Wigbomb wrote: WWI pursuit pilots did not fly straight into the teeth of enemy fire because it was 'honorable".
WWI pilots did not fly straight into the teeth of enemy fire.
WWI pilots sought every advantage they could get, from assaulting slower, relatively helpless recon planes to hanging in the sun and dropping like a rock out of the opponent's blind spot to trying to lure enemy planes into killing each other with their own crossfire. They agreed to a man that the optimum circumstance was a clear shot in the back. How "dishonorable" of them.
What WWI pilots never did was play chicken from the digital equivalent of five miles away while they humped a bomb across the map. Over and over. And over. With a plane not designed to carry bombs. Dedicated bombers did not lumber off from their base without fighter escort. Ever. To suggest that they did bespeaks a near complete ignorance of The Great War in the Air.
Despite some recent carping by notorious boo-boo babies, I do not make a habit of "camping" and I certainly don't "camp" against an outnumbered red team unless that outnumbered red team is trying to back-shoot me as I break off for my base, which happens almost every time you try to break off and head back to base. Don't want me "camping"? Stop trying to shoot me as I leave, genius.
If I've succeeded in penetrating to the enemy base or carrier and dropped my bomb i will kill what needs killing until either my fellow bombers have been covered on their incoming runs or I've bought myself the opportunity to safely return to base. Meanwhile, I will continue to make the free choice to carry a bomb, drop a bomb, use a bomb as a badminton birdie or a paperweight or dental floss or slingshot the damn dumb bomb around the dark side of the moon hitting both outnumbered reds on its reentry into the atmosphere.
WWI pilots did not surrender an advantage when the enemy pilots cried, "Not fair!". Shocking, I know.
I've been playing Dogfight for something shy of two years and have been electing to shed my bomb in roughly half my sorties for two, maybe three months. but I have "camped" and will continue to occasionally "camp" when circumstances dictate and when it benefits my team. "Not fair?" Why then, simply shoot me down.
I happen to feel that the undeniable presence of sync-lag with Windows 8 users constitutes a "not fair" advantage and I've done my share of whining about it. So...I adapt my game play accordingly and have been doing so for the aforementioned few months. If I know a Win8 user to be on the red team, I will drop my bomb in order to neutralize his long-range edge. It does nothing against those Win8 users who have blinding turbo-boost in turns, (and they know who they are) nor does it alter the fact that some players have traditionally enjoyed a clear advantage due to their oomphier WiFi connection speed and/or their optimal iPad gadgetry. Again, I adapt. it's what WWI pilots did. If you find my adaptive game play style "disgraceful", by all mean devote that energy you're wasting on childish carping to shooting me down. Many have.
Dogfight strives to be a "WWI air combat simulation". Too many people are too determined to make it a first person arcade shooter. So you can hit a semi-visible dot before it hits you. Congratulations. You must rock at Wolfenstein 3D. Some of us aspire to playing the game Joaquin Grech is working very hard to refine and expand. He didn't design it because he admires a DOOM savant and his ability to shoot a dot in a straight line for hours on end. He didn't call it "Dogfight" because he thinks the term means "pixel jousting". He's a World War I aviation buff with a passion for the history of The Great War in the Air, as am I and as are many of us.
If you find objectionable anything to do with anyone's right to play this game as they choose, particularly if their choice is to play it as close to historical accuracy as the game allows, my recommendation is that you learn to dogfight in Dogfight. But that is, of course, your choice.
--w--
Agree with most of what you say there, but from a historical perspective escorts were rare for bombers in WWI. Artillery recon drew more escorts as they were backed with significantly more combat power (battalions of cannon artillery that could deliver tons of shells) rather than the lightweight punch of a few squadrons of bombers. Many bombing missions were flown at night, which scout aircraft rarely did, and as the bombers were armed with guns they were seen by planners as equipped to defend themselves, especially by the RFC. The German Gothas were often flow in tandem with other bombers, but I can't find much in the records of escorts assigned to accompany them. There are record of pursuit squadrons helping chase away enemy scouts from bombers under attack, but just as often they would leave after the enemy did and continue patrolling. Bomber intercept was ranked as a lower priority than artillery recon intercept, and given the more equal armament (compared to WWII fighters vs WWII two seaters armaments, example a Kangaroo had two Lewis guns, equal to a period scout aircraft but able to fire in many directions) it wasn't a cake walk mission. SE5s often used racks of small light bombs in a trench pounding role, but light payloads didn't produce the game drag of a giant pickle strapped to aircraft that never actually carried such armament. Long range bombing by airship were also unprotected given range limitations of scout aircraft
The other historical point would be that approach fights were rather common between scout aircraft, if each side detected the other, as you would rather not show anything but your guns to the opponents in closing. Read the Great War Pilot thread; several pilots were renowned for closing fights. The difference in gameplay is the unlimited range without bullet drop that, if realistically implemented, would decrease the engagement distance dramatically and leave only the ballistic experts trying to snipe at the ranges today's pilots do.
The other gameplay problem is aircraft performance is near identical or identical, which is preposterous in a historical context.
I would point out ROG is a much more realistic simulator as far as aircraft and their capabilities, but I hardly play it anymore, as I'm hooked on DF. I think if there ever is a squad wars it will sort out whose tactics are superior in simple wins and losses.
Edit: tracer burnout, then about 3-400 meters depending on the gun system, would also negate distance precision work