Making non SF chopper infantry viable

User avatar
damoj
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 322
Joined: Mon 26 Sep 2016 10:07
Contact:

Re: Making non SF chopper infantry viable

Postby damoj » Thu 8 Dec 2016 10:38

Tangent: what ever happened to ALB's UH-1E? Kinda strange that rocket helo transports became a REDFOR/Europoor flavour

User avatar
trotskygrad
General
Posts: 6444
Joined: Mon 17 Sep 2012 16:09
Location: две тысячи лет война
Contact:

Re: Making non SF chopper infantry viable

Postby trotskygrad » Thu 8 Dec 2016 10:45

damoj wrote:Tangent: what ever happened to ALB's UH-1E? Kinda strange that rocket helo transports became a REDFOR/Europoor flavour

it evolved into the bushranger
NEXT TIME I SEE A DAMN FLAMEWAR INVOLVING DARTH-LAMPSHADE, FROSTPOOKY, LONERIFLE, FADE2GRAY, TROTSKYGRAD AND/OR ANYONE INVOLVED IN A DISCUSSION BETWEEN THEM I'M GOING TO HAND OUT BANS TO ANYONE USING ANYTHING LOOKING REMOTELY LIKE AN AD-HOMINEM

User avatar
damoj
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 322
Joined: Mon 26 Sep 2016 10:07
Contact:

Re: Making non SF chopper infantry viable

Postby damoj » Thu 8 Dec 2016 11:01

trotskygrad wrote:
damoj wrote:Tangent: what ever happened to ALB's UH-1E? Kinda strange that rocket helo transports became a REDFOR/Europoor flavour

it evolved into the bushranger


"Evolved" without the positivist subtext, sure.

pebakesa
Sergeant
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri 15 Jul 2016 10:03
Contact:

Re: Making non SF chopper infantry viable

Postby pebakesa » Thu 8 Dec 2016 12:06

The cold war-esque battlefields depicted in Wargame are ruled by the violence of action allowed by mobility of the units, and an infantry unit without a transport ready to support and displace it at a moment's notice is more than useless, it's a waste of limited resources. That's why the vehicles are always organic to the infantry unit. Now, there's two contradictory points: how air assault units actually operate and how Wargame actually operates.

Air assault units (ie. helicopter-borne infantry) work in a similar fashion as to the suggestions here: the helicopters are there to ferry the troopers to the objective, often infiltrating deep behind enemy lines, and after acting as fire support for the initial landing and establishment of a defensive perimeter, they swiftly evac and return to base, their munitions and fuel spent. You could make a case for air assault units to be modeled more like airplanes are, with helicopters having a limited loiter time over the battlefield, after which they must return to base and replenish - and pick up a new squad of infantry.

But Wargame (in common multiplayer scenarios) doesn't depict an air assault operation, but rather a meeting engagement on a very narrow front, where there is never enough space for aerial flanking or envelopment maneuvers. Air assault troops and helicopters certainly would not be wasted as lofty battlefield taxis delivering more meat to the grinder in a cost efficient manner. Helicopters will absolutely not be made into a cheap alternative for ground transports, as that would be a wholly unrealistic abstraction on every possible level.

Perhaps they should be made a bit more faster compared to landbound units, but no cheaper, nor endurable.

User avatar
QUAD
Colonel
Posts: 2766
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013 21:17
Contact:

Re: Making non SF chopper infantry viable

Postby QUAD » Thu 8 Dec 2016 13:06

Illusive wrote:I regularly take and see other people take ATGM or FIST squads in the higher end rocket pod helos (Mi-17, Lynx AH.7, Panther), it's hard to overstate the value of helos as firesupport platforms after they've unloaded. Sometimes with Eastern Block I'll even take a card of upvetted Lehka Pekhota in Mi-17s for an opening land grab every once in a while just because I love how much synergy the two units have.


the OP deals with non rocket pod transport helicopters. (But the Puma Pirate is fine as well.)
Mobile Units Operational :!:

RedFive
Warrant Officer
Posts: 400
Joined: Wed 6 Jan 2016 15:22
Contact:

Re: Making non SF chopper infantry viable

Postby RedFive » Thu 8 Dec 2016 18:07

I like this idea. Airborne decks should be about getting infantry quickly to strongpoints and supporting them with air assets, but the most basic helos are just too expensive to keep any sort of sustained ground presence when most ground transports are cheaper, more durable and more useful after unloading.

R3d Sh4mbala
Sergeant Major
Posts: 291
Joined: Thu 12 May 2016 06:17
Contact:

Re: Making non SF chopper infantry viable

Postby R3d Sh4mbala » Thu 8 Dec 2016 20:56

kiheerSEDMAN wrote:Helos suffer from some ingrained fear of all pilots in-game of NOE flying. In fact, Wargame pilots are so bad at their jobs that they will literally refuse to land on designated helipads.

As transport taxi helos stand currently, they are far too weak to be of value in later use in a non-cheese way besides flank guard, yet far too strong as AA missile bait for cheap to make helo rushes all that more tactical and outplay filled. As it is basically guaranteed (hell will freeze over first) that helicopters aren't getting meaningful AI updates for RD, I would support buffing costs. Not sure about 5 pts, but 10 pt Hueys are fine all things considered, 15/20 pt Blackhawks too.


This partially due to the "hot landing" and "crash landing bail out" bugs I have heard about in the earlier BETA era. Eugen responded by nerfing the speed of landing unloading. But oddly enough helos are not effected in pick up. So they quickly dash down teleport the infantry in, and then can be ordered to fly away to a new location. But the unloading and landing and change altitude options are glacially slow even on fast high tier helo transports.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests