CIA Tank FCS Assesments... and You

Forimar
Captain
Posts: 1522
Joined: Mon 6 May 2013 01:27
Contact:

Re: CIA Tank FCS Assesments... and You

Postby Forimar » Sat 21 Jan 2017 01:04

HrcAk47 wrote:
What a funny way to describe the perfectly balanced Longbow recon attack helicopter with FnF missiles and Exceptional optics.


Keep in mind the longbow comes in at 2 per card, costs 40 pts more, has no stealth, and is a lot easier to kill than the M-84AN. Those differences are why the Longbow is more or less fine and the M-84AN is ridiculous.

codextero
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2334
Joined: Sat 13 Dec 2014 02:52
Contact:

Re: CIA Tank FCS Assesments... and You

Postby codextero » Sat 21 Jan 2017 02:52

HrcAk47 wrote:lolbow maymay


Nothing hard counters M-84AN like Crotale/Tunguska/Sava/Chaparral A3/Tan Sam hard counters longbow.

The existence of high accuracy 3325 anti-helo means that you can be very careful with the longbow and still lose it if you fly near the wrong treeline. Once the first shot lands, it's a panic/stun, and there's enough time for the followup shot. There's no cover for a longbow to retreat to unless there's a well placed ridgeline. Without stealth, longbow is spotted by VG air optics (almost every 3325 AA), from about 4500 meters away, which gives a comfortable buffer to react.

M-84AN can tank one hit from every non-plane ATGM. If it gets hit once (or even before then, see ATGM launch and start reversing), you retreat into a readily available treeline and disappear. I'm not remotely good, but I lose longbows all the time and M-84AN only if I'm feeling adventurous with one.

"Historical capability wise", I think top of the line thermals and a millimeter-wave mast mounted radar is pretty good justification for being recon. The only helicopter that has better recon equipment (that I can think of), is the Kiowa Warrior with it's mast mounted optics.

User avatar
Sweedish_Gunner
Brigadier
Posts: 3105
Joined: Thu 25 Apr 2013 20:23
Contact:

Re: CIA Tank FCS Assesments... and You

Postby Sweedish_Gunner » Sat 21 Jan 2017 03:05

Forimar wrote:
HrcAk47 wrote:
What a funny way to describe the perfectly balanced Longbow recon attack helicopter with FnF missiles and Exceptional optics.


Keep in mind the longbow comes in at 2 per card, costs 40 pts more, has no stealth, and is a lot easier to kill than the M-84AN. Those differences are why the Longbow is more or less fine and the M-84AN is ridiculous.


Longbow isn't exactly fine. It's a dumb unit.
Image

User avatar
Killertomato
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon 9 Jul 2012 02:46
Contact:

Re: CIA Tank FCS Assesments... and You

Postby Killertomato » Sat 21 Jan 2017 03:10

Sweedish_Gunner wrote:
Longbow isn't exactly fine. It's a dumb unit.


IMO, there should be a longbow gunship in the helicopter tab and RAH-66/stinger in the recon tab.
orcbuster wrote:USSR gets prototype marsupials, why would you need moose when you got stuff with kickers like that AND transport capability? And I'm not even gonna START on the french Marsupilami, I don't even think thats a real animal! Why no trolls for Norway?

User avatar
Sweedish_Gunner
Brigadier
Posts: 3105
Joined: Thu 25 Apr 2013 20:23
Contact:

Re: CIA Tank FCS Assesments... and You

Postby Sweedish_Gunner » Sat 21 Jan 2017 03:20

Killertomato wrote:
Sweedish_Gunner wrote:
Longbow isn't exactly fine. It's a dumb unit.


IMO, there should be a longbow gunship in the helicopter tab and RAH-66/stinger in the recon tab.


That'd be pretty neat.

I don't think its capabilities are over modelled, it's a fearsome peace of kit but it's absolutely laborious to fight against in-game.
Image

codextero
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2334
Joined: Sat 13 Dec 2014 02:52
Contact:

Re: CIA Tank FCS Assesments... and You

Postby codextero » Sat 21 Jan 2017 04:11

Sweedish_Gunner wrote:
Killertomato wrote:
Sweedish_Gunner wrote:
Longbow isn't exactly fine. It's a dumb unit.


IMO, there should be a longbow gunship in the helicopter tab and RAH-66/stinger in the recon tab.


That'd be pretty neat.

I don't think its capabilities are over modelled, it's a fearsome peace of kit but it's absolutely laborious to fight against in-game.


Properly modeled longbow would have 16 turrets of 1 hellfire each, all capable of shooting at a different target, and it would only need to go mast-up to shoot.

There were some wargames run at China lake, where the Longbow showed itself to be something like 4 times as combat effective as the AH-64A. Enough that the AH-64C plan was scrapped in favor of adding Longbow radar capability to every Apache.

jhfts
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 337
Joined: Tue 21 Jan 2014 04:47
Contact:

Re: CIA Tank FCS Assesments... and You

Postby jhfts » Sat 21 Jan 2017 05:18

codextero wrote:
Sweedish_Gunner wrote:
I don't think its capabilities are over modelled, it's a fearsome peace of kit but it's absolutely laborious to fight against in-game.


Properly modeled longbow would have 16 turrets of 1 hellfire each, all capable of shooting at a different target, and it would only need to go mast-up to shoot.

There were some wargames run at China lake, where the Longbow showed itself to be something like 4 times as combat effective as the AH-64A. Enough that the AH-64C plan was scrapped in favor of adding Longbow radar capability to every Apache.


I think that it's overmodelled insofar as intelligence and target acquisition are over-simplified in-game. In real-life, the Longbow has good engagement capabilities, but in order to make use of them, it needs to know where the enemy is. There's a whole ISR infrastructure in the background that's necessary to place the helicopters where they're going to be effective.

In Wargame, there's an abstraction around recon on the ground that roughly simulates the importance of ISR, and promotes combined-arms tactics. The problem with giving the Longbow exceptional optics is that it wrecks this model, and promotes very simplistic gameplay vis-à-vis the rest of the units in the game.

The M-84AN is the same problem - by combining the 'combat' and 'reconnaissance' functions in one tank, we're wrecking the abstraction and the complex gameplay that it was supposed to generate. Ever since RD came out, we've been inching away from EE style combined-arms tactics, and toward singular super-units that do a much poorer job of reflecting real-world tactics.

User avatar
another505
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 13128
Joined: Sun 21 Jul 2013 05:18
Location: Hiatus
Contact:

Re: CIA Tank FCS Assesments... and You

Postby another505 » Sat 21 Jan 2017 05:40

Still waiting for anti helo Vikhr missiles and better maneuverability for Kamov series because of its rotor design (though would love all helo to get better maneuverability too, since freaking tanks can accelerate and decelerate near instant already!)
Image
Of Salt

User avatar
wargamer1985
Brigadier
Posts: 3305
Joined: Sat 4 May 2013 00:36
Contact:

Re: CIA Tank FCS Assesments... and You

Postby wargamer1985 » Sat 21 Jan 2017 05:45

another505 wrote:Still waiting for anti helo Vikhr missiles and better maneuverability for Kamov series because of its rotor design (though would love all helo to get better maneuverability too, since freaking tanks can accelerate and decelerate near instant already!)

The Kamov coaxial blade design does not necessarily warrant greater maneuverability, and in general it results in inferior yaw control. Personally the best thing for helicopters would be improved AI flight capability, and possibly setting way points for strafing runs.
APPLY TO THE GLORIOUS CULT OF THE WARHAWK! LIBERATING NAZIS SINCE 1939!
Image

User avatar
another505
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 13128
Joined: Sun 21 Jul 2013 05:18
Location: Hiatus
Contact:

Re: CIA Tank FCS Assesments... and You

Postby another505 » Sat 21 Jan 2017 05:51

wargamer1985 wrote:
another505 wrote:Still waiting for anti helo Vikhr missiles and better maneuverability for Kamov series because of its rotor design (though would love all helo to get better maneuverability too, since freaking tanks can accelerate and decelerate near instant already!)

The Kamov coaxial blade design does not necessarily warrant greater maneuverability, and in general it results in inferior yaw control. Personally the best thing for helicopters would be improved AI flight capability, and possibly setting way points for strafing runs.

ehh, I only heard the "better" maneuverability of Kamov by Kamov, so it can be really bias and i didnt bother to fact check since im no physic major or engineer.
Don't mind to be corrected, or xeno get extra info.

I think all helo should be faster in accel and deccel. Would help a lot in landing infantry and keeping AA out of range
Image
Of Salt

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 39 guests