Newbie Q

[mavraamides]

Just started playing this. Love it.
One question:

How do I deal with Russian Helicopters? It seems like they can just wade in and kill a few units and leave without taking any damage. In my second run through of the tutorial, they literally parked directly above my AA unit and it could not take out a single helo?

Is there a trick or are their helo's just that hard to kill?

[ivanov]

The helicopters are in general overpowered in this game and the AD assets are not very effective. I hope this issue will be addressed in the future. As for now, if you're playing a scenario where your opponent possess many helicopters, I'd recommend you to limit the movement of your units and keep them in well concealed positions ( for example on the hexes that contain cities or forests ). As NATO, you could also fire smoke on the units that are being attacked, because the Hinds don't have theremal imaging, so they get effectively blinded by the smoke. The low efficiency of the AD is frustrating, but if you use your assets correctly they may cause some damage to the helicopters. In general the Chaparrals and Rapiers are more effective if they fire from longer distances. So I keep them further back in concealed positions that provide them with a good visibility ( for example on the hills ). If you have more than one battery, try to create kill zones so your AD units support each other. The Vulcans are more effective from a shorter ranges, so in general I keep them close to the land units. Basically I always deploy my AD units first in each scenario, because I consider the helicopters much bigger threat than the enemy ground units.

[Lowlaner2012]

I don't believe helos are that overpowered, more that NATO AD assets where a bit crap in the 80's, apart from the German Gepard that is

Oh and the stinger is pretty good to, but not many of those in game though...

[mavraamides]

Thanks to both! Good advice.

[SwampYankee68]

Indeed. NATO really dropped the ball on AD - likely because they wanted to believe the USAF would keep the skies clear. I have found that the 25mm cannon on the Bradleys gets the most helo kills. As for strategery - just keep your Vulcans and Stingers up close to your ground units and hope for the best. If you have Mech Infantry, try to keep your Brads in a treeline, and you will see them take down WP helos. As for fixed wing... dig deep, my friend. dig deep.

[Lowlaner2012]

Its funny that there was a very similar discussion on the CM black sea forum, in that time period (2017) the American forces only have the stinger manpad system as the avenger stinger systems are not in the game due to them being phased out or something, the vulcan and chapparals are a long distant memory...

Again in that time period and in game, the Russians have the Tunguska, igla and strela AD systems, so again the Russians are better prepared...

[delete1]

Interesting. This topic of helos and AD get back on topic from time to time. As NATO player there is a need to adapt your strategy to deal with the superior Russian AD. At least at that time and period of the game.

[Alchenar]

I'm unconvinced of the plausibility of the conspicuous absence of both side's airforces from most scenarios, but I do know that when they show up the sudden and unavoidable evaporation of a unit to an airstrike is immensely tedious and makes for a not-fun scenario.

[cbelva]

ORIGINAL: Alchenar

I'm unconvinced of the plausibility of the conspicuous absence of both side's airforces from most scenarios, but I do know that when they show up the sudden and unavoidable evaporation of a unit to an airstrike is immensely tedious and makes for a not-fun scenario.

As the player you are the brigade commander (or at best the division commander). At this level you don't have any control over the air force or the air war. The air war is at a level above the scope of this game. You are given packets of air support if and when they become available. Air power is a limited resource and you get them when you get them. The availability of air support is determined by the enemies reaction (air superiority), overall theater priority, and available assets (to name a few). These are all determined by the scenario designer. Sorry brigade commander, you don't have any say over these things in real life. This game attempts to give you what you would have in real life. And yes, airpower is very effective when it gets delivered--very exciting for owning player, but much fun for the side on the receiving end. Lucky for us that air power is limited by the scenario designer in most scenarios. Which is probably realistic.

[CapnDarwin]

The air force element is beyond the scope of the game. The scenario designer basically sets the "air superiority" level of the scenario by having strikes that "make it to the battlefield". I would like to add a bit more information as to the airspace situation in Southern Storm so it's a bit more clear on who controls the sky at a given time.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Alchenar

I'm unconvinced of the plausibility of the conspicuous absence of both side's airforces from most scenarios, but I do know that when they show up the sudden and unavoidable evaporation of a unit to an airstrike is immensely tedious and makes for a not-fun scenario.

That one comment will probably get more response than any other.

Because this is not a game about air combat in this conflict the air war is abstracted to a degree. We spent untold hours debating the level of participation of close air support in the game. What you see currently is pretty much my view point on the subject.

Let me clearify my position on the air war over West Germany during the conflict I created.

NATO depended heavily on two things to hold a Soviet led invasion; immediate reinforcement of Europe and force multipliers. Immediate reinforcements by both sides is dealt with by the scenario designer. He brings in fresh troops where/when he thinks they will arrive.

Force multipliers are a bit different. The largest NATO force multipliers are artillery and close air support. The Soviet led forces weren't then, nor are they now, stupid. They knew that the largest force multiplier NATO had was close air support and it's ability to do deep strike missions to interrupt support, supply and logistics. Both sides put a premium on striking hard runway targets. In short, both sides wanted to take out the other sides air force. Both sides had the capacity to do this in the early days of the war. Whether by deep strike, cruise missile, SCUD or commando style attacks. What aircraft that would make it into the air would be primarily on counter air missions first. Destroying hard runways, planes on the ground and air superiority.

For the short time span that FPC covers that means very few close air support missions for the guys at the sharp end. Some, but not many.

When they do get through you see why everyone spent so much time and effort to keep that from happening.

That's my take on it. That's the way my scenarios were created. The nice thing about FPC is if that doesn't fit with everyone else's opinion of how things went it can be easily changed.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Alchenar]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian


For the short time span that FPC covers that means very few close air support missions for the guys at the sharp end. Some, but not many.

When they do get through you see why everyone spent so much time and effort to keep that from happening.

That's my take on it. That's the way my scenarios were created. The nice thing about FPC is if that doesn't fit with everyone else's opinion of how things went it can be easily changed.

Good Hunting.

MR

Oh I think that's probably correct, and in any case I think in terms of game design it's just a good idea to handwave away airpower but for a few deliberate 'spectaculars'.

Where I think this might be problematic is the sense that helicopters and their abstracted support bases effectively get to pretend a totally permissive air environment.

e: really needless to quote the whole post

[ivanov]

Where I think this might be problematic is the sense that helicopters and their abstracted support bases effectively get to pretend a totally permissive air environment.

I'm very happy with the way air support is abstracted right now. The helicopters are a different story. Last night I ran a test ( it was the 4th scenario of the Teacher's Campaign ). I ordered my PAH's-1 just to move across the map to see what would happen. Basically during the first 20min cycle, the fragile German helicopters managed to destroy about 20 tanks, 10 infantry and some utility vehicles, so all in all an equivalent of a Soviet tank battalion. The powerful Soviet AD managed to shot down 5 helicopters, but I didn't employ any maneuvering, nor was trying to suppress the SAM's. So are the helos not overpowered? I don't think so. I have an impression, that currently the game represents the common perception about effectiveness of the air power ( both fixed wing and helicopters ), which has it's roots in the outcome of Desert Storm. I just want to point out, that the initial reports about the Iraqi loses to the air power were vastly inflated ( maybe by 50-60% ). Also, the air force in the ETO would be even less effective due to the terrain, weather and much more formidable Soviet AD. There are countless studies that confirm the effectiveness of the air power against strategic targets, such as infrastructure or the enemy command and control. But it's performance against the enemy ground forces is much more problematic ( see Kosovo ). The weak NATO AD is not the problem IMO. It's the helo effectiveness. The main problem for the helos would be spotting the ground targets. Fair enough, they could be really deadly attacking units moving in the open terrain, but they performance, situational awareness and ability to spot would be greatly reduced elsewhere.

[mikeCK]

ORIGINAL: highlandcharge

Its funny that there was a very similar discussion on the CM black sea forum, in that time period (2017) the American forces only have the stinger manpad system as the avenger stinger systems are not in the game due to them being phased out or something, the vulcan and chapparals are a long distant memory...

Again in that time period and in game, the Russians have the Tunguska, igla and strela AD systems, so again the Russians are better prepared...

I don't think it's accurate to conclude that NATO isn't "prepared" because it doesn't rely on AD. NATO has a different doctrine...one that relies on its Air Force to gain air superiority over friendly lines. The traditional Soviet/Russian philosophy was to - in essence- deny NATO that luxury. They felt that AD and SAM systems were a more cost efficient and effective way of doing that. So the Soviets didn't need to control the air...just deny that control to NATO. As we have seen, centralized air defenses can be suppressed as can mobile systems...it's harder to "surpress" an aircraft.

Of course it's a pendulum and the new Russians systems seem to be very effective. How effective will have to be seen. BUT, you can't say NATO is t prepared because you only have so many resources and the west out theirs into air dominance by aircraft instead of AD systems. It's a choice, not an oversite