HO Philosphy

[Krusty]

Coming from you, tank-ace, I'd take it as a compliment. Knowing your sense of judgement, it just means I'm touching a nerve.


Ink: It was standard. You can see gun cam footage of 109s/190s attacking all kinds of planes from jugs to ponies to bombers. Not just them. US planes did it because of the reach of .50cal guns. LW planes did it because of the hitting power of cannons. Japanese did it simply because that was their style and it wasn't about who had the better guns as much as just getting in the shots regardless.

Even a 7mm round can kill a person in real life.

[Shifty]

The Politics of HO.

From: The Great Act of the Arena's.
by: the Unknown Chronicler of Gaming.

Act148, Scene 5, 12th year of the new era.

The Lions Complain to the Arena about the Lambs. Once again the Lions knowing Caesar will ignore their complaints turn to the mob of the circus to plead their case.

Lions: Good people of the empire the Lambs are killing us with a cowardly blow to our sensitive noses. This is wrong, abnormal and not the proper order of the universe. It makes the Lambs look cowardly and bad.

Mob: WHY!! You die good. Nice show. Thanks for all the shrieking and blood. Lets hear it for the Lambs!

Lions: You cretins and fools! You are but one step above the food the Lambs are to us. You are unworthy of our magnitude in your arena.

Mob: Don't let the gates smack your hairey rumps on the way out of town. Oh! Hey you are down there in the arena with those Lambs. Hey Lambs!! Smack those Sissy Kitties in the nose again. We love the show. Make the big badd kitties shreik again.

This is both hilarious and a bullseye.  

[LCADolby]

Lest we forget; The lions kill the lambs at a rate of 10 to 1.

[mtnman]

Wow, the topic of HO's pops up again...

It always amazes me how emotional people get about a simple, legitimate, tactic.  Particularly when the people who voice their concern the most would seem to be the ones skilled enough to be least affected by it.

I still stand by the idea that the fights in AH benefit greatly from the fact that an HO is possible.

I personally don't use the tactic, as I find it too risky.  And it's not something that I would ever teach (it's so simple that it really doesn't need to be taught anyway).

But I certainly don't mind if someone wants to try it against me...  And whether  my opponent uses the tactic or not I see the fact that it could be used to be immensely important.  It keeps the fight "honest".

Removing the HO possibility (either through programming or social stigma) would degrade aerial combat in AH, and make it a sham.

I honestly can't fathom why anyone who values "high quality" fights would speak against it???

[ink]

Wow, the topic of HO's pops up again...

It always amazes me how emotional people get about a simple, legitimate, tactic.  Particularly when the people who voice their concern the most would seem to be the ones skilled enough to be least affected by it.

I still stand by the idea that the fights in AH benefit greatly from the fact that an HO is possible.

I personally don't use the tactic, as I find it too risky.  And it's not something that I would ever teach (it's so simple that it really doesn't need to be taught anyway).

But I certainly don't mind if someone wants to try it against me...  And whether  my opponent uses the tactic or not I see the fact that it could be used to be immensely important.  It keeps the fight "honest".

Removing the HO possibility (either through programming or social stigma) would degrade aerial combat in AH, and make it a sham.

I honestly can't fathom why anyone who values "high quality" fights would speak against it???

I agree completely...keeps a fight honest....anyone who wants to be good will drop the HO as a tactic and learn to use ACM to avoid the possibility of an easy death to a HO shot.....




I find that the HO itself  there is nothing wrong with and certain situations it is the best tactic...I will never talk down about someone in a 110...mossie....ect ect Hoing


there is a big difference from a HO and a HO dweeb.....a HO dweeb.... it don't matter what he is flying he will use the HO in all situations, for that is all he knows....like someone in a zero HOing a Hurri2c    

[Wiley]

there is a big difference from a HO and a HO dweeb.....a HO dweeb.... it don't matter what he is flying he will use the HO in all situations, for that is all he knows....like someone in a zero HOing a Hurri2c    

Yeah, but man does it suck to be in that 2C when you're not having a stellar gunnery day, and the guy in the Zeke is.

Wiley.

[RedBull1]

[nrshida]

There is no fix for the use of the Samual Colt manuver in this game. It is the great equaliser.

Although I do accept and respect the observation that people play Aces High for different reasons and that no party is better or more entitled than the other, I don't agree with this comment about the HO being a Samual Colt manoeuvre. If the guns are already drawn and pointed this would be a valid point, however when I see an opponent setting up for the HO in the pre-merge (and at this point the 45s are still holstered) I know he will either be getting shot or running / diving away by merge 2½ (and sometimes earlier). Offering that illusion of a shot opportunity ensures that after the first merge, the HOer is disadvantaged both in terms of angles AND energy. It's a trap, basically.

I don't complain about people HOing either, but is this ethical of me, when I know I can exploit it so easily? Should I point it out to less experienced players and try to explain about ACM or instead remain silent so I won't be called an elitist or a whiner? I don't lose anything either way.

I was taught in my first week here that the Aces High culture disapproves of the HO. Whether it was used in the war and the debatable effectiveness of it aside I can say one thing with certainty, when I see those tracers flying harmlessly to the side in the first merge, this opponent has indicated to me that he is results-focussed and wants to get a kill and survive above all of anything else. Since I admire skill and courage more than results I would be disinclined to help that player improve and am far more likely to hunt him down and let my guns convey my disapproval.

[Copprhed]

Shida, you said it SO well.....

[Murdr]

1. players gaming the game by zooming (p38 docet!);

If I'm picturing your description correctly that's not a HO.  That's a rope-a-dope.  If you follow an opponent up, and you cannot raise the nose (stall condition) by the time they come back down at you it doesn't matter if they're in your windscreen or not.  If you can't get guns, and they can, you walked into a classic trap.  And while it wasn't a named maneuver, you can hear interviewed combat vets describe exactly that situation.

Let's forget gameplay and community ethics and talk tactics for a moment.  It's a poor tactically to hold yourself in someone elses guns while doing the same, if you have other options.  At a merge from long contact going for the HO will generally put that pilot at a maneuver disadvantage after the merge.  Also, generally not the best tactic. 

That said, when you change the situation to dissimilar aircraft, lets say a typhoon vs spit.  The HO becomes higher on the choice list for the typh, because the typh has slim chance in gaining angles in a straight out maneuver fight.  And the spit would be foolish not to take that into account at the merge.

Lets change the scenario to 2 typhs.  Now we're back to the not so smart dice roll when choosing the HO.  However, both tactically should be prepared to maneuver to avoid the HO.

That "come screaming from 5k yards away nose on" is the variety of HO that is generally frowned upon, but in the middle of a furball sometimes it was the only option.  It's a valid tactic sometimes, but often it is a poor choice.

I wish I had a film of a fight where a P38 was sneaking up on me as I was shooting down his countryman (I had vulched the 38 about 10 minutes earlier).  We ended up in opposing circles, max performing turn nearly colliding and lit each other up.  My pilot was killed, and I know his wing was porked because he asked (this was before the collusion messages were implemented) if I got hits on his wing.  No whining involved.  We ended up neutral position in hard maneuvering and trying to get guns first was the only real option.  I didn't call HiTech a HO dweeb because of it 

[mtnman]

I don't complain about people HOing either, but is this ethical of me, when I know I can exploit it so easily? Should I point it out to less experienced players and try to explain about ACM or instead remain silent so I won't be called an elitist or a whiner? I don't lose anything either way.

The ethical argument is an odd one, IMO. 

If you feel it unethical to exploit the advantages an opponent hands you due to his HO attempt, can I assume you'd also feel it unethical to exploit the advantages he hands you if he makes any other poor tactical decision?

Would you consider it equally unethical to exploit a left roll made by your opponent, when he should have rolled right?  Or to exploit the advantage you'd have if he pulls up too early, or too late, or goes up when he should have gone down?  Or if he fails to drop flaps (or lift them) when he should?  What if his throttle control is horrid, and that gives you an advantage? 

Would you exploit it?  Belittle him for it?  Try to shame him for it?

After all, his intentions in maneuvering are the same in all cases...  He's trying to get some rounds into you.

I really do fail to see how "ethics" can be used as an argument here, unless it's in favor of allowing the HO tactic.

[The Fugitive]

The problem comes in when players lean on the HO as their one and only move. Using "ethics" or belittling" a player is a tool to turn people away from what the "majority" believe as a cheap tactic and hopefully push people into exploring other ways to "win" a fight so as to increase the quality of the fights in the game.

At least that is the way I took it when I came here. "kill macros" were a big thing in AWIII, but when I came here they were frowned upon. Community "pressure" stopped us AW guys from using them. Now I'm thankful it was frowned on. Can you imagine what the text buffer would look like these days with all those kill macros going by WITH all the stuff that we already have? whew! Another folly nipped in the bud.

Shaming a player into NOT using the HO on every pass? I'm ok with that, it will make a better fighter out of him, and increases the chance of me running into some one who fights back.

[Tracerfi]

I am asking a serious question here, so please no rants or belittling.

I don't understand why a HO upsets so many when:

a. It was used in actual combat
b. Pointing your guns at another opponent is an act of aggression

Its a tactic that for some reason in AH has this whole taboo stigma attached to it and based on point B. if an opponent attempts to point his guns at me, no matter from what direction then I will fire !!

I am also finding on occasion that after checking the film back find that the person making the HO claims actually fired themselves, which is beyond belief .. !!

Would love peoples thoughts

NikonGuy

In WW2 In the Pacific the flying tigers used the ho method in the P40 Warhawk so yes it is I fail method

[jimson]

Code the front silhouette of fighter aircraft as super armored, leave one space about the size of the prop hub as unarmored. Give manned gunners special ammo that pierces this shield.

You can still Ho but you have to place a perfect bullseye for it to be effective.

Problem solved.

[Lusche]

Code the front silhouette of fighter aircraft as super armored, leave one space about the size of the prop hub as unarmored. Give manned gunners special ammo that pierces this shield.

You can still Ho but you have to place a perfect bullseye for it to be effective.

Problem solved.

Gamey crap. Problems created.