Aces High Bulletin Board
Help and Support Forums => Help and Training => Topic started by: humble on May 20, 2010, 07:20:12 AM
-
This is the type of topic that constantly recycles in game and on the BBS. One of the original goals of "DFC" was/is to promote "old school" air combat which is a preference for a certain code of conduct that encourages 1 on 1 or small melee type combat vs a single player being ganged or a large group (normally known as a horde) overwhelming a very small group. This is a repost of an internal thread Vudak fired back up where some of the guys/gals were trying to formulate a statement that tries to put the HO in perspective...
If you have played Aces High for any length of time, you have probably heard someone complain about a “HO.” In case you are confused by the term, these people are not simply being misogynistic. Instead, they are complaining about someone pressing for a head-on attack.
A head-on attack occurs when two aircraft each have a firing solution on the other at the exact same time. This differs from a front-quarter shot where one aircraft can fire towards the front of its opponent’s aircraft, but its opponent cannot return fire. Though both are likely to cause a volatile reaction from your recently dispatched opponent, both can also be useful tools for your arsenal. The trick is recognizing that a saw is not always the best hammer. The aim of this document is to make you aware of the possible detriments of a head-on attack, so that you can make an informed decision as to whether or not to press for one in your future engagements.
Why do you often here that a "HO" is not a high % proposition. A couple of factors come into play.
A) The Numbers
First things first, let’s look at some numbers. Many people claim a HO attack gives you a 50/50 chance of survival. We think that is optimistic. Every time you and an opponent line up for a head-on attack, one of the following outcomes is possible:
1. You die.
2. Your opponent dies.
3. You both die.
4. Neither dies.
That’s 50/50, right? Well, that depends on your definition of “chance for survival.” We tend to think of it in terms of surviving your entire sortie, and not just that one particular encounter. That brings us to another possibility, and one that is constantly available, even if you “win” the HO and fly off alive:
5. You take damage.
That damage could be to a vital control like a flap, elevator, or rudder. It might be a leak of necessary liquids like oil, fuel, or radiator fluid. While there’s a chance you’ll get away with only a few guns destroyed that you’ll want later, or perhaps several tiny bullet holes weakening your wing to the point where one more will rip it right off, there’s also a chance that you’ll suffer a pilot wound, and immediately begin to bleed out.
The bottom line is damage is bad. Damage reduces your chance of survival. You want to avoid damage when possible. Deliberately placing your aircraft right in front of incoming gunfire (read: damage) is not usually in your best interest. It is most certainly not a 50/50 chance of survival.
B) Tactical Considerations
By its very nature a "HO" freezes your nose on the enemy, very often this can create a significant disadvantage. The better your opponent the more likely he'll be to manipulate your shot attempt to his advantage. This can tend to lead to an increasing level of frustration and an escalation of a tendency to "HO" since you have less and less confidence in your ability to "dogfight". Dogfighting is a frustratingly hard aspect of air combat and takes time, practice and a firm understanding of ACM cause and effect. Most good dog fighters will tell you that the merge is the single most important aspect of the fight and that "locking the nose" on the enemy is about the worst thing you can do.
The flip side is that dogfighting offers the most fun and excitement in the game. By focusing on learning proper "merge tactics" you'll increase your longterm enjoyment and actually land more kills and have more fun while your still learning. It's important to understand that the merge is defined as the 1st time the two combatants cross paths. Once the planes have joined the fight many possibilities exist on both sides. Generally speaking the antagonists have two choices. Work for the 1st shot or try and retain enough energy to gain the upper hand. Very often the 2nd crossing or "re-merge" determines the course of the fight. If both players are aggressive and try and get around 1st then the plane that wins is much like the gunfighter that clears leather 1st...in effect he won the draw. That does not automatically win the fight since a hasty or poorly aimed shot wont finish the opponent. If one player is looking to keep as much E as possible then he needs to guard against and defend against a possible shot. This 3D chess match is the heart of the "dog fight" and provides countless opportunities and variations.
While players may mutually agree to a greater restriction in most brackets the initial merge is flown "guns cold" but any shot is fair game after that. As it relates to combat in the main arena's the simple reality is that once you learn to avoid an opponents "HO" and use his limited tactics to your advantage you'll not only be in a position to win more fights but also to defend a bad position and then "reset the fight" on more even terms. In just a few hours with a trainer or DFC member you can greatly increase both your skill level (specific to "dogfighting") and enjoyment of the game overall. Don't let others trap you into a "50/50" bet when you can learn to do much much better.
By circumstance I've got a film that highlights some of the realities nicely...
http://beachheadcrm.info/snaphook/The%20Joust.ahf (http://beachheadcrm.info/snaphook/The%20Joust.ahf)
This is type of fight that constantly keeps me trying to find better ways to approach things. Here is a circumstance where I've worked my way back to "even" from being more or less bounced. I don't want to joust but if I break and evade I'm giving up what little E I have and creating an angles advantage for him in the vertical (you can see how aggressively he flew the cutbacks earlier in the fight). I'm really hoping to bluff him off me while getting everything I can by turning in the vertical vs "flat". In effect in my mind he's where I need to be going, end result is as pure a midfight "HO" as you can get since we literally run into each other.
One of the few times I've stepped up to the craps table in a 1 on 1 fight...."7 out line away"
-
How about when you find yourself at disadvantage and other guy has everything, better plane, more E, better position? Sometimes, after reversal, your only chance to stay alive is to point your nose at the bandit and hope it'll be a cold pass. Of course, you have dweebs with all the advantage possible and they still HO.
What about one versus many? After prolonged fight you'll often find yourself in such a low E state you won't be able to avoid HO attempt. You'll have to fire or die.
-
How about when you find yourself at disadvantage and other guy has everything, better plane, more E, better position? Sometimes, after reversal, your only chance to stay alive is to point your nose at the bandit and hope it'll be a cold pass. Of course, you have dweebs with all the advantage possible and they still HO.
What about one versus many? After prolonged fight you'll often find yourself in such a low E state you won't be able to avoid HO attempt. You'll have to fire or die.
Hi Bighorn,
This thing right here is a work in progress, and we're currently discussing some of those scenarios you mentioned.
I think it's important to point out that the aim of this thread/article is not to try and convince people to never use a HO, as it is a useful tool in some situations. Instead, the aim is to point out the risks of putting yourself in a position where both you and the bad guy have a simultaneous guns solution.
What's obvious for one person isn't going to be obvious for everyone.
:salute
-
Nice article gents, I've never had an ideological problem with a head on attack however I've also felt that there are a couple problems inherent in using it as an primary tactic rather than one of desperation.
The primary issue in my mind is simply that it will end the fight before the participants will have a chance to explore beyond the initial merge and in that sense people who like to use the head on to open an engagement are ultimately robbing themselves of learning opportunities that come with pressing a little deeper into the fight and curtailing their own development. In that sense they will always have to HO because 50/50 may be the best odds they will get. The flip side is taking that fight a little deeper and maybe learning something. I've always felt that the HO first mentality is ultimately self defeating.
Like everything here their are exceptions to everything and there are times when I will take that HO shot (not to be confused with a front quarter shot :)). However for someone who has any interest whatsoever in improving to the point where a 50/50 proposition isn't the best odds they can get the HO isn't what's going to get them there.
-
How about when you find yourself at disadvantage and other guy has everything, better plane, more E, better position? Sometimes, after reversal, your only chance to stay alive is to point your nose at the bandit and hope it'll be a cold pass. Of course, you have dweebs with all the advantage possible and they still HO.
What about one versus many? After prolonged fight you'll often find yourself in such a low E state you won't be able to avoid HO attempt. You'll have to fire or die.
I don't disagree with you at all, in fact the film linked above plays into it. I'm in an A-20 vs a 109G6 thats shown very aggressive attacks in the vertical with minimal extensions. The initial attacks forced me to the deck and I've got rapidly diminishing options. He reverse back into a nose low frontal attack that would yield a top down FQ attack basically on my cockpit. I either need to pull up into the attack or evade laterally setting up not only a plane form shot but a natural extension into the vertical reverse for him. So in the end I took the shot offered, at the time in the moment allowed it was certainly a reasonable decision.
However the flip side is that till that point he hadn't been capable of generating any advantage. I had enough speed to gain some verticals and an opportunity to trap him on the top down shot. The simple reality is that in my mind I gave him a "50/50" shot which is better odds then he earned. I come out of this type of fight feeling that I would have been better of pushing one more time vs giving in to circumstance. When I look at the film I don't think that I was down to my last chance.
I agree that at some point the best you can do is roll the dice, the question is learning to extend and nurture better options as long as possible...
-
I think the first merge HO is probably the most disappointing/annoying thing in this game.
Speaking from a personal perspective of how I would engage a con when I first started playing, through to how I would engage now, is very different.
Not having flown a plane other than in arcade shoot'em ups. I would get as fast as possible, aim my plane at the red guy, max zoom view and try and hold the con in the piper whilst firing everything at him. Immelman. Repeat process.
After a few weeks of that, I started to realise that there was more to this flying lark than just blowing through the merge and aiming for the sky.
I got involved in what felt like a great turn fight and saw the light. It made my heart race and gave me the encouragement to learn. I wanted more of that kind of fight.
I wish you well in your quest for a "statement". It should appear on page 1 of the manual.
The subject of "HO" will always be an ever present in this game.
Most new players who have no experience of air combat, will behave similar to the way I have described when I first started.
They will also naturally begin to deffer from this kind of engagement as knowledge is gained and an awareness builds that other kinds of fight exist.
It's a shame when experienced and long time players resort to the HO first pass though. I don't know if it is possible to collect data for which areas of a target the rounds land. Say a player with 100 kills. The data might show 80% of rounds fired hit the tail, 10% hit wing and so on. Would be nice to know.
Stones
-
Just to offer another thought.
The HO isn't "wrong" per se, ie. breaking any laws or rules of combat. It was/is a part of real air combat. Particularly in the Pacific, newbies were advised to take on the lightly armored Japanese planes head on if they had to. So there is no "crime against humanity" in it.
It's more an indication of level of development. Reflexively going to the HO over and over because it's the only thing you know how to do, is an indication of a lack of development. It's like training wheels, its a visible indication that the user is not yet competent.
One thing I can't understand is people complaining about the HO. It takes two to make that particular tango, both planes have to come at each other and hold a steady course to make it happen. The better player should be able to handle that. If you can't and you get killed by a HO, then ask yourself, why?
Why not do an out of plane jink when you come into range? What stops you? The belief that the other guy won't shoot? I'll suggest that is a pretty tenuous hope. I always assume that anyone that comes at me head on will be coming to take a shot. It is up to ME to figure out how to handle that.
Just a thought. . . .
-
I get accused of HO'ing sometimes from the usual suspects but to me i think most HOs are in the eye of the beholder. True if you just see a bad guy wep up point your nose at him and shoot for 1000 yards until you kill him get killed or collied that is a Ho, but i fly in a luftwaffe squad and we fly german ac and my ac of choice is the A-8 ( love the armor and the roll rate and the guns to be sure) but that 190 takes some getting used to and requires a certain style of E fighting and you dont get many turns before your low slow and dead so here is some of the things i get called names for.
A. I am co-alt with a faster more turnable plane that sees me and starts to dive under me to get speed up to loop up and over me and i tilt down and take a short shot to maybe clip him...i get called a HO tard but really am i supposed to let him just do it?
B. I have fought 2 or more minutes with a spit 16, pony, or f4u and am beginning to lose speed but he turns up and leans in front of me i shoot him..i am called a Ho tard or worse.
C. I have successfully gotten my opponent to get slow and chase me straight up as i roll over and face straight down on him nose to nose, he is stalling i am not i of course shoot him and he dies and calls me a HO tard.
D. Last if not least i have fought my opponent but am being beaten but in his haste to beat me quickly he turns right into me i shoot him and get called HO tard or worse.
Of course most guys simply give me a S and move on or just say nothing at all but there are those few and we all know them that EVERTHING you do is a HO except when you shoot them in the 6 and then its a pick. I say if someone gets into my gunsight I'm shooting them.
-
My Definition of the Head On Shot
There are many more skilled and experienced players than I to discuss this topic, but I would like to share my thoughts on this. Also, I tend to think my definitions are more applicable to medium or low skilled players than the top notch pilots, who all ready know how to avoid these situations I am going to describe. Beyond the starting point that a Head On Shot (HO) is a statistically poor position to be in. There are a number of ways that the "Historical Correctness" can be addressed. My primary argument is this, there is a significant difference between playing a game and real life combat. We are PLAYING at combat, no one actually dies. So, as a GAME we should look for ways improve the game experience (for all players) and help new players learn in the best environment possible. This is a particularly complicated topic, that is all too often, either oversimplified or dismissed as whining. Many long time players can't even agree on what is or isn't a HO. So how does a new player have a chance to grasp it in those first couple of weeks when it can do the most good for their learning and enjoyment of the game.
I feel it is more important to get a better definition of the HO so that we can discuss them in a clear manner and help educate other players (with the goal of improving game play). I think that there are two main types of HO shots. The first I call the Dueling HO, the second is the MA HO.
The Dueling HO Shot
The Dueling HO is much easier to define and has fewer exceptions (only 1 I can think of) than the MA HO. Any time two players agree to dual I think it should be made clear what both players expect when it comes to HO shots. In a dual both players are merging in the same plane with similar altitude and energy state, but this definition can extend to dissimilar aircraft if agreed to up front. My personal preference is to not shoot any time both have a forward gun solution (with a heartbeat pause for almost into guns position). However, I think it is more widely accepted that once a cold merge has occurred all shots are fair game. I tend to disagree with this position since I believe that a dual is meant to evaluate two players skills. Taking a HO shot does nothing to demonstrate skill, when both players are in the same plane (and load out) with equal altitude and energy.
Now I would like to discuss the one exception I have seen to the above definition. I call it using the no HO shot to gain an advantage maneuver. Once a dual has commenced I have seen players that will try to "give" a slightly off nose to nose pass so that they can build their energy back up. It's my feeling that if you are giving someone an opening on a front quarter shot, you should expect to get shot. I think this image will help explain what I am trying to describe
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/HO1.jpg)
In the above example The Green pilot is pulling to get his nose around as quickly as possible, the Red pilot is not pulling as hard as possible in order to conserve some energy. In my opinion the Green pilot should be able to take the forward quarter shot. The primary goal of the Dueling HO shot definition is to make it clear, that be restricting the opportunity for any HO shot, and having it agreed to prior to the dual, the dual will produce a better picture of the two pilots comparative skills.
The MA HO Shot
The Main Arena HO shot is a much more complex definition with many more exceptions, that require more decision making, and better situational awareness. The same guiding concept still apply from the Dueling HO. And the HO shot is still a low probability maneuver and often times not necessary.
The initial merge, for me this can dictate much of how the rest of the fight will go. If you encounter a single enemy contact (and you're by your self) and the merge is relatively even ( ie. E state and altitude difference is reasonable) I think a cold merge is the best possible merge for game play.
And here we have the first exception, dissimilar aircraft, in general I feel that most planes are similar enough that this is a non-issue. However, I have experienced players who complain that I took a HO shot with my B-25H against their P-51D on the initial merge. It takes just a little common sense that there might be a few aircraft that some might feel are warranted an initial HO shot given that it's not strictly a fighter. So it's important to remember with this definition that while you should not take a shot the other person might have reason to.
If you are about to merge into an ongoing (evenly balanced) fight, it's not an inital merge. In my opinion if there are more than 6 aircraft engaged in a fight that's balanced then I don't think there should be any expectation that someone will not shoot at you. With 5 or more contacts most players don't have the situational awareness to pickup who's entering the fight and who's all ready engaged.
Unbalanced situations can also make taking a HO shot a much more statistically useful tactic. I think that many people would like a clear all or nothing definition of the HO shot but that isn't really practical. Most times all it takes is a little common sense to see when a HO shot is good or bad for game play.
Here are a few examples;
1.) I am in a 190F-8 looking for GV's for my squadmates (who are in GV) at 1,500 feet altitude. An enemy Spit XVI comes into the area at 8,000 feet or more. He comes diving down and I turn into him and get nose to nose at 2,000 feet with him at 1.5k away. At this point the Spitfire starts spraying away, instead of pulling up and maneuvering for a better opportunity. This is a case where the 190F-8 would be justified to take the HO shot but the Spit should not.
2.) Any time the fight is many contacts vs a few, the players on the many side should refrain from taking a HO shot and expect the few to take them. This can be an especially hard one to learn and live with, but it is better for game play.
There are many more examples that need to be discussed but I think this is a good starting point for now. Just remember the real reason for this discussion is to help the players help themselves, in order to create a better game experience, not complain about a shot.
<S> Baumer
-
This thread was born out of a desire to educate and clarify things not make any blanket statement or crucify someone for taking a "HO". A long time ago in a sim far away I was very much at the mercy of guys like -HR- and Rocketman, if not for there willingness to talk to me (in between smacking me around) and offer at least some insight I have no clue if I would have hung in. As mentioned sometimes a "HO" isn't {most of the time IMO}. Other times its the choice in a very bad hand. The entire goal in my mind is to educate anyone interested so they can make choices that maximize their enjoyment.
My belief is not a lot of folks really want to fly 15 minutes to die in 15 seconds or less. The intent is encourage everyone to explore the possibilities....
-
Just to offer another thought.
The HO isn't "wrong" per se, ie. breaking any laws or rules of combat. It was/is a part of real air combat. Particularly in the Pacific, newbies were advised to take on the lightly armored Japanese planes head on if they had to. So there is no "crime against humanity" in it.
<clip>
This is the line that bothers me, for two reasons....
1. During the war is was "kill or be killed" in most cases you did what you had to do, HOWEVER we are playing a game. The idea of the game is combat using WWII type planes and vehicles. Nobody dies, so there is no "kill or be killed" here. By going for the HO you are depriving yourself and your opponent a chance at what could be thrilling combat.
2. this line give those who don't want to learn to fight without HOing an excuse to HO. How many times have you heard someone say "well they did it in the war!"
To me a HO is pretty easy to define, it's when you deliberately point the nose of your plane at the nose of another plane and FIRE. When I'm fighting I push my nose off angle from the other planes, but sometime it happens, your fighting a couple of guys, ie: getting ganged :D if I can't get that off angle I look for to start my turn I will go head to head, but only after getting Hoed half the night will I open up in that move.
In Baumers example I would consider that a HO no matter which fired. Just because the spit is bouncing you with the extra "E" it's a green light to HO? I don't think so, me I'd work at avoid a few more passes and try to equalize the "E" and then fight it out.
HOin is like drugs. People are the ones who have the choice to just say no, or they can use the excuse "everyone else is doing it". HOin is a quick "high", and quick kill. Learn to take the time to build your entertainment by learning to fight instead of just going for the quick way.
Just say NO to the HO !
-
night will I open up in that move.
In Baumers example I would consider that a HO no matter which fired. Just because the spit is bouncing you with the extra "E" it's a green light to HO? I don't think so, me I'd work at avoid a few more passes and try to equalize the "E" and then fight it out.
HOin is like drugs. People are the ones who have the choice to just say no, or they can use the excuse "everyone else is doing it". HOin is a quick "high", and quick kill. Learn to take the time to build your entertainment by learning to fight instead of just going for the quick way.
Just say NO to the HO !
Ok please dont yell or tell me im a noob or whatever as this is a serious question about that mindset i dont understand. Basically you say if someone has the drop on you and you get the chance to win dont take it but try and make them burn there E. What happens if the person your against is good and dont burn there e. Should i just bail out and give them the win? O should i just keep turning running or whatever till he kills me since he never lost the advantage?
Also basically if everyone should go for the perfect ACM kill then they need to remove most of the aircraft because some aircraft are not dogfighters but run into a dogfight so what do they do?
Some of the best planes are like the f4u-4 and spit 16 or temp are just really better planes that say a 190 a5 or a 109f. You take the shots offered to you not 'take the high road " and let them get a free kill.
Everyones favorite saying is THIS ISNT REAL WAR ITS A GAME so then i guess we should all just fly 1 plane in 1 arena and have a kill switch on them that dont allow you to fire unless your on someones six.
-
Fugitive, while I applaud the sentiment behind your words, I don't think its ever going to happen.
It may be easy to define, but how do you determine "deliberately" in the game? Do we need referees to figure it out? That won't be happening.
Do we rely on self policing? That won't happen either.
It is entirely possible that two well meaning people are going to be approaching from somewhere in the frontal quarter and due to differences in updates from the server, one will see a HO and the other a frontal quarter shot. It leads to endless and ultimately fruitless recriminations that go exactly nowhere.
Whether its real war or a game, there are going to be times when, like it or not, the approach is going to be HO. My preference is to orient to reality and not some unobtainable dream state. I'm coming from a place that is essentially, "It's going to happen. Instead of complaining about it, expect it and do something about it."
If you don't like to be in one, then fly so it doesn't happen.
Those that are going to HO because that is all they know, are going to do it anyway, despite any sanctimonious exhortations. They are going to do what they are going to do. What will YOU do?
It doesn't work to try to change others, the only one you can change is yourself.
-
Im sure my last post will get me in trouble but it was a serious question, like i said i fly a bigger slower aircraft than most so why should i try and dance and float and tippy toe when i can b and z someone and take a occasional shot at em. There are some guys that call any shot other that a straight six shot a HO shot is what im getting at and everyone has there opinion and there are 50 billion of these post that never get solved so why dont the people that want all these 'rules' go to the dueling arena and have massive 60 vs 60 with rules of engagement in them and let others play the way they want.
Dont get me wrong i hate the leaker with no wing that aims at me and HOs me and kills me, hell i usually toss off the headset and go hit the wife for a while to get over it but still he did what he needed to do to win and i should have got outa the way faster. The one thing that makes me more mad than anything is the guy in the perk plane or spit 16 or spit 9 that fights me and when i dont turn fight them and take a "questionable shot' at them sends me a pm calling me out because i dont turn fight em lol. I say fight the fight your aircraft lets you fight and ignore everyone else in the game.
-
Ok, let me try this analogy,
I think a HO shot is similar to calling a foul in a pickup game of basketball.
Everyone understands that without some personal restraint, a game of pickup basketball can turn ugly quickly. Also most everyone understands the concept of an offensive or defensive foul in basketball, the same holds true in Aces High I believe. That's why I think (especially in the MA) it's important to recognize there are times when a HO shot is appropriate and does not harm game play.
-
Baumer, that's a good analogy but in this case, I think that many would argue (particularly folks that are prone to HO) that this is a legitimate part of the game. As the game is constructed and based on the real life combat its supposed to model it IS part of the game.
In the MA we have every stripe of folks in there, from well disciplined to no discipline. How would you regulate this? how would it work? can you actually eliminate it?
I'm saying that instead of trying to enforce the unenforceable, recognize what IS and align with that. Then there is no need to argue or complain about what happens. What happens, happens because you chose it.
The other choice is that these arguments go on forever :). Valid choice if you like arguing :).
-
Ok please dont yell or tell me im a noob or whatever as this is a serious question about that mindset i dont understand. Basically you say if someone has the drop on you and you get the chance to win dont take it but try and make them burn there E. What happens if the person your against is good and dont burn there e. Should i just bail out and give them the win? O should i just keep turning running or whatever till he kills me since he never lost the advantage?
Also basically if everyone should go for the perfect ACM kill then they need to remove most of the aircraft because some aircraft are not dogfighters but run into a dogfight so what do they do?
Some of the best planes are like the f4u-4 and spit 16 or temp are just really better planes that say a 190 a5 or a 109f. You take the shots offered to you not 'take the high road " and let them get a free kill.
Everyones favorite saying is THIS ISNT REAL WAR ITS A GAME so then i guess we should all just fly 1 plane in 1 arena and have a kill switch on them that dont allow you to fire unless your on someones six.
As a serious answer YES give up the HO shot and work for another. Each plane has its pluses and it's minuses you have to learn to use them. If your in the 109F against the Spit16 you could be in trouble, but for me I'd work at getting him to burn his "E and then set him up for an overshoot and pop him.
If your in your big plane and Bnz all the time why would you be in a HO situation? In most cases you are higher and pounce on ...hopefully... unwary targets. On the other hand, learning the limits of your plane can save your butt when your SA lets you down and you are in a bad situation. No I'm not saying bail out and give the other guy the kill, but certainly make him work for it! There is most likely less than 10% of the people who play this game that are just unbelievable and no matter what you do you can't beat them, but remember at one time they couldn't win half the fights they were in either.
Fugitive, while I applaud the sentiment behind your words, I don't think its ever going to happen.
It may be easy to define, but how do you determine "deliberately" in the game? Do we need referees to figure it out? That won't be happening.
Do we rely on self policing? That won't happen either.
It is entirely possible that two well meaning people are going to be approaching from somewhere in the frontal quarter and due to differences in updates from the server, one will see a HO and the other a frontal quarter shot. It leads to endless and ultimately fruitless recriminations that go exactly nowhere.
Whether its real war or a game, there are going to be times when, like it or not, the approach is going to be HO. My preference is to orient to reality and not some unobtainable dream state. I'm coming from a place that is essentially, "It's going to happen. Instead of complaining about it, expect it and do something about it."
If you don't like to be in one, then fly so it doesn't happen.
Those that are going to HO because that is all they know, are going to do it anyway, despite any sanctimonious exhortations. They are going to do what they are going to do. What will YOU do?
It doesn't work to try to change others, the only one you can change is yourself.
ahhh see, you got it right on your last line! As I said it is up to each person to decide to HO or not to HO.
You said "Whether its real war or a game, there are going to be times when, like it or not, the approach is going to be HO.", and I agree, but do you HAVE to fire on the merge? Again it's your choice.
What I'm pointing out here is people can use all the excuses they want, it still comes down to a choice. I choose to fight so I don't HO so the fight will be prolonged and the thrill continues. All the HO does is kill a fight. It doesn't kill the "enemy" because he gets a new plane before his chute hits the ground. It doesn't save your life because one of the next 12 guys is going to shoot down your cartoon plane.
It's your choice (meaning everyones) Just say NO to the HO!
-
Ok, let me try this analogy,
I think a HO shot is similar to calling a foul in a pickup game of basketball.
Everyone understands that without some personal restraint, a game of pickup basketball can turn ugly quickly. Also most everyone understands the concept of an offensive or defensive foul in basketball, the same holds true in Aces High I believe. That's why I think (especially in the MA) it's important to recognize there are times when a HO shot is appropriate and does not harm game play.
SO your saying its ok to foul in a pick-up game of ball? I know saying everyone should just say no to the ho is a pipe dream, but should that miracle happen imagine the fights that would happen in the game. What I'm trying to point out here is that going for the HO is a choice. Getting the information out there so other can see that there are many BETTER options in a fight than a HO is what this topic was intentionally all about. Educating the masses that there is a better way is a first step to improving game play.
-
The number one reason folks get in a "Head On" situation is because they are actively pursuing a head on situation.
If both pilots are pulling for a guns solution, the end result is what is commonly called a HO.
All this whining and gnashing of teeth about codes of conduct is simply folks who can't stop trying for the guns solution and get mad when the other guy gets there first.
I never get into a HO without it being my own fault (or choice as the case may be). End of story. If you are staring down the barrels of the enemy you did it to yourself.
Turning the "HO" against the other guy is a simple attitude change. Beat the other guy by flying and only use the guns to let him know he lost.
Here is the Dawger method for teaching yourself to avoid the HO and turn it to your advantage if you can't get with a trainer that can teach the techniques required.
Step 1: Takeoff
Step 2: Fire all of your guns until they are empty
Step 3: Go find a fight and fly your best game with the knowledge that you can't shoot him.
Rinse and repeat until the only bullets that hit you are after you have have blown all your energy and are down on the deck with no more options.
It works like a charm if you have the balls to do it.
-
SO your saying its ok to foul in a pick-up game of ball? I know saying everyone should just say no to the ho is a pipe dream, but should that miracle happen imagine the fights that would happen in the game. What I'm trying to point out here is that going for the HO is a choice. Getting the information out there so other can see that there are many BETTER options in a fight than a HO is what this topic was intentionally all about. Educating the masses that there is a better way is a first step to improving game play.
Did you foul me or did I foul you? What happened to cause the foul? This is a more complex question that defies a simple one sentence answer.
I think taking the position "Say NO to the HO!" doesn't help anymore than saying "They did it in WW2!".
In order to help improve game play there has to be a more through discussion about exactly what it is that hurts game play and what doesn't. Going back to the example I posted, complaining that I took a HO shot while I was flying a B-25H vs a P-51 is ridiculous. I don't think you are taking the position that the P-51 is correct, and I should have let him come nose to nose and done a dogfight merge in my B-25 to fight it out, are you?
In my opinion someone complaining about being Ho'ed when they shouldn't be complaining, is just as bad as HOing itself. As an example, a player who's part of a large group that's chasing a single CON has no right to complain about the single CON taking a HO shot if he gets it in the face. Seeing Veteran players complain about it when they have no legitimate reason to, doesn't help the new player who reads it.
I'd love to play this game without the HO shot just like I'd like to play Basketball without getting fouled. Some times it's better than others, but it always happens less with the people who know more about the game.
-
As a serious answer YES give up the HO shot and work for another. Each plane has its pluses and it's minuses you have to learn to use them. If your in the 109F against the Spit16 you could be in trouble, but for me I'd work at getting him to burn his "E and then set him up for an overshoot and pop him.
If your in your big plane and Bnz all the time why would you be in a HO situation? In most cases you are higher and pounce on ...hopefully... unwary targets. On the other hand, learning the limits of your plane can save your butt when your SA lets you down and you are in a bad situation. No I'm not saying bail out and give the other guy the kill, but certainly make him work for it! There is most likely less than 10% of the people who play this game that are just unbelievable and no matter what you do you can't beat them, but remember at one time they couldn't win half the fights they were in either.
Cool i could not agree more. My point was simple if in a fight and you've done your best but due to whatever the case may be your on the losing side of it and you get the opportunity to take a shot, take it. Ive fought a lot of great guys and most wont call me a tard but if i get a free shot i allways take it, but i never just aim my plane at a guy and hold the trigger.
<S>
-
I have to agree with Baumer here. There is a time and a place for everything.
1 on 1, similar or same plane, coalt, co-E there is no excuse for the HO shot.
If you are silly enough to let yourself get in front of the guns of an iL2, you deserve to die to the HO shot.
Or indeed any other shot he can make.
All too often people who just died transfer the blame for that death on the other guy.
Either he HO'd or he cheated (used ACM) or whatever other excuse they can come up with.
When what is really happening is the guy who died can't accept that he just made a mistake someplace.
Even if it was as simple as flying from the wrong field at the wrong time.
AH is like it or not complicated, there are many many variables.
But you don't learn or get better by saying all HO shots are wrong.
You just get frustrated and angry.
You learn by saying in these situations, for these reasons there are better choices to be made.
And instead of locking my nose on the opponent, if I setup some separation and a lead turn I can actually win the fight.
Instead of taking the cheap shot.
Fugitive you are a highly respected member of this community. And I personally also respect you highly.
Yet I believe that your promoting the wrong answer.
If your a newer pilot having someone like you say that there is no good front quarter shot. Just makes them think "well he's good, he can afford to fly that way. I can't"
Where if you explain where it shouldn't be used and why, and in what situations it can be used in, and why.
They are in my opinion much more likely to listen. Much more likely to look for help learning how to deal with it correctly.
And that sir is going to be good for gameplay in the long run.
-
As I read this I go back to the little clip I posted. Here is a fight that was well under way. I can comment 1st hand since "I was there" :). On one hand I can easily say I was in the inferior plane, started in an inferior position and worked the fight to the point where accepting a mutual face shot was the best I could do. The flip side is that by accepting the crapshoot I gave away my biggest advantage...my understanding and ability to fly the A-20 in just that scenario. My choice to take the fight out of my control and accept the outcome of the joust lies at the heart of the argument. This was no FQ shot (although he certainly set his approach up as one) I either gave up a FQ, attempted to evade or squared up. IMO this is very typical of a lot of the "complaints" we hear on 200 and the BBS...not a question of 1 side getting around quicker (part of the game and completely appropriate IMO) but one side squaring up early and putting the other in a position of either matching the impe3nding FQ shot or flying thru it.
I could have easily avoided the shot but doing so on the deck would have severely compromised my position unless I elected to fly a vertical oblique thru the shot window...
-
In situations where you have maneuvered your plane in front of another planes guns, expect to get hit.
Work on flying your plane to get only your guns on him. Not both.
Don't expect not to get hit when you are nose to nose.
Unless by prior agreement with your enemy (dueling) don't expect a cold guns head on merge.
In front of every aircraft is a cone shaped area, a kill zone. Stay out of it.
Don't rush to make a bad odds shot, fly a little longer and work to get a better one.
If you think you're out of options and the HO shot is all you've got left to offer. You didn't fly well enough to create a better option.
Work on ACM and build a repertoire of HO avoidance moves that will allow you to build an advantage later in the fight.
Use the film viewer and review your fight. Look at how you arrived in front of the enemy guns. Learn from it.
Every con will shoot you.
Don't accept a merge you are not happy with. Avoid and reset.
The rest is easy :aok
-
Cool i could not agree more. My point was simple if in a fight and you've done your best but due to whatever the case may be your on the losing side of it and you get the opportunity to take a shot, take it. Ive fought a lot of great guys and most wont call me a tard but if i get a free shot i allways take it, but i never just aim my plane at a guy and hold the trigger.
<S>
Why take it? I would continue the fight without the shot to see if I could get him to make more mistakes and get the kill that way.
Baumer, Ghosth I agree with what both of you are saying. Let me expand my "answer" a bit. By NOT taking the HO shot you extend the fight. By extending the fight you can learn more, and I think BOTH players can have more fun. Those 15 minute grab outs don't end in 15 second fights.
I think even the new player should look at this as one of the first things he does, Turn off the Stall limited and don't go for the HO. In a long run it will make him a better player, better players make a better game.Accepting the FACT that your going to have your butt hand to you for a good 6 months and trying to learn from each of those fights is going to take a new player a lot farther in both skill and enjoyment than running around and HOin everything in site.
Yes there is a lot of HOin in the MA, and yes it most likely will continue for some time to come. In the old days there was much less HOin. there was a much bigger stigma to it then as well as more of the population was playing just for the fights. I'm "old school" and will avoid the HO automatically, and should I get nose to nose with a guy 95% of the time I won't touch my trigger. I except the fact that I screwed up and got into that position and will die to it if the guy has the aim and wants to end the fight, but thats me. I'm here to play the game, not to fly for 15 minutes to get to the fight to only find nobody wants to fight, but only wants to end the fight with a HO.
The idea of the thread was to point out why one should NOT go for the HO and the advantages that decision gives you in a fight. Getting the information out there may change some peoples flying style, maybe turning that "light on" that another posted posted. Maybe I'm too extreme with my "Say NO to the HO" mantra, but getting people to think about other moves and merges is a goal of mine. It's more obtainable than say.... World Domination ! :D
-
Fugitive, I know you have much more time in the game and I respect you greatly. I agree with you as well, I also die many times a month not pulling the trigger in a nose to nose when I could have shot (even by my own definition).
Let me relate a story that almost drove me to leave the game about a year ago. I don't often fly the 262 in the MA's, not because I don't have the perks, it just draws to much attention for my tastes. But one day I'm up in a 262 and I read on county channel that there are several sets of buffs headed for one of our bases, escorted by a couple of 262's. I've always looked forward to fighting a 262 vs another 262, and head in that direction ASAP. Once I get close to the bombers I spot a single 262 co-alt headed directly at me. I put my nose down slightly and get a little lateral separation and neither of us fire on the initial merge. I am getting really excited at this point looking forward to a good fight, we both reverse and are back nose to nose at the top of the first immelmann and continue are around for another reversal. This continues for 3 or 4 more times and it's really getting exciting, we were both evenly match in skill so I knew it wasn't an uber-stick, but it was a very fun fight for me. On the next reversal we both get nose to nose at about 1000 yards apart, as the range decreases, I'm thinking about my next move, at 200 yards the guy steps on the rudder and shoots me in the face. I have never been more upset in the game than that. It was completely uncalled for, there were no other contacts anywhere near us and having been respectful in all the previous reversals I expected it to continue. So I really had to think long and hard about how I was going to address this issue with myself, because in the end all of this is internal. I know I will never be a top stick in the game, but I believe I am a good player and I try to promote a good playing environment. I tried for 2 years to be a "Say NO to the HO" kinda guy, but that only leads to frustration with how others play the game (in my case). Instead I now look at it from the perspective of how it impacts overall game play. I still get upset when it happens and it violates my definition of being an appropriate shot, but I am am at peace with myself most of the time.
-
Personally, I think the HO is a valuable tool in the quest for "better fights". I'm all in favor of it. Without it as a possibility, and without people willing to take it, I fell our fights would be "cheapened". I honestly have zero interest in a fight with no possibility of an HO, or for that matter, against an opponent who's "scared" to take a shot on me when he has it.
If you can kill me with an HO, go for it. If you kill me, I don't deserve to have the fight drag out for one iota of a second longer. If I "fail" at the opening move, I fail. Simple as that. To "pass" on the shot, to let the fight drag out beyond that point makes the fight a "sham".
Now, if you choose to pass on it in order to jockey for a better position, I can respect that. I'll do the same. But, if you fly/merge poorly and present me with a shot, well, I may pass on it, but not without a twinge of guilt, and a disinterest in the rest of the fight. For me, that fight is already over, and you lost... Who cares about the fight to follow? You blew it on the merge.
Let the fight drag out, and then what? If you shoot me down, I'm looking at it like "I can't believe I wasted my time on that. The fight was over before it began, and even though his merge was horrid, and would have likely killed him IRL, he's thinking he's got this dogfighting thing figured out?". If I win later in the fight, so what? The fight was over at the beginning in my mind.
I see a lot of horrid merges, where my opponent honestly deserves to be face-shot. I pass on about 99.9% of those. Maybe it's the teacher in me, but the instant I see that I'm thinking "Dammit! I should have taken that shot, just to teach this guy a lesson. What a ridiculous merge..." If I've got my opponent on vox, I'm more likely to take that shot, though. Why? To end the fight. To take him away from it and say "Look, we've got to fix that aspect of your fight before we go any further". I don't care how good you are in the later, or possibly more elaborate parts of the fight, if you can't live through the first 3 seconds.
Now, I'm not advocating that people go for the HO... That's not my point. I don't generally see it as a good option in a fight, even though I don't believe for an instant in the 50/50 thing. I'm going to be looking at what I see as better options, and I'd prefer it if you do too. But, don't feel like you have to. And don't you dare pass up a kill-shot on me if you have it! Don't waste my time... If you have a kill-shot on me, end the fight. Please...
-
In the above example The Green pilot is pulling to get his nose around as quickly as possible, the Red pilot is not pulling as hard as possible in order to conserve some energy. In my opinion the Green pilot should be able to take the forward quarter shot. The primary goal of the Dueling HO shot definition is to make it clear, that be restricting the opportunity for any HO shot, and having it agreed to prior to the dual, the dual will produce a better picture of the two pilots comparative skills.
Maybe, but if the red pilot pulls a little harder he's risking a collision. If he pulls even harder than that (if he can) to get inside, then the green pilot is in the exact same position opposite from pictured. If the green pilot then pulls even harder to even it up, he's risking a collision. See where I'm getting at? At some point, somebody has to get out of the way exposing himself to a 'fair shot'. This of course, is just looking at it in the 2D aspect.
-
Great thread Humble :aok
just remember " One mans HO is another mans deflection shot"
personaly I try not to HO,but sometimes it hapens. its part of the game.
the only planes i HO 100% of the time are 190s/temps/262/pony,simplybecause its the only way to get them to either start turning or break them off.
-
Fugitive, I know you have much more time in the game and I respect you greatly. I agree with you as well, I also die many times a month not pulling the trigger in a nose to nose when I could have shot (even by my own definition).
Let me relate a story that almost drove me to leave the game about a year ago. I don't often fly the 262 in the MA's, not because I don't have the perks, it just draws to much attention for my tastes. But one day I'm up in a 262 and I read on county channel that there are several sets of buffs headed for one of our bases, escorted by a couple of 262's. I've always looked forward to fighting a 262 vs another 262, and head in that direction ASAP. Once I get close to the bombers I spot a single 262 co-alt headed directly at me. I put my nose down slightly and get a little lateral separation and neither of us fire on the initial merge. I am getting really excited at this point looking forward to a good fight, we both reverse and are back nose to nose at the top of the first immelmann and continue are around for another reversal. This continues for 3 or 4 more times and it's really getting exciting, we were both evenly match in skill so I knew it wasn't an uber-stick, but it was a very fun fight for me. On the next reversal we both get nose to nose at about 1000 yards apart, as the range decreases, I'm thinking about my next move, at 200 yards the guy steps on the rudder and shoots me in the face. I have never been more upset in the game than that. It was completely uncalled for, there were no other contacts anywhere near us and having been respectful in all the previous reversals I expected it to continue. So I really had to think long and hard about how I was going to address this issue with myself, because in the end all of this is internal. I know I will never be a top stick in the game, but I believe I am a good player and I try to promote a good playing environment. I tried for 2 years to be a "Say NO to the HO" kinda guy, but that only leads to frustration with how others play the game (in my case). Instead I now look at it from the perspective of how it impacts overall game play. I still get upset when it happens and it violates my definition of being an appropriate shot, but I am am at peace with myself most of the time.
I agree 100% Baumer. This senario has happened to me a hundred times. The difference between you and I is that I'm a stubborn old fool and I keep hoping that the fight will continue with out the HO. :aok
mtnman first you say "Personally, I think the HO is a valuable tool in the quest for "better fights". I'm all in favor of it." and then you say "Now, I'm not advocating that people go for the HO... That's not my point." That sounds like your hanging off two ends of the same stick!
I agree that if you are teaching someone and they line up fro a HO and you set up to kill him to teach him a lesson. This is fine in my book, it's training and there are different rules for that. But in a fight in the game we are hoping to point out here that a HO at any time is a poor choice for a maneuver. There are much better choices. Even in Humbles posted film in the OP. Humble is very good in the A20, but had that been me I still wouldn't have gone for the HO he did. To him it was a last ditch effort knowing his other options were going to put him in harms way worst than the HO situation, and he "made a choice" to go for the HO. My flying isn't any more "noble" than his, nor is my skill any where near his, but to me it was a poor way to end a fight.
His film is a very good example of a HO. The 109 didn't do enough to promote the fight either from my point of view. After the first merge or two he should have realized he was going against someone who wanted to fight, not someone hoping to RTB. If thats the case, why would you want to put yourself any where near the nose of an A20?
-
No, I'm not hanging off of both sides, hehe! I'm in favor of it entirely as an aspect of our fights. But from my perspective, it isn't good enough, as it leaves a bit too much chance I'll take damage.
I think the direction to go is to teach people to avoid getting hit by it, and capitalize on the position you can gain from doing that. NOT to try to discourage people from taking the shot.
Always better options? I question that argument as well... For example, I could argue that in a lot of my fights, the HO is the best chance my opponent has to kill me... If he doesn't go for it, and succeed at it, I'm going to win. He'll be lucky to even come close to another shot solution. Now, how fair/mature/reasonable is it for me to say he shouldn't take whatever opportunity he has for success? The reality is that I win almost every 1v1 encounter I'm in in the MA. That sounds like bragging, I'm sure, but it's true. That basically means that if I don't get killed or damaged in the initial merge, I'm almost home-free. That's a great reason for me not to try the HO, but an equally good reason for my opponent to go for the HO. How can I complain about someone trying to HO me, or fight me 2 or 3 on one???
The HO-complaining, to me anyway, sounds like someone saying- "Well, if you hadn't of killed me right away, you could have seen how good I can really fly, and you'd know I'm a better pilot than you. Really. Seriously. No, seriously. I am. I really, really am. Totally." "After the merge, I was gonna do this totally sweet triple loop-de-loop thingy..." To me, it's like the Olympic spring-board diver "champion" who falls off the ladder before his dive. Master the basics first, and never forget about them. No matter how good you are at "step two", you need to succeed at "step one".
It's a vicious circle. Going for it is bad... Passing on it is bad... In the end though, I expect my opponent to point his guns at me and fire. I know which end your guns are on, and I know how to avoid them.
If he doesn't do that, passes on chances to do that because he sees it as "impure", not only do I fail to see the logic, but I think it reduces the quality of the fights. It drags them out into something they shouldn't be. Exciting? Not for me. Kill me if you can... If you can, I deserve it, and expect it...
-
I think MT, Baumer and Grizz hit on underlying perspectives we're trying to nurture.
1) The HO viewed in the context of other options
2) The HO in relation to "game play" and the realities of the "Mexican standoff"
3) Understanding the differences between FQ shots and a true "HO"
I had an other interesting situation over the weekend, I was in a D Hog and had had a few good run ins with an F6F. In the course of a given flight I ended up odd man out as the F6F and pony engaged others. As things evolved I had the E to climb up into the F6F and he took me up...we ended up in a situation where he fell back in a reverse early enough that I had closing speed but far enough away to create a true vertical merge. I had clean shot at 1000 but by 600 we were nose to nose so I held off...and got lit up at 400.
Now thats a totally grey area that falls outside of a true HO. His front end might have shown a pure rope. I had a shot of him "in rotation" at 800 and he didn't really stabilize till 400 when he took the shot so I probably could have killed him before he got guns on me...there is no true right or wrong a surprisingly high % of the time.
-
No, I'm not hanging off of both sides, hehe! I'm in favor of it entirely as an aspect of our fights. But from my perspective, it isn't good enough, as it leaves a bit too much chance I'll take damage.
I think the direction to go is to teach people to avoid getting hit by it, and capitalize on the position you can gain from doing that. NOT to try to discourage people from taking the shot.
Always better options? I question that argument as well... For example, I could argue that in a lot of my fights, the HO is the best chance my opponent has to kill me... If he doesn't go for it, and succeed at it, I'm going to win. He'll be lucky to even come close to another shot solution. Now, how fair/mature/reasonable is it for me to say he shouldn't take whatever opportunity he has for success? The reality is that I win almost every 1v1 encounter I'm in in the MA. That sounds like bragging, I'm sure, but it's true. That basically means that if I don't get killed or damaged in the initial merge, I'm almost home-free. That's a great reason for me not to try the HO, but an equally good reason for my opponent to go for the HO. How can I complain about someone trying to HO me, or fight me 2 or 3 on one???
The HO-complaining, to me anyway, sounds like someone saying- "Well, if you hadn't of killed me right away, you could have seen how good I can really fly, and you'd know I'm a better pilot than you. Really. Seriously. No, seriously. I am. I really, really am. Totally." "After the merge, I was gonna do this totally sweet triple loop-de-loop thingy..." To me, it's like the Olympic spring-board diver "champion" who falls off the ladder before his dive. Master the basics first, and never forget about them. No matter how good you are at "step two", you need to succeed at "step one".
It's a vicious circle. Going for it is bad... Passing on it is bad... In the end though, I expect my opponent to point his guns at me and fire. I know which end your guns are on, and I know how to avoid them.
If he doesn't do that, passes on chances to do that because he sees it as "impure", not only do I fail to see the logic, but I think it reduces the quality of the fights. It drags them out into something they shouldn't be. Exciting? Not for me. Kill me if you can... If you can, I deserve it, and expect it...
So a HO is the only chance anyone...basically... has a chance to shoot you down with. So your saying to learn how to HO really good and then you don't have to worry about the "fight" which I believe the "game" here we are talking about is really about. I would rather fight 20 fights in a row against you and never win a single one as long as each fight lasted more than the 15 seconds a HO provides. The thrill of this game shouldn't be how many kills you have listed on the scoreboard, but the fun you have trying to get those kills.
Teaching people how to avoid the HO...which to me is pretty much the same as not going for the HO... will promote better fights because people will learn to fight better.
-
Quintuple post, lol!
-
Quintuple post, lol!
-
Quintuple post, lol!
-
Quintuple post, lol!
-
Teaching people how to avoid the HO...which to me is pretty much the same as not going for the HO... will promote better fights because people will learn to fight better.
I agree, to a point...
What I all-to-often see though, from people who are "against" HOing, is what I consider "sloppy", reckless, too-close, bad position merges that should get them killed via HO, in an effort to get a better position 2 seconds later. "Safety" or "immunity" from HO's seems to lead to a sense of right or wrong, which IMO, makes the fights ridiculously artificial.
They can get away with those merges, if their opponent declines the shot opportunity, out of some sort of what, honor? But, these are the same guys who are vocal about calling people names because they take the shot... Right off, if someone complains about an HO, I suspect they have a flawed merge. If they didn't, the HO wouldn't be a factor. They wouldn't mind if someone took that shot...
And, again, holding off on that shot IMO leads to a waste of a fight (depending on the motive). Who cares about the rest of the fight, if it's based on a bogus start? If the motive is "honor" or "make the fight last" or some such, I have no respect for that. If the motive is one of self-preservation, passing on the HO because it may lead to damage, and passing because it increases your chances of survival, I'm all for it.
And yes, even though I never consider the HO a "good" option, it very well may be the "best" option, or even the "only" option. To lose the fight because you passed a shot opportunity because it isn't "special" enough is wasting my time. I'd honestly rather have you kill me with an HO, than die because you chose not to shoot. Beating you in that situation holds no appeal. You're letting me win, so why would I want to win?
A guns-cold initial merge is bogus, IMO, even though I'll never open with an HO. IMO, if a fight opens guns-cold, it's bogus, and I have no interest in it, or its outcome. It's like saying "OK, new rule- no going for the QB on the first down". Wanna duel? Lets duel! None of this sissy, pansy, no face-shooting rule stuff. I have guns, look out! Wanna have a good fight? Earn it. Don't expect a free pass.
When I work with people, I never advocate going for an HO shot. I also never ask them to avoid it. When we work on merges, they'll often ask "Guns cold on the first merge?" And I'll always answer "LOL, no! If you have a shot, and want to take it, go for it!" "If you think you can hit me, you'd better try! It's the whole point of aerial combat".
"Learn how to HO really good"? Why not? It's as valid a tactic as any... It's a very simple tactic, that's simple to avoid/defeat, so I wouldn't say it's all anyone would want to learn, but why not? It's no less valid tactic-wise than a BRD, or immel, or scissors, or whatever. They're all designed to put lead on target.
Teaching people not to HO can best be done by letting them HO. It's a low-percentage tactic. They'll die as a result, practically every time they try it against a competent pilot. By dying repeatedly, they'll probably desire to learn a better tactic. Right there, HOing is leading to better fights... But for the right reasons. Not from some sort of flawed sense of "honor", or because they want longer fights (which are the wrong reasons to avoid the HO) but because they want to fly/kill more efficiently (which is the right reason to avoid the HO).
And "teaching them not to HO" is a poor choice of words, IMO. I don't want to teach them NOT to do it, I want to teach them a better option.
-
Holy Cow :O you don't have to post it 5 times !!! LOL!!
I agree with if a plane is in the cone of fire of my plane yes it should be a green light to fire, however someone looking for a fight will NOT be in that area with guns blazing. I would think teaching someone to maneuver for a shot that doesn't put them in that cone would be preferable. even in training I would think that a merge should be as far from a HO as you can get.
You will take any shot provided, I won't. It's not some code of honor, I just don't want to win that way. If I should mess up and get into the HO position I made the mistake and figure I lost anyway. Should they miss I get another chance to correct my mistake before they can shot my cartoon plane down. If the other guys messes up....or continues to try for the HO I set-up my next pass better, trying to stay out of his cone of fire and look for my shot.
Again, why go for the HO, it puts the other guys guns on you. Not all of us have as good a shot as mtnman :D
-
Holy Cow :O you don't have to post it 5 times !!! LOL!!
I agree with if a plane is in the cone of fire of my plane yes it should be a green light to fire, however someone looking for a fight will NOT be in that area with guns blazing. I would think teaching someone to maneuver for a shot that doesn't put them in that cone would be preferable. even in training I would think that a merge should be as far from a HO as you can get.
You will take any shot provided, I won't. It's not some code of honor, I just don't want to win that way. If I should mess up and get into the HO position I made the mistake and figure I lost anyway. Should they miss I get another chance to correct my mistake before they can shot my cartoon plane down. If the other guys messes up....or continues to try for the HO I set-up my next pass better, trying to stay out of his cone of fire and look for my shot.
Again, why go for the HO, it puts the other guys guns on you. Not all of us have as good a shot as mtnman :D
And again, I'm not saying "Go for the HO".
And I won't take "any shot provided".
Read... Comprehend...
I'm saying "Any shot, including the HO, is fine". It's your job to shoot the other guy, it's his job to shoot you. Who's job is it to not shoot?
-
"Learn how to HO really good"? Why not? It's as valid a tactic as any... It's a very simple tactic, that's simple to avoid/defeat, so I wouldn't say it's all anyone would want to learn, but why not? It's no less valid tactic-wise than a BRD, or immel, or scissors, or whatever. They're all designed to put lead on target.
In most of the cases, HO isn't valid tactic, especially not when you have dozen of better options.
HO should always be the least desirable option.
That said, you figured it out in your last two paragraphs anyway...
-
In most of the cases, HO isn't valid tactic, especially not when you have dozen of better options.
HO should always be the least desirable option.
That said, you figured it out in your last two paragraphs anyway...
I'd say it's always valid... Unless someone can give me a situation where it isn't "valid"? It's as valid as shooting from any other angle, at any other part of your opponents plane.
Always desirable? No. Efficient? No. The "best" option? Not always...
-
I'd say it's always valid...
No. Whenever you have better option, HO isn't valid tactic.
It's as valid as shooting from any other angle, at any other part of your opponents plane.
No. In HO situation you put yourself in harms way. When shooting from other angles, you don't. Huge difference.
The "best" option? Not always...
Not always? Lets say almost never...
-
When you are defending a base against insurmountable odds, the HOing Hurricane all of a sudden because the most viable option.
-
No. Whenever you have better option, HO isn't valid tactic.
No. In HO situation you put yourself in harms way. When shooting from other angles, you don't. Huge difference.
Not always? Lets say almost never...
You've described times where the HO isn't the best, or most desirable option. I don't see any where it isn't a valid option though.
It looks like you're saying you can't put yourself in harm's way. Why not?
Many people put themselves in harm's way with poor merges- does that make their choice of merge invalid? What about Fugitive's comment- "I would rather fight 20 fights in a row against you and never win a single one as long as each fight lasted more than the 15 seconds a HO provides" in the context of on my merge I present him with an "HO" shot, but he chooses not to take it? He's put himself in harms way, when he could have ended the fight... Would that make his choice invalid? By your statement, it looks like it would...
It looks like you're saying you can't pick the option that isn't "the best", or at least that you can't pick the option that someone else feels isn't "the best". Why not? Who says you can't? Who gets to decide that someone's choice of maneuver or tactic isn't valid? Being undesirable doesn't make it invalid.
Why can't someone HO every single time, if they want to? Why would an experienced pilot be concerned about that?
And (not pointing fingers at anyone), I can't help but see the irony in this discussion. "Experienced", skilled pilots, concerned about a choice that's seen as showing inexperience, or lack of skill? The "stigma" of the HO is certainly not one that came from beginners... On the contrary, I see the beginners mirroring the belittling HO comments of the "vets", in an effort to fit in (on 200, for example). The HO looks like a "chink in the armor" to
-
Seems kind of like a trolling exercise this HO maneuver here in the forum. Believe first move in an aircraft with 4 cannon or 8 fifties is to assume the target is heading away. Superior firepower don't you know. If it's not, my ordinance just gets there quicker. Not my problem opponent was impolitic and didn't turn and present the appropriate aspect. Is this anymore impolitic than sneaking up on the unwary and blowing them up from behind? Why is that not a bad thing? LOL.
Infidelz.
-
I don't see any where it isn't a valid option though.
Option where you significantly reduce your odds isn't a "valid option", it's a stupid decision. Arguing anything else is just semantics.
Yes, it's a matter of choice, kinda like shooting yourself in the foot, just because you can, doesn't mean you should, nor you should call it a "valid option".
Anyway, being rabidly pro or against HO shots brings us nowhere. Lots of threads on this topic, all failed.
-
When you are defending a base against insurmountable odds, the HOing Hurricane all of a sudden become the most viable option.
Yes, like in one vs many. taking all the shots, including HO shots, increases your survival chances.
-
Yes, like in one vs many. taking all the shots, including HO shots, increases your survival chances.
Yea. Are you arguing about 1v1s with mtnman?
-
Grizz I assumed that some difference of nose to nose was expected to avoid the collision. However there's a difference between maneuvering to avoid a collision (but keeping the turns close) and easing into a maneuver trying to "hide e". Most middle of the road players, like my self, have difficulty with the little nuances, that top flight sticks like yourself (and most everyone in this thread except me) can use in a duel. The exception I was describing is more for the benefit of an average pilot rather than the top sticks anyways.
Mtnman, going back to my analogy of the pickup basketball game, sure it's a valid shot. Just the same as fouling someone at the end of a close game is valid, but it sure doesn't make the game any "better". And unlike basketball, there's no penalty or getting benched if you do it repeatedly. Since there's no game clock it's really better for the game if we can avoid it.
To the Fugatives point, it's in all of our best interest's to teach as many players as possible about how to get into better positions (when they can, given extenuating circumstances) and not just default to the simple turn and HO. But it's also important to teach the community when NOT to complain about the HO.
-
Yea. Are you arguing about 1v1s with mtnman?
aye, well, not anymore :devil
-
aye, well, not anymore :devil
Don't worry, I wouldn't let you HO me, even if you wanted to. You'd just have to land a FQ shot. :D
-
And (not pointing fingers at anyone), I can't help but see the irony in this discussion. "Experienced", skilled pilots, concerned about a choice that's seen as showing inexperience, or lack of skill?
I'm not sure what's so ironic. Experienced sticks routinely try to help people overcome inexperienced/low skill tactics.
Putting yourself in a position where both you and your opponent can fire at the exact same time is a bad choice, period. Granted, sometimes it may be your only choice, but it's still a bad one to have to make.
The interesting thing is that this is also many people's primary choice, so much so that every month there is another thread about it somewhere, but as of yet, there is no document on the major help websites that deals specifically with it. To me, that would be like seeing many people routinely bail out over a friendly field, and having no document showing them how to land.
-
My thought in posting this is to take away the negative connotations and place the topic in a knowledge/training environment instead.
From the broad range of comments I think a few things can be sifted out...
1) all "experienced" sticks here tend to agree that by and large its not viewed as an optimum choice of tactic under all but the worst circumstances
2) Most good sticks see a HO attempt by an opponent as an opportunity to apply "ACM Kung Fu" more then a credible threat
3) The difference comes in how the "Mexican standoff" is treated. Good pilots tend to expect other good pilots to recognize when both sides have an opportunity vs those when one has a clear advantage. In the event that a position is considered neutral then the potential shot is considered "cheap". Obviously this applies to more of a 1 on 1 vs a melee...
So we have the following...
a) proactively flying for the "face shot" limits development of more advanced skills since those more advanced pilots tend to be able to easily counter such a move. This leads to a cycle of less experienced pilots trading faceshots with each other and dying in a repeated and frustrating manner vs higher caliber opponents.
b) More experienced sticks are well aware of the opportunities but view it as a tactic of last resort
c) Seasoned 1 on 1 duelers are more prone to recognize if a fight is neutral and have an expectation that both parties will refrain from taking a "cheap" shot under such conditions. However this is grey area since the opposing school of thought is once the initial merge is over then guns are hot and either you get around 1st or you get out of the way....both positions have some merit.
So from what I see here the consensus seems to be that relying on the "HO" as a tactic creates more opportunities to die then to win under most circumstances and leads to a cycle of rising futility and frustration. However there is significant importance in distinguishing between a true "HO" and a valid front quarter aspect shot arrived at via proper ACM taken in the course of building a superior position...that type of shot not only can end a fight but pressure the opponent to evade and further degrade his position.
-
^ good summary of a worthy topic :aok
fwiw I understand exactly what you're saying mtnman, and agree. for me the DA guns cold merge rule is ahistorical, contrived and pointless. worse, it leaves you unprepared for the reality of MA fighting. I cant help thinking that the zero-separation DA first merge is more likely to lead to another HO opportunity within 1 or 2 turns than a merge which doesnt just require a kick of rudder to unload into the enemy cockpit, especially flying identical aircraft.
-
fwiw I understand exactly what you're saying mtnman, and agree. for me the DA guns cold merge rule is ahistorical, contrived and pointless. worse, it leaves you unprepared for the reality of MA fighting. I cant help thinking that the zero-separation DA first merge is more likely to lead to another HO opportunity within 1 or 2 turns than a merge which doesnt just require a kick of rudder to unload into the enemy cockpit, especially flying identical aircraft.
Dear RTHolmes, just for you I'll go off topic (AH Gods, forgive me)
In a duel, cold gun merge makes perfect sense.
Why?
Well, what is the purpose of a duel? Oh that's right. You remember now...
You see, everything should be about as equal as possible, bar the pilot.
Hot merge would put one of the duelists into unfavorable position even before duel would start, unless there would be third party giving either audible or visual duel start sign (or in that case, sign when you can fire).
That's right, due to the lag (which isn't the same for all) that's not possible. So duel starts when duelists pass 3-9 line. Not perfect, but you don't need third party, makes hot merge rather difficult though.
Anyway, you can play by other rules (any kind) as long as both duelists agree to.
Wait, there's more.
You've mention reality of MA fighting (is there fighting in MA?)...
Does boxing match prepare you for the bar brawl?
ahistorical, contrived and pointless (http://sierra-host.net/images/loony.gif)
So why people duel regardless of duels being ahistorical, contrived and pointless? Oh, that's right, it's FUN! Yes, it's a GAME! WWII ended 65 years ago.
-
And I happen to agree fully with Bighorn, so far anyway ;) . The duels more about the flying for me, rather than trying to end it before the first merge/first nose to nose turn.
There's a skill or art to dueling in AH and it's the only thing that keeps me coming back (MA sure doesn't).
-
Grizz I assumed that some difference of nose to nose was expected to avoid the collision. However there's a difference between maneuvering to avoid a collision (but keeping the turns close) and easing into a maneuver trying to "hide e". Most middle of the road players, like my self, have difficulty with the little nuances, that top flight sticks like yourself (and most everyone in this thread except me) can use in a duel. The exception I was describing is more for the benefit of an average pilot rather than the top sticks anyways.
Baumer you made some great points, I was playing Devil's Advocate, but was just trying to illustrate the gray area that is the "fair shot". I think I did so. Imo, any shot aside from a pure HO is fair game, it is nice though when regular duelers take that a step further and show some additional respect for one another and be careful they only take shots they 'earned'. It makes it more fun for both involved.
-
Is this the accepted definition of Ho... ? "When both pilots have a gunsolution at the same time."
I did not get hoed one time last night by players that I saw ho other players. How is this possible?
I never went for a gunsolution at the same time as the other player. Its really very simple.
The real deal is some players have not figured out how to minimize the front quarter shot to the point where that is a better option for them. :airplane:
A Ho is a bad idea, in context of cartoon survivability, i dont care how many merges you make. If anyone disagrees just PM me ill be happy to oblige.
The only good time to HO is when teaching How hoeing is a bad idea.
<S>
-
Thanks Grizz I agree btw about the fun of a duel. Bighorn, Batfinkv, and Lengro beat me more often with the terrain (i.e. I hit a tree or the ground) than bullets.
Personally the best duel I've ever been part of was Lengro and Bighorn flying B5N's with Batfink and I gunning for them. To see how well Lengro and Bighorn worked to stay in front of the target was an amazing experience (and one that showed me how much I still need to learn).
-
Thanks Grizz I agree btw about the fun of a duel. Bighorn, Batfinkv, and Lengro beat me more often with the terrain (i.e. I hit a tree or the ground) than bullets.
Personally the best duel I've ever been part of was Lengro and Bighorn flying B5N's with Batfink and I gunning for them. To see how well Lengro and Bighorn worked to stay in front of the target was an amazing experience (and one that showed me how much I still need to learn).
That sounds like a blast. Not sure if B5Ns are enabled but 110G2s with gunners could be fun. :D
-
I realise that more experienced sticks will tend to avoid a HO for all the reasons above, but just out of interest has anyone tried deliberately duelling guns hot for practise maybe?
I dont mean a vet schooling a 2 weeker, but 2 equally skilled know-all-the-pilot-stuff guys where one is only working for a killshot on the merge?
I hear more experienced sticks alot saying "it takes 2 to HO" and "just avoid it", which may be true when the guy working for the merge shot is not a great stick (usually the case.) what happens when its someone with exceptional gunnery and ability?
-
what happens when its someone with exceptional gunnery and ability?
You get blasted. Luckily a vast majority of people who can do this, don't. And when they do, well then you can whine on 200 :D
-
My thought in posting this is to take away the negative connotations and place the topic in a knowledge/training environment instead.
From the broad range of comments I think a few things can be sifted out...
1) all "experienced" sticks here tend to agree that by and large its not viewed as an optimum choice of tactic under all but the worst circumstances
2) Most good sticks see a HO attempt by an opponent as an opportunity to apply "ACM Kung Fu" more then a credible threat
3) The difference comes in how the "Mexican standoff" is treated. Good pilots tend to expect other good pilots to recognize when both sides have an opportunity vs those when one has a clear advantage. In the event that a position is considered neutral then the potential shot is considered "cheap". Obviously this applies to more of a 1 on 1 vs a melee...
So we have the following...
a) proactively flying for the "face shot" limits development of more advanced skills since those more advanced pilots tend to be able to easily counter such a move. This leads to a cycle of less experienced pilots trading faceshots with each other and dying in a repeated and frustrating manner vs higher caliber opponents.
b) More experienced sticks are well aware of the opportunities but view it as a tactic of last resort
c) Seasoned 1 on 1 duelers are more prone to recognize if a fight is neutral and have an expectation that both parties will refrain from taking a "cheap" shot under such conditions. However this is grey area since the opposing school of thought is once the initial merge is over then guns are hot and either you get around 1st or you get out of the way....both positions have some merit.
So from what I see here the consensus seems to be that relying on the "HO" as a tactic creates more opportunities to die then to win under most circumstances and leads to a cycle of rising futility and frustration. However there is significant importance in distinguishing between a true "HO" and a valid front quarter aspect shot arrived at via proper ACM taken in the course of building a superior position...that type of shot not only can end a fight but pressure the opponent to evade and further degrade his position.
Nice summary!
The one point I may disagree with is "a)". And maybe not disagree so much as "itch at the way it's worded". IMO, flying for the face shot doesn't limit development of advanced skills, so much as create a desire to advance in skill. I can't begin to tell you how many of my "students" begin our initial conversation (often following an HO attempt) with some version of "I don't know how you do that! I can't hit you, and then right away you're around behind me and I have no chance". A brief explanation of how their initial attempt at an HO shot lead to an easy dodge and a great position for me, and before you know it, we're in the TA, and an up-and-coming fighter-jock is born...
Now on the other hand, had I responded (or even began the conversation with him before he had a chance to) with some variety of "HO-dweeb", "HO'er" etc, where are we? He's pissed, and I've diverted his attention away from a learning opportunity, made him defensive, and slammed some doors. IMO, that type of stigma is far more game-damaging/game-degrading/immature/ridiculous than a pilot going for the HO-shot, even if he/she does it repeatedly, or for that matter never progresses beyond it. Who wants to ask a pr#@k for help? If the inexperienced pilots see the "vets" as pompous, arrogant, etc, they're not going to want to ask for help, and if they have any self-esteem at all they're sure as heck not going to be in any hurry to join the "in" crowd.
-
Mtnman, going back to my analogy of the pickup basketball game, sure it's a valid shot. Just the same as fouling someone at the end of a close game is valid, but it sure doesn't make the game any "better". And unlike basketball, there's no penalty or getting benched if you do it repeatedly. Since there's no game clock it's really better for the game if we can avoid it.
What doesn't work for me with this analogy is that pointing your plane at your opponent and shooting him is the goal. It isn't a foul.
For the basketball analogy to work, it'd have to be fir a foul that's called for something like shooting the ball (whether it scores or not) in the initial few seconds of the game. Or of the quarter. Or for a football player running the kick-off back and scoring. Scoring (or attempting to) too soon in the game for someone's liking... Ridiculous? Sure. Just like I feel about the anti-HO slant in AH.
Poking holes in the other guy is the goal. It's an obvious goal. People should look out for other people that are trying to poke holes in them. The guns are in front. Look out for the front.
-
Dear RTHolmes, just for you I'll go off topic (AH Gods, forgive me)
In a duel, cold gun merge makes perfect sense.
Why?
Well, what is the purpose of a duel? Oh that's right. You remember now...
You see, everything should be about as equal as possible, bar the pilot.
Hot merge would put one of the duelists into unfavorable position even before duel would start, unless there would be third party giving either audible or visual duel start sign (or in that case, sign when you can fire).
That's right, due to the lag (which isn't the same for all) that's not possible. So duel starts when duelists pass 3-9 line. Not perfect, but you don't need third party, makes hot merge rather difficult though.
Anyway, you can play by other rules (any kind) as long as both duelists agree to.
Wait, there's more.
You've mention reality of MA fighting (is there fighting in MA?)...
Does boxing match prepare you for the bar brawl?
ahistorical, contrived and pointless (http://sierra-host.net/images/loony.gif)
So why people duel regardless of duels being ahistorical, contrived and pointless? Oh, that's right, it's FUN! Yes, it's a GAME! WWII ended 65 years ago.
Now, from a "fun", "agreed-upon", standpoint, or from some sort of "position-balancing" viewpoint, I can agree with your no-HO stance. Or at least with the goal of the "rule".
I also agree with the idea that it isn't perfect. IMO, it isn't any more perfect than some variety of "hot merge" rule could be, but then again, it isn't a game I choose to play, so it doesn't matter to me, and my opinion shouldn't matter to you in that respect, either.
The "cold merge" rule, on the other hand is exactly why it isn't a game I'd choose to play, and why it's not possible for me to see it as what I would consider a "valid" fight. I'd rather explore options to create a "fair start" to a "hot merge", even though I'd never be interested in opening with an HO... The "hot merge" is what I see as a tool to keep the merge "honest". I can think of a few options, which of course could (not saying "would") be viewed as flawed, just as I see the merges resulting from "cold merges" as flawed. Guys "jumping the gun" on their oh-so-predictable immelmanns, merging with practically no separation, cutting throttle, even the few guys that empty their MG's to lower weight, all in the interest of eeking an advantage from what's supposed to be an "equal start".
Win or lose, those are some of the reasons I'm not impressed or interested in duels. I'd rather log and watch paint dry, or go work with someone who wants help. To me, those are fights built on no foundation. I consider the merge one of the most important parts of the fight, and in order to capitalize on a merge in the DA, I feel like I need to break away from what I consider important parts, in the interest of "fairness". But again, it's not my game, it's yours, so I wouldn't expect my opinion to hold much, if any, weight for you.
By the same token, I don't come into the DA duel "game" and whine about no hot merges, so should I expect the anti-HO stigma and all that goes with it in the area I frequent? I suppose I could launch into an "HO-dweeb-calling dweeb" tirade, but then I'd look as ridiculous as the guys crying "HO-dweeb", and what would that accomplish?
MA fights? I'm infinitely more interested and impressed with those. If I start at 1K, and you start at 10K, or behind me, or below me, or in front of me, or beside me, or with a buddy, same plane, different pane, whatever, I'm going to be more impressed if you beat me, than if you beat me in a cold-merge "duel". That's just my opinion though. Now, if I'm beat 3v1, I'm not as impressed, and at some point I'd expect my opponent to be "skilled enough" to not need a friend or two, but whatever... HO me, gang me, it's all good fun. And if I get sick of it, I'll alter the situation to where those tactics don't work as well against me. I need the added stimulus of what I see as a more liquid, more challenging, less "staged" environment.
-
You get blasted. Luckily a vast majority of people who can do this, don't. And when they do, well then you can whine on 200 :D
I don't think it's "luck" that keeps "those who can" from doing it.
It's a sense of self-protection, or "I don't need to", or I'm better off if I don't", as just a few examples.
-
I realise that more experienced sticks will tend to avoid a HO for all the reasons above, but just out of interest has anyone tried deliberately duelling guns hot for practise maybe?
I dont mean a vet schooling a 2 weeker, but 2 equally skilled know-all-the-pilot-stuff guys where one is only working for a killshot on the merge?
I hear more experienced sticks alot saying "it takes 2 to HO" and "just avoid it", which may be true when the guy working for the merge shot is not a great stick (usually the case.) what happens when its someone with exceptional gunnery and ability?
Ill have a go at it with you RTHomes.... What do you think will happen? I think your going to see the same thing you do in the MA when to guys HO each other ... both blow up and someone get a proxy..... :devil
What does TWO KNOW IT ALL pilots have to do with anything...... You take every thing out of the equation except for guns and hitting your target...... Isn't that the point.... Those that go for the HO is because they believe they dont have a BETTER choice.
-
Mtnman I understand your perspective on my analogy. However, you can not point me to any document provided by HTC that would state "The objective of Aces High II is for you to point your plane at the opponent and shoot him."
We as players get to choose what our own personal objective is for the game.
There are many different (completely valid) objectives one can have playing this game, from purely enjoying flying with your friends, to being the best Corsair pilot. My personal objective is to enjoy the game, and to learn all the different aspects of Aces High. So if I choose to constrain my actions (by not taking a HO shot) in order to provide a better playing environment that's my choice. Talking to others about what makes an enjoyable game experience is a means to helping people who might also want a better experience.
This doesn't preclude you from your objective of pointing at me and shooting.
-
I hear more experienced sticks alot saying "it takes 2 to HO" and "just avoid it", which may be true when the guy working for the merge shot is not a great stick (usually the case.) what happens when its someone with exceptional gunnery and ability?
Even with "exceptional gunnery" and (HO?) ability, it's never going to amount to a "good" option. As I mentioned, even though the damage options amount to a 50/50 ratio, I don't think (from what I've seen, anyway) it amounts to a 50/50 shot in the end.
I think your chances of "success" will always be much lower than that, if you consider shooting down the other guy as "success". From what I've seen, most HO shots amount in just plain missing, especially against someone who's watching for it and can deal with that type of attack. Even if 1/2 of those attacks amount in a miss, and 1/2 of the hits amount in a "win", that's only a 25% rate of success. From my experience, that's actually quite a bit over-inflated from reality. Now, with that 25% "success" rate, I'm including wins that come a little later, but due to damage delivered in the initial HO.
Of course, if one pilot is avoiding it, it isn't an HO, either.
In reality, against an experienced pilot, I doubt you'd see a 5% rate of "success". I approach every merge expecting an HO, and although I see lots of attempts, I'm seldom even hit, let alone given much damage. When I am damaged, I may simply continue on my way and go get a new plane.
Try it though, it'd be an interesting experiment... You won't see me calling you names if you try it one me :D
Also, I think that as skill and gunnery improve, there's going to be a progression away from HO's anyway. From a personal standpoint, success isn't about killing this guy. It's about killing and surviving, landing multiple kills, and doing it in a hazardous environment. The HO is simply too risky.
-
Mtnman I understand your perspective on my analogy. However, you can not point me to any document provided by HTC that would state "The objective of Aces High II is for you to point your plane at the opponent and shoot him."
We as players get to choose what our own personal objective is for the game.
There are many different (completely valid) objectives one can have playing this game, from purely enjoying flying with your friends, to being the best Corsair pilot. My personal objective is to enjoy the game, and to learn all the different aspects of Aces High. So if I choose to constrain my actions (by not taking a HO shot) in order to provide a better playing environment that's my choice. Talking to others about what makes an enjoyable game experience is a means to helping people who might also want a better experience.
This doesn't preclude you from your objective of pointing at me and shooting.
Good point!
Doesn't make the HO equate to a foul though, does it?
And I like your stance on talking to others about what might improve or make an enjoyable experience. I wish I saw that approach more often when it comes to "discussing" the HO in the game.
<Edit>
A poll might be interesting... How many people play this game without the goal of pointing their plane at their opponent and shooting him, in a situation where the discussion of HOing would be relevant?
I can see it of course, for C47 pilots, or bomber pilots, or the guys who go attack undefended airfields, or the guys who just want to drop their ord and get out... How many just fly with their friends, and don't try to poke holes in red guys when they can? How many drive tanks or other vehicles, with no interest shooting at the other team?
-
Now, from a "fun", "agreed-upon", standpoint, or from some sort of "position-balancing" viewpoint, I can agree with your no-HO stance. Or at least with the goal of the "rule".
I also agree with the idea that it isn't perfect. IMO, it isn't any more perfect than some variety of "hot merge" rule could be, but then again, it isn't a game I choose to play, so it doesn't matter to me, and my opinion shouldn't matter to you in that respect, either.
Why it wouldn't matter? Just because I like dueling it doesn't mean I dislike MA. Besides, you can do all kind of things in dueling arena, including having your own dueling rules.
Different arenas, different gameplay, DA, MA, AvA, KoTH, they complement each other. Whilst having preferences, I do not limit myself to single arena, nor did I ever say, to anyone, which they should prefer.
One they have in common though. HO shot is a bad choice in all of them, most of the time. It rather distract from solid ACM. Exceptions noted earlier.
The "cold merge" rule, on the other hand is exactly why it isn't a game I'd choose to play, and why it's not possible for me to see it as what I would consider a "valid" fight. I'd rather explore options to create a "fair start" to a "hot merge", even though I'd never be interested in opening with an HO... The "hot merge" is what I see as a tool to keep the merge "honest". I can think of a few options, which of course could (not saying "would") be viewed as flawed, just as I see the merges resulting from "cold merges" as flawed. Guys "jumping the gun" on their oh-so-predictable immelmanns, merging with practically no separation, cutting throttle, even the few guys that empty their MG's to lower weight, all in the interest of eeking an advantage from what's supposed to be an "equal start".
There is no DA or MA merge. Only good or bad merge. I can assure you that solid merge works equally well in DA as in MA. Hot or cold.
MA fights? I'm infinitely more interested and impressed with those. If I start at 1K, and you start at 10K, or behind me, or below me, or in front of me, or beside me, or with a buddy, same plane, different pane, whatever, I'm going to be more impressed if you beat me, than if you beat me in a cold-merge "duel". That's just my opinion though. Now, if I'm beat 3v1, I'm not as impressed, and at some point I'd expect my opponent to be "skilled enough" to not need a friend or two, but whatever... HO me, gang me, it's all good fun. And if I get sick of it, I'll alter the situation to where those tactics don't work as well against me. I need the added stimulus of what I see as a more liquid, more challenging, less "staged" environment.
OK, that's your personal choice and is noted, but I really don't see what that has to do with "HO shot or ACM" question in general?
Just because you don't mind HO (or being good enough to avoid it) doesn't mean it's a good choice. Please find me some air combat literature where HO shots are sold as a good choice (rare exceptions noted).
-
MTman "I approach every merge expecting an HO, " I have never seen you play like this and ive fought you more than once. You approach every merge expecting the front quarter shot. There is a big differance.....
Thats not a HO... Its simply a front quarter shot before the first merge. Im not seeing any one in this thread differentiating between HO and Front Quarter shot.....
Its really hard to follow the discusion here. What is the point of defining Ho and front quarter shot if every one is going to use Ho to describe both ?
Guns hot before the first merge or 2nd or 3rd ect.... is NOT the same thing as a HO.
<S>
-
FireDrgn, I think that is precisely the problem. Real ACM pilots know the difference but get accused by the uninitiated. For all intents and purposes the hostility to the HO covers any front quarter shot for the majority of pilots.
In that sense, I think that ultimately this discussion will get bogged down in that. What I think MtnMan and I have advocated is to expect the HO or front quarter shot and defend against it. That is the only stance that makes sense and will WORK in the arena.
-
FireDrgn, I think that is precisely the problem. Real ACM pilots know the difference but get accused by the uninitiated. For all intents and purposes the hostility to the HO covers any front quarter shot for the majority of pilots.
In that sense, I think that ultimately this discussion will get bogged down in that. What I think MtnMan and I have advocated is to expect the HO or front quarter shot and defend against it. That is the only stance that makes sense and "WILL WORK" in the MAIN arenas.
I been reading this topic since it has been posted.. and the (2) underlined sentences I quoted above is exactly how each player should approach each encounter in the main arenas.......
it is good etiquette to encourage new & old players alike, the short comings of going for the "HO", but it is still left up to each individual on how they decide to fight........ some might see the light, others never will........ and they will pay dearly for it....
just my view on the matter......
edit - ( Rapier, I made a small edit to your original post ;) )
-
FireDrgn, I think that is precisely the problem. Real ACM pilots know the difference but get accused by the uninitiated. For all intents and purposes the hostility to the HO covers any front quarter shot for the majority of pilots.
In that sense, I think that ultimately this discussion will get bogged down in that. What I think MtnMan and I have advocated is to expect the HO or front quarter shot and defend against it. That is the only stance that makes sense and will WORK in the arena.
My thought's are as they relate to the newer player and the understanding that constantly focusing on the 1st opportunity to gain a shot (normally a "HO" or "FQ" shot) often has a significant negative impact on what follows. The goal being to educate those players that other options exist and that taking the time to explore those options eventually will result in not only more enjoyment of the game....but better results over time.
-
but it is still left up to each individual on how they decide to fight...
Fight? You can kill in AH without fight. That's why we have spawn campers, cherry pickers, runners and HOers.
All of the above are arguably sound tactical choices, except one, that's the HO.
I'd say, choosing to HO is not so much about "how to fight". It's choice "to fight or not to fight".
-
Fight? You can kill in AH without fight. That's why we have spawn campers, cherry pickers, runners and HOers.
All of the above are arguably sound tactical choices, except one, that's the HO.
I'd say, choosing to HO is not so much about "how to fight". It's choice "to fight or not to fight".
Yes and No, I think that for a significant % of the player base it's perceived as a "best solution" since it does work against all players some of the time (or we wouldn't here the constant whine). It just doesn't work against good players very often, so the spiral of frustration deepens. Once you get someone to abandon what appears to be an easy option in favor of a more difficult but rewarding set of possibilities they never go back....but you need to get them started somehow.
-
Yes and No, I think that for a significant % of the player base it's perceived as a "best solution" since it does work against all players some of the time (or we wouldn't here the constant whine). It just doesn't work against good players very often, so the spiral of frustration deepens. Once you get someone to abandon what appears to be an easy option in favor of a more difficult but rewarding set of possibilities they never go back....but you need to get them started somehow.
Yes, I understand that, it's just that I wasn't really talking about the new players in that post, it was meant as reply to TC's post where he talked about new & old players alike.
-
Yes, I understand that, it's just that I wasn't really talking about the new players in that post, it was meant as reply to TC's post where he talked about new & old players alike.
bighorn, only reason I posted to both new and old players, is because I have witnessed players that have ben here 3 to 4 years or more and seen them make comments like "this is my 1st time ever in the Training arena and I have played for 3 or 4 years etc..." so my post is directed at both New & Old players......
with the only questionable item being the difference between how they play verses how they fight....... is one in the same to most people, wouldn't you say?........ you don't have to answer that last question..
-
6 pages.
If you put yourself in front of the other guy's guns you deserve to get shot.
It is that simple.
-
Dawger is spot on here.. :aok
Firedrgn is right you guys havent even defined ho for the sake of the discusion. You call ho and 99% of the discriptions are front quarter shots.
Like Mtnman said as soon as there isnt two gun solutions it isnt a HO.
Not one of you actually gets upset about a HO as defined by both having a gun solution. Because as you say you never fly this way, and you always expect it. Its when you go guns cold on a head on merge and expect the other guy to do the same that causes the problem.
. One player takes his advantage with a front shot the other by trying to position himself better for the next merge/gunsolution.
It is the best solution for new player who lack acm, or poor merge tactics to HO. because if he doesnt, he knows that other guy will be on his six. We are already flying for a better position to get a "respectable kill" by out ACM ing the other guy. But what we are really doing is taking advantage of the guns cold merge expectation that comes from the idea and channel 200 banter, and BB threads that are a bully pulpit for NO HO/guns cold merge.
The ONLY reason I dont want the other guy to HO ( HO here is defined as where I died with head on shot or took damage to plane) is because it gives ME the advantage.
Isnt that what we are really taking about. Getting killed with the HO or taking damage that puts us at a disadvantage. Because a HO without a kill or damage is NOTHING to a more skilled pilot and actually gives the advantage.
-
A HO is when a nwb or an old timer points the nose of his plane at the nose of the enemy plane with the full intent of shooting each other in the face. Any dancing around a "definition" is just a person looking for a reason to go for a HO.
The idea of thread is to educate the players of the advantages they are giving up by pressing for that shot. By not going for the HO you giving both planes a chance for a fight and for most of us, that's what we are looking for.
-
Let the fight drag out, and then what? If you shoot me down, I'm looking at it like "I can't believe I wasted my time on that. The fight was over before it began, and even though his merge was horrid, and would have likely killed him IRL, he's thinking he's got this dogfighting thing figured out?". If I win later in the fight, so what? The fight was over at the beginning in my mind.
Hey MTN, forgive my late quote here. I see this in bold as a selfish attitude. I'm not calling you selfish by character, I have full respect for you, just calling that statement. The reason you 'wasted your time on that' was fun for two people. I have read the whole thread and I find some things you say very true, such as 'who decides what is valid' and 'the object is to shoot the other guy down'. That line of your argument is logical and fair. I also cant stand the fashion of complaining evertime we get killed in a way we didnt like. Which by the way, happens to be everytime we die, as we dont ever like being shot.
What I strongly take issue to is the quote i put in bold above.
If you had made the killshot on a HO merge, would it be fun for the other player? No.
Would it even be fun for you? I don't see how.
This is a game about sporting competition and rivalry. It is not a life or death situation where your entire nation is at war with the other pilot. Not taking a HO shot is not some misguided sense of 'honour'. What it is is a player saying 'Hey, lets take a risk and see what happens if I don't take the easy option'. Some of the best fights are when both players push the evelope even further and hold fire on any HO merge throughout the fight. I'm not talking about people who turn away at 400 yards ahead of the 3-9 cross on first merge, they deserve to get shot. I'm talking about a true bonafide head on merge where both pilots hold guns on target untill collision avoidance is critical. We are discussing the HO shot. Not a FQ shot. Yes a HO is also 'valid' but so is ramming them, niether are very clever.
It's a cocky and arrogant spirit that teases the opponent with a longer fight, a show of bravado that proclaims 'I don't need to take the first and easiest shot I can'. It is taking a risk, because risk is exciting and unpredictable. Killing the enemy with a touch of class and finesse or dying trying is worth more to me than another notch on my kill card. So what if you lose and he thinks 'I've got this flying thing sorted out'. That false sense of acheivement wont last long after they next get shot down.
Taking the first merge HO shot is doing nothing but proclaiming an inherant lack of self confidence in winning the fight any other way.
I'm looking at it like "I can't believe I wasted my time on that.
I fly for 5-20 minutes and end the first fight I find with a HO merge. That is the waste of time. Not only is it a waste of my time but it is a waste of the other player's time.
-
Why it wouldn't matter? Just because I like dueling it doesn't mean I dislike MA. Besides, you can do all kind of things in dueling arena, including having your own dueling rules.
Different arenas, different gameplay, DA, MA, AvA, KoTH, they complement each other. Whilst having preferences, I do not limit myself to single arena, nor did I ever say, to anyone, which they should prefer.
I guess I wouldn't expect my opinion to matter if I'm not involved in the activity. I don't limit myself in the game beyond not participating in things I don't feel like participating in. My time in game is limited, so I spend it where I get the most bang for my buck. If my opinion matters in areas I'm not involved, i guess that's flattering, but not necessary.
The one thing I disagree most with in your post is this-
HO shot is a bad choice in all of them, most of the time. It rather distract from solid ACM.
I'd argue against your last statement. As a matter of fact, I think the guns-cold merge detracts from some solid ACM. I'm tempted to say the same for the HO, but in reality, I'd say that having the HO as a valid tactic forces solid ACM. Not from an offensive standpoint, but from a defensive standpoint.
A guns-cold merge is like saying "let's skip part of the fight, and jump ahead to what I/we find to be the most fun". Sure, players improve in those later aspects, but I highly suspect that as a result of skipping the first part of the fight, or at least taking the hazardous aspects out, a player's ability to successfully deal with those aspects is weakened.
If that were truly the case, I'd expect accomplished duelists who don't deviate from their guns-cold merge style, to take FQ hits in the MA, and be frustrated by their opponents choice to take those shots when they're presented with the option. I'd expect complaints of HO'er, HO-dweeb, etc to result. I'd expect it to be mainly complaints by the "more-experienced" pilots directed towards the "less-experienced" pilots.
As further speculative "evidence", I'd say that if we were to remove any other hazardous component of the fight, our maneuvering to defend from those aspects would be reduced. Habits would be formed based on the fact that that component of the fight no longer exists, and if that component were re-introduced, our ability to defend against it would be (at least temporarily) reduced.
As an example, imagine if we could no longer shoot our opponent in the low-six. It's as fair to remove that threat as it is to remove the HO (heck, it's a blind spot! How sporting is it to take a shot like that?). Now, if you could no longer take hits from a player in that position, how much effort would be applied to defending from hits fired from that location? Why bother? And further, what if people realized that it was a "safe zone"? The "front" pilot could actually take advantage of that, and maneuver his plane to put his enemy in that "safe zone" and remove his shot opportunity... Now, a year (or 10) later, re-introduce that threat, and make that shot "legitimate". What will the (at least initial) effect be?
I see those same results spawning from repeated guns-cold merges, where there is no threat of taking damage. And, about the only worse-case scenario I can immediately think of would be if HTC removed the collision aspect/threat from the game, or particularly from one well-populated arena. Eeeks! Imagine the whining!
IMO, if we're going to call our dogfighting at all realistic, we need to retain as many realistic aspects/components as possible. Removing any of them reduces the realism, and IMO, makes them more "fraudulent". Just imagine how it would be if we could continue a fight while our plane was burning, or while pilot wounded, or after our tail was shot off.
There is no DA or MA merge. Only good or bad merge. I can assure you that solid merge works equally well in DA as in MA. Hot or cold.
Yes, some merges are fine for both. Not all. Even if the difference is subtle, the guns-cold merge allows a more aggressive stance in the merge, which wouldn't always be possible in a guns-hot merge. In essence, a guns-hot merge requires a certain amount of "caution" or "defensiveness" that isn't required (or rewarded) in a guns cold merge. And, if your opponent "knows" he won't get damaged in the guns-cold merge, what's to stop him from going purely aggressive, with no care for defending against the obvious fact that his opponents guns are pointed in his general direction, and could be brought to bear?
In that example, I'd argue that a guns cold merge could lead to less-solid ACM, especially if it was used repeatedly, and created "bad" (IMO) habits.
OK, that's your personal choice and is noted, but I really don't see what that has to do with "HO shot or ACM" question in general?
Just because you don't mind HO (or being good enough to avoid it) doesn't mean it's a good choice. Please find me some air combat literature where HO shots are sold as a good choice (rare exceptions noted).
Boy, I swear I said this earlier, but just in case I forgot...
The HO isn't a good choice. It's a bad choice.
Even if I did find literature somewhere selling it as such, I'd really have trouble being sold on the idea that it was/is a good choice.
That doesn't mean it isn't occasionally the best choice. Or that it isn't always a valid, legitimate choice.
Just because it exposes the pilot to harm doesn't make it invalid, or illegitimate. If we used the "harm's way" argument, could we even justify taking off in AH? Heck, even with no enemies around, landing can be hazardous... Anyone in enemy territory at any altitude lower than all enemies is in harm's way. Exposing your six to the enemy in order to use the more-advanced-than-than-the-HO tactic of the BRD puts you in harm's way...
-
MTman "I approach every merge expecting an HO, " I have never seen you play like this and ive fought you more than once. You approach every merge expecting the front quarter shot. There is a big differance.....
Thats not a HO... Its simply a front quarter shot before the first merge. Im not seeing any one in this thread differentiating between HO and Front Quarter shot.....
Its really hard to follow the discusion here. What is the point of defining Ho and front quarter shot if every one is going to use Ho to describe both ?
Guns hot before the first merge or 2nd or 3rd ect.... is NOT the same thing as a HO.
<S>
Good point sir, but I think what one see's as a FQ, another often sees as an "HO that I avoided, only to be shot with a "cheap" FQ shot".
As far as defining it specifically... I'd ask- why? As a "positional mapping" tool, sure. It's a shot from directly in front, with both planes able to theoretically hit each other (theoretical, because it could depend a lot on convergence settings, and you might actually need to aim high or low to hit the guy directly in front of you, lol!). If you pointed your nose slightly down, would it still be HO?
From a "legitimacy of shot choice", I don't see it. From a damage standpoint, I don't see it. The bullet through your <insert part> ends the fight. Does it matter which direction it came from?
-
Hey MTN, forgive my late quote here. I see this in bold as a selfish attitude. I'm not calling you selfish by character, I have full respect for you, just calling that statement. The reason you 'wasted your time on that' was fun for two people. I have read the whole thread and I find some things you say very true, such as 'who decides what is valid' and 'the object is to shoot the other guy down'. That line of your argument is logical and fair. I also cant stand the fashion of complaining evertime we get killed in a way we didnt like. Which by the way, happens to be everytime we die, as we dont ever like being shot.
What I strongly take issue to is the quote i put in bold above.
If you had made the killshot on a HO merge, would it be fun for the other player? No.
Would it even be fun for you? I don't see how.
Rest assured Batfinkv/mechanic, the respect is mutual... This is an interesting discussion, and I hope nobody takes any of it as an attack against anyone... I won't.
Fun for 2? No. Read the rest of the paragraph you quoted that from. Win or lose, the fun is not there for me. I'm picky, I know. I'll finish out the fight, but I've lost interest. I'm finishing it out of respect for my opponent, not for any desire to see what the conclusion is. That's unselfish, if anything. Also, I simply avoid contact where I expect those behaviors/maneuvers/whatever, so I'm not "polluting" the area with my bad "vibe".
And, I'm not advocating the the HO as a fun way to win. I'm advocating as a valuable component in keeping or fights and ACM more realistic, which is IMO, more rewarding. I generally wouldn't HO if it was the most respected way to kill in the game. That's beside the point.
Shooting your opponent in the back is considered cowardly in every example I can think of, except aerial combat. In more "common" applications of the bravery/cowardice idea, we'd see HOing as the most valiant option.
This is a game about sporting competition and rivalry. It is not a life or death situation where your entire nation is at war with the other pilot. Not taking a HO shot is not some misguided sense of 'honour'. What it is is a player saying 'Hey, lets take a risk and see what happens if I don't take the easy option'. Some of the best fights are when both players push the evelope even further and hold fire on any HO merge throughout the fight. I'm not talking about people who turn away at 400 yards ahead of the 3-9 cross on first merge, they deserve to get shot. I'm talking about a true bonafide head on merge where both pilots hold guns on target untill collision avoidance is critical. We are discussing the HO shot. Not a FQ shot. Yes a HO is also 'valid' but so is ramming them, niether are very clever.
What risk?
If you're more skilled than your opponent, the most risky part of the fight for you may be the possible HO/FQ shot from your opponent! By "taking that away/out of the fight" you've made the fight drastically safer for yourself, and drastically more dangerous to your opponent... Where's the "honour" in that.
If the fun is in the length of the fight, why use guns at all? If it isn't in the historical aspects of the game, why is nobody fighting in the RV's?
It's a cocky and arrogant spirit that teases the opponent with a longer fight, a show of bravado that proclaims 'I don't need to take the first and easiest shot I can'. It is taking a risk, because risk is exciting and unpredictable. Killing the enemy with a touch of class and finesse or dying trying is worth more to me than another notch on my kill card. So what if you lose and he thinks 'I've got this flying thing sorted out'. That false sense of acheivement wont last long after they next get shot down.
It's cocky, arrogant, risky, exciting, etc, if you've earned it. If you haven't earned it, it's just playing with your food. If your opponents best (or simply his favorite, or preferred) card is the HO, or a wingman, or whatever, and you take it away by saying he can't use it, where's the class in that?
Taking the first merge HO shot is doing nothing but proclaiming an inherant lack of self confidence in winning the fight any other way.
Or a way of saying- "Back to the tower with you! Come back when you learn how to merge!" Or "I don't need to out-fly you, you're obviously having trouble with one of the most basic threats in the game- allowing your opponent to shoot you!" Or "Hello! McFly!"
Trust me, I'm cocky enough to not feel like the HO is my only or best option. But I do wonder at times whether I should begin to apply it where needed, to keep the fights/merges a little more "honest".
And taking the HO shot isn't where the greatest value of the HO lies.
-
Mtman "Good point sir, but I think what one see's as a FQ, another often sees as an "HO that I avoided, only to be shot with a "cheap" FQ shot".
That is precisely why it needs to be defined specifically. What is your definition of "cheap"..... How is it cheap in the context of you flying for better position.
Another that sees a cheap shot... is flat out screwwing the other player... if they think they should be able to go for a better position and asking him not to shoot you for it.
I think it needs to be defined also because of the intent of Humbles post. He is trying to educate players. There can be more to a fight .
This is a much more complex issues than just players should not Ho. It does not give the players this thread is suppose to educate any education..
"When the student is ready the teacher will appear".... until then i will give them an opportunity for a front quarter shot so i can have a better position..
<S>
-
Mtman "Good point sir, but I think what one see's as a FQ, another often sees as an "HO that I avoided, only to be shot with a "cheap" FQ shot".
That is precisely why it needs to be defined specifically. What is your definition of "cheap"..... How is it cheap in the context of you flying for better position.
Another that sees a cheap shot... is flat out screwwing the other player... if they think they should be able to go for a better position and asking him not to shoot you for it.
I think it needs to be defined also because of the intent of Humbles post. He is trying to educate players. There can be more to a fight .
This is a much more complex issues than just players should not Ho. It does not give the players this thread is suppose to educate any education..
"When the student is ready the teacher will appear".... until then i will give them an opportunity for a front quarter shot so i can have a better position..
<S>
I don't think it's necessarily a cheap shot. I was explaining why I think some are so willing to consider a FQ shot almost synonymous with HO.
In some cases, I think people are using the idea that it can be seen as a "cheap shot" as a form of "shield". As in "He won't dare take this shot, because it'll be seen as "cheap", or an HO, so I should be able to get away with doing <insert option here>... In my opinion, this attitude "cheapens" fights more than an HO (or nearly HO FQ shot) does.
As for defining "cheap", give us your best shot, if you'd like it to be defined. You don't need someone else to begin that discussion...
As far as education, different people can, and maybe should, be taking different things from this discussion. In my view, without the HO as a possibility (I'm not saying anyone needs to take it, just that it's important to have it as a potential component) the "there can be more to a fight" idea isn't necessarily true. Removing the HO as an option isn't any more legitimate than removing the option to shoot from any other direction.
Keep in mind also, I always fire my guns from the same position and in the same direction in relation to my plane. They always fire forward. So, since I never fire in any direction other than forward, and that's obvious to anyone that see's my plane (all F4U's fire forward), in order for it to be an HO or a nearly HO FQ shot, there's at least some level of "cooperation" that falls to the other pilot. For example, if I "refuse" to let you HO me, by constantly turning away, you'd never be able to HO me. An exception might be an example of where I'm busy in a 3v1 fight, and so low in E that I can't maneuver well, and so drained in SA that I can't keep tabs on you, where you could "force" me into an HO. And, in that situation I'd highly question your skill level or sanity, since I should be an easy, low-threat kill, not justifying the risk to yourself of an HO, and giving me a potential shot on you.
Lets say we all decide that HO's are lame, and nobody should ever take them. Potentially, then, I could actually use that to my advantage! I could be at a point in a fight where I'm going to get shot, unless I pull for the HO... and "force" you to hold your shot. How "legitimate" or "cheap" would that be?
Right now, the way I see it, that's already happening to some extent. But in our current situation, it could also be seen as "volunteering for an HO", instead of "forcing you to hold your fire".
I don't think anyone is debating that the HO as a tactic is a good one, or that there aren't a lot of better options generally available.
I also don't consider it "good ACM" if you open yourself up to an HO (or nearly HO FQ) shot, that you can only live through if your opponent chooses to hold fire. IMO, the moment your opponent has a kill-shot, you've lost. Even if it's in the opening move of the fight. Anything that occurs after that (unless it results from an honest miss, or error) is just so much "fluff" even if it lasts for 1/2 hour, and gets really slow, and looks really neat, and you get to go upside down, and do rolls, etc...
Do your fancy flying. Have your long, drawn out, fight (I love those too!). Those are often the the best parts about the game, IMO. But for me, they've got to begin (and continue) "honestly", in order (for me) to rate them as "good" or "great". Without that, they're "sub-good", at best.
-
I think your main point has alot more to do with FQ shots than true HO shots MTN. Sure, if I was to turn away early at the merge to gain an angles advantage then I should get shot at for doing so. That is a completely different situation to a fight that starts with both players holding guns on till the last second.This is where the 'cheap' HO shot becomes most apparent. When both players hold fire untill the last second and then one of them jinks and fires just before they cross...that is cheap. There was no angles advantage to be gained for the player who held fire.
That is the lowest form of merge trick I know of. It is usualy done by more experienced players who don't have confidence in their flying ability after a merge. They will hold guns on through the merge, knowing full well that if the other guy is not firing at D600 they probably will have a free pass to HO at the last second.
I fully understand your point about less experienced players taking the best chance at winning they have. But I disagree that expecting someone not to HO is me wanting to 'show off my pilot sheet'. If I wanted to do that I would not merge, I would give them my tail and reverse them. Expecting the enemy not to open fire HO is actualy me giving them a compliment, suggesting that I believe they have the ability to beat me in the ensuing fight. The 'risk' I mentioned is 'they might be able to beat me.'
Rest assured Batfinkv/mechanic, the respect is mutual... This is an interesting discussion, and I hope nobody takes any of it as an attack against anyone... I won't.
Fun for 2? No. Read the rest of the paragraph you quoted that from. Win or lose, the fun is not there for me. I'm picky, I know. I'll finish out the fight, but I've lost interest. I'm finishing it out of respect for my opponent, not for any desire to see what the conclusion is. That's unselfish, if anything. Also, I simply avoid contact where I expect those behaviors/maneuvers/whatever, so I'm not "polluting" the area with my bad "vibe".
And, I'm not advocating the the HO as a fun way to win. I'm advocating as a valuable component in keeping or fights and ACM more realistic, which is IMO, more rewarding. I generally wouldn't HO if it was the most respected way to kill in the game. That's beside the point.
Shooting your opponent in the back is considered cowardly in every example I can think of, except aerial combat. In more "common" applications of the bravery/cowardice idea, we'd see HOing as the most valiant option.
Interesting point. Again though, I would like to highlight that for me, not taking the HO shot is not about bravery or honour. It is about both players respecting that they have reached an equal possition and need to continue fighting to reach a result that means anything. Otherwise why not we all just play an online marksmanship game and get rid of the flying aspect alltogether?
What risk?
If you're more skilled than your opponent, the most risky part of the fight for you may be the possible HO/FQ shot from your opponent! By "taking that away/out of the fight" you've made the fight drastically safer for yourself, and drastically more dangerous to your opponent... Where's the "honour" in that.
What if we are equaly matched yet one player takes a HO shot while the other is holding fire?
If the fun is in the length of the fight, why use guns at all? If it isn't in the historical aspects of the game, why is nobody fighting in the RV's?
It is not in the length of the fight. It is in how much you deserve to win.
It's cocky, arrogant, risky, exciting, etc, if you've earned it. If you haven't earned it, it's just playing with your food. If your opponents best (or simply his favorite, or preferred) card is the HO, or a wingman, or whatever, and you take it away by saying he can't use it, where's the class in that?
I'm not saying anyone can't use it! Just giving my opinion on it. You have earned it if you have a mutual gun solution and you choose to observe most widely accepted unwritten rule that AcesHigh has. Mutual gun solution being the important part. I can't emphasise how much of what you are saying strikes me as being much more relavent to FQ shots.
Or a way of saying- "Back to the tower with you! Come back when you learn how to merge!" Or "I don't need to out-fly you, you're obviously having trouble with one of the most basic threats in the game- allowing your opponent to shoot you!" Or "Hello! McFly!"
Trust me, I'm cocky enough to not feel like the HO is my only or best option. But I do wonder at times whether I should begin to apply it where needed, to keep the fights/merges a little more "honest".
This is where again I think you are merging the line between a HO shot and a FQ shot. If someone has merged so badly with you that you are given a FQ shot then it is not a HO. It is not even a merge. It is simply an attack by the player who still has guns on. When both players have guns on, this is a HO and it is a merge. If you find yourself holding fire on FQ shots and regreting it then I agree the fight was not honest. If you found yourself losing a fight because you held fire on a HO shot then the fight is definitely 'honest'.
And taking the HO shot isn't where the greatest value of the HO lies.
true! :)
-
Who'd of thunk it that HO'n could have an entire book written about it. HO'n, the lost art revived. <<---working title in progress.
If you enjoy HO'n people, or taking shots on others while being in front of their 3/9 line, do not complain or get disturbed if others do these things to you.
-
The best site in the game is when I see someone pushing their nose off line from mine. It shows me I'm in for a fight and he is already going for position. I don't bother looking for a "front quarter" shoot I go for position too and the fight is on !
Personally I think that those seeing that move before the merge and continue to force a HO merge or a front Quarter shot is someone looking to end a fight WITHOUT fighting for it.
-
I think your main point has alot more to do with FQ shots than true HO shots MTN.
This is where again I think you are merging the line between a HO shot and a FQ shot.
I wonder why the distinction is asked for (or made) by so many? What does it really matter? It doesn't, for any other shot possibility!
Let's say I shoot you from the six o'clock position, and you mention it to one of your squadies. How do you describe the shot?
Just, "MtnMan shot me"? Or "MtnMan shot me from the direct six o'clock position". Or "MtnMan shot me from the rear, about 2 degrees left of dead six, and maybe a degree or two low". I'm guessing the first option is the most "normally used" description. Now, consider the same issue, where I shoot you from the right side. How do you describe it?
If you use the first option as a description, what are the chances any of your squadies would ask for more clarity? As in "From the dead six? Or slightly off of dead six?
Now look at the FQ shot. Do you say "MtnMan shot me from the FQ"? Or "MtnMan face-shot me". Or is it a general "MtnMan HO'ed me"? What do the squadies say? "Really? He HO'ed you?" "You mean, an actual HO? Or more of a FQ shot?"
When you really step back and look at the question of defining an HO vs a FQ shot, it really seems kind of silly, doesn't it?
So, I ask... Where's the line, precisely, between an "illegitimate "HO, and a "legitimate" FQ shot? (If we go with the idea that an HO is any less legitimate than any other shot, even though I still haven't seen any convincing (IMO) argument for that idea...)
And that would beg the questions- what would a fair estimate be, for FQ shots that are "labeled" as HO? How common is a true HO in game? How often is the "HO-dweeb" type stigma likely applied in error?
Are there other shots we should consider deeming "illegitimate", in the interest of "better fights"? Another shot option we could decline, in an effort to broadcast the "I want a REAL fight!" message to our opponent?
-
Who'd of thunk it that HO'n could have an entire book written about it. HO'n, the lost art revived. <<---working title in progress.
If you enjoy HO'n people, or taking shots on others while being in front of their 3/9 line, do not complain or get disturbed if others do these things to you.
An awful short book, I think. This is still just page two? Maybe we'll make three?
I think I also missed the posted who apparently enjoys HO'n? And who was disturbed by the other player shooting at him? Maybe that's all of us?
I can easily see why someone would choose (for themselves) to limit themselves to shots from only behind the 3/9 line... I wonder though, if that limit means anything at all, if that player chose "less self-limiting" options, or "less valiant", or "less honorable" options at other points in the game (or even in the same sortie)... Could we assume that this type of player would also limit themselves against participating in a 2v1, for example, for similar reasons? What about attacking with advantage in other respects?
To say "I'll only fire from behind the 3/9 line, but it's ok for me to fight someone 2v1, or "pick" someone", is kind of like saying "I don't steal suckers from little kids, but I will take their lunch money". Right? Especially if the decision to limit yourself to shots from behind the 3/9 is supposedly in the name of promoting "good" fights...
-
The initial thought behind the post was to remove the drama and focus on the realities.
As a general summary it's apparent that good players generally see see an attempted HO as an opportunity. Newer and weaker (in the sense of ACM) players see it as an opportunity. Good players naturally position themselves to not only avoid the shot but to capitalize on the attempt under most circumstances. If we view a FQ shot as an extension of intent we see the same thing happening. Good players routinely pass on low % FQ shots that would bleed E or sacrifice position while offering those same shots routinely. In fact the biggest problem for a newer player vs an established vet is that he often feels he's winning when he's really just being set up. That is a separate topic that we can hopefully address in another thread.
For now the important distinction is that as a general rule most would tend to agree that under most circumstances the attempted HO has a limited potential for success and significant downside vs a seasoned pilot who is aware of your approach and focused on you. The object here is to try and provide a bit of the how and why and encourage the continued exploration of alternative options.
-
MTman Here i go again............... Your arguments imply a definition. So in your reality you have already defined them. I am asking you straight up what is your definition of a HO....... ?
I read your post as an argument to redefine HO and Front Quarter shot as the same thing .. OR to the point were you dont believe they warrant a seperate definition.
<S>
-
You cant explore or argue a point if we don't agree on a definition.
HO's almost don't exist in the game. Reasons: ( ho defined as both having a gunsolution )
1. As soon as one pilot moves out of plane there is no HO
2. If the pilot doesn't shoot there is no HO
I think one of the reasons that it is advantageous to ho for a new player is that is how the gain an advantage! The other guy is going for angles to win the fight nothing else. I bet that if the guy going for angles has a shot the next merge he will kill the other plane. All this talk about exploring the fight and learning something is bs in the arenas NOT once have I fought a vet or newb that held fire if he had a shot where he could kill me on the second pass. The only reason they hold fire is they dont have a shot pure and simple. There is no disadvantage to not HO in the arenas that I can think of in terms of %. We claim things like is a 50/50 at best, compared to what?
If a new player doesnt ho the other plane and kill or damage him it is 90% sure that on the next merge or two he will die. The vet will kill him 99% of the time.
Other wise all the vets would fly and hold fire until they are at a dead six, if they really wanted to acm it out. Still the other guy is going to die.
I can see why a new player will take a 50/50 ho shot over a 90% death rate anytime. Or at least damage the other plane and gain an advantage that way.
The no HO debate i believe only works with two equaly skilled pilots who do want the fight to be about acm skill and not just gunnery.
The ho may have limited potential for success, again compared to what. Now we are defining it as "attempted ho" that is a huge difference than a ho where shots hit. Now that makes sense instead of hoing he takes away his only advantage and tries to acm with the other plane. That gives him a 99% death rate. Where as If he does HO he now as I would say better that 50/50 against a vet.
IF both planes HO then we have a different discussion and its a crap shoot.
-
I guess that im beating a dead horse here Sonic but,.
I never get HOed unless I WANT TO.. ITs impossible... for someone else to HO me unless I choose to have a gunsolution at the same time. It is purely my responsibility not any one elses. I personally have no problem giving an opportunity for a front quarter shot so i can get position.
I see what your saying any player that takes the front quarter shot before the merge is doing so in their best interest. 50/50 or even 20/80 for a player is better than 99% death rate if they dont.
That being said If a player were to ask me I would tell them to stop using their bag of luck and fill their bag of experience. I think that's the intent of this thread.
<S>
P.S. the room really empties out when you asks for a definition.
-
An awful short book, I think. This is still just page two? Maybe we'll make three?
I think I also missed the posted who apparently enjoys HO'n? And who was disturbed by the other player shooting at him? Maybe that's all of us?
I can easily see why someone would choose (for themselves) to limit themselves to shots from only behind the 3/9 line... I wonder though, if that limit means anything at all, if that player chose "less self-limiting" options, or "less valiant", or "less honorable" options at other points in the game (or even in the same sortie)... Could we assume that this type of player would also limit themselves against participating in a 2v1, for example, for similar reasons? What about attacking with advantage in other respects?
To say "I'll only fire from behind the 3/9 line, but it's ok for me to fight someone 2v1, or "pick" someone", is kind of like saying "I don't steal suckers from little kids, but I will take their lunch money". Right? Especially if the decision to limit yourself to shots from behind the 3/9 is supposedly in the name of promoting "good" fights...
In a 2v1 fight, I will continue to gain the position behind the 3/9 line, regardless if I am the 1 or one of the 2 in that fight. The number of players in the fight is of little importance to me. There are tactics for 1v2, 1vFew, 1vMany and numerous other combinations one must learn to fight under, to improve your chances of success. These types of fights are not the same as ending the fights without fighting, which the HO is about, thus voiding your analogy of me stealing lunch money. 1vMany is still a fight.
Potius mori quam foedari, our squad motto which means Death before dishonor. In the warriors code, there is no surrender, thus I will live or die fighting, for the outcome is not as important as the journey you take to get there. Taking the HO or front quarter shot, while a valid tactic in real life to end the fight isn't something I'll do in this game. To win without fighting goes against the foundation of this very game, in my opinion.
(http://www.lgmfilms.net/AH/Films/Posters/Paradigm%20Poster.jpg)
Download (http://www.lgmfilms.net/AH/Films/Paradigm.zip)
Choose "save as" option
"You must defeat your enemy before you kill your enemy."
-
If you rely on the ho, you wont get better. Often for new sticks, their first kills are ho shots. That being said, I feel its a progression.... Also, I do ho sometimes, esp if I'm out numbered or I sense the 2v1 quickly degrading into a 10v1. Also I'll ho bnzing pickers when I'm totally out numbered or others who just frustrate me because all they do is pick and run, then try and ho again. I'll slip them a little rudder and take the snap shot (although that may not technically be a ho but a 'front quarter shot'). So yes, I do ho on occasion, but I don't rely on it and would not spoil a 1v1 with it.
Skill progression
1) You ho every pass at everything all the time.
2) You BnZ and fly only to large numerically advantages situations and pick & ho
3) you get bored with doing the above, and strive to duel but loose and you learn to swallow your picker pride in order to learn something.
4) you become good after dieing 100,000+ times in the DA against much better sticks.
5) after a dieing millions of times, your still not as good as Grizz or Kazaa :cry
Now sadly many peoples ego make it challenging them to overcome step to and enter step 3 and thats where the HO shot becomes lame. It often prevents progression in the interests of preserving pride (and yes to some extent my above rational for ho'ing is about my ego lol).
-
In a 2v1 fight, I will continue to gain the position behind the 3/9 line, regardless if I am the 1 or one of the 2 in that fight. The number of players in the fight is of little importance to me. There are tactics for 1v2, 1vFew, 1vMany and numerous other combinations one must learn to fight under, to improve your chances of success. These types of fights are not the same as ending the fights without fighting, which the HO is about, thus voiding your analogy of me stealing lunch money. 1vMany is still a fight.
Potius mori quam foedari, our squad motto which means Death before dishonor. In the warriors code, there is no surrender, thus I will live or die fighting, for the outcome is not as important as the journey you take to get there. Taking the HO or front quarter shot, while a valid tactic in real life to end the fight isn't something I'll do in this game. To win without fighting goes against the foundation of this very game, in my opinion.
(http://www.lgmfilms.net/AH/Films/Posters/Paradigm%20Poster.jpg)
Download (http://www.lgmfilms.net/AH/Films/Paradigm.zip)
Choose "save as" option
"You must defeat your enemy before you kill your enemy."
I think it depends. If you feel like the fight you are fighting is futile, then go ahead and HO the first chance you get. If you think you can win it with ACMs then go for it. That's pretty much the underlying rule for MA play. HO, Fight, or Run. Those are the choices.
-
I think it depends. If you feel like the fight you are fighting is futile, then go ahead and HO the first chance you get. If you think you can win it with ACMs then go for it. That's pretty much the underlying rule for MA play. HO, Fight, or Run. Those are the choices.
Fighting is victory, victory is fighting. What do you win if you HO? Does the arena dictate how you fight, or do you?
If you lose without fighting, you've lost nothing,
If you win without fighting, you've won nothing,
If you lose by fighting, you've gained everything,
If you win by fighting, you've given everything.
Those are the choices.
-
Just to clarify my possition:
HO = both players have gunsolution (or had gunsolution untill collision avoidance) - Cheap tactic and often disadvantageous to the HOer when they miss
FQ = perfectly valid shot anywhere else infront of the 3-9 line that I expect someone to take on me if I present it
I didnt think it was a topic about definitions. My comments should be pretty clear when I'm refering to HO shots or FQ shots. IMO, two very different circumstances.
S! to all, nice to have a debate and keep it civil :aok
-
In a 2v1 fight, I will continue to gain the position behind the 3/9 line, regardless if I am the 1 or one of the 2 in that fight. The number of players in the fight is of little importance to me. There are tactics for 1v2, 1vFew, 1vMany and numerous other combinations one must learn to fight under, to improve your chances of success. These types of fights are not the same as ending the fights without fighting, which the HO is about, thus voiding your analogy of me stealing lunch money. 1vMany is still a fight.
Potius mori quam foedari, our squad motto which means Death before dishonor. In the warriors code, there is no surrender, thus I will live or die fighting, for the outcome is not as important as the journey you take to get there. Taking the HO or front quarter shot, while a valid tactic in real life to end the fight isn't something I'll do in this game. To win without fighting goes against the foundation of this very game, in my opinion.
(http://www.lgmfilms.net/AH/Films/Posters/Paradigm%20Poster.jpg)
Download (http://www.lgmfilms.net/AH/Films/Paradigm.zip)
Choose "save as" option
"You must defeat your enemy before you kill your enemy."
1vMany isn't the analogy I used. I didn't even use 1v2.
I used 2v1. I actually left manyv1 out on purpose, as I felt it was going to be seen as an obvious gang bang. So the question goes more like this I suppose, for clarity...
Is it ok for you to say "I won't take that kids candy, but it's ok for me and my friend/friends to do it together."
If so, it's hypocritical (IMO) to use an anti-HO argument in any "fight quality" or "fight-effort" or "fight-honor" manner. IMO, swarming/ganging is in violation of the "Death before Dishonor" idea. It's winning with fighting very hard, and doesn't sound like the romantic view warriors are often seen in.
2v1, as you mention, should be a no-brainer to go for a shot behind the 3/9 line. Heck, it's a lot easier and less risky in that situation too, isn't it? Would you also go for a shot behind the 3/9 if you and three friends were "fighting" the same opponent? <hehe>
If I see or hear of someone claiming to avoid the HO for "honorable" reasons, and then see/hear of that person swarming/ganging/picking, that person's credibility is questionable, IMO.
-
1vMany isn't the analogy I used. I didn't even use 1v2.
I used 2v1. I actually left manyv1 out on purpose, as I felt it was going to be seen as an obvious gang bang. So the question goes more like this I suppose, for clarity...
Is it ok for you to say "I won't take that kids candy, but it's ok for me and my friend/friends to do it together."
If so, it's hypocritical (IMO) to use an anti-HO argument in any "fight quality" or "fight-effort" or "fight-honor" manner. IMO, swarming/ganging is in violation of the "Death before Dishonor" idea. It's winning with fighting very hard, and doesn't sound like the romantic view warriors are often seen in.
2v1, as you mention, should be a no-brainer to go for a shot behind the 3/9 line. Heck, it's a lot easier and less risky in that situation too, isn't it? Would you also go for a shot behind the 3/9 if you and three friends were "fighting" the same opponent? <hehe>
If I see or hear of someone claiming to avoid the HO for "honorable" reasons, and then see/hear of that person swarming/ganging/picking, that person's credibility is questionable, IMO.
I still do not understand your analogy. Is the "taking candy" representing HO'n? It appears to be in the first part when you say I will not take the candy when alone, but in your second part, you know I still won't HO even when with friends, so I think the candy is now becoming the "gang'n" part. HO'n and ganging are being mixed, at least that is how I interpret your analogy. Even so, the words below are more important to me than this current paragraph.
To fly in a mob is flying without fighting, for they are driven by selfish desires looking for the outcome instead of the journey. To fly as wingmen, is to fight as a team in an elevated state, with order and purpose, driven by the journey itself. Wingman fighting offers whole new challenges that go beyond yourself.
When I am one of the 2 in a 2v1, I will fight the enemy with my wingman, deploying the Fighting Wing doctrine or Loose Duece, depending on the situation. This is not "ganging". If one wingman dies, you've lost the 2v1 fight. A new battle begins, as the fight is now a 1v1. If I am one of the 4 in a 4v1, I'd probably use the Fighting Wing, with 2 as high cover and the other 2 creating a 2v1 fight. The 2 in the 2v1 could then go further and use Loose Duece tactics. The enemy is then challenged with gaining the offensive on either one, ultimately attempting to achieve a 1v1. When that occurs, the other 2 as top cover have the choice of coming down to fight as a 3v1, which the enemy has shown is worthy of such odds, or allowing the 1v1 to continue while preserving top cover for future threats.
I agree with you when you say "swarming/ganging/picking" is dishonorable. Only so many friendlies can fight a single enemy plane before mob rules and fighting is lost.
-
Fighting is victory, victory is fighting. What do you win if you HO? Does the arena dictate how you fight, or do you?
If you lose without fighting, you've lost nothing,
If you win without fighting, you've won nothing,
If you lose by fighting, you've gained everything,
If you win by fighting, you've given everything.
Those are the choices.
That's a clever furballers mantra I will admit, but there are other strategic elements to the game that are being completely neglected with this view point, that I enjoy. Without the immersion factor of survival, I probably would have gotten bored a long time ago.
If you look at HOing in terms of Maximum Lethality, and you inevitably find yourself getting ganged, the chances are, you will die most every time. If you are able to kill one or two bad guys by taking any shot you get, even if it costs you your plane, then the end result is the same, except you took a couple out with you, a much more favorable outcome than surviving an extra 8 seconds before someone finally picked you from behind the 3/9 line.
-
That's a clever furballers mantra I will admit, but there are other strategic elements to the game that are being completely neglected with this view point, that I enjoy. Without the immersion factor of survival, I probably would have gotten bored a long time ago.
If you look at HOing in terms of Maximum Lethality, and you inevitably find yourself getting ganged, the chances are, you will die most every time. If you are able to kill one or two bad guys by taking any shot you get, even if it costs you your plane, then the end result is the same, except you took a couple out with you, a much more favorable outcome than surviving an extra 8 seconds before someone finally picked you from behind the 3/9 line.
Immersion factor of survival includes HO'n? I see....you HO out of historical respect and to maintain the fun factor after long time use of AH. :uhoh
How long have you been playing WWII flying games?
I haven't HO'd since AH2 came out....of course I've had a few slips due to imperfection. In AH1, I used to fly the typhy, run from my opponent until I was 2k, loop over and come down to HO the crap out of my opponents. My K/D was at 4.0 during my first few months of playing AH. After a few forum posts about me, which came to my attention through squadmates as I was clueless of the existence of this forum at the time, I changed my ways along with my name during the transition of AH1 to AH2. I got severely chewed up in fights for years and gained much experience under the no HO policy, soon learning to only take shots behind the 3/9 line altogether. I'd rather die with no kills against 8, than have even one tainted kill.
Also, that isn't a furballers mantra....it's a warriors code...as there is a difference. :noid
-
How I wish to squish the frog.
-
At this point, I'm not sure if we're straying too far from the original intent of this thread or not. If so humble, holler and I'll back off...
Given that this subject is an apparent "favorite" of many, and leads to many threads, and many angles (pun intended?), I'm glad to see it go somewhere that I haven't seen it go before, and into more depth than I've seen before.
Going back to the opening paragraph of the OP-
This is the type of topic that constantly recycles in game and on the BBS. One of the original goals of "DFC" was/is to promote "old school" air combat which is a preference for a certain code of conduct that encourages 1 on 1 or small melee type combat vs a single player being ganged or a large group (normally known as a horde) overwhelming a very small group. This is a repost of an internal thread Vudak fired back up where some of the guys/gals were trying to formulate a statement that tries to put the HO in perspective...
I've been dwelling in the perceived "code of conduct" area much more than in any "tactical" discussion, and have been looking for and questioning the "how's and why's" of that "code". If that's against your wishes, I'll stop... When discussions along these lines pop up, it's often difficult to keep them civil, it seems. There are oftentimes some pretty strong feelings one way or the other, without a whole lot of middle-ground. I think this one is going pretty dang good though!
-
I find Zap's tone to be very offensive! :uhoh
-
I still do not understand your analogy. Is the "taking candy" representing HO'n? It appears to be in the first part when you say I will not take the candy when alone, but in your second part, you know I still won't HO even when with friends, so I think the candy is now becoming the "gang'n" part. HO'n and ganging are being mixed, at least that is how I interpret your analogy. Even so, the words below are more important to me than this current paragraph.
To fly in a mob is flying without fighting, for they are driven by selfish desires looking for the outcome instead of the journey. To fly as wingmen, is to fight as a team in an elevated state, with order and purpose, driven by the journey itself. Wingman fighting offers whole new challenges that go beyond yourself.
When I am one of the 2 in a 2v1, I will fight the enemy with my wingman, deploying the Fighting Wing doctrine or Loose Duece, depending on the situation. This is not "ganging". If one wingman dies, you've lost the 2v1 fight. A new battle begins, as the fight is now a 1v1. If I am one of the 4 in a 4v1, I'd probably use the Fighting Wing, with 2 as high cover and the other 2 creating a 2v1 fight. The 2 in the 2v1 could then go further and use Loose Duece tactics. The enemy is then challenged with gaining the offensive on either one, ultimately attempting to achieve a 1v1. When that occurs, the other 2 as top cover have the choice of coming down to fight as a 3v1, which the enemy has shown is worthy of such odds, or allowing the 1v1 to continue while preserving top cover for future threats.
I agree with you when you say "swarming/ganging/picking" is dishonorable. Only so many friendlies can fight a single enemy plane before mob rules and fighting is lost.
Taking candy would be what I'd link with HO'ing, and the "with friends" part is ganging, yes.
As difficult as HOing can be to define, ganging can also be difficult to draw a line on. To define what I consider a "true" HO (get ready FireDrgn, lol!), I'll refer back to humble's (alright, toss me a bone... Refer to you as humble or Snaphook?) opening post, as I don't think I can define it any better-
A head-on attack occurs when two aircraft each have a firing solution on the other at the exact same time. This differs from a front-quarter shot where one aircraft can fire towards the front of its opponent’s aircraft, but its opponent cannot return fire. Though both are likely to cause a volatile reaction from your recently dispatched opponent, both can also be useful tools for your arsenal.
That's a "pure" HO. In reality though, I think there's an awful "gray" area that coincides with it, and would say that any shot from within 15-20 degrees off of "head-on" would/could be "seen" as an HO, even though technically, it isn't. Many times those "FQ" shots are only FQ instead of HO, because, for example, I turn away, which allows you to take a FQ shot. Had I not turned away, the shot would have been HO, and I believe oftentimes the intent was there for one opponent to fire regardless, and he's using the "FQ" shot argument because it's convenient. Regardless, I stand by my position that the HO is legitimate, and fine, so I'm not saying there's anything "wrong" with either shot. Nor do I feel there's any need to justify it. There are generally more "tactically sound" choices, sure.
Some tactical similarities (or goals) exist, though, I think. For example, refusing to HO is often (but not always) "safer" than engaging in an HO. Fighting with friends is also generally "safer" than flying alone. Flying with friends is tactically sound, and can be fun, too. But then again, HOing is undoubtedly fun for some folks. For a significant portion of the MA I think just shooting at the other guy is fun, regardless of where he's pointing.
I've really been making an effort to not "judge" folks on their choice of fighting strategy. I've already stated how I feel about the HO, and that I see it as a legitimate option, that's more valuable than detrimental when it comes to the overall "quality" of our fights in AH.
If I was going to break down and make a decision based on sentiment, though, how would I base that? If I wanted to judge somebody's style from an "honor", "valiance", or some similar manner, it's hard for me to do without comparing it to other "styles" or strategies.
If I fight 1v1, I don't find any "negative's" form an HO that make me feel like my opponent lacks honor. It doesn't bother me one bit. My opponent can take that shot, or any other he wants, and I'm fine with it. It seems "fair" to me. If he hits me, I'm bummed, but not offended. I can still consider a fight "good" if my opponent tries to hit me from the front. It can even be "very good", if he can maneuver well too. Heck, I've had some pretty good fights with an opponent that takes shots many would deem questionable.
2v1 (me and another on 1) I could maybe see as fun, from a teamwork viewpoint, if our opponent is very good. But, in reality, when I run across that guy I'd be disappointed having missed an opportunity for a good 1v1. 3v1? With me on the side with 3? No way. I'd never be able to classify that as a "good fight". Personally, 2v1's make me squeamish. 3v1's are unreasonable. 4v1???
The vast majority of the time, I simply won't engage an opponent if I don't think we can keep it 1v1. If we do engage and a friendly joins in, I break off, almost invariably, and let the friendly finish the fight (hoping he gets killed). If I can, I get to the limit of icon range, and stay there. I try not to distract the red guy with my icon, I don't want him to see it with a - in front of it.
With squadies, we simply always stay out of each others fight, even if we're close to each other (which is often). Both of us are of the opinion that it's better to die 1v1 than to win 2v1. It's an honor thing, I suppose. We won't even consider others as squad members who won't follow that mantra. Now, if a second (or more) enemy joins the fight, Saber or I will jump in. But even then we do our best to keep it as 2x 1v1's, rather than a 2v2. When one opponent dies, Saber or I (whoever made the kill) exits the fight. No sense in wrecking the fight by going 2v1... If I exit, and Saber dies, that's ok. Or vice versa. We wouldn't consider it a "victory" otherwise.
So, personally, when it comes to judging the "valiance", or "honor" of the HO, I have much more respect for the pilot who HO's than the one who "fights" with a wingman.
But that's just my opinion. I'm not saying I can't respect someone who fights with a wingman; I can. I just see it as much less "honorable" than HOing. My views on wingmen don't get better as more are added. I won't argue a bit that flying with wingmen takes skill, or adds an interesting facet to the game for many. I wouldn't discourage someone from flying with a wingman, or using a squad to accomplish goals. I simply don't see it as a "sporting" option. It's not for me. 2v2 is good, 3v3 is good. Until someone dies, at which point I can't stay in it.
Disadvantaged is a different story. 1v2 is great! 1v3 can be great, but man, how many do you need? When it comes to defining ganging, 2v1 is awful close, IMO, depending on skill level. 3v1 is over the line, for sure.
Tactic-wise, argue it all you want. But if you declare that you only fire from behind the 3/9 line for any reason having to do with "honor", "warrior codes", increased "grade" or "value" of fight, etc, and then apply tactics that I see as "dishonorable, non warrior-like, and degrading the value of a fight, is it ok if I'm skeptical?
If I saw enough of that day-to-day, could I have reason to doubt the legitimacy of the whole "anti-HO" stigma as it applies here in AH?
-
Mtnman you said "If I fight 1v1, I don't find any "negative's" form an HO that make me feel like my opponent lacks honor. It doesn't bother me one bit. My opponent can take that shot, or any other he wants, and I'm fine with it. It seems "fair" to me. If he hits me, I'm bummed, but not offended. I can still consider a fight "good" if my opponent tries to hit me from the front. It can even be "very good", if he can maneuver well too. Heck, I've had some pretty good fights with an opponent that takes shots many would deem questionable."
I think your looking at this from only one side. You give slight to an opponent that goes for the HO, but what about you going for the HO? Do you consider that un-honorable?
I know when I post here I'm trying to teach or show someone another point of view. So when I talk about HOs I'm trying to talk to both sides of the fight. While you have the skills not to have to worry about a HO 90% of the people playing must. Teaching/showing those 90% that there are better options than flying your plane down the "cone of fire" zone of the enemy plane is what learning not to go for the HO is all about.
-
Mtnman, I will attempt to show you wingman flying is not dishonorable, or more dishonorable than the HO.
In fact, I will show you that it can be more honorable than a 1v1 fight.
Mtnman dislikes wingman fighting?
Whenever yourself and your partner in crime Saber are flying together, you will both attempt to fight a 1v1 whenever possible. If you are the engaged fighter, Saber will back off and not interfere, with expectations to fight the next bogey encounter. This sounds like wingman flying, specifically the Fighting Wing Doctrine.
More wingmen is bad for fights?
Sometimes more wingman can be better, for example;
What about when teams fly inferior aircraft in the Late war arena, where the slower planes will need to execute coordination to capture a fight with the much faster aircraft they encounter? The number of wingman needed can and does varies throughout the fight, from initiating a fight to maintaining a fight. Again, the extreme to wingmen would be the mob, but I've already discussed this extreme case. I think we both agree that the mob is against our personal opinions on use of numbers.
Mtnman's 1v1 only rule:
Wingman flying provides the opponent a 1v2 fight. This is a good thing, as it's an experience where fighters can employ 1v2 tactics and win a greater fight instead of a 1v1 fight. I enjoy 1v1 fights, just as much as 1v2, 1vFew, 1vMany and with the roles reversed. I have not even mentioned the Multi vs Multi fights that can come from wingman flying. I enjoy variety and moderation in everything, just as you do.
Kermit's Conclusion:
Wingman flying can therefore be more honorable than the 1v1 fight, as it offers more types of fights that offer a greater challenge to everyone on both sides of the fight, further strengthening everyone and not just yourself. I add "yourself" to the previous sentence to point out your eagerness to fight 1vX, while you only offer 1v1 fights to your opponents.
I personally believe that I am in agreement with you Mtnman, except I think I go further, even though it may appear that I am restricting myself. :headscratch:
I hope I am making good use of your logic, to ultimately have you see what I see. It is your conclusion below that is where I find myself in disagreement with you.
...So, personally, when it comes to judging the "valiance", or "honor" of the HO, I have much more respect for the pilot who HO's than the one who "fights" with a wingman.
<snip>
Tactic-wise, argue it all you want. But if you declare that you only fire from behind the 3/9 line for any reason having to do with "honor", "warrior codes", increased "grade" or "value" of fight, etc, and then apply tactics that I see as "dishonorable, non warrior-like, and degrading the value of a fight, is it ok if I'm skeptical?
I'd also like to answer your last quoted question. Yes, it is not just ok, but encouraged.
Edited for spelling
-
I hope you can watch the film I posted a few pages earlier, as it is filled with meanings as deep as you are prepared to go. The film was made years ago.
-
Immersion factor of survival includes HO'n? I see....you HO out of historical respect and to maintain the fun factor after long time use of AH. :uhoh
How long have you been playing WWII flying games?
10+ years. I started as a squeeker on AW1 AOL and then moved to Aw2/Aw3/AwME on Gamestorm.
No you took my post out of context. The immersion factor includes staying alive and doing what it takes to be as lethal as you can while maintaining survival. If you do screw up though and find yourself ganged, to salvage what you can would be to kill as many more as you can before you bite the dust. If that requires a HO, then so be it. That's not to say I don't fight, as you know as well as anyone that I will never back down from a good 1v1 or a reasonable challenge. Keyword... "reasonable"
-
To kill and survive is the only reason I play this game.
I do not like the HO but will do so on 2 occasions
1. When they fire first.
The second is more complicated. If you are diving on a plane and he pulls straight vertical into you. This move forces you to either give up alt to the con, and your advantage, or forces you take a cheap shot. I take the cheap shot but I think the move really forces your hand.
-
1. When they fire first.
The second is more complicated. If you are diving on a plane and he pulls straight vertical into you. This move forces you to either give up alt to the con, and your advantage, or forces you take a cheap shot. I take the cheap shot but I think the move really forces your hand.
Kilo, in number 1 your already in a bad position if your waiting for him to shoot first. You shouldn't be in front of his guns. And for number 2, if they pull up I hi yo or loop to stay on top. Each time they pull nose up they are burning more E than me and it's only a matter of time before they die.
While you won't admit it you do fly to HO. That is what your doing in both cases mentioned. Using ACMs to get into a better position is what we are talking about.
-
To kill and survive is the only reason I play this game.
I do not like the HO but will do so on 2 occasions
1. When they fire first.
The second is more complicated. If you are diving on a plane and he pulls straight vertical into you. This move forces you to either give up alt to the con, and your advantage, or forces you take a cheap shot. I take the cheap shot but I think the move really forces your hand.
The key to number one is to recognize the situation and (how it's developing) sooner. Once you can do that, you can begin to set up more effective and efficient tactics. It's even easier to deal with when you begin to recognize "tells" that give an indication of his intent, because you can then use that information to set him up with some tempting options which essentially "place" him where you want him. Recognizing his intent goes a long way in making his actions predictable. Of course, that's also true for the guys who don't go for the HO :D
Number two, as evidenced by your own experience, is a predictable occurrence. To me, it's an indication that a (generally slower) player is running out of options, or at least can't immediately come up with something better. Either way, it's an indication that the fight is practically over. As Fugitive mentioned, going back up is a great option!
An example of my first paragraph applies in that situation too. When you realize the options available to the other pilot, you should be able to have a good idea of what maneuvers he can use in his current situation, and watch for them. Recognize the situation first- you're advantaged. You're above him, and looking for an opportunity to shoot him. What are some of his likely options? One, he could pull up into an attempted HO, as you mentioned. Two, he could attempt to draw you into a barrel roll defense, and ideally (in his mind, possibly) a rolling scissors type over-shoot. Three, he could go purely defensive, and just try a maneuver you won't be able to follow (split S).
You need to recognize his intent ASAP, so give him an opportunity to tell you what he wants to do. You want to recognize it before you commit too far yourself, so don't rush things. All you need to do here is roll inverted, and let your nose drop slightly (just enough for him to see a "-" in front of your icon. That's often enough to trigger his pull up into a vertical HO-type shot, but you're not diving much yet... Immediately roll back upright, and pull up into a yo-yo. As you come over top, he's stalling out below you. If he doesn't try that right away, let your nose drop some more, and begin diving in. If he didn't pull for the HO right away, he might do it now. Pull up into your yo-yo and kill him. I like to roll 90 degrees first (before I pull for my yo-yo), so he has a tougher shot on me if he's going to end up close enough to try one.
Now, if you roll into your dive, and he doesn't pull up, what are his likely options? Not the HO anymore, so I won't go into detail... But, let him tell you his intent. Is he rolling to one side? Or rolling inverted? Pulling hard to the side? Or subtly tightening his turn? Either way, he's giving you information on his intent...
-
Mtnman, I will attempt to show you wingman flying is not dishonorable, or more dishonorable than the HO.
In fact, I will show you that it can be more honorable than a 1v1 fight.
Mtnman dislikes wingman fighting?
Whenever yourself and your partner in crime Saber are flying together, you will both attempt to fight a 1v1 whenever possible. If you are the engaged fighter, Saber will back off and not interfere, with expectations to fight the next bogey encounter. This sounds like wingman flying, specifically the Fighting Wing Doctrine.
More wingmen is bad for fights?
Sometimes more wingman can be better, for example;
What about when teams fly inferior aircraft in the Late war arena, where the slower planes will need to execute coordination to capture a fight with the much faster aircraft they encounter? The number of wingman needed can and does varies throughout the fight, from initiating a fight to maintaining a fight. Again, the extreme to wingmen would be the mob, but I've already discussed this extreme case. I think we both agree that the mob is against our personal opinions on use of numbers.
Mtnman's 1v1 only rule:
Wingman flying provides the opponent a 1v2 fight. This is a good thing, as it's an experience where fighters can employ 1v2 tactics and win a greater fight instead of a 1v1 fight. I enjoy 1v1 fights, just as much as 1v2, 1vFew, 1vMany and with the roles reversed. I have not even mentioned the Multi vs Multi fights that can come from wingman flying. I enjoy variety and moderation in everything, just as you do.
Kermit's Conclusion:
Wingman flying can therefore be more honorable than the 1v1 fight, as it offers more types of fights that offer a greater challenge to everyone on both sides of the fight, further strengthening everyone and not just yourself. I add "yourself" to the previous sentence to point out your eagerness to fight 1vX, while you only offer 1v1 fights to your opponents.
I personally believe that I am in agreement with you Mtnman, except I think I go further, even though it may appear that I am restricting myself. :headscratch:
I hope I am making good use of your logic, to ultimately have you see what I see. It is your conclusion below that is where I find myself in disagreement with you.
I'd also like to answer your last quoted question. Yes, it is not just ok, but encouraged.
Edited for spelling
I'm not saying it's dishonorable, per se. Again, I'm not interested in passing judgment on either tactic.
I'm just giving an indication of where I would go with it, if I did, and how I would consider someone's use of one tactic when they describe your aversion to another. You're welcome to use whatever tactics you want. Have fun!
In my eyes, the HO does not give a one greater chance of success in a (1v1) fight, the majority of the time. As pointed out, there are times when I would consider it to be the best option, though.
Conversely, the use of a wingman (or multiples) does give one a greater chance of success the vast majority of the time. And not a slight advantage by any means! I consider my workload (and risk-level) in a 1v1 to be tripled (or even quadrupled) when I'm engaged 2v1. In addition, my choice of maneuvers, and time to complete any aspect of them, is drastically reduced. And, in contrast, the workloads (and risk-levels) of my opponents are drastically reduced.
In my opinion, the odds are swayed so drastically in favor of the 2, that I can't consider it a "fair", or "sporting" tactic for my own use. If I'm involved in a 2v1, I'm ganging, IMO. End of story.
2v1? 3v1? 4v1? I'll fly away and try to find a fight somewhere else. There's not one here... Not from my perspective anyway, as the side with advantaged numbers. As the "1", sure, he/she can have a great fight. As the 2,3,4, guys? Regardless of outcome, I don't see that as any kind of victory worth mentioning.
My aversion to what I see as ganging stops me from "willingly" participating in wingman tactics, unless the odds are even, at minimal. And in some instances, I'll participate in some form of 2v1. An example is when I'm in a 1v1 and a friendly dives in, I'm "almost done", and my opponent doesn't appear distracted or in danger of being killed by my "friend". I'll finish the fight (if I can), quickly. If my opponent needs to react to my "friend", or I think my "friend" will have a shot, I break off. I'm done with it. It's not a fight (from my perspective) anymore. It may very well be from my opponents side. If it is, and he wins, he'll have another chance at me.
Another example is when I'm "asked" to help. I'll do that, but only with a verbal indication of consent. I don't take "silence as consent". An exception to this rule is when I see someone "new" taking a beating, and I think they either have no vox, or aren't yet comfortable with it, or aren't able to utilize SA to ask for help. I'll let the new guy die a few times, but if I repeatedly see him getting smacked around I may try to soften the pressure for him. Often, that's guns-cold on my part. I'm not looking for the kill, in that case. My opponent doesn't see it as guns-cold, I'm sure, but he doesn't take damage either.
One thing will actually get me to willingly 2v1. That's when I fight an opponent who has an opportunity to fight 1v1, but chooses to include a friend. Particularly if it's a "known" opponent, with a skill level considered to be fairly high. In that case, if it goes on long enough, and Saber or I get into a fight with that person, we may actually have a conversation along the lines of "I'm fighting "x"". "Oh yea? Is "y" there too?" "No, it's just "x". "Ah, ok, I'll stay out". "Thanks, but you know, "x and y" have been tag-teaming us all night; why don't you just swing in and kill him. He's not looking for "good" 1v1 fights, so we just won't give him one". "Alright, I guess. Are you in trouble?" "No, no rush. I can drag things out if I need to, I just don't want think we should give him a 1v1".
Argued from a "smart tactics" perspective, I see the anti-HO and "wingman" options as valid arguments, and in agreement with each other. Don't HO the other guy, do use a wingman, and your success will increase and your skills improve.
Argued from an "honor", or "warrior-code", or "fight quality" viewpoint, I find the anti-HO/pro-wingman arguments to be totally in conflict.
That's just my opinion.
-
Mtnman you said "If I fight 1v1, I don't find any "negative's" form an HO that make me feel like my opponent lacks honor. It doesn't bother me one bit. My opponent can take that shot, or any other he wants, and I'm fine with it. It seems "fair" to me. If he hits me, I'm bummed, but not offended. I can still consider a fight "good" if my opponent tries to hit me from the front. It can even be "very good", if he can maneuver well too. Heck, I've had some pretty good fights with an opponent that takes shots many would deem questionable."
I think your looking at this from only one side. You give slight to an opponent that goes for the HO, but what about you going for the HO? Do you consider that un-honorable?
I know when I post here I'm trying to teach or show someone another point of view. So when I talk about HOs I'm trying to talk to both sides of the fight. While you have the skills not to have to worry about a HO 90% of the people playing must. Teaching/showing those 90% that there are better options than flying your plane down the "cone of fire" zone of the enemy plane is what learning not to go for the HO is all about.
I don't go for the HO. If I did, i wouldn't consider it dis-honorable in the least. I don't avoid the HO for any reason having to do with "honor". I avoid it because it isn't a very good option, and is far too likely to get me damaged.
As far as teaching people to avoid it, I'm all for that! But, it has to be there as an option, in order to teach someone to avoid it... That doesn't mean someone needs to take it, just that it needs to be an option. The best tool to use in teaching someone to avoid the HO, is the HO.
Teaching people better options than HOing isn't the same as creating a game-wide stigma against the HO as a valid, useful tool to keep fights "honest", and somewhat realistic. Tying the HO to any negative emotional judgment is detrimental to overall fight-quality IMO; while having it just plain exist, while teaching people better options is conducive to better, more realistic fights, IMO.
So, in order to have good, realistic fights in AH, we need people who are willing to take the HO shot. Without it as a possibility, fights are devastatingly artificial IMO. While I feel we need the HO, I'm not saying I want people to HO, or that I'd teach people to HO. More that it's a "necessary evil". An adversity to overcome.
To me, a wilderness needs wildlife (and "normal" conditions), that are native to the area. Snakes, bears, sharks, heat, wind, trees, sand, drought, whatever. They're all part of the wilderness. Removing any them because we don't like that aspect of the wilderness, makes the wilderness "less" than a wilderness. If you tell me "I went camping in the wilderness" and I find out you had plumbed water and/or that the wildlife was removed, I wouldn't agree that you'd camped in the wilderness. If you fought, and I found out you'd removed the HO as a possibility, I wouldn't agree that you'd fought. I'd feel that you'd done something "less".
Our "fights" are already drastically "less" than true dogfights. Our best fights are already artificial and "gamey", even though (by necessity, ability, and mechanical limits) they're the best we can do. I'm not a proponent of making them overall more artificial and "gamey", based simply on someone's "choice", or by limiting someone's "choice". Now, choosing to self-limit I can see (as in "I won't HO"), I can see as noble. But not limiting through stigma (as in "Hoing is something only dweebs do", or "Hoing is a lame tactic", or "You're a dork because you Ho'ed me").
The HO is as critical to our fights as the stalls, grounds, etc. They're all something to overcome, something to triumph over. It's not a far cry to say "Fights are better if nobody HO's, and if we can't stall, or collide, or hit a tree (or get ganged)..." If we removed those elements, though, our fights would be "less" than they currently are, IMO.
-
Mtnman dislikes wingman fighting?
Whenever yourself and your partner in crime Saber are flying together, you will both attempt to fight a 1v1 whenever possible. If you are the engaged fighter, Saber will back off and not interfere, with expectations to fight the next bogey encounter. This sounds like wingman flying, specifically the Fighting Wing Doctrine.
I think we're a lot more "loose" than you envision. "Flying together" is generally more of a situation where we're logged in at the same time, and fighting in the same fight. We're generally in the same sector, often within about 1/2 sector of each other. Seldom maintaining eyesight, or more than a general awareness of each others location, though.
In the event that one of us wants/needs assistance with a multi-on-one situation, there's probably a 10% (at best) chance the other has even a slight hope of getting there in less than 2 minutes. An even more remote chance when you consider we'd normally need to fight our way there, and probably aren't going to be above 2-3K if we've been fighting even a little bit.
Occasionally, we actually decide to fly as dedicated wingmen. That lasts for take-off and climb-out, at best. It'll be forgotten when we find an opponent, when we split to get out of icon distance of each other. In a horde situation, we make more of an effort to see each other occasionally, since it's more likely one of us will get in trouble. When one of us dies (most hops), the wingman idea is gone until we accidentally find ourselves near each other again.
There's no "backing off", normally. A situation like you describe above is a "once every two months" scenario.
-
1. When they fire first.
The second is more complicated. If you are diving on a plane and he pulls straight vertical into you. This move forces you to either give up alt to the con, and your advantage, or forces you take a cheap shot. I take the cheap shot but I think the move really forces your hand.
Kilo, in number 1 your already in a bad position if your waiting for him to shoot first. You shouldn't be in front of his guns. And for number 2, if they pull up I hi yo or loop to stay on top. Each time they pull nose up they are burning more E than me and it's only a matter of time before they die.
While you won't admit it you do fly to HO. That is what your doing in both cases mentioned. Using ACMs to get into a better position is what we are talking about.
Sometimes ho merges happen. If I see tracers I will fire or will take a Ho shot in future merges.
When they pull straight up they immelman at the top of their straight vertical pull and wait for you to come back up giving them enough time to gain some speed. Basically you just gave them altitude or a shot on the way back up.
There is no reason to pull straight vertical into you. They are using the HO to their advantage expecting you not to pull the trigger. Cheap move and I will take the cheap shot every time.
-
Firedrgn, I believe most of the posts and ideas in this thread are in what is called violent agreement. Based on lack of defining.
Only by defining one step at a time will there ever be a consensus and or agreement.
One post about a ho the next responds about a HO but all the verbiage is about FQ shots.
To frame and point of view or make a proper argument some things must have a definition.
There is a lot going on in this thread and way to much for a new player because there is not defining. That is why we get some players saying Hoing is ok while other say no its not. But it is not that simple.
The argument here has become a generalization of its not advantageous to HO. MY question is advantageous to WHO? It is only disadvantageous if you MISS the HO.
All the arguments not to HO for the new player are from the perspective of why its not good for the better player or the vet that knows ACM. The timeline for and reasons become frozen in time. The vet knows this be the new player hasnt learned it yet.
The new player that does not know any or little ACM best chance for survival is to HO and kill or damage other plane. The new player does not know what ACM is yet.
There is NO such thing as "attempted HO." IT either happened or IT did not happen. All we are saying with attempted HO is that one plane pressed for a Head ON attack but failed to damage or kill other plane in one pass. OF course that is disadvantageous for the player that missed a shot. The new player needs to see WHAT did happen,to learn not to make that mistake. So He makes his Head on attacks more precise. This is the nature of what happens in the Main arenas. It only becomes Disadvantageous to HO when you miss, or the Other guy fires back and hits. So lets get better at HOing is the mentality of what this thread is trying to fight. Beacause it is a natural "fight or flight" psychology.
Lets explore. The disadvantage of the attempted HO.
1. If you miss you just practice at getting better at Hoing. ( the new player does not think first to learn acm, because of when you are IN the fight your brain goes to the "fight or flight" mode first, and you can only be competent to you level of training never above that level in a fight. The new player will naturally take the easiest shots. ) Because his only level of training training is here is the trigger here is the gun sight. It is a natural reaction. " Plane in gun sight pull trigger". I do not believe from personal experience that a majority of new players will link I missed the shot I need to out fly the other guy at this point. If they do THEY STOP HOing.
2. The other player fires back at you. This is where a new player can start to learn that hey its not a good idea to HO, because the other guys can kill, or damage my plane. So how do I avoid this situation? Once they ask this question they can begin to learn. IMO.
So if there are some that are hoing its is only because they think it is still the best decision for them. OR they have not linked in their brain that it is really what is getting them killed.
One more thing to get this back on topic all the discussion on any FQ shot needs to start new thread.
-
I don't go for the HO. If I did, i wouldn't consider it dis-honorable in the least. I don't avoid the HO for any reason having to do with "honor". I avoid it because it isn't a very good option, and is far too likely to get me damaged.
As far as teaching people to avoid it, I'm all for that! But, it has to be there as an option, in order to teach someone to avoid it... That doesn't mean someone needs to take it, just that it needs to be an option. The best tool to use in teaching someone to avoid the HO, is the HO.
Teaching people better options than HOing isn't the same as creating a game-wide stigma against the HO as a valid, useful tool to keep fights "honest", and somewhat realistic. Tying the HO to any negative emotional judgment is detrimental to overall fight-quality IMO; while having it just plain exist, while teaching people better options is conducive to better, more realistic fights, IMO.
So, in order to have good, realistic fights in AH, we need people who are willing to take the HO shot. Without it as a possibility, fights are devastatingly artificial IMO. While I feel we need the HO, I'm not saying I want people to HO, or that I'd teach people to HO. More that it's a "necessary evil". An adversity to overcome.
To me, a wilderness needs wildlife (and "normal" conditions), that are native to the area. Snakes, bears, sharks, heat, wind, trees, sand, drought, whatever. They're all part of the wilderness. Removing any them because we don't like that aspect of the wilderness, makes the wilderness "less" than a wilderness. If you tell me "I went camping in the wilderness" and I find out you had plumbed water and/or that the wildlife was removed, I wouldn't agree that you'd camped in the wilderness. If you fought, and I found out you'd removed the HO as a possibility, I wouldn't agree that you'd fought. I'd feel that you'd done something "less".
Our "fights" are already drastically "less" than true dogfights. Our best fights are already artificial and "gamey", even though (by necessity, ability, and mechanical limits) they're the best we can do. I'm not a proponent of making them overall more artificial and "gamey", based simply on someone's "choice", or by limiting someone's "choice". Now, choosing to self-limit I can see (as in "I won't HO"), I can see as noble. But not limiting through stigma (as in "Hoing is something only dweebs do", or "Hoing is a lame tactic", or "You're a dork because you Ho'ed me").
The HO is as critical to our fights as the stalls, grounds, etc. They're all something to overcome, something to triumph over. It's not a far cry to say "Fights are better if nobody HO's, and if we can't stall, or collide, or hit a tree (or get ganged)..." If we removed those elements, though, our fights would be "less" than they currently are, IMO.
The more you articulate your thoughts, the more I see you and I in agreement. I also believe the HO is necessary by others, but not by oneself. If no one took the HO shot, some people would take advantage of that by gaining additional angles knowing you won't take the HO/FQ shot. I also believe taking the HO shot will strengthen your opponent, thus I want my opponent to perform it on me. At the same time, I want my opponent to know that his HO shoting ways are strengthening me, so that he can improve, thus create a greater challenge for everyone.
Mtnman, have I not proven, using your words, that you do not look for the HO shot and do fly as wingmen? You and I are on the same path, just at different points.
-
This conversation has taken place on numberous times ever since AW shut down and all of those players came over to Aces High. All you heard was no HO, that is cheating, you can't HO it was not allowed in AW. THIS is the source of this arguement and always has been. The really good pilots want no HO as they know they are going to get the kill and then after the lessor skilled pilot gets killed several hundred times, he finds something better to do with his 16.00 a month. The really good pilot just stays in the game and waits on some other newbie to kill, but with the HO the newbie's stay around longer hence some of them like me have been here ever since version 1 in 1980, been paying for monthly sub ever since. There will never be an end to this.
SALUTE
Frank Williams
-
Actually the original post makes no mention of a "HO" being good, bad or ugly. It is an attempt to put the shot within the context of overall ACM. The more even the odds the less likely the "HO" is to generate a positive outcome vs a quality opponent. As circumstances shift the HO becomes potentially more viable. At some point in a 1 vs many engagement any move you make creates an opportunity for some opponent so shooting the guy immediately in front of you can't be faulted. As we try and look at a "FQ" shot vs a HO we fins that most HO shots are really very low deflection FQ shots. The key element here is if they occur in the framework of correct ACM or if you are sacrificing position for what often appears to be a shot but is actually a trap.
I think that outside of a duel or 1 v 1 where a general agreement specific to the 3/9 line exists that any shot correctly achieved should be taken. The real key as it relates to this thread is trying to nurture the concept that a focus on the HO or FQ shot at the expense of learning better ACM can be a detriment to a players longterm enjoyment of the game...
-
Wow! Three posts in a row I agree with!
But no, Kermit, I wouldn't say I fly as a wingman, except in a very rare, minimalistic aspect. I'd say it's safer to say I despise flying as a "team", and don't consider a 2v1 to be a "fight", if I'm one of the "two". Even when Saber and I morph into the 2v2 mode (briefly), I won't help him with his biggest, most immediate threat. Say he's got an LA 400 off his six, and a spit 800-1200 off. I'll help with the spit, but he's on his own with the LA. If the spit pulls off, he'll get no more help, period. If I kill the spit I'm out of the fight immediately, even if the LA is going to kill Saber. I won't fight the LA 2v1, as I consider that to be ganging. If Saber kills the LA, he wouldn't even consider ganging (er, helping me with) the spit. Say a fight begins with Saber and I against 3 or 4. Once we kill a few and we're down to 1 opponent, one of us breaks out (to avoid ganging the last guy).
If I broke it down, I'd say an estimate that 1% of my play is "team oriented" or "wingman oriented" is an overstatement by a large margin. It's a 30 second incident, every few weeks type thing. I have such an aversion to it that even having equal numbers of friendlies to enemies in the area bothers me to the point where I'll land and/or switch teams. Saber and I spend a lot of time flying in the same vicinity, but almost zero time flying in any semblance of a "team". Even flying in the same vicinity is based primarily on the fact that we enjoy the same type of fights, under the same terms, rather than any intent to work together.
As I stated earlier, there are a few times I'll engage in "wingman" activities. But they're very rare, and I don't enjoy them at all unless we're fighting at least equal numbers. If I was in a "great" wingman battle, I might find it entertaining for a minute or two, kind of. Surely not longer than that. It just isn't my cup of tea.
-
1...2...3 Yes! I was in the 3 last posts you agreed with.
Mtnman, I find your way of flying interesting, so I have more questions. :)
Let me see if I understand your way of gameplay.
Your view individualism is strong, and you despise teamwork, but will team up when necessary, and view it as a necessary evil. This a correct generalization of your views?
While I am also of strong belief in individualism, my thoughts on teamwork differ since I believe it to be of a greater challenge to oneself and everyone around you.
Here is my view on teamwork:
Teamwork is individuals coming together with a common purpose, with the individuals leading the team instead of the other way around. Flying as a team, you are responsible not just for yourself, but also for your teammates, while also understanding that your teammates are not responsible for you. The individual is encouraged to learn team tactics, thus improving your own skill level and raising the base line of skill within the team.
I too tend to fly alone most of the time, but I am always on the watch for others willing to team up with a common purpose. If there is no purpose or willingness to team up, then I fly alone. I enjoy both flying methods. Mtnman, I enjoy flying exactly as you have described your own flying, and I also enjoy employing other types of wingman tactics. It is as if you are stepping into another world of enjoyment.
I hope by understanding your views, I can articulate my views in a better way, thus having you remove your skepticism, ultimately succumbing to my hidden beliefs to join the new world order of collectivism. :uhoh
-
<snip>
Tactic-wise, argue it all you want. But if you declare that you only fire from behind the 3/9 line for any reason having to do with "honor", "warrior codes", increased "grade" or "value" of fight, etc, and then apply tactics that I see as "dishonorable, non warrior-like, and degrading the value of a fight, is it ok if I'm skeptical?
<snip>
How I choose to fight when winning is the same as when I'm losing. What a man does in desperate times reveals his true character.
Mtnman, after further thought, I think I see your view better. While I see the honor in your flying and very much respect it, my gut tells me you are missing something. Perhaps a change in plane would help widen your vision and help you see the challenge teamwork provides in creating and maintaining good fights. If I feel there is no challenge teaming up in corsairs due to personal skill levels, perhaps a group of P40s would be warranted or simply different wingmen.
I am wiling to fly alone, as a team and never take a HO shot, all for reasons of honor. Do you still feel skeptical of my reasons?
-
How I choose to fight when winning is the same as when I'm losing. What a man does in desperate times reveals his true character.
Mtnman, after further thought, I think I see your view better. While I see the honor in your flying and very much respect it, my gut tells me you are missing something. Perhaps a change in plane would help widen your vision and help you see the challenge teamwork provides in creating and maintaining good fights. If I feel there is no challenge teaming up in corsairs due to personal skill levels, perhaps a group of P40s would be warranted or simply different wingmen.
I am wiling to fly alone, as a team and never take a HO shot, all for reasons of honor. Do you still feel skeptical of my reasons?
The corsair is the only plane I'm interested in in AH, and that's based 99.9% on the way it looks. I think the rest are ugly, so I don't fly them. Seriously.
There are a few others I see as "somewhat OK looking", so I'll fly them occasionally, lol. Those include the B25, B17, P51, and maybe the P40. Interest-wise, they're so far away from the F4U I can't stomach them for long though.
Challenge-wise, I wouldn't mind if maybe there were different FM's for the F4U, so some were easier to fly, and some were more difficult? But that goes against my desire to have them just be as accurate as possible, so that's not a good option in my mind either... I suppose as long as they look like a good visual rendition of an F4U, I'd fly them though. I've never flown a real one, so who am I to say what "accurate" means?
Team-wise... Been there, done that. There was a several-year stage I went through where I loved the team aspects of the game. Base capture, and specifically wingman-based fighter tactics. Having spent enough time with them, I don't have a problem morphing into that role again when necessary. As Saber learned the game, he wanted to learn enough that he could do the same, so I taught him.
If I changed planes, I still wouldn't change tactics. I have no interest in wingman-based tactics. It's a weakness of mine, as a trainer, I'm sure. I have trouble teaching things I don't feel like doing, or teaching. So, I seldom teach those tactics at all.
I don't see it as missing anything myself, because I've already been down that road. I don't want to go back.
AH, for me, is about flying an F4U around and shooting the red guys. And I don't want no stinkin' help, lol!
-
If your opponent is in a Hurc, Typhy, Tempy, 110, 190, Chog, your gonna get HOed, just prepare for it. Geez.
-
Perhaps I'm in this teamwork stage you speak of, for how long, who knows, perhaps forever. How you do not see that the P40 is far sexier than the corsair is beyond me!
I will enjoy flying honorable with a wingman, against your lone corsair, with the hopes that Saber will join the party to rescue you. :)
Now where did Zap go... :uhoh
-
If your opponent is in a Hurc, Typhy, Tempy, 110, 190, Chog, your gonna get HOed, just prepare for it. Geez.
obviously you still judge the plane and ignore the stick, I fly the Hurri almost exclusively, and you will be very hard pressed to EVER see me HO, Not saying I never HO, there are times, say if I am fighting multi cons and I avoid one to see another face shooting at me I will open up on him, but most times even when I am extremely out numbered I will NOT HO!!!!
-
I will enjoy flying honorable with a wingman, against your lone corsair, with the hopes that Saber will join the party to rescue you. :)
we do communicate when in fights and how many are around us, if where close to each other we will help each other out, but never on a 1v1.
-
Ok, 98% of the time, if your opponent is in a Hurc, Tiffy, Temp, 110, 190 or Chog, you're gonna get HOed, Just prepare for it. Double Geez.
-
Alot of very complex outlooks on the game developing here. Personally I prefer not to put myself in a box when playing these games. Some day's I'll take a single B26 and just go out looking to HO fighters. Other times I'll dweeb a little here, dweeb alittle there. Other times I'll be having some awesome fights with someone and not shooting at all just to see who augers first. There are so many ways to play AcesHigh I think you're all mad to make so many rules for yourselves. :cheers:
-
^ what he just said. :D
It's one hell of a game. I try and mix it up a little.
Can spend hours learning where and how to execute ACM's and doing stuff to improve the ol' SA but sometimes it's just fun to be damn reckless and dogfight with a Boston.
No Ho'n tho' :aok
-
^ what he just said. :D
It's one hell of a game. I try and mix it up a little.
Can spend hours learning where and how to execute ACM's and doing stuff to improve the ol' SA but sometimes it's just fun to be damn reckless and dogfight with a Boston.
No Ho'n tho' :aok
I think this is the main point of the thread, it's a game, lets have fun.
The information about the HO is to point to those players who seem to keep ending up in that position, that there are far better ways to "have fun" than to just HO everything in site.
-
I have contemplated posting the below image for a bit, but people have their "opinions" of what is considered a HEAD ON shot...... well, lets look at the below image from the US's 1943 Army Air Force Training command Fighter gunnery Manual...
and see what they thought back then
(http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/files/tc/1943_FighterGunneryManual_Page37_Phases of the Attack.JPG)
hope this clears things up ( it probably will not )
and let everyone still have their personal opinion on the matter, shall we :cheers: ( special Thanks to Baumer :salute )
-
nice :aok
maybe we should refer to the pointless50/50 shoot until someone blows up or both collide shot as a "joust"
(http://hankblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/page36_1.jpg)
-
Things can be solved quite easily if you don't get picky with everything. Its been stated, (Its a game), right ! so ? that means you can, HO, ram, dogfight, turn fight, strafe, Boom and Zoom and so on...
No problem, suck it all up, and re-up......
If you can't handle a HO, BnZing or anthing else, then you can't handle dogfighting either...
-
indeed :aok
-
I have contemplated posting the below image for a bit, but people have their "opinions" of what is considered a HEAD ON shot...... well, lets look at the below image from the US's 1943 Army Air Force Training command Fighter gunnery Manual...
and see what they thought back then
()
hope this clears things up ( it probably will not )
and let everyone still have their personal opinion on the matter, shall we :cheers: ( special Thanks to Baumer :salute )
I like it! I sure makes "defining" it easier. And a lot more broad than is generally accepted in AH. I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out that many people here have been HOing, when they think they've been taking what they see as "legitimate" FQ shots, hehe!
The thing I can't see from that diagram though... Which directions are you not allowed to shoot from?
-
Silly dweebs. Don't you know that it's a Head-On when someone shoots you in the face but a Front Quarter shot when you shoot someone else in the face?? :D
Tango
-
The thing I can't see from that diagram though... Which directions are you not allowed to shoot from?
I am under the thought of...... A person can shoot from any direction they want, the only downside being the percentage of hitting your target, or even colliding... which regardless if one is coming from any angle a collision can happen.... just the same as getting hits with their guns.....
yes sir, I put this pic of a page up to "define" what was considered a Head On Attack.......
what sparks my memory banks are the 30 degree front quarter cones, verses the 60 degree Head On Cone...... I was taught and have taught since somewhere around 95' that it was a 30 degree angle off nose my whole "online Combat Flight Sim" life. guess that adds up to the total of 60 degrees as shown in the diagram :aok
.
.
.
- Is a Head On Shot a Good First Choice? No it is not!
- Can someone take a head On shot as a First Choice? they surely can, but I would not teach or advise them to do so, unless the conditions called for it......
Silly dweebs. Don't you know that it's a Head-On when someone shoots you in the face but a Front Quarter shot when you shoot someone else in the face?? :D
Tango
:rofl so everyone claims, dtango :D
-
This is the type of topic that constantly recycles in game and on the BBS. One of the original goals of "DFC" was/is to promote "old school" air combat which is a preference for a certain code of conduct that encourages 1 on 1 or small melee type combat vs a single player being ganged or a large group (normally known as a horde) overwhelming a very small group. This is a repost of an internal thread Vudak fired back up where some of the guys/gals were trying to formulate a statement that tries to put the HO in perspective...
If you have played Aces High for any length of time, you have probably heard someone complain about a “HO.” In case you are confused by the term, these people are not simply being misogynistic. Instead, they are complaining about someone pressing for a head-on attack.
A head-on attack occurs when two aircraft each have a firing solution on the other at the exact same time. This differs from a front-quarter shot where one aircraft can fire towards the front of its opponent’s aircraft, but its opponent cannot return fire. Though both are likely to cause a volatile reaction from your recently dispatched opponent, both can also be useful tools for your arsenal. The trick is recognizing that a saw is not always the best hammer. The aim of this document is to make you aware of the possible detriments of a head-on attack, so that you can make an informed decision as to whether or not to press for one in your future engagements.
Why do you often here that a "HO" is not a high % proposition. A couple of factors come into play.
A) The Numbers
First things first, let’s look at some numbers. Many people claim a HO attack gives you a 50/50 chance of survival. We think that is optimistic. Every time you and an opponent line up for a head-on attack, one of the following outcomes is possible:
1. You die.
2. Your opponent dies.
3. You both die.
4. Neither dies.
That’s 50/50, right? Well, that depends on your definition of “chance for survival.” We tend to think of it in terms of surviving your entire sortie, and not just that one particular encounter. That brings us to another possibility, and one that is constantly available, even if you “win” the HO and fly off alive:
5. You take damage.
That damage could be to a vital control like a flap, elevator, or rudder. It might be a leak of necessary liquids like oil, fuel, or radiator fluid. While there’s a chance you’ll get away with only a few guns destroyed that you’ll want later, or perhaps several tiny bullet holes weakening your wing to the point where one more will rip it right off, there’s also a chance that you’ll suffer a pilot wound, and immediately begin to bleed out.
The bottom line is damage is bad. Damage reduces your chance of survival. You want to avoid damage when possible. Deliberately placing your aircraft right in front of incoming gunfire (read: damage) is not usually in your best interest. It is most certainly not a 50/50 chance of survival.
B) Tactical Considerations
By its very nature a "HO" freezes your nose on the enemy, very often this can create a significant disadvantage. The better your opponent the more likely he'll be to manipulate your shot attempt to his advantage. This can tend to lead to an increasing level of frustration and an escalation of a tendency to "HO" since you have less and less confidence in your ability to "dogfight". Dogfighting is a frustratingly hard aspect of air combat and takes time, practice and a firm understanding of ACM cause and effect. Most good dog fighters will tell you that the merge is the single most important aspect of the fight and that "locking the nose" on the enemy is about the worst thing you can do.
The flip side is that dogfighting offers the most fun and excitement in the game. By focusing on learning proper "merge tactics" you'll increase your longterm enjoyment and actually land more kills and have more fun while your still learning. It's important to understand that the merge is defined as the 1st time the two combatants cross paths. Once the planes have joined the fight many possibilities exist on both sides. Generally speaking the antagonists have two choices. Work for the 1st shot or try and retain enough energy to gain the upper hand. Very often the 2nd crossing or "re-merge" determines the course of the fight. If both players are aggressive and try and get around 1st then the plane that wins is much like the gunfighter that clears leather 1st...in effect he won the draw. That does not automatically win the fight since a hasty or poorly aimed shot wont finish the opponent. If one player is looking to keep as much E as possible then he needs to guard against and defend against a possible shot. This 3D chess match is the heart of the "dog fight" and provides countless opportunities and variations.
While players may mutually agree to a greater restriction in most brackets the initial merge is flown "guns cold" but any shot is fair game after that. As it relates to combat in the main arena's the simple reality is that once you learn to avoid an opponents "HO" and use his limited tactics to your advantage you'll not only be in a position to win more fights but also to defend a bad position and then "reset the fight" on more even terms. In just a few hours with a trainer or DFC member you can greatly increase both your skill level (specific to "dogfighting") and enjoyment of the game overall. Don't let others trap you into a "50/50" bet when you can learn to do much much better.
By circumstance I've got a film that highlights some of the realities nicely...
http://beachheadcrm.info/snaphook/The%20Joust.ahf (http://beachheadcrm.info/snaphook/The%20Joust.ahf)
This is type of fight that constantly keeps me trying to find better ways to approach things. Here is a circumstance where I've worked my way back to "even" from being more or less bounced. I don't want to joust but if I break and evade I'm giving up what little E I have and creating an angles advantage for him in the vertical (you can see how aggressively he flew the cutbacks earlier in the fight). I'm really hoping to bluff him off me while getting everything I can by turning in the vertical vs "flat". In effect in my mind he's where I need to be going, end result is as pure a midfight "HO" as you can get since we literally run into each other.
One of the few times I've stepped up to the craps table in a 1 on 1 fight...."7 out line away"
The only reason that this is done in AH is because most people don't want to fight, mostly the noobs who come in the game. This is only a simulation, but in real life no one would ho because their life was at stake and they didn't want to die. Some actual pilots that served may have tried to ho to get out a fast situation, but payed a high price. Really in my opinion, if you have a descent shot, then take it, but if it's going get you mad if you try to ho back and lose, that's your decision, not anyone else's. Another thing to add, why ruin a fight with a ho? It just makes you look bad and gets people mad at you(which always results in pms). The game is meant to have fun, have good fights and actually make it worth it. But when people have to do it constantly, that's how it starts to make other people mad and do it 24/7 to other people and it just proves that they can't deal with losing in a 1v1 or can't go through a fight without having to HO. :salute
-
The only reason that this is done in AH is because most people don't want to fight, mostly the noobs who come in the game. This is only a simulation, but in real life no one would ho because their life was at stake and they didn't want to die. Some actual pilots that served may have tried to ho to get out a fast situation, but payed a high price. Really in my opinion, if you have a descent shot, then take it, but if it's going get you mad if you try to ho back and lose, that's your decision, not anyone else's. Another thing to add, why ruin a fight with a ho? It just makes you look bad and gets people mad at you(which always results in pms). The game is meant to have fun, have good fights and actually make it worth it. But when people have to do it constantly, that's how it starts to make other people mad and do it 24/7 to other people and it just proves that they can't deal with losing in a 1v1 or can't go through a fight without having to HO. :salute
I would suggest you spend some time learning to avoid the other guy's guns. Once you do that the "HO" ceases to be something that might cause anger and instead becomes something you welcome as an opportunity to grab angles away from the other guy.
Fly to the elbow. It really is simple. If you get on or inside the other guy's turn circle it is impossible for him to get guns on you.
As an example, the classic multiple HO pass fight usually involves a guy in a decent turning aircraft with a big gun package. He only wants a snapshot guns pass. He will usually extend just enough to yank on the stick hard enough to flip around and get guns on you. The classic mistake in this situation is to fly pure pursuit (velocity vector on the bandit). This solves his geometry problem and guarantees him a gunshot if he has enough turning room. It is easy enough to deny the shot. Instead of flying pure pursuit, fly to the elbow. Fly lag pursuit. Put the velocity vector where he was, not where he is. The idea is to get on or inside his turn circle before he gets the nose around.
If the situation is one where a level bandit went nose high to pitch back to you, fly to the spot where he went nose high before you go nose high to pursue him. This is a good general rule for lag pursuit. Fly to the spot where he initiated his maneuver before you initiate yours. This will keep you in lag, on his turn circle and out of his attempt to flip around for a front quarter snapshot. Of course there are a many other considerations.
If you cannot get on his turn circle before he can bring his nose around this particular method isn't going to work. If the bandit extends way out before flipping just show him your tail. Another classic mistake is to chase a high extending bandit. Never climb into a fight. Show him your tail. If he wants you make him come get you. The easiest way to equalize energy state is to make the bandit dive to your altitude and chase you. Once he is at your altitude it only takes a few seconds before all of his energy advantage is frittered away and you can reverse back into the fight on equal energy terms.
-
If I am in a multiple on one fight in an aircraft that doesn't have a performance edge, my highest priority is to get the numbers more even and, given my usual ride, the HO is often the best tool in that situation.
I see people saying that you shouldn't go for the HO even then in an attempt to draw the fight out in order to learn, but I am skeptical of how much there is for me to learn about defensive maneuvers in a twin engined "heavy" fighter when under attack by multiple enemies. One on one, maybe even two on one, I can agree with that, but more than that and my survival becomes largely dependent on my attackers inadequacy.
-
If I am in a multiple on one fight in an aircraft that doesn't have a performance edge, my highest priority is to get the numbers more even and, given my usual ride, the HO is often the best tool in that situation.
I see people saying that you shouldn't go for the HO even then in an attempt to draw the fight out in order to learn, but I am skeptical of how much there is for me to learn about defensive maneuvers in a twin engined "heavy" fighter when under attack by multiple enemies. One on one, maybe even two on one, I can agree with that, but more than that and my survival becomes largely dependent on my attackers inadequacy.
like ya say, multi con attacking you, leaves it open I think for anything, and if they whine about a HO....well....wouldnt have happened if they were not in the "Horde/gang"
-
- Is a Head On Shot a Good First Choice? No it is not!
- Can someone take a head On shot as a First Choice? they surely can, but I would not teach or advise them to do so, unless the conditions called for it......
I think you have said it the best. :salute
On a side note: I have ended up making a Head On shot a couple of times recently. Due to the simple fact that I didn't realize the bandit was turning towards me until too late. I think I need a better video card. :bolt:
-
I would suggest you spend some time learning to avoid the other guy's guns. Once you do that the "HO" ceases to be something that might cause anger and instead becomes something you welcome as an opportunity to grab angles away from the other guy.
Fly to the elbow. It really is simple. If you get on or inside the other guy's turn circle it is impossible for him to get guns on you.
As an example, the classic multiple HO pass fight usually involves a guy in a decent turning aircraft with a big gun package. He only wants a snapshot guns pass. He will usually extend just enough to yank on the stick hard enough to flip around and get guns on you. The classic mistake in this situation is to fly pure pursuit (velocity vector on the bandit). This solves his geometry problem and guarantees him a gunshot if he has enough turning room. It is easy enough to deny the shot. Instead of flying pure pursuit, fly to the elbow. Fly lag pursuit. Put the velocity vector where he was, not where he is. The idea is to get on or inside his turn circle before he gets the nose around.
If the situation is one where a level bandit went nose high to pitch back to you, fly to the spot where he went nose high before you go nose high to pursue him. This is a good general rule for lag pursuit. Fly to the spot where he initiated his maneuver before you initiate yours. This will keep you in lag, on his turn circle and out of his attempt to flip around for a front quarter snapshot. Of course there are a many other considerations.
If you cannot get on his turn circle before he can bring his nose around this particular method isn't going to work. If the bandit extends way out before flipping just show him your tail. Another classic mistake is to chase a high extending bandit. Never climb into a fight. Show him your tail. If he wants you make him come get you. The easiest way to equalize energy state is to make the bandit dive to your altitude and chase you. Once he is at your altitude it only takes a few seconds before all of his energy advantage is frittered away and you can reverse back into the fight on equal energy terms.
Awesome ...great advice, thanks Dawger
-
Generically great advice to get yourself killed....
Like with everything the devil is in the details. Certainly it can be correct within a given set of variables but realistically it's not fundamentally correct on a number of points.
1) never assume the other pilot is stupid. A +E pilot will prosecute an E attack not a "B&Z" one, he's not going to just yank on the stick what he will do is exploit his advantage in the vertical in some fashion
2) He's turning to maintain visibility and to generate angles. Blindly going to where is was is stupid. Evaluate his moves based on relative E state and position. Some misperception of being in lag based on where we was and how his lift vector was oriented "X" seconds ago will get you killed. A good example of this is any form of a vertical attack from a plane using a superior roll rate vs a better turning plane. His initial move up and "away" creates a vertical reverse and flying to where he started the move just puts you in the sweet spot.
3) if your in a plane with less "total E" you will never gain parity in E state by flying away from a con...all you'll do is give him any angular gain you might have. There are a lot of reasons to offer your tail here but equalizing E state isn't one of them (unless you are in fact in a plane with a higher relative E potential).
Any time a plane goes vertical on you the single most important consideration is recognizing that he is now manipulating his lift vector much more efficiently and can mask changes more more effectively. He can go from an out of plane lag to an out of plane lead very quickly....worry about where he's going now...not where he was a few seconds ago and you'll live longer and have more fun.
-
"3) if your in a plane with less "total E" you will never gain parity in E state by flying away from a con...all you'll do is give him any angular gain you might have."
could you clarify on this a bit. It has always been my practice to turn away and separate from an attacker with superior E and attempt to gain E or at least equalize states in hopes of drawing the battle down a bit to my level. Explain what else you might do and how it would be an advantage.
-
You can't equalize E state if your -e at a lower altitude in a slower plane. Sure if your in a faster plane then you might me able to dive out and equalize or gain E. Lets look at one example, currently in the AvA the P-39D vs the A6M2. This is a very hard match up for the zeke driver since he's totally dependent on having an initial advantage. Both sides need to handle the scenario of a higher +E con differently. The P-39 drive in a neg E state needs to maximize angles early and then look to extend....in effect making the zeke take the long way around and then extending. So in this case the "run to equalize E state" tactic would be correct. However the worst thing the zeke can to is disengage to reset the fight. He needs to stay loosely engaged and work the fight up by fighting from the under position and using low G climbing turns as much as possible.
If your in a plane that can't gain equality in E state via disengagement then the only reason to dive out is if you feel you have a better chance in trying to setup an overshoot or a neg E reversal. The problem is that normally you simply end up exactly where you started. In my opinion the best option is to focus on relative lift vectors and work up into the fight while maintaining enough E to be fully capable in the verticals. This often involves a type of mirroring. You go down slightly as he goes up and up to meet his attacks. You get out of plane early so you can square the nose up and meet his verticals in plane with adequate E. Basically any time he's looking to roll over on you the objective is to get guns on. In fact if you can get him rattled and learn to work relative E state its actually possible to shoot the bogey off the perch this way.
This goes back to the overall concept of not abandoning an offensive option. If that option involves diving out to exploit superior capabilities great, but it's often more effective and practical to work on offensive -E posturing in the absense of any exploitable advantage. In effect sometimes it's about pilot stuff....
-
Most HO's in this game are RAMS! It takes two to HO.
Not very sporting and definitely not very realistic how it is done in real life as Aces High is to mimic real military ops.
I try to duck, but it does not always suffice. Not when guys are dead set to ram, they just come at you in a duck, too!
Too bad, HiTech can't program that crap out. Maybe killer robot drones to negate repeat offenders going around like that movie, "Blade Runner" and the inventor's janitor robots.
When I came to Aces High 3 or so years ago I was expecting military flight operations like it is done in the military. Not quite as realistic as I would like to see.
The HO crap could be enforced, but you guys would lose half the membership!
This is the type of topic that constantly recycles in game and on the BBS. One of the original goals of "DFC" was/is to promote "old school" air combat which is a preference for a certain code of conduct that encourages 1 on 1 or small melee type combat vs a single player being ganged or a large group (normally known as a horde) overwhelming a very small group. This is a repost of an internal thread Vudak fired back up where some of the guys/gals were trying to formulate a statement that tries to put the HO in perspective...
If you have played Aces High for any length of time, you have probably heard someone complain about a “HO.” In case you are confused by the term, these people are not simply being misogynistic. Instead, they are complaining about someone pressing for a head-on attack.
A head-on attack occurs when two aircraft each have a firing solution on the other at the exact same time. This differs from a front-quarter shot where one aircraft can fire towards the front of its opponent’s aircraft, but its opponent cannot return fire. Though both are likely to cause a volatile reaction from your recently dispatched opponent, both can also be useful tools for your arsenal. The trick is recognizing that a saw is not always the best hammer. The aim of this document is to make you aware of the possible detriments of a head-on attack, so that you can make an informed decision as to whether or not to press for one in your future engagements.
Why do you often here that a "HO" is not a high % proposition. A couple of factors come into play.
A) The Numbers
First things first, let’s look at some numbers. Many people claim a HO attack gives you a 50/50 chance of survival. We think that is optimistic. Every time you and an opponent line up for a head-on attack, one of the following outcomes is possible:
1. You die.
2. Your opponent dies.
3. You both die.
4. Neither dies.
That’s 50/50, right? Well, that depends on your definition of “chance for survival.” We tend to think of it in terms of surviving your entire sortie, and not just that one particular encounter. That brings us to another possibility, and one that is constantly available, even if you “win” the HO and fly off alive:
5. You take damage.
That damage could be to a vital control like a flap, elevator, or rudder. It might be a leak of necessary liquids like oil, fuel, or radiator fluid. While there’s a chance you’ll get away with only a few guns destroyed that you’ll want later, or perhaps several tiny bullet holes weakening your wing to the point where one more will rip it right off, there’s also a chance that you’ll suffer a pilot wound, and immediately begin to bleed out.
The bottom line is damage is bad. Damage reduces your chance of survival. You want to avoid damage when possible. Deliberately placing your aircraft right in front of incoming gunfire (read: damage) is not usually in your best interest. It is most certainly not a 50/50 chance of survival.
B) Tactical Considerations
By its very nature a "HO" freezes your nose on the enemy, very often this can create a significant disadvantage. The better your opponent the more likely he'll be to manipulate your shot attempt to his advantage. This can tend to lead to an increasing level of frustration and an escalation of a tendency to "HO" since you have less and less confidence in your ability to "dogfight". Dogfighting is a frustratingly hard aspect of air combat and takes time, practice and a firm understanding of ACM cause and effect. Most good dog fighters will tell you that the merge is the single most important aspect of the fight and that "locking the nose" on the enemy is about the worst thing you can do.
The flip side is that dogfighting offers the most fun and excitement in the game. By focusing on learning proper "merge tactics" you'll increase your longterm enjoyment and actually land more kills and have more fun while your still learning. It's important to understand that the merge is defined as the 1st time the two combatants cross paths. Once the planes have joined the fight many possibilities exist on both sides. Generally speaking the antagonists have two choices. Work for the 1st shot or try and retain enough energy to gain the upper hand. Very often the 2nd crossing or "re-merge" determines the course of the fight. If both players are aggressive and try and get around 1st then the plane that wins is much like the gunfighter that clears leather 1st...in effect he won the draw. That does not automatically win the fight since a hasty or poorly aimed shot wont finish the opponent. If one player is looking to keep as much E as possible then he needs to guard against and defend against a possible shot. This 3D chess match is the heart of the "dog fight" and provides countless opportunities and variations.
While players may mutually agree to a greater restriction in most brackets the initial merge is flown "guns cold" but any shot is fair game after that. As it relates to combat in the main arena's the simple reality is that once you learn to avoid an opponents "HO" and use his limited tactics to your advantage you'll not only be in a position to win more fights but also to defend a bad position and then "reset the fight" on more even terms. In just a few hours with a trainer or DFC member you can greatly increase both your skill level (specific to "dogfighting") and enjoyment of the game overall. Don't let others trap you into a "50/50" bet when you can learn to do much much better.
By circumstance I've got a film that highlights some of the realities nicely...
http://beachheadcrm.info/snaphook/The%20Joust.ahf (http://beachheadcrm.info/snaphook/The%20Joust.ahf)
This is type of fight that constantly keeps me trying to find better ways to approach things. Here is a circumstance where I've worked my way back to "even" from being more or less bounced. I don't want to joust but if I break and evade I'm giving up what little E I have and creating an angles advantage for him in the vertical (you can see how aggressively he flew the cutbacks earlier in the fight). I'm really hoping to bluff him off me while getting everything I can by turning in the vertical vs "flat". In effect in my mind he's where I need to be going, end result is as pure a midfight "HO" as you can get since we literally run into each other.
One of the few times I've stepped up to the craps table in a 1 on 1 fight...."7 out line away"
-
Most HO's in this game are RAMS! It takes two to HO.
Not very sporting and definitely not very realistic how it is done in real life as Aces High is to mimic real military ops.
I try to duck, but it does not always suffice. Not when guys are dead set to ram, they just come at you in a duck, too!
Too bad, HiTech can't program that crap out. Maybe killer robot drones to negate repeat offenders going around like that movie, "Blade Runner" and the inventor's janitor robots.
When I came to Aces High 3 or so years ago I was expecting military flight operations like it is done in the military. Not quite as realistic as I would like to see.
The HO crap could be enforced, but you guys would lose half the membership!
:rofl :rofl :rofl
"real life" seriously the HO was a very real tactic, but wait ahhhhh we play a game.....NOT real life.........so we dont have to worry about coming home, many here feel the HO is crap"tactics" for a game.
but if you want it more "realistic" well you better learn to HO.
and I highly doubt those that are trying to "Ram" you are really trying to ram you they just want there HO shot.
-
Thanks snap, that makes perfect sense.
-
How about when you find yourself at disadvantage and other guy has everything, better plane, more E, better position? Sometimes, after reversal, your only chance to stay alive is to point your nose at the bandit and hope it'll be a cold pass. Of course, you have dweebs with all the advantage possible and they still HO.
What about one versus many? After prolonged fight you'll often find yourself in such a low E state you won't be able to avoid HO attempt. You'll have to fire or die.
you realize that the guy that posted the op is one that can take a tbm and outfly most of us in the plane of our choice, right? :D :aok
-
i actually had an awesome fight against "imlitup" the other night. him f4f, me p38j. merge alt was 10k(about 7k agl). it lasted nearly 5 minutes i think. we both made mistakes, and we both had at least 3 passes each, that e could've ho'd the poop outta each other. the awesome thing, is that neither of us did....we both simply turned off slightly, passed by each other, and continued to attempt to gain an advantage.
it had to have been somewhat frustrating for him, as i managed to position myself above him, and was able to use verticle against him. i got one good deflection shot, that smoked his engine, but then i stalled it at a bad time......lost some fairly important parts.
i lost that fight, but at the same time, i won. why? because that single fight made the whole night worth tooling around avoiding getting ganged, ho'd, bnz;'d, etc.
-
CAP
Bighorn is an exceptional stick, far beyond my measure in a pure dueling situation. My point at the time was trying to recognize the validity of the tactic historically while making the case that it reduces circumstances to a 50/50 equation. By working to push the envelope and refusing to just take that 50/50 exchange you'll get better over time. Most of the time (but not always) there is a better option out there...
-
Thanks snap, that makes perfect sense.
Glad it made sense to you...
-
Very interesting thread.
I must admit I try to avoid HO. But as a very average pilot I will use it when my very limited skills run out of any other options.
Some aspects of AH I will never get used to, one being the lag and getting shot down in a turn when I can still see the top of the enemy fighter who is hitting me! I am not sure if this type of thing impacts on the way I fly, but there is no doubt there are limitations in any on-line game because of it.
I was watching a recent documentary on the Polish pilots of 303 squadron (RAF) who flew hurricanes in the B. o. B.. Because they often did not have the height to "bounce" incoming bombers they did employ a HO attack which had the effect of breaking up the enemy formation. It was certainly something you needed a high level of skill to execute, with closing speeds of around 600 knots and avoiding a collision. I think even Shaws book on ACM gives a write up on an actual HO engagement by two fighters. So as a reminder to those who keep saying it didn't happen for real, you are wrong.
I will hopefully try even harder to avoid the HO now after reading some good points in the thread, but alas, I will rarely get the better of a better pilot who is above me, and often if he is below me as well!
-
CAP
Bighorn is an exceptional stick, far beyond my measure in a pure dueling situation. My point at the time was trying to recognize the validity of the tactic historically while making the case that it reduces circumstances to a 50/50 equation. By working to push the envelope and refusing to just take that 50/50 exchange you'll get better over time. Most of the time (but not always) there is a better option out there...
gotcha. i may have mis-understood his reply. i meant no offense to anyone.........but when i saw it, i remembered our fight where you handed my butt back to me. well.....our many many fights where you've handed my butt back to me. they were all fun, and all clean...some of the best i thinkn i've had. :aok
-
you realize that the guy that posted the op is one that can take a tbm and outfly most of us in the plane of our choice, right? :D :aok
I know his flying quite well, yes he's darn good. I was just describing various scenarios I've found myself in and in which head on shot might be justified.
gotcha. i may have mis-understood his reply.
Yes, you did ;)
-
Let me try and rephrase things a bit.
As your skills improve you become less and less inclined to accept 50/50 odds because you feel you have an advantage somewhere...you just need to find it. However if you reach a point where circumstance has worn you down and your low, slow and on the deck or in a scenario where avoiding a frontal attack actually worsens your situation (evading would put 2 cons or the plane with the better pilot/capability in a rear quarter tracking shot) then there are times where that is your best option...
1) low speed
There a huge difference between 135 mph and 170 and a further huge gain at ~ 210 mph vs 170...so there is an advantage to squaring up and looking to establish right of way. If you don't have a workable minimal E state then "evading" does you no good
2) Multiple threats
If your in a 1 on 3 and you are getting caught maneuvering against a single con in front and 2 astern then its normally beneficial to get them all in a conga line....if possible the goal is to work a dueling reverse on the the single while forcing an overshoot on the trailers but the reality is normally you need to blow past the single and just get them in line astern. Once the 3 of them are jockeying over who's going to get the kill it's much more likely one of them will get killed.
-
I know his flying quite well, yes he's darn good. I was just describing various scenarios I've found myself in and in which head on shot might be justified.
Yes, you did ;)
yea.....<in my best maxwell smart voice> sorry 'bout that chief. :aok
-
I didn't read this whole thread but I did read the original post. I had heard through the grapevine that HO shots were frowned upon here so the first few engagements where the opportunity presented itself, I did not fire. The response was every single opponent fired at me. Six or seven times that happened before I said screw it, I'm going to shoot too.
-
I didn't read this whole thread but I did read the original post. I had heard through the grapevine that HO shots were frowned upon here so the first few engagements where the opportunity presented itself, I did not fire. The response was every single opponent fired at me. Six or seven times that happened before I said screw it, I'm going to shoot too.
You can be part of the problem, or part of the solution. I prefer not to shoot in a head on situation. That being said I work at not EVER being in a head-on situation.
-
I didn't read this whole thread but I did read the original post. I had heard through the grapevine that HO shots were frowned upon here so the first few engagements where the opportunity presented itself, I did not fire. The response was every single opponent fired at me. Six or seven times that happened before I said screw it, I'm going to shoot too.
i do my best to avoid them. there have been a couple of times when i thought i had a decent shot planned out, and the con got his nose 'round faster than i expected, and i ended up face shooting him...soon as i realized, i'd let go of the trigger.
i used to be halfway decent at dodging them before i took a few months off, but now, i'm a bit rusty. what i always have had a problem with, is converting their missed ho attempt into my advantage. i know others do it very well, but i've not yet managed it.
-
Cap to me this is the grey area...
If you have established position then you have the right of way. I fenced in college and if we view that as "dueling" then there is an obligation to defend before you can attack. If you've clearly got guns and the guy turns into you to "square up" then as far as I'm concerned you can light them up all day. I see this all the time with zekes and hurricanes that turn back into me and then get all blustery when I take a 30 degree nose off FQ shot. If someone turns back into you then they need to adjust there movement to defend against any FQ shot the expose them selfs to...
-
Cap to me this is the grey area...
If you have established position then you have the right of way. I fenced in college and if we view that as "dueling" then there is an obligation to defend before you can attack. If you've clearly got guns and the guy turns into you to "square up" then as far as I'm concerned you can light them up all day. I see this all the time with zekes and hurricanes that turn back into me and then get all blustery when I take a 30 degree nose off FQ shot. If someone turns back into you then they need to adjust there movement to defend against any FQ shot the expose them selfs to...
well.....here's the thing though. it's me mis-judging i think. i see you coming 'round, and i think i'm going to get guns first......but as it turns out, you're turning for me, and just as i squeeze the trigger, i realize you've got guns on me too.
there are some i don't mind taking that shot on. i feel that you would not take that shot...in fact, i think i;ve fought you when you didn't, nor did i.
fighting in mw, you almost always know who you're fighting, and know how they fight. i had a blast in that fight against imlitup. every time i fight you, it's a blast. same with cobia. there are a bunch of others too.....probably as many people that you know you'll get a good clean fight out of, as there are that you won't.
i do understand what you're saying though......this is actually a very good conversation in this thread. :aok
-
I covered this topic in this post, (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,289148.msg3675020.html#msg3675020) and I think it's worth reading again. In summary, I say that the problem is not HO shots, it's the newbies who completely fail to understand ACM and think they're playing Doom. Since these people are so hilariously predictable, manipulating them is easy, making them easy kills:
(http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/7239/headondefeat.jpg)
The only person an HO is bad for is the person using it. The only way the squeakers are going to learn this lesson is from more experienced sticks who set out to teach it (by blowing their tails off.) This is exactly why experienced sticks say "It takes two to HO."
By it's very nature the HO should be a problem that solves itself, because people using it are only punishing themselves. If they are not being punished, it's because they were fighting somebody who hops on the 200 and whines about sportsmanship instead of studying the problem of the merge. Yes, that's a brash statement, but it needs to be made, because that's the only way HOing could have become the problem it is.
We really, really, really need to make up a very concise post that explains the essential nature of the DOOM-mentality-HO'er, why they are only punishing themselves, and the extremely expedient way to turn annoying HOers into easy kills, which can simply consist of the above image from In Pursuit. Then a mod should sticky the post. Every BAAAW HO thread would be given a link to said sticky and then (in a perfect world) locked by a moderator.
And then the problem would resolve itself.
-
if the opportunity presents itself i'll headon even in a 9u even though its not
a tactic i normally use.
-
# 1 - I would never encourage anyone wanting to learn online WWII AirCombat Sim Flying to purchase or read "In Pursuit"
# 2 - The below image from a 1943 Fighter Gunnery Training Manual of the USAAF, specifically shows that it has only ever taken one person to "HO" meaning Head On attack
(http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/files/tc/1943_FighterGunneryManual_Page37_Phases of the Attack.JPG)
anything closer to nose to nose is a "JOUST"
-
# 1 - I would never encourage anyone wanting to learn online WWII AirCombat Sim Flying to purchase or read "In Pursuit"
Then that would make you unique in my experience. I have never, ever, ever heard anybody badmouth "In Pursuit." Most of it reads like "Shaw's lite."
# 2 - The below image from a 1943 Fighter Gunnery Training Manual of the USAAF, specifically shows that it has only ever taken one person to "HO" meaning Head On attack
I was unaware that one pilot was capable of dictating both his, and the enemies, course. Does he have a second stick in his cockpit that he uses to fly the other guys plane? :rofl
I assume you didn't get that "Training Corps" logo in your avatar from a crackerjack box, so I'm certainly not dismissing you out of hand, but I must request that you elucidate your points further.
-
Then that would make you unique in my experience. I have never, ever, ever heard anybody badmouth "In Pursuit." Most of it reads like "Shaw's lite."
I was unaware that one pilot was capable of dictating both his, and the enemies, course. Does he have a second stick in his cockpit that he uses to fly the other guys plane? :rofl
I assume you didn't get that "Training Corps" logo in your avatar from a crackerjack box, so I'm certainly not dismissing you out of hand, but I must request that you elucidate your points further.
So what your saying is you fly your flight and no matter what the "enemy" does you don't change? You must loose a lot of fights!
If I go vertical in a 109 and your in an FM2 I just forced you to either follow and die to the "rope a dope", or made you nose down to try to get me to follow you giving me a rear quarter shot. I can dictate what some of your moves are going to be and use that to set up my shot.
-
to be honest if you fly the merge as presented in that diagram the only folks you'll be killing are the "zip codes"....if the rest of the book is similar i'd say it'll probably do more harm then good....
I'm certainly not going to speak for TC but lets look at your issues from my admittedly less then uber perspective.
1) It shows mirrored approach, by itself thats unrealistic. As a general rule a "good merge involves a lateral and vertical offset. 95% of the time you'll have no problem establishing an early offset. 4% of the time the other guy will "square up" late to mirror you in a dueling merge. This 1% shown is the scary guy who absolutely is not going to do what your showing.
2) At the merge you have established no advantage of any type and are simply labeling the other guy as "stupid". We have no plane type here but for argument lets say he's in an A5 and your in a spit IX we'll put the fight at 5k since most fights in AH are lower.
Leaving everything "as is" till planes reach the "3" in the diagram...post merge mid turn...the spitfire is dead vs any half decent AH pilot almost 100% of the time...I'd say 70%+ of the player base eats that "merge" up all the time and 1/2 of the other 30% most of the time....just fundamentally poor stuff...
-
If I go vertical in a 109 and your in an FM2 I just forced you to either follow and die to the "rope a dope", or made you nose down to try to get me to follow you giving me a rear quarter shot. I can dictate what some of your moves are going to be and use that to set up my shot.
Because we were totally talking about vertical manuvering in a tail-end chase. Oh, wait, we weren't. We were talking about the head-on initial merge, which has been the primary topic of conversation for the last twelve pages. In the head-on initial merge- at co-alt and co-energy, which is what we are discussing- there is simply no way an opponent can force you to accept a head-on pass, because of the angles and the closure speed involved. For them to force this, despite whatever manuvering you attempt, would require them to fly a strong lead-intercept, get in front of you, and then somehow fly backwards to stay in front of you.
It does "take two to HO."
to be honest if you fly the merge as presented in that diagram the only folks you'll be killing are the "zip codes"
That is exactly what that pictured merge is designed to do- exploit the predictable course of noobs. Any proper merge used against competent pilots should involve a defense against merge snapshots that should be suitable to defend against the "piper on target" guys. Once you've got their number you can prosecute a fun fight, or extend through and come 'round for a quick lesson in merge mechanics with your friendly noob HO'er.
....if the rest of the book is similar i'd say it'll probably do more harm then good....
"In Pursuit" covers real-world fighter tactics... but as applied in a game with cartoon planes. In other words, it specifically addresses the age-old problem of HO'ers with simple instructions on how to kill them.
-
I'm sorry but what you posted in the diagram has no bearing on HO's, it is the singularly most unrealistic merge diagram I've ever seen...your not dawgers wingman....are you? :D
-
I'm sorry but what you posted in the diagram has no bearing on HO's, it is the singularly most unrealistic merge diagram I've ever seen...your not dawgers wingman....are you? :D
That merge works quite well in the MA against baby seals working at full throttle. In fact, it is a very solid way to approach the merge in the MA imo. Against a capable pilot you will most likely be torn to shreds though :)
-
Grizz,
I'd tend to agree with you if there was a bit of separation and even a subtle lead turn worked in...
If you look at the diagram as constructed and look at the "2". The typical baby seal reacts after the cross so any type of lead turn puts him at a disadvantage he can't even recognize and any "3D" lead turn has him dead man flying"...but look here and he's actually giving angles after the cross in full view. I've got to believe that the baby seal goes up and over more often then not.
Only way I'd fly that profile would be neg E at reasonable alt if I thought it was a good stick. I'd play for a vertical pitch back vs an aggressive off the gas lead in the vertical from a guy who was looking to avoid excessive separation and hunt for a belly shot on the cross and then a vertical rolling scissors...as he's got it its to late, to flat and all open and visable....vs a 2 week zipcode maybe...beyond that its just totally dependent on the other guy being stupid and blind...
-
but look here and he's actually giving angles after the cross in full view.
Uh... how? The point of the last-second reversal is to "show" the baby seal that you're breaking into a hard left turn, which almost always induces him to follow through in his own left-hand turn- especially because he's already turning hard-left to track you. They know you're turning left, they're already turning left... it feels instinctive, for your average seal, and that's why this merge works so well.
The last second reversal is also the time to throw in a climb or a dive; which results in a 3D offset at high deflection. Haven't had a noob make that shot yet.
beyond that its just totally dependent on the other guy being stupid and blind...
Betting on the other guy being "stupid and blind" in the MA during Squeaker Rush Hour is about the safest bet you'll find in this game. :lol
-
So if you run into a two week zipcode your fine otherwise your dead meat...makes sense to me...not.
-
So if you run into a two week zipcode your fine otherwise your dead meat...makes sense to me...not.
Any proper merge used against competent pilots should involve a defense against merge snapshots that should be suitable to defend against the "piper on target" guys. Once you've got their number you can prosecute a fun fight, or extend through and come 'round for a quick lesson in merge mechanics with your friendly noob HO'er.
I said this a few posts ago.
There is a popular phrase percolating through the internets called "Derp." It is an acronym for Didn't Even Read Post, and has become a word unto itself, often rhymed with "herp" for rhythmic appeal, thus, "herp derp."
To you, sir, I can only say DERP.
-
Uh... how? The point of the last-second reversal is to "show" the baby seal that you're breaking into a hard left turn, which almost always induces him to follow through in his own left-hand turn- especially because he's already turning hard-left to track you. They know you're turning left, they're already turning left... it feels instinctive, for your average seal, and that's why this merge works so well.
The last second reversal is also the time to throw in a climb or a dive; which results in a 3D offset at high deflection. Haven't had a noob make that shot yet.
Betting on the other guy being "stupid and blind" in the MA during Squeaker Rush Hour is about the safest bet you'll find in this game. :lol
.... now I'm confused, I thought you said you can't control another guys plane? (see below) Your forcing him into a position you know he'll (newb) be. Much the same as my example. If co-everything I pull into the vertical early giving my tail to the FM I am forcing the FM into a position. Same theory, different move.
Then that would make you unique in my experience. I have never, ever, ever heard anybody badmouth "In Pursuit." Most of it reads like "Shaw's lite."
I was unaware that one pilot was capable of dictating both his, and the enemies, course. Does he have a second stick in his cockpit that he uses to fly the other guys plane? :rofl
I assume you didn't get that "Training Corps" logo in your avatar from a crackerjack box, so I'm certainly not dismissing you out of hand, but I must request that you elucidate your points further.
-
lol...so you are dawgers wingman :rofl
Of course I read your post and my comment is simple and straight forward. What your saying and what the illustration is showing are separate things. A merge is intended to create either a measure of separation that allows for a lead turn or to maximize energy retention. What you picture is doing neither of those things. Most widely accepted merge doctrines call for angular attacks to commence before the planes reach each others 3/9 line.
While this has led to the common "rocketman" merge it also has developed a tremendoud number of derivatives over time, many of the current style involve a lead turn to a flat reverse (or even pitch down) combined with an out of plane lead turn. The driving force in this is the need to hide the true nature of the lead turn as the "average" pilot has improved. An interesting offshoot of this is the use of what I refer to as a "two circle" fight (think of a figure 8) when the other pilot converts away from the lead turn and creates a series of front quarter encounters. Now you have an E fight hidden in an angles merge where guarding against being roped or forced out in front in a rolling scissors becomes the primary concern.
If we look at the diagram the following is obvious...
1) No lead turn
2) No maximization of E state
So it fails right there
Beyond that it immediately gives away angles creating a "follow me" followed by a sharp reverse completely dependent on the opponents reactions and E state. What this really diagrams is a poorly done negative E defense. Correctly executed it would involve offering a low % out of plane snapshot on the merge with the reverse into the overshoot. Properly executed the defense against the guns solution is in itself the beginning of the offensive counter move...
To me this is still about as good a primer clip as I've ever taken on using someone else's aggression and perception of superiority and using it against them. The key here is that the bait is prior to the merge...had it been as per your diagram then more then likely the nikki goes up and over instead.
http://www.az-dsl.com/snaphook/P40vN1ki.ahf (http://www.az-dsl.com/snaphook/P40vN1ki.ahf)
-
Grizz,
I'd tend to agree with you if there was a bit of separation and even a subtle lead turn worked in...
If you look at the diagram as constructed and look at the "2". The typical baby seal reacts after the cross so any type of lead turn puts him at a disadvantage he can't even recognize and any "3D" lead turn has him dead man flying"...but look here and he's actually giving angles after the cross in full view. I've got to believe that the baby seal goes up and over more often then not.
You'd be surprised how often they will still think they can get guns by turning into you after their first miss and flying 150yds in front of your 30mm stream. Also, the diagram at "2" doesn't give time markers where each aircraft is at relatively so separation is open to interpretation imo. Good post though.
-
Grizz I'm assuming relatively equal time lines since there is no indication of verticals and the flight path indicates a higher E bleed and possible throttle chop.
From my perspective as a former trainer here there are a couple of points I think are very relevant.
1) Best practice
2) recognition of gunnery as a key variable
It's very difficult when you meet an opponent who has a combination of outstanding gunnery and fundamentally correct ACM.
Your gunnery is so far superior to most of us (well me at least) that I think guys like you Kaaza and Bruv are playing a different game altogether. The combination of ACM savvy and formidable gunnery creates an entirely different set of options and opportunities. The number of times I've run into the "collective you" {meaning the guys with uncanny gunnery skills} and lost fights where I "just needed to sneak by" but never do is beyond frustrating.
If Kazaa had been in the nikki or you in a 109 that film clip would have ended at the 4 second mark:), but you try and teach correct fundamentals that maximize an average pilots opportunity for success based on a firm understanding and application of sound ACM. I'm with TC in that this type of "information" does not promote or even explain the underlying axioms of "correct" ACM.
I'll go as far as to say you've killed me more then once in this exact scenario because you can hit that low% shot I give, it's the trade off you take when your own gunnery requires you deliver your lead like a jar of grey poupon :D :airplane: :joystick: :airplane: :banana: :x :rock :mad: :furious :noid :O
-
One man's low % shot is another man's easy shot <G>
You're right though, there should be distinction made between textbook ACM and Advanced/Risky ACM
-
# 1 - I would never encourage anyone wanting to learn online WWII AirCombat Sim Flying to purchase or read "In Pursuit"
What would you encourage them to read?
It seems to me that when I see only a negative statement there is some deep structure bias. Ill let you in on a secret, the rest of us can't see whats in the trash sack.
I find it interesting the couple of Ad hominem attacks here. It seems there is some old deep structure here in the communications.
Hey Snap,
I would like to know why Demetrious and Dawger are treated with such disdain? Is there a valid reason?
to be honest if you fly the merge as presented in that diagram the only folks you'll be killing are the "zip codes"....if the rest of the book is similar i'd say it'll probably do more harm then good....
More harm then good to What? If you are flying against noobs it will do more good than harm. The only way it can do more harm that good is if you change the premise. Now that's not a fair argument.
this is ad ho hominem. < did you get the clever play on words here. Then your proceed to future time travel with different premise and conclusions, something the diagram or any diagram is not capable of.
I just don't see where he communicated anything else. but you try to re frame the argument, just seems like throwing mud. :huh
A static diagram can only show a very narrow point of view to begin with. It could never even come close to show what will happen in real time. It can show what did happen. Your trying to show how it falls short of what will happen if the premises change. Which is just crazy because almost everyone knows that every merge will be different. It can only try to predict what will happen if the pilot does "those exact things".
Of course it doesnt paint a picture of what to do against anyone other than " zipcodes" because it Can't. Its static.
I'm sorry but what you posted in the diagram has no bearing on HO's, it is the singularly most unrealistic merge diagram I've ever seen...your not dawgers wingman....are you? :D
NO bearing on Ho's???????????????? does it not show a separation at the merge?
The diagram is a sound argument as the conclusions follow the premise..
You are trying to prove it as unsound by changing the validity of the conclusions. Again not an good argument, it just shows deep structure bias of some kind, that at least I am not aware of. Maybe something happen back in the old AW days or whatever game it was. leave it in the trash sack please guys.
:headscratch:
One of the problems I see in here is the lack of distinction between noob and vet when framing your arguments. One guy makes an argument and frames noob and to rebut the argument the other guy argues about how to do it against a vet.
-
Sonic....
I think Dawger is clueless and he feels the same way about me...take your pick :D
Since when does anyone teach a subject to it's lowest common denominator? You can't preface a concept with the caveat:
"This will get you killed vs 60% or more of the player base but make you look god like vs the bottom 10%"
I'm not throwing mud I just find his presentation to be overly simplistic and condescending. The simple reality is that it is not entirely possible to avoid a FQ shot window...you can only work to minimize your exposure and maximize your potential advantage.
The entire objective (from my perspective) is to present a set of fundamentally sound tactics that can be employed somewhat universally. Given all the wonderful write ups and film on proper merge technique why put forth stuff with marginal application....I haven't seen anyone flying around with a flashing "noob light" so how do you tell?
My objective was (and still is) to take anyone with a measure of plane handling ability and give them a grasp of fundamentals that allow them to be competitive with the majority of the player base very quickly (normally in 1 or 2 hours).
-
[Quote - i did type a post here, but i actually took it off and re-typed it] can you believe it ?! yahoo for me, now I'll just follow what the thread says, even though i posted something on here already but as always only swishes right by muuhahaha, (that's fiiiiinnneeee with meeeee <--- singing).
your view (HO) - 1000k - 900k stop! break! (witch way?) left - right (up! no) down ? yes... (your thinking - move maybe)
opponents point in view - ho ? break ? ho ? break ? left ? right ? up ? down ? (his thinking - move i possibly might, but probably won't)
Here's what you do, (HO) 1000K to 900k break away, break left right and down, never up. Bottom line, just keep your plane out of his sights, which can't be very hard since you have lots of space to move around in.
When ever i got hit from a head on, is when i wanted to go threw with it and not move out of the way, which actually happened a lot of times :D. If i posted this and you guys are discussing something else, well i guess just swish by it again :D.
-
I have been down and out from a bad accident over two weeks ago roughly........ fractured left cheek,cut throat inside & out, and internal bleeding, so I will keep this short
Demetrious : I never BAD MOUTHED ?"Thomasons/Thompson's"? book "In Pursuit"... I simply said I would not encourage someone to buy it to learn ACM ....... you calling it "Shaw Lite" is a slap in the face to Robert Shaw in my opinion, and to me the book is nothing more than a good fictional/non-fictional read regarding an online simmer's experience playing an online Combat flying sim/game...... with addages used from all over from other people's proven facts, yet used out of context and used improperly....
(3) wonderful reads and can even be classified in my mind ( think Ack Ack termed it very nicely a while back.... ) are No Guts No glory, Boyd's and then Robert Shaw's Air Combat and Maneuvering..........
could call No Guts No glory , the old testament,
call Boyd's Doctrine the new testament
and call Shaw's AC & M the Revelations.... or the final Book of the ACM bible......
everything else is / are just good reads ( most anyway )
takes "1" to HO, takes "2" to Joust
Sonicblu, I don't care much to respond to you, especially by the way you selectively try to pick and choose which threads you think you might possibly be able to make yourself look like you have won or chaulked yourself up another browniep oint for the BBS masses...... let me let you in on a little secret here......... I never made a NEGATIVE STATEMENT, and the only possible structured bias that might possibly come from me is seeing certian bbs names pop up and try to put in another "PLUG" for a certain book someone may have wrote.....
but pleae show me where I posted a negative statement, and when you are done.... please be true to yourself and repost the actual truth of my post which was:
I would never encourage anyone wanting to learn online WWII AirCombat Sim Flying to purchase or read "In Pursuit"
where in any part of that is NEGATIVE? where in any part of that is there "some deep structure bias"?, as you have quoted me and claimed of me..... point blank, their is none of what you have accused of me.....
I hope to be back when my face and body and arm has healed up
I appreciate ya humble, for not answering for me, and I have a strong feeling you have viewed the posted diagram from that book and have discovered it holds as much wrong information as most people think is the right thing to do when in game.......
I got a chuckle out of the cracker jack box comment,..........made my cracked ribs hurt to laugh....... I recommend you go and read the In Pursuit for its Entertianment value, of a good story..... I also recommend that people wanting to learn and learn from reading to not purchase anything, unless they reall want a great book, by Shaw, Air Combat and Maneuvering..... but everything out there is FREE, all the ACM , BFM, reports, etc...... is free and has been free for over what 50+ years...... everything one reads on the internet is the same thing except sometimes the words have been changed around or changed altogether.........
will be back soon to make more post, and hope to be back in game soon helping, practicing and playing once I get healed up some....
~S~ all my AH Brothers , Sisters & Friends.......
-
you realize that the guy that posted the op is one that can take a tbm and outfly most of us in the plane of our choice, right? :D :aok
I'd go against him in my plane of choice with him in a TBM just to see how it goes... :O :joystick:
Anyways, I've read through most of the posts but not all...
I typically avoid the HO if I can.... I.E. if we are merging and it will cost me E to bank/rudder over for a snap shot then yes, I avoid it..... but from a distance on the merge if I try to nose over/under and the opponent matches me then I assume that he isn't looking for the cold merge to begin the jockeying for position, he's looking for a guns solution- meaning if I continue to merge clean he gets a FQ shot because my guns are off.. So instead I kick in a little rudder, kick in opposite bank, which slides my tail around and gives my plane an "awkward" look and give him a spray or two as he runs his guns out... Does it work all the time? no. Does it work often enough? Yeah, I don't get all pissy about HO's- for the most part :D
don't get me wrong, I prefer to shoot your tails off after saddling up on you. however, if I hate merges, generally dont do so well in them even if we both go cold merge, so I dont usually get to see that fight develop. And if I enter an ongoing fight or one in which my squaddies and I am outnumbered- make no mistake I will take every shot I have- snap, ho, FQ, RQ, whatever in an effort to survive the fight and to help my squaddies... Anyways, I've flown AH for about 3 years and flew FA since I was 14.. Im 27 now... I could fly against the best in FA and break even on k/d... (I AM NOT A SCORE TARD.. just saying) but in here I tend to do the fly-15-minutes-to-die-in-1-to-3-minutes routine. (Yeah, I make it past 15 seconds XD)
-
Sorry to hear what happened TC. Consider yourself lucky and with a second chance at life. :salute
-
I'd go against him in my plane of choice with him in a TBM just to see how it goes... :O :joystick:
Anyways, I've read through most of the posts but not all...
I typically avoid the HO if I can.... I.E. if we are merging and it will cost me E to bank/rudder over for a snap shot then yes, I avoid it..... but from a distance on the merge if I try to nose over/under and the opponent matches me then I assume that he isn't looking for the cold merge to begin the jockeying for position, he's looking for a guns solution- meaning if I continue to merge clean he gets a FQ shot because my guns are off.. So instead I kick in a little rudder, kick in opposite bank, which slides my tail around and gives my plane an "awkward" look and give him a spray or two as he runs his guns out... Does it work all the time? no. Does it work often enough? Yeah, I don't get all pissy about HO's- for the most part :D
don't get me wrong, I prefer to shoot your tails off after saddling up on you. however, if I hate merges, generally dont do so well in them even if we both go cold merge, so I dont usually get to see that fight develop. And if I enter an ongoing fight or one in which my squaddies and I am outnumbered- make no mistake I will take every shot I have- snap, ho, FQ, RQ, whatever in an effort to survive the fight and to help my squaddies... Anyways, I've flown AH for about 3 years and flew FA since I was 14.. Im 27 now... I could fly against the best in FA and break even on k/d... (I AM NOT A SCORE TARD.. just saying) but in here I tend to do the fly-15-minutes-to-die-in-1-to-3-minutes routine. (Yeah, I make it past 15 seconds XD)
yea.......it's always fun fighting him. i've been luckky enough to spend some time in the ta with him too.
i generally try to avoid the ho, unless the guy i'm fighting keeps trying....then eventually, i get pissed enough, that i line up, and fire back. i normally lose those. :D
something i've been noticing lately, 'specially in mw, is that they'll try a kind of "offset" ho. what i mean by that, is that you're lined up to go past them in the merge. they look like they slam the rudder, to point their nose at ya as ya pass, and take their shot. although i still suck at turning their attempted ho into my advantage, at least when they do that particular move, it gives me plenty of separation, to try to reset the fight into something more fun.
the other thing i've been noticing a lot lately in mw, is people bailing. ya tag em, they bail. saddle up on em at low alt, juuuust get lined up for that perfect shot, they bail. hell......i GAVE my six to a b-25 last night, just to get him to turn off of a set of friendly buffs he was chasing.....he took it, was 800 out following me up in the rope......as i turned her over to come back down on him, he bailed.
-
I have been down and out from a bad accident over two weeks ago roughly........ fractured left cheek,cut throat inside & out, and internal bleeding, so I will keep this short
~S~ all my AH Brothers , Sisters & Friends.......
dam dude!!! sorry to hear this. hope you heal up fast and well!
-
1. During the war is was "kill or be killed" in most cases you did what you had to do, HOWEVER we are playing a game. The idea of the game is combat using WWII type planes and vehicles. Nobody dies, so there is no "kill or be killed" here. By going for the HO you are depriving yourself and your opponent a chance at what could be thrilling combat.
For some though, "thrilling combat" isn't what it's all about. It's their K/D or name in lights that they get jazzed about. Entire squads are based on picking and running (one P-51 based squad comes to mind). Get any of them alone and forced to fight, they couldn't buy a reversal.
In the end, everyone fly's for their reasons, and I don't care to worry anymore about how they play. Generally speaking, I die to the HO once or twice a tour. I find people that go for the HO easy marks, reversing them and sending them to the tower is how I deal with them.
-
In the end, everyone fly's for their reasons, and I don't care to worry anymore about how they play. Generally speaking, I die to the HO once or twice a tour. I find people that go for the HO easy marks, reversing them and sending them to the tower is how I deal with them.
You said that quite well, no need to worry about how others play.
Theirs actually nothing more to say then that about this subject lol, it goes in constant cycles, whats the point ? nothing to prove, nothing your going to do about it, as long as aces high lives HO shots will too.
Note "Games are fun, fun is what their for".