Attack helicopters vs Strike fighters

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • Attack helicopters vs Strike fighters

    Greetings guys,

    So it's early game now in my latest WWIII game and I chose an eastern doctrine nation to play with, I wanted to completely change my gameplay and try ground warfare a bit so I chose to research helicopter gunships instead of ASFs in day 1 and I'm planning to get SAMs and MRLS in the future

    My question here is, should I get attack helicopters now instead of Strike fighters (in order to counter heavy targets)?

    The post was edited 1 time, last by _dany20_ ().

  • corax wrote:

    You want to try ground warfare more and yet you are discussing which flying units to produce? Not sure I am tracking your thought process...
    Having an air force is a priority in any game even if I won't spend heavily on it (and that's what I'm doing)

    I've already decided wich land units to use but still confused concerning air units

    That's why I was asking about air units not ground units, got it?

  • Kalrakh wrote:

    Comparing Gunships with ASFs is like comparing Bananas with Cucumbers. ASFs are kind of always a must have, SAM and ASF do not exclude each other, they need each other.

    The question is though, to still aim to go for MRL, when you already went for choppers?
    You push me hard to resist inner temptation to childish jokes and innuendos, with your banana vs cucumber metaphor. :D
    Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.

  • Kalrakh wrote:

    Comparing Gunships with ASFs is like comparing Bananas with Cucumbers. ASFs are kind of always a must have, SAM and ASF do not exclude each other, they need each other.

    The question is though, to still aim to go for MRL, when you already went for choppers?
    I said earlier that it's my first time trying ground warfare and changing my typical strategy so I must've messed things up lol

    Anyways, why shouldn't I go for MRLs anymore? And how are they related to choppers?

  • Kalrakh wrote:

    You can use your own SAM to force their ASF to stay away and you still need to see the choppers first, so advanced AWAC is a requiredment anyway.

    Not to mention that a chopper player has ASF too, most likely. ;)

    Display Spoiler
    Or you trigger the patrol of ASF with a bait and hit the ground units afterwards.

    Thank you, but why did you put that into a spoiler?
    a.k.a. jem and and eres

  • jemandanderes wrote:

    Kalrakh wrote:

    You can use your own SAM to force their ASF to stay away and you still need to see the choppers first, so advanced AWAC is a requiredment anyway.

    Not to mention that a chopper player has ASF too, most likely. ;)

    Display Spoiler
    Or you trigger the patrol of ASF with a bait and hit the ground units afterwards.

    Thank you, but why did you put that into a spoiler?
    Because I am spoiling advanced tactics? :D

  • Kalrakh wrote:

    jemandanderes wrote:

    Kalrakh wrote:

    You can use your own SAM to force their ASF to stay away and you still need to see the choppers first, so advanced AWAC is a requiredment anyway.

    Not to mention that a chopper player has ASF too, most likely. ;)

    Display Spoiler
    Or you trigger the patrol of ASF with a bait and hit the ground units afterwards.

    Thank you, but why did you put that into a spoiler?
    Because I am spoiling advanced tactics? :D
    So now I'm spoiled?
    a.k.a. jem and and eres

  • jemandanderes wrote:

    Kalrakh wrote:

    jemandanderes wrote:

    Kalrakh wrote:

    You can use your own SAM to force their ASF to stay away and you still need to see the choppers first, so advanced AWAC is a requiredment anyway.

    Not to mention that a chopper player has ASF too, most likely. ;)

    Display Spoiler
    Or you trigger the patrol of ASF with a bait and hit the ground units afterwards.

    Thank you, but why did you put that into a spoiler?
    Because I am spoiling advanced tactics? :D
    So now I'm spoiled?
    Yes, you are already starting to emit an odor. :)
    *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
    The KING of CoN News!!!
    The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


    "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD

  • Folks - Because of a recent Discord conversation about the relative merits of Strike Fighters and HG/AH Helicopters, I decided to compare their stats.

    Comparing only the numeric stats purposefully side-steps playing-style topics. That both good and bad.

    I'm not entering ASW Heli data or Jet/Heli-vs-ship info.
    I'm limiting the comparisons to the first four versions of each unit.

    I'm mostly done putting the info into a spreadsheet. Before I post the initial version of the spreadsheet, I would like to hear what comparisons the forum community would like to see me calculate.

    Anything that can be computed easily from the units basic stats is fair game. I can up with a few formulae, but I'm sure I missed something that someone else either loves or would like to learn.

    I'll let this request for suggestions sit here for a while (24-48 hours) and then post a result.

  • KFGauss wrote:

    Folks - Because of a recent Discord conversation about the relative merits of Strike Fighters and HG/AH Helicopters, I decided to compare their stats.

    Comparing only the numeric stats purposefully side-steps playing-style topics. That both good and bad.

    I'm not entering ASW Heli data or Jet/Heli-vs-ship info.
    I'm limiting the comparisons to the first four versions of each unit.

    I'm mostly done putting the info into a spreadsheet. Before I post the initial version of the spreadsheet, I would like to hear what comparisons the forum community would like to see me calculate.

    Anything that can be computed easily from the units basic stats is fair game. I can up with a few formulae, but I'm sure I missed something that someone else either loves or would like to learn.

    I'll let this request for suggestions sit here for a while (24-48 hours) and then post a result.
    see above

    -- Damage to Hard / Soft
    -- Research costs (if going helo need gunship and attack) to equal SF. so also build costs of 2 v 1 unit. I had all this in previous post.
    -- Building cost to build each (need two bases to build or taking 2 days to equal 1 SF)
    -- Speed
    -- Range (combined with speed can launch many more sortes to many more possible targets; so maybe potential damage in 24 hr period).
    -- Missile Capable
    -- Air Defense
    -- Building Damage (SF stacks can use as mini "heavy" bombers....to take out homeland cities behind front line.) Once you destroy cities the fight is over; its just a matter of time and they usually quit and /or try kamikaze attack


    Put it this way no F-35 fighter pilot would say "oh shit theres a helicopter; lets bug out" ;)
    "And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him "

    aka ...The killer formerly known as BuckeyeChamp

    The post was edited 2 times, last by The Pale Rider ().

  • Buckeyechamp wrote:

    One can defend oneself; the other can not.

    One deals damage to hard and soft; the other can not.

    One is slow as shit; one is not.

    One has short range; one does not.

    hmmmm.
    One gets shit on by SAMs and Frigates, the other does not
    One is easily spotted and targeted due to a high radar signature, the other is not
    One has never been part of competitive meta, to begin with, the other is a consistent part of it
    One has no Elite Version, the other does
    hmmm


    You couldn't any more blatantly biased if you tried.

    Because if I'm being totally honest, both are way too different to really compare.
    A pretty quick summary of Strikefighters vs Helis would be Strikefighters for public matches, and Helis for competitive.

    Strikers on one hand are pretty versatile with their ability to hit soft and hard units equally hard, taking less return damage due to being fixed-wing and in general being faster and with more range than helis and on top of all of that they can also hit other aircraft; on the other hand that is all they are: a solid all-round aircraft that does not really excel at any one thing.
    Now pair all of that with the (its really not funny anymore at this point) utter lack of pretty much any sort of anti-air, detection (Radar/AWAC; UAV does not count in that regard) and some other factors and then SF obviously is gonna look extremely well.

    In comparison, helis are really specialized, to the point of having two separate units for targeting soft/hard targets, are not fixed wing but rather count as rotary wing, have a low signature, a short range and somewhat low speed.
    Now add in the context of public matches: you want to expand as fast as possible, there are quite a few regions with really big provinces, and almost nobody has any sort of AA, detection or really any way to fight aircraft in a reliable way.
    Its no big surprise that they seem so underwhelming in comparison to SF.

    The keyword(s) here being "Helis are specialized", with their low radar signature and higher damage to ground units they do significantly better than SF in a competitive environment (where people actually do have Radar/AWACs, SAMs and other funny stuff). And while on that its also worth mentioning that the completely different pacing of competitive and public matches are also a major factor as to how "good" or not a unit is.

    In general, units that are heavily specialized are way better than units that are allround, or does none of you make use of MRL, SAM, ASF or similar units that have their one, maybe two roles they absolutely excel at but really don't do much outside of that?

    And because I can I will quote Opulon on this topic: "Strikefighters are meta when it's about bombing children with Napalm" and what are people in public games, if not these very children.

    I probably could have structured all of that significantly better, but I'm far too lazy to do that now so deal with it.
    These SF vs Heli debates are really just silly at this point, and frankly pretty embarrassing reading stuff from other regulars that so utterly fails to grasp the key differences (you know, the ones that actually matter [SF dealing damage to other aircraft is not]) between these units. There is no shame in admitting that SF arent the best unit there is, neither is there any in realizing that, yes, helis are actually not that suited for public games.
    It's not even beating a dead horse anymore, that horse is long gone.
    I am The Baseline for opinions

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Teburu ().

  • Agree not a comparison.

    Choppers more like MRL than a Plane but at least with MRL you dont have to take 4 hrs to return to battle. So curious if had 3 gun/2 Attack versus 5 MRL how much damage hard / soft you could do to a enemy in a day. I would bet MRL would be better option as don't need airfields and can stay near front line.

    Oh and love the argument about everyone saying well if I had SAMS or AA or Air Supp; Frigs. But KFG comparison is just unit for unit. Non Naval choppers do minimal damage to ships and would get him min of 3 times on an attack run. Even 4 frigs/ 1 officer would deal out 15 HP damage x 3 so yeah if you want to lose 2 choppers per run to delve out 10 HP of damage with 5 attack subs (Ill have like 200 HP I think Ill take those odds).

    But bad enough already comparing 2 types of choppers vs 1 type of jet. Now need 3 other units to make a case.

    Plus odd argument about Frigs as you say Destroyers way better. And SF will eat destroyers for breakfast ;)
    "And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him "

    aka ...The killer formerly known as BuckeyeChamp