Taran

[Madov]

ZA RODINU!

[MacLeod]

My mission from yesterday!

 

That pesky messer was already smoking bad, but didn't stop going after my comrade pe-2 flight leader. Got behind him, fired, no bullets. He was getting our comrade down, I had no other choice! Became a POW, but my friends got home.

[=FSB=Man-Yac]

So if I accidentally ram someone online flying Russian and he starts getting mad in chat I can just say its taran. This is great

[MacLeod]

So if I accidentally ram someone online flying Russian and he starts getting mad in chat I can just say its taran. This is great

If it's an enemy, why not?

[CIA_Yankee_]

So if I accidentally ram someone online flying Russian and he starts getting mad in chat I can just say its taran. This is great

 

It's a wonderful excuse, quite frankly, and I will use it whenever I ram someone. For the Rodina!

 

Granted, it's always accidental, and I really need to learn to avoid head-ons when not necessary. This implies, of course, that there are times when head-on is necessary or at least viable.

 

For example, last night I was in my Spit and ended up under attack from 2 109s, with one at co-E while the other had superior E. I managed to face one of them just as he came down in a dive to attack me, at which point I figured I was better off accepting the head-on attack. My thinking was that the odds were very poor, and by going head-on I'm at least forcing an equal engagement, and that I needed to take out one of them ASAP if I was to have any chance. In short, I had nothing to lose, and the head-on was likely my best chance to take one of them out quickly before the other got a good solution and killed me.

 

Unfortunately, neither of us flinched and a very patriotic taran occured. Oops.

[Guest deleted@83466]

Real pilots who resorted to this tactic had to actually face the the very high probability of their own death, and it obviously must have taken real bravery, and/or fanatic loyalty to their country to basically commit suicide just to bring down a single enemy aircraft. But since this is a video game, and on a server like WoL, one can simply respawn with no penalty whatsoever, people who intentionally ram and rationalize that it's a "tactic" are just poor sports and sore losers in my opinion.   I don't care what they do offline, but online, even the most incompetent jerks can accomplish a ram, and I think the vast majority of people come online to fight with guns, and wouldn't appreciate a server that approves of ramming.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Iceworm

[FuriousMeow]

I've done this online when I was out of ammo and had people whine about it, literally makes no sense to whine about it. "You didn't shoot me down, you rammed me down!"

 

I don't do SP, but with the career mode I may check it out like I did with RoF but it won't be my main mode. However, if it is treated properly then I don't see any reason for it not to be done. Over friendly territory, out of ammo, and a 20% chance the AI will actually do it - totally fine with that.

[CanadaOne]

[Edited]

 

No.... just.... no....

Edited December 26, 2017 by Bearcat

[Feathered_IV]

There seems to be a lot of snowflakes out there...

 

 

 

Can we call them Snowfalkes    

[CanadaOne]

[Edited]

 

No...................

Edited December 26, 2017 by Bearcat

[Guest deleted@83466]

Why is that?  Because being a jerk and ramming an opponent that you don't have the skill to shoot down with traditional combat tactics demonstrates so much more "E-Courage"? 

[BraveSirRobin]

Rammers deserve to be chute killed, but I doubt it would bother them.

[Wulf]

So, if this is an online war, rather than just a game, can I assume it's perfectly legitimate to 'disconnect' from the server in situations where the enemy is getting the upper hand?  I mean, why would I allow myself to be shot down when I can just push the magic escape button?  

[CanadaOne]

Why is that?  Because being a jerk and ramming an opponent that you don't have the skill to shoot down with traditional combat tactics demonstrates so much more "E-Courage"? 

 

If you don't have the skill to avoid one big fat object travelling at 400KPH that has to make physical contact with you to hurt you, how is it you can avoid hundreds, or thousands, of small invisible objects travelling at 2500FPS that can tear into you from hundreds of meters away?

 

As for "e-courage", no such thing. This is a game simulating air combat. And if one player, in his warplane full of weapons, can't defend himself from another player in his warplane full of weapons, well... there it is, eh?

So, if this is an online war, rather than just a game, can I assume it's perfectly legitimate to 'disconnect' from the server in situations where the enemy is getting the upper hand?  I mean, why would I allow myself to be shot down when I can just push the magic escape button?  

 

Perhaps FSX is a better choice for those who find the variables of combat flightsims disconcerting.

[J2_Trupobaw]

Show me one player who really wants his sorties ended by AI randomly ramming him.

Done by human with real risk of life, it's act of bravery. Done by human in computer game (without risk element) , it's bad sportsmanship. Done by AI (whose "life" is as cheap as it gets) in computer game? It's devs trolling the players. 

[Aap]

As for "e-courage", no such thing. This is a game simulating air combat. And if one player, in his warplane full of weapons, can't defend himself from another player in his warplane full of weapons, well... there it is, eh?

 

That is the point of e-courage. It is not simulating air combat, if any a-hole can just decide to intentionally ram into another player, just to ruin his day, because losing his e-life is not such a big deal. Do you think people in real air combat, with their real lives in question, are as eager to die just fur fun?

 

Perhaps FSX is a better choice for those who find the variables of combat flightsims disconcerting.

 

Or perhaps Super Mario Kart is a better choice for those who find it hard to understand what is meant by "simulation".

Edited December 20, 2017 by II./JG77_Kemp

[CanadaOne]

That is the point of e-courage. It is not simulating air combat, if any a-hole can just decide to intentionally ram into another player, just to ruin his day, because losing his e-life is not such a big deal. Do you think people in real air combat, with their real lives in question, are as eager to die just fur fun?

 

 

I see little purpose in just going out with the intention of ramming someone simply for the sake of it. That's kind of pointless. But if you are engaged with another player in A2A, and you run out of ammo, and you can either ram the guy or be shot down. You ram the plane. "Boom!"

 

 

Or perhaps Super Mario Kart is a better choice for those who find it hard to understand what is meant by "simulation".

 

Yes, a simulation of air combat. Things go boom. Planes go boom. Pilots go boom. Bullets hit planes and planes hit planes. All kinds of things hit all kinds of other things.

 

If the player is not prepared to go boom, or is going to moan and whine when he does go boom... FSX awaits.

Done by human in computer game (without risk element) , it's bad sportsmanship.

 

 

It depends on the situation.

 

Again, if the guy just rams planes and that's it, yes, it's kinda stupid. But if you are engaged with the other player, and you have him smoking and leaking and burning and he's able to turn on you and "Boom!", that seems a propos.

[Aap]

 

 

But if you are engaged with another player in A2A, and you run out of ammo, and you can either ram the guy or be shot down. You ram the plane. "Boom!"

 

Yes, because you are so courageous. Your bravery is admirable .. of course it makes it a bit easier that we are talking about e-courage and temporary e-death as the potential outcome only.

 

 

 

Yes, a simulation of air combat. Things go boom. Planes go boom. Pilots go boom. Bullets hit planes and planes hit planes. All kinds of things hit all kinds of other things.

 

If that is your criteria for air combat simulation, I guess Super Mario Kart meets your criteria as Formula One simulator?

[MacLeod]

Yes, because you are so courageous. Your bravery is admirable .. of course it makes it a bit easier that we are talking about e-courage and temporary e-death as the potential outcome only.

 

 

 

 

If that is your criteria for air combat simulation, I guess Super Mario Kart meets your criteria as Formula One simulator?

Never saw anyone shot anybody on F1...

That's why he is suggesting you FSX

 

Ramming is a part of the war, and it is well simulated in this war simulation game. Like it or not.

[CanadaOne]

Yes, because you are so courageous. Your bravery is admirable .. of course it makes it a bit easier that we are talking about e-courage and temporary e-death as the potential outcome only.

 

 

This is a video game. Unless there is an app to plug yourself into the wall and get some serious voltage every time your plane is hit, it's all just a representation. Which is the point, one would think.

 

 

If that is your criteria for air combat simulation, I guess Super Mario Kart meets your criteria as Formula One simulator?

 

As opposed to the children's tea party some suggest? Rules of etiquette made up on the fly; "You may drink only with your left hand whilst holding the saucer with your right. Hats on at all times, please."

 

Seriously, this is a game of bombs and bullets and destruction, of the chase and the kill and the triumph of "besting your foe". And in the middle of it there are some people listing ways in which they do not want to be virtually injured. "You may not this! And you may not that!" Even though those things did actually happen in real life, albeit sporadically, according to some.

 

Snowflakes indeed.

[Guest deleted@83466]

You don't even play Online against actual people, do you?

[CanadaOne]

No, not in BOX yet. Played tons of IL2-46 online.

 

It is equal in that it is a video game representation of WWII air combat. But if you see a difference in how your view of "ethical behavior" applies between games, I would be interested to read your point of view.

[Guest deleted@83466]

You don't even play Online against actual people, do you?

No, not in BOX yet. Played tons of IL2-46 online.

 

It is equal in that it is a video game representation of WWII air combat. But if you see a difference in how your view of "ethical behavior" applies between games, I would be interested to read your point of view.

 

Another mighty forum warrior...what's your squad, the 101st Fightin' Keyboardists?

[CanadaOne]

You don't even play Online against actual people, do you?

 

Another mighty forum warrior...what's your squad, the 101st Fightin' Keyboardists?

 

8th Mighty Espresso Drinkers. "We fly buzzed."

 

I'd still like to hear how your views of online behavior can or should differ between IL2-46 and BOX.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

I'm failing to see the problem with ramming.

 

People repeatedly shoot down defenceless, smoking aircraft trying to crash land. People repeatedly chase and fire upon a disengaging, damaged enemy that has given up on the fight and poses no threat. People repeatedly deny the chance for others to bail out. Knowing that if they don't do anything you will turn around and shoot them down in all cowardly ways possible without hesitation, what encouragement does a pilot have to let you get away?

 

If a pilot cannot get a guns kill and is likely to be shot down, and preventing the enemy flight from reaching its target is part of the mission they are on, using their aircraft as a weapon is definitely a valid way out. Over friendly territory they have good odds of surviving, with some good airmanship it's possible to make a pretty clean ramming manoeuvre (V-1 intercepts being the pinnacle of that), and they will likely spare a few virtual friendly lives through that, thus helping their side win the current map/mission.

Edited December 20, 2017 by 216th_Lucas_From_Hell

[Guest deleted@83466]

8th Mighty Espresso Drinkers. "We fly buzzed."

 

I'd still like to hear how your views of online behavior can or should differ between IL2-46 and BOX.

 

I'm guessing people who made it a point to intentionally ram in that game. because they were too fragile to just lose, were regarded as unwelcome trolls too.

[CanadaOne]

I'm failing to see the problem with ramming.

 

People repeatedly shoot down defenceless, smoking aircraft trying to ditch. People repeatedly chase and fire upon a disengaging, damaged enemy that has given up on the fight and poses no threat. People repeatedly deny the chance for others to bail out. Knowing that if they don't do anything you will turn around and shoot them down in all cowardly ways possible without hesitation, what encouragement does a pilot have to let you get away?

 

If a pilot cannot get a guns kill and is likely to be shot down, and preventing the enemy flight from reaching it's target is part of the mission they are on, using their aircraft as a weapon is definitely a valid way out. Over friendly territory they have good odds of surviving, with some good airmanship it's possible to make a pretty clean ramming manoeuvre (V-1 intercepts being the pinnacle of that), and they will likely spare a few virtual friendly lives through that, thus helping their side win the current map/mission.

 

I tried to rep your post, but I used up all my shots for the day.

 

In any case, well said.

[Madov]

Christmas time always seems to bring out the Luftwhiners. If you don't like being rammed, then get out of our skies!

[Guest deleted@83466]

Christmas time always seems to bring out the Luftwhiners. If you don't like being rammed, then get out of our skies!

 

"Our Skies".  I primarily fly the Mig and the Yak.  Online.  Against human opponents.  Can't say I've ever encountered you.

[Aap]

Christmas time always seems to bring out the Luftwhiners. If you don't like being rammed, then get out of our skies!

So, where do you see this famous "luftwhining" on this thread?

[CanadaOne]

More snowflakes than Luftwihiners.

I'm guessing people who made it a point to intentionally ram in that game. because they were too fragile to just lose, were regarded as unwelcome trolls too.

 

Yes, I'm sure the snowflakes and tea party types whined a great deal in IL2-46 as well if they got virtually hurt in a manner they found lacking in proper etiquette.

[Aap]

Never saw anyone shot anybody on F1...

That's why he is suggesting you FSX

 

Ramming is a part of the war, and it is well simulated in this war simulation game. Like it or not.

Have you seen people racing on a circuit on Formula One? Have you seen collisions in Formula One? Okay, I guess that means that Super Mario Kart is a Formula One simulator?

If somebody says that if he is out of ammo then he prefers to ram an enemy rather than return to base, "because that is air combat simulation", then he has very limited understanding of both real air combat as well as normal human behaviour in real life.

[CanadaOne]

. . . as well as normal human behaviour in real life.

 

...and how that normal human behaviour relates to a combat flightsim video game where we pretend, with great enthusiasm and enjoyment, to destroy massive amounts of life and property with guns and rockets and bombs.

 

What was that about "normal human behavior"? 

[Aap]

...and how that normal human behaviour relates to a combat flightsim video game where we pretend, with great enthusiasm and enjoyment, to destroy massive amounts of life and property with guns and rockets and bombs.

 

What was that about "normal human behavior"?

Massive amounts of life and property was destroyed with guns and rockets and bombs during WWII. Still, the natural instinct of survival or fear of death or however you want to call it was part of natural human behavior. Most people did not want to risk dying just because they had run out of ammo.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Massive amounts of life and property was destroyed with guns and rockets and bombs during WWII. Still, the natural instinct of survival or fear of death or however you want to call it was part of natural human behavior. Most people did not want to risk dying just because they had run out of ammo.

Most people who did not want to risk dying were flying office tables, not fighters.

 

Not every Winchester case jusfies a ramming, but sometimes when you're too damaged to land or the enemy is about to inflict massive damage (a He-111 about to dispense 2000kg of explosives over your base for example) it's definitely worth the risk.

 

After all, the "chivalrous" flyboys will definitely try to kill you if you disengage anyway.

[Warpig]

[Edited]

 

Good job guy! 

 

This topic is better off locked anyways.

Edited December 26, 2017 by Bearcat

[Aap]

Most people who did not want to risk dying were flying office tables, not fighters.

Not every Winchester case jusfies a ramming, but sometimes when you're too damaged to land or the enemy is about to inflict massive damage (a He-111 about to dispense 2000kg of explosives over your base for example) it's definitely worth the risk.

After all, the "chivalrous" flyboys will definitely try to kill you if you disengage anyway.

There were many people that did not get to choose, if they wanted to be on front line or behind the desk, but that was not the point. The point is that people in general don't choose to die in real life just because they are out of ammo, for example.

Your example of plane being too damaged to (crash) land, but being flyable enough to ram another plane - honestly it is hard to imagine that situation. Even in that weird situation, I believe most people in real life would choose the option with higher chance of survival and bail out instead of dying.

[Warpig]

I've done a lot of online flying and aside from the technical differences in the quality of the representation between this combat flightsim and that combat flightsim, it's all the same.

 

And one thing you will never hear from me, notwithstanding my distaste for vulching, is the kind of whining that's being heard in this thread. I'll leave to the snowflakes.

 

Thank you.

 

But why is it a troll thread? We are discussing an issue involved in the playing of the game. Or is this some SJW thing where there are subjects too offensive to be discussed openly without offering safe spaces and trigger warnings for the faint of heart?

You can call people snowflakes and SJW's all you want. That's not going to magically make them agree with you. I don't even think you know what a snowflake or SJW is, the way you recklessly throw them terms around (maybe you're just trying to be trendy because that's what the cool kids say?).

 

Anyways, you just sound like a little kid who''s feelings are hurt because he can't get his way.

 

You gave your opinions on the subject, that should be enough.

[MacLeod]

Have you seen people racing on a circuit on Formula One? Have you seen collisions in Formula One? Okay, I guess that means that Super Mario Kart is a Formula One simulator?

If somebody says that if he is out of ammo then he prefers to ram an enemy rather than return to base, "because that is air combat simulation", then he has very limited understanding of both real air combat as well as normal human behaviour in real life.

 

Exactly! And in F1 there are cases of ramming to win a championship or help the team. So you just felt on your own argument.

 

Most people who did not want to risk dying were flying office tables, not fighters.

 

Not every Winchester case jusfies a ramming, but sometimes when you're too damaged to land or the enemy is about to inflict massive damage (a He-111 about to dispense 2000kg of explosives over your base for example) it's definitely worth the risk.

 

After all, the "chivalrous" flyboys will definitely try to kill you if you disengage anyway.

Take all my reps for today! You are so on the point that they are not even trying to refute you!

[CUJO_1970]

ZA RODINU!