Ignore the HO whiners. They just want the fight to be easier for themselves. Take the shot that you think is best.
My personal ethics on the HOis the opponent pansy and is trying to play the runny game? HO
is it a perk plane ? HO
is it a faster plane ? HO
is there more then one person attacking me ? HO
can the plane out turn my plane ? HO
is the plane landing ? NO HO
is the plane taking off ? No HO
is the pilot AFK ? NO HO
:cheers:
Whether your bullets hit them in the back or in the front, the result is the same.
Ignore the HO whiners. They just want the fight to be easier for themselves. Take the shot that you think is best.
No. This is not true.
Putting bullets in a fighter from behind means they can't put bullets in you, so the result is they are damaged and you are undamaged. Shooting them from in front often means they can shoot back, which can result in both of you being damaged or shot down.
Those results are quite different.
Don't even know why this thread was created.
Don't even know why this thread was created.
Please refrain from claiming I said something I did not.
HOing is for 2 weekers and skilless noobs, and is only legit against tard planes, the KI43, brew, and zeke, along with jets, and buffs
There are no "tard" planes, just "tard" players.I.e. The planes tard players fly :)
ack-ack
Ignore the HO whiners. They just want the fight to be easier for themselves. Take the shot that you think is best.
The planes tard players fly
As to the HO. FIRING on a Head On merge is what I consider skillless and lame. I'm in it for the fight and as someone above said, challenge myself to maneuver for a good shot where the enemy doesn't have a shot. It takes more skill to get to that shot with out getting shot in the process, but its how I like to play the game.
If on the other hand you couldn't care less about how you fight or win then do what you will and ignore what others says.
Agreed.
The OP wanted to know why he was being criticized. This is why. That doesn't make the criticism valid; it's more like a comment that some people consider the HO shots to be unsportsmanlike. If you view this game as a sport, you might take that into consideration. If you view it as a simulation, or as some sort of I-got-more-kills-than-you-got contest, then by all means take the HO shot.
- oldman
Im confused by the whole ho shooting topic. It seems to be a big ethical no no. I am a newbi so forgive me. Iv received a couple of messages from other players claiming I hoed them. What qualifies as ho shooting except a direct head on assault? I dove down on one player and shot him from behind and he accused me of hoing him. Also, if you're in a slower plane like a zero or nik2-j, how can you defend against high speed bnz,ers without facing them head on?
I just outfly them and kill them when they don't have a shot on me. Most of the time if you HO someone you will take damage, having to fly back to base. Also, they are easy to avoid but you are bound to get unlucky some times (usually happens to me in a 262 :bhead)This :aok
The whole "HOing" phenomena is almost exclusively an Aces High thing. Not only are head-ons in other contemporary on-line sims extremely rare (might have something to do with the continuously computer range indication, I dunno... that's the best theory I have heard) but when they happen in other sims I have never heard whining about it. Rare head-ons, even rarer whining.
Coming back here, there is something oddly comforting about it... looking at the red icon coming in... using your jedi-senses to determine the level of your opponent... It's unlikely that P-51 has his convergence set to 1500, but he sure is already on them guns... gonna be a quick fight hahahaha
A good point.
Of all the online "combat flight simulations" I've flown, AH is the only one where a sizable percentage of the player population attempt to dissuade and/or demean those who attempt to use actual combat tactics: Front quarter shots, acquiring altitude before engaging, extending or disengaging from a fight when the situation calls for it, etc.
This was touched on earlier, but I think this attitude is because some see AH as a sport / game, while others are more into the simulation aspects of AH. Both player types are competitive, but the approach they take reflects these philosophical differences.
Im confused by the whole ho shooting topic. It seems to be a big ethical no no. I am a newbi so forgive me. Iv received a couple of messages from other players claiming I hoed them. What qualifies as ho shooting except a direct head on assault? I dove down on one player and shot him from behind and he accused me of hoing him. Also, if you're in a slower plane like a zero or nik2-j, how can you defend against high speed bnz,ers without facing them head on?
I have read many historical accounts of HOing in WWII. In fact, it was a USAAF fighter tactic to keep German interceptors from HOing USAAF bombers. That is how Chuck Yeager got shot down over southern France. In a HO fight...
From the man's mouth to ink...
http://victoriayeager.com/from-chuck-yeager-1944-shot-down-france/ (http://victoriayeager.com/from-chuck-yeager-1944-shot-down-france/)
Once you learn how the front quarter cone works in the game, it's an easy kill requiring no ACM because everyone merges at each other mostly in straight lines. If you turn off your tracers, it's stealing candy from a baby because you give no warning for your target to key off or in some cases even know it was you who shot them. Most newbies and many vets shoot long and always miss as a rule. In many cases what has become irritating is the few players who have learned how to shoot during that approach and not shoot long. And they do have their tracers off. It's insulting as heck if you listen to range or watch 200. It's a fast way to have one heck of a K\D and Hit% without needing to invest time in the DA.
I'm not quite certain, but I believe I see a solution to the problem.
Wiley.
I'm not quite certain, but I believe I see a solution to the problem.
just dont be that guy who HOs the single bad guy in a 2v1 or more engagement
We may not like it but, the HO is the great equalizer. If you succeed, it puts an end to the skill and ACM advantage some players have earned over time or are naturals at in the game.Can we get some pics or videos. They are worth a thousand words to me :salute
That being said, if it becomes the tactic de jur for the MA. Your average night will be, up, fly to the fight, either you out HO everyone there, or for most. Their night is one long repeat of a boring flight to be towered in seconds of arrival. Which will influence many to fly very timid around others and avoid fighting, choosing to only pick, vulch, and run from anyone looking to fight. Kind of like we are now.
The alternative to this which we were closer to about 7-8 years ago. Community peer pressure expressed the feeling that HOing was a bad tactic and players who HOed were bad game citizens, green newbies, or somehow cheating everyone else's opportunity to participate in air combat.
Several in this post are trying to fine tune the definition of what is a HO in AH. The AH definition has always been both aircraft are flying face on at each other blazing away. So everything else in the frontal quarter angle 360 cone is argued over and spitefully defended as skill on ch200, PM's, and here in the forums.
Once you learn how the front quarter cone works in the game, it's an easy kill requiring no ACM because everyone merges at each other mostly in straight lines. If you turn off your tracers, it's stealing candy from a baby because you give no warning for your target to key off or in some cases even know it was you who shot them. Most newbies and many vets shoot long and always miss as a rule. In many cases what has become irritating is the few players who have learned how to shoot during that approach and not shoot long. And they do have their tracers off. It's insulting as heck if you listen to range or watch 200. It's a fast way to have one heck of a K\D and Hit% without needing to invest time in the DA.
Here for newbies and vets is how to teach yourself the shot. You can extrapolate from these instructions for all the other positions attacking from the frontal quarter 360 cone. The root of everyone's mistake. You are not leading short enough in front of the con for the combined speeds of your fighter and the con's. Most often 600-800mph in the MA.
Offline use the AH default.bmp gunsight. It's a 100Mil ring. Use a D9, P51D, La7, or Spit16 to start with. The drone circle has the drones at 3000ft. Climb to 5000ft and fly against the left hand turn of the drones. You do want tracers on as training wheels for getting your stream into the right place. If you turn on the lead computing gunsight the green cross will show you what I'm about to describe.
When the drone is between 2k and 2.5k away dive to it. When the drone is between 1000 and 1500 place the upper edge of the 100Mil ring on the drone so you are shooting down and in front of the drone. This is where you watch your tracer stream and correct it into the drone's path. If you have the lead computing gunsight enabled, you will see that the shoot point for 1000-1500 places the top edge of the 100Mil ring just in front or on the nose of the on coming drone.
The drones in the circle are traveling at about 225-250mph with you diving at about 375-425. In the MA you and your con will be much faster closing. So your aimpoint to lead in the MA will be closer to the top of your windscreen at 1000-1500yds. This is why newbies and many vets miss most of the time with their front quarter shots to an oncoming con. And yes it is a skill that takes some practice. Still it's easier than learning ACM if all you want to do is dive in, shoot, then run, until you can turn around and repeat.
Im confused by the whole ho shooting topic. It seems to be a big ethical no no.
Iv received a couple of messages from other players claiming I hoed them.
What qualifies as ho shooting except a direct head on assault? I dove down on one player and shot him from behind and he accused me of hoing him. Also, if you're in a slower plane like a zero or nik2-j, how can you defend against high speed bnz,ers without facing them head on?
You thin anybody gonna bother go offline and try what I just described.............. :rolleyes:
The whole "HOing" phenomena is almost exclusively an Aces High thing. Not only are head-ons in other contemporary on-line sims extremely rare (might have something to do with the continuously computer range indication, I dunno... that's the best theory I have heard) but when they happen in other sims I have never heard whining about it. Rare head-ons, even rarer whining.
Coming back here, there is something oddly comforting about it... looking at the red icon coming in... using your jedi-senses to determine the level of your opponent... It's unlikely that P-51 has his convergence set to 1500, but he sure is already on them guns... gonna be a quick fight hahahaha
Not so sure bout that. "HOing" takes place quite a bit in WT, more so than here truth be told. But there are far less complaints about it there than here. People just accept it and move on. Not sure why it is not like that here. :headscratch:
I'll admit, it is nice to see a bit of chivalry in the MA every once in a while but you shouldn't be expecting mercy from someone whose job it is to kill you all the time.You shot down my 262 while I was blacked out and trying to land you dirty vulcher! I had 17 pic-- err kills.
Not so sure bout that. "HOing" takes place quite a bit in WT, more so than here truth be told. But there are far less complaints about it there than here. People just accept it and move on. Not sure why it is not like that here. :headscratch:
It does indeed take place quite a bit in WT...and just about every other multiplayer online air combat game. The reason few complain about it is simple: Front quarter shots were a valid tactic, historically speaking, and so it is natural to conclude those tactics will be used in a historical simulation/game. So the question isn't why people accept HOing in other games, but rather why some people in AH do not.
IMO....the answer is that this game, unlike many of the others, appears to have a much higher percentage of players who have a 'Duelist Mentality'. This mentality has become more and more the accepted norm over the years as the player base has dwindled.
To a 'duelist' the DA, and the rules that apply there, are the only ones which define the 'skilled' from the 'unskilled'. These individuals tend to apply DA rules and concepts to MA combat, either not understanding or ignoring that the are not applicable. They also tend to talk a great deal about 'honor' and attempt to enforce the concept of a fair fight....neither of which apply to the historical reality of WWII air combat. It's unsurprising that some (but not all) of these players have either never played another online air combat simulation or when they have done so tend not to like it for obvious reasons e.g. The other game sucks because the players are a bunch of unskilled 'vulchers', 'alt tards' and 'HO sissys' who refuse to fight on the deck flaps out at stall speeds.
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.
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. :devil
He's likely referring to on-the-deck head-on approaches.
Still, 1v1 there's no such thing as an unavoidable HO.
Wiley.
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, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If you can't kill a spit with out HOing your not very skilled at this game.
Just saying.
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.
It's identical to saying "But you TURNED your plane in the vertical when I didn't have E - that's not the same as turning horizontally!" It's an arbitrary excuse based on a lack of knowledge and experience in ACM.
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, the 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. The Spit will get hit either way.
This results in an unavoidable hot merge/remerge, as the shot is the only advantage the 190 has.
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.
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.
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.
Still, 1v1 there's no such thing as an unavoidable HO.
Wiley.
A plane with energy and/or position diving down on you in your front quarter doesn't leave you any other option. You have to pull into him. Now, I'll grant you that there's a theoretical sweet spot where you can avoid the HO, not get shot, and not be in a worse positional disadvantage than you were before, but that line is thin and not easy to walk when the rate of closure goes up.
My position is the guy who dove on your front quarter is a ninny because he chose to attack in such a way as to force you to go nose to nose. It's not wrong and it's not cheating, but it's not sporting. In a video game like this, there's no reason to not be sporting unless you're afraid of what might happen if you are. Fair enough I suppose, but it's lame any way you look at it.
You say potato, I say 'potahto'. Call it what you will, but the differences are the same...and you define the differences quite well. Some do view this as a "sport", while others as a "simulation". I tend to lean pretty heavily towards the later.
That brings up an interesting question: If AH is, as you claim, a "sport"....how is it that rankings and statistics mean "nothing"?
I'm not seeing what you're describing. Are you assuming the guy being dived in on has no E and is basically hanging there? Again, that's the issue, not the orientation of his plane.
Wiley.
I'm not seeing what you're describing. Are you assuming the guy being dived in on has no E and is basically hanging there? Again, that's the issue, not the orientation of his plane.
Wiley.
If you view it as a simulation, why would you want to intentionally go nose to nose? Your risk of virtually dying and not completing your virtual mission goes through the roof, so it's not a very safe way to play if surviving the sortie is what you're after. I've noticed there are far less blatant HO's in FSO and scenarios, save for the really desperate guy who's being ganged or the injured plane who knows he won't make it back anyway, so I'm not really buying the "Guys ho'd in WWII, so as a true sim pilot, I will embrace the HO" stance it seems you're trying to take. You can fly for immersion and the simulation without making the HO shot one of your favorite shots to take.
Score will mean what you want it to mean. People that put no stock in score are the ones that have had their butt kicked at one time or another buy a guy who ranks 1238 but could likely take out 98% of the arena if the fights where on anything approaching even terms. Some people just don't fly for score, and because I know that, I don't put much stock in how good someone is just because their rank is high.
When you're being dove on from directly above or from a high 12 O'clock, what's the best option you have?
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.
If you view it as a simulation, why would you want to intentionally go nose to nose? Your risk of virtually dying and not completing your virtual mission goes through the roof, so it's not a very safe way to play if surviving the sortie is what you're after. I've noticed there are far less blatant HO's in FSO and scenarios, save for the really desperate guy who's being ganged or the injured plane who knows he won't make it back anyway, so I'm not really buying the "Guys ho'd in WWII, so as a true sim pilot, I will embrace the HO" stance it seems you're trying to take. You can fly for immersion and the simulation without making the HO shot one of your favorite shots to take.
Score will mean what you want it to mean. People that put no stock in score are the ones that have had their butt kicked at one time or another buy a guy who ranks 1238 but could likely take out 98% of the arena if the fights where on anything approaching even terms. Some people just don't fly for score, and because I know that, I don't put much stock in how good someone is just because their rank is high.
FYI - I've specifically stated in the forum many times that a true HO (i.e. a nose to nose shot) is dumb to attempt as it's a crap shoot. Speaking personally, I avoid these. I'm specifically speaking about a off-nose front quarter shot, which many AH pilots equate as a 'HO' as well.
It's not much better to be pulling towards a nose to nose situation, watch the other pilot relax his turn or nose off slightly to avoid the HO, you fire, kill him, and then claim it wasn't a HO because his guns weren't on you. This happens a lot, and while you're right, it doesn't meet the strict definition of a HO, it's equally lame.
What's lame is the guy whining because he flew across your gunsight and you had the unmitigated gall to pull the trigger.
Wiley.
That isn't what I described. Picture a two circle fight. Both pilot pulling hard, Pilot A sees the HO coming and says, "I'm not gonna pipper this guy because I'd like to see this play out" and relaxes his turn. Pilot B sees the HO coming and says, "Ehhh, I'll take my chances with the HO" and continues to pull. Pilot B will likely have a front quarter shot without the other guy's guns on him. It's not a HO, but it sporting either. When Pilot A fills up 200 with "you didn't have to HO", Pilot B can proudly say he did not HO, but he would have because that's what he was pulling for. It's damn near the same thing.
Yup. He chose to pull to put himself in front of the opponent's guns instead of avoiding the vector that put him there. It's no different than if the two of them were at off angles and he flew in front of the opponent. He could have picked a line that doesn't put him in front of the other guy's guns. The fact that they were nose to nose at that moment is meaningless. He flew in front of the other guy's guns, but because of his warped worldview, screamed 'HOME FREE!' and expected the other guy not to fire.
Putting your plane where it can be shot by the enemy is commonly called 'losing the fight.'
Wiley.
Yup. He chose to pull to put himself in front of the opponent's guns instead of avoiding the vector that put him there. It's no different than if the two of them were at off angles and he flew in front of the opponent. He could have picked a line that doesn't put him in front of the other guy's guns. The fact that they were nose to nose at that moment is meaningless. He flew in front of the other guy's guns, but because of his warped worldview, screamed 'HOME FREE!' and expected the other guy not to fire.
Wiley.
Putting your plane where it can be shot by the enemy is commonly called 'losing the fight.'
No, because whether you believe it or not, you've been in situations in this game where the decision to HO was made by the pilot who's attacking you. Especially given that the most unavoidable of those situations the attacker is the one who completely dictates the beginning of the engagement, with the defender simply having to react to what he's faced with.
If both planes always fire in face on situations, the game would be more fun for you to play?
You enjoy hours and hours of playing chicken with airplanes and having a coin flip determine who "wins"? Does out HO'ing another toon pilot give you the same sense of accomplishment and enjoyment as outmaneuvering/outsmarting/outplaying your opponent? If that's what you call fun, I'd say it's your worldview that's warped.
We merge, HO the piss out of each other, you explode and I'm beat to a pulp and have to RTB. You didn't lose a fight that was really worth winning.
That isn't what I described. Picture a two circle fight. Both pilot pulling hard, Pilot A sees the HO coming and says, "I'm not gonna pipper this guy because I'd like to see this play out" and relaxes his turn. Pilot B sees the HO coming and says, "Ehhh, I'll take my chances with the HO" and continues to pull. Pilot B will likely have a front quarter shot without the other guy's guns on him. It's not a HO, but it isn't sporting either. When Pilot A fills up 200 with "you didn't have to HO", Pilot B can proudly say he did not HO, but he would have because that's what he was pulling for. It's damn near the same thing.
The only thing you can be talking about here is the initial merge, and there are far better options as the 'defender' than succumbing to the coin flip you so detest.
If he bounces you from the front and you have no E to maneuver, that's not a HO problem, that's an E management problem. If you're 1v4 and one of them face shoots you while you're turning hard, that's a ganging problem, not a HO problem, and in fact it's a gift because he gave you a chance to fire back at him.
That's not what I said. What I said was, 1v1 on the first merge, there is no such thing as an unavoidable HO.
If I get pinged in something approximating a 1v1 more than 3 times in a week on the way in, I'm having an off week, and I get fired at on the merge in probably close to 3/4 of my engagements. I said 'pinged' not 'damaged'. Actually losing a part is much lower of an occurrence.
Two planes merge, one guy shoots, the other guy slips it and gains position, now the fight's on, or the shooter dives out. Either way the fight was won.
Wiley.
Ok... one more time. True story:
Con comes in to harass us climbing out to a furball. Kinda turny plane too... this ain't no A8. He's got energy and position, and he starts diving on people hoping for easy kills. I start a high speed climb in his general direction hoping he'll get distracted by the veritable smorgasbord of low airplanes. He dives on a teammate, zooms back up but realizes I'm now trying to get up to him. He goes up rolls over at 2k and dives my high 12. I've got some speed, but I can't get up to him without him coming down to me... which he does, guns blazing. He died, I limped back home and landed. Wow. That was fun. :rolleyes:
Now, who made the choice to HO?
Ok... one more time. True story:
Con comes in to harass us climbing out to a furball. Kinda turny plane too... this ain't no A8. He's got energy and position, and he starts diving on people hoping for easy kills. I start a high speed climb in his general direction hoping he'll get distracted by the veritable smorgasbord of low airplanes. He dives on a teammate, zooms back up but realizes I'm now trying to get up to him. He goes up rolls over at 2k and dives my high 12. I've got some speed, but I can't get up to him without him coming down to me... which he does, guns blazing. He died, I limped back home and landed. Wow. That was fun. :rolleyes:
Now, who made the choice to HO?
It's not much better to be pulling towards a nose to nose situation, watch the other pilot relax his turn or nose off slightly to avoid the HO, you fire, kill him, and then claim it wasn't a HO because his guns weren't on you. This happens a lot, and while you're right, it doesn't meet the strict definition of a HO, it's equally lame.
Putting your plane where it can be shot by the enemy is commonly called 'losing the fight.'
Clearly you did unless he died in a collision.
He did actually collide..
I have to agree if you were killed in a Ho it was your fault. You were the one that flew your plane into the ho.... There are so many ways to miss a ho that it is your fault not the opponets. I had a fight 2 nights ago with a K4 in my 262. We went head to head. My taterz hit his missed even though he oiled my engine with 13mms.
The funny thing was he accused me of the HO.. That is true. I hoed but it was his choice to accept it... I dont see why people get mad about it. I was the one taking the biggest risk with 250 perkI s in the balance,. He accepted I killed him that simple.
The only reason I hit was he flew into the ho. Any other way and I would shot by without hitting.
I will take a ho shot if and when I believe that
1 I am being picked.
2 If I am being ganged by more than 3 cons.
Any other time is a high angle shot where I have to put my plane in a harsh skid to lead and hit you.
i know Triton is a HO........... :bolt:
Ah yes...
1.) The two pilots pull nose to nose. Let's call them Pilot A and Pilot B.
2.) Pilot B "relaxes" his turn slightly. By this I believe you are implying he is doing so for a "fight" to develop. In other words, Pilot B is setting up to perform a last second evasive and reversal on Pilot A.
3.) Pilot A sees he has a clear shot. He further understands what Pilot B is going to attempt.
4.) Pilot A further recognizes that Pilot B has just screwed the pooch with his timing, and has has left himself open for a fraction of a second too long.
5.) Pilot A fires.
6.) Pilot B goes boom before he can perform his "fancy dance mov"...ahhhh...sorry..."reversal".
7.) Pilot B PMs Pilot A telling him what a dirtbag he is for taking advantage of his mista......ahhhhh...sorry again...for taking the shot.
8.) Pilot B further goes on to add what an honorless scumbag Pilot A is for daring to take a front quarter shot, how skilless he is, etc etc etc.
Yada yada yada.
Ad infinitum.
Ad nauseam.
*yawn*
For the ...*ahem*...."Sportsman"...there is always an excuse.....ALWAYS. It is NEVER your fault.
Helps keep that ego strong and fluffy! :aok
:rofl
You should include more of these irrelevant little details. Did you shoot at him? :lol
Cool fantasy bro.
yeah. OK.
So I'm reading the majority of the responses saying that they HO all the time basically and of course those that do can come up with many ways to justify it, and I'm thinking, the heck with this, I'm going to start Ho'ing everything too if that's the way they want to play. Then I think about it for a bit and I change my mind.
The majority of the responses does not mean the majority of the players because I truly believe there is a silent majority here that knows there is no hope in winning the argument against those determined to justify what I consider to be poor sportsmanship and just basically lame gameplay.
I get it, I truly do. But I'm entitled to my opinion and I'm entitled to continue to do my best to make the game better by how I conduct myself, not worse.
Please continue to exhibit your poor sportsmanship, continue to have an excuse every time you get killed, continue to crow on 200 about how you have an I.Q of 135, continue to enlighten me about how many total kills you have every time you land a few more, and continue to HO every chance you get because I will continue to just fly away after you go for that HO to find a worthwhile fight with plenty of others who do have good sportsmanship.
I will continue to enjoy myself doing what I know is right, flying with the best squad in the best game, and making friends.
Not at all. That actually happened. Three guesses who "Pilot A" was. :lol
I see you are having a difficult time coming up with a response based on logic rather than "feelings"...so let me give you another chance:
Flying at 12K in a 110G. See a enemy Niki flying co-alt heading towards me. He's flying about 30 degrees angle off to my flight path. He's not altering his course and I judge he's going to cross my path in front of me and then go high or turn into me to engage.
As he continues towards me I can tell he's not AFK...he knows I'm there as he makes slight adjustments to his course. I'm thinking "Wow...he's changing course but he's still going to pass right in front of me....what an idiot!"
I hold down the trigger. Scumbag that I am I wasn't using tracers at the time. Just as he merges with my nose he banks towards me...and promptly loses a wing.
Takes him a while to crash...he rides it down almost the entire way. I can almost feel his anger. It makes me smile. :D
I see a wonderful PM from the honorable pilot calling me a cheap shot artist. He further goes on to state that it would have been a "fair fight" if I hadn't fired....he seems to think stall fighting in a Niki at 12K against a 110G is "fair"...but I digress.
Yada yada yada.
Blah blah blah.
*yawn*
I reply that I'd been HOed at more than a few times that night...I'd reconsider my ways in the future, etc...
I could have tried to discuss the situation further....but heck...why bother debating a point with someone so far removed from the realities of MA combat?
What use is it to attempt to rationally explain that HE was the one who made the error. All I did was point out his error by blowing his pretty orange N1K2 from the sky.
Why point out that there were other "red guys" inbound, I likely would have been mobbed before I finished him. After all...actually WINNING the engagement and landing the kill isn't important....its "the fight" that's the thing, eh?
:rofl
Muppets. What can you do?
:rofl
So you're not even being subtle about your butthurt now are you? :roflIt's clear your distain for each other is producing unproductive conversation. Why don't you both go to your respective corners, put your purses down and enjoy the dog-gone game.
Play like you wish, and let the other guy do the same. Fulcrum is trolling (sorry bro), and the AOM is taking the bait. This constant "mine is bigger" thing is getting old. Give it a rest...
yeah. OK.
So I'm reading the majority of the responses saying that they HO all the time basically and of course those that do can come up with many ways to justify it, and I'm thinking, the heck with this, I'm going to start Ho'ing everything too if that's the way they want to play. Then I think about it for a bit and I change my mind.
The majority of the responses does not mean the majority of the players because I truly believe there is a silent majority here that knows there is no hope in winning the argument against those determined to justify what I consider to be poor sportsmanship and just basically lame gameplay.
I get it, I truly do. But I'm entitled to my opinion and I'm entitled to continue to do my best to make the game better by how I conduct myself, not worse.
Please continue to exhibit your poor sportsmanship, continue to have an excuse every time you get killed, continue to crow on 200 about how you have an I.Q of 135, continue to enlighten me about how many total kills you have every time you land a few more, and continue to HO every chance you get because I will continue to just fly away after you go for that HO to find a worthwhile fight with plenty of others who do have good sportsmanship.
I will continue to enjoy myself doing what I know is right, flying with the best squad in the best game, and making friends.
Of course there is.I'd like to see a film of this....
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.
For me, less face shooting = more fun. Tens of thousands of fun fights never happened because they ended on the merge. If I merge with a player that could have went for the shot but didn't, I smile. If they are guns blazing, I sigh.Best answer to the HO question.....rest of the thread is garbage and people who are getting too big for their britches.
HO all you want, everyone does in some situation. Losing a good fight with no HOs is more fun for me than winning one where I face shot the guy.
Please continue to exhibit your poor sportsmanship, continue to have an excuse every time you get killed, continue to crow on 200 about how you have an I.Q of 135, continue to enlighten me about how many total kills you have every time you land a few more, and continue to HO every chance you get because I will continue to just fly away after you go for that HO to find a worthwhile fight with plenty of others who do have good sportsmanship.
I will continue to enjoy myself doing what I know is right, flying with the best squad in the best game, and making friends.
the HO shot is for the weak ...........
I have taken a few when feeling weak or lazy, generally shows your lack of ACM.
Welcome back HL...I see your views have changed very little during your AH vacation.
MY RULES ON HEAD-ON's
RULE ONE
An HO is potentially an equal opportunity destroyer (mutually assured destruction), so don't do it if you have any other choice. The odds are just too even in most cases.
RULE TWO
If for some reason a wild hair does grow and your eyebrows decide to knit together into one, be flying the better armed plane, such as the Bf110, Me410, Mossie, 190A8, F4U-C, etc. Anyone flying into the face of one of those is really, really dumb... and probably dead, too.
RULE THREE
Ignore those that whine about an HO (which is 9 times out of 10 actually a forward aspect deflection shot and not an HO). In almost every instance the loser is trying to salve his own ego over his death by shaming you, and at the same time trying convince himself (and any that will listen) that it wasn't his own stupidity and lack of ACM skills that got him killed.
RULE FOUR
When Rule Three occurs, to keep your enjoyment of his displeasure going, simply let him know that if he gets in front of your guns again, at any time, in any way, you'll shoot and kill him...JUST LIKE THE LAST TIME! How he got there, and dead, is his own fault. You're just helping him fulfill his death wish. LOL :devil
MY RULES ON HEAD-ON's
RULE ONE
An HO is potentially an equal opportunity destroyer (mutually assured destruction), so don't do it if you have any other choice. The odds are just too even in most cases.
RULE TWO
If for some reason a wild hair does grow and your eyebrows decide to knit together into one, be flying the better armed plane, such as the Bf110, Me410, Mossie, 190A8, F4U-C, etc. Anyone flying into the face of one of those is really, really dumb... and probably dead, too.
RULE THREE
Ignore those that whine about an HO (which is 9 times out of 10 actually a forward aspect deflection shot and not an HO). In almost every instance the loser is trying to salve his own ego over his death by shaming you, and at the same time trying convince himself (and any that will listen) that it wasn't his own stupidity and lack of ACM skills that got him killed.
RULE FOUR
When Rule Three occurs, to keep your enjoyment of his displeasure going, simply let him know that if he gets in front of your guns again, at any time, in any way, you'll shoot and kill him...JUST LIKE THE LAST TIME! How he got there, and dead, is his own fault. You're just helping him fulfill his death wish. LOL :devil
Another way to look at this is to replace "HO" with "turn onto your six" and then replay the arguments...Said no one ever.
"Well I could have turned onto your six too, but that wouldn't have been any fun!"
"It's easy to turn onto your six, anyone can do it!"Said no one ever.
"If everyone turns onto your six while you're turning onto their six, this game wouldn't be any fun."[/i]Said no one ever.
Strangely enough, the core of the argument doesn't change - that the other pilot could have won too if they had used the same tactic, or that the game wouldn't be fun if everyone used the same tactic, etc. In the end, it's a lame excuse.Correct. Coin flips can be won by either party participating. If you find coin flips fun and challenging, well, there's not much I can say.
The truth of the matter is that the forward deflection shot (which is very rarely ever a true "head on") is a tactic like any other, just like choosing between energy fighting and turnfighting is a tactic. It has counters against it and it can be used to counter other tactics, it is simply a tool to trade a loss of angles for a guns solution.It is a tactic. A tactic that takes very little practice or skill to become good enough to severely damage or destroy the other plane, all while virtually ensuring you'll get damaged too.
Those who complain about front-quarter shots are those who either
a) are inexperienced at avoiding such shots,
b) would try to turn the front-quarter shot into a HO, but are poor shots themselves, or
c) don't comprehend tactics outside of cold-pass turnfights
I like this guy..
I was watching this epic video on Youtube one time, and remember this one dude who was all mad and stuff because he got HO'd by a plane he was fighting. I believe he called the HO'er a "HO'ing sack of $^!@". That guy must not have comprehended tactics outside of cold pass turnfighting. :headscratch:
Can we please not.
Ah, I remember that - that was Sawzaw. While he's not a member of our squad, I do remember him getting quite mad when he got HO'd. Now that you mention it, he switched to a K4 and ran into you shortly after that sortie. Ah, many laughs were had that day as he landed kill after kill.
Remind us to get him mad more often.
I was watching this epic video on Youtube one time, and remember this one dude who was all mad and stuff because he got HO'd by a plane he was fighting. I believe he called the HO'er a "HO'ing sack of $^!@". That guy must not have comprehended tactics outside of cold pass turnfighting. :headscratch:Youtube search...winging with Kruel. Warhed HO'ING in a mossie classic :)
I was watching this epic video on Youtube one time, and remember this one dude who was all mad and stuff because he got HO'd by a plane he was fighting. I believe he called the HO'er a "HO'ing sack of $^!@". That guy must not have comprehended tactics outside of cold pass turnfighting. :headscratch:
Youtube search...winging with Kruel. Warhed HO'ING in a mossie classic :)
Ok ok ok... I'm sorry for saying Skyyr was cute. :o Do you accept my apology Skyyr?
The rest of what I typed is in line with the discussion. Watch Some of Skyyr's Youtube videos... they complain about about face shooting shooting just like everyone else. For some reason though, when it comes to this discussion people always want to act like they're cool and the gang with all HO all the time. It's puzzling.
Paying attention huh? Kinda stalkerish, kinda Creepy but w/e...I was taking about a mossie who was only there for HOs just because I don't like those who purposely get in a cannon monster and try to HO everything in sight didn't mean it isn't a valid tactic...because it is.
Just to clarify...You know I have this thing with the truth..it was an attempted HO and I warned my wingman of the tactics being employed be the evil Mossie, I guess I should come clean and say I just really dislike Mossies as evident by my comments later in the video and the pleasure I took in watching him get shot down...
I will be sure to be more clear in future recordings if not only for your viewing pleasure..thanks for bringing it to my attention :salute
Ok, so there's a difference in a guy who ups a big cannon bird and HO's repeatedly, and the guy who ups a plane of lesser destructive potential doing the same thing? We've already agreed it's a valid tactic, but it's my contention that it's lameville as anything but a last ditch "say hello to my lil frien!!" situation. You seem to agree... albeit in a roundabout way.
So calling him a sack of $#!& wasn't a complaint about the lameness of the tactic, it's your warning call to nearby wingmen? Uhh... ok. It would seem to me that proper comprehension of battlefield tactics would dictate that warning unnecessary, since HO'ing is just as valid as any other tactic. I mean, the Mossie was just employing a tactic that suited his plane and flying style. Any tactic that works, right? Wasn't it your fault for expecting him to not HO? Why on earth would you let your plane get anywhere near the front end of a Mossie?!?! Weren't you being kinda lame for fussing about the employment of a valid battlefield tactic?
I love you guys. :)
I'm fairly certain I've never actually complained about being HO'd. In fact, I'm virtually never even upset by it. I think my worst reaction is something on the order of saying "awww man!," and that isn't even in response to the tactic, but rather that I was hit by it.Fairly certain? Virtually never? How many shades of grey is that? :)
That's the difference with us, though; we don't necessarily have to agree with something to see it's validity. For example, Kruel may not like getting HO'd or HO'ing (not that he does or doesn't), but that doesn't mean he's going to be biased and decry a valid tactic.
This is typically with people possessing both education and integrity.
Well It seems that head on is the way to go...it's done everywhere else....As it is now used as a tactic to get those who don't want to HO (So technically as it is put it isn't a ho)to turn so the hoer can gain an advantage of height
Interesting conjecture. I think, in the end, it boils down to which tactics have more merit and success. Perhaps something like a 1v1, or a 2v2 is in order? That would likely prove which tactics pass the litmus test. Errr... I forgot, we already had those. ;)
Gosh darn it, Skyyr! You got me good with that one! Although I'm not sure how us fighting is going to prove the lameness/non-lameness of relying on face shooting. In the context of this discussion, it leads me to believe you're worried you're losing the argument, so you're forced to throw some pwnage my way hoping I'll get all embarrassed and stuff. Good timing, but predictable. I saw it from 2k out. :)
I'd be happy to DA with you, though. It can even be "friendly" and stuff. I won't even send stern PM's to people if you tell them you beat me... I swear. I'm a really nice guy... seriously, ask anyone... they'll tell ya. Well, don't ask Arlo. He thinks I'm mean, but he's like the only one I think.
:salute
Youtube search...winging with Kruel. Warhed HO'ING in a mossie classic :)
I'm fairly certain I've never actually complained about being HO'd. In fact, I'm virtually never even upset by it. I think my worst reaction is something on the order of saying "awww man!," and that isn't even in response to the tactic, but rather that I was hit by it.So, I followed JunkyII's advice and found this vid:
That's the difference with us, though; we don't necessarily have to agree with something to see it's validity. For example, Kruel may not like getting HO'd or HO'ing (not that he does or doesn't), but that doesn't mean he's going to be biased and decry a valid tactic.
This is typically with people possessing both education and integrity.
Also, perhaps someone can explain this to me (a bit off topic):
Skyyr is locking every target he is about to shoot at. Pretty amazing shooting by the way, far beyond my level. The only use that I know to this function in the game is to be able to use the pad-lock view, which he does not seem to use and the other is the lead-computing gun sight, which is disabled in the MA and does not appear in the vid. So why? is there another use for this?
Again, you're putting words where they don't belong. I've not advocated relying on HO'ing once, I simply agree with both history and established ACM doctrine that a front-quarter shot is a viable tactic. Likewise, I rely neither on turnfighting, energy fighting, or any other tactic - I simply use the most efficient method available at the time to shoot down my opponent.You may not be advocating it in so many words, but you're championing the use of it here and seem to choose that tactic in the MA more than most... especially more than most who now hang their hats on their 1v1 fighting prowess.
If I can kill you in 10 seconds using a front-quarter shot, instead of wasting 90 seconds to maneuver around and shoot you down, then guess what? I'm going to shoot you the second your front-quarter presents itself instead of wasting an additional minute or more to the same end, provided it won't put me in a disadvantaged position.So it's all about efficiency to you. To you the actual engagement is meaningless unless you win?
I can fly just fine without front-quarter shots or HO'ing, as I demonstrated on you 1v1 quite effectively. I'm simply not interested in wasting any more time than the minimum that is required to kill you, because you're just that: another kill. The faster I can kill you, the faster I can kill the next guy. And so on and so forth.
ACM is about one thing: shooting down the opponent. It's not about sportsmanship or having fun or creating an enjoyable environment where all can sing kumbaya; it's about killing the guy in front of you and getting him out of your way. Ergo, I will always pursue the kill per the function of ACM.
Now, if you don't enjoy or agree with that - that's fine; you're free to do that. I have no intention of trying to force you to hold my views valid, nor I yours. 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. For whatever reason, you seem determined to try to prove it's "lame" (your words), while I'm content to simply view them for what they are and could care less whether you use them or not. This leads me to believe that you've never played any other air combat sim at a competitive level and that your only accomplishments are cold merge tactics in Aces High, but I digress.
Our duels proved that even for someone like myself who takes front-quarter shots in the MA, they were neither used nor needed to defeat you. The difference, yet again, is that while I utilize them in the MA, I didn't use or even need them to beat you; while you, someone who adamantly portrays them as a tactic used by the less-than skilled, still lost against someone who supposedly "relies" on them even when they weren't used. That is what we call irrefutable evidence that your position is flawed.
:salute
You may not be advocating it in so many words, but you're championing the use of it here and seem to choose that tactic in the MA more than most... especially more than most who now hang their hats on their 1v1 fighting prowess.
So it's all about efficiency to you. To you the actual engagement is meaningless unless you win?
70 years of military training materials? Awesome. Do you get your stick settings from those manuals too? Does it have anything in there about icon range and what the plus or minus symbol on them mean? :)
It's a game dude. You can be the ruthless HO'ing sack of $%&@ if you want, but don't try to make the act of HO'ing some honorable thing because real men with real lives on the line did it however many times. Also, don't confuse the act of HO'ing as being one of the least skilled ways of killing people (and thus lameville) with "everyone who HO's, ever, ever, is less than skilled". It doesn't work that way. Winning an engagement by playing chicken with bullets is not skillful. For many of us, it ain't fun either. For you though... maybe you like it. You have to like something about it with all the hours you've logged, right?
Our duels proved that on that particular night, you were better at doing what you do than I was. They don't lend you any credibility (parenthetical conversation time - our duels are irrelevant to this discussion) in anything other than being a good judge of energy and thus being able to stall out after your opponent. A good skill to have and effective for sure, but if it were me I'd be careful about hanging my hat on it.
:cheers:
Calling warhed a HOing bastage *which he is when in the Mossie* is complaining about all HOers ever..amirite? Mental gymnastics? More like word twister with a side of paraphrasing.I've had many fights with warhed where he didn't HO in a mossie.....maybe your doing something wrong.
** Spin the wheel **
3 words on green,
Insert an inference about how a person feels with your right foot
Place left foot in mouth
The dirty little secret is that most people just hate to lose Head Ons(or take damage in a head on). But deep down inside its pretty gratifying blowing someone out of the sky and walking away scott free without damage...I have yet to hear "Man, I just beat that Mossie in my 109F in a Head On pass...that sucks..I should just ditch this sortie now because it was so lame"
Like I said I will be sure to be more clear about how I feel in future videos for you..
Side note: My disdain for Mossies is evidently shown at 3:55 when he gets shot down, followed by a sweet whispering "Yessssssss"...lol fun sortie. Thanks for bringing that blast from the past back..you guys are so good at that!
I've had many fights with warhed where he didn't HO in a mossie.....maybe your doing something wrong.HO in a mossie is not a good tactic. Sure it has the guns for the job, but HTC decided to give it the damage model of the Zeke. :noid
So showing logically why it's a valid tactic, and then demonstrating that I dont need it to win, is "championing the use of it"? Yet again, not true.If you don't need to do it... why aren't you doing more with your ACM to avoid having to be a HO'ing sack of $%!@? Ahhh right... efficiency. lol
I'm more interested in showing HO complaints for what they are (excuses) than I am in championing the use of it, as I've already demonstrated I can fly just fine 1v1 without front-quarter shots.
So if we can both agree that skilled players can indeed HO, what then is the problem? If you would lose to X player whether they chose to HO you, turnfight you, or energy fight you, what does it matter? In the end, you still lose.SunsFan has beat me senseless every time I've fought him. SunsFan is a better pilot than me. In every part of toon airmanship, he's better. I'm going to be disappointed if I fight SunsFan and he chooses to take those shots... mainly because I know he can beat me without it, but for some reason he's taking the lazy way out. It's not sporting, but if you don't care about that...
This is the fundamental issue you seem to repeatedly ignore. You are illogically placing some sort of arbitrary weight to your losses based on how you lost, when in reality a loss is a loss. It doesn't matter how you lost, you simply lost.You don't analyze film and make judgements of why/how you won or lost?
Also, you've logged many more hours in this game than I have, so I fail to see whatever point you were reaching at.
Ah, so take away my apparent reliance on HO'ing (again, your words) and now the only reason I won was my energy retention. And this is the core of your argument - you are yet again trying to categorize a loss by creating a singular excuse as to why the other person beat you.
Instead of saying "he only won because he HO'd," now you're saying "he only won because he held his E better." What happens when I beat you in sustained-rate 8-minute-long flat turns (you think E-fights are boring)? Are you going to claim then that I only won because I "flat turned better"?
In the end, it's an excuse, just like complaining about HO'ing is an excuse. ACM provides solutions for virtually every neutral scenario you enter. What happens afterwards is the result of your decisions. If you lose to a HO, or a turnfight, or an E fight, you didn't lose because of your opponent, you lost because you simply failed to apply ACM correctly.
You can't lose because of your opponents actions, you can only lose because of your actions. If you are losing an E fight, it's not because you didn't hold your E well enough, it's because you chose the wrong tactics to start with. Likewise, if you lose to a HO or a turnfight or any other kind of tactic, it's because you chose the wrong tactics.
Really, that's all there is to it.
HO in a mossie is not a good tactic. Sure it has the guns for the job, but HTC decided to give it the damage model of the Zeke. :noidYour absolutely right. The planes that are harder to hit (190) or the tough birds (il2) are the planes to HO in if your going to do it.
So, unless you evaporate your opponent from a long distance, you are bound to receive some serious damage in return - that is if you are lucky...
They then gave the Yak3 the damage model of the IL2.
Im confused by the whole ho shooting topic. It seems to be a big ethical no no. I am a newbi so forgive me. Iv received a couple of messages from other players claiming I hoed them. What qualifies as ho shooting except a direct head on assault? I dove down on one player and shot him from behind and he accused me of hoing him. Also, if you're in a slower plane like a zero or nik2-j, how can you defend against high speed bnz,ers without facing them head on?Its a cartoon world. There are no "ethics". Fly how you want. I did and smacked around 99% of these guys.
I am going to guess it has something to do with a video of a Muppet killing Skyyr or Me but that Muppet wont be you or it will be a shade...I am just guessing though. You're right I really don't have any idea..the suspense is killing me!
What ever shall I do?! Will it be too much to bear?! Will the embarrassment make me quit the game?! I literally spend hours up at night just worrying about it. Put me out of my misery once and for all.. :cry
Another winging example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5zvkXmyxUE
I can neither confirm nor deny that a video is what's in store, although that power is within my grasp (just FYI and whatnot). I will say that when what's in store is apparent to you, you will approve and believe it to be good... even if not publicly, you will know that it is good. :rock
I knew this thread would be another AoM v The Damned thread that would reach 15 pages. :lol
Skuzzy please lock this thread.
1. Don't sweat the small stuff.
2. This is small stuff.
After giving it a lot of thought.....I decided to create a quick visual guide concerning the subject of HOing. I think this guide will be very helpful for new AH pilots...especially those coming here from other simulations! Hopefully this help ease the pain of transition for these new AH cartoon fighter pilots as they venture into AH's highly complex community culture.
The following slide will be familiar for players from other simulations:
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3954/15109616554_92f9461b66_c.jpg)
New players take note! This subject is far more complex here in the cartoon skies of Aces High. Study the next picture carefully to avoid potential social stigma and ridicule:
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7484/15543616489_1299aa64f6_c.jpg)
Again, I hope this helps you new players out there. And remember, when you lose....it's always the fault of the other guy! :aok
I'm reporting you to he Fall Out people for stealing their boy!!!
After giving it a lot of thought.....I decided to create a quick visual guide concerning the subject of HOing. I think this guide will be very helpful for new AH pilots...especially those coming here from other simulations! Hopefully this help ease the pain of transition for these new AH cartoon fighter pilots as they venture into AH's highly complex community culture.
The following slide will be familiar for players from other simulations:
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3954/15109616554_92f9461b66_c.jpg)
New players take note! This subject is far more complex here in the cartoon skies of Aces High. Study the next picture carefully to avoid potential social stigma and ridicule:
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7484/15543616489_1299aa64f6_c.jpg)
Again, I hope this helps you new players out there. And remember, when you lose....it's always the fault of the other guy! :aok
I received several private messages this morning informing me of an error on Slide Two. New players should note the green ˝Free Fire˝ area shown in Slide Two is twice as large as it should be.
:salute
Lately half my kills have been myself because someone is always hopping in after I do all the work slowing down the con. They just magically drop in place as I pull the trigger. That is the third picture you are missing for our game.3 out of 4 self-kills are the fault of the shooter. That is a scientific fact.
(http://i909.photobucket.com/albums/ac300/Changeup1/imagejpg1_zpsf8e32d0f.jpg) (http://s909.photobucket.com/user/Changeup1/media/imagejpg1_zpsf8e32d0f.jpg.html)
Discuss...
He will more likely go farther in life because he is showing ingenuity early on.
The first thing needed here is to admit a well implementing HO\front quarter shot puts and end to ACM before it starts. After that, come up with a solution to it. That describes ACM.
(I have never had any issue with front quarter shots except that if one con is trying to saddle me and another con blazes in for the front quarter pick, he just got the kill and didn't do a thing for it. I guess that's a conversation the two red guys will have.
In the real world we punish the kid clever enough to get inside of the glass cage to poach his fill of toys at the expense of the kid trying to accomplish picking up one visa his skill with the external joystick and all the limitations involved. "THEN" after punishing him, he gets invited to a reality TV show and becomes an internet hero for whizzing on everyone for following the rules. Or he gets elected president of the U.S. 40 years later.
Remember that scene in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" where Jones has his whip while the guy in black shows up swirling his giant sword around? Then Jones pulls his pistol and shoots him ending any chance of a show of martial glorious skill.
That's a well placed HO shot versus ACM.
But if he came in from 6 o'clock, it would've been just peachy? What is the difference?
Wiley.
If you ease up in a turn to avoid a HO but still get shot did you really avoid the HO?
If a tree falls.....
I usually stay out of these debates,ha debate :rolleyes: but I've read too many things that made me laugh!
I have 1 comment and then I'm out,Fulcrum, I wouldnt call it an SA failure but more likely it's a poor choice of BFM!
:salute
Kid who climbs into a machine and takes more than he earned without paying is clever? You're right, he will end up a politician seeing that he fits the character model.
No, Indiana Jones pulling his pistol is like bringing a NIK to a C47 fight. Your mistaking the HO with being clever. There isn't anything clever about a HO.
:rolleyes:
I've never claimed a HO was clever. It doesn't need to be because the person being HOed wasn't clever. It a simple, direct response to the single most critical error one can commit in this game: Getting in front of your opponent's guns. And yes, a pilot can choose to place himself at a disadvantage momentarily to set the other pilot up for a reversal, etc...but that is a risk/reward decision.
In your eyes, if the other pilot fires and kills the one taking the risk, he is at fault. This is basically saying the person taking the risk should get extra credit for attempting something "clever" but failing. I suppose that works in Horseshoes but I fail to see how it works for a combat simulator. The interesting thing is you and Triton keep attempting to push the idea that AH is a "Sport"....but what you describe aligns closely with a Performing Art.
You know....Ballet? :lol
Your C47 analogy is purposefully flawed to suggest that the person being HOed has no defense against it i.e. the C47's offensive capability is nil so it can't "fight back". A man with a sword can fight back even against a man with a gun and in some situations might even win. Not in the case of the fight shown in RoftLA of course. In the film the man with the sword made several mistakes (assuming Indy was not armed or if he was would fight "honorably"). He naturally paid for it with his life. Are you starting to see the pattern?
FYI - By your logic, Indy should have thrown down his gun and charged him to prove his manhood. Moronic.
:rolleyes:
Kid who climbs into a machine and takes more than he earned without paying is clever? You're right, he will end up a politician seeing that he fits the character model.
No, Indiana Jones pulling his pistol is like bringing a NIK to a C47 fight. Your mistaking the HO with being clever. There isn't anything clever about a HO.
So you thought the pictures were funny...me too!
Skyyr should have distributed a gunsight along with his long post on how to perform the deed.
This is the root of the whole argument. The philosophical soul of our game so to say. One side believes in winning at all costs because it's your fault if you loose the fight. The other side believes in winning with a set of rules imposed or unspoken to define fights in a manner that all participants are striving for a demonstration of shared skill sets. Kind of like the European rules of dueling pre 19th century, rather than using any advantage to slaughter each other. How the British felt at Freemans Farm when Morgan's snipers took out officers anywhere they saw them beyond the tactical ability of the common smooth bore muskets. It was the officers fault for being on the battle field that day which got them killed using the argument de jur in this HOing post.
No one is going to win this argument. Though the ability to stick it to an ACM vet with impunity will resonate with the less skilled 80%. ACM skill takes time to perfect which creates a strong personal investment for it's future in the game. Accurate frontal quarter shots can be taught in a few evenings which is about the limit of the 80%s attention span.
Skyyr should have distributed a gunsight along with his long post on how to perform the deed. That's the problem with many of the 80%. They really want pictures and something that reduces the walls of text down to point here and click. And a constant willingness to tell or demonstrate to any and everybody how to do the deed. But, if every no skilled flying bait could do it, then no one would be safe from having their version of ACM stopped before it ever gets started.
Indiana Jones would be proud.
So would Harrison Ford. He had dysentery that day. He was so sick, there was no way he could perform. Pulling his gun and shooting the swordsman was unscripted. He was getting ready to call it and walk off the set for the day when he was standing there for that scene. Lucas couldn't have planned a better scene and acting by Harrison.
A. I wasn't talking to you. I quoted Bustr. I'm sure he's thrilled you answered for him.
B. I never mentioned "fault" or failure. You have decided to make that the crux of an argument no one is having. It must be to prove a point no one is trying to make, thus, you win.
C. The C47 was a counter-analogy, again, to Bustr's Sword vs pistol example. At 40 yards against a pistol, having a sword is like having nothing so there is no purposeful flaw.
FYI - By your arguing skills, you won no debates. It was even a poor misdirection attempt for one very large reason. My plane and your plane BOTH have guns. Bustr's analogy was weak and useless and was a failed attempt to prove climbing into claw boxes and pulling guns against swords is clever. You should stick to drawing pictures to be funny. You do that better than you type.
Air combat manoeuvring (also spelled: air combat maneuvering, or ACM) is the art of manoeuvring a combat aircraft in order to attain a position from which an attack can be made on another aircraft
The point of ACM is to kill the opponent. Flying for any other purpose is not ACM.
Air combat manoeuvring (also spelled: air combat maneuvering, or ACM) is the art of manoeuvring a combat aircraft in order to attain a position from which an attack can be made on another aircraft
The point of ACM is to kill the opponent. Flying for any other purpose is not ACM.
Thank you...I found the picture amusing as well. Ive always found the best humor is to lampoon reality....
I have won ever single arguement Ive ever had with you on this subject. Its rather easy to do. You attempt to misdirect at every turn but my answers are the always the same and you have no answer for them.
Ive never, btw, stated I expect you or others to agree with my views. I agree with you everyone's views are their own and I fully support you having your own opinions....that doesn't, however, equate to accepting them to be true or not pointing out the flaws in your philosophy.
It does however, logically represent ones ACM skill.
Actually, per your own statement, all that matters is the ability to attack. Ergo, whoever is more successful in attacking and killing would theoretically have more skill, since relative position is not a requirement of ACM; only the ability to create an attack is important.
I never made that statement. Please cite the link.
Perfect definition.
What part of the circle one chooses to try to hit is now immaterial and irrelevant. It does however, logically represent ones ACM skill.
No portion of the ACM definition requires position or attacking a specific "part [of the circle]," as you stated (see the bolded portion of your reply). Since you agreed on the definition, you must prove where the definition states this is a requirement of showing skill. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise, not the other way around.
360 degrees of target is a larger target than 5-10 degrees of a target. In layman's terms, since you need me to say it, hitting a one, window barn anywhere vs. the single window on the barn, only in our case, the barn is moving the window away from you.
Its easier for you to hit the the moving barn anywhere on it than to hit the single window while the barn is trying to keep it away from you. Maneuvering for a firing solution on 360 degrees of a moving target is easier than maneuvering for a firing solution on a specified 5-10 degree area of a moving target (Edit: which is EXACTLY why the USAF encourages front quarter shots. Its easier and they don't want pilots to die). I don't feel like that was much of a brainbuster, however, you've been obliged.
The question still remains, is HOing wrong or right? And the answer is.....it depends on your personal goals. It just takes less skill as defined by Fulcrum's charts and your ACM definition.
Win or lose Fulcrum, simply because you have a view or differing philosophy doesn't make you right. It only makes it yours, lol. You wouldn't agree even if you knew you were wrong, lol
Im confused by the whole ho shooting topic. It seems to be a big ethical no no. I am a newbi so forgive me. Iv received a couple of messages from other players claiming I hoed them. What qualifies as ho shooting except a direct head on assault? I dove down on one player and shot him from behind and he accused me of hoing him. Also, if you're in a slower plane like a zero or nik2-j, how can you defend against high speed bnz,ers without facing them head on?
This is not entirely true. Flying to not be killed is also considered ACM.
"Flying to not be killed" is a phrase coined by certain members of the AH community to assign negative social and ethical connotations to a pilot who minimizes risks while maximizing offensive opportunities through the application of all aspects of ACM (i.e.the pilot is a "coward" who is afraid to "die" in a "game"). Like the concept of HOing it is meant to shame those pilots using accepted air combat principles to stop doing so and to adopt the fighting style enjoyed by certain members of the AH community (i.e. turnfighting).
For Pete's sake ChangeUp quit trying to take me on a date..I told you I don't swing that way.
Because a game with rampant timidity and constant face shooting would be frickin sweet bro. :aok
Are you playing lots of BoS since that community encourages HO'ing and isn't plagued by lots of mean ol' bullies like there are here?
:lol
You guys make me laugh.
I am playing lots of CLOD and BoS because I like the games. The communities there do not advocate HOing...they simply dont care if you do so. That in your eyes equates to it being no fun...no issue at all with that...I can understand you not wanting to stretch yourself after playing for so long with your deflector shields up...must be scary for you! :rofl
It is kinda nice not having to hear the usual whines and excuses tho'. :aok
The vocal minority here on the boards seem to favor fights and so continue to try and show the way. After all the game is more fun when people fight right?
No. The game is most enjoyable when we strictly adhere to 70 years of military training materials. This allows us to use real world tactics against our sworn foes. Well, except stuff like cutting the engine off in the middle of a fight. It's totally cool to treat this like a game with things like that.Now that's funny :aok
No. The game is most enjoyable when we strictly adhere to 70 years of military training materials. This allows us to use real world tactics against our sworn foes. Well, except stuff like cutting the engine off in the middle of a fight. It's totally cool to treat this like a game with things like that.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Y29013XxxAc/UG6Zdu3JT_I/AAAAAAABzA8/XcPkSGSmw8w/s1600/ABBA+Album+Covers+(32).jpg)
Arlo is the one on the right (the most-stylish one).
I had a long write up about a situation last night in the DA that would be perfect for this debate but it would fall on deaf hypocritical ears so I'm just going to leave this thread.
SMH Fulcrum used to be on the other side of fence when he was in AoM :rofl :rofl :rofl like a sports team boat jumper.
So you like to play these games in part because nobody whines to you about anything, but in your signature here you expound on the goodness that is a PM whine? lol
Here the whines are expected...especially from the usual sources. In those games its far more focused on the simulation aspect than as a "game". That seems to be the crux of your arguement...its a "game"...and it certainly is just that. But AH touts itself as a simulation as well...and so why wouldnt one use the tactics that worked for the period simulated?
If you are looking for a "game"...I suggest you try out War Thunder.
Personally I think HOin can be boiled down to two simple schools of thought, are you after a kill, or a fight?
Kills, HO away! its easy and if your aim/timing is good you will get plenty of kills.
Fights, work yourself into a position where the enemy plane can do nothing but die while never having a shot at you, that's a fight.
The vocal minority here on the boards seem to favor fights and so continue to try and show the way. After all the game is more fun when people fight right?
Actually I wasnt. Its one of the reasons I left.I do miss having my 12 cleared.
Here the whines are expected...especially from the usual sources. In those games its far more focused on the simulation aspect than as a "game". That seems to be the crux of your arguement...its a "game"...and it certainly is just that. But AH touts itself as a simulation as well...and so why wouldnt one use the tactics that worked for the period simulated?
If you are looking for a "game"...I suggest you try out War Thunder.
Ah. I see the fan mail has started.
So in your opinion is AH a game or a simulation? Maybe you ride the fence and believe it's a gameulation? You know, compromises have been made... that kind of thing?
One thing I've learned about Canspec is... he's a really nice guy, but if your level of BS rises to the level where you need to be told you're full of it, he tells you. :)
I do miss having my 12 cleared.
Fugi,
Front quarter shots require as much skill as saddling up your opponents 6. Don't EVAH forget that. lol
I'm sure someone will come along shortly with a completely obtuse response to remind everyone that 360 degrees of target is accuracy, and a lot of ACM is required to obtain that shot.
It's a simulation in my view....and in the view of many others. If it was simply a "game" I'd have lost interest in it a long time ago.
As for "Nice guy" Canspec:
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7566/15558780608_b198ff8258_c.jpg)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7474/15124808913_76f00b134a_c.jpg)
AH is not a game.<<<<<<this
AH is not a simulation.
AH is a basic necessity, like food and shelter.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7566/15558780608_b198ff8258_c.jpg)I want one, does it protect you from ack runners too? :lol
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7474/15124808913_76f00b134a_c.jpg)
I want one, does it protect you from ack runners too? :lol
See Rules #2, #4
It's a simulation in my view....and in the view of many others. If it was simply a "game" I'd have lost interest in it a long time ago.
As for "Nice guy" Canspec:
All I've done is point out the flaws in your views and poke some fun with a few humorous drawings. No usage of profanity. No calling you a jerk or a "t__t". His response is to go right into the gutter. Nice....and you wonder why some really dislike you guys? Hint: It's not because of your mad "skillz". It's because you tend to bring every conversation down to the lowest level possible i.e. names and insults. It may be pride, ego or other things...but it really doesn't matter. ANY dispute with members of your squad spirals into the cesspool eventually....it's the way of things I suppose.
See Rules #2, #4
My views.....what have your drawings got to do with my views.....what conversations have I had with you.....what squad are you talking about....I am not in a squad and haven't been a Muppet for a while now, although I did enjoy my time there and do respect all the members of the that squad....I express my own views and don't rely on other people to do it for me, so don't associate what I say with anyone else........I have no mad skillz in this game.. and I have never claimed to have......my comments were mine....not the Muppets.... :old:Regardless of your current affiliation, your comments were crude and uncalled for given the dialog.... You may not agree with my views or the views of other members of my squad but that doesn't mean you have the right to use language of that nature on a public forum read in some cases by minors. You may not care for stuff like that... But I do.
Regardless of your current affiliation, your comments were crude and uncalled for given the dialog.... You may not agree with my views or the views of other members of my squad but that doesn't mean you have the right to use language of that nature on a public forum read in some cases by minors. You may not care for stuff like that... But I do.
Fulcrum, you need to slow down buddy. All this internet arguing you've been doing recently has made you fussy and sensitive. Claim you can't stand the drama, delete this account, and come back in like 4 weeks. You'll be good as new. :aokI love the high road routine personally. Like the van still isn't in his backyard under a tarp.
Regardless of your current affiliation, your comments were crude and uncalled for given the dialog.... You may not agree with my views or the views of other members of my squad but that doesn't mean you have the right to use language of that nature on a public forum read in some cases by minors. You may not care for stuff like that... But I do.
Fulcrum et al Nam egens clangoris est, pauperes operationem, oportet quod sit indigentis.Latin ...love my Google translate LOL
:lol
Insults I ignore....even when posted in Latin. In fact, it's always a sign the other side has run out of arguments or has lost.
That said:
"Profanity is the weapon of the witless."
“When a man uses profanity to support an argument, it indicates that either the man or the argument is weak - probably both”
And now, back to the subject of HOing....take it away...um....whoever.
I could quote your response to Canspec if you really need me to Mr IgnorerZerstorer
Just let me know when you want to start debating if front quarter shots are a valid tactic. The rest isn't worth bothering with.
Have y'all beat for languagesTypical translate errors
לעצור את החכות ... לחזור על נושא
(This is the fun part):lol
I never said it wasnt MrIgnorer and in fact I said I had no issue with it. My argument was, given your funny, first graph, chart, hoohahaha, that it takes less skill to attack a plane with your guns from any angle (360 degrees) than it does to saddle him while he's actively trying to buck you. WTG...you just accidently kicked your own butt.
Guess this one, and yes, it's on topic.
head on maqembu zingezokunikeza thise kungekho ngekhono
:lol
You misunderstood....
It takes far more skill defending yourself (remember that concept) when you can be fired upon from any quarter of the plane.... And far less skill to defend yourself if you can only be shot at from behind.
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've done it numerous times in real life. If you think that isn't possible, you should probably learn a bit more about aviation. Most ME students become very familiar with the procedure and can do it blindfolded.
P38 pilot killed a 109 while his engine was off :P :bolt:lmao! :aok
I'm certain its possible.
Combat? WWII? High performance, military aircraft? Hmmm? And when you say YES, please produce the training manuals for ANY country that instructed their pilots to and instructor pilots to teach ENGINE OFF during fight. Not the exceptions...not some obscure, instance, lmao.
I'm certain its possible.
Combat? WWII? High performance, military aircraft? Hmmm? And when you say YES, please produce the training manuals for ANY country that instructed their pilots to and instructor pilots to teach ENGINE OFF during fight. Not the exceptions...not some obscure, instance, lmao.
Where did anyone but you say they taught pilots to use engine off during combat? You seem to keep twisting words. They teach engine off and engine restarts in flight school, both military and GA, WWII and now; combat was never a pre-requisite in any of your posts.
Nice!!! lolIn order of my posts, Hebrew, then Irish Gallic, then Zulu :)
Lt. Uhura's native language, yes?
Have y'all beat for languagesI have no idea what was your original sentence, but this makes no sense in Hebrew.
לעצור את החכות ... לחזור על נושא
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?
Good you should ask! A P-38 actually achieved a kill with his engines off, after which the pilot then did an air restart and continued to dogfight.
Ain't history grand?
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?
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. :aok :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
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. :salute
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 all for any RL life tactics and ACM, like turning your engine off in mid-flight. That's RL life too, right?
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?
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.
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.
:rolleyes:
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..
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.
:rolleyes:
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..
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. :rofl
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".More tail wagging...
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? :lol :lol :lol :lol
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.
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.Imma need a source for this manual so I can buy a copy. :joystick:
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.
:rolleyes:
I like how you are now turning this into the engine off discussion because RL examples prove that Head Ons were viable tactics.You caught that, huh? You pretty sharp holmes. :aok
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.
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.
- 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..
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.
:salute
(http://moodyeyeview.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/clinton.png)
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.
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.
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.
Why is it so vitally important for you guys to fly through the bandit's cone of fire before the fight is on?
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.I would suggest not trying to make points about how valid something is in this game because it was used historically.
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.
I would suggest not trying to make points about how valid something is in this game because it was used historically.
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.
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.
Be it HO, from 6 O clock, rocket hit at 4k, "ganging", "picking", whatever it takes. When we die we blame ourselves for allowing whatever killed us to happen...I guess that's the fundamental difference in our ideologies..so we can keep going back and forth arguing our points of view but it changes nothing, if your plane is in front of my guns, expect to be shot at...If you don't take the same shot..that's on you.
You are also of the opinion that it takes more skill to win by getting on someone's 6 instead of taking the HO shot..when you die you blame the other guy for HO ing, picking or vulching and not giving you that fun fair fight that you both deserve"When we die we blame ourselves" Not always true
We are of the opinion that it takes more skill to win period.
Be it HO, from 6 O clock, rocket hit at 4k, "ganging", "picking", whatever it takes. When we die we blame ourselves for allowing whatever killed us to happen...I guess that's the fundamental difference in our ideologies..so we can keep going back and forth arguing our points of view but it changes nothing, if your plane is in front of my guns, expect to be shot at...If you don't take the same shot..that's on you.
You are also of the opinion that it takes more skill to win by getting on someone's 6 instead of taking the HO shot..when you die you blame the other guy for HO ing, picking or vulching and not giving you that fun fair fight that you both deserve
We are of the opinion that it takes more skill to win period.
Be it HO, from 6 O clock, rocket hit at 4k, "ganging", "picking", whatever it takes. When we die we blame ourselves for allowing whatever killed us to happen...I guess that's the fundamental difference in our ideologies.. .so we can keep going back and forth arguing our points of view but it changes nothing, if your plane is in front of my guns, expect to be shot at...If you don't take the same shot..that's on you.
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.
"When we die we blame ourselves" Not always true
"When we die we blame ourselves" Not always true
I have no idea what was your original sentence, but this makes no sense in Hebrew.Gotta love it :rofl
Says something like: "stop the fishing rods... repeat over subject" :lol
Google translate FTW!
How so?I've personally seen you say "took all 3 of you"
True... As I stated everyone is human and emotions run at times... But that's a far cry from actually taking it on as a fighting philosophy.Your a waste of time, 15 months ago we can probably find a thread where your holding Changeup's hand about HOs
I've personally seen you say "took all 3 of you"
Your a waste of time, 15 months ago we can probably find a thread where your holding Changeup's hand about HOs
To try to say you guys don't blame the other person is just flat out wrong, everyone has seen it on 200(everyone does it) And a lot of the time certain scenarios do come out as a really no win for a pilot, nothing they could of done.
Example. Say a P51 runs into a CO alt dora with a spit 16 following behind at like 8K. P51 engages the dora then the Spit comes into view. Only way the P51 wins this fight is if he kills the dora. Say it's Krupnski in the 51 vs Pervert in the dora....that's a long fight because their skill matchs up pretty well. Now the Spit will have time to see this, is it a squad die in the dora? Does he let him fight it out until the death(these fights don't come along often in the MA) or does he easily saddle the engaged con.
Point being there are no win scenarios where a pilot can fly amazing but just can't get away and because dar bar isn't completely accurate SA does have some unpredictability you have to account for.
You forgot something.haha true
Then the Spit HOs Krup in the 51 and Krup screams "noob!!"
I've personally seen you say "took all 3 of you"
I've personally seen you say "took all 3 of you"This is not the same as blaming them for killing me, it's still my fault that I got jumped by 3. Saying it took 3 of them is more letting them know to look out for me if they are on their own...You said the same thing yesterday when Skyyr, Scoober, and I caught you low in your 109, you evaded a few passes and said GK you 3...did you receive a negative response? or a response at all? Was it our fault you were low and alone?
To try to say you guys don't blame the other person is just flat out wrong, everyone has seen it on 200(everyone does it) And a lot of the time certain scenarios do come out as a really no win for a pilot, nothing they could of done.
Example. Say a P51 runs into a CO alt dora with a spit 16 following behind at like 8K. P51 engages the dora then the Spit comes into view. Only way the P51 wins this fight is if he kills the dora. Say it's Krupnski in the 51 vs Pervert in the dora....that's a long fight because their skill matchs up pretty well. Now the Spit will have time to see this, is it a squad die in the dora? Does he let him fight it out until the death(these fights don't come along often in the MA) or does he easily saddle the engaged con.
Point being there are no win scenarios where a pilot can fly amazing but just can't get away and because dar bar isn't completely accurate SA does have some unpredictability you have to account for.