No, again you make assumptions. I simply pointed out that his response did not address the key point but rather went on a diatribe about DA vs MA. I made no judgement concerning the superiority of one over the other, my point was that some who do so have a tendency to contradict their position when it suits them.
As a rule I do make a lot of assumptions and inferences that's true but in this case it was a simple question. Some yes. Doesn't result in any epiphany regarding ACM and approaches still.
You're implying that because death is not a risk, that I should treat it less seriously/professionally/what-have-you. That's not an argument, that's an excuse for subpar performance.
Only if you agree in the first place with
your criteria of how the game should / must be played
You're making some sort of inverse relationship between enjoyment and playing to win - there is no connection, they are separate items. Do some people associate them? Yes, but someone who has fun losing is still a loser. You are bent on associating the act of having fun with nullifying the fact of a loss, which is almost Freudian in nature. The loss may not matter to the individual, the individual may actually enjoy facing inevitable loss immensely, but it does not change the fact it is still a loss.
Not at all. Evidently some find playing to win enjoyable and the point and others find pitching their skill against more advantageous positions, aircraft and numbers enjoyable and the point. You completely fail to see that others differ by choice and label them as excuse-making weirdos. 'Loser' I mean really bud, if you zoom out from Aces High / combat flight sims for a moment doesn't using that label inside the confines of a computer game take on a relatively ironic and childish meaning?
Again your argument only holds within
your rigid view of the game's purpose.
The point of air combat is to shoot down your opponent and not to be shot down yourself; to argue otherwise is to disagree with nearly a century of established air combat doctrine. You can certainly do other things in Aces High, but the single aspect that sets it apart is its supposed flight model fidelity to allow for realistic ACM experiences. ACM itself is entirely focused on the win.
To extend the argument to its absurd conclusion you should leave the game after you're shot down because you are dead, no? So you accept respawning as acceptably realistic?
Please explain your losses. Are those sub-par performances on your part? Did you fail to fly correctly or push the risk-reward aspect a bit too much? Was your chain of decisions flawed and dare I say it: human? When you are beaten and are 'the loser' do you acknowledge and give credit to the 'winner' because by your standards he is correct both ideologically and in all round superiority? I mean it can't be the plane or the energy states or the circumstances by your own definition. You never complain at the fact or circumstances of your own demise then, on channel 200 say? You never say, for instance: bah, I've killed you three times to your killing me once?
We've not insisted once that anyone play our way.
Well perhaps I worded that part poorly. You do however insist that regardless of how anyone else plays only
your criteria is the one that really matters. In saying that playing your way is the only way to do so you seem to be blind to the variety of aircraft you shoot down and the tactics they are employing while you do so.
...who claimed we had to submit to the community's rules if we wanted to continue our 2v2. We prefer that people play their way. If they want to turnfight in 1 on 1 fights, we'll gladly kill them all day long. You've witnessed this on several occasions now, so why you keep insisting that we are trying to get others to play "our" way is quite confusing. We don't care if anyone plays our way or not.
The objection to the 2 vs 2 was the fuel load which was considered a 'gameable' variable. It wasn't a community discrimination but rather a reasonable interaction one.
Ah so I'm very interested to hear that both you and Kruel did start with turn fighting and presumably were reasonably adept at it. Thank you both for answering that question. Again you will get no argument from me that applying BnZ tactics in a Dicta Boelcke framework is more intelligent, efficient and productive in terms of risk / returns. Any student of ACM will notice the historical shift in both tactics and aircraft design to that paradigm from TnB. So yes if your agenda is to kill everyone and win all of the time then that would be a sensible choice. But it's not quite the point is it? You practice your branch of ACM in an effectively dead compartment of air combat (simulated, sniff). It's of absolutely no practical use at all outside of simulated (sniff) WWII air combat. Turning and burning in a Hurricane is as relevant to the real world as your 'making an absolute killing' is.
I'm sorry you lost your other game which was entirely objective-based and purely competitive. If Aces High is the closest thing available then you'll just have to adapt and extract your enjoyment in your own way. Bruv119 for example and many others seem to have managed to do so. Trying to alter the prevailing culture isn't a very productive approach I should say. I don't think you've convinced anyone so far that you are right. More likely presented yourselves as a rather extreme minority within a minority within a minority it seems to me. You are still welcome here however.
Not sure what to mean from 'BnZ to E-fighting', it must be one of these custom AH rules, BnZ is part of E fighting, but certainly not a separate style.
Not as good as a K4 can climb, though.
As Batfink's excellent post illustrates BnZ is a subset of energy fighting and distinct enough to be categorized separately even in aircraft design terms. A K-4 will out-climb a D-9 in a sustained climb but not in a zoom climb. Differences in energy fighting especially announces in relative building / retaining. This isn't peculiar to the AH culture, it's a matter of historical evolution and design.
Just one final and humorous / ironic observation: you do know how Boelcke died, right?
