Vic formation for interceptors and a new "Interceptor" scoring category

[Karnak]

(Image removed from quote.)



Per par, for him.   I was gonna' do a Carson joke, Karnak style, but Hitech is not in the mood for it so I am refraining.

Not my fault you guys can't think beyond what sounds cool and nifty and great to looking at the larger picture.

'Do more kamikaze Mustangs appeal to you?' Sounds like a step in the right direction, but we probably need to perk ord. Say about one point per pound.

I submit this as an example.  BnZs just wants furballs and anything that interferes with his furball he wants removed.  Now, as it happens, I prefer furballing as well, but I recognize that there needs to be a profitable game for HTC and that just furballing won't do that.  BnZs, were he to get what he claims he wants, would push AH towards failure.

[mthrockmor]

The ideal set up to kill a buff is to get much higher than them, let them get roughly right underneath you, dive to 450knts+, scream by at some odd angle, get 2 or 3 secs of aim time, 1 good second of trigger time, pull of the target and climb to alt again. Classically referred to as 'boom n zoom.'

If I attack buffs without the necessary alt advantage I take a different approach. I will get as much speed as possible (no where near the BnZ/alt-monkey approach) and instead of dive I make a slashing, latitude pass. I will fly even with them though pass from left to right, or right to left. Not as effective though very deadly. If I do it right I hold down the trigger and rake the buff from wingtip to wingtip. With this method it takes more to make the kill for the simple reason I am not concentrating as much lead into one area, such as a wing, etc. The advantage is most tailgunners are going to struggle to get a bead on me and have a very hard time hitting a fighter that is rapidly passing from one side of the screen to the other.

Now imagine I have three fighters at my command. If I do it right one-pass-gets-me-three....One pass and I get to rake the buffs with the firepower of say P-47s? If I get into a good habit I'm pretty sure I can kill two buffs in one pass almost every time (third buff being lower than the two drones.)

I believe I understand the intent, though I still wouldn't support the idea. I have always liked finding a way of creating incentives for sticks to fly in organized activities. Maybe those that join a mission all receive extra perks when a base is taken, or they all hit some buffs.

[LilMak]

Depends on how accurate you are with that shotgun while dying from a single .38 bullet to the vitals. Sounds illegal, risky, and all around not fun, let's shoot beer cans instead. And what has this to do with Aces High?

Your wish for a Vic pretty much proves you're a horrible shot. I submit that you'd miss anything vital with that 38 and would be dead before you knew you missed. As matter of fact your above statement reflects the exact reason this is a foolish wish. To me you just need to improve your skills with a 38 (single interceptor) rather than wish for a group of three (shotgun).

[Xavier]

One of my first sorties back, I upped a C-Hog and hovered over a CV. Got 7 bomber kills, but I got tired of it and landed with fuel and ammo still onboard. Very dull, and I haven't repeated the experiment for all it is good for lots of kills.

You say that shooting down bombers is an easy, boring task, yet you ask for two wingmen to make it easier. Am I getting this right?

If this wish was granted you would stop seeing bombers at all. Why up a bomber formation when a Bf-110 trio can end your long flight in a single pass, or with a barrage of 12 rockets? Why use a bomber to sink that CV or WF that town when a trio of P-51D can do the same?

[BnZs]

In my younger days I shot a revolver daily. Burned what would now be an economically unfeasible amount of ammo. My favored parameters were hitting coffee-can sized targets as quickly as possible at about 10 yards, rather than bulls-eye work. Although I also learned to reliably hit that same target at about 90 yards.  So I found your example rather ironic, that is all. This still doesn't have anything to do with the game, not even the gunnery aspect of it, so your example and assertions make no sense.

Your wish for a Vic pretty much proves you're a horrible shot. I submit that you'd miss anything vital with that 38 and would be dead before you knew you missed. As matter of fact your above statement reflects the exact reason this is a foolish wish. To me you just need to improve your skills with a 38 (single interceptor) rather than wish for a group of three (shotgun).

[BnZs]

Why use a bomber to sink that CV or WF that town when a trio of P-51D can do the same?

I'm not sure P-51D would fit in the "Interceptor" category and even if they did they would not be allowed to carry ord under that category.

[BnZs]

You say that shooting down bombers is an easy, boring task, yet you ask for two wingmen to make it easier. Am I getting this right?

It is a relatively simple but complete drudgery task IF you set out to do it in the right plane at the right altitude, with no guarantee that any buffs will actually come in. It isn't rewarding in fun, and it isn't really rewarding even in score a lot of the time. That is why IMO there are not enough people like Lusche doing it. We need more incentives.  If you are engaging fighter-on-fighter but have to interrupt that to try and save the fight from some toolshedding griefer in buffs in a timely manner, then you ARE liable to get murdered by the over-modeled flex gun lethality.

[Xavier]

So yes, you just want to kill bombers more easily.

[Vraciu]

You need two wingmen and F3 view to kill bombers?  Chortle.

That's not what he said.   Lack of reading comprehension.. ^^^^ *chortle*

[Drane]

-1 

 

[Vraciu]

There's about ten billion unfortunate hangars who will tell you that you're wrong on that. Who speaks for the toolsheds if not I?  


Slightly tangential, but I have a question...Can you help me out with the definition of picking? One gets the impression from the forums that this is the act of shooting a plane already fighting another plane and that this against the rules of the MA. This cannot be the case though, as over my years in the MA I have found that virtually every time I am fighting one red plane and another red plane comes into the vicinity, I will get attacked by that plane as well. Is there somewhere where I can read the official, widely-followed rule code of the MA to avoid future confusion?

Lmao at the one-man intellectual pwnage show. 

[Vraciu]

Not my fault you guys can't think beyond what sounds cool and nifty and great to looking at the larger picture.

Ah, but is it your fault you can't think beyond stupid sounding name calling?  Hmmmmm....

(As for pushing toward failure as you stated, is AH pushing toward success in your view by ignoring player suggestions?   Rhetorical question.)

[Vraciu]

Your wish for a Vic pretty much proves you're a horrible shot. I submit that you'd miss anything vital with that 38 and would be dead before you knew you missed. As matter of fact your above statement reflects the exact reason this is a foolish wish. To me you just need to improve your skills with a 38 (single interceptor) rather than wish for a group of three (shotgun).

Sorry to say but I would drop you with one in the head even with my back turned and the pistol holstered when the whistle sounded.

[caldera]

That's not what he said.   Lack of reading comprehension.. ^^^^ *chortle*

   Read the OP again.

Therefore, I request being able to check a box that will give me two artificial wingmen who will follow me welded-wing formation and fire in parallel to me, at least when flying certain dedicated interceptors like the 110, 190 series, 262, etc. Call them "drones" if you will.

Also, I suggest that external views be allowed for interceptor vics, to simulate the look around capacity the eyes of wingmen would give you.

[Vraciu]

In my younger days I shot a revolver daily. Burned what would now be an economically unfeasible amount of ammo. My favored parameters were hitting coffee-can sized targets as quickly as possible at about 10 yards, rather than bulls-eye work. Although I also learned to reliably hit that same target at about 90 yards.  So I found your example rather ironic, that is all. This still doesn't have anything to do with the game, not even the gunnery aspect of it, so your example and assertions make no sense.

Most Texans I know can shoot.  This ^^^ is no surprise.