The helicopters

Alfonso · July 11, 2003, 11:54

I do not like the utility that has the helicopters. These are my suggestions to improve this unit and to make it more interesting.

That the Paratrooper does not spend turn to the being transported in Helicopter.

Its capacity would have to be of 3 units.

That some boats can transport two helicopters, of that way soldiers could be sent from the air anywhere and would give a more real aspect to the game.

Increase its radius of activity.

bobbo008 · July 11, 2003, 14:23

yes, as it is, i've built one, and that was on accident, i guess i'm using it for recon missions hoping against all hope i get to watch it get shot down

Solomwi · July 11, 2003, 19:55

I like the helicopter for limited uses, but agree that a wider radius would be nice, as would the unit being airdropped retaining its movement points. I don't think they should increse capacity, though. It's not a major transport unit, and shouldn't be, considering the scale represented by one unit. What it is good for, that I've found: airdropping an attack force of Marines or defense force of Infantry to increase penetration of an initial assault, recon, as mentioned above (I hate dropping a unit into enemy territory, only to find a Spearman in your drop zone and losing the unit), and "mobile airport" (load the chopper, then rebase it to a city on the front line and presto, instant defense or reinforcement). My favorite uses of this last one was during a war with India. I took a strategically necessary city with MA that was still completely enclosed by India's borders. The assault left fewer units healthy enough to defend than I was comfortable with, so I was able, through rebasing choppers, to reinforce them with an entire Airborne Division (8 Paratroopers) and hold the city. Choppering in reinforcements over a strip of enemy held territory also seems to mesh with the helicopter's natural use, where rebasing a unit immediately to another continent feels almost like an exploit.

bobbo008 · July 12, 2003, 02:32

you had 8 paratroopers? how far along on the tech tree were you?

johncmcleod · July 18, 2003, 23:43

I have been griping about helicopters not being able to go on carriers and units having to use their movement points when getting dropped for years. Maybe someone will hack the game and make these things possible.

What I like to do is drop paratroopers on top of resources and pillage roads. Then you use the paratroopers airdrop function to move it to another resource spot.

Quote:

I don't think they should increse capacity, though.

To make helicopters and the prerequisite somewhat useful I changed the transport capacity to 2.

The Mad Monk · July 18, 2003, 23:48

I had no idea they retain transported units when you rebase them -- suddenly, they seem a hell of a lot more useful.

Solomwi · July 19, 2003, 00:42

Mad Monk, that's another reason I keep a handful of Infantry units around once I get Computers (MI won't load into a chopper, and rightfully so). Got a trouble spot needing immediate shoring up? Nothing better than a rebased helicopter with an infantry brigade aboard.

Bobbo, when do you mean? When I got my first eight or when I was researching future techs and had about 64 Paras?

That particular game was one I had decided to use to toy with military tactics, especially involving units I had never used. Before I just gunned for a slew of MA and MI (and generally tried to avoid war until I had overwhelming tech superiority), built some nukes and went rolling over anybody who stood in my way. Reading some bombardment unit threads planted the seed in my mind, though, that I was really missing out using that approach, so I forced myself to use practically every unit available.

What I found was that artillery units opened up a whole new world of combat options, marines are EXCELLENT if used logically, helicopters are limited, but well worth building, and paras can be used well and are cool to watch, but don't do anything I can't do with other units, even if they might do it cheaper at times.

To reflect today's reality, paratroopers should be able to drop practically anywhere in the world, but as a trade-off not be able to move after the drop (simulating the transit time from a base well inside the country to some remote Mongol stronghold). Without modding the ADM, I don't think this would make them overpowered, but would make them a lot more useful. Basically, they would be a rapid response force with no real results guaranteed.

Just to go on a flight of fancy for a second, imagine paras as described above with the "acts of war" diplomacy that's been discussed before (where small scale attacks don't necessarily cause full blown war). Xerxes getting a bit uppity? Show him how long your arm is by dropping some troops deep inside his borders and pillaging that precious oil supply. That little island city with your backup uranium just flipped to the Russians and your nearest port is five turns away? Jump the 3rd Airborne in and have it back next turn. Of course, if Catherine popped out an MI, or even an Inf, in the flip, you're going to take HEAVY casualties, and may not be able to take it back. A little too much pressure on your border cities from Bismarck's Panzers? Open a second front immediately, without the help of those foot-dragging English and Americans.

johncmcleod · July 19, 2003, 12:44

Would it make paras too good if I did what Solomwi said and modded them to 8.8.1?

Solomwi · July 19, 2003, 13:40

Probably not, John, since by the time you get paratroopers, the AI should be defending with MI, and definitely will have infantry in its top cities (unless they have no rubber, hey to Catherine in my current game

). So, 8 attack isn't overbearing, really.

I tend to like them at 6, just to keep the aspect of them being basically infantry troops who have this one specialty. I also like 8 defense for that same reason (the -2 coming from a slight scale down in equipment for jump purposes, etc.). Relative to each other, I like the stats of the four "modern" foot units (Infantry, Paratroopers, Marines and Guerillas), but that's just me

.

Panag · July 20, 2003, 10:37

hi ,

the chinook should be able to transport a mech infantry or artillery unit , .......

when it does not transport that , two foot soldiers

a regular heli would be nice in anti tank role and the transport of one foot unit

have a nice day

Solomwi · July 20, 2003, 15:42

Artillery, yes, mechanized infantry, no. The Bradley weighs over twice the Chinook's external cargo capacity.

Panag · July 20, 2003, 15:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Solomwi
Artillery, yes, mechanized infantry, no. The Bradley weighs over twice the Chinook's external cargo capacity.

hi ,

155 and humvee is lifted on regular basis , so that should not be a problem , .....

maybe they should split the mech infantry up again , keep the bradley and add the hummer from civ II , .....

have a nice day

Solomwi · July 20, 2003, 17:01

Then you're not so much mechanized infantry as just motorized. Besides, each of those pieces of equipment weighs roughly a fifth of the Bradley, and the BFV is what makes MI mechanized. MI and MA are best suited only being able to take advantage of airports, both for realism and gameplay.

johncmcleod · July 20, 2003, 17:26

Who says it's just one chinook? I think it's more than one, just as one infantry isn't one guy and one bomber is probably more like a squadron.

Solomwi · July 20, 2003, 18:10

Oh, most definitely, but by the same token, it's not just one BFV. My point is that for heavy equipment, as would be found with an MI or MA unit, the C-5 Galaxy is the air transport method, not the Chinook... voila, airports

. From the gameplay aspect, MI is already very powerful, and to let them load into a helicopter would just increase the distance between it and the foot units.

Along the lines of my previous post, I used to get irked that heli's couldn't carry MA, and therefore didn't build them, until I realized there was more flavor to C3 warfare than searching for the one omnipotent unit.

vmxa1 · July 20, 2003, 18:40

A modern tank weights about 60 tons, only a few flying machines could handle that. When you add in the range of the Helo, it is not useful for hauling tanks around.

Panag · July 20, 2003, 19:46

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
A modern tank weights about 60 tons, only a few flying machines could handle that. When you add in the range of the Helo, it is not useful for hauling tanks around.

hi ,

correct , one would need a flying crane in order to move a modern day battle tank , .....

however , it would be nice to see C-141's , C-5's and C-17's around , .....

have a nice day

Solomwi · July 20, 2003, 22:00

Quote:

correct , one would need a flying crane in order to move a modern day battle tank

No, one would need a cargo plane.

Quote:

however , it would be nice to see C-141's , C-5's and C-17's around

Yeah, like those

. But they're already in the game, so everything's copacetic.

Panag · July 21, 2003, 10:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Solomwi

No, one would need a cargo plane.

Yeah, like those

. But they're already in the game, so everything's copacetic.

hi ,

nope , tanks and other heavy equipment can be brought up the field with a flying crane , ......

and no , transport planes are not in the game , .....

it would be better to not let units move like tanks or mech infantry , but they coulod be brought by two or three at the time with the airplane , .....

seeing a c-130 would also be nice , it should hold three paras or so , .....

have a nice day

Solomwi · July 21, 2003, 12:06

Sorry, Panag, but you're wrong on both counts. The Sikorsky S-64 (the "Skycrane) has a payload capacity of 10 tons. Sikorsky's 65 family has a capacity of 18 tons, but now we're back into full fledged helicopters.

Quote:

no , transport planes are not in the game

Ummm, do you think airports magically whisk all those modern armor and mech infantry vehicles to their destination themselves? Nope, they use (wait for it)... transport planes! I reiterate that yes, they are in the game.

Panag · July 21, 2003, 14:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Solomwi
Sorry, Panag, but you're wrong on both counts. The Sikorsky S-64 (the "Skycrane) has a payload capacity of 10 tons. Sikorsky's 65 family has a capacity of 18 tons, but now we're back into full fledged helicopters.

Ummm, do you think airports magically whisk all those modern armor and mech infantry vehicles to their destination themselves? Nope, they use (wait for it)... transport planes! I reiterate that yes, they are in the game.

hi ,

*sigh*

check your facts before you post , .....

and before you say someone is wrong , ......

have a nice day

Solomwi · July 21, 2003, 15:01

Easily said when one presents no facts to counter those I've laid out. If you know of a flying crane with seven times the capacity of the 64, please enlighten me, but simply saying "no" over and over is nothing more than childish stubbornness. Of course, when you put yourself in a seemingly unarguable position, as you've done, that tends to be the most effective tactic. Again, if you know of a model with a 70 ton capacity, please present some facts of your own. Otherwise, accept that you're wrong and move on.

Cruddy · July 21, 2003, 17:29

Solomwi - am pretty sure Panag was using "sky crane" as generic term, not a particular model of helicopter.

I have certainly seen old pix of M-60s being moved by chopper, and they weigh a damn sight more than 10 tons.

Solomwi · July 21, 2003, 17:52

Cruddy, if so, some fact presentation is still in order, especially considering that a flying crane is a particular type of helicopter.

You're right, the Patton's another ~60 ton piece of equipment, and I'd be interested to see those pictures. To my knowledge, the highest payload helicopter the Army ever shot for was the CH-62 HLH (Heavy Lift Helicopter), which was rated for about 24 tons. It was never put into production, though, and the only one built is housed in the Army Aviation Museum about 20 minutes from my parents' house in Fort Rucker.

Panag · July 22, 2003, 07:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Solomwi
Easily said when one presents no facts to counter those I've laid out. If you know of a flying crane with seven times the capacity of the 64, please enlighten me, but simply saying "no" over and over is nothing more than childish stubbornness. Of course, when you put yourself in a seemingly unarguable position, as you've done, that tends to be the most effective tactic. Again, if you know of a model with a 70 ton capacity, please present some facts of your own. Otherwise, accept that you're wrong and move on.

hi ,

check any internet searchengine thats a bit good , ......

on to of my head , 45 stories higher they used a russian mil to put a 25+ airco on the roof , .....

m-60 , ptb's , amx , 155 , 175 , etc , .... look at any detailed pics of an armed conflict and you shall find them , ......

Cruddy's message complements my meaning indeed

have a nice day

Solomwi · July 22, 2003, 20:37

*sigh*

Nice attempt to change your argument. A 25 ton load is above rated capacity for the Mil (~22 tons), but conceivable. Entirely different ballpark from 60-70 tons. But nice try.

Btw, except for the M-60, pretty much everything you listed falls within weight specifications. At least have the decency to keep the point being contested in mind when you post.

Panag · July 23, 2003, 09:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Solomwi
*sigh*

Nice attempt to change your argument. A 25 ton load is above rated capacity for the Mil (~22 tons), but conceivable. Entirely different ballpark from 60-70 tons. But nice try.

Btw, except for the M-60, pretty much everything you listed falls within weight specifications. At least have the decency to keep the point being contested in mind when you post.

hi ,

look , just read the first message , it aint edited or so , .....

quote ; " tanks and other heavy equipment "

ever heard of light tanks , they are still looked upon in the armed forces as "heavy" , .....

so far found 34 pics from helicopters that have from a hummer with extension to a huge 210mm to troopscarrier , ptb , stacks of harpoons , popeyes , etc , .....

cruddy could not have used better words , ......

have a nice day

Mad Bomber · July 23, 2003, 09:38

Panag:

You are correct a heavy lift copper can lift a IFV or light tank, but a MBT such as the M1 is not possible.

Solomwi:

The Patton series of tanks (M-48) weighed approx 45 tons. The M-60 series toped the scales at a little over 50. The M1 prototype weighs 61 tons the newest M1A2/SPT is 69 tons. The Bradley IFV is 67,00LB at full combat load (33.5 tons)

Panag · July 23, 2003, 09:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Mad Bomber
Panag:

You are correct a heavy lift copper can lift a IFV or light tank, but a MBT such as the M1 is not possible.

Solomwi:

The Patton series of tanks (M-48) weighed approx 45 tons. The M-60 series toped the scales at a little over 50. The M1 prototype weighs 61 tons the newest M1A2/SPT is 69 tons. The Bradley IFV is 67,00LB at full combat load (33.5 tons)

hi ,

i never said or wrote about a large mbt like an m1 , merkava or any other huge beast , .....

sometimes full trucks with ammo and water are moved , it all depends , the bottom line is , we should be able to hook up smething under the chinook like a hummer or artillery , if a parachute can be drawn , then the cargolines can be draw in the game , ...... needless to say that if something hangs under it , the heli should not be able to hold troops or other units , ...

have a nice day

Solomwi · July 23, 2003, 14:54

Quote:

correct , one would need a flying crane in order to move a modern day battle tank

Quote:

tanks and other heavy equipment can be brought up the field with a flying crane

Quote:

i never said or wrote about a large mbt like an m1 , merkava or any other huge beast

Whatever.