it's unavoidable.  This is almost always true when the eager HOer has a positional and/or energy advantage.  The disadvantaged plane has little choice but to pull up in to the attacker.  The eager HOer guy has many options, but for some reason chose to flip over and face shoot.   That said, it's funny when people hold all the cards and still flip over for the HO shot and still die while you fly away, so at least there's comedic value.   

[Wiley]

Sure, but we both know that sometimes it's unavoidable.  This is almost always true when the eager HOer has a positional and/or energy advantage.  The disadvantaged plane has little choice but to pull up in to the attacker.  The eager HOer guy has many options, but for some reason chose to flip over and face shoot.   That said, it's funny when people hold all the cards and still flip over for the HO shot and still die while you fly away, so at least there's comedic value.   

1v1, I'd defy you to show me an unavoidable HO.  In a furball, the fact that you're being ganged is a much larger problem than the fact that one of them took a HO shot as you were turning.  In that case, he's giving you an opportunity a smarter opponent wouldn't by putting himself in front of your guns.

Wiley.

[Arlo]

He's likely referring to on-the-deck head-on approaches.

[Wiley]

He's likely referring to on-the-deck head-on approaches.

Still, 1v1 there's no such thing as an unavoidable HO.

Wiley.

[Skyyr]

Still, 1v1 there's no such thing as an unavoidable HO.

Wiley.

Of course there is.

Example: 190A-5 vs Spit 8/9/16. Flown correctly, the 190 cannot maneuver to get behind the 3/9 line of the Spit. Since the Spit also retains the edge in maneuverability and airspeed, the only shots the 190 will have are intersecting front-quarter shots. I'll demonstrate this to you 1v1 in the DA if you'd like - I promise the only shots solutions you'd be presented with (if you managed to get them) are front-quarter. It's purely a matter of physics.

Yet again, people think the front of the aircraft is some mystical "no zone." ACM's single goal is to get your guns on the target in the most efficient manner possible. With dissimilar aircraft, many times the correct answer IS a front-quarter shot.

The entire premise of "No HO's" is, ironically, based on the premise that everything should be a turnfight to which you attempt to maneuver behind the opponent's 3/9 line, which defies the core fundamentals of ACM.

[Arlo]

Still, 1v1 there's no such thing as an unavoidable HO.

Wiley.

He'll duel ya on the deck.

[Wiley]

Of course there is.

Example: 190A-5 vs Spit 8/9/16. Flown correctly, the 190 cannot maneuver to get behind the 3/9 line of the Spit. Since the Spit also retains the edge in maneuverability, the only shots the 190 will have are intersecting front-quarter shots. I'll demonstrate this to you 1v1 in the DA if you'd like - I promise the only shots solutions you'd be presented with (if you managed to get them) are front-quarter. It's purely a matter of physics.

Yet again, people think the front of the aircraft is some mystical "no zone." ACM's single goal is to get your guns on the target in the most efficient manner possible. With dissimilar aircraft, many times the correct answer IS a front-quarter shot.

Front quarter shot isn't a HO.  A HO is both planes in the cone of fire of the other.  What you're describing is the guy in the spit almost turning hard enough to get his guns on, but not quite.  That's not HOing, that's 'getting beaten'.

Wiley.

[Someguy63]

Of course there is.

Example: 190A-5 vs Spit 8/9/16. Flown correctly, the 190 cannot maneuver to get behind the 3/9 line of the Spit. Since the Spit also retains the edge in maneuverability, the only shots the 190 will have are intersecting front-quarter shots. I'll demonstrate this to you 1v1 in the DA if you'd like - I promise the only shots solutions you'd be presented with (if you managed to get them) are front-quarter. It's purely a matter of physics.

Yet again, people think the front of the aircraft is some mystical "no zone." ACM's single goal is to get your guns on the target in the most efficient manner possible. With dissimilar aircraft, many times the correct answer IS a front-quarter shot.

This isn't what Wiley is talking about, this is a completely different topic.

What you're saying is that in an aircraft inferior to another in agility a HO is unavoidable (e.g there is no other way to down the spit)
Wiley is talking about Head-On attacks, as in one at the merge of two aircraft, and there simply is no unavoidable Head-On attack.

[Stampf]

This isn't what Wiley is talking about, this is a completely different topic.

What you're saying is that in an aircraft inferior to another in agility a HO is unavoidable (e.g there is no other way to down the spit)
Wiley is talking about Head-On attacks, as in one at the merge of two aircraft, and there simply is no unavoidable Head-On attack.

Correct!

Any head on pass at alt is avoidable.  Avoidable without giving up some position advantage due to different aircraft strengths?  No not always...but still avoidable as far as the first guns pass goes.

[Skyyr]

Wiley is talking about Head-On attacks, as in one at the merge of two aircraft, and there simply is no unavoidable Head-On attack.

There is no difference between a head-on attack at a merge with similar aircraft and a head-on attack between a disadvantaged aircraft against a superior one - a head-on attack is a head-on attack. Any classification otherwise is an attempt to justify one's excuse of how they wish to fly. The only differing factor is the appropriateness of the attack based on established ACM doctrine.

It's identical to saying that turning in the vertical is "turning" because it isn't horizontal. Turning is turning is turning - how it's employed doesn't change what it is. Stating otherwise is an arbitrary excuse based on a lack of knowledge and experience in ACM.

Front quarter shot isn't a HO.  A HO is both planes in the cone of fire of the other.  What you're describing is the guy in the spit almost turning hard enough to get his guns on, but not quite.  That's not HOing, that's 'getting beaten'.

Wiley.

No, consider a 190 is being roped by the Spit. He can't turn away, or he'll present his six to the enemy. At the same time, he's saving as much E by trying to reduce the angle of his climb. The Spit is above, but slowing quickly. As the Spit's nose drops, the 190 has two choices - pull up and take a head-on shot, or avoid the shot and subsequently lose all positional advantage. Given this scenario, the only wise choice for the 190 is a hot remerge. The Spit will get hit either way, so the wise Spit pilot will take the shot as well.

This results in an unavoidable hot merge/remerge, as the shot is the only advantage the 190 has.

[Arlo]

Of course there is.

Example: 190A-5 vs Spit 8/9/16. Flown correctly, the 190 cannot maneuver to get behind the 3/9 line of the Spit. Since the Spit also retains the edge in maneuverability and airspeed, the only shots the 190 will have are intersecting front-quarter shots. I'll demonstrate this to you 1v1 in the DA if you'd like - I promise the only shots solutions you'd be presented with (if you managed to get them) are front-quarter. It's purely a matter of physics.

Yet again, people think the front of the aircraft is some mystical "no zone." ACM's single goal is to get your guns on the target in the most efficient manner possible. With dissimilar aircraft, many times the correct answer IS a front-quarter shot.

The entire premise of "No HO's" is, ironically, based on the premise that everything should be a turnfight to which you attempt to maneuver behind the opponent's 3/9 line, which defies the core fundamentals of ACM.

.
Wiley's talking more about the art of the dodge, I believe.

[The Fugitive]

If you can't kill a spit with out HOing your not very skilled at this game.

Just saying.

[Skyyr]

If you can't kill a spit with out HOing your not very skilled at this game.

Just saying.

So you're up for the 190 vs Spitfire duel in the DA? Let me know a date and time - I'd love to see your Spit-killing skills.