Pickers and runners please help me understand...

[Scca]

   So, here's my reasoning for the existence of pickers and runners: They like to see that low number and high k/d ratio next to their name(possibly for lack of true accomplishments in actual life ).. 

Ya know, I think I found my answer..  This is the first thing that has made sense..

<S> Anodizer

[33Vortex]

There are more people out there who fly the Spit XVI and don't know how to make the most of it, than there are people who fly a FW190 not knowing how to make the most of it. The difference being that the spit pilot die more often than the 190 because the 190 run away while the spit keep turning 'til he die. Thus the 190 stick get flamed for making it out of the fight alive.

The Spit XVI is one of the most popular a/c in the game. Most fly it like it was a hotted Spit I which is completely wrong. The Spit XVI is also a great E fighter which can turn much like a spit (pardon the pun). Yet I see people use E tactics in the XVI about as much as I see them furball on the deck in the 262.

Makes sense? Not really. My point is that not many see the a/c for what they are and use them to their fullest. Popular opinion is not always right. Think for yourself.

[SlapShot]

One time I was really bored, so I took the La-7 up and hunted down all high profile pilots bnzming my base. It was sweet! but then they hope on 200 and cry at me for flying La-7, and all i did was lol back!

Translation ...

Look at me ... look at me ... I R l337.

[Zazen13]

Today, farting around in the MA, I shot down five Fw-190s. Twice it was an individual coming in high while I was in an A-20 hunting GVs and trying to get me, 3 times were on Spitfire hops. All of them, after expending their E and ending up in front, made the mistake of doing something other than extending from a plane with superior maneuverabilty. I don't mind getting the kills, but at the same time, it kind of makes me shake my head. There was no need for them to "prove" anything to me by what amounts to letting me have very easy kills because their airframe absolutely cannot compete with mine in that particular corner of the envelope.
If there were no disengaging, top speed would be a useless trait, offensively and defensively. Sustained turn rate primarily and climb rate secondarily would be the end-all be-all, and the variety of planes that had anything going for them would be sharply curtailed. I've played a game that mimicked conditions similar to that, its called CFS3 online mode...spawn you at 200mph and 5K in the middle of the other tail-chasers, shoot whatever crosses in front of your sights until you yourself are inevitiably shot down. You and everyone else will be doing this in a Spit 99% of the time, because unlike AHII, Spit truly WAS a UFO in CFS, and the typical conditions were made for Spit only dominance. Maybe to some AH players this would be heaven, to me it was a mindless, unrealistic, hellish perversion of the stories of air combat I'd read since I was a boy.

Beautiful illustration and explanation, I couldn't have said it better myself

[BnZ]

Beautiful illustration and explanation, I couldn't have said it better myself

Zaz:
And back when I was playing CFS3 for awhile, myself, and maybe two other people would sometimes host games that were 4 on 4, realistic settings on ammo, fuel, flight model, etc, American and German prop jobs only (which in CFS3 pretty much were equals), spawning at high altitude with enough seperation to get a little speed up. These games were never as popular as the "arcade Spitfires" style games, and often enough you couldn't fill the roster, or people would come in, try their hand at flying a P-51 or Fw-190, and decide it was not for them.

Taste is inarguable I suppose.

[Zazen13]

My point is, if someone is "running" from your viewpoint, it's probably only because he'd rather not get shot down by you. So what? Can you blame him for that? I think not. This whole blaming game is getting old real fast, and it's been going on forever. The debate is pointless, as people will always have different opinions about it. The smart people of this community are the ones who stay out of the pointless debate.

Disengaging in a poor turner from a slower plane to avoid being killed is absolutely no different than performing a sharp turn in a maneuverable plane to avoid being shot down by a plane that cannot turn that tightly.

Let's be honest here, anyone who takes up a Hurricane <insert favorite turny bird here>, myself included, solemnly preys to heaven and God that everyone we come across will attempt to turn with us and will not disengage under any circumstances. If someone does not choose to turn but instead disengages and/or BnZ's us, we shake our fist in anger and contempt then curse him as a coward...I have killed far better sticks than myself with a Hurricane, not because I flew better or they flew worse, but because they attempted to knife fight me with a plane that could not possibly contravene the hardcoded program data that is the flight parameters of the aircraft and compete in that area. Conversely, I have flown a poor turner and found myself in a knife fight with people who clearly do not have anywhere near my skill but were in a more maneuverable plane, so I get my bellybutton handed to me. Not because the guy flew better or I flew poorly, but because I put myself in a position where I was at the cold-hearted mercy of the hardcoded plane parameters which dictate I will absolutely be out-turned, no doubt about it.

The reverse can be said for a poor turner. When flying one of these birds I prey everyone I come across will attempt to run from me. If a Spit tries to run from a P51, 90% of the time he's dead, even if he attempts a break-turn at the last second. It is just as ridiculous to see a Zeke trying to run from an La7 as it is to see a Fw190 try to turnfight with a Hurricane.

Honestly, I sigh, take the kill and shake my head in bewilderment when I see people fly whatever plane they are in totally out of context. I guess in some perverse, "stick your wiener in a meatgrinder kind of way", they are "pushing" the envelope. But, 99% of the time they are just making themselves much easier to dispatch than they otherwise would be if they flew in a manner conducive to the hardcoded parameters of plane they selected in the hanger, nothing more, nothing less. I don't care how good you are or think you are, a P51 will always out-run a Zeke and a Zeke will always out-turn a P51.

[SlapShot]

UGH ... I don't think that anybody was promoting pure stupidity when it comes to fighting.

For example ...

I will take my FM2 and aggressively attack an A6M5, knowing full well that if I don't get the upper hand in under 2-3 turns (horizontal or vertical) I am in deep doo doo ... especially if the Zeke stick knows what he is doing.

If things don't go right ... I will exit stage left ... and hopefully extend enough for me to reset the fight. Sometimes it works for me and sometimes is doesn't.

The point of the original post was ... I see a Zeke and say to myself ... There is a strong possibility that I will lose this fight, so I will extend way beyond the confrontational limits (keeping my self "safe" for fear of dying) ... and then re-enter into the scene when the Zeke is now engaged with someone else ... and then popping him.

FM2 vs Zeke ... I pretty much come out on the winning end of these fights, but I wouldn't be anywhere near as successful, if I always ran from encounters that I believed that I had no chance of winning. I died a lot in the beginning, but by learning from the experiences (the weaknesses of the opposing plane and the strengths of my plane), I can take on Zekes with confidence. I don't always win, but every time I lose ... I learn something new to take back to the next encounter.

In this game, it is only thru confrontation does one really learn ... and the amount learned is in direct correlation to the amounts and differing confrontations experienced.

[Zazen13]

If things don't go right ... I will exit stage left ... and hopefully extend enough for me to reset the fight. Sometimes it works for me and sometimes is doesn't.

The point of the original post was ... I see a Zeke and say to myself ... There is a strong possibility that I will lose this fight, so I will extend way beyond the confrontational limits (keeping my self "safe" for fear of dying) ... and then re-enter into the scene when the Zeke is now engaged with someone else ... and then popping him.

Yea Slappy, myself and some others have agreed that judging by the OP'ers version of events the 109 in question was inexperienced and/or insecure with himself and/or his plane. I fully acknowledge the difference between keeping a turny bird at arms length and throwing in the towel completely. Although it definitely sucked, from a sportsmanship standpoint, that he returned later and took him out 2 vs 1, it is completely legitimate from a tactics point-of-view, especially if the Spit had an advantage on his countrymen. If his countryman were getting beaten by the OP's Spit or he was hollering on range for help, I can't blame the 109 a bit for clearing him, most of us would do the same. We're also assuming he knew it was the same Spit and was not off engaged with a hitherto unknown party during the interim.

[SlapShot]

Yea Slappy, myself and some others have agreed that judging by the OP'ers version of events the 109 in question was inexperienced and/or insecure with himself and/or his plane. I fully acknowledge the difference between keeping a turny bird at arms length and throwing in the towel completely. Although it definitely sucked, from a sportsmanship standpoint, that he returned later and took him out 2 vs 1, it is completely legitimate from a tactics point-of-view, especially if the Spit had an advantage on his countrymen. If his countryman were getting beaten by the OP's Spit or he was hollering on range for help, I can't blame the 109 a bit for clearing him, most of us would do the same. We're also assuming he knew it was the same Spit and was not off engaged with a hitherto unknown party during the interim.

True ... whether his accounting of what actually transpired is true or not ... the picture painted is very much true throughout the arenas.

[Zazen13]

I will take my FM2 and aggressively attack an A6M5, knowing full well that if I don't get the upper hand in under 2-3 turns (horizontal or vertical) I am in deep doo doo ... especially if the Zeke stick knows what he is doing.

The closer together two planes are on the maneuverability* spectrum the more reasonable it is to turn-fight, this goes for fast planes and slow planes. As in your example, the Fm2 and the Zeke are in the top 5 turners, superior flying skill or gunnery can often make the difference with that little of a disparity in relative performance, especially before the fight devolves to the purely horizontal. The same can be said of a turn-fight between a P51 and a P47 for example..

*Maneuverability as I conceive it is a net amalgam of turn-rate and roll-rate.

[Zazen13]

Zaz:
And back when I was playing CFS3 for awhile, myself, and maybe two other people would sometimes host games that were 4 on 4, realistic settings on ammo, fuel, flight model, etc, American and German prop jobs only (which in CFS3 pretty much were equals), spawning at high altitude with enough seperation to get a little speed up. These games were never as popular as the "arcade Spitfires" style games, and often enough you couldn't fill the roster, or people would come in, try their hand at flying a P-51 or Fw-190, and decide it was not for them.

Taste is inarguable I suppose.

It's far more straightforward to yank n' bank for the "saddle" and hammer away in a tight turner than to exercise the precise timing, gunnery and finesse required to maneuver yourself into a position to score high deflection snap shots, usually out of plane, in a poor turner...That's why the vast majority of new players to the genre start off TnB'ing before some eventually migrate to the energy fighting methodology. Both potentially require alot of skill but, TnB'ing is simply the most direct and intuitive approach to air combat.

Energy fighting is, in a lot of ways, very counter-intuitive and in-direct. For example, to maximally exploit your energy in a poor turner you must often turn away from your opponent to gain separation, not with or toward him, doing so very gradually and smoothly to keep your G loading down.  Then, at the precisely correct time, turn back toward the space where you predicted he would be before you began the maneuver.

Contrary to pure TnB'ing, when energy fighting you almost never want to turn your aircraft as tightly as possible, operating at the extreme edge of your flight envelope is an energy siphon. The energy fighting approach is very subtle and nuanced, often not as direct or straightforward as pure TnB'ing tends to be. It's not a complex endeavor to turn a Hurricane as tightly as it can to get around on another plane. Doing anything to its outermost extreme without the need for moderation is as straightforward as you can get, subtle moderation to exactly the correct degree is far more complex.

[bj229r]

Only read the last few pages, so I'll put my 2 cents in...winning one or two actual FIGHTS, where the outcome was in doubt more than a few times, then managing to land, is ever more gratifying than getting home with 5-6 picks/vulches. If there's no danger of actually dying, it's not unlike playing Quake with cheat-codes all turned on

[33Vortex]

It's far more straightforward to yank n' bank for the "saddle" and hammer away in a tight turner than to exercise the precise timing, gunnery and finesse required to maneuver yourself into a position to score high deflection snap shots, usually out of plane, in a poor turner...That's why the vast majority of new players to the genre start off TnB'ing before some eventually migrate to the energy fighting methodology. Both potentially require alot of skill but, TnB'ing is simply the most direct and intuitive approach to air combat.

Energy fighting is, in a lot of ways, very counter-intuitive and in-direct. For example, to maximally exploit your energy in a poor turner you must often turn away from your opponent to gain separation, not with or toward him, doing so very gradually and smoothly to keep your G loading down.  Then, at the precisely correct time, turn back toward the space where you predicted he would be before you began the maneuver.

Contrary to pure TnB'ing, when energy fighting you almost never want to turn your aircraft as tightly as possible, operating at the extreme edge of your flight envelope is an energy siphon. The energy fighting approach is very subtle and nuanced, often not as direct or straightforward as pure TnB'ing tends to be. It's not a complex endeavor to turn a Hurricane as tightly as it can to get around on another plane. Doing anything to its outermost extreme without the need for moderation is as straightforward as you can get, subtle moderation to exactly the correct degree is far more complex.

Ausgezeichnet! 

Here's one guy who understand what E-fighting and angle-fighting is all about. Few people on these boards recognize the skill needed to carry out precise BnZ maneuvering. I wish I was able to express myself better in english, I mean I'm not bad but could be a lot better because the precise wording and variations just aren't there.