Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: BotaBing on April 15, 2002, 04:19:44 PM
-
I was just wondering about this today (for the 100th time probably).
It seems to me that a really large percentage of the kills I take in this game are from people who come at me head-on. While I know that there were instances of head on fighting in history, heck even still today probably, it sure seems to me that it happens WAY more often in this game than it would in real life.
In a head on attack, the aggressor pilot opens himself up to being shot, wounded, taking damage to his plane, leaving his team or base unprotected, etc. That hardly seems like a risk that a real pilot would have taken except in extreme circumstance or because he had no choice for some reason.
I often wonder if there is any merit to my question. Does the fact that this is a sim, where you can instantly reup, often right where the fight occurred, encourage unrealistic behavior, and if so, is there anything that can be done about it?
I think the answer is yes, it does. Anyone else have thoughts on the issue, and maybe what could be done to stop it?
-
You have to see it coming way in advance to avoid it and not show the baddie your six. I try if possible but it's gottin me shot down so many times. It helps if you are in a better E state than the baddie.
-
what could be done to stop it?
Turning away from them would be a good start.
-
I often wonder if there is any merit to my question. Does the fact that this is a sim, where you can instantly reup, often right where the fight occurred, encourage unrealistic behavior
Yes it does. Now go through the history books and find just exactly what realistic behavior was. Then decide how much fun you think that would be.and if so, is there anything that can be done about it?
You want to modify behavior? The only "solutions" I've seen to eliminate the HO created completely "unrealistic" behavior themselves.
I don't die in too many HO encounters. Strangely, I start many fights from an HO position. The main difference is what you decide to do... and how you decide to react.
AKDejaVu
-
I love the HO lottery.
Go along for the ride and get a kill with or without taking hits.
Go along for the ride and get killed with or without scoring hits.
Go along for the ride and get a mutual kill.
Evade, but take hits or get shot down.
Evade without taking hits, extend, and go home.
Evade without taking hits, extend, and try again.
Evade without taking hits, turn, and face another HO lottery.
Evade without taking hits, turn, get outmaneuvered, and get shot down.
Evade without taking hits, turn, outmaneuver the opponent, and get a kill.
If you go with the HO, its a shooting match/net lag battle, may the fastest/most accurate/luckiest man win. If you are good at head-on gunnery and fly a heavily armed aircraft that is accurate at long range, why not? Though shooting skills only determine a fraction of the probability of winning.
If try to evade the HO, but can't fly worth a darn or have a slow plane, you may find yourself in a worse position than the HO. At least with HO, you have some chance however small.
If you succeed at evading the HO, you get to enjoy the real meat of an air combat sim: trying to find a way to get your guns on the target before the target does the same to you. Of course, dissimilar aircraft is the "extra spicy" option I prefer.
If you don't like HOs learn to fly at the opponent head on in such a way to deny his shot opportunity as opposed to turning and running, this will give you the most options possible.
I am somewhat moody. Some days I never go for an HO shot, other days evasion never crosses my mind. On a day where I am shooting straight, beware! HO kills are cheap and easy if you can hit and kill your target when he thinks you can't (long range or headon high deflection shots).
I never whine about an HO. If I lose, I just grab another plane since the price is right (free :)).
If you find HOs in the MA unrealistically common, then respawning, killshooter, and every other gamey feature used to piss off die-hard realism fanatics are probably bothering you as well.
"Relax... it's just a game."
-
You are never going to get a realistic representation of risk in AH or any other game. It's hard to sell $15/month memberships when the first time you get killed online it automatically cancels your account and bans your IP so you can never sign up again.
-Soda
The Assassins.
-
You miss the point, Soda. You pays your fifteen dollars, when you get killed some really ugly guys in cowboy boots show up and cancel YOU. Your IP is reassigned to the next guy with a DHCP client.
It would be like the tobacco industry (killing all their best customers) only faster.
-
dejavu is right...
HOs are easy enough to avoid and 9 times out of 10 they are easy to reverse. Lephturn has a good article on his website that will help you understand.
A lot of ho kills are a result of bad choices at the merge. Its funny because the same situation that caused the 1 st ho leads to the next 1.
For instance 2 guys coming head on both miss both flat turn and come right back headon. 1 dies and squeakes and complains "all you do is ho"
AKnimitz and AKcurly can show you how to enter a merge.
Then there are times when you are fighting and you are in a guns defense against the guy on your 6. You turn and there it is ho. Stuff happens.
Work on your own behavior and learn how to avoid and gain the advantage from a ho and you will be less worried about the other guy. You may learn to like it when they try to ho you.
-
Obviously I didnt fly aircraft in WWII but from what I gather - hot merges were probably common, but kills as a result were not. I have yet to read of anyone killing a fighter HO (not a buff) in WWII. There are a few reasons for the issue here that I have come up with:
1. Hot merges in real life were random and unexpected - little time was given to aim and as a result, hitting any aircraft showing its nose to you was more luck than anything else.
2. There are no distance/ID icons in real life. How do you know that you wouldnt be shooting at a freindly?
3. Again, because of no distance icons, visual detection was difficult at any distance over 1000 yards (if not less) so you didnt exactly have time to manuvere your AC for a shot.
4. Death. You get shot down in AH, you up again, you get shot down in real life, youre dead or worse. Im pretty sure that pilots didnt scream in at 800 knots closure with the hammer down and pass at 5-6 feet - this would be extremely nerve racking. Im willing to bet that hot merges lasted about 1-2 seconds - one guy would find himself in firing position and the other would realize he has to move... quick.
6. In addition to all this, if your goal is to shoot down enemy aircraft with guns, you WANT to be behind him - you can shoot him with a closure distance close to zip and he cant shoot you, period. After a hot merge, planes would take part in the ensuing furball and then disengage after about 30-45 seconds when they found themselves at respective disadvantages. Im pretty sure that no real life pilot wasted his time trying to reverse a disadvantaged situation - they pointed the nose down, WEPped it, and got the f@ck out of there.
Of course - if the game were like this, it wouldnt be much fun. :P
-
Thach Weave, lotta kills and all from HOs.
-SW
-
>>I often wonder if there is any merit to my question. Does the fact that this is a sim, where you can instantly reup, often right where the fight occurred, encourage unrealistic behavior, and if so, is there anything that can be done about it? <<
BotaBing:
Yer probably right to an extent about unlimited lives affecting HO's and other ..ahem..unrealistic aspects of the way some fly and fight but, it's a combat flight SIM and not a real life combat situation.
I dunno about the frequency of HO's tho, thats prolly a function of what you may be seeing at a given time in the game. I have grown to accept HO's as a part of the game. When I pick out a target and see him turn to me, I know he is gonna try an HO. I will not turn away and give him the edge, particularly on the merge. I shoot first, and usually hit first, then I try to roll out of his line of fire or duck my nose under him as we pass. I fought a guy a few days ago who came at me HO; I pinged him and we passed. He came back around as I turned after him. He tried another HO; I pinged him again and got him smoking. He didnt give up; turned around again and tried another HO; I shot him down. He came up on CH1 and attributed his loss to my lag;) I told him he shouldn't have gone for the HO on each pass; he didn't get it. I figured he never learned other forms of acm.
There are many who try the HO simply because they have cannon armed planes and think they have an easy mark. There are also those who seem not to understand that an opposing a/c with nose guns usually have an advantage in an HO situation. Either way, I suggest you get better at HO situations ;) Because it aint gonna stop. It is an easy approach and less work than proper acm tactics, and you can't make others stop doing it because you don't like it or, disagree with it. HO's are allowed in the game/sim, therefore they are going to be used. Hell, I think there are too many Spits flying and every other player uses em :) I also know I can't stop it, so I kill em :D
-
>>If you find HOs in the MA unrealistically common, then respawning, killshooter, and every other gamey feature used to piss off die-hard realism fanatics are probably bothering you as well. <<
Well said Streak.
-
easiest way to stop a HO is to do a lead turn/loop, get on their 6 and pop 'em because they gave you the angle.
i figure if enough people start doing this, it'll expose the inherent weakness in going for a HO, and hopefully darwinism will start to prevail as people try and actually use ACM.
they'll still die, tho' muahahahahaha.
:D
-
>>Thach Weave, lotta kills and all from HOs. <<
Thats quite a claim AKSWulfe. Where did you read that?
From what I read, the Thach weave was a defensive move developed by F4F pilots to combat the superior performance of the Zero. It basically was designed to provide mutual protection by wingmen.
From what I have read over the years, the tactic of most Pac theatre pilots was to manuever against nme a/c so as to bounce them from above and behind, not headon. The defense against the hi bounce was to turn up and into (HO) the hi bounce to combat it. The HO was not the acm move of choice; too dangerous for the combatants for obvious reasons.
Perhaps later on when the disparity between plane types went in favor of the Allied pilots, and air superiority went to the allied pilots that the incidence of HO's increased.
I have read in here posts by others citing Richard Bong, and how he used HOs all the time; not so. He flew the 38 and was a lousy marksman. He got his kills by boring in so close that he couldn't miss. If he were to have used HOs that close in he would've gotten himself killed.
My understanding of the hO is that it was a legitimate shot used in desperate situations; not as it is used in AH.
-
http://www.ixpres.com/ag1caf/navalwar/defense.htm
whels
Originally posted by Don
>>Thach Weave, lotta kills and all from HOs. <<
Thats quite a claim AKSWulfe. Where did you read that?
From what I read, the Thach weave was a defensive move developed by F4F pilots to combat the superior performance of the Zero. It basically was designed to provide mutual protection by wingmen.
From what I have read over the years, the tactic of most Pac theatre pilots was to manuever against nme a/c so as to bounce them from above and behind, not headon. The defense against the hi bounce was to turn up and into (HO) the hi bounce to combat it. The HO was not the acm move of choice; too dangerous for the combatants for obvious reasons.
Perhaps later on when the disparity between plane types went in favor of the Allied pilots, and air superiority went to the allied pilots that the incidence of HO's increased.
I have read in here posts by others citing Richard Bong, and how he used HOs all the time; not so. He flew the 38 and was a lousy marksman. He got his kills by boring in so close that he couldn't miss. If he were to have used HOs that close in he would've gotten himself killed.
My understanding of the hO is that it was a legitimate shot used in desperate situations; not as it is used in AH.
-
Just two quick cites from "Fire In The Sky" - Bergerud
"Note that an aggressive American pilot welcomed a frontal, or head-on, attack against a Zero." Pg 456
"The head-on attack was part of the American repertoire of basic combat techniques since being recommended by Chennault...Richard Bong was noted for favoring the technique. Yet the best description of a head-on attack was given by Charles Lindbergh." Pg 491
But while we are on the subject of realism, how realistic is it to troll alone in enemy territory looking for fights? 95% of the people flying are lone-wolf with no wingmen or flight of aircraft. HOs don't bother me. I'll fire head-on just to get the other guy to duck before the merge and hopefully get me an angle or two. Luckily this is just a game and we can lift off again within seconds after dying as many times as we want and this will bolden any pilot in my opinion.
-
As far as realism and HO's go, In Baa Baa Blacksheep, Maj. Boyington says, and I'm paraphrasing here, "I've heard a lot about Japanese "suicide tactics" and how they would sacrificie their lives for victory, but I don't know about that. When in combat, I would make passes straight at them, and they would always turn first"
Now that's just long and probably ill remembered recollection of a book with dubious historical accuracy (he wasn't a lier per say, but I'd bet he told his share of sea stories in there). But I figured it was worth mentioning anyhow.
[edit] this is in reference to the Autobiography, not the TV show or TV Movie
-Sikboy
-
Oooops, double post
-
Well this has definitely changed my thoughts about HO attacks.
Thanks everyone.
-
Botabing has come to see the head on in its true light -- a chivalric form of aerial jousting.
-
Whels:
While the diagram may show a straight across shot at the front quarter of the nme a/c, it really isnt an HO. Whats more, it is more of a hi angle shot than an HO. Further, as I posted, it was a defensive manuever used with good effect by wingmen to counter more agile zeros. Not enough there to justify the HO as a regular and effective acm manuever. ;) In fact, in the diagram along the flight path of both a/c, there are other points where a shot could be taken at the trailing nmez 6 area as well.
-
Diagram or not, Thach actually described this manuever in a book. I don't remember which, but when he describes it, he manuvers towards his wingman and his wingman towards him. He would have a head on shot at the enemy on his wingman's tail while his wingman had a shot at the enemy on his tail. This was an account of a battle he was in.
That by definition, is a head on. Whether it's off by a few degrees does not matter, both aircraft are pointing at each other.
It was also common in the pacific to attack the japanese head on because their planes were very lightly armored while the American planes were highly armored.
Head on attacks were employed by the Flying Tigers while they were stationed in China.
It wasn't necesarily a defensive manuever, it was the only manuever to which the Americans attributed success to in the early years of the war in the pacific.
It was indeed a successful use of a head on merge, and thus it would make effective if it's successful.
-SW
-
>>The Zeros made pass after pass against Thach's three planes only to find themselves head-on with the much more stoutly built Wildcats. Thach himself shot down three planes which he kept tallied on a notepad on his leg before he gave up recording. Thach said later he fully expected that his team would not make it out alive so why waste time with record keeping? <<
AKSWulfe:
What is described above is an excerp from an account written about an action Thach and 3 of his pilots engaged in during WW2. What is described is a situation which is different than what has been discussed here and done in the MA; ie. the HO as a common method of acm.
Described above is a situation where the manuever enabled 3 outmanned and outgunned pilots, to keep from dying and to score victories against overwhelming odds. "..head on with the much more stoutly built Wildcats." What is clear is that the Thach weave was a sound defensive manuever, and not an offensive one, as is used in AH by so many. If given a choice I am sure those guys in WW2 would rather have taken a different approach to a fight versus those zeros ie. hit em and dive away because the zero was too light to keep up with F4Fs and P-40's in a dive attitude.
In AH otoh, the HO (again, what this thread is originally about) is used by many as the acm of choice.
While the HO was used by the flying Tigers in China, from what I have read, the manuever used predominately was the bounce from above, hit and run ended by a dive away from the zeros they attacked. Planes and pilots were precious to the Flying Tigers and were not wasted in risky manuevers like the HO.
>>It was indeed a successful use of a head on merge, and thus it would make effective if it's successful. <<
If unsuccessful, yer dead. Not a problem in AH, it's virtual but, in RL it meant a helluva lot more; totally different conditions.
-
I think alot of people here are misunderstanding what "HO" is and assuming it's simply noses pointed at eachother, guns blazing. A HO is still a HO even if both parties dont fire. The issue here is hot merges - having both pilots fire from a North/South AoA. The Thatch Weave, a defensive tactic employed by Wildcats in the PTO doesnt classify itself as a hot merge IMO. Its just another form of dragging an enemy AC for a wingman to shoot. Its similar in concept to the (forget the name) "defensive circle" formed by Me110's over Britain. They would basically form a ring and fly in a huge circle, shooting bandits off easchothers tails. The hot merge is not unrealistic, but the fact that BOTH pilots will 9 times out of 10 shot and shoot and shoot until they are either dead, smoking, or awarded a kill is what bugs me. THAT is unrealistic - after all, this is a game tho and I guess some people enjoy flying to 15K for 10 minutes only to get wasted barely touching the stick on 5 seconds. For those of you looking to aviod HO's (which I spent most of my time figuring out the past few months) there a simple tactic that works wonders. Most of it is psychological. First off, the best way to physically aviod a HO is to maintain forward course, thus not giving your opponent an angle on you after the merge - and go below him. This does 2 things: 1. Your immediately "not a dweeb" and you have confidence in your ability to outfly your advisary - psychs the guy out some and hell start doing stupid things - 2. After you merge, pull up on stick slowly maintaining maximum E, and ride it up until stall. He has 2 choices at this point - pull up HARD to get around on you quicker wasting his E, or continue forward. In either case, you are now above him with more potential energy than him, you have the advantage and should close the fight. AH is like Golf, being too aggressive is almost as bad as not being aggressive enough. Play the numbers, energy is key, and you wont lose. Most pilots will follow you straight up and wonder why their N1k cant follow the 190 after turning on him - hell flop over and present you with a target about as difficult to hit as a bomber hanger. (Those of you AW 38J sticks know this ACM very well)
-
AH or real life, HOs were common. They may not have been common among certain groups- but all you have to do is pick up a couple of books and you'll read about a lot of HOs. Many of them failed attempts resulting in either no damage to the aircraft or the pilot going down.
Either way, they were common in air combat from 1914-1918 and 1939-45.
Whatever, I give up. The thread was about the "realism" of HOs, they happened in the real war- a lot of pilots also dodged them. What makes it "unrealistic" is your ability to take the head on, and then after you lose you come here and wonder about it's "validity" or "realism".... you'd be dead in the real war, so it wouldn't exactly be common for you there either.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Obviously I didnt fly aircraft in WWII but from what I gather - hot merges were probably common, but kills as a result were not. I have yet to read of anyone killing a fighter HO (not a buff) in WWII. There are a few reasons for the issue here that I have come up with:
1. Hot merges in real life were random and unexpected - little time was given to aim and as a result, hitting any aircraft showing its nose to you was more luck than anything else.
2. There are no distance/ID icons in real life. How do you know that you wouldnt be shooting at a freindly?
3. Again, because of no distance icons, visual detection was difficult at any distance over 1000 yards (if not less) so you didnt exactly have time to manuvere your AC for a shot.
4. Death. You get shot down in AH, you up again, you get shot down in real life, youre dead or worse. Im pretty sure that pilots didnt scream in at 800 knots closure with the hammer down and pass at 5-6 feet - this would be extremely nerve racking. Im willing to bet that hot merges lasted about 1-2 seconds - one guy would find himself in firing position and the other would realize he has to move... quick.
6. In addition to all this, if your goal is to shoot down enemy aircraft with guns, you WANT to be behind him - you can shoot him with a closure distance close to zip and he cant shoot you, period. After a hot merge, planes would take part in the ensuing furball and then disengage after about 30-45 seconds when they found themselves at respective disadvantages. Im pretty sure that no real life pilot wasted his time trying to reverse a disadvantaged situation - they pointed the nose down, WEPped it, and got the f@ck out of there.
Of course - if the game were like this, it wouldnt be much fun. :P
Actually there are numerous accounts of Head On attacks resulting in kills and even collisions. It was not an uncommon occurance at all.
-
_
-
The 56th FG used HO attacks to break up LW formations as their SOP and yet I've never read of a single plane damaged (friend or foe) in those situations.
There's also the somewhat well known story of Robert Johnson and his wingman going headon with 20+ 190s who are lining up an attack on a straggling B-17 and routing the 190s.
The Thatch weave as I understand it, was designed to give frontal quarter shots, which is not the same as headon shots.
Daff
-
Nice real life pic Jim, but in AH, it's more like this:
-
Luftberies Sauer :)
-
Sikboy:
LOL! Implied is the point I thought this thread was about :)
I'm not denying that HO's were used, I'm merely saying that they weren't a manuever of choice by Real life pilots who wanted to see another day; way too risky. Not everybody enjoyed the game of chicken.
The lack of realism in a game/sim IMO allows for the frequency of Ho's, and probably the rationale for using it; then trying to make out as if it's cool and sound tactics. My point is, it's not but, whatever trips the user's trigger;)
-
I have an interesting note about whether or not the "re-up" factor has a lot to do with HOing in Aces High. During "one life" events I find myself taking MORE HO shots than in the Arena. I don't actually line up for a Head on attack, but if, during a furball An enemy plane spends any time coming at me Head On, I'll take the shot. In the MA, I might not. My thinking is along these lines "If I've only got one life, I'm not going to give it up without taking this shot" In the MA I'll often not take the shot, and get kilt (by not getting out of the way quick enough) and I'll think "hmmm, shoulda gone ahead and fired through him" Just some anectdotal evidence.
-Sikboy
-
Rgr that Sikboy. I had a similar outlook, trying to take the high road and all that :rolleyes:
Well I soon realized that wasn't working, so now if I'm after an nme who turns to me, I get his measure by the move and set up for the HO; happens a lot. I know if he has cannons the chances are good that I will get damaged or die. I also know that if arena conditions are laggy, my chances may be better that I will hurt him first. Either way there is a rsik with the move, and since it is the way things are in here, I just go with the flow. But there is no way in hell that I am going to agree that it is a sound form of acm; like one of those 'what seperates the men from the boys' moves.
-
You're right Don, a HO is not a sound form of ACM... it's not even ACM... no manuevering in it. Fly straight and shoot.
However, in the pacific it was taught as a way to down planes since American planes were so much more rugged than the Japanese planes (and for the most part outgunned them too)...
It's funny though, the ones arguing about it's soundness or validity or realism still take the head on. I will fly head on at someone if they are coming at me, but I always manuever out of the way. The only time I've died in a head on is when I went for the head on...
Maybe, just maybe, try figuring a way to fly by the head on rather than taking it or coming here to complain about it would make more sense.
You can't force other people to fly "your way" or the way you believe is "historically acceptable" based on the books you've read... the best you can do is fly your way and not their way.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
You're right Don, a HO is not a sound form of ACM... it's not even ACM... no manuevering in it. Fly straight and shoot.
However, in the pacific it was taught as a way to down planes since American planes were so much more rugged than the Japanese planes (and for the most part outgunned them too)...
It's funny though, the ones arguing about it's soundness or validity or realism still take the head on. I will fly head on at someone if they are coming at me, but I always manuever out of the way. The only time I've died in a head on is when I went for the head on...
Maybe, just maybe, try figuring a way to fly by the head on rather than taking it or coming here to complain about it would make more sense.
You can't force other people to fly "your way" or the way you believe is "historically acceptable" based on the books you've read... the best you can do is fly your way and not their way.
-SW
until the HO leath in Ah is reduced to RL levels( which will never happen) HO will be the Quaker cheap kill of choice.
yes HOs happened in RL, but compaired to other kill totals it
rarely killed the other plane. someone posted a story of a
spit and 109 fight, where they made what 6 HO passes both
firing, and in the end the spit pilot had to use ACM and shot from
6 to get the 109.
ive started just laughing and thanking the HO dweebs, they just told me im the better pilot and if they didnt HO shoot id kill them by better skill, which they dont bother to even try to learn.
whels
-
>>thanking the HO dweebs, they just told me im the better pilot and if they didnt HO shoot id kill them by better skill, which they dont bother to even try to learn. <<
Bingo Whels!
-
Originally posted by Don
>>thanking the HO dweebs, they just told me im the better pilot and if they didnt HO shoot id kill them by better skill, which they dont bother to even try to learn. <<
Bingo Whels!
ehehe by taking HOs, they already have it in thier head
they have lost every fight before even merging, so its thier
only chance to win.
whels
-
Originally posted by BotaBing
I think the answer is yes, it does. Anyone else have thoughts on the issue, and maybe what could be done to stop it?
Barrel roll as you approach the guy or zero G dive. Both will avoid the HO and put you in a competitive situation after the merge.
curly
-
How many HOs do you see in TOD and Scenarios?
I can't really recall anyone going direct for HO in either.
-
HO are not problem now like they were before, when chog was unperked and every idiot flew them.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
HO are not problem now like they were before, when chog was unperked and every idiot flew them.
F4U-1C (10 perks)
-4x 20mm Cannon
-800+ rounds of ammunition
-Average acceleration
-Above average top speed
-Above average hi speed performance
-Horrible low speed performance
-Horrible stall characteristics
-Average rate of climb
-Difficult landing
N1k-2J (free)
-4x 20mm Cannon
-800+ rounds of ammunition
-Above average acceleration
-Above average top speed
-Above average high speed performance
-Excellent low speed performance
-Excellent stall characteristics
-Above average rate of climb
-Easy landing
Anyone else notice something out of place with this?
-
Were you here when the chog was not perked?
-
he has no idea about the chog before it was perked.
it was getting over 20% of the kills per tour.
its rate of fire beats the niki hands down. Id rather ho in a spit with 2 x hizookas then a niki.
-
I have headon passes all the time in TOD Midnight. No big deal, same as MA I have never been forced into a headon. I will accept them when offer if the mood strikes me, but never has a headon pass hit me when I did not want to take the shot.
The person going for the headon is no more lacking in ACM than the person who either cannot get out of the way or thinks that manuevering begins after a guns cold pass.
-
Maybe it's because the FM allows HO:s? For example in IL-2 the HO is rather difficult as the closure rates are quite high compared to that of AH. Anybody else tried it in IL?
-Charge+
(THE HO dweeb)
-
i do alot of head on attacks and there's nothing wrong with but if you dont want to get in HO roll away form them or get above them then the'll try to follow u lose there E and stall then you just come in behind them and blow them up. and if you have to do a HO try to be in the hurri 2c it is the best HO plane i think.
-
Charge, perhaps it's because the planeset there is different. The only 4 cannon bird is the 190A5... and if you go head on in AH with a 190A5 and are a good shot, then you'll get a kill. Likewise in Il-2, I've had no problems going head on and getting kills in the 190A5.
Many of the planes in Il-2 aren't modelled in AH- the only ones being the 109 series and the 190A5 from the German side and Yak-9U & 9T, and La5FN... I really don't see much of a difference between AH and Il-2 in the head on between the two games.
The only real dif I see is that you are less likely to take a wing off, but then again, in AH I'm less likely to take a wing off in any of the aforementioned planes in a head on.
-SW
-
Quote from AKSWulfe:Thach Weave, lotta kills and all from HOs.
Huh? I try and avoid them as I usually lose them, and always lose the collisions. :confused:
-
I dunno what you were replying to that for Weave, but if you are dying to collisions I think the answer is to break off earlier.
I always go for the HO, well I feign it, and the only times I've died is when I keep boring on in.
I point my nose towards them, to the right or left and below them, as I pick up speed, and get within 300 yards, I pull up and to the opposite of where I was pointing before. This brings you past their line of sight but only very quickly.
I use this if I anticipate a quick, easy fight.
Otherwise I just keep going past them, pull into a vertical loop and begin my fight from their.
It really is not hard to avoid 'em, I dunno why so many people make it out to be.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
F4U-1C (10 perks)
-4x 20mm Cannon
-800+ rounds of ammunition
-Average acceleration
-Above average top speed
-Above average hi speed performance
-Horrible low speed performance
-Horrible stall characteristics
-Average rate of climb
-Difficult landing
N1k-2J (free)
-4x 20mm Cannon
-800+ rounds of ammunition
-Above average acceleration
-Above average top speed
-Above average high speed performance
-Excellent low speed performance
-Excellent stall characteristics
-Above average rate of climb
-Easy landing
Anyone else notice something out of place with this?
The N1K2 has 12380 kills and has been killed 11595 times.
The N1K2 has 81 kills and has been killed 182 times against the F4U-1C.
Dies about as much as it kills on average. (Then again, NIK2's use the HO tactic alot, don't they.)
The F4U-1C has 3175 kills and has been killed 1546 times.
The F4U-1C has 182 kills and has been killed 81 times against the N1K2.
Is more likely to kill twice as much as it dies, again on average.
-
Originally posted by WBHoncho
The N1K2 has 12380 kills and has been killed 11595 times.
The N1K2 has 81 kills and has been killed 182 times against the F4U-1C.
Dies about as much as it kills on average. (Then again, NIK2's use the HO tactic alot, don't they.)
The F4U-1C has 3175 kills and has been killed 1546 times.
The F4U-1C has 182 kills and has been killed 81 times against the N1K2.
Is more likely to kill twice as much as it dies, again on average.
-
Originally posted by WBHoncho
The N1K2 has 12380 kills and has been killed 11595 times.
The N1K2 has 81 kills and has been killed 182 times against the F4U-1C.
Dies about as much as it kills on average. (Then again, NIK2's use the HO tactic alot, don't they.)
The F4U-1C has 3175 kills and has been killed 1546 times.
The F4U-1C has 182 kills and has been killed 81 times against the N1K2.
Is more likely to kill twice as much as it dies, again on average.
Chog is carrier plane, alot of base attacks come from CVs, and no plane beats Chog for base attack and Cap. id be willing to bet
over half them kills come from base vulch.
put niki on a CV and ud see its kills go way up.
whels
-
Nik isnt that good at high speeds it does survive but it doesnt handle like a f4u-c that for sure.......
If the Chog stays fast he keep the advantage.
If the fight gets slow well it's the NIK's advantage.
I think we all know that ........
and for the K/D ratio's well it seem that more skilled piolets tend to fly the CHOG hence your Ratio's.
(did you ever notice my post arent whines)
:) ;) :p
box
-
hehe Wulfie, when I first read the post I quoted, in my ignorance I thought thach was a typo for "watch". :)
I think, the reason I lose most collisions is my DSL connection, and the speed of my PC. So my FE is probably seeing it first. :eek:
In defense of my flying, most collisions are the result of circumstance, like the time I blew the tail off of a P-47 and he went up in a stall just as I passed through that space. Of course, he got the kill on me. :D
-
Easy Sulution....fly a JUG!!! Plenty of available armor to help ya in the HO and 9 times out of 10 you'll still be flying after the merge Ya might be leaking a fluid or two but it's the price ya pay. :-)
AvidMC
56th FG Zemke`s Wolfpack CAVE TONITRUM!
-
All I can say is that if I'm slow and you're fast, I'm going to faceshoot you if you let me get my nose pointed at you.