HELICOPTERS.....

[Peter Cairns]

This is a topic which has come up from time to time, on various CM forums, with regards to a Post WW2 game. Given that we will be having modules and that contemporary warfare has been mentioned I thought I would start a discussion on the way they should be treated.

Basically I feel that it would be best for game purposes to treat them like aircraft, as a form of artillery.

Now that we know that the new artillery system will be more flexible and realistic than in CM1, this might need to be adapted, but on the basis of the current game this is how I see it working.

Helicopters would be controlled( though commanded is more accurate) by Forward air Controllers (FAC) who would be able to designate targets and LZ's just like artillery spotters.

Helicopters would then attack, deploy or retrieve, automatically. rather than being individually controlled by a player, as he would a tank or vehicle.

This would be in line with the game effectively being a company level simulation of ground combat and would also allow helicopters to be realistically modelled.

There is an arguement that says that the game engine if it is realistically modelled should stop players controlling helicopters using them in unrealistic "gamey" ways by effectively making it suicidal to hover in a close formation line straffing trenches, but I feel for playability and realism over "fun" like aircraft in CM1 they should be "ordered" and then "remotely" controlled.

One of the other issues to look at would be "Dust Off".

Rather than introduce casualties and or stretcher bareres etc, I think the best way to proceed would be "Airborne Exit" where you received victory points for getting units out by air. Another possibility would be to receive points for squads that had casualties. Thus if you moved a squad of three which was down to two on to a helicopter you would score, but not one that still had all three personel. This would simulate taking casualties out and a wounded first strategy when collapsing a LZ.

If you lost the FAC it could either allow control to a field commander (longer delays less accuracy)or the AI could take control and revert to pre set LZ's or attacking victory flags.

Just some thoughts, what do people think....

[ruf9ii]

i reckon thats a great idea when BF gets around to doing more contemporary warfare.

[Battlefront.com]

We have no plans to do air assaults for any game in the near future. It certainly isn't a requirement for contemporary warfare. Only a small slice of units in the world have this capability within an active combat area. Recent combat, in the 1990s and current, has also proven that helos are a lot more vulnerable than they were in Vietnam. In fact, AARs from the battle of Fallujah stated quite clearly that even attack helos needed to be kept out of the battle for the most part. Fixed wing aircraft was used instead.

Steve

[Peter Cairns]

We have no plans to do air assaults for any game in the near future. It certainly isn't a requirement for contemporary warfare. Only a small slice of units in the world have this capability within an active combat area. Recent combat, in the 1990s and current, has also proven that helos are a lot more vulnerable than they were in Vietnam. In fact, AARs from the battle of Fallujah stated quite clearly that even attack helos needed to be kept out of the battle for the most part. Fixed wing aircraft was used instead.

Steve

I tend to agree with that pretty much, I've always felt that a huey was more or less just an airborne jeep with an MG, not even a half track.

Apoclypse Now looks goood but it would be pretty much suicidal if anyone actually tried it.

My main point was about the bet way to handle control, rather than we need them now. I' am sort of assuming that if we are talking about modules 1 and 2 in 2006 and one every six months after that then Helicopters aren't in the first five, we'ed be looking at about late 2007 early 2008 as the first probably outting.

We'll I got my thoughts in first.

Oh and Steve, so far your doing a great job of keeping us up to date and in our place...

Peter

[Cameroon]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

We have no plans to do air assaults for any game in the near future. It certainly isn't a requirement for contemporary warfare. Only a small slice of units in the world have this capability within an active combat area. Recent combat, in the 1990s and current, has also proven that helos are a lot more vulnerable than they were in Vietnam. In fact, AARs from the battle of Fallujah stated quite clearly that even attack helos needed to be kept out of the battle for the most part. Fixed wing aircraft was used instead.

Steve

Regarding the Fallujah experiences; was that due to the urban terrain? I admit to being not very well informed about the details of the combat experiences of the Gulf War, but I do seem to recall a lot being said about the Apaches (both the wear-and-tear of the desert environment and the anti-tank effectiveness).

[hellfish]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

We have no plans to do air assaults for any game in the near future. It certainly isn't a requirement for contemporary warfare. Only a small slice of units in the world have this capability within an active combat area. Recent combat, in the 1990s and current, has also proven that helos are a lot more vulnerable than they were in Vietnam. In fact, AARs from the battle of Fallujah stated quite clearly that even attack helos needed to be kept out of the battle for the most part. Fixed wing aircraft was used instead.

Steve

Are we talking about air assaults as fire support or methods of transporting soldiers onto the battlefield? Damn near ever US infantry unit, including the mech guys, are capable of conducting an air assault.

[Peter Cairns]

I think that the problem for BF in terms of the "Module" idea is that although helicopters do play an important part in modern warfare and have increasingly now for almost 40 years, it's the effort to put them in.

Even if they adopt the FAC method, which gets over the problems of trying to control them like vehicles, ( imagine getting a move order wrong and it comming to a hover about 40secs into a turn), it would still be an immmense amount of work.

Can we realistically expect them to do that and put off other things so that we can have the occasional Kiowa fly past or all our troops landed in three Chinooks on turn one, never to be seen after turn two.

No, to merit that kind of effort you would need to have a sort of AIrCav module, or one covering Modern special operations and that would need to be a release on it's own with people paying for it to cover the development costs.

The reason I started the thread was really to ask the question and gauge the response

If you like look at it as a poll "Command or Control"

Iam for "Comand" you designate targets or LZ and the straAI does the flying. "Control" is having them act like individual vehicles be they Gunships ( A really fast Hellcat) or Slicks ( A really fast truck)

I use the truck hellcat anaolgy because I find these really fast vehicles like jeeps really hard to use because of their speed making it difficult to judge just where they will end up and when.

Peter.

[aka_tom_w]

bump

[Sergei]

Why did you bump this to top? For a moment I thought it was a new thread, but in fact was months old. Confusing.

You could have just given a link in the other thread.

[aka_tom_w]

sorry

I should have linked it, you are correct.

I was just lazy and it was easier to bump it.

-tom w

[Thomm]

Who can clean rooftops, but helicopters?

[Dawg Bonz]

When you guys do an air assault component of the game I am sure it will be 1st rate. Hell... An A-10 flying over in CMSF would be really cool. We have had plenty of military air assets over New Orleans in the last few months. If an A-10 flying over don't send the bad guys back to their spider holes ... well you gotta wonder bout their tactical decision making.

Dawg ... wrapping Holiday Bonz :cool: