Obsolete Helicopters?

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

    • Obsolete Helicopters?

      Greetings Commanders;
      Recently I've been thinking about using some helis in a match, but honestly they feel so fragile.
      I don't see any advantage over fixed wing vehicles except the lvl1 airport needed for light helis. Attackers and specially elite attackers can do the same task
      by the same cost or even lower.
      ASW helicopter is pretty humiliated by his fixed wing equivalent, wich is faster, covers more sea and deals more damage by the same cost.
      I won't talk about the helicopter officer because that bro is the most useless guy in the tree (imo)
      I think helis need a buff or rework, like the capacity of take off in combat outpost or even everywhere like I've saw on the ideas suggestions. Actually they're pretty useless when you pass the first week and I personally only use them when I want some roleplaying, knowing the price I'll pay.

    • TheWildThing wrote:

      Helis are great... so are fixed wing aircraft, but helis are a bit more specialized to their roles. Ive used Gunships quite a bit recently because of my other units taking lots of components.
      I don't know if I'm understanding your point mate, I mean helis cost like 800 electronics, practically the same of elite attacker, if you want to cheap your production of electronics you can maybe use towed artillery instead of attackers, but changing the attackers for helis doesn't look very solvable for me.

    • Zanahoria_thai wrote:

      I don't see any advantage over fixed wing vehicles except the lvl1 airport needed for light helis. Attackers and specially elite attackers can do the same task

      by the same cost or even lower.
      ASW helicopter is pretty humiliated by his fixed wing equivalent, wich is faster, covers more sea and deals more damage by the same cost.
      I won't talk about the helicopter officer because that bro is the most useless guy in the tree (imo)
      I think helis need a buff or rework, like the capacity of take off in combat outpost or even everywhere like I've saw on the ideas suggestions. Actually they're pretty useless when you pass the first week and I personally only use them when I want some roleplaying, knowing the price I'll pay.
      Not in my experience. I am using both planes and helis and their contribution is significant if used correctly.
      Helicopter officer is pretty good as long as you use him in stack of 1 attack heli, 1 officer, 3 gunships (or 3 attack heli and 1 gunship depending on your target setup). Not to mention he costs supplies which leaves components for aircraft / ships.
      Ofc you need lvl up 3 units, while with strikers you need to lvl up just one. Thats problem.

      +Helicopters can operate from aircraft carriers so they can be priceless in thousand islands places like Indonesia or Philipines.
      +Helicopters arent that damaged by frigates. In case of strong AA I make stack of strikers, naval strikers, bomber heli to distribute damage.
      +Most players go for sams so in heavily saturated areas they can go for kill.
      +Gunships dont damage buildings unlike strikers.

      As playbabe said, you dont have to ditch planes for helis and vice versa. Use both. I do and so far worked very well for me.

      PS: Crutial is to keep an eye on damage of your helis. Once they reach treshold when one would be lost, change it with fresh heli and damaged send to hospital.

    • Zefyros22 wrote:

      Zanahoria_thai wrote:

      I don't see any advantage over fixed wing vehicles except the lvl1 airport needed for light helis. Attackers and specially elite attackers can do the same task

      by the same cost or even lower.
      ASW helicopter is pretty humiliated by his fixed wing equivalent, wich is faster, covers more sea and deals more damage by the same cost.
      I won't talk about the helicopter officer because that bro is the most useless guy in the tree (imo)
      I think helis need a buff or rework, like the capacity of take off in combat outpost or even everywhere like I've saw on the ideas suggestions. Actually they're pretty useless when you pass the first week and I personally only use them when I want some roleplaying, knowing the price I'll pay.
      Not in my experience. I am using both planes and helis and their contribution is significant if used correctly.Helicopter officer is pretty good as long as you use him in stack of 1 attack heli, 1 officer, 3 gunships (or 3 attack heli and 1 gunship depending on your target setup). Not to mention he costs supplies which leaves components for aircraft / ships.
      Ofc you need lvl up 3 units, while with strikers you need to lvl up just one. Thats problem.

      +Helicopters can operate from aircraft carriers so they can be priceless in thousand islands places like Indonesia or Philipines.
      +Helicopters arent that damaged by frigates. In case of strong AA I make stack of strikers, naval strikers, bomber heli to distribute damage.
      +Most players go for sams so in heavily saturated areas they can go for kill.
      +Gunships dont damage buildings unlike strikers.

      As playbabe said, you dont have to ditch planes for helis and vice versa. Use both. I do and so far worked very well for me.

      PS: Crutial is to keep an eye on damage of your helis. Once they reach treshold when one would be lost, change it with fresh heli and damaged send to hospital.
      I see, thank you for the explanation mate, it has sense

    • There is a reason for both units.

      A helo is a close air support unit, in the real life and in the game.

      The striker is an interdictor. If you don't know, an interdictor is an aircraft capable of attack targets deep in enemy territory, with the objective of affect logístics or destroy vital targets.

      The choppers, for the other side, are used for attack infantry, vehicles, bunkers... targets that are just in the battlefront, in help of the infantry and armored units.

      Although you can use strikers to do the work, take in mind that every time you hit an infantry or a vehicle (except tank destroyers) you will receive damage. Airplanes receive less than helos, but, the strikers have less hit power than choppers OF SPECIFIC CLASS.

      That's the trick. With the striker you hit more times, but you receive damages all time. With the gunship, if you attack Infantry, You will hit very hard per attack and you will requires less attacks.

      Because in the game melee is very inefficient, i use helos as my main assault unit, while Strikers have the mission of attack airfields and long range opportunity targets.

      Of course, you don't need helos at all, but for me, i found very efficient to hit stacks of infantry plus artillery or even vehicles to cause high damage, specialy at high techo levels.

      My combo is striker/gunship. I have used Attack helos/gunship/strikers but the cost is high, so, i prefer a bigger gunship fleet to launch many attacks over vehicles or combine gunships attacks to destroy or damage infantry and strikers to complete the work, if needed.

      And as someone pointed you, helos are invulnerable to SAM/TDS, but not Anti air airtillery, be warned.

    • Kaiservar wrote:

      There is a reason for both units.

      A helo is a close air support unit, in the real life and in the game.

      The striker is an interdictor. If you don't know, an interdictor is an aircraft capable of attack targets deep in enemy territory, with the objective of affect logístics or destroy vital targets.

      The choppers, for the other side, are used for attack infantry, vehicles, bunkers... targets that are just in the battlefront, in help of the infantry and armored units.

      Although you can use strikers to do the work, take in mind that every time you hit an infantry or a vehicle (except tank destroyers) you will receive damage. Airplanes receive less than helos, but, the strikers have less hit power than choppers OF SPECIFIC CLASS.

      That's the trick. With the striker you hit more times, but you receive damages all time. With the gunship, if you attack Infantry, You will hit very hard per attack and you will requires less attacks.

      Because in the game melee is very inefficient, i use helos as my main assault unit, while Strikers have the mission of attack airfields and long range opportunity targets.

      Of course, you don't need helos at all, but for me, i found very efficient to hit stacks of infantry plus artillery or even vehicles to cause high damage, specialy at high techo levels.

      My combo is striker/gunship. I have used Attack helos/gunship/strikers but the cost is high, so, i prefer a bigger gunship fleet to launch many attacks over vehicles or combine gunships attacks to destroy or damage infantry and strikers to complete the work, if needed.

      And as someone pointed you, helos are invulnerable to SAM/TDS, but not Anti air airtillery, be warned.
      I like all of this except for one thing... Mobile AA is garbage unless used in extremely high amounts.

    • Indeed, MAA is quite weak, as it must be, because helos will ever have advantage over MAA thanks to it's mobility and "stealthness" agains a ground unit. You need 4 lv4 MAA to guarantee a kill against a lv4 gunship, but if we compare with Sam/fixed, 3 lv4 Sams guarantee a kill against any level fixed wing aircraft, including bombers and stealth aircraft.

      Of course, it is not useless, but is better to use ASF against choppers.

    • TheWildThing wrote:

      My friend uses MAA in most if not all of his games while i use SAMs. It works to our playstyles... but in addition to that I have HARDLY, if at all, seen other players use helis (aside from myself occasionaly).
      I have seen two players using it but one or two, nothing serious. I think most people don't know how to use them.

      I have used MAA just against one of these players (was my second CoN game, FP) and it works against the chopper and it do some damage against a figther lv1. My MAA was lv1 too.

      More than that, if you do the maths, MAA is very inefficient against any flying thing except in large quantities, as you pointed before.

      Once a time i was thinking to build some MAA to protect my frontal infantry when i going off line. A lv4 MAA has a good thing: it reach 50, so, it could be a "cheaper" way to difficult things to an attacker.

    • Kaiservar wrote:

      TheWildThing wrote:

      My friend uses MAA in most if not all of his games while i use SAMs. It works to our playstyles... but in addition to that I have HARDLY, if at all, seen other players use helis (aside from myself occasionaly).
      I have seen two players using it but one or two, nothing serious. I think most people don't know how to use them.
      I have used MAA just against one of these players (was my second CoN game, FP) and it works against the chopper and it do some damage against a figther lv1. My MAA was lv1 too.

      More than that, if you do the maths, MAA is very inefficient against any flying thing except in large quantities, as you pointed before.

      Once a time i was thinking to build some MAA to protect my frontal infantry when i going off line. A lv4 MAA has a good thing: it reach 50, so, it could be a "cheaper" way to difficult things to an attacker.
      It might be just me but I really dont like MAA for whatever reason, could be the relatively short range or the fact it takes components... Im sure someone is reading this and saying "but what about the fact it doesnt use electronics" or "You can hold cities with it because it actually attacks ground units" or even "it has more HP which means better". And I can understand you POV... but it doesnt sit well with my playstyle. In terms of it being cheaper (and this could be BECAUSE I dont like them, idrk) I have used them and found I either had to build MAA OR whatever ground unit i was making.