Building ASW Helos is stupid, fight me!

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

    • WalterChang wrote:

      Kalrakh wrote:

      If the patrol radius of a unit cuts with the radar range of a different unit, they get seen as a radar dot. If the patrol radius cuts with the sight range of a unit they get even revealed.
      If the patrol radius cuts with the AA radius of a unit, the AA unit can fire.

      They changed it quite a while ago when the made the huge overhaul for radar and stealth.
      That's what I suspected, thanks.
      The part that I don't understand the logic behind is why it's so one-sided. The AA can detect, identify and attack air units that are outside of their range. Air units can't. When an air unit gets attacked like this, they don't know where the attack is coming from, they don't know what it is, and they can't shoot back. I just don't get it. Why should AA units get such a huge advantage?
      For gameplay, on the surface this seems to stink. Maybe what the devs were thinking is that an Active RADAR's signal can be seen from far away - Farther than the RADAR's ability to see many targets.

      Obviously, the antenna performance on each end of these relationships has a big effect.

      It would interesting to learn officially if this is why it works the way it does now, or if I'm wildly off-target by trying cram a "realism" reason into something with a much more mundane history.
    • I agree it's unfair, but it's a consequence of how the system has been designed.

      Maybe some units could have a bit more sight range than their "patrol area" when they are in patrol, as to compensate a little.

      May be unfair in its own meaning, though.
      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:

      While doing patrol aircrafts are considered moving around in patroling space
      Right, so that explains why AA is able to attack them - when patrolling aircraft move around their patrol space, they sometimes intersect the range of the AA, even when their central position is outside of it. OK.

      But, that doesn't follow with other mechanics...
      Why does aircraft sight-range not extend to 25 distance beyond their patrol range?
      If planes are assumed to be flying to the edge of their patrol space in order to attack targets in that area, that also assumes that they have no ranged attack at all - they can only hit things that are directly below or around them. The unit description of NPAs says that they use torpedoes and guided missiles. Surface to air missiles have a range or 75 or 100, even at the low tech-levels; aircraft ordnance apparently has no range whatsoever. This seems totally unbalanced to me.
      Not only that, but AA envelopes allow surface-to-air units to hit incoming aircraft twice for every one hit they receive. And, both ships and ground stacks tend to have far, far more Hitpoints than planes.

      The upshot of all this is that fixed-wing aircraft are not really useable against ships or SAMs. At all. NPAs are supposed to be the specialist anti-ship plane, yet they die whenever they encounter ships. The only stacks they can kill are those that only contain Destroyers and/or Corvettes. They might as well not even be in the game.
      Strike Fighters or NSF? Forget it.

      Why is this? Planes, including fast jets, are a very real threat to ships in real-world warfare; in CoN they just aren't. That is why real-world nations build aircraft carriers; that is why CoN players don't.

      This thread should be called "Building Naval Patrol Aircraft is stupid, fight me!"
    • KFGauss wrote:

      . . .

      It would interesting to learn officially if this is why it works the way it does now, or if I'm wildly off-target by trying cram a "realism" reason into something with a much more mundane history.
      Regardless of realism, maybe the effective way for us to complain about NPA problems to simply remind Dorado that they invested game-development time and trouble into a part of their game that isn't paying off.

      Players don't enjoy sinking their game time and game resources into units that sounded useful, but are dead ends, or worse.
    • WalterChang wrote:



      This thread should be called "Building Naval Patrol Aircraft is stupid, fight me!"
      NO, it shouldn't, because A.) it's my thread, and B.) ASW Helos are infinitely more stupid to build.
      *** 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
    • On a optimal hub, even badly damaged planes take ~15-16h to be healed fully and get back into bombing missions, while all ships need 15 to 20 days to heal.
      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.
    • Dealer of Death wrote:

      it's my thread, and B.) ASW Helos are infinitely more stupid to build.
      It depends what you want them for, I guess.

      If you're confident that your navy is strong enough to defeat all comers, then you probably don't need either of them? If you want to look for submarines in a patch of ocean where you are 100% sure there are no enemy surface fleets, then NPAs are better, because of their range - I agree with that. If there is a possibility of enemy fleets operating in the area you want to search, then NPAs are more likely to be shot down than ASW Helis, but if you're only using them at L1 for that specific task, then perhaps that doesn't matter too much. If you want to look for ballistic missile subs, then I guess you might need the extra range of NPAs, otherwise your enemy might fire one from further out to sea than your helis can reach. If you're after a disposable unit that can find submarines, though, wouldn't it be more efficient to just stick some Corvettes around the place?

      But I still reckon ASW Helis are better than NPAs for actually using in combat against enemy ships and submarines, as long as you've levelled them up. And in the absence of offshore islands to use for airbases, an aircraft carrier would allow you put them further out to sea to look for BMSs. (Personally, I just use TDS instead).
    • Lets all agree,that ASW not a gamechanger like MRL or Elite Helicopters...BTW: When did the devs nerf the missle attack/defense values for Railguns? I just noticed...not Cool @Germanico

      Its a nice addition if you have researched the the important units to the top and want to optimize you troops a little.
      @Dorado If you Close the Forum and move everything to Discord you will lose my Feedback for sure.
    • kurtvonstein wrote:

      Lets all agree,that ASW not a gamechanger like MRL or Elite Helicopters...BTW: When did the devs nerf the missle attack/defense values for Railguns? I just noticed...not Cool @Germanico

      Its a nice addition if you have researched the the important units to the top and want to optimize you troops a little.
      In one of the last 2-3 updates if I remember correctly
    • WalterChang wrote:

      ...

      But I still reckon ASW Helis are better than NPAs for actually using in combat against enemy ships and submarines, as long as you've levelled them up. And in the absence of offshore islands to use for airbases, an aircraft carrier would allow you put them further out to sea to look for BMSs. (Personally, I just use TDS instead).
      That's the point tho. They are not better because this niche is so small and infrequent, it's bonuses are moot.
      *** 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
    • WalterChang wrote:

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      it's my thread, and B.) ASW Helos are infinitely more stupid to build.
      It depends what you want them for, I guess.
      If you're confident that your navy is strong enough to defeat all comers, then you probably don't need either of them? If you want to look for submarines in a patch of ocean where you are 100% sure there are no enemy surface fleets, then NPAs are better, because of their range - I agree with that. If there is a possibility of enemy fleets operating in the area you want to search, then NPAs are more likely to be shot down than ASW Helis, but if you're only using them at L1 for that specific task, then perhaps that doesn't matter too much. If you want to look for ballistic missile subs, then I guess you might need the extra range of NPAs, otherwise your enemy might fire one from further out to sea than your helis can reach. If you're after a disposable unit that can find submarines, though, wouldn't it be more efficient to just stick some Corvettes around the place?

      But I still reckon ASW Helis are better than NPAs for actually using in combat against enemy ships and submarines, as long as you've levelled them up. And in the absence of offshore islands to use for airbases, an aircraft carrier would allow you put them further out to sea to look for BMSs. (Personally, I just use TDS instead).

      ____________________________________________________________________

      Over all, I like your synopsis / summary.


      "Personally, I just use TDS instead"



      Although I would like to pop a boomer before it launches its BMs on my home cities, after experimenting with different strategies and tactics, resources / structures permitting, TDS seems to me (IN MOST SITUATIONS) to be the most efficient, practical way to protect against BM attacks.


      Especially when your NPA or ASW helicopter can detect a submersed naval contact (aka the CON visual blue fart bubble), fly right over it, or patrol circle, while it slips away and you are none the wiser while focusing on another section of the map, some combat action, etc.
    • Dealer of Death wrote:

      That's the point tho. They are not better because this niche is so small and infrequent, it's bonuses are moot.
      Yeah, that is the point. My take on it is that anti-naval aircraft should have more of a viable role within the overall balance of the game. NPAs, ASW Helis and even perhaps Naval SFs should all be a genuine option for using as naval support (not an alternative to a navy) - partly because they actually are in real-world warfare and the game should try and represent that, and partly because it gives the player more options and makes the strategic mix more interesting from a gameplay PoV.

      The fact that NPAs and ASWHs are limited to such a niche role (and NSFs, along with Aircraft Carriers, are a fairly pointless luxury) is a shame. I think it;s a waste of the game's potential.

      EDIT:
      Having said all that, I still maintain that L5/6 ASW Helis are just about worth building for defensive naval support. So there!
    • kurtvonstein wrote:

      if you have the time and resosurces o bring your ASW Helis to lvl 5 or shoudl ask yourself if you ahve missed soemthing else important....
      Well, I've done it in my current game. Because they're quite useless pre-level 5, I didn't start researching/building them until about 5 days before L5 was going to be available. I've permanently got 5 of them patrolling my homeland coastal waters, and I've used them in a single stack to help my surface ships fend off naval attacks about 3 times so far. They've been useful, done their job.

      I don't think I've missed anything important else by researching them.