Helicopters vs Aircraft

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

    • This actually happened in live match on mid east map. I was Ethipia and Kakistan had full SF but maxed out lvl 7 I was like lvl 4 (first time didnt realize all research unlocked). I came through Iran and Turkestan was basically no mans zone as he was set up airbase to north or area and me to south any ground advance by either party was snuffed out; but we were both out of each others base range. Was like a 3 day air battle / standoff till I caught up on research but ultimately out flanked him with multiple airfields to east and west. didnt even have to waste a Airplane; sent a single NG unit into no mans land (as knew he had/would go after any ground troops) and had planes patrolling to west over what ever sea is landlocked over here. When he fullishly went to strike my NG bait waiting for him at his base. Took out Airfield and he had try to drive planes .
      He even msg me afterwards for a fun air battle which is rare.


      Air / Navy tactics can beat opponents who outgun you.

      But what started out Chopper vs Plane (1 AH / 1 GS) vs 2 SF now involves an FW Officer; SAMS; ASFs; NASF. thats alot to research and build and why going wide stack; I am going narrow and deep on research with all that savings.
      "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
    • I still can say I've never built a strike fighter.

      The thing is, in the air power arms race... strike fighters put you behind the curve.

      Air superior fighters only require air base 1 and their first research is something like 90 seconds.


      If you make SF and ASF you're splitting your research demands up... starving for components/electronics for each... using half (or whatever percent) of your mobilization time on SF... and damaging your fixed wing attacking ground troops throughout the game.

      If your opponent only makes ASF they'll have more than you at every point in the game... be further along in leveling them up...and will be using them for the specific task of air dominance ...

      They can add an ace/NASF/SASF if they choose... but these really aren't necessary to defeat SF mixed stacks.



      Then consider gunships... they're early... effective... pretty cheap... airbase 1... Cost Supplies

      ASF/GS are a far more balanced mobilization model ... fielded earlier... and more effective in their individual roles
    • Kalrakh wrote:

      I just pointed out some factors or incorrect in your comparison, when @Buckeyechamp misread and tried to put choppers and striker into a midair battle scenario

      I also smoothed in some additional information in spoilers for people to maybe experiment with


      That he fell for that simple bait already says a lot :)
      well whole point of thread was choppers vs planes. So air combat is a major thing.
      "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
    • Smallsword wrote:

      I still can say I've never built a strike fighter.

      The thing is, in the air power arms race... strike fighters put you behind the curve.

      Air superior fighters only require air base 1 and their first research is something like 90 seconds.


      If you make SF and ASF you're splitting your research demands up... starving for components/electronics for each... using half (or whatever percent) of your mobilization time on SF... and damaging your fixed wing attacking ground troops throughout the game.

      If your opponent only makes ASF they'll have more than you at every point in the game... be further along in leveling them up...and will be using them for the specific task of air dominance ...

      They can add an ace/NASF/SASF if they choose... but these really aren't necessary to defeat SF mixed stacks.



      Then consider gunships... they're early... effective... pretty cheap... airbase 1... Cost Supplies

      ASF/GS are a far more balanced mobilization model ... fielded earlier... and more effective in their individual roles
      There is a reason US Military has not developed Fighting Choppers since 1970s. Well except viper in limited use developed 20 yrs ago.

      Modern Jets have made Choppers obsolete as front line weapons.
      "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
    • in all the fluff, i think there's a part we overlooked: damage vs buildings.

      And again there's no right or wrong: i like choppers because they do no damage vs buildings, which means every capital i get i get a new functioning airport - which is of course not only good for choppers, but for troops movement.

      (note: there's a parallel thread on how to make sure you don't damage buildings too much, and how to minimise impact when you conquer the capital, so that you get a functioning airport instead of a pile of rubbles)

      Others might like strikers because of the opposite reason - and i would agree that when you want to destroy a field airport, or disable their air... well, choppers suck.

      Pay little attention on those trying to convince you that one is better than the other; they are different things. It depends on what you need / want to do (it's like with ships: there's no 'better' ship, they serve different purposes).

      So another choice in your list: do you want to do building damage, or avoid it? Your choice, as always.

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

    • The Pale Rider wrote:

      Kalrakh wrote:

      Not sure what you are even talking about. It is not the job of choppers to fight strikers ins midair. If you play choppers, it is key to have strong ASFs & SAMs as ASFs are the only real counter to choppers.
      well you said they are invincible when they are easily defeated. No fighter pilot ever ran from a chopper; chopper pilots can try to run from fighters but cant ;) to utilize choppers now will have to mix in alot of asf and sams which really tips favor to strike fighters. Now you need 4 types of units to neutralize 1 and im not flying into SAMS .. id be going to that home city that has Army base 3 and destroy it.
      That how I prioritize enemies by what they are building (assume in relative proximity). Someone building SAMS they gots to go ASAP; same with Navy if see Navy 3 Im hitting those cities.

      If later in game you managed to crawl across to me as now your slow choppers need slow moving ground cover; all i have to do is sacrifice 1 cruise missile to trigger AA on SAM and then strike with stack and 4 CMs. So now SAM gone choppers back to target practice

      Heck if someone with big ASF stack will send in 1 of my ASF as sacrificial lamb; when your stack engages then just follow you back to airbase (strike planes on ground and most likely take out Airfield). Now planes and choppers stuck on ground.

      I have explained multiple ways to counter /destroy your invincible choppers; how are you going to destroy Strike Fighters unless I happen to keep flying into your SAMS or ASF.
      how are you going to use a cruise missile to trigger all the AA and then kill us with more missiles when Sams and anti air have what’s called a point defense. If I have high level Sams with more than 40 Missile damage (which all good players will) there is zero chance you can kill the sams. You act like we are noobs who don’t understand how to defend from missiles. Missiles are a bad waste of money, if you see missiles know they are a noob. And it they can get killed by missiles they are a larger noob.
    • I used missiles many times. I have seen other good and more seasoned players using too. The point is that not much people knows how to use it properly. It is a matter of levels.

      I can use a lv4 CM against a lv8 frigate and i Will do roughly half of the damage, 20 against a frigate. Of course, it is a waste.

      But a lv1 CM is wonderful against ground units that haven't anti missile cover. A SAM requires more than 1 unit in a stack to protect against missiles lv 1, but only o e could reduce the damage against it. The good of this is when the stack is unprotected (very frecuent). I have destroyed stacks of armor/infantry (5 units) with 3 or 4 CM and it is very funny.

      The common, at least for me: don't invest more than lv3, because lv4 requires 2 warheads. Lv3 have 5 hp resistance and is very powerful. Second, don't use it against attacked ships. Even a stack of 5 lv1 cruisers requires lv4 CM.

      If there is a stack of armored units without Sam or any Anti air, throw them, you will not regret it.

      I ever research and use it if i have the resources.
    • More than that, it is pointless to use CM against a SAM stack. It is better by far the choppers.

      If anyone comes to me with an stack of MAA and SAM, well... he requires minimum 4 lv4 MAA to guarantee a chopper kill. Then, it requires at least 3 Sam to guarantee a fighter kill. This leave the stack with a space of 3 ground units, usualy arty.

      This is so easy to defeat... If he have ASF nearby, i only need a CM to lob the Sams, then, i send ASF to counter his ASF, while my choppers go for the stack.

      If i use strikers instead of helos, the Sam point defense would destroy many strikers and the damage would not be important.

      So... choppers are very very useful.
    • TactNoob wrote:

      I used to be a strike fighter fan as well, but I believe helicopters are better. Gunship helicopters for early game and attack helicopters for late game. More focused damage, immune to SAMs, less infrastructure, and cheaper.
      Strikers have his advantage, as interdictor. Helos are close support. The problem is the cost of research strikers plus attack helo.