What? Why would your enemy lose energy here? This makes no sense; you are the one losing energy with this type of maneuver.
In a 2v1, if you’re the 1, you’re essentially already dead. Either you’re chasing one while the either is getting free shots at you, or you’re simply being chased by one while the other is providing support. Realistically, you’re running for your life with one hand already on the ejection handles. If you’re the 2, there will never be a need for this since the bandit knows that even trying to down one of you is suicide.
In a 2v2+, this kind of maneuver is just going to generate free shots for someone within a few seconds. You’ll be a sitting duck, and anyone can pull off a missile shot on you without even leaving their turning circle, particularly with modern helmet cueing systems and high off-bore missiles (fighter pilots can nowadays literally just turn their head, look at something, and shoot at it with high success rates).
I agree that there are conceivable circumstances where this kind of maneuvering is useful. One thing to consider: fights are rarely 1v1, and even if it works perfectly against the guy you're fighting at the moment, one of his buddies will almost certainly have at least one shot opportunity against you. Energy is easy to give up and hard to get back.
Even if your missile misses, the situation is much better because although you're in a worse position, the enemy has now lost the initiative and a lot of energy. Presumably you'd be able to, using your superior missile, have another shot, or create an opportunity for your wingmen.
The idea isn't that you get shot in the exchange, it's that you force your enemy to abandon their advantage. The enemy has the choice to evade and lose their advantage, or go for the exchange in which case neither has the advantage.
This means that in cases where you have the upper hand you can use better tactics that don't incur high cost to yourself, whereas where you don't you can turn a 0-1 exchange into a potential 1-1 or 1-0 exchange. This is a pure win.
The multitude of fighters works both ways. While an enemy might gain a shot on you, your energy disadvantage is less significant in the short term and your buddies should have an easier time due to pragmatic numeric advantage.
What I learnt on 1v1 was that you should keep travelling towards the opposite corner of the map, forming one or two very thin attack lines, to surprise them in the beginning itself.
Sometimes I used the first, weaker one as a recon team, so that they give me the king's location before they are slaughtered, and then the second, stronger one comes in from an altogether different route and finishes them.
when you are playing an offensive position you get to choose how you want to play the game. if your advantage is bursty movements but you don't have as good endurance then it is much better to conserve your energy and not get in a duel where you don't have an advantage.
In Clausewitzian warfare this is true but not in asymmetric warfare. As a simplistic analogy, there's no need to score a knockout punch if you can trick your opponent into falling on their face.
Not only do you lose speed but the attacker just needs to rake across your now giant profile with guns. They might also pop off a heat seeking missile which sees you as a giant hot spot against the cold sky.
For example in EVE Online with a 1v1 fight two basic tactics are either Kite or Brawl. A kiter that can maintain range will beat a brawler. But a brawler that 'catches' a kiter will generally win.
Isn't it some kind of game theory problem? If you don't strike and they strike, you are guaranteed to lose. If you strike first, there is, however slim, chance of neutralizing enemy forces and surviving. Opposite side thinks the same.
The goal may not be to get to top faster, that is just one possible interpretation of efficiency. Dealing with the crowd and being bumped as people millaround vying for position isn't desirable either.
Just like you may choose not to grab Double Damage if you don't have an appropriate weapon you are most effective with while having DD, but could decide to defend it for a teammate who is coming a long who is appropriately equipped.
the Descent series is all about this, even in multiplayer.
Here's a video of two of the best players in the world: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8eCULTB3IQ (with audio commentary from some of the other best players, starting at around 7%.)
That is not realistic. In most circumstances the enemy won't have any defensive assets in the right place at the right time in order to generate an intercept.
It's sort of like if you're deer hunting and spot one through binoculars a mile from you moving away. You're going to have to get really lucky to take that deer.
In a 2v1, if you’re the 1, you’re essentially already dead. Either you’re chasing one while the either is getting free shots at you, or you’re simply being chased by one while the other is providing support. Realistically, you’re running for your life with one hand already on the ejection handles. If you’re the 2, there will never be a need for this since the bandit knows that even trying to down one of you is suicide.
In a 2v2+, this kind of maneuver is just going to generate free shots for someone within a few seconds. You’ll be a sitting duck, and anyone can pull off a missile shot on you without even leaving their turning circle, particularly with modern helmet cueing systems and high off-bore missiles (fighter pilots can nowadays literally just turn their head, look at something, and shoot at it with high success rates).
reply