Ethics of HO Shooting.....

[Zerstorer]

I misunderstood nothing but I see a GIANT tailwalker doing his thing right now, lmao!  I NEVER said it wasn't a RL, valid tactic.  That's what you said I said, and that is simply a lie.  I'm all for any RL life tactics and ACM, like turning your engine off in mid-flight.  That's RL life too, right?

You are correct.  Its takes much more skill to dodge the skill-less, lol.  Thank you for supporting my position.    

Sorry, but I'm not supporting your position, stated or implied...which you just "implied" again by stating shots not taken on the rear quarter are "skilless".  But you did, however, support my position by stating it takes more skill to dodge attacks from all quarters....and yet you and others in your camp try at every turn to use peer pressure tactics and social pressure to change the combat dynamic in the game, stigmatize anyone who takes shots which were taken in real life, paint the player doing so as skilless while portraing yourself as the skilled "victim".  

Having a tough time dodging the "skilless", Changeup?  MA too tough for you and your dueling sense of honor?  Ego can't handle the limitations of your mad "skillz" and SA limits?   

No, I admit it's not an argument you or I can win...but I DO know which position sounds more and more like excuses and being a bad loser.  And yes....when you go to the tower it's just that...a LOSS.  Period.

I'll let Skyyr defend his engine off tactic...it's not something I do and would rather not get into game flight models or other things.

[Stang]

I rarely ho. It just doesn't seem sporting to face shoot someone when you can just outfly them and then shoot them. I've been playing this game and others before for a long time, those who ho often do it because it's the only chance they have to get kills consistently. If they merge for a fight, they will either die or have to run, so the 50/50 chance of a kill is much higher than the 2% chance they have to win a fight where acm comes into play, so they ho. It's completely understandable, but let's not delude ourselves that those that ho often do it because it's a "historical tactic." It's just their best chance to get a victorious outcome, 50% being better than just about zero...

That being said, I'll ho certain types of players with glee. Take DrDeathx for example. He flies like a chickensquid, does nothing but pick in perk rides and won't engage unless his prey is lower and severely disadvantaged. I'll ho him just for the satisfaction of getting blown up via pm for 10 minutes about how much of an idiot and loser that I am.

 

[Kruel]

 Please cite for the audience where the 70 years of military aviation training materials you possess teach pilots to purposefully cut their engines in a dogfight.  

Thank you.   

Sure, it's right after the page where it says that in order to achieve the greatest affirmation of skill from both friend and foe,  one should always pass on easy shots to saddle up, because THAT is how you prove how good you are.

Purposely ignore your target's mistake in giving you a front quarter shot in order to prove to him and his country that you can get right in on his six..

Also there is an addendum on the wingman section of the war fighting manual that says you must let your wingman fight it out to the death because otherwise the enemy plane you destroy (and the wingman you save) will both be robbed of the glorious honor of dueling it out.

 

I like how you are now turning this into the engine off discussion because RL examples prove that Head Ons were viable tactics.

I understand that you might want to prove the point that we are selecting which RL tactics vs which unrealistic(in your opinion) tactics we chose.

I also understand you have a severe problem with keeping things in context and avoiding paraphrasing so key me recap:

- this conversation is about the HO shot, the fact that it was used IRL is merely one additional justification for its use. The effectiveness, risk to reward analysis, effect on game play can all be discussed infinitely, but it doesn't change the fact that HO shots will always be a part of WWII Air Combat real or simulated.

- Now, since you already know that you want to shift the conversation over to engine cutting, however as it had been mentioned previously in the thread, ONE of the reasons for taking the HO/front quarter shot is to minimize engagement time do to move on to the next target if possible. At least that's how we look at it. It's already been stated that we pay our 15 bucks to fly our way and that includes using the most efficient tactic to get a kill in a specific situation.

We take the HO shot not ONLY because it was used IRL but because it is effective in the right situation. The same could be said of using rolling scissors, climbing spirals ect ect.

We don't care much about the "fight" as we do about the kill. The challenge comes from fighting someone who employs all of the tools available to them to try and kill us, be it if it takes 5 seconds or 5 minutes.

We all have the same available tools to us so:


Bring the HO, bring the superior numbers, bring the engine cutting, bring anything you can bring to win and let the best one win...that is a fighting spirit. Calling something lame or unsporting because it works is not fighting spirit its whining.

It's like complaining about giving a guy with 50 homeruns a intentional walk instead of pitching to him, it's not the "most fun" for the fans but the pitcher doesn't care about their fun, he just wants to win the ballgame..

[Skyyr]

Allow me to rephrase the question you're now going to avoid.  Please cite for the audience where the 70 years of military aviation training materials you possess teach pilots to purposefully cut their engines in a dogfight.  

I'm not avoiding the question. Until now, you've not asked for me to provide "70 years of military aviation training materials you possess teach pilots to purposefully cut their engines in a dogfight."

That being said, I never said it existed. The original request was slowly twisted over the course of three replies. The original statement was:

I'm all for any RL life tactics and ACM, like turning your engine off in mid-flight.  That's RL life too, right?

I proved very readily that it does happen in real life.

You then came in and changed the wording of Changeup's request and stated:

Earlier, in this very thread, you cited 70 years of military training materials as justification for HO'ing.  What do the 70 years of materials say about turning your engine off in combat?

Training materials mention engine off procedures with quite a decent amount of regularity, as any real pilot will confirm. An engine off, both in and out of combat is relatively common; whether for putting out a fire, doing an air restart from fuel starvation, or any other myriad of possibilities. It's taught as part of emergency procedures, and to a lesser degree as CRM/SPRM.

Having been called on that, the request was then changed for a third time:

Allow me to rephrase the question you're now going to avoid.  Please cite for the audience where the 70 years of military aviation training materials you possess teach pilots to purposefully cut their engines in a dogfight.  

You seem to repeatedly put words where they don't belong. I never stated that I possessed training materials that taught pilots to cut their engines in combat; those were your words, not mine. There are numerous materials that address engine off procedures in combat, but none that instruct the pilot to pursue that end. In fact, no where have I stated that I possessed those, if only because that was never even a premise until your last post. I can't avoid a question that wasn't previously asked.

Does that suffice? Or will you need to change the question for a fourth time?


Now, having said that, something occurred to me. Turning is a tactic, energy fighting is a tactic, HO'ing is a tactic. Cutting one's engine off is not a tactic, but rather a process of execution.

Let's definite tactic:
tac·tic | ˈtaktik: noun - an action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end

Listing out HO'ing, turning, etc. - all of those actions can be employed and controlled from the start of a fight to a specific end. Ergo, they are tactics.

Killing one's engine in flight, however, is neither carefully planned nor is it controlled, as it's almost always done in reaction to avoid an overshoot. Further, it can cannot be used in and of itself to win a fight (kill your engine at the start of the fight and you're going to lose). Therefore, killing an engine is not a tactic; it is an action that is part of another tactic.

I just thought I'd clarify that because this thread is about WWII tactics, not the individual actions employed to achieve them.

 

[Skyyr]

Sure, it's right after the page where it says that in order to achieve the greatest affirmation of skill from both friend and foe,  one should always pass on easy shots to saddle up, because THAT is how you prove how good you are.

Purposely ignore your target's mistake in giving you a front quarter shot in order to prove to him and his country that you can get right in on his six..

Also there is an addendum on the wingman section of the war fighting manual that says you must let your wingman fight it out to the death because otherwise the enemy plane you destroy (and the wingman you save) will both be robbed of the glorious honor of dueling it out.

 

I like how you are now turning this into the engine off discussion because RL examples prove that Head Ons were viable tactics.

I understand that you might want to prove the point that we are selecting which RL tactics vs which unrealistic(in your opinion) tactics we chose.

I also understand you have a severe problem with keeping things in context and avoiding paraphrasing so key me recap:

- this conversation is about the HO shot, the fact that it was used IRL is merely one additional justification for its use. The effectiveness, risk to reward analysis, effect on game play can all be discussed infinitely, but it doesn't change the fact that HO shots will always be a part of WWII Air Combat real or simulated.

- Now, since you already know that you want to shift the conversation over to engine cutting, however as it had been mentioned previously in the thread, ONE of the reasons for taking the HO/front quarter shot is to minimize engagement time do to move on to the next target if possible. At least that's how we look at it. It's already been stated that we pay our 15 bucks to fly our way and that includes using the most efficient tactic to get a kill in a specific situation.

We take the HO shot not ONLY because it was used IRL but because it is effective in the right situation. The same could be said of using rolling scissors, climbing spirals ect ect.

We don't care much about the "fight" as we do about the kill. The challenge comes from fighting someone who employs all of the tools available to them to try and kill us, be it if it takes 5 seconds or 5 minutes.

We all have the same available tools to us so:


Bring the HO, bring the superior numbers, bring the engine cutting, bring anything you can bring to win and let the best one win...that is a fighting spirit. Calling something lame or unsporting because it works is not fighting spirit its whining.

It's like complaining about giving a guy with 50 homeruns a intentional walk instead of pitching to him, it's not the "most fun" for the fans but the pitcher doesn't care about their fun, he just wants to win the ballgame..

QFMFT!

[Skyyr]

And in the end, regardless of what anyone argues, killing the engine does nothing whatsoever. Remember? It's been tested and confirmed repeatedly. Therefore, why does it matter if anyone does it? It's a pointless action. 

[Zerstorer]

Sure, it's right after the page where it says that in order to achieve the greatest affirmation of skill from both friend and foe,  one should always pass on easy shots to saddle up, because THAT is how you prove how good you are.

Purposely ignore your target's mistake in giving you a front quarter shot in order to prove to him and his country that you can get right in on his six..

Also there is an addendum on the wingman section of the war fighting manual that says you must let your wingman fight it out to the death because otherwise the enemy plane you destroy (and the wingman you save) will both be robbed of the glorious honor of dueling it out.

 

I like how you are now turning this into the engine off discussion because RL examples prove that Head Ons were viable tactics.

I understand that you might want to prove the point that we are selecting which RL tactics vs which unrealistic(in your opinion) tactics we chose.

I also understand you have a severe problem with keeping things in context and avoiding paraphrasing so key me recap:

- this conversation is about the HO shot, the fact that it was used IRL is merely one additional justification for its use. The effectiveness, risk to reward analysis, effect on game play can all be discussed infinitely, but it doesn't change the fact that HO shots will always be a part of WWII Air Combat real or simulated.

- Now, since you already know that you want to shift the conversation over to engine cutting, however as it had been mentioned previously in the thread, ONE of the reasons for taking the HO/front quarter shot is to minimize engagement time do to move on to the next target if possible. At least that's how we look at it. It's already been stated that we pay our 15 bucks to fly our way and that includes using the most efficient tactic to get a kill in a specific situation.

We take the HO shot not ONLY because it was used IRL but because it is effective in the right situation. The same could be said of using rolling scissors, climbing spirals ect ect.

We don't care much about the "fight" as we do about the kill. The challenge comes from fighting someone who employs all of the tools available to them to try and kill us, be it if it takes 5 seconds or 5 minutes.

We all have the same available tools to us so:


Bring the HO, bring the superior numbers, bring the engine cutting, bring anything you can bring to win and let the best one win...that is a fighting spirit. Calling something lame or unsporting because it works is not fighting spirit its whining.

It's like complaining about giving a guy with 50 homeruns a intentional walk instead of pitching to him, it's not the "most fun" for the fans but the pitcher doesn't care about their fun, he just wants to win the ballgame..

Yep. 

And in the end, regardless of what anyone argues, killing the engine does nothing whatsoever. Remember? It's been tested and confirmed repeatedly. Therefore, why does it matter if anyone does it? It's a pointless action. 

   Yes....and that's the funniest part of that argument: "It doesn't work.  He's dumb for doing it because it does nothing."  Ok...so let him do it and kill him!  Oh wait, you were not able to take advantage of his "mistake"?  How odd.

For all that....I sure do see more pilots turning engines off.  You trendsetter you!   

Just don't bring back bell bottoms....please! 

[Debrody]

HOtards suck.

[guncrasher]

the thing that baffles me is the attitude of some players that in the ma every single encounter is/should be a 1v1.  and that is not even close to reality.

the other day I killed this guys that had been vulching the field he would come in at 10k dive  go back up and he would get 2 or 3 passes with a kill each time then eventually lose altitude and die very easily.  so I waited for him and killed him the time as I as at 15k waiting for him.  he didnt see me as he dove in and I killed him easily before he even got close to get another vulch.  he pm'd me and call me a skillless altitude dweeb.  I just pm'd back "there's always a higher picker, dont forget that".

in another fight yesterday it was several of them mostly 109's and 190's against several of us.  a certain 190 was diving in taking shots and go for higher altitude.  first time I had a chance I went right straight at it as he was again diving on a friendly and shot him right in the face, instant pilot wound, engine oil for him. I guess I did a lot of damage as he crashed a minute or two later and I got the pm about "why did you ho me?".  my reply was "to annoy the heck out of you as you were annoying the heck out of me".

I will ho you, pick you, rocket vulch you, crash into you, throw my purse at you, curse at you.  anything that I can do that will make you go down and me stay alive or to allow our mission to be completed.

if you want to say that I am doing wrong and I should learn some acm or skill, please remember I am not a pilot, I just like to pretend to be one with the difference that I actually dont die and I get a shinny new airplane every time.

you disagree with me I'll meet you in the DA anytime.  I have not lost in 193 challenges, perhaps any of you would like to be #194.

until then enjoy the game and keep the drama in the back burner.


semp

[Aspen]

My opinion is that a bunch of intentional walks makes for a crappy baseball game and a bunch of HOing has about the same effect on AH.

[Changeup]

Sorry, but I'm not supporting your position, stated or implied...which you just "implied" again by stating shots not taken on the rear quarter are "skilless".  But you did, however, support my position by stating it takes more skill to dodge attacks from all quarters....and yet you and others in your camp try at every turn to use peer pressure tactics and social pressure to change the combat dynamic in the game, stigmatize anyone who takes shots which were taken in real life, paint the player doing so as skilless while portraing yourself as the skilled "victim".  

Having a tough time dodging the "skilless", Changeup?  MA too tough for you and your dueling sense of honor?  Ego can't handle the limitations of your mad "skillz" and SA limits?   

No, I admit it's not an argument you or I can win...but I DO know which position sounds more and more like excuses and being a bad loser.  And yes....when you go to the tower it's just that...a LOSS.  Period.

I'll let Skyyr defend his engine off tactic...it's not something I do and would rather not get into game flight models or other things.

More tail wagging...
A.  I don't care about HOs therefore I need no excuse by losing to it. 
B.  Your quippy, failed response to the skill question did in fact support it.  You can try to confuse the issue with lots of verbosity but in the end, it doesn't pass the reasonable man test.
C.  There isn't anyone who is truthful with themselves that believes shooting at a con from any angle requires more ACM skill than trying to saddle them.  You seem to getting more and more autistic with your position as time goes by, lol.  That isn't surprising given your current situation. 

[Triton28]

Sure, it's right after the page where it says that in order to achieve the greatest affirmation of skill from both friend and foe,  one should always pass on easy shots to saddle up, because THAT is how you prove how good you are.

Purposely ignore your target's mistake in giving you a front quarter shot in order to prove to him and his country that you can get right in on his six..

Also there is an addendum on the wingman section of the war fighting manual that says you must let your wingman fight it out to the death because otherwise the enemy plane you destroy (and the wingman you save) will both be robbed of the glorious honor of dueling it out.

 

Imma need a source for this manual so I can buy a copy.   

I like how you are now turning this into the engine off discussion because RL examples prove that Head Ons were viable tactics.

I understand that you might want to prove the point that we are selecting which RL tactics vs which unrealistic(in your opinion) tactics we chose.

You caught that, huh?  You pretty sharp holmes.   

I also understand you have a severe problem with keeping things in context and avoiding paraphrasing so key me recap:

- this conversation is about the HO shot, the fact that it was used IRL is merely one additional justification for its use. The effectiveness, risk to reward analysis, effect on game play can all be discussed infinitely, but it doesn't change the fact that HO shots will always be a part of WWII Air Combat real or simulated.

The context of the engine off discussion was because HO'ing is being held up as completely valid here because it was done in real life.  Skyyr sure seemed to assign a high value to real life tactics and their employment in game:

The truth, however, is that you have no weight behind your argument other than your own personal preference, while I have nearly 70 years of military training materials and history supporting my stance.

He ain't cutting his engine because Robin Olds did it once by accident, he's doing it because he thinks it helps him win in this game.  That's cool and all, but don't get all indignant about using real life tactics when you're doing something gamey like that.  Maybe he's putting a sheet over his training materials so they don't see, but he's still treating this like a game... the same as we are when we say HO's are lame because it's just bad gameplay.

- Now, since you already know that you want to shift the conversation over to engine cutting, however as it had been mentioned previously in the thread, ONE of the reasons for taking the HO/front quarter shot is to minimize engagement time do to move on to the next target if possible. At least that's how we look at it. It's already been stated that we pay our 15 bucks to fly our way and that includes using the most efficient tactic to get a kill in a specific situation.

We take the HO shot not ONLY because it was used IRL but because it is effective in the right situation. The same could be said of using rolling scissors, climbing spirals ect ect.

HO'ing is an effective way to damage or kill the other guy while virtually assuring the same to your plane.  From a "winning" standpoint it's really only effective if you're counting on the other guy to not do it, or commit to the shot after you do.  This is not fun for many people.  It's not the same as rolling scissors, climbing spirals, or any other move.  Those other moves are supposed to be getting you something other than a HO shot... you know, the kind of shot where the other guys guns aren't facing you.  A very small difference I know, but massive in importance. 

That said, it certainly is your $14.95, but I don't recall anyone threatening to kick you out of the game...  I just make the case for the HO being lame and something that does not encourage good gameplay. 

We don't care much about the "fight" as we do about the kill. The challenge comes from fighting someone who employs all of the tools available to them to try and kill us, be it if it takes 5 seconds or 5 minutes.

We all have the same available tools to us so:


Bring the HO, bring the superior numbers, bring the engine cutting, bring anything you can bring to win and let the best one win...that is a fighting spirit. Calling something lame or unsporting because it works is not fighting spirit its whining.

It's like complaining about giving a guy with 50 homeruns a intentional walk instead of pitching to him, it's not the "most fun" for the fans but the pitcher doesn't care about their fun, he just wants to win the ballgame..

Fair enough, but the baseball analogy is flawed.  First of all, real money and real careers are on the line, even if it is a game, it's still a massive business.  Second, there is a manager sitting in the dugout making millions of dollars to make the correct moves, so if he follows his gut and pitches to the slugger, slugger hits a home run, management is probably going to have a talk about his future with the organization.  Let's not even talk about putting that man on first base to set up a double play, make the opposing manager pinch run, etc.  In Aces High, if you don't take the HO shot and you lose the fight, the worst that will happen is your toon pride will be wounded a little and you'll have to climb back out again. 

[Stang]

After digesting some walls of text there, I'll say this. Most of the front quarter shots you guys are referring to is a situation where a guy is merging with you looking for a fight. He could keep his nose pressed completely to you, but just veers slightly to merge. It's very unsporting to then pop off a shot and say, "I win!" When it's pretty clear to you what his intent is.

It's not the shot that is annoying as the attitude and justifications that come with it. 2cmex ho's all the time in merges but I don't see him spouting off about how he got you and his elite skills with a mouse lining up a pretty static ho shot. I think that says something.

Moreover the hah I got you attitude reminds me of kindergartners on a playground intentionally being dicks because their mommy cut short their last breast feeding session. That's all.

[Triton28]

I'm not avoiding the question. Until now, you've not asked for me to provide "70 years of military aviation training materials you possess teach pilots to purposefully cut their engines in a dogfight."

That being said, I never said it existed. The original request was slowly twisted over the course of three replies. The original statement was:

I proved very readily that it does happen in real life.

You then came in and changed the wording of Changeup's request and stated:

Training materials mention engine off procedures with quite a decent amount of regularity, as any real pilot will confirm. An engine off, both in and out of combat is relatively common; whether for putting out a fire, doing an air restart from fuel starvation, or any other myriad of possibilities. It's taught as part of emergency procedures, and to a lesser degree as CRM/SPRM.

Having been called on that, the request was then changed for a third time:

You seem to repeatedly put words where they don't belong. I never stated that I possessed training materials that taught pilots to cut their engines in combat; those were your words, not mine. There are numerous materials that address engine off procedures in combat, but none that instruct the pilot to pursue that end. In fact, no where have I stated that I possessed those, if only because that was never even a premise until your last post. I can't avoid a question that wasn't previously asked.

Does that suffice? Or will you need to change the question for a fourth time?


Now, having said that, something occurred to me. Turning is a tactic, energy fighting is a tactic, HO'ing is a tactic. Cutting one's engine off is not a tactic, but rather a process of execution.

Let's definite tactic:
tac·tic | ˈtaktik: noun - an action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end

Listing out HO'ing, turning, etc. - all of those actions can be employed and controlled from the start of a fight to a specific end. Ergo, they are tactics.

Killing one's engine in flight, however, is neither carefully planned nor is it controlled, as it's almost always done in reaction to avoid an overshoot. Further, it can cannot be used in and of itself to win a fight (kill your engine at the start of the fight and you're going to lose). Therefore, killing an engine is not a tactic; it is an action that is part of another tactic.

I just thought I'd clarify that because this thread is about WWII tactics, not the individual actions employed to achieve them.

 

[Skyyr]

(Image removed from quote.)

How appropriate of you to pick a photo of Mr. Clinton as a reply for your argument.

"Well, it wasn't technically a loss because he HO'd me."  

The context of the engine off discussion was because HO'ing is being held up as completely valid here because it was done in real life.  Skyyr sure seemed to assign a high value to real life tactics and their employment in game:
He ain't cutting his engine because Robin Olds did it once by accident, he's doing it because he thinks it helps him win in this game.  That's cool and all, but don't get all indignant about using real life tactics when you're doing something gamey like that.  Maybe he's putting a sheet over his training materials so they don't see, but he's still treating this like a game... the same as we are when we say HO's are lame because it's just bad gameplay.

Yet again, not true. You stated that HO'ing was poor form, and we replied that it was a valid tactic backed up by history. We never said we used it because it was found in training materials, we simply said that between your argument and ours, ours is the only one supported by history and there's myriads of material backing it up.

You then tried to create a straw man argument and claimed that cutting one's engine isn't found in combat manuals, so therefore we're treating the game as a game. We never stated that our tactics had to come from actual training material; our only point was that you come in preaching about ACM, only to complain and decry use of actual ACM tactics. Please quit trying to put words where they don't belong.

The difference, as Kruel stated, is that we care about the kill, not the fight. This is a game to us, but we will always use the most efficient means of killing our opponent over any sort of pseduo-honor.

By the way, how's that engine cutting working for ya? I noticed you did it a few times when I shot your LA down a week or two back.