 |
|  |
 |
|
Alinestra Covelia
|
 |
I sense the dodgy presence of Bing - a presence I've not felt since...
Feb 2000 time: 00:14
|
|
The helicopter unit in game is the ultimate outclassing air unit - its attack strength is identical to a specialized bomber craft, and its number of attacks is far greater, enabling it to attack once for every movement remaining.
I think this is quite inaccurate - jet bombers attack only once (ie a single bombing run) but the entire point is that they do so with devastating force. The usual use of helicopters, in contrast, is to overfly a slow moving target and attack it thoroughly to ensure its destruction. A modern air force would most likely opt to use a bomber attack to destroy a static target, such as a city emplacement or a border base or maybe a large convoy, and the helicopter would be used against ground troops but not against cities.
Thus, a bomber and a chopper should receive different attack profiles. I was wondering whether or not there was a way of either reducing the number of squares that a chopper could move (and thus the number of attacks it got) or perhaps giving it a -25% penalty when attacking bases instead of enemy forces out in the open.
This would then encourage the use of bombers only against cities, and choppers as battlefield-clearing units, and reduce the present omnipreference of the chopper as an anti-city unit.
Has anybody done this yet? If not, what do you think of the idea?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
johndmuller
|
 |
Capitol Hill, Colony of DC
Feb 2001 time: 00:14
|
|
Technically, I think that the range could be factored down in the game; realism-wise, I suppose that would be accurate, but I'm not a RL military expert. The downside to that would be that the number of attacks would also be reduced.
I think that choppers in RL are also harder to maintain than bombers, but I don't know whether that can be incorporated into the game; something like getting damage, say 10%. after every turn it moves even when it returns to base might be reasonable, but I don't know if you can do that.
The price of armor probably might be skewed to favor planes as some sort of proxy for the fact that choppers are easier to hit, but I don't know that it would make armor any more attractive to planes unless done to extreme.
If it could be done, the battle odds w/r choppers should reflect the relatively defensless nature of helocopters - AAA and SAM in particular, should be really effective against choppers more so than bombers or fighters.
These kinds of adjustments would unbias the relationship between choppers and planes at least a bit.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Horus
|
|
Sweden
Nov 2000 time: 05:14
|
|
There is indeed something wrong with the way Helicopters (or should I say Hell-icopters) work in this game.
IRL
Helicopters are a tactical weapon, there range is very limited compared with bombers, they are confined to operate on the limited theatre were they are put.Bombers are a strategic weapon with a long range, well illustrated by the way they work in SMAC/X.
Helicopters flying rigth across continents(!) and spreading Havoc there with 12 attacks the coming turn isn't that exciting. IMO helicopters should start with a base movement /attacks of 4 or 5.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999 time: 21:14
|
|
Hoek, Your solution sounds great. However, I don't think it could be done by just you and me editing the Alpha.txt file. What we have proposed here, from reducing range, to increasing base defenses, to eliminating Copters altogether, can be done using an edit.
Copters are like Battleships in CIV or Stealth fighters in CIV II. They can clean out a base in one turn an thus are a superweapon.
Just as an aside, I have found Copters to be quite a bit less useful in games where the defensive armor is in the 5-6 range and offensive weapons remain 8-13. A Copter will normally loose to an AAA defender, especially with an Aerospace Comples. WAVE helps restore some of the balance, but not all. Typically the Copter can survive only one base kill, which is what we all want.
I have found the above situation to be the norm in games since I redid the Alpha.txt and Faction files to force the AI to research everything but "Conquer" and to force the AI to build forests. Defense stays even with offense. The use of airpower against AAA, 5-6 armor is not a good idea.
Ned
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Horus
|
|
Sweden
Nov 2000 time: 05:14
|
|
Another 2c, regarding Helicopters attacking cities. I agree with what Ned and Hoek writes about the issue. The chopters should have the "-50% airstrike" penalty when attacking cities, regardless of their SAM capability. Helicopters should not have the same capability to attack cities as strategic bomers have - to state the obvious. They got a comparative - i.e. compared with bombers - short range with their missiles and are by that more prone to counterattacks.
And of course, some things one can edit. But it is more fun to have a correct "canon" which all play by. But I guess it is only a dream that SMAC/Y will makle its apperence.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
death_head
|
|
Caledonia, IL, USA
Jul 2000 time: 23:14
|
|
Helicopters with their slow speed, are really only good once they're inside the city, because they can fly around the streets, etc. Obviously, this isn't going to happen in a war unless the city is almost taken anyhow.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
death_head
|
|
Caledonia, IL, USA
Jul 2000 time: 23:14
|
|
I'm talking about city assault, as opposed to field combat. You're right though.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Horus
|
|
Sweden
Nov 2000 time: 05:14
|
|
Yes, the only time I in RL (as if I would have the chance to ever decide about such things), would use Helicopters in a city would be as the victory motorcade.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:14. Apolyton Time is 00:14. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|