Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: oTRALFZo on February 05, 2009, 03:40:41 AM
-
When given the chance, is it gamey to HO the lead bomber? I know the best way to rid the formation is the top at a steep angle and aim for the wings.
One of the most frustrating situations is having that nasty PW when in your bombsights so I know if a formation is on its lineup, I go straight for the HO on the lead. Even if I fall victim to his guns, I know he/she is going to have a tough time hitting his target.
Just wondering what the majority of ppl think.
-
If I have ample time I would start on his right drone to avoid the lag drone swapping positions and colliding,
HOing bombers is all good, he has 2 other lives and as long as you dont ram him perfectly acceptable. The convergence speeds are x2 and less chance of him getting a good bead in his gunner.
My favourite AoA is nose low in a 262, pull up at the last second and go for the belly, Only the best gunners will get enough pings at those speeds.
-
If I have the chance I always HO the formation but I go after one of the drones to throw off his aim.
-
Attacking bomber formations from a head-on direction (HO) was a very valid attack! The Germans used it so much that the B-17 and B-24 were given the Chin turret. So to question is it gamey! No.
As for going for the Lead bomber, I find that less gamey than going for the drones. Because later in WWII the bomber formations all toggled thier bombs on the lead bomber. If you take out the lead bomber you throw off the formations bombing.
-
Nothing wrong with HO'ing buffs if you need to. The problem is that it can make it a bit harder to set up your next pass.
-
Ho em.
-
If I have the chance I always HO the formation but I go after one of the drones to throw off his aim.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<watches to see which side attackers are setting up on, and moves to that aircraft.
-
Interesting.
HOing a fighter is bad but HOing a bomber is OK.
Today's word is:
Hypocrisy
Hy*poc"ri*sy\ (h[i^]*p[o^]k"r[i^]*s[y^]), n.; pl. Hypocrisies (-s[i^]z). [OE. hypocrisie, ypocrisie, OF. hypocrisie, ypocrisie, F. hypocrisie, L. hypocrisis, fr. Gr. "ypo`krisis the playing a part on the stage, simulation, outward show, fr. "ypokr`nesqai to answer on the stage, to play a part; "ypo` under + kri`nein to decide; in the middle voice, to dispute, contend. See Hypo-, and Critic.] The act or practice of a hypocrite; a feigning to be what one is not, or to feel what one does not feel; a dissimulation, or a concealment of one's real character, disposition, or motives; especially, the assuming of false appearance of virtue or religion; a simulation of goodness.
-
Please HO me in a bomber. I love using the front guns the most.
-
Interesting.
HOing a fighter is bad but HOing a bomber is OK.
Bombers don't really ACM much so I don't really see your point.
I find coming in at the bombers 2 or 10 with alt is the best attack. Even drop under them as you pass to make reaquiring you more difficult for them.
I'd say the bombers in game are much more "gamey" than setting up a HO on one anyways. The guns all fire at one point, all appear to be fired as if the gun mount is rock solid, and converge on a single point from multiple bombers. :aok
-
What, no one tries to put their wheels down on their wings anymore? :furious
-
Attack from 10oc or 2oc and turn for lead on the far drones cockpit pulling all the way through to the leads cockpit. If you do this properly and at the same flight level all three bombers will explode. I do this with P51D only if I believe the pilot is head down in the bombsight.
-
Interesting.
HOing a fighter is bad but HOing a bomber is OK.
Today's word is:
Hypocrisy
Hy*poc"ri*sy\ (h[i^]*p[o^]k"r[i^]*s[y^]), n.; pl. Hypocrisies (-s[i^]z). [OE. hypocrisie, ypocrisie, OF. hypocrisie, ypocrisie, F. hypocrisie, L. hypocrisis, fr. Gr. "ypo`krisis the playing a part on the stage, simulation, outward show, fr. "ypokr`nesqai to answer on the stage, to play a part; "ypo` under + kri`nein to decide; in the middle voice, to dispute, contend. See Hypo-, and Critic.] The act or practice of a hypocrite; a feigning to be what one is not, or to feel what one does not feel; a dissimulation, or a concealment of one's real character, disposition, or motives; especially, the assuming of false appearance of virtue or religion; a simulation of goodness.
Nice try but DENIED, straw man.
2 fighters are vying for postional advantage via BFM ACM. A buff-fighter engagement is entirely different.
-
Nice try but DENIED, straw man.
2 fighters are vying for postional advantage via BFM ACM. A buff-fighter engagement is entirely different.
Nobody has more of a chance at ACM on a bomber than a fighter. It will fly circles around it.
It's the same thing.
Hypocrites.
-
Nobody has more of a chance at ACM on a bomber than a fighter. It will fly circles around it.
It's the same thing.
Hypocrites.
Does a fighter have guns pointing in every direction? Is maneuvering on a fighters six the most dangerous & stupid thing you can do?
-
As for going for the Lead bomber, I find that less gamey than going for the drones. Because later in WWII the bomber formations all toggled thier bombs on the lead bomber. If you take out the lead bomber you throw off the formations bombing.
Killing bomber drones is considered 'gamey' now? Who determines this, players like you? If so, maybe explains why the game is in such a state as it is now.
The main reason why people target the drones first is because of the warping associated with killing the lead (crewed) bomber. If you shoot the lead bomber first, one of the drones will warp to the lead position and more often than not, results in the attacking plane colliding with the drone that just warped into what was a second ago clear.
ack-ack
-
personaly i take out what ever bomber i get a beat on.
dureing war you take out any target you can get onto. drone, leader. who cares. its 1 less load droped and 1 set of guns less to blow the cr ap out of you.
ho ing fighters i think isnt sporting but all is fare in love and war. even this went on dureing the war. AH2 is i think one of the best flight sims iv played. i like realistick stuff in what ever i play.
and AH2 has a nice communaty.
but this is war so if i can i will use any means i can to kill you and to win for my team.
i dont care bout scores or rankings. this is a team game imo and it takes teams to get things done.
so lets all get to it and fight to win and fight to live.
<SALUTE> ROOKS
-
Do a search for some Fw-190 gun camera footage.
When given the chance, is it gamey to HO the lead bomber? I know the best way to rid the formation is the top at a steep angle and aim for the wings.
One of the most frustrating situations is having that nasty PW when in your bombsights so I know if a formation is on its lineup, I go straight for the HO on the lead. Even if I fall victim to his guns, I know he/she is going to have a tough time hitting his target.
Just wondering what the majority of ppl think.
-
I always get worried when attacking B-17s because 999000 may be in them...shudder :uhoh
-
Becinhu.... seems you always kill me Sir <S>...please don't give away any secrets to your success!
<S> 999000
-
Interesting.
HOing a fighter is bad but HOing a bomber is OK.
Today's word is:
Hypocrisy
Hy*poc"ri*sy\ (h[i^]*p[o^]k"r[i^]*s[y^]), n.; pl. Hypocrisies (-s[i^]z). [OE. hypocrisie, ypocrisie, OF. hypocrisie, ypocrisie, F. hypocrisie, L. hypocrisis, fr. Gr. "ypo`krisis the playing a part on the stage, simulation, outward show, fr. "ypokr`nesqai to answer on the stage, to play a part; "ypo` under + kri`nein to decide; in the middle voice, to dispute, contend. See Hypo-, and Critic.] The act or practice of a hypocrite; a feigning to be what one is not, or to feel what one does not feel; a dissimulation, or a concealment of one's real character, disposition, or motives; especially, the assuming of false appearance of virtue or religion; a simulation of goodness.
You need to go look up the work "fool" and "ignorant". ;)
HO'in a bomber is not bad unless the fighter fails to destory the bomber and rams it instead, imo. If in a fighter, one needs to know and make a judgement call to whether or not they are going to make it, if not, better veer off. Otherwise... they'll be a ram-tard. Similar to what dinkis was trying to post above. :lol
-
You need to go look up the work "fool" and "ignorant". ;)
HO'in a bomber is not bad unless the fighter fails to destory the bomber and rams it instead, imo. If in a fighter, one needs to know and make a judgement call to whether or not they are going to make it, if not, better veer off. Otherwise... they'll be a ram-tard. Similar to what dinkis was trying to post above. :lol
The jokes on you and before you call someone ignorant and a fool I'd think you'd be able to see that HOing a formation of B17's is no different than HOing a P51 or an F4U. You face the same firepower and the objective is the same, to get the quick pilot kill and end the fight, yet HOing a fighter is considered bad form and HOing a bomber isn't.
They are exactly the same situation and I want to know why one is gamey and the other not?
All you guys that consider HOing a fighter to be in bad form yet HOing a bomber to be acceptable are first class, A#1, practicing, perfect examples of hypocrisy in action.
If you're going to label "gamey" actions at least be consistant.
Nice try.
Next contestant.
-
The jokes on you and before you call someone ignorant and a fool I'd think you'd be able to see that HOing a formation of B17's is no different than HOing a P51 or an F4U. You face the same firepower and the objective is the same, to get the quick pilot kill and end the fight, yet HOing a fighter is considered bad form and HOing a bomber isn't.
They are exactly the same situation and I want to know why one is gamey and the other not?
You have been told and choose to ignore it.
But naive as I am, I really hope I'm just feeding another troll again ;)
-
Bombers don't really ACM much so I don't really see your point.
I try to in bombers...light, medium, heavy, you just need enough speed and spare time.
-
I always attack bombers from about 2K above and 2.5 to 3k out infront then i roll over with throttle chopped come straight down on them aiming for a wing root. this will set bomber on fire. I roll again diving between the drones and tail of lead and weaping out to climb out in front and above by the time I am at attack level bomber is dead and I dive on next bomber. I repeat this untill all bombers are dead and I rarely miss all 3. If done right I usually come out without a scratch.
-
I always attack bombers from about 2K above and 2.5 to 3k out infront then i roll over with throttle chopped come straight down on them aiming for a wing root. this will set bomber on fire. I roll again diving between the drones and tail of lead and weaping out to climb out in front and above by the time I am at attack level bomber is dead and I dive on next bomber. I repeat this untill all bombers are dead and I rarely miss all 3. If done right I usually come out without a scratch.
2 icons pateintly hovering over my formation that would really make me cringe from using the above mention:
1) P51 (Skatsr) 2) 109 (Lucshe aka..Snailman). I practice that tactic if I come across a formation that has already dropped ord and is heading back because I know I have time.
-
You have been told and choose to ignore it.
But naive as I am, I really hope I'm just feeding another troll again ;)
Your earlier reply wasn't even in the same ballpark as the question.
Why is HOing a bomber any different than HOing a fighter?
The answer is, it's not. It's the same thing. Same action to acheive the same result. So, are both actions considered good tactics or are they both considered gamey? They can't be different so seeing that most consider HOing a bomber a valid tactic (here comes the truth) HOing a fighter must also be a valid tactic.
-
At the Tyco Airshow in Titusville, FL last year there was a WWII B-17 veteran pilot there. I asked him what tactics did the Germans tend to use to shoot B-17s down.
He said early in the war they attacked from the rear (6 position) but losses were too great so by the end of the war most German attacks were from the front.
Slade
-
All you guys that consider HOing a fighter to be in bad form yet HOing a bomber to be acceptable are first class, A#1, practicing, perfect examples of hypocrisy in action.
:huh form has nothing to do with it - its safer to attack buffs from the front because you get much higher closure rate, safer to attack fighters from the rear because they dont have guns pointed at you. anyway I dont consider HOing fighters bad form, just (usually) bad tactics.
-
The jokes on you and before you call someone ignorant and a fool I'd think you'd be able to see that HOing a formation of B17's is no different than HOing a P51 or an F4U. You face the same firepower and the objective is the same, to get the quick pilot kill and end the fight, yet HOing a fighter is considered bad form and HOing a bomber isn't.
They are exactly the same situation and I want to know why one is gamey and the other not? ho'ing a fighter is gamey, because for some reason or other, you're afraid of the fight. when you're attacking buffs, your purpose is to prevent them from getting their ords on target.
that being said, i don't ho buffs either, but rather i use slashing attacks.
All you guys that consider HOing a fighter to be in bad form yet HOing a bomber to be acceptable are first class, A#1, practicing, perfect examples of hypocrisy in action.
If you're going to label "gamey" actions at least be consistant.
Nice try.
Next contestant.
-
Your earlier reply wasn't even in the same ballpark as the question.
Why is HOing a bomber any different than HOing a fighter?
The answer is, it's not. It's the same thing. Same action to acheive the same result. So, are both actions considered good tactics or are they both considered gamey? They can't be different so seeing that most consider HOing a bomber a valid tactic (here comes the truth) HOing a fighter must also be a valid tactic.
Allow me to bring my opinion to the table. To be fair and to appreciate both sides of the argument it's best to be good in both modes i.e as a fighter attacking bombers and as a bomber defending against attacking fighters.
As a fighter you are faced with with 3 to 9 SETS of machine guns firing at you simultaneously from 1 set of bombers. Multiples there of if attacking close formations. This is suicidal if you approach from a dead six position even on just 1 set of bombers. As stated the best attack position is a near vertical dive by a fighter onto a drone of a set of bombers. 1 fighter to 3 bombers. The bomber pilot has the option to shot from the lead or #2 or #3 bomber in any gun position. So...hoing a set of bombers isn't gamey due to a couple of factors. 1) the fighter is usually out gunned especially by late war bombers. 2) it's a minimum of a 3 to 1 ratio in favour of the bomber. For a fighter to be the victor over a set of bombers, a minimum of 3 passes are required. That's 3 passes of any kind of attacking position. Hoing / slashing / diving/ dead six....ignoring internet connection / frame rate / Vsync.
Even if the bomber formation looses 1 drone but kills the fighter he still has 2 bombers left. i.e enough bombs to make a mess if not accomplish his original objective.
Hoing a fighter on fighter is gamey because not only is it desperate and skilless it's simply a lottery as to whom the victor would be from a 1 pass merge...ignoring internet connection / frame rate / Vsync.
-
HOing a bomber is perfectly fine and not at all gamey. If i have the speed and alt to do it i will every time with 0 risk of getting pinged myself. It will take care of the first bomber and then you can go at the others with less guns to worry about.
-
For a fighter to be the victor over a set of bombers, a minimum of 3 passes are required. That's 3 passes of any kind of attacking position. Hoing / slashing / diving/ dead six....ignoring internet connection / frame rate / Vsync.
I guess we'll ignore the time I got 3 B-24s with one pass in a 190A-8 with the 30mm package. ;) How did I do it? The 3-9 o'clock approach, put out a wall of lead, watch all 3 fly through it.
-
Why is HOing a bomber any different than HOing a fighter?
Ok, I'll bite.
A fighter does have has it's armament facing forward. The main reason another fighter does try to avoid flying straight into his enemy's face is to aviod being shot down, the reason why a fighter tries to get on his opponent's six is to avoid being shot down. He does it by applying ACM to get there. It's done to minimize the risk.
Many players now to go for the HO against enemy fighters, because those are evading. Pointing your plane straight to your enemy is simpler. As both pilots try to get a guns solution on their respective target, the result is a HO.
Attacking a bomber's six is thus the easiest, but also most dangerous tactic. It's easy, because bombers do not evade or turn into you (remember, that's the thing that causes a HO when attacking a fighter). But it's also the most dangerous, because you face most of the bomber's firepower. A skillful pilot would now use ACM to avoid this situation and instead attack from another aspect. For example a frontal attack. This requires patience, timing and more precise maneuvering, but lowers the risk. It's more difficult.
The players that you constantly see attacking buffs from six o'clock are the same that always HO enemy fighters. It's the same: Both is usually dumb (facing most of your enemies firepower) and a result of a simple point and pull trigger tactic. Maneuvering to get onto a fighters 6 is done for the very same reasons as maneuvering NOT to get on a bomber's one. And both need skill and a minimum level of clue.
-
When fighting a fighter it is about ACM since both are very capable of maneuvering. When you HO in a dogfight you pretty much eliminate or diminish the oppurtunity to have a fight. This is why HOing a fighter is not widely considered valid in game.
However when fighting a set of buffs with a fighter it is all about out the guns. Even with slashing attacks the fight is still about guns, you simply try to come in on them from an angle in which they won't be able to hit you easily with theirs. There is no real vying for position with a fighter against buffs like it is for fighters.
that is the difference for me even above the "safety" reasons that have been pointed out earlier.
-
No problem HOing a set of buffs, as mentioned best thing is a top down attack. Normally the right drone is best choice but a lot is dependent on relative positioning. I disagree with the shoot the wingroot approach since most people shoot behind and end up in a tail chase situation on dive. I actually focus on the nose and then orient for a cockpit shot. It's easy to walk the rounds back to wingroot. If your set right and on the lead you can then hit a drone as well.
(http://www.az-dsl.com/snaphook/cockpitshot.jpg)
-
hhhmmm..i don't see a pile-it in the cockpit.....were you ducking when you took that shot? :D
-
I'm still of the opinion that although the HO is dangerous, of a lower skill level, and seen as tasteless, it's still a legitimate option, and should be considered as a threat and allowed for in any fight.
I don't do it, because I see it as a too-low chance of survival. I don't teach it, because I think there are much better, higher-skill and higher probability-of-success options, and because I think it's so "instinctual" - such a basic attack style as to not need teaching. I see it as legitimate, but I don't use it mainly because I prefer to land my kills more often. I avoid it because I'm greedy- I want to kill the other guy safely. I see avoiding the HO as smarter, but definitely not braver, more "right", or more "valiant".
If I get HO'd, I generally see it as "Shame on me- I let that bozo get away with such a basic shot I could/should have easily seen it coming and allowed for it. How foolish..." If my opponent can end the fight as quickly and easily as that I need to work on a few things...
If out flying your opponent is the goal, why is it? To show dominance or skill over your opponent? Outwit him? What better way than to kill him quickly at his first weak moment, his first mistake, the first time he gives you a kill shot? Why bother to fight him at all if he can't look out for the most basic attack there is? ACM is great, but why should you get to display your mastery of it if your opponent can defeat you before you even start?
HOing bombers? Why would it be any more/less legitimate? What if I'm strafing a GV or PT boat? Is HOing allowed then? If the GV or PT boat is shooting at someone else, is it cherry-picking? What if the bomber is shooting at someone else? Cherry-picking again? Does ganging apply to bombers, GV's, and PTs? Should we wait our turn, and attack bombers individually from co-alt 6 O'clock?
Keep in mind when discussing tasteful, legitimate, attack options in AH, what aerial attacks are all about is shooting someone where they're weakest and least able to defend themselves. That means shooting bombers in the face or from above, and shooting fighters in the back. Historically, shooting someone in the back was the act of a coward, not a valiant warrior. It's interesting how that's been reversed. I'm not saying I don't like it that way, it's just kind of humorous...
-
What if I'm strafing a GV or PT boat? Is HOing allowed then? If the GV or PT boat is shooting at someone else, is it cherry-picking? What if the bomber is shooting at someone else? Cherry-picking again? Does ganging apply to bombers, GV's, and PTs?
Just a few minutes ago someone PM'd me that he lost all respect for me, because I was repeatedly strafing his LVTs "from an angle where he couldn't shoot back" :lol
Should we wait our turn, and attack bombers individually from co-alt 6 O'clock?
Just like the countless henchmen in that old swashbuckler movies...
-
Becinhu.... seems you always kill me Sir <S>...please don't give away any secrets to your success!
<S> 999000
you give me too much credit. Attacking your bombers is like attacking the Death Star. I got one of your bombers the other night. When I saw it was you I took my one kill and ran like a little girl. Surprise is one thing, I wasn't coming back when you knew I was there. :salute
-
Just a few minutes ago someone PM'd me that he lost all respect for me, because I was repeatedly strafing his LVTs "from an angle where he couldn't shoot back" :lol
Just like the countless henchmen in that old swashbuckler movies...
LOL, that might even taint my respect for you Lusche! Did you tell him he had an unfair advantage over you since his vehicle could out-turn yours, and didn't react so poorly at ultra-low speed?
-
you give me too much credit. Attacking your bombers is like attacking the Death Star. I got one of your bombers the other night. When I saw it was you I took my one kill and ran like a little girl. Surprise is one thing, I wasn't coming back when you knew I was there. :salute
He's way to brutal on my planes too Becinhu! Gotta respect someone who can make his buffs so "salamanderly"!
-
Did you tell him he had an unfair advantage over you since his vehicle could out-turn yours, and didn't react so poorly at ultra-low speed?
:rofl
I will use that line next time :D
-
If I have ample time I would start on his right drone to avoid the lag drone swapping positions and colliding,
HOing bombers is all good, he has 2 other lives and as long as you dont ram him perfectly acceptable. The convergence speeds are x2 and less chance of him getting a good bead in his gunner.
My favourite AoA is nose low in a 262, pull up at the last second and go for the belly, Only the best gunners will get enough pings at those speeds.
Don't listen to Bruv, the best AoA on buffs would be high 8-4 O'clock.
-
Since I fly buffs almost exclusively, let me share a few thoughts...
* If I am going to a heavily defended region, I'll opt for a B-17 over a Lancaster, only because that ball turrent is invaluable.
* Head on if you like. Just be aware, I have much more ammo there (especially the Lancaster)
* For those who have no patience and climb on my dead 6, you really need a better approach. I love to idle the throttles so my range goes from 1.5k to perfect gun range for me quickly! Many cons are slow and trying not to stall, so while they buffet around, I'm hammering away.
* High-head ons, attacks coming from 10-11 O'Clock or 1-2 O'Clock are the hardest to defend. The gun convergence on the buffs makes long shots a real guess.
* I shoot down more cons that sit in front of my buffs after a failed 6 oclock attack then any other.
* I seem to encounter more attacks on my buffs after a bomb drop then enroute. I find it amusing that cons will all but follow me home to kill me, while making no effort to tangle with another bomber inbound to their base/CV
See ya in the skies!
-
* I seem to encounter more attacks on my buffs after a bomb drop then enroute. I find it amusing that cons will all but follow me home to kill me, while making no effort to tangle with another bomber inbound to their base/CV
Totally my style.
I care not whether the base or CV is mine or yours, healthy or disabled. I don't like to share either, so once you've dropped your bombs and are less "worthwhile" to the other friendlies I'll get you all to myself, hehe. Also, chances are you'll no longer be distracted with the bombsight, etc, and aren't restricted by a predictable heading, alt, and speed, so will squirm a bit and put up a decent fight! More entertaining that way, hehe!
I love killing bombers. I don't care a bit whether they have bombs on board or not...