Quote:
Originally Posted by majorfailure
... And then there are mission constraints e. g. a pilot on CAP does not have the luxury of avoiding the fight.
|
Yes, I've discussed this before too, events presented in such a way as to demand engagement. Others have posted accurately, as you mentioned as well, regarding not engaging certainly being the best option in many instances; however, the opposite was true as well. Mission constraints, someone in trouble, etc.
What I am proposing is simply to have the opportunity to see how one aircraft would compare in a classic dogfight with another type, and the challenge of using your aircrafts' strengths and your piloting abilities to overcome an adversary. Robert Johnson described coming upon a Spit Mk IV when flying a T-bolt with the new paddle blade props - with an exchanged look and thumbs up sign, the Brit and US pilot began a mock combat, which ended with Johnson gaining the win [established kill position, checkmate] You read such accounts from all sides, seeing how one aircraft maneuvered with another in a close in fight. It is a primal instinct of fighter pilots to want to test their aircraft against a rivals bird.
However, as I related in my original posting, presently a 51' or 47' will not dogfight a 109 or 190. A late war Japanese fighter will not dogfight a Hellcat. An Oscar will not engage a Wildcat. Never. The game presently simulates only one combat option with these match ups, no exceptions: AI flies directly away to begin an endless series of b&z jousting head on passes. Yet combat accounts of dogfights between these aircraft include close in dogfights that lasted sometimes up to 15 minutes or more. It is amazing to me how vigorously and venomously some persons argue and resist this simple truth. The game would be enhanced, not degraded, by the simple addition of close in dogfighting being included as an option for all aircraft.
p3