Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: RoGenT on June 15, 2008, 05:41:05 AM
-
I know I spelled it wrong but it is almost 3:30AM so I don't care lol. Anyway, just had rather interesting incident but just makes me wonder what would most consider this shot as:
I see the 109 diving in on me from little bit higher then I was. I was about 1.5 and was going to fly under him and do barrel roll so I was expecting him to ho me. He decided he wanted to pull up about 1000, exposing his underbelly long enough for me to score some hits, including rad. hit. He was climbing and as he was doing so, he was accusing me of ho'ing him. But anyway, he saw this as me ho'ing him even though I didn't consider it as one since he exposed his belly to my guns.
So my question, would this be considered as HO shot or deflection shot?
-
Theres allways 3 sides to the story, your side, his side, and the truth.
-
Theres allways 3 sides to the story, your side, his side, and the truth.
The question isn't about truth or lie, it is about angle of a shot...
-
I'd say it was not a Head-On.
As far as I know, a head on is when one pilot flies directly at the nose of the other pilot, and opens fire that way. What it sounds like to me is that you had your nose pointed at his plane whilst shooting (of course), but his nose was not pointed at your plane. Therefore, you were not HOing him.
<S>
Yossarian
-
A true HO shot is when both planes have a guns solution on each other ... at the same time.
No ... that was not an HO.
-
I'd call it a poor merge on his part. I've always been told to try to dive under the con to gain speed and then go up and over. It sounds to me that he was trying to immbleman too soon and got caught.
-
I like the saying "It takes 2 to HO". Just tell them a 'HO' is a Head-On shot, and unless the noses of both planes are pointing towards each others, it isn't a HO. In this situation your nose was pointing at his belly, so no HO.
-
Who really cares?
I'm tired of bananas, like rawwdog, that do nothing but complain about people taking HO shots at them.
It takes two to HO so stop whining about it and do something about it.
You know it's funny. We are cartoon, pixalated figther plane pilots, yet apparently most are hand wringers worrying about what something said about them like it's a sewing circle.
Ptuh!
-
A HO is when both pilots have gun solution on one another. A deflection shot is when only one person has gun solution, and normally that person the person don't the deflection shot has to pull a lot of G's to get their nose on you.
If he was climbing as you hit him, I would call that a deflection.
-
ROGen it happens alot. You shot a guy and because you werent on his six or behind him he is :furious that one you caught him screwing up or he cant except his plane has gotten blown to bits.
But everyone here is right. It takes two to HO that is why i do because nothing is better than watching a guy :cry on 200 because he went head on and lost his precious runstang or Uber Spit 16. These are cartoon planes if you have an advantage and he gives you one then take it.
After all these are just cartoon planes you can reup because you have unlimited lives. :rock
-
You know it's funny. We are cartoon, pixalated figther plane pilots, yet apparently most are hand wringers worrying about what something said about them like it's a sewing circle.
Ptuh!
Are there any MMO sewing circle games? Now that would be fun!
-
I try to avoid ho's like the plague--jug 18 cylinder radial engine presents heap big frontal target--single 20mm ping, at the least, gets oil. I see the con as a possible target at mebeb 2.5, at 1.5 I cleverly deduce he's coming my way, at 1K I deduce a ho is imminent, roll out, corscrew, whatever, I lose the possible HO shot I COULD have used, while he sprays away hoping for golden bb--thereby giving said spit-dweeb the opportunity to say it 'wasn't a HO"....sigh
-
Both planes don't have to have a gun solution for it to be a ho in my opinion.
Many times in a head to head merge I will barrel roll to try and avoid, and I see tracers filling the sky and the guy's plane flipping all over the place trying to land hits.
If he misses I normally kill him, but I get shot up at times as well and consider it a ho on his part.
shamus
-
Who really cares?
I'm tired of bananas, like rawwdog, that do nothing but complain about people taking HO shots at them.
I shot his tail off of his Seafire and he immediately called it a HO. When I pointed out that we were in a turning fight and I was on his 6, he then changed from calling it a HO to accusing me of cheating because I was able to out turn his Seafire.
ack-ack
-
Not a HO, but it sounds like you were pointing at him and had every intent of HOing him if it would be safe for you. Sounds like he gave you the courtesy of avoiding a HO or collision and went for the fight instead, but got bullets in return. Its a nice post, but it sounds like you took the opportunity to avoid the fight. If there were others in the area, then good job. If just you and him though, yeah, not a HO by definition but . . .
-
Two planes having a simultaneous gun solution is not truly a HO. The part missing from that definition is that the aircraft are flying collision courses. Two aircraft can have gun solutions without being on colliding courses.
The term HO is widely misused and abused by new and older players as an excuse for any shot taken from in front of the player's 3-9 line.
-
As i see it yes HO means Head-on, but Head-on what? When ya think bout it, it doesn't say "Head-on Shot", That'd be HOS. So really HO only mean two planes went head-on nothing more. It does not imply they fired during that Head-on pass. Just what I've always though, even it is easier to whine "You Ho tard." instead of "Head-on Shot (HOS) tard.". I've been wrong before though :aok
-
Not a HO, but it sounds like you were pointing at him and had every intent of HOing him if it would be safe for you. Sounds like he gave you the courtesy of avoiding a HO or collision and went for the fight instead, but got bullets in return. Its a nice post, but it sounds like you took the opportunity to avoid the fight. If there were others in the area, then good job. If just you and him though, yeah, not a HO by definition but . . .
Constructive critisim, I respect that. The 109 had more E then I did but during the this merge, I had no intention of Head on shot even if it was in my favor. We both were close to his base, which was 4K one so although at that time there was not other enemy planes within icon range, there was in fact dots approaching from direct of his base.
-
Constructive critisim, I respect that. The 109 had more E then I did but during the this merge, I had no intention of Head on shot even if it was in my favor. We both were close to his base, which was 4K one so although at that time there was not other enemy planes within icon range, there was in fact dots approaching from direct of his base.
Well if others were coming to join the fight, then even if it was a HO shot it is OK. You know the other dots would not have let you finish a 1 vs 1 anyway. I guess what I was trying to say is that a lot of times I will try to get out of the way of a HO or collision and as a result I will expose my self to a shot. Not enough to kill me, but enough to end that flight. To me, when there are 2 or 3 of them vs me, that is just cheap and shows that they play the game only to make things go boom.
BTW, guys saying that it is easy to avoid a HO are just funny. I keep asking for one of them to show up in the DA and show me how but they never do, lol.
-
Two planes having a simultaneous gun solution is not truly a HO. The part missing from that definition is that the aircraft are flying collision courses. Two aircraft can have gun solutions without being on colliding courses.
The term HO is widely misused and abused by new and older players as an excuse for any shot taken from in front of the player's 3-9 line.
I beg to differ. Explain how 2 planes can both have a guns solution and not be on an eventual collision course if they stay in long enough.
-
I beg to differ. Explain how 2 planes can both have a guns solution and not be on an eventual collision course if they stay in long enough.
By slipping. Their noses do not have to be pointed along the path of their aircraft.
-
By slipping. Their noses do not have to be pointed along the path of their aircraft.
Comon now. Every one knows HO means shot in the face. it has nothing to do do with collision paths or anything else.
-
Interesting, Rolex, I've never looked at it that way. Side slipping is certaintly not an HO, more of a side-shot, I suppose, as two aircraft slip past each other.
However, I don't see how shooting the underside of an opponents' aircraft could be considered a Head On, unless the opponent "thinks" you are going to HO him/her, and pulls up early...but that is not an HO, in my opinion, it is a judgement error on the part of the opponent.
My basic rule is this: if an opponent points his/her nose at me and I think they have a shot, I will shoot. I don't care what you call it, an HO, deflection shot, side-slip, or whatever, I will shoot. Most of the time when I apply this rule, I die because I've made a mistake in my flying and SA; the other times I get called a HOer. <shrug>
-
I have been amazed at how much HO'ing is loathed on the boards and practiced in the arena's. I have yet to take a HO shot, but have certainly had my plane disabled many times by them. I guess my question would be, is there a time when taking the HO shot might be more acceptable? For instance if you are outnumbered or find yourself with a couple countrymen in furball facing greater odds? Now, please spare me the "if you find yourself in this position you have already lost" speech. At this point in the game my aim is to keep my plane from spinning to the ground so SA and ACM are still a way's off.
-
ODBAL....see my basic rule above.
<S>
-
ODBAL....see my basic rule above.
<S>
I have found that, even though I am 8 years removed from playing AW I still have some of those habits. In AW 90% of the time two merging planes would fly right thru each other on the merge, and shooting as you passed was commonplace. So I should apologize to whoever it was I rammed on my first merge in this game :D. Although not condoned it was frowned upon as much as here. I think due to the fact there was really no damage modeling, you were either alive or dead and there was no loss of elevators, wings, rudders, etc. I really don't get upset being shot head on, and I probably won't until I start being charged for new planes. The way I look at it (and this is probably a naive viewpoint) is that if I were actually flying in a plane and my life was on the line, I would take any shot I could get.
-
ODBAL...I didn't mean to be "flip" in my reply. I reread your post and I believe that you are experiencing the same conundrum as I, and that is why over my few years in the Arenas I developed my basic rule. You have previous experience in AW (I know this from reading the BBS) so I
expect your ACM and SA will soon be on a par with some of the more seasoned players and you will know when to "bend" my basic rule and you will know when to cold, or hot merge.
<S>
-
ODBAL...I didn't mean to be "flip" in my reply. I reread your post and I believe that you are experiencing the same conundrum as I, and that is why over my few years in the Arenas I developed my basic rule. You have previous experience in AW (I know this from reading the BBS) so I
expect your ACM and SA will soon be on a par with some of the more seasoned players and you will know when to "bend" my basic rule and you will know when to cold, or hot merge.
<S>
I found your basic rule reply fine, and it is pretty much how I feel. Most of my AH experience has been on these BB boards instead of actually flying, since I can do this at work and not the other. So I was a bit surprised at how much I was shot at head on when I did fly. I will never be the player with the high score, or who writes manuals on SA and ACM's to help other players. And if you are that player then good for you. Everyone should play for their own reasons, and until someone pays my $15 per month subscription and $50 per month internet charge I will play for my own reasons, as I think everyone should. I hope to one day be able to give people a good fight, other than that it is just a wonderful break from the everyday grind for me. Plus I just like posting as much dribble as I can as I am already sick of being a "zinc" member :aok
<<S>>
-
Comon now. Every one knows HO means shot in the face. it has nothing to do do with collision paths or anything else.
I'm not sure which is worse; people who HO or people who whine about every shot on them from in front of their 3-9 line. :D
The proliferation of that concept is a plague on the game, dedalos. It probably leads to more arguments and wasted energy than any other aspect of the game. It's become a crutch and too common for people to complain whenever shot from anywhere in front of their 3-9 line. You can't complain every time someone wants to bring guns to bear to your plane. The best way to neutralize a threat is to turn into it.
A head on is when two aircraft are firing while flying on a nose-to-nose collision course.
That is a concrete definition that eliminates all the myriad of degrees off nose that every player reserves as their definition of a head on.
ODBAL: The first rule in a 1 vs. multiple fight is to kill someone... and do it as quickly as you can. Any gun solution, even momentary, should be used. Style points are not issued in the game, so don't worry about the HO whiners who complain if you kill them from 15 degrees off nose. ;)
-
I have been amazed at how much HO'ing is loathed on the boards and practiced in the arena's. I have yet to take a HO shot, but have certainly had my plane disabled many times by them. I guess my question would be, is there a time when taking the HO shot might be more acceptable? For instance if you are outnumbered or find yourself with a couple countrymen in furball facing greater odds? Now, please spare me the "if you find yourself in this position you have already lost" speech. At this point in the game my aim is to keep my plane from spinning to the ground so SA and ACM are still a way's off.
If out number, by all means do take the shot. However, the arguments you see are not about what is a HO or if it is acceptable or not. The arguments on the BBS start because someone calls HO and the other guy always comes up with a reason why it wasnt. This is how the BBS stuff starts. I have yet to see one person on 200 or here say, yes, it was a HO, lol
-
ODBAL: The first rule in a 1 vs. multiple fight is to kill someone... and do it as quickly as you can. Any gun solution, even momentary, should be used. Style points are not issued in the game, so don't worry about the HO whiners who complain if you kill them from 15 degrees off nose. ;)
OK, then I'll move that one up to #1 and... Should I drop pooping my pants to #2 or should it be lower? Thanks for the input <S>
-
I'd call it a poor merge on his part. I've always been told to try to dive under the con to gain speed and then go up and over. It sounds to me that he was trying to immbleman too soon and got caught.
just doing this is gonna make you easy to hit for someone who's trying to get a straight shot. you need to constantly switch your angle avoiding the ho shot. where you go doesn't matter. if hes turning into you trying to shoot you, while you're trying to turn away to get onto him.. ur gonna be the one with the edge once the turning starts..
Always be first to attack for position, doesn't matter where you go- this is why ho wannabes make easy targets. that's what a call them. cause you have an edge as soon as they start coming at you with no plan b for when they miss their ho shot.
-
I know I spelled it wrong but it is almost 3:30AM so I don't care lol. Anyway, just had rather interesting incident but just makes me wonder what would most consider this shot as:
I see the 109 diving in on me from little bit higher then I was. I was about 1.5 and was going to fly under him and do barrel roll so I was expecting him to ho me. He decided he wanted to pull up about 1000, exposing his underbelly long enough for me to score some hits, including rad. hit. He was climbing and as he was doing so, he was accusing me of ho'ing him. But anyway, he saw this as me ho'ing him even though I didn't consider it as one since he exposed his belly to my guns.
So my question, would this be considered as HO shot or deflection shot?
It was a deflection shot. Your opponent made the critical error of attempting to avoid an imminent HO situation. He thereby gave you a nice relatively easy shot that was completely safe for you. Had you missed that shot it sounds as if he set himself up for you to saddle up on him too. Attempting to avoid a HO from under 2k range is usually a losers game. A small correction to your flight path and aim and you have the "deflection shot". Solution....dont avoid the HO that close unless you are in a vastly more agile AC.
-
and we don't love them ho's
-
By slipping. Their noses do not have to be pointed along the path of their aircraft.
Side slip and you will either take away their guns solution or yours ... thus eliminating the guns to guns HO solution.
-
As much as I dislike the HO, I do feel it is a necessary and important ingredient to have decent, fairly realistic aerial fights. I feel that way for two reasons in particular.
One, there should be (IMO) a "penalty" or deterrent for allowing your opponent to acquire a gun solution, or for giving him one. Put yourself in harms way, and you should suffer, simple as that. In this case, what I'm referring to are the guys that will pull their immelmann early, showing you their belly, or other similar maneuvers. They're counting on you to be polite and not shoot, and are attempting to take advantage of that and get around on you. IMO, that's just as cheap, if not more-so, than the HO shot itself. To not shoot them would be wrong. They need to learn that exposing themselves to taking hits is a bad idea. To not shoot would lead to them believing that maneuvering like this is OK, proper, and effective.
I NEVER enter a fight looking to shoot HO-style, but will rapidly change my mind in this situation- out of a sense of duty. Sure, I'm upset that they would force me to send them to the tower before we could really even get started, but to not do so would be a dis-service to my opponent and to the overall quality of fights in the game. So, I'll sacrifice the quality fight I'd hoped for in order to help my opponent along on his path to higher ACM knowledge and higher quality fights in the future. To not do so would lead to lower quality fights in the future. I'll "take one for the team" here, and shoot him with a cheap shot.
Two, the HO taboo should not be used like a "goal" in a game of schoolyard freeze tag. I often see pilots pull into an intentional HO with the (apparent) thought that this would force me to not shoot. An example would be the low guy pulling HO into my dive attack. He's relying on the "Don't shoot me, I'm HO and that would be taboo!" defense, rather than on a legitimate ACM defense. IMO, this guy also needs to be shot. Sure, I'd rather pull up and delay my dive for a few seconds and shoot him as he hangs and falls off (and I usually do). The problem is that he learns that this is an OK, acceptable, method to defend himself, when in reality there are several better options. So, again IMO, not shooting this guy is a bad idea, and encourages behavior that could lead to lower quality fights in the future. So, I'll shoot him if I can do it without taking hits myself. Allowing him to shoot me down in this situation would be very negative. He'd be given a positive re-enforcement for bad behavior...
Don't think I condone the HO attack we see so often in the MA's- I don't. I just think that in some situations it's a necessity to maintain or advance the quality of our aerial fights.
MtnMan
-
Not a HO, but it sounds like you were pointing at him and had every intent of HOing him if it would be safe for you. Sounds like he gave you the courtesy of avoiding a HO or collision and went for the fight instead, but got bullets in return. Its a nice post, but it sounds like you took the opportunity to avoid the fight. If there were others in the area, then good job. If just you and him though, yeah, not a HO by definition but . . .
It sounds more like the other guy mistimed his merge and pulled up to early showing his belly.
ack-ack
-
One, there should be (IMO) a "penalty" or deterrent for allowing your opponent to acquire a gun solution, or for giving him one. Put yourself in harms way, and you should suffer, simple as that. In this case, what I'm referring to are the guys that will pull their immelmann early, showing you their belly, or other similar maneuvers. They're counting on you to be polite and not shoot, and are attempting to take advantage of that and get around on you. IMO, that's just as cheap, if not more-so, than the HO shot itself. To not shoot them would be wrong. They need to learn that exposing themselves to taking hits is a bad idea. To not shoot would lead to them believing that maneuvering like this is OK, proper, and effective.
MtnMan
:rofl you a trainer right? Maybe you should have known that at equal speeds, if you pull up early for an immel, the bad guy will end up right on your six? The only cheap thing about it is the act of committing suicide :rofl If the bad guy is faster all he has to do is chop throttle for a second and the result is the same.
But hey, you are right, teach people to go for the HO since the other guy pulled a cheap move by getting out of the way and trying to have a fight. Don't learn how to take advantage of his mistake. Just call him cheap and shoot him in the face :rofl
Anyone else wondering why everyone opts for the HO first? :rofl
-
very well stated dedalos.
-
very well stated dedalos.
Why do I get nervous when you agree with me? :lol
-
I retract my statement, what was I thinking? :D
-
I retract my statement, what was I thinking? :D
Thank you
-
Lol, I'm not talking about shooting him in the face.
It would be the same situation mentioned in the opening of this thread, and he'd be shot in the belly. Or, as you mentioned (as I have in previous threads) chopping throttle will allow you to pull and follow him up. The result is generally the same either way, as is his perception of the shot. Since he's pulling up his view of you is blocked, and he assumes it was an "HO" either way. In reality, of course, neither shot is an HO.
Again, for the simple-minded folks, I'm not advocating HO'ing. I am merely stating that in a discussion of ACM (where the "C" stands for "combat") something is seriously flawed if the success of your ACM requires your opponent to not shoot when he acquires a gun solution, and especially if you give him one.
As a trainer, I would point out (without shooting, of course) errors like this to the person I'm teaching, and explain why it's a bad idea, and give him/her some better options.
In the MA though, we don't really have that option do we? Immediate verbal communication with an opponent is almost never possible. I would argue that getting yourself in HO situations should be avoided whenever possible (would you agree?). As an animal trainer (most people are easily trained the same way, BTW) I can tell you that immediate positive or negative reinforcement of a behavior is an extremely effective way to shape that behavior. In our game environment, two simple forms of positive reinforcement are A)believing that a maneuver "helped" or was successful, and B)winning an engagement. Especially for someone fairly "new", winning the engagement wouldn't be a requirement (simply living longer would be a positive reinforcement) but winning would be a major reinforcement of the behavior he/she believed contributed to that win. This behavior could easily be a "bad" behavior though, that wasn't negatively reinforced (punished) such as a successful HO, or pulling an early immelmann.
So how can we stop behavior like that in the MA's? Maybe we don't need to. But maybe we want to. Whining on 200 obviously doesn't work. And how many of the "offenders" spend time on the boards? And "helpful" advice after the fact (unless it's solicited) is generally going to be seen as gloating, or not understood fully in our clipped little ingame text. It's also not "immediate", so the exact behavior that caused teh problem isn't as easily recognized, or may even be confused witha different (and possibly even desirable) behavior. So, what better than a little "sting" of cartoon bullets at the moment of bad behavior? Is there a better, more effective way? Maybe offering to take the fella to the DA and "teach" him how to fight better (after he "beat" you with unclean tactics)?
BTW, that initial post was worded as it was to see who could be dragged into this discussion, hehe.
-
Maybe you should have known that at equal speeds, if you pull up early for an immel, the bad guy will end up right on your six? The only cheap thing about it is the act of committing suicide :rofl If the bad guy is faster all he has to do is chop throttle for a second and the result is the same.
So, what you're saying here is "it's not ok to shoot the guy when he gives you the opportunity, unless you chop throttlle and pull first. Then, it's ok to shoot him for making the same mistake that would have allowed him to be shot in the first place."
So, that begs the question- How much aerial "mastery" needs to be domonstrated before a shot is "legitimate"? Is chopping throttle and pulling once the defining act? Is getting behind him the requirement? Winning his six? How do you prove you "won" his six? A certain ammount of time back there (enough for a roll, say?). And if he makes a mistake, and "gives" you his six, have you really "won" it? What if you accidently just find yourself behind him? Does that count?
:rofl
-
Mtnman the Fishrman.
Mtnman, this game is about dogfighting, not fragging. Teaching people to turn into their attack is bad advice if left as short as that.
Yes it's sometimes good to turn into your opponent, but never so far as a 0 degree AOT. 90 degree AOT is best, and any further is just a purely defensive maneuver with no real shot at getting into a dogfight.
-
Why do I get nervous when you agree with me? :lol
You should be VERY nervous !!
-
:rofl you a trainer right? Maybe you should have known that at equal speeds, if you pull up early for an immel, the bad guy will end up right on your six? The only cheap thing about it is the act of committing suicide :rofl If the bad guy is faster all he has to do is chop throttle for a second and the result is the same.
But hey, you are right, teach people to go for the HO since the other guy pulled a cheap move by getting out of the way and trying to have a fight. Don't learn how to take advantage of his mistake. Just call him cheap and shoot him in the face :rofl
Anyone else wondering why everyone opts for the HO first? :rofl
Sorry ... but in the MA arenas, show me your belly early, like what was described ... and I will gut you like a fish ... and then look for the next guy. If I was in the DA ... then that's another story ... I would do as you suggest and chop throttle for a second and then power on to acquire your 6 position.
Oh ... and shooting a planes belly is not an HO ... :t
-
It's not actually a bait I'm throwing out Kermit, just another way of looking at what seems to a very common complaint. Your quest for decent dogfights is great, and shared by many, including myself. However, it's not shared by everyone, I doubt even shared by anywhere near the majority. To a person not on such a quest, a kill by the HO-method is simply that- a kill. If it's a kill on a known "ace", so much the better.
Let's look at a common scenario, and what actully is learned-
#'s guy merges with "ace". Ace is a bit too close, and allows #'s to think he has a shot, which he takes. Three obvious possible outcomes here- one, #'s misses, in which case he doesn't get a positive reinforcement for hitting, but recieves a negative reinforcement for missing, due to his loss seconds later when the ace kills him. Or, if #'s hits, he recieves a positive reinforcement for hitting (see's sprites) followed by a positive reinforcement when he recieves the kill. Or, three, he hits, but only pizzes off the ace, in which case the ace kills him, and #'s gets a negative reinforcement for not landing enough hits.
In case 1- negative reinforcement for missing the HO, leads to future attempts to perfect his aim.
In case 2- positive reinforcement for hitting, both in visual appeal (sprites) and in kill message, leads to future attempts to duplicate.
In case 3- positive reinforcement for hitting, but negative for not hitting enough, or well enough, again leads to future attempts to perfect his aim.
In any case, if the "ace" then complains about being hit HO, that could be a reinforcement either way. Negative only if the #'s guy cares about the aces feelings, or positive in any number of areas. He may actually enjoy making the ace unhappy, or causing him to whine, or value his kill more because he beat an "ace", or whatever. IMO, more positive reinforcement than negative, will lead to continued attempts to HO.
Posting on the BBS? Maybe negative (embarassment). Or percieved fame (just seeing his name tied to shooting down the "ace"), which is a positive. Or maybe nothing, if #'s has no knowledge of the boards, doesn't care to check, or doesn't see the post.
So, how do you stop the behavior? Ignoring it MAY work, but unless everyone does it, it won't. Even then, it may not stop, or may take a long time to stop. Negative reinforcement would be the quickest wa to stop it. How do we do that, other than with hits in the MA? If I shot every time you turned left, you'd stop turning left. If I shot you every time you HO'd, would you continue HOing?
Complaints on channel 200 have not shown much promise of eliminating the HO. Neither have repeated posts on the BBS. 1 on 1 training may work- one player at a time. But are they trained as fast as new players join and try the HO?
Is there another, better way? Or is it even necessary to eliminate the behavior?
Food for thought more than anything...
And here's the kicker- If the ace allows the HO to be successful, he's actually encouraging the behavior. About the best he could do under that situation is minimize the damage by ignoring the death. Any acknowledgement could turn into a positive reinforcement, and lead to the opposite behavior the ace wants to see.
-
Mtnman, I like pictures. :)
I'll walk away from this argument. Your sir are the winner for this round. I'll be back when I get more ammo for this discussion.
HO discussions seem to be never ending.
-
IMO, the HO is a deflection shot. Zero defelection. I would rather hit from two to four degrees either left or right, up or down thoug :) Try to avoid the collison :)
HO was a legitimate tactic during both first and second wars.
Very useful when you are alone against superior numbers :)
-
Not a HO, but it sounds like you were pointing at him and had every intent of HOing him if it would be safe for you. Sounds like he gave you the courtesy of avoiding a HO or collision and went for the fight instead, but got bullets in return. Its a nice post, but it sounds like you took the opportunity to avoid the fight. If there were others in the area, then good job. If just you and him though, yeah, not a HO by definition but . . .
agree, i nvr try and ho, i will pull away, or somthing, but normally 90% of the time the person trys to ho me anyways, even if i dont fire 1 shot
-BigBOBCH
-
So, what you're saying here is "it's not ok to shoot the guy when he gives you the opportunity, unless you chop throttlle and pull first. Then, it's ok to shoot him for making the same mistake that would have allowed him to be shot in the first place."
So, that begs the question- How much aerial "mastery" needs to be domonstrated before a shot is "legitimate"? Is chopping throttle and pulling once the defining act? Is getting behind him the requirement? Winning his six? How do you prove you "won" his six? A certain ammount of time back there (enough for a roll, say?). And if he makes a mistake, and "gives" you his six, have you really "won" it? What if you accidently just find yourself behind him? Does that count?
:rofl
You know, it is really simple. You called pulling up early cheaper than a HO because it gives you an advantage. In reality, it kills you. That is what I was addressing. No need to back pedal now by typing pages and pages. So, one more time, I was only addressing your calling the pull up cheap.
As far as the HO or the belly shot, go ahead and take it. They are valid shots. However, in a 1 vs 1, go for the fight (just my opinion). See what you can do, you know? It is a little annoying when the training stuff argues in favor of not fighting. Thats all. Other than that, the shots are valid. Keep up the good work and soon we will have DoomHigh
-
Lol, I'm not the slightest bit interested in back-pedaling Dedalos. And I'm not interested in arguing in favor of "not fighting" either.
I think you're just trying to skew my words to avoid what I was really discussing. That's OK, do what you want. I'm breaking with "tradition" and not just ranting on the BBS or 200 about the "lame HO'ers!", but rather looking at it from a different perspective. I know that will be too open-minded for some, and I'm OK with it. Feel free to attack if you feel threatened by it. I don't feel threatened by your argument.
I'm not advocating HO's. On the contrary, I'm discussing "punishment" or "deterent" to HO's. Take your blinders off. The current methods for solving something about what many see as a problem are laughable in their lack of effectiveness. And yes, I laugh at those who continue with those methods, as you laugh at me, hehe! Would my methods (if put into play) be better/more effective? I doubt it. But certainly not less effective.
As I mentioned in a different thread, I don't see HO's as a real problem anyway, at least in my experience. At least, not any bigger of a problem/threat to decent gameplay than the constant stream of whines. Those whines are an embarrassment, IMO. Makes us look like a bunch of grade-school kids crying about scuffed knees. "Mommy! He pushed me!"
While the HO isn't a tactic I use, it's a tactic I welcome to be used ON me. If I get hit by it, oh well, I screwed up.
In the example given, I agree, the guy pulling early is presenting a legitimate shot to his belly, has screwed up, and deserves to get hit. In reality, I would seldom if ever take that shot- even though I feel it should be taken (and in reality, if I took it he'd be screaming "HO!!" on 200...). Personally, I'd rather let the fight play out a bit longer, and since I see his mistake I can easily capitolize on it. But, if you think about it, that just makes me feel better, doesn't it? Lets me show off my aerial "mastery" a bit, right? He sealed his fate by pulling early, in essence giving me his six, but by delaying my shot and doing a simple turn onto his six I can act/look like I earned the shot. False bravado/skill IMO. But it sure looks like that's what some people want to see. He killed himself, but by waiting a few seconds I can shift the credit onto myself, right? And be the better pilot for it, right? LOL
MtnMan
-
I know I spelled it wrong but it is almost 3:30AM so I don't care lol. Anyway, just had rather interesting incident but just makes me wonder what would most consider this shot as:
I see the 109 diving in on me from little bit higher then I was. I was about 1.5 and was going to fly under him and do barrel roll so I was expecting him to ho me. He decided he wanted to pull up about 1000, exposing his underbelly long enough for me to score some hits, including rad. hit. He was climbing and as he was doing so, he was accusing me of ho'ing him. But anyway, he saw this as me ho'ing him even though I didn't consider it as one since he exposed his belly to my guns.
So my question, would this be considered as HO shot or deflection shot?
Nope. Happens to me all the time.
I usually merge off-cantor to avoid the HO. Occasionally, however, if I judge a enemy A/C's E to be much lower than mine, Ill pull up for the rope. In the above situation, it just sounds like he went for that a little bit too soon is all and instead of having to go over the top to bring your guns around, you just had to pull up a bit further.
-
Beer. Never mind i rethought it lol :)
-
off-cantor
???
-
mmmm...wings. i like wings.
-
i like wings.
I like turtles.
ack-ack
-
soup or steaks?
-
???
Gimme a break. First day back at work in a week. :D
-
I HO every chance I get. The guys that crack me up are the ones who whine about it. In WWII the guys flew nose to nose, saluted, then broke into the dogfight...right? When did this become a point of AH etiquette? It does take two to HO and in my case, there are certain planes you do not get with tight nose angles with... mossie / 110 and so on. I fly a mossie and have any sort of deflection on a guy passing by me is a plus because I get to saw a wing off. If I miss, more than likely I will die because lets face it, a mossie is not all that fast (no 479 MPH plane lol thread... or a C.202). It is all fair in the game of AH in my minds. Seriously... does it really matter? I am tired of reading 200 and seeing guys gripe about being HO'ed. It is a crutch, used exclusively to protect their egos in using poor judgement on which planes to pass directly in front of. :salute
-
Sorry ... but in the MA arenas, show me your belly early, like what was described ... and I will gut you like a fish ... and then look for the next guy. If I was in the DA ... then that's another story ... I would do as you suggest and chop throttle for a second and then power on to acquire your 6 position.
Oh ... and shooting a planes belly is not an HO ... :t
Yep, but if you read what I said, you will see that I am reffering to him calling the early pull up cheaper then a HO
-
I think you're just trying to skew my words to avoid what I was really discussing.
"In the example given, I agree, the guy pulling early is presenting a legitimate shot to his belly, has screwed up, and deserves to get hit. In reality, I would seldom if ever take that shot- even though I feel it should be taken (and in reality, if I took it he'd be screaming "HO!!" on 200...). Personally, I'd rather let the fight play out a bit longer, and since I see his mistake I can easily capitolize on it. But, if you think about it, that just makes me feel better, doesn't it? Lets me show off my aerial "mastery" a bit, right? He sealed his fate by pulling early, in essence giving me his six, but by delaying my shot and doing a simple turn onto his six I can act/look like I earned the shot. False bravado/skill IMO. But it sure looks like that's what some people want to see. He killed himself, but by waiting a few seconds I can shift the credit onto myself, right? And be the better pilot for it, right? LOL"
"They're counting on you to be polite and not shoot, and are attempting to take advantage of that and get around on you. IMO, that's just as cheap, if not more-so, than the HO shot itself. To not shoot them would be wrong. They need to learn that exposing themselves to taking hits is a bad idea. To not shoot would lead to them believing that maneuvering like this is OK, proper, and effective."
MtnMan
I apologize if I have twisted your words
-
Yep, but if you read what I said, you will see that I am reffering to him calling the early pull up cheaper then a HO
I may not have been clear in this instance either. If the pilot pulling up early (showing his belly) is doing so as an honest mistake, error, or whatever, I'd say it's not a "cheap" move.
Or if he's doing it knowing the risk he's taking, and hoping he'll be able to dodge the expected bullet stream, but doing it anyway hoping for a positional advantage if he pulls it off, I'd also say it isn't "cheap". It's a calculated gamble.
But if he does it thinking he should be immune to his opponent firing due to the "taboo" of taking HO shots, I would consider it a cheap move. In that case he's taking advantage of a bogus (IMO) ettiquette concept, which he thinks should guarantee him safety through a maneuver that should have gotten him killed.
How can I tell what caused him to pull early? It doesn't really matter, since IMO he should lose the fight in any of the three examples. A big clue for me though is whether or not the "victim" complains about the HO. About the only time I can think of for a valid HO complaint would be a many on 1 scenario where one of the many HO's the 1. Any other complaint of HO should embarrass the guy complaining.
-
I apologize if I have twisted your words
Not a problem Dedalos. I may be shifting my philosophy a bit now though.
I had a long boring night at work last night, and gave the whole HO thing some serious thought. Although I started with an opinion on HO's right along the lines of the common, current philosophy of "HO's are bad", what I was forced to realize was that it's the complaints of HO's that are bad. And, that the constant stream of complaints, the philosophy itself of "Ho's are bad", and the hesitation of many (myself included) to take those HO shots actually has the opposite effect intended, and actually cheapens our aerial combat. IMO, the complaints are stemming from an embarrassment of being beaten by such a simple, beginner-type tactic, and that in an HO-won fight the victim should be the one embarrassed by being beaten so easily, rather than the shooter for winning so easily.
In short, IMO, anyone considering himself/herself as "skilled" in aerial combat should be too embarrassed by being beaten by the HO to complain about it and make it "public".
I also came to some neat conclusions when I gave some thought to "cowardice" and "bravery" in AH, which also seems to be a common topic on channel 200.
Probably would be a good discussion for a seperate thread, but I don't have time right now (off to work...)
-
I HO every chance I get.
Your stats reflect that.
If I miss, more than likely I will die because lets face it, a mossie is not all that fast (no 479 MPH plane lol thread... or a C.202).
When you miss and when you "more than likely die" ... it has nothing to do with the plane your flying ... it all has to do with how you are flying your plane.
-
There is no such thing as "bravery" and "cowardice" in an online computer game, it is IMO innapropriate to toss those sacred words around like we do in regards to our pixelated air combat.
IMO, there ARE situations where a HO pass/FQ shot is harder to avoid than some would care to admit. Being close to the deck with no room to dive, or when both planes are low of E several turns into a dogfight are two examples. There are situations where one pilot often has the choice of either flying stubbornly towards the opponent and a potential M.A.D. scenario, or trying to prevent it by some change in vector that makes the opponent's shot more difficult, in the process giving the flyer who was trying to avoid M.A.D. at least a small chance of being shot down by what can now be claimed as a "clean" FQ deflection shot. In some cases, one might even say the willingness to go head-on can become an advantage. Of course, as the example of Ernst Udet teaches us, there is nothing a-historical about this.
However, I think icons and the destructiveness of AHII weaponry make it easier to land telling damage on a HO pass than it was in reality, when you had two planes coverging at 600+mph, going from specks on the windscreen to filling the windscreen and then past you in seconds.
-
Your stats reflect that.
When you miss and when you "more than likely die" ... it has nothing to do with the plane your flying ... it all has to do with how you are flying your plane.
There is always some fool who takes a serious discussion and belittles the people having the discussion. I play once or twice a week because I am a company commander in the United States Army and don't have that much time. I also fly with a squadron and bail, crash, whatever it takes to keep the mission flowing, not just rearming and playing selfishly. I find you, slapshot, to be one of those elitist fools who make it hard on everyone, not remembering where you started or where you came from in relationship to this game. I played AW back in the day and have been as active as I can be in this community. Ho or not to HO, have a real discussion. Accept that there are those with the skills and funds to have all the hot computers and good gear, and there are those who make by with what they have. I play with an older computer, and old joystick, and laugh when I hear people get heart broken and insulted by a HO pass. To them I say get a life or ping Hitech for an arena with guys who have scores under 100.
-
There is always some fool who takes a serious discussion and belittles the people having the discussion. I play once or twice a week because I am a company commander in the United States Army and don't have that much time. I also fly with a squadron and bail, crash, whatever it takes to keep the mission flowing, not just rearming and playing selfishly. I find you, slapshot, to be one of those elitist fools who make it hard on everyone, not remembering where you started or where you came from in relationship to this game. I played AW back in the day and have been as active as I can be in this community. Ho or not to HO, have a real discussion. Accept that there are those with the skills and funds to have all the hot computers and good gear, and there are those who make by with what they have. I play with an older computer, and old joystick, and laugh when I hear people get heart broken and insulted by a HO pass. To them I say get a life or ping Hitech for an arena with guys who have scores under 100.
It is by remembering where I came from in this game that I respond to people who promote HOing in this game. Promoting such a tactic only hurts the overall gameplay and I have watched the quality of the fight(s) decrease as HOing has become a somewhat accepted tactic by those who don't care to learn how to fight without relying on the HO. Just because you only have a couple of hours to play doesn't preclude one from trying to learn something beside an HO.
Back when I started playing ... If you HOed consistently you were berated for doing so ... and so I carry the same message. Do what I did and die a million deaths, if needed, to learn how to fight and bring something else to the skys beside a lame HO.
My attitude, when it comes to HOing, is not elitist ... it come from seeing plane after plane come roaring in, guns blazing, hoping for the HO kill, because if they miss it ... they will surely die. I would much rather have a air-to-air knife fight ... win or loose ... as long as there was fight.
-
It is by remembering where I came from in this game that I respond to people who promote HOing in this game. Promoting such a tactic only hurts the overall gameplay and I have watched the quality of the fight(s) decrease as HOing has become a somewhat accepted tactic by those who don't care to learn how to fight without relying on the HO. Just because you only have a couple of hours to play doesn't preclude one from trying to learn something beside an HO.
Back when I started playing ... If you HOed consistently you were berated for doing so ... and so I carry the same message. Do what I did and die a million deaths, if needed, to learn how to fight and bring something else to the skys beside a lame HO.
My attitude, when it comes to HOing, is not elitist ... it come from seeing plane after plane come roaring in, guns blazing, hoping for the HO kill, because if they miss it ... they will surely die. I would much rather have a air-to-air knife fight ... win or loose ... as long as there was fight.
if I agree with you will you promise to still hate me?
-
There is no such thing as "bravery" and "cowardice" in an online computer game, it is IMO innapropriate to toss those sacred words around like we do in regards to our pixelated air combat.
I agree 100%, and that's part of what I intended to touch on. I also think that those terms are often tossed out in warped and misleading ways, particularly on chnl 200.
-
The HO is probably the most simple, most basic, most "instinctual" form of attack I can think of. Easy to master? Not exactly, but not all that difficult either. It's very simplicity is probably why it's looked down upon. Most of us feel as if we're "above stooping to that level" or feel others should feel that way. However, I've come to reverse my thoughts in that respect, at least for the most part.
Old habits die hard, but I'll do my best to NOT belittle those using the HO, and I'll be snickering at those who die by it, and laughing hysterically at those who whine about it. Popular position to take? No, but I'm OK with that. Honestly, I'm embarrassed to realize I've taken part in the other option. I feel like I've been acting like a lemming. So here you go- beginner or ace, feel free to HO me. If you shoot me down with it, that's fine. I consider it as valid as any other shot angle. Is whining about others using lesser tactics simply a way to claim superiority? As in "I'm too good to use the HO!"
How effective is the HO? Not terribly, or at least it's not an overly "efficient or effective" tactic, simply because the probability of losing to it is as great as winning with it (if we ignore different gun lethality, etc). After all, it's simply jousting, right? If you mastered it, and used it for every fight, the long-term best you could expect is about a 50-50 chance of winning, which is low odds in my book. Can it always be avoided? Nope. But that's the way it should be.
Would I teach others to use the HO? No, although I do feel kind of bad about thinking that way. I wouldn't, simply because I don't need to teach it. It's probably the most "instinctual" method of shooting someone. Point at the bad guy and shoot, simple as can be. I also won't teach it because I believe that there are better, higher-probability-of-success (for the most part) tactics available. I'll stick with those. I don't teach people to land with their gear up either. I think that as people realize they consistantly lose by using the HO as a tactic, they'll eventually want to find a better way.
Do I intend to start using the HO regularly? No. But that's mostly form a "greed" point of view. I'm simply not willing to concede defeat as often as a win. I'm not happy with a statistical K/D of 1/1. I'll take the "high road" and fly in what has proven to me to be a "smarter" "safer" "more fun" manner. I don't generally find losing to be as much fun as winning. In reality, I doubt you'll ever see a 1/1 with the HO as a primary tactic.
But, I sure wouldn't deny the use of the HO either, for several reasons.
For one- as a beginner to the game (or even a long-time player lacking advanced fighter skills), and fighting an "experienced" stick, it's flat-out your best (if not only) chance to live through the fight. I can practically guarantee that if you're new to the game, and don't kill me with the HO, your chances of beating me are extremely slim. You'd best leave quickly, and bring back some friends. I'm not trying to brag- I'm just bluntly stating a fact. I'd feel ridiculous belittling someone for attempting to use their best option for success. The HO is a very basic, "no-brainer" tactic. As such, it should be a "no-brainer" for me to watch out for it, and defend myself from it. To consider the HO as an "invalid" tactic unfairly handicaps those who need it most. "What? You have no legs?? Here, lemme handcuff you before we race across the pool".
That said, if you want to beat me with any regularity you'll need to look into learning some better tactics.
What good are an "aces" uber-aerial-ninja skillz if he can be regularly dropped by the equivalent of a redneck kicking him in the the groin?
I'd say the ninja needs to brush up on some basics. I'm not saying there shouldn't be an effort to improve your skills, and learn some more effective tactics. I'm saying people should be ashamed of themselves if they're verbally bullying less experienced players for not being experienced enough.
Two- if your opening (or later) move allows you to be HO'd, the fight should be over, or at least it (the HO) should be a legitimate option. To have a shot at your opponent, and not take it out of a sense of it being a "taboo" tactic makes the fight a sham. A mockery. The "quality" fight that develops is essentially based on a "lie". The fight could have easily been won, so anything that comes later is artificial. The HO is a simple, basic tactic. I don't want to hear about your uber skillz if you can't handle the basics. Skipping the "basics" to get to the "good parts" isn't often a good policy. I don't see why that simple idea shouldn't apply in AH.
Three- the overall low statistical effectiveness of the HO is what probably (I haven't researched the historical progression of air tactics, sorry...) lead to the desire to invent, recognise, learn, and teach the "better" "more advanced" tactics. Without it as an option, the "better" tactics would appear to lose value. A dollar is only worth more than a penny because the penny exists. Remove the penny, and the value of the dollar is what, exactly? Without change the dollar becomes the lowest value. Without the HO the "better" tactics fall a notch as well. Without poor tactics, what's the point of good tactics?
Four- removing the HO as a valid tactic to win a fight is IMO like removing other "basic" ways to win in competition. IMO, it's equal to playing a game of basketball and saying "No free throws or 2 pointers will be counted! Only the "skilled" shots from behind the 3-point line count". Or a game of football where only touchdowns matter, no score for field goals or extra point kicks. Or a game of golf where you could only win with "birdies" or "eagles", and were shunned for shooting "par".
Again- removing the HO as a valid tactic is removing one of the basics. Without the simple basics to compare against, the advanced tactics aren't as advanced. That fact alone gives the HO legitimate value.
-
Mtnman, let me know when the movie comes out...
:D
-
Kermit smells of cabbage.
-
if I agree with you will you promise to still hate me?
I will always hate you ... I promise ... :D
-
Is whining about others using lesser tactics simply a way to claim superiority? As in "I'm too good to use the HO!"
Whining about getting killed in this game, HO or not ... is STUPID.
When I get taken out by an HO ... it's because I decided to stay "in" and allowed it or I left myself open for it ... so there is no need to whine, and I have no one to blame but myself.
Confronting people who promote the HO ... I will call them out on it.
-
I don't see how the HO could be promoted as being a "good" tactic. Best option available in a certain stuation? Maybe.
You hit the nail on the head Slapshot- whining about getting killed is what my main gripe is about. IMO, the constant stream of whines and slurs on 200 and the BBS is far more "unhealthy" for decent gameplay than front-quarter/HO shots. I'm not saying 200 should go away, or that people should be censored- more that people should actually think about what they're saying before they take the knee-jerk reaction of jumping on the popular opinion bandwagon.
-
Mtnman, let me know when the movie comes out...
:D
Awww, c'mon Kermit! Take the bull by the horns!
Waiting for the movie is the easy way out, and could be dangerous. In essence, you're waiting for someone else to decide for you which parts you'll be able to consider.
You may not be letting them decide what you'll think, but you're letting them decide what you'll think about...
Have you ever read a book, and seen a movie, where the movie wasn't sadly lacking... Entertaining maybe, but still lacking.
Either way, for someone whom I know despises the HO, you impress me (as you have before) by not simply attacking an argument that doesn't fit the "normal" view. Withholding an opinion until you have time to consider the information available is a noble act.
My argument surely has holes. That's fine. I enjoy the debate as much as anything, even if I'm shown wrong or am convinced to alter my opinion along the way. A week ago, I despised HO's too. Now, while not "pro-HO", I do find myself "HO-neutral". A necessary evil...
To devote as much time to a game as we do, and not give some thought to it, seems wasteful.
-
Slapshot...agreed. It is not the only tactic, however to personalize your argument on this forum is the stuff of teenagers. If someone is silly enough to fly head on to me, I will take a pop shot before making the next move. I deliberately fly the mossie because it is challenging. Come in LWO Blue, I fly with Rolling Thunder and perhaps your judgments will change about me and the way I fly.
-
Slapshot...agreed. It is not the only tactic, however to personalize your argument on this forum is the stuff of teenagers. If someone is silly enough to fly head on to me, I will take a pop shot before making the next move. I deliberately fly the mossie because it is challenging. Come in LWO Blue, I fly with Rolling Thunder and perhaps your judgments will change about me and the way I fly.
DD, drop you insulting innuendos ... I am far from a teenager ... ask my 3 grandchildren ... but what I do have is an "opinion" and on certain subjects ... I voice it and if you don't like the way I state my opinion ... that is your problem, not mine. You stated yours ... I stated mine ... simple as that ... nothing personal on my part. It doesn't matter who you are or what you do.
I fly MW the most ... and if I am not in there, I can be found in the LW Blue. I would say that 99.999% of the enemies that run into, in the Blue arena ... GO FOR THE HO ... right off the bat. So ... 99.999% of the people that I encounter ARE silly enough to fly head on at me ... but I have taken the time to learn how to spoil their HO attempt, and if they stick around, I will reverse and kill them within 1 to 3 turns .. .and for the most part, it is in 1 turn.
If 99.999% of the people come at me HO and I take a 50/50 chance of winning or losing in an HO ... then what kind of fun is that. I am surely not going to get any quality flight or fight time ... so I avoid it at all cost. I fail to see a sense of satisfaction flying directly at someone, crossing my fingers, squeezing the trigger and HOPING that I survive or get him first.
Over the years I have faced many newcomers to this game that after they lose terribly on their first HO attempt, they keep coming back to see if it will work again ... and to no avail ... I then eventually ask them if they would like some pointers and if they respond with a "yes", then I tell them that the first thing they need to do ... IS NOT HO ... prior to the merge, rather than concentrating on getting "guns on" ... think about your opening move after the merge ... and also try to think 2 or more possible moves after that. Most I ask just tell me to "piss off noob" ... and they die repeatedly.
As long as you are concentrating on the HO and having to force a guns solution ... you will die quickly to someone who even has limited air-to-air skills ... if you stick around.
If I am flying in the Blue arena and see you on ... I will gladly come and join you ... hopefully my F6F or FM2 can keep up with your Mossie.
-
It's a HO If both parties have gun solution, everything else is a deflection.
-
I fly with Rolling Thunder
I love fighting that squad.
They come to the fight en mass, die in droves, and just keep on coming.
Sometimes, from sheer numbers alone, they will capture the base.
In their minds, they "won" 'cause they took the base.
In MY mind I "won" as I got 20-40 kills vs. a couple deaths.
So I guess everybody "wins".
(back on subject)
I never understood putting yourself in a 50/50 live/die situation. Whenever I take off, I plan on landing. Even when I am defending a base against a hoard I "plan" on landing with kills on board. Flying around face shooting everything I see isn't very conductive to that philosophy.
If someone is silly enough to fly head on to me, I will take a pop shot before making the next move.
What I think you are failing to understand is just how out of position you are in the fight because of that move. If your opponent has even a basic understanding about how to fight, you START the fight at a huge disadvantage because of the attempted face shot. THEY are already doing their next move as your are pulling the trigger. So they start the fight one move ahead of you and you are probably gonna die.
For me it all boils down to fun. If dying a couple times to get one kill is "fun" for you, then keep doing what you are doing. IF on the other hand you think you MIGHT enjoy killing more than dying, might I humbly suggest looking up one of our wonderfull trainers in the AH Trainers Corp. A few sessions with them can do wonders.
-
Gentlemen, I am always up for training. Lute, I know you have blasted on more than one occasion. I go for the HO if the other guy faces me. Otherwise preservation of e an altitude is my priority. Yes, Rolling Thunder dies in droves, lol, but we do win maps and capture bases. We finally got rid of that crazy map on Saturday. Someone has to do it I suppose.
I know, I my end, I enjoy the tenacious fight, and really don't care if I make it back. Since my own life, just my poor digital one, is not at stake I keep trying, even with chunks of plane missing. I appreciate the position of those who fly this game tactically and concentrate on being as real as possible. I for one just don't have the time or the patience to take off a sector away, fly to high alt, and then try to mix it up for a base defense.
Slapshot, I extend the hand, maybe our sights will cross in the blue or MW. I thought the comment about my score was irrelevant to the discussion and it set me off on my diatribe. I again appreciate the preservation of the realism to this game and admittedly I would not HO someone in real life in a mossie because the thing has hardly and armor. I fly a mossie or a pony, pretty much that is it, leaning more to the mossie.
-
Here is post I made to our squad forum recently. This is as true as you believe. I knew these men all to briefly but do not doubt their word regarding their experiences as they spoke of them infrequently:
"Over the years, I won't say how many, I've known a couple of "Jug" pilots. Both are sadly gone. One was a neighbor to my inlaws who always brought a cold beer and a story to my late father-in-law while he was mowing. Bill was shot down late in the war on his 2nd sortie and sat out the last few months of the war as a POW. The other was Ed Shearer, the head shooting instructer for the NSCA( National Sporting Clays Association), and member of the Skeet Shooting Hall of Fame. He was a P-47 pilot in the Pacific. Over some beers in a small town Iowa bar after a shooting clinic, he told us about his first encounter with a Japanese fighter. Sorry the story lacks specifics because I didn't think to ask at the time. He was flying a patrol and was seperated from his flight briefly when he encountered the Japanese plane. As he told it: " I turned towards the Jap, and I saw him turn towards me. I gave the P-47 full throttle and started to line up the Zero in my sights." He said: "As soon as I had him lined up I opened fire, the Jap pilot did the same because I could see flames shooting from his guns." He went on to say: "well, there we were blazing away at each other, head on at full speed, when I saw that his guns stopped shooting. Within seconds my guns were empty and the Jap was still coming. He passed me on the left side close enough that I could see his face, and I shall never forget the stunned look he had, because I probably had that same look." He said: "He looked very young, just like me. And he must have been inexperienced, just like me. Because we both had fired at each other before either of us was in range of our guns. All of our bullets fell somewhere between us." He finished by saying, "So thats how the world famous skeet shooter and instructer did in his first encounter with the enemy." They were both fine men, and I am blessed to have known them."
It happens through inexperience or bad luck or design. For me the debate is over.
-
Slapshot, I extend the hand, maybe our sights will cross in the blue or MW. I thought the comment about my score was irrelevant to the discussion and it set me off on my diatribe. I again appreciate the preservation of the realism to this game and admittedly I would not HO someone in real life in a mossie because the thing has hardly and armor. I fly a mossie or a pony, pretty much that is it, leaning more to the mossie.
DD ... I did not comment on your "score" ... "score" means nothing. I mentioned your "stats" ... which if you look at them, in conjunction with your original statement ... the "stats" do reflect someone who could very well be using the HO on a consistent basis.
Currently ...
Your Kills/Death is .08
Your Kills/Sortie is .06
Your Kills/Hour is 4.64
You are dieing more than you are killing and for each sortie ... you are killing few.
In Fghters you have 70 Kills to 74 Deaths
In Attack you have 53 kills to 69 Deaths
Your overall score is 1336
These stats, along with your statement that you go for the HO anytime someone comes straight at you, to me, truly back up your statement. I was flying Blue yesterday and I swear, 99.99% of the encounters I had ... the guy came straight at me with the intent to HO and did try to take me out with the HO ... not one of them were successful and everyone of them did die within 1 to 2 turns. They died because as Lute pointed out ... I was already 1 move ahead of them while I was spoiling their HO attempt.
My stats ...
Kills/Death is 8.92 (it was 13.something, but base defense against the horde yesterday lowered it)
Kills/Sortie is 2.07
Kills/Hour is 11.66
My over score is 913 ... not far from yours ... that is why "score" means crap ... "stats", on the other hand, can tell a story.
Now, if I flew using your logic, I could almost guarantee that my stats would be very close to your stats and no where near my current stats.
I know the Mossie is a cannon monster, and it's very enticing to try and deal death with them, but try to take your flying to the next level ... dont' sell yourself short. After all, and I am not trying to be mean here ... you current train of thought is not working (with success) and your stats really couldn't get that much lower ... so you have nothing really to lose and everything to gain.
Want to learn the Mossie ... try to hook up with BatFink ... if he is willing ... he makes that plane dance, as does Karnak, but he doesn't fly much anymore I think.
My suggestion ... get out of the Mossie and get in a Spit V, Spit VIII, Spit IX, N1K ... these planes are forgiving and excellent planes to actually learn ACM, including avoiding the HO. Once proficient in one or more of these planes, transference of your learned skills to the Mossie will make flying the Mossie more successful. Worried about the "dweeb" moniker for those rides ... ignore the ignorant fools. Use them as learning tools and then move on to more challenging planes.
See ya in Blue/MW ... one of these days.
-
A true HO shot is when both planes have a guns solution on each other ... at the same time.
No ... that was not an HO.
I have to agree with that. Many times while flying the 110 people start out headed for me for what looked like a HO. Then they sober up and decided to dive underneath me. I generally am able to score some hits on them when they attempt this . Then the whinning begins about how I hoed them. I don't consider it a real HO but others do. My response to them is when you see a 110 expect it to HO. I can't tell you how many people attempt to HO a 110.
-
Accept that there are those with the skills and funds to have all the hot computers and good gear, and there are those who make by with what they have. I play with an older computer, and old joystick, and laugh when I hear people get heart broken and insulted by a HO pass.
The gas prices make me HO some times. I never knew, HOing was related to the amount of money in your wallet. How about credit cards? If I get close to my limit, would I be HOing more? :confused:
-
The gas prices make me HO some times. I never knew, HOing was related to the amount of money in your wallet. How about credit cards? If I get close to my limit, would I be HOing more? :confused:
Only HO with the Capital One card, otherwise Storch and his boys come out of the woodwork with their pitch forks and torches. Oh yah with their expossed hairy backs as well :eek:
-
no its not a HO, most of dem is on da skreet.............. :devil
-
Only HO with the Capital One card, otherwise Storch and his boys come out of the woodwork with their pitch forks and torches. Oh yah with their expossed hairy backs as well :eek:
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
IMO, the HO is a deflection shot. Zero defelection. I would rather hit from two to four degrees either left or right, up or down thoug :) Try to avoid the collison :)
HO was a legitimate tactic during both first and second wars.
Very useful when you are alone against superior numbers :)
in real air combat, do think any pilot who was ever shot down ever said " whaa... he ho'd me" I ve seen 100's of hours of documentaries of seasoned combat pilots and never heard the term HO till I started playing AHII. Everyother line of radio chatter you see it "U HO'd Me noob!" In fact I see it so much I think they need to change the name of this game to AHO'sII, lol
I dont post much as you can see, but had a minute to chime on this. I normally fly planes that do not turn to well so when merging with kites I normally go for a deflection, trying to turn with them would be pointless. I get accused of ho everyday by some whiner. A ho is when both pilots have a gun solution and it takes 2 to HO. A deflection is any shot off six regardless of alt/speed/aoa. Any good pilot will take the shot if presented. I will say this to all the crybabies out there; if you do not like being shot at, from any angle, quit playing. If I shoot you down from your 11:59 o'clock high or low, it was your fault, your going down, better luck next time, try to stay out of my firing solution next time,
For all you HO babies, please post a link to text or video anywhere where a real combat veteran talks about HO,
-
I know I spelled it wrong but it is almost 3:30AM so I don't care lol. Anyway, just had rather interesting incident but just makes me wonder what would most consider this shot as:
I see the 109 diving in on me from little bit higher then I was. I was about 1.5 and was going to fly under him and do barrel roll so I was expecting him to ho me. He decided he wanted to pull up about 1000, exposing his underbelly long enough for me to score some hits, including rad. hit. He was climbing and as he was doing so, he was accusing me of ho'ing him. But anyway, he saw this as me ho'ing him even though I didn't consider it as one since he exposed his belly to my guns.
So my question, would this be considered as HO shot or deflection shot?
Y
-
It's a HO If both parties have gun solution, everything else is a deflection.
says the ho'n spit16 pilot!
<---- :cry
-
A head on is when two aircraft are firing while flying on a nose-to-nose collision course.
Why can't it be a head on when we're on a 'nose-to-nose collision course' and only he fires at me?
-
in real air combat, do think any pilot who was ever shot down ever said " whaa... he ho'd me" I ve seen 100's of hours of documentaries of seasoned combat pilots and never heard the term HO till I started playing AHII. Everyother line of radio chatter you see it "U HO'd Me noob!" In fact I see it so much I think they need to change the name of this game to AHO'sII, lol
I dont post much as you can see, but had a minute to chime on this. I normally fly planes that do not turn to well so when merging with kites I normally go for a deflection, trying to turn with them would be pointless. I get accused of ho everyday by some whiner. A ho is when both pilots have a gun solution and it takes 2 to HO. A deflection is any shot off six regardless of alt/speed/aoa. Any good pilot will take the shot if presented. I will say this to all the crybabies out there; if you do not like being shot at, from any angle, quit playing. If I shoot you down from your 11:59 o'clock high or low, it was your fault, your going down, better luck next time, try to stay out of my firing solution next time,
For all you HO babies, please post a link to text or video anywhere where a real combat veteran talks about HO,
No, good pilots do not take shots where the results are a coin toss between killing the bandit and getting killed himself, in other words, a head-on shot. The only way to get good at detecting a favorable HO opportunity is to die hundreds or thousands of times trying it, and then you still might only be a favorite, e.g. 75%, in the head-on encounter.
HO all you like, but you're selling yourself short if you do it, especially if you have other advantages over the enemy, e.g. altitude or speed.
P.S. There are other, more plausible, explanations for why you haven't read the phrase "head-on" in combat reports than the one you think. Pilots did take head-on shots from time to time, fighter vs. fighter, but generally it was regarded as temerity. Anyone who made a habit of going head-on in real combat probably didn't live to write their memoirs.
-
I'd say it was not a Head-On.
As far as I know, a head on is when one pilot flies directly at the nose of the other pilot, and opens fire that way. What it sounds like to me is that you had your nose pointed at his plane whilst shooting (of course),Yossarian
Basically correct, a HO is when both planes have gun solution on the other...
So, imo, no, if you're sotory is what happened, then no it wasn't a HO but a FQS.
-
I think the topic of discussion here is something like the second aircraft destroyed in this video:
http://www.vimeo.com/1679042
and I have to hold with my opinion that it is not a HO. The spitfire as seen in my video is trying to do the smart thing of turning into the attack which I think is smart but being as he has the advantage in turn he also gives up the right to whine about getting shot trying it (and yet whine he does).
-
By then I would be going up.
-
-snip-
Noticed the TR image in your signature, you play?
ack-ack
-
No, good pilots do not take shots where the results are a coin toss between killing the bandit and getting killed himself
Winner winner chicken dinner!
Also, even if you "win" the head on there is a very very good chance you will at least take damage that results in less combat effectiveness or even forces one to rtb.
Unless desperate and hopelessly outnumbered, there is only one reason to HO a fighter: it's a 262. :lol
-
Here are are my thoughts on the matter of HOing in RL...
No icons.
Closure rates ~700mph
So it would go more like this,..."Speck" on windscreeen...wait, that is a contact...*WHOOSH*...Holy %@#$%@#$, that 109 almost collided with me..." followed by reefing around to get on him.
In many, perhaps most cases, with only the MkI eyeball for IFF, a true head-on course probably wouldn't give most pilots time enough to identify, decide, and set up an accurate and effective face shot. Add to that the reflexive "Oh crap, gonna collide" response once you ARE close enough to see and shoot, and you see why HOing was a different proposition back then. In RL, with WWII airplanes, it would take a good pilot and good shot to identify and aim an effective HO shot in time, therefore, it was neither as ubiquitous nor the M.A.D. scenario it is in Aces High.
No, good pilots do not take shots where the results are a coin toss between killing the bandit and getting killed himself, in other words, a head-on shot. The only way to get good at detecting a favorable HO opportunity is to die hundreds or thousands of times trying it, and then you still might only be a favorite, e.g. 75%, in the head-on encounter.
HO all you like, but you're selling yourself short if you do it, especially if you have other advantages over the enemy, e.g. altitude or speed.
P.S. There are other, more plausible, explanations for why you haven't read the phrase "head-on" in combat reports than the one you think. Pilots did take head-on shots from time to time, fighter vs. fighter, but generally it was regarded as temerity. Anyone who made a habit of going head-on in real combat probably didn't live to write their memoirs.