Air Defense Heavy

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

    • Buckeyechamp wrote:

      Teburu wrote:

      Stratieon wrote:

      I submit to the consideration of the forum strategists an air defense heavy similar to the American YAL-1
      :D

      Stratieon wrote:

      It would be best at taking down missiles, then fighters, then helicopters, perhaps 4-2-1 or similar with a range of 50 or so
      so basically a flying SAM?
      Heavies are just big targets ... only good for bombing frontline. The sell tag of penetrate and bomb deep into enemy territory is a lie. Thats why bombers are not really used in Real life any more. SAM technology and advanced Fighters make them obsolete and their role can be accomplished via muti purpose aircraft like F-35's or drones or missiles.
      granted just skimmed this stuff ; but saw someone wanting anti SAM or AA well i guess higher levels could have "countermeasures" that limited AA damage but still their low HP value still getting splashdown. And any Bomber coming my way is getting taken out by my planes.

      To me Heavies (all of them biggest waste of resources in game. Maybe Navy patrol worth on defense but so single purpose.
      stealth bombers are usefull for bombing homeland cities ^^ but as already said (either this thread or somewhere else) rarely worth the investment because ppl just dont build that high lvl buildings and bombing a city with AB1 and RI to the ground just seems overkill
      - normal bombers make a decent platform for CMs :D
      other than that i'd classify them as "toy"
      I am The Baseline for opinions
    • Buckeyechamp wrote:

      Teburu wrote:

      Stratieon wrote:

      I submit to the consideration of the forum strategists an air defense heavy similar to the American YAL-1
      :D

      Stratieon wrote:

      It would be best at taking down missiles, then fighters, then helicopters, perhaps 4-2-1 or similar with a range of 50 or so
      so basically a flying SAM?
      Heavies are just big targets ... only good for bombing frontline. The sell tag of penetrate and bomb deep into enemy territory is a lie. Thats why bombers are not really used in Real life any more. SAM technology and advanced Fighters make them obsolete and their role can be accomplished via muti purpose aircraft like F-35's or drones or missiles.
      granted just skimmed this stuff ; but saw someone wanting anti SAM or AA well i guess higher levels could have "countermeasures" that limited AA damage but still their low HP value still getting splashdown. And any Bomber coming my way is getting taken out by my planes.

      To me Heavies (all of them biggest waste of resources in game. Maybe Navy patrol worth on defense but so single purpose.
      It’s intended to be a more defensive asset with a positioning similar to AWACS situated relatively far behind friendly lines, then knocking down enemy air at range. It would definitely not conduct strategic penetrations to neutralize enemy airpower within their own territory.
    • Zemunelo wrote:

      I was talking about ground vs air players, not air vs air. Ofc you can defend with asf.
      Sam is good anti air but there is higher requirement.
      Basicly in day 7 air player can have stack of 5 strikes and probably 2 asf. While ground player can have max 3 sam and 1 starting asf. That's if he is dedicated to producing sam's but who would do that?
      Even if he create second asf he will loose because air player will probably lvl up at least strikes.
      He can't defend more than 2 cities effectively because air player can afford to attack directly where one sam is located at least once. Than to go back home to heal. Ground player can't heal quickly enough every unit because of traveling time and that he need to abandon city that he protect.
      Also I don't talk about late games but about beginnings. In late games there are a lot of varieties, different coalitions and production is higher.
      In early games for air player it's not a problem if enemy defend 1 or 2 cities, he will quickly go for other cities and its the end for dedicated ground player.
      All that assuming ground player is defensive. If he is offensive, his cities back home are ruins in 2-3 hours.

      I am sometimes dedicated air player that's why I say this.

      Btw asf is not meant to attack ground units and will do it poorly.

      abdul_the_brave wrote:

      ground player? there is no thing as such u r a country not terrorists u have to have air,ground and hopefully navy
      Abdul makes a good point here. The class of “ground player” is hardly an effective one unless operating in a coalition that they can provide specialized capabilities to while being protected from enemy application of fires by their allies doing the same thing. If you just have ground, you’re going to get destroyed by offensive bombing campaigns. This is fully backed by real-life, and it’s the exception, not the normative situation, for armies operating without multi domain capability to be decimated by air or sea power. This is what happens to almost every country the US has invaded. That’s half of how the US manages to survive fighting terrorists. That’s part of how the Germans won gains in the World Wars. The list goes on and on, but the lesson of history is the multi domain capabilities are an essential element of the combined arms force to prevent loss of security and freedom of action due to exploitation of an isolated element’s weaknesses. This is how combined arms arose in the first place, and it’s why the US has recently pivoted to multidomain capabilities to ensure it retains the ability to successfully engage in peer-to-peer combat while maintaining the advantages of operational overmatch in a denied environment despite comparative enemy capability.
    • Stratieon wrote:

      Buckeyechamp wrote:

      It’s intended to be a more defensive asset with a positioning similar to AWACS situated relatively far behind friendly lines, then knocking down enemy air at range. It would definitely not conduct strategic penetrations to neutralize enemy airpower within their own territory.
      you know what they call those..... Air Supp Interceptors. thats why they focus on Speed / Distance and Air to air in real life.
      "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
    • Buckeyechamp wrote:

      Stratieon wrote:

      Buckeyechamp wrote:

      It’s intended to be a more defensive asset with a positioning similar to AWACS situated relatively far behind friendly lines, then knocking down enemy air at range. It would definitely not conduct strategic penetrations to neutralize enemy airpower within their own territory.
      you know what they call those..... Air Supp Interceptors. thats why they focus on Speed / Distance and Air to air in real life.
      Indeed; this would serve primarily as a missile defense platform specializing in versatility and mobility as opposed to a standard interceptor type aircraft.
    • but what kind of real life platform just patrols a heavy that fires Air to Air missiles?? you would still need air supp to protect that air AtoA heavy unit so what would be the point.

      purpose of intercptors are they can control a large area and not just patrol one area.
      "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
    • Buckeyechamp wrote:

      but what kind of real life platform just patrols a heavy that fires Air to Air missiles?? you would still need air supp to protect that air AtoA heavy unit so what would be the point.

      purpose of intercptors are they can control a large area and not just patrol one area.
      It doesn’t use missiles. It uses lasers. Also, B-1B Lancer. Maybe C. This is a missile defense platform. Not flying SAM, but flying TDS.
    • Stratieon wrote:

      Zemunelo wrote:

      I was talking about ground vs air players, not air vs air. Ofc you can defend with asf.
      Sam is good anti air but there is higher requirement.
      Basicly in day 7 air player can have stack of 5 strikes and probably 2 asf. While ground player can have max 3 sam and 1 starting asf. That's if he is dedicated to producing sam's but who would do that?
      Even if he create second asf he will loose because air player will probably lvl up at least strikes.
      He can't defend more than 2 cities effectively because air player can afford to attack directly where one sam is located at least once. Than to go back home to heal. Ground player can't heal quickly enough every unit because of traveling time and that he need to abandon city that he protect.
      Also I don't talk about late games but about beginnings. In late games there are a lot of varieties, different coalitions and production is higher.
      In early games for air player it's not a problem if enemy defend 1 or 2 cities, he will quickly go for other cities and its the end for dedicated ground player.
      All that assuming ground player is defensive. If he is offensive, his cities back home are ruins in 2-3 hours.

      I am sometimes dedicated air player that's why I say this.

      Btw asf is not meant to attack ground units and will do it poorly.

      abdul_the_brave wrote:

      ground player? there is no thing as such u r a country not terrorists u have to have air,ground and hopefully navy
      Abdul makes a good point here. The class of “ground player” is hardly an effective one unless operating in a coalition that they can provide specialized capabilities to while being protected from enemy application of fires by their allies doing the same thing. If you just have ground, you’re going to get destroyed by offensive bombing campaigns. This is fully backed by real-life, and it’s the exception, not the normative situation, for armies operating without multi domain capability to be decimated by air or sea power. This is what happens to almost every country the US has invaded. That’s half of how the US manages to survive fighting terrorists. That’s part of how the Germans won gains in the World Wars. The list goes on and on, but the lesson of history is the multi domain capabilities are an essential element of the combined arms force to prevent loss of security and freedom of action due to exploitation of an isolated element’s weaknesses. This is how combined arms arose in the first place, and it’s why the US has recently pivoted to multidomain capabilities to ensure it retains the ability to successfully engage in peer-to-peer combat while maintaining the advantages of operational overmatch in a denied environment despite comparative enemy capability.

      I disagree a bit, but it's maybe because i am a "ground player" : In the general case (aka not very specific countrie, of course) Heavy focus on Artillery/Anti-air. Air (ASF mostly) and Navy are auxiliaries, and it's rare i research any armored unit before day 15-20. Same for infantry, even if it varies (if it's to grab territory, NGs are good in early i think). I rarely ally myself until i've selected a few players that weren't cowardly and didn't joined a coalition day 1, and i usually try to attack coalitions of 4 or 5 when they think a single player will never attack because of the numbers.

      I do not claim to be superior through this build, but i'll argue that it's "hardly effective". However, i do consider that "ASF for early air-defense" is a part of the ground build. Research takes 30 minutes, you have the infrastructure already built, there is no reason why you shouldn't do them.
      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.
    • Opulon wrote:

      Stratieon wrote:

      Zemunelo wrote:

      I was talking about ground vs air players, not air vs air. Ofc you can defend with asf.
      Sam is good anti air but there is higher requirement.
      Basicly in day 7 air player can have stack of 5 strikes and probably 2 asf. While ground player can have max 3 sam and 1 starting asf. That's if he is dedicated to producing sam's but who would do that?
      Even if he create second asf he will loose because air player will probably lvl up at least strikes.
      He can't defend more than 2 cities effectively because air player can afford to attack directly where one sam is located at least once. Than to go back home to heal. Ground player can't heal quickly enough every unit because of traveling time and that he need to abandon city that he protect.
      Also I don't talk about late games but about beginnings. In late games there are a lot of varieties, different coalitions and production is higher.
      In early games for air player it's not a problem if enemy defend 1 or 2 cities, he will quickly go for other cities and its the end for dedicated ground player.
      All that assuming ground player is defensive. If he is offensive, his cities back home are ruins in 2-3 hours.

      I am sometimes dedicated air player that's why I say this.

      Btw asf is not meant to attack ground units and will do it poorly.

      abdul_the_brave wrote:

      ground player? there is no thing as such u r a country not terrorists u have to have air,ground and hopefully navy
      Abdul makes a good point here. The class of “ground player” is hardly an effective one unless operating in a coalition that they can provide specialized capabilities to while being protected from enemy application of fires by their allies doing the same thing. If you just have ground, you’re going to get destroyed by offensive bombing campaigns. This is fully backed by real-life, and it’s the exception, not the normative situation, for armies operating without multi domain capability to be decimated by air or sea power. This is what happens to almost every country the US has invaded. That’s half of how the US manages to survive fighting terrorists. That’s part of how the Germans won gains in the World Wars. The list goes on and on, but the lesson of history is the multi domain capabilities are an essential element of the combined arms force to prevent loss of security and freedom of action due to exploitation of an isolated element’s weaknesses. This is how combined arms arose in the first place, and it’s why the US has recently pivoted to multidomain capabilities to ensure it retains the ability to successfully engage in peer-to-peer combat while maintaining the advantages of operational overmatch in a denied environment despite comparative enemy capability.
      I disagree a bit, but it's maybe because i am a "ground player" : In the general case (aka not very specific countrie, of course) Heavy focus on Artillery/Anti-air. Air (ASF mostly) and Navy are auxiliaries, and it's rare i research any armored unit before day 15-20. Same for infantry, even if it varies (if it's to grab territory, NGs are good in early i think). I rarely ally myself until i've selected a few players that weren't cowardly and didn't joined a coalition day 1, and i usually try to attack coalitions of 4 or 5 when they think a single player will never attack because of the numbers.

      I do not claim to be superior through this build, but i'll argue that it's "hardly effective". However, i do consider that "ASF for early air-defense" is a part of the ground build. Research takes 30 minutes, you have the infrastructure already built, there is no reason why you shouldn't do them.
      This is a solid way to counter air as a ground build, and it can be effective. Of course, much AA is required, which is often neglected in ground builds to the great detriment of the user thereof. Once you have enough AA, in ASF or ground, you’ll be fairly well off. Most armies that take heavy casualties from air bombardment will do so because they don’t have enough anti-air to repel them.
    • Stratieon wrote:

      Buckeyechamp wrote:

      Teburu wrote:

      Opulon not writing a whole essay for once? im shocked :D
      says the guy that had like a two page essay on strategy posting ;) granted you where answering a lot of questions.
      This incontrovertibly necessitates the requisite formation of an essayist alliance.
      btw strat .. you need to join our straegy battle game (see other thread)
      "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
    • Buckeyechamp wrote:

      Stratieon wrote:

      Buckeyechamp wrote:

      Teburu wrote:

      Opulon not writing a whole essay for once? im shocked :D
      says the guy that had like a two page essay on strategy posting ;) granted you where answering a lot of questions.
      This incontrovertibly necessitates the requisite formation of an essayist alliance.
      btw strat .. you need to join our straegy battle game (see other thread)
      Indeed, I have :thumbsup: