 |
| |
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:13
|
|
'In reality' airpower is most effective against moving ground targets, and stationary concentrations of force. Thus it's main uses in modern warfare are interdiction (which it is very good at) and as very flexible artillery when proper targets are available.
Absent these conditions, airpower is a good deal less useful, and falls to strategic bombing (which short of nuclear payloads is of dubious decisiveness) and screening friendly forces and base areas, which airpower is very good at.
Airpower and ground power have a symbiotic relationship which is rather powerful. Without the threat or reality of a ground force, the enemy can disperse conceal and dig in his own forces, which dramatically limits the ability of aircraft to inflict casualties. (Kosovo, Viet Nam) A ground force will cause the enemy to do the two things which will make him vulnerable from the air, namely move and concentrate.
For the ground force, airpower lends a helping hand in several ways. Tactically, it inhibits enemy movement and concentration, and can provide a lot of firepower which can be concentrated very easily. Air Supremacy also yields a large advantage in that it can both secure friendly rear areas from raids and reconaissance, as well as attacking enemy lines of communication and providing reams of intelligence. All of this acts as a large force multiplier for a ground force.
I believe you can edit the tech tree to delay (or eliminate) airpower. Check out the Creation area for tips on doing this. I agree that Air Power's ability to completely destroy targets (and the insane firepower of the chopper) need to be reigned in. The movement and combat system in the Civ series leaves a lot to be desired. One can always defend the high firepower ratings as fair representations of a year's combat. Movement rates in these games are always hoplessly small.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
swisscheese4
|
|
Belfast,Northern Ireland
Nov 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
Cheers LoD. That SNAC ModPack looks great, I intend to try it out as soon as posible. Reducing the movement of the coppers to 4 is a nice idea!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
swisscheese4
|
|
Belfast,Northern Ireland
Nov 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
Hi Mic,
My point was that the airpower in the game is too powerful because it is soooo unrealistic. I real life helicopters are the lest form of offensive aircraft because of their slow movement making them easy targets for SAM, etc and are used in a limited role to attack tanks and convoys. Therefore I would like to see the power limited to represent this in the game. PBs are fine in my opinion and are balanced by the high cost to build, the fact you only get one shot with it, the penalties for using them (planet and trade go out the window) and the fact that in the real world we have nukes of similar ability. Therefore their use in the game is a representation off a real tactical problem.
But I just think the coppers spoil the balance of the game, and take away from, what I think, is a more interesting element, ground warfare.
And as to your do or die defence solution, I came from the world of RTS and am a fan of the “sit back and build an impenetrable fortress, full of sentry guns and stuff”. I find it more fun to watch the enemy wash off my defence with the best he has a couple of times before I crush him (or her, don’t want to offend anyone!) ha ha ha ha, (deep breath) HA HA HA HAH +A etc.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shiva
|
|
of Bangalore, INDIA
Mar 2000
time: 05:13
|
|
I have to agree with your idea Garth. It would be very nice if they put that in or even if they would set an upper limit on the number of attacks it can make per turn.
Swisscheese4 I have to take the other side on helos. They are one of the most powerful weapons in real life. They can carry AAMs and ASMs (including anti-shipping types), cannons that can be used on both hard and soft targets and have flare/decoy defenses like jets (some have ECM also). IMHO they are much better for close air support than fast movers and can be based at makeshift bases close to a front unlike most jets.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vi Vicdi
|
|
Killeen, TX, USA
Nov 1999
time: 23:13
|
|
Helicopers are extremely powerful on offense and extremely weak on defense, and thus rely on stealth and surprise. This makes them a little bit like subs, I guess.
The helicopter is also far stronger against ground targets than air; the opposite is true of winged aircraft.
The helicopter's nemesis is the fighter. The fighter is so devastating an opponent for the outmatched helicopter that helicopters are almost never employed without local air superiority.
The hand-held SAM launcher, which has probably downed more helicopters than any other weapon, presents a different threat entirely -- a threat much less effective but far more difficult to detect and avoid than fighters.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Idaho
|
|
FRANCE
Jan 2000
time: 06:13
|
|
What's the URL for the SNAC modpack ?
Thanks
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
|
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:13
|
|
In reference to comments by Shiva and Vi Vicdi:
Helicopters and winged aircraft exist on a spectrum with a lot of potential overlap. At one end of the spectrum is the winged aircraft, which utilizes a more efficient aerodynamic. On the other end of the spectrum is the helicopter, which doesn't stall even at o speed. Both platforms are very adaptable, but neither are ideal for all missions.
Because fixed wing aircraft are more efficient fliers, they are better suited to more roles than the helicopter. Fixed wing craft can utilize that efficiency for speed, range, or payload, and most fixed wing aircraft outperform most helicopters at all three.
The main advantage of the helicopter is that it can use a ship or a parking lot for a base. This gives it a thousand specialized roles, most of which involve transport. One brigade of the U.S. 101st (Airmobile) division can operate independently soley with helicopters to provide supply and mobility.
So while you can strap an AA missle to a helicopter, it makes a poor substitute for a fighter. Conversely, while a jump jet can take off and land from a ship or cleared space, it is so inefficient at the task that it is only used sparingly.
Finally, I think most combat helicopter losses are due to ground fire, especially light cannon and heavy machine guns, as well as a few from RPGs. The reason is mainly that these dual purpose weapons are more numerous, and as well suited to destroying helicopters as SAMs. Light SAMs like the SA7 and Redeye historically have had limited engagement envelopes, which significantly limited opportunity fire even if one was deployed in the area. Though the Stinger is a vast improvement over the older generations of missles, it is not a panacea against a helicopter using evasive tactics.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
swisscheese4
|
|
Belfast,Northern Ireland
Nov 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
Thank you all for replying
And thank LoD for the invite but I can own play AC during the weekends so it would probably be the slowest game you ever get the misfortune to play (plus I would kick your ass! he he)
As to the topics of helicopters in real life and in the game I just don't like then any more and an thinking of changing my degree
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:13.
Apolyton Time is 00:13. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-03-2000 19:25
) aircraft are on the whole pretty ineffective on ground troops in the field i.e. Kosvo. They're mainly used to disrupt an enemy's infrastructure. Therefore I would have liked to see aircraft's effect on ground troops minimised to be like artillery bombardment, can damage but not destroy. And the ability for aircraft to target base facities. Not destroy them in one go, but to disrupt them for a few turns, and if attacked enough maybe then destroyed. 
.
|