1. #31
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:


    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:What you are doing is trying to muddy the waters by comparing EVERY sensible rule to the BnZ rule. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Every sensible rule?
    You call "no vulching" sensible? Sensible where and to whom? To Winnie the Pooh in the Toyland?. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Compared to the highly difficult to quantify `No B&Z` rule it`s much more sensible. Don`t tell me you can`t see this.

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
    Of course, no one should shoulder shoot and good pilots will not take away a team m8s kill without prior communication, but it`s not comparable. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:Shoulder shoot is not really a rule it's a common sense that needed to be written because of people which are really, really rude. Or others who are just gaming the game, they're outhere just for a points and their personal amusement over everything else.
    Believe me, even so they cannot really comprehend that "rule" because I see that kind of stuff online everywhere almost at regular basis.

    This issue is very close related to the KS (kill steal) rules, but that is another matter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    You probabaly see it `everywhere` on quake-like dogfight servers. Fly in a Squad, or with people you KNOW. Squad members will stay out of your way if you`re on the better end of a target and simply will not attack unless you lose the advantage. I cannot count the times my good former pilots would ask me first if it`s ok for them to go in and attack before doing so when I`ve lost the advantage. But if you`re flying on a `quake` server well, you gotta expect some Rambos to ignore all attempts at team work co-operation. Even rules won`t stop them.

    But even here kill-stealing can be subjective. I was on a dogfight server and I saw a friendly Spitfire take on a 109. I stayed above, watching, protecting, unknown to both the fighters. then I saw the 109 actually out-manouever the Spit and get on his 6. there was no doubt to me that the friendly was in trouble. There were no coms, so I dived in and (a sort of B&Z, I guess) and took out the 109 on the tail of the Spit.
    "That was my kill!" The guy wrote in the chat bar. I tried to explain that I was watching and he lost the advantage, but he wouldn`t have it. The guy had LOST, but he just wouldn`t accept it.

    anyway...

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:In real life, a pilot might accidentally (or on purpose) shoulder shoot over a friend. He can be warned by orders not to do it again. NO ONE can tell the OTHERSIDE "You are not allowed to B&Z!" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
    I agree, every type of action where a friendly aircraft may actually get hit is out of question.
    </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    There are rare times when you can risk shooting a friendly. You have an enemy aircraft on the dead 6 of a friendly and you`re behind that enemy plane. There`s a risk of shooting down the friendly too. I once shot down an enemy plane on my m8`s 6, who`s controls had been damaged, and actually damaged the friendly too, but it still saved the friendly who would`ve defintely been taken out otherwise.


    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV: As for vulching and chute shooting, I believe they should be allowed in a server (since it`s realistic), but it can also be seen why this rule is made. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by DKoor:I agree here. 100%. If you are to play the game like you are supposed to, goal is to kill enemy in any form.
    Other realities may exist only in UBi ToyLand.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    But as I said, it`s a reasonable rule and can be accepted as such.

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:Blowing away a guy on the ground is unfair and takes away from the fighting in the air. Shooting a guy in his chute also seems unfair and many cases more of a subjective act than an act of any real usefulness. They are also reasonable rules that are reasonable to enforce. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You see... what people don't really get is that IRL -a popular phrase often spoken of here- vulching was so "popular" in WW2 that they did it every time they could. And while doing so, they constantly invented new dedicated weapons and aircraft which will excel in this...
    Attacking enemy airfields was no different. No matter how close their bases were.

    So when we have a vulch ban, we are... one step closer to reality or one step closer to a Toyland? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    What you have done here is ignored my point and instead ranted on what you want to rant. You aren`t really reading what i`m writing. If I were the server host i would allow vulching and allow chute-shooting because they happened. I would simply give airfields AAA and such (recurring) to make such tasks much difficult. Pilots would need to cover airfields to enable others to get airborned etc (a vulching target is an easy target to kill by CAPPING planes). The point is, it`s a REASONABLE RULE that`s enforcable. We also must allow some compromise for Server hosts who are not so up to date with airfield defence or just want to start a quick server session. These simple `no vulch` and `no shoot-chuting` are a reasonable compromise for all.

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:Also and what you are missing the most, these rules do not PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED particular aircraft`s abilities.[QUOTE]Originally posted by DKoor:It didn't occured to you that most succesfull players of IL2 always engage from above i.e. always BnZ their victims? It doesn't really matter which aircraft they fly...? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Do you have stats for this? Where do you get this info from?

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
    Anyhow... it is just a rule flashing with sensibility among other so called sensible rules.
    At this point, we may discuss whether it is or it is not the most controversial rule...

    You can expect everything.
    And this particular rule basically handicapped every single aircraft not just particular aircraft.
    Every regular good IL2 player always, absolutely always seek to have an altitude advantage prior to engagement. Be it a Spitfire pilot, Bf-109, FW-190 one etc.
    They know they wont last long without some sort of advantage, especially altitude one, so...
    Arguably, I intentionally say arguably, some aircraft may be affected more some less. But usually aircraft that are more affected are the ones which usually happen to be really fast so it can be nullified to an extent thru this. . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    It`s not arguable at all, some aircraft are heavily affected if they are restricted from the ability to B&Z. Other aircraft (especially Russian planes) cannot B&Z effectly. Try it with an LA5 for example and see its wings fall off. Many of these planes don`t have the power (except the energy from a dive) to outrun many planes once the dive is done. Their only chance to gain height again, which, with the `no B&Z` rule will screw them.

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
    As I personally witnessed thru my yesterday's sortie on HeadHunters server (one which banned BnZ tactic). I never climbed above 2,000m and I managed to destroy 4 E/A in my first FW sortie.
    Once when I picked up speed in shallow dive, I just extended in all directions while friendlies on my side helped each other... etc. etc.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I am not a B&Zer. I can B&Z, but not very well. I`m a natural turner. What you just wrote there would be Heaven for me. An I16 flies at its best at around 2000m as well as many other turning planes. But I still would not fly this server, because to me, I am artificially cheating by handicapping the enemy unrealistically.

    1.There are many ways to handicap a B&Zer and be realistic. It just takes time and discipline. The Russians used to fly their I16s in close circles while the 109s circled above waiting to B&Z. whenever a jerry tried diving in, he was always exposed to the guns of another I16. i remember a good squaddy and I used actually this method to fend off a 109 trying to b&Z us.

    2.Mission types.
    If you can do servers with missions that force B&Zers to come down then you have a chance (or they lose the mission).

    3. On start, extend away, climb, then return to the enemy at their (or above) altitude.

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:Abilities they were designed for. The `No B&Z` rule is similar to telling dolphins that they cannot swim in water and must struggle on dry land. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:I agree 100%.
    But I cannot stress enough that applies to every single aircraft in the game, as their pilots will all (good ones) always seek an altitude advantage over their enemy.

    Once in inferior position (lower altitude) player in IL2 is a target. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Well, Yes, he`s a target, it`s better to be high, but I disagree in that it`s NOT impossible to overcome B&Zers if using the tactics I describe and more... It`s VERY difficult for a B&Zer to hit a target below that`s AWARE of them. Me, I watch, when they start their shallow dive, I still keep watching, I don`t change. When they`re in shooting range (where they MUST shoot), I turn out. they always miss. Now while he`s arsing around doing this, your friend/s should be manouevering onto him. the bogey might keep trying to attack,or as in most cases he will runaway because he knows he will sooner or later be caught.

    The problem with such a server like the `No B&Z` one is that it has given up taking on pilots who `B&Z` when there are numerous ways to fight and overcome them. It`s a rule of quitters.
    Share this post

  2. #32
    DKoor's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,495
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
    What you are doing is trying to muddy the waters by comparing EVERY sensible rule to the BnZ rule. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Every sensible rule?
    You call "no vulching" sensible? Sensible where and to whom? To Winnie the Pooh in the Toyland?. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Compared to the highly difficult to quantify `No B&Z` rule it`s much more sensible. Don`t tell me you can`t see this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>OK. So are we now stuck with what is more sensible and what is less sensible from out of nonsense?

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
    Of course, no one should shoulder shoot and good pilots will not take away a team m8s kill without prior communication, but it`s not comparable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
    Shoulder shoot is not really a rule it's a common sense that needed to be written because of people which are really, really rude. Or others who are just gaming the game, they're outhere just for a points and their personal amusement over everything else.
    Believe me, even so they cannot really comprehend that "rule" because I see that kind of stuff online everywhere almost at regular basis.

    This issue is very close related to the KS (kill steal) rules, but that is another matter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    You probabaly see it `everywhere` on quake-like dogfight servers. Fly in a Squad, or with people you KNOW. Squad members will stay out of your way if you`re on the better end of a target and simply will not attack unless you lose the advantage. I cannot count the times my good former pilots would ask me first if it`s ok for them to go in and attack before doing so when I`ve lost the advantage. But if you`re flying on a `quake` server well, you gotta expect some Rambos to ignore all attempts at team work co-operation. Even rules won`t stop them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Among squad members this issue is practically a non-issue; even if it happens it is natural that you'll be friendly towards your buddies and they will probably type "sorry my bad" or something similar in a chat bar and situation is resolved.

    But... too bad a public server doesn't consist of one squad fighting other squad on oppo side!

    And also too bad you cannot limit "aces" from joining just about any public server outhere...

    You are in a huge mistake if you believe that KS (or shouldershoot) happens only on airquake servers. Those servers are just more prone to this actions, but that happens everywhere but some closed squad thingies.

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
    But even here kill-stealing can be subjective. I was on a dogfight server and I saw a friendly Spitfire take on a 109. I stayed above, watching, protecting, unknown to both the fighters. then I saw the 109 actually out-manouever the Spit and get on his 6. there was no doubt to me that the friendly was in trouble. There were no coms, so I dived in and (a sort of B&Z, I guess) and took out the 109 on the tail of the Spit.
    "That was my kill!" The guy wrote in the chat bar. I tried to explain that I was watching and he lost the advantage, but he wouldn`t have it. The guy had LOST, but he just wouldn`t accept it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
    I have zero doubt that he would engage your bandit, shouldershoot you and KS you if he could; even if you were in most favorable position... bigshot is outhere for his personal joy only regardless of anything.

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
    In real life, a pilot might accidentally (or on purpose) shoulder shoot over a friend. He can be warned by orders not to do it again. NO ONE can tell the OTHERSIDE "You are not allowed to B&Z!" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
    I agree, every type of action where a friendly aircraft may actually get hit is out of question. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    There are rare times when you can risk shooting a friendly. You have an enemy aircraft on the dead 6 of a friendly and you`re behind that enemy plane. There`s a risk of shooting down the friendly too. I once shot down an enemy plane on my m8`s 6, who`s controls had been damaged, and actually damaged the friendly too, but it still saved the friendly who would`ve defintely been taken out otherwise. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>There are exception to almost every rule. This is one such case.

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
    As for vulching and chute shooting, I believe they should be allowed in a server (since it`s realistic), but it can also be seen why this rule is made. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree here. 100%. If you are to play the game like you are supposed to, goal is to kill enemy in any form.
    Other realities may exist only in UBi ToyLand.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    But as I said, it`s a reasonable rule and can be accepted as such. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>What's a reasonable rule? No vulching and no chute shooting? And No BnZ isn't reasonable?

    Disagree 100% with that.

    In a light of the recent "No BnZ" rule discussion they are as reasonable as banning the BnZ. Depends on the type of server really.

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
    Blowing away a guy on the ground is unfair and takes away from the fighting in the air. Shooting a guy in his chute also seems unfair and many cases more of a subjective act than an act of any real usefulness. They are also reasonable rules that are reasonable to enforce. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You see... what people don't really get is that IRL -a popular phrase often spoken of here- vulching was so "popular" in WW2 that they did it every time they could. And while doing so, they constantly invented new dedicated weapons and aircraft which will excel in this...
    Attacking enemy airfields was no different. No matter how close their bases were.

    So when we have a vulch ban, we are... one step closer to reality or one step closer to a Toyland? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    What you have done here is ignored my point and instead ranted on what you want to rant. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>In a way you are right... I should have stopped after you said that "vulching is unfair" out of context, yet somehow "No BnZ" is somehow "fair" also, out of context. I just argue your arguments in your way... with blanket arguments.

    Arguing that something not-historical may be somehow "reasonable" while something else also not-historical is not reasonable... and all that without context.

    ROFL!

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
    You aren`t really reading what i`m writing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree 100%

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
    If I were the server host i would allow vulching and allow chute-shooting because they happened. I would simply give airfields AAA and such (recurring) to make such tasks much difficult. Pilots would need to cover airfields to enable others to get airborned etc (a vulching target is an easy target to kill by CAPPING planes). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Copy that.

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
    The point is, it`s a REASONABLE RULE that`s enforcable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Hypothetically speaking, it's your server, you can do whatever you want and enforce any kind of rule there...

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
    We also must allow some compromise for Server hosts who are not so up to date with airfield defence or just want to start a quick server session. These simple `no vulch` and `no shoot-chuting` are a reasonable compromise for all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>It's solely your personal decision whether you will or you wont "allow some compromise" to servers which are not up to date with airfield defenses... no one forces you to fly on a particular server.

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
    Also and what you are missing the most, these rules do not PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED particular aircraft`s abilities. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
    It didn't occured to you that most succesfull players of IL2 always engage from above i.e. always BnZ their victims? It doesn't really matter which aircraft they fly...? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Do you have stats for this? Where do you get this info from? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
    ROFL

    What I wont see on this forum...

    So you feel really ready to say that you can be successful online by engaging E/A from inferior altitude position?

    Makes one wonder just where you get your experiences...

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
    Anyhow... it is just a rule flashing with sensibility among other so called sensible rules.
    At this point, we may discuss whether it is or it is not the most controversial rule...

    You can expect everything.
    And this particular rule basically handicapped every single aircraft not just particular aircraft.
    Every regular good IL2 player always, absolutely always seek to have an altitude advantage prior to engagement. Be it a Spitfire pilot, Bf-109, FW-190 one etc.
    They know they wont last long without some sort of advantage, especially altitude one, so...
    Arguably, I intentionally say arguably, some aircraft may be affected more some less. But usually aircraft that are more affected are the ones which usually happen to be really fast so it can be nullified to an extent thru this. . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    It`s not arguable at all, some aircraft are heavily affected if they are restricted from the ability to B&Z. Other aircraft (especially Russian planes) cannot B&Z effectly. Try it with an LA5 for example and see its wings fall off. Many of these planes don`t have the power (except the energy from a dive) to outrun many planes once the dive is done. Their only chance to gain height again, which, with the `no B&Z` rule will screw them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
    Also depends heavily on what you fly and what your oppos fly... but again - you have lost context on this, because server(s) which banned BnZ doesn't even sport certain planes... instead it sport mostly late war fast planeset same for both sides...

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
    As I personally witnessed thru my yesterday's sortie on HeadHunters server (one which banned BnZ tactic). I never climbed above 2,000m and I managed to destroy 4 E/A in my first FW sortie.
    Once when I picked up speed in shallow dive, I just extended in all directions while friendlies on my side helped each other... etc. etc.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I am not a B&Zer. I can B&Z, but not very well. I`m a natural turner. What you just wrote there would be Heaven for me. An I16 flies at its best at around 2000m as well as many other turning planes. But I still would not fly this server, because to me, I am artificially cheating by handicapping the enemy unrealistically. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree 100%

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
    1.There are many ways to handicap a B&Zer and be realistic. It just takes time and discipline. The Russians used to fly their I16s in close circles while the 109s circled above waiting to B&Z. whenever a jerry tried diving in, he was always exposed to the guns of another I16. i remember a good squaddy and I used actually this method to fend off a 109 trying to b&Z us.

    2.Mission types.
    If you can do servers with missions that force B&Zers to come down then you have a chance (or they lose the mission).

    3. On start, extend away, climb, then return to the enemy at their (or above) altitude. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
    Note that you lost perception of what this is all about... on the server(s) in question, there are no "Jerry" no "Russians" and no I-16's for that matter...

    These servers are created for quick fun. Planesets are same for both sides.

    Whole hassle began when few people twisted the meaning of such server, thus ruining fun for other participants.

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
    Abilities they were designed for. The `No B&Z` rule is similar to telling dolphins that they cannot swim in water and must struggle on dry land. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
    I agree 100%.
    But I cannot stress enough that applies to every single aircraft in the game, as their pilots will all (good ones) always seek an altitude advantage over their enemy.

    Once in inferior position (lower altitude) player in IL2 is a target. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Well, Yes, he`s a target, it`s better to be high, but I disagree in that it`s NOT impossible to overcome B&Zers if using the tactics I describe and more... It`s VERY difficult for a B&Zer to hit a target below that`s AWARE of them. Me, I watch, when they start their shallow dive, I still keep watching, I don`t change. When they`re in shooting range (where they MUST shoot), I turn out. they always miss. Now while he`s arsing around doing this, your friend/s should be manouevering onto him. the bogey might keep trying to attack,or as in most cases he will runaway because he knows he will sooner or later be caught. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
    Thanks for sharing absolute tactic vs BnZers with us.

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
    The problem with such a server like the `No B&Z` one is that it has given up taking on pilots who `B&Z` when there are numerous ways to fight and overcome them. It`s a rule of quitters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
    It should be put in context...

    Many of these constantly mentioned rules lose their meaning when they are put out of context.

    Same is with "No BnZ" rule.
    Share this post

  3. #33
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:

    Note that you lost perception of what this is all about... on the server(s) in question, there are no "Jerry" no "Russians" and no I-16's for that matter...

    Planesets are same for both sides.

    . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I see. Then there`s no more for me to say.
    Share this post

Page 4 of 4 ◄◄  First ... 234