Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !

[IronDuke99]

For what it is worth I think attack helicopters are a little too good against AFV's and a little less effective than they should be against infantry.

[Suhiir]

I've always had a problem with machineguns.

They're VERY effective at suppression, not so good at actually killing anything. Since their advent machineguns have been the #2 bane (after artillery) of infantry, but in the game they're more of a nuisance.

[IronDuke99]

Agree with Suhiir on MG's

Even a relatively primitive attack helicopters, with MG's, could really wreck an enemy force if they have low training/moral and lack effective AA, such as Manpads.

In terms of something very modern like an Apache go check out some of the YouTube videos of them in action against men on foot, not just the overwhelming firepower, but how much they can see in all conditions...

[Aeraaa]

I actually find the machineguns quite alright and I disagree with making them (or any small arms) deadlier than now.

Remember that what MG have over rifle squads is range. They can engage the latter between 600-1200 meters (more if .50 cal MGs) and not get any return fire. And the reason why they do not mow down infantry is that the latter is always in cover when under fire, even when in open ground (they find whatever small obstacle or ditch there is, they are always in the prone position). And something else. The fact that a rifle squad has been spotted does not mean its members have been spotted. It may sound like an oxymoron, but what may have been spotted is increased activity, a single soldier etc (in that department another game, Combat Mission series is better at simulating this). So the MG (or any other weapon system) may hose an area with few exposed enemies.

My thoughts on the matter.

[IronDuke99]

Attack helicopters, with cannon, should, most certainly, IMHO, be more deadly to infantry, than they are now in the game, SF Machine Guns should, again in my view, make it a lot harder to move than they do now in the game.

[jp10]

IMO, effectiveness of any weapon against a specific target type is subject to too many situational circumstances to support generalization.
I believe the current conflicts in open, arid or mountainous terrain has magnified the effectiveness of Helibourne weapon platforms against Infantry, especially at night. Slow movement, lack of concealment or detection range reducing terrain/vegetation have produced videos of effective cannon fire against dismounted targets especially when in close formation in darkness or restrictive terrain.
Attack Helicopters outside of air superiority situations rely on staying on the edge of the battle area and making pop-up attacks on targets worth the expenditure of expensive weapons. The cannons firstly were thought of as close range defense for the helo.
AC helos are IMO, not stable AC platforms and are more suppressive in effects against dispersed Infantry in other than clear terrain and are acceptable as modeled in game.

[IronDuke99]

I think you could make a fairly strong case that attack helicopters in the game are not vulnerable enough to AAA and manpads certainly. That would also serve to make them less effective against more advanced enemies.In my view even small arms fire, at close range, should have a very small chance of damaging a gunship and either bringing it down or making it bugger off.

I still think, in general, they are a bit too effective against Armour and not effective enough against soft vehicles and infantry, especially when the targets are moving. With regard to special conditions making the Apache look especially deadly: Yes and no. Jungle/heavy woodland and, even more urban environments, would certainly make them less effective, but I can tell you that even fairly primitive gunships, with medium or heavy MG's, can in daylight on fairly open terrain, wreck a force of low training and moral, that lacks much anti aircraft defence, dug in or not.

It is also a case of suppression. If you are an insurgent and in cover and not spotted a gunship being around is probably going to stop you moving, and firing if you are using your brain. If you are not using your brain it might make you run away and that will likely get you killed too...

And no I'm not really talking about WWIII scenarios here between major nations(I got bored with most large scale MBT games some time ago because they are always, accurately enough, so bloody that it is difficult to get a win that means much if the forces are balanced).

In reality of course forces are not often well balanced, one side or the other will have better training and/or kit, more men and/or intelligence, etc. To me those are the more interesting MBT type games, as I have written about elsewhere on here, ie, using assets and skill to win a tactical victory, without losing half your own force.

[Imp]

Just out if interest bought 6 Apache,30mm, Hellfire, 2X DAGR config
Map fairly open trees woods hills.
Moved to take up positions on first turn,
Set ranges to 20hexes.
After that did nothing did not move or fire in my turn, just hit end turn.

Opposing side no AAA assets
Platoon tanks
Company APCs
2 Companies of trucks as soft targets
2 Companies dismounted soldiers.

Results once in range, one vehicle might have survived for 2 hexes all rest killed once in range.
Autocannon got a high percentage with around 66% hit chance, hellfire finished with 90%hit if missed.
Infantry hit chance around 34-40%.
After a few turns probably lost about 25% of their infantry & getting any to advance was getting difficult.
As said this was all reaction fire I never targeted a unit or moved after turn 1 I just let the enemy advance.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

We must not forget the other factors dealing with AH & other Helos in the game...1) The era your playing in since Vietnam the modern helicopter is so much more advanced now. I.E.

2) Better armor protection. I n Vietnam helicopter losses were so high & with the HUEY in particular, they locally reinforced the "deck" with steel plates increase the protection of not only the HUEY but the troops they were carrying. This type of protection is standard to include spuall liners etc., armored cockpits and armor protection around vital areas around the engine. The VIPER is a great example of this with armor protection around the engine up to and including against 23mm AA rounds.

3) EW ,besides the major improvements in this area you have to include the much improved avionics to include speed. These factors together make them again, over time, a harder target to shot-down. The APACHE newer models (And some others.) are designed to a limited degree (Within weapons range.) to take on/down a fighter. Their anti-air capability uses the same missile our fighters which is why the 64E carry's two of them as a standard load out normally.

4) FCS, the LONGBOW system by example again has a huge catalogue of targets embedded and continually updated of MBT's, IFV/APC's, Light vehicles and Infantry. It classifies the the type I.E. MBT/T-90S etc. prioritizes the threats in the area and attacks the target based on available onboard weapons availability.
http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capab...s/default.aspx
http://www.northropgrumman.com/capab...ts/longbow.pdf

5) WEAPONS, also much improved, "shoot and forget" ATGW are the norm now though we can't simulate that in the game. Not only does the modern helo act as a weapons stable platform so are the cannons onboard, so in this I strongly agree that the cannons in general against infantry in particular needs to be improved the evidence on YOU TUBE and others is overwhelming in backing up this discussion point.

6) With all the above it has been my long experience that the AA from all types against helos it has been very successful. My battles with the AI are well within the hundreds with this game alone (Remember, I have freely posted out here over the years my Campaigns normally run 21, 23 or 25 games, sometimes higher based on opponent OOB.) A player issue I think was addressed a couple of years that it was to easy for infantry to shoot down a helo, I believe modifiers were made to make this harder. Bottom-line I've had a lot of burnt out airframes left on the deck.

7) EXPERIENCE, you have to treat them like tanks, by using terrain masking, position & sighting them with good LOS's again this requires knowing the ground. Ease them into combat the experience level gained after a 3-4 games will pay dividends for you later. As has been mentioned already there are so many variables involved. I'm not charging in with them unless it appears the battle is going my way, I use them to cover my flanks and center gaps depending on the numbers of units involved the AI will and has sent tanks into my rear away from the main battle(s) I believe they call that a diversion the goal are my "home" victory hexes, retreating units (Loves to kill off armor crews.) and I've seen behavior (Maybe just coincidence.) to suggest it's looking for my HQ unit to where I've had to pull them off the map. I do play the AI at it's hardest settings.

8) SURVIVORBILITY Something that still needs to addressed for crews and personnel. This was discussed at great length a within the last couple of years I believe in this forum. Well worth your time if not done so.

Regards,
Pat

[Suhiir]

Try a test with machinegun only armed helos vs infantry.

Their utility vs vehicles has never been a problem as far as I'm concerned.