CheeseTactics

[dkwookie]

I don't think threads like this do any good in here except get everyones back up. I have seen more and more negativity here over last few weeks and it's pretty crap. The other day I thought screw it let's fire up a tourny to like get some fun back into the game and while I was typing it up this thread appeared.
I figure everyone rather name and shame and argue so what's the point. Used to be there was the odd thread about new ways to play the game or tournaments but that's all gone.
Now it's name and shame and ludicrous accusations of lag switches. I will still be playing when I get chance. I shoot people down the way I wish to get shot down. With gunfire. I don't like rockets but that's my opinion so I play arcade where I can outmanouvere them

[dkwookie]

On the subject of rocket use in WW2. Branko mentioned their use in formation breaking and desperation tactics. The numbers here illustrate the numbers of planes in question:

"On 18 March 1945, 37 Me 262s of JG 7 intercepted a force of 1,221 bombers and 632 escorting fighters. "

Article continues with:

"Eventually, new combat tactics were developed to counter the Allied bombers' defences. Me 262s equipped with R4M rockets would approach from the side of a bomber formation, where their silhouettes were widest, and while still out of range of the 12.7 mm (.50 in) guns, fire a salvo of rockets. The high explosive warhead of only one or two of these rockets was capable of downing even the famously rugged B-17; a strike on an enemy aircraft meant its total annihilation"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_262

Rocket kills in BoP are always close range, tail shots on bombers and head on with fighters. The fact we have to look up air to air rocket use in WW2 proves the point that its not widly accepted view of air to air combat. Reason I play BoP over Hawks is to get to pure air to air combat, not letting high explosives do the work for me.

[gbtstr]

Well, back to the cheese tactics...

Using IL-2/IL-10s in dogfights with the intent of tailgunning all your kills, while absorbing ridiculous amounts of fire, I find a bit cheesy. It's not like it's a scenario where the IL-2 is a good choice for attacking ground targets or picking off vulnerable bombers/transports. You're deliberately choosing a flying tank so you can sit in the back seat of your armored bath tub and pew-pew (with unlimited ammo) at any fighter foolish enough to try and latch onto your six. Add to that, for such a massive plane, the IL-2 seems to have no trouble out-turning a lot of fighters - fighters designed to be nimble/maneuverable. This makes the attacking fighter's job even more tricky because it's even harder to stay out of the line of fire.

I don't really have a gripe about big bombers in dogfights. Usually, they're so slow relative to everything else, you can simply avoid them and focus your attacks elsewhere. In most cases, I'd say the person flying the bomber puts themselves/their team at a disadvantage because they now have a big, slow target that is not much good for clearing an opposing fighter off a wingman's tail.

Rockets? Eh, whatever. I don't think I've ever been hit by one launched my direction, at least not while airborne. Of course, I also don't take bombers up to do my killing. If I were to take a bomber and get schwacked by a rocket attack, I'd probably be pissed, but do I think it's a valid, sans-cheese tactic? Yes. Do I do it? No. Why pray to get lucky with a rocket attack when you can use your guns and put the SOB down? Give them some 30mm loving.

Kamikazes? Well, I hate it when it happens to me. But, I have done it to others in the heat of the game - purposefully, and accidentally.

The problem with this game and any other is just that: it's a game. If you die, you respawn - big deal. Yeah, maybe you lose a game because of that, but your xbox/ps3 doesn't burst into flames when you hit the ground, you don't suddenly get a bullet hole in you when somebody scores a pilot kill. So, what's a valid tactic in a game doesn't have to equate to a good tactic in RL because there's no fear of death. Not saying there should be actual death as a consequence of video game death, but just that everybody needs to make peace with the fact that some cheesy things fly in video games that wouldn't in reality.

I agree that the solution to most of these is to change your own tactics.

Unfortunately, even with the best/most effective tactics you are limited in the game because of the pro-Soviet bias in aircraft performance. They have the best turning aircraft, the fastest aircraft down low, and some of the most heavily armed and armored. The Americans get a broke-dick P-51, a P-47 with the top speed and maneuverability of a row-boat in reverse. The Brits get the Hurricane, which is nice unless you want to go anywhere fast, and some decent Spitfires - but, they can all be out turned by the Russkies. The Germans get a variety of flying targets to choose from. Aside from the 109G-6 and K-4, and the jets - which only have speed and firepower in their favor - they can all be out-performed in multiple ways by everything except what the USA can bring to the party.

The best plan is to take a 109K-4 (or possibly one of the jets) and stay high. BnZ every target, and avoid low altitudes and La-5/7s like the plague. If you do that well, you will live long and kill a couple. Or take the La-5/7, stay low, turn and burn and kill/die a lot.

[ButcherBird]

nice post, i got alot of laughs from parts of it...thanks

Originally Posted by gbtstr

Well, back to the cheese tactics...

Using IL-2/IL-10s in dogfights with the intent of tailgunning all your kills, while absorbing ridiculous amounts of fire, I find a bit cheesy. It's not like it's a scenario where the IL-2 is a good choice for attacking ground targets or picking off vulnerable bombers/transports. You're deliberately choosing a flying tank so you can sit in the back seat of your armored bath tub and pew-pew (with unlimited ammo) at any fighter foolish enough to try and latch onto your six. Add to that, for such a massive plane, the IL-2 seems to have no trouble out-turning a lot of fighters - fighters designed to be nimble/maneuverable. This makes the attacking fighter's job even more tricky because it's even harder to stay out of the line of fire.

I don't really have a gripe about big bombers in dogfights. Usually, they're so slow relative to everything else, you can simply avoid them and focus your attacks elsewhere. In most cases, I'd say the person flying the bomber puts themselves/their team at a disadvantage because they now have a big, slow target that is not much good for clearing an opposing fighter off a wingman's tail.

Rockets? Eh, whatever. I don't think I've ever been hit by one launched my direction, at least not while airborne. Of course, I also don't take bombers up to do my killing. If I were to take a bomber and get schwacked by a rocket attack, I'd probably be pissed, but do I think it's a valid, sans-cheese tactic? Yes. Do I do it? No. Why pray to get lucky with a rocket attack when you can use your guns and put the SOB down? Give them some 30mm loving.

Kamikazes? Well, I hate it when it happens to me. But, I have done it to others in the heat of the game - purposefully, and accidentally.

The problem with this game and any other is just that: it's a game. If you die, you respawn - big deal. Yeah, maybe you lose a game because of that, but your xbox/ps3 doesn't burst into flames when you hit the ground, you don't suddenly get a bullet hole in you when somebody scores a pilot kill. So, what's a valid tactic in a game doesn't have to equate to a good tactic in RL because there's no fear of death. Not saying there should be actual death as a consequence of video game death, but just that everybody needs to make peace with the fact that some cheesy things fly in video games that wouldn't in reality.

I agree that the solution to most of these is to change your own tactics.

Unfortunately, even with the best/most effective tactics you are limited in the game because of the pro-Soviet bias in aircraft performance. They have the best turning aircraft, the fastest aircraft down low, and some of the most heavily armed and armored. The Americans get a broke-dick P-51, a P-47 with the top speed and maneuverability of a row-boat in reverse. The Brits get the Hurricane, which is nice unless you want to go anywhere fast, and some decent Spitfires - but, they can all be out turned by the Russkies. The Germans get a variety of flying targets to choose from. Aside from the 109G-6 and K-4, and the jets - which only have speed and firepower in their favor - they can all be out-performed in multiple ways by everything except what the USA can bring to the party.

The best plan is to take a 109K-4 (or possibly one of the jets) and stay high. BnZ every target, and avoid low altitudes and La-5/7s like the plague. If you do that well, you will live long and kill a couple. Or take the La-5/7, stay low, turn and burn and kill/die a lot.

[CRANNY]

Butcher Bird are you on PS3? if so contact me on PSN Cranny70, Thanks

[ButcherBird]

CRANNY, i'm 360

sorry man

[f1rebrand]

You may or may not know someone with killer and dan in his name but I played a Strike game against him last night. I shot him down a few times in his B17. I was flying a G6 - so no rockets but yeah pretty good armanent. He also shot me down with his tail gun. I rammed him once but it certainly wasn't intentional. My friends here will vouch for me there.

The following game he was flying a ME163 and attacking B17's. I then adopted an escort role and defended the B17 on my team, shooting him down a few times in the process.

In the lobby for the next game he then began to slag me off in front of 16 players telling me that I should fly in Dogfight mode rather than Strike if I wanted to shoot planes down. Basically in his opinion Strike is for bombing only (Apparently in WW2 bombers never came under attack from fighters)

BTW I spoke to a bomber pilot about this and she said that he has attacked her with rockets. So he is also a hypocrite.

I messaged him "You should deal with it. When I fly bombers I expect to get shot down but that's part of the challenge." The response. "Cheap shot a**hole."

How boring would it be if we just flew to our targets without threat of fighter molestation. This really is kindergarten at times.

I can't imagine ace bomber jockeys like Gilly or Branko complaining too much (unless of course rockets are used).

[Zatoichi_Sanjuro]

Originally Posted by gbtstr

Unfortunately, even with the best/most effective tactics you are limited in the game because of the pro-Soviet bias in aircraft performance. They have the best turning aircraft, the fastest aircraft down low, and some of the most heavily armed and armored. The Americans get a broke-dick P-51, a P-47 with the top speed and maneuverability of a row-boat in reverse. The Brits get the Hurricane, which is nice unless you want to go anywhere fast, and some decent Spitfires - but, they can all be out turned by the Russkies.

Once again, the Ace of Aces final was fought between two Spitfire IX's. If the Russian fighters turning rate was such an advantage they would have been picked for the final. The fact is the turn advantage for the LA over the Spit is miniscule and neutralised by the Spits superior firepower.

[Robotic Pope]

Originally Posted by Zatoichi_Sanjuro

Once again, the Ace of Aces final was fought between two Spitfire IX's. If the Russian fighters turning rate was such an advantage they would have been picked for the final. The fact is the turn advantage for the LA over the Spit is miniscule and neutralised by the Spits superior firepower.

I don't know, My experience is that the La-5 and La-7 turn a lot tighter than the spitfires and the cannons on both are pretty deadly thanks to them being mounted so close to each other it needs very little convergence, so acuracy of long range shots is much better. When Im flying my Fw190 or Mustang the La.7 is the plane I have most fear of because of its instant power. If I boom and zoom an La.7 and miss (quite often because of its insane turning ability) quite often the La can turn 360 degrees to follow my zoom climb and still catch me and start shooting in less than 30 seconds. Once that happens I'm dead meat.

[CRANNY]

Originally Posted by Robotic Pope

I don't know, My experience is that the La-5 and La-7 turn a lot tighter than the spitfires and the cannons on both are pretty deadly thanks to them being mounted so close to each other it needs very little convergence, so acuracy of long range shots is much better. When Im flying my Fw190 or Mustang the La.7 is the plane I have most fear of because of its instant power. If I boom and zoom an La.7 and miss (quite often because of its insane turning ability) quite often the La can turn 360 degrees to follow my zoom climb and still catch me and start shooting in less than 30 seconds. Once that happens I'm dead meat.

You need a wingman.