Reviewing the "HO"

[grizz441]

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.

[Kermit de frog]

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.  
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.  

[Tordon22]

How I wish to squish the frog.

[mtnman]

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!

[Kermit de frog]

I find Zap's tone to be very offensive!   

[mtnman]

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?

[The Fugitive]

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.

[Kermit de frog]

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.  

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

[Kermit de frog]

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.

[grizz441]

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.  
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"

[kilo2]

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 Fugitive]

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.

[mtnman]

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 

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]

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.  

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]

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.