Best form of air support

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

    • Best form of air support

      I’ve seen many people debating which air units are better than others, and I’ve discussed the value of one air unit or another. Different air units serve different roles, but which one do you think is the best overall for air support?
      Here are all of our contenders, not counting elite or officers. If you see some that are not air support such as ASF note that their CM launch capabilities are being considered:

      Air Superiority Fighter and its variants
      Strike Fighter and its variants
      UAV
      Helicopter Gunship
      Attack Helicopter
      Heavy Bomber
      Naval Patrol Aircraft
      Yee Haw
    • Questions like these are tough to answer always. You obviously know that there is no "best unit," the same goes for any air unit.
      If we are talking about what "air to ground" is the best unit, it depends. If we are looking purely at soft target damage, gunship all the way. If we are looking at heavy target damage, attacks all the way. However, if we are looking at versatility and damage, naval sfs are the way to go.

      You could research and construct two different helis to do two different jobs that will ultimately excel in those areas they are made for, but this costs a lot more resources than if you were to construct just one naval strike fighter. To illustrate what I am saying:
      • Level one gunship = 7 to soft, 2 to heavy, 850 supplies needed, no gears needed
      • Level one attack = 2.5 to soft, 7 to heavies, no supplies needed, 900 gears needed

      • Level one Naval SF = 5 to soft, 5 to heavies, no supplies needed, 1k gears needed


      So I'd say it is determined by the situation. If your opponent is playing primarily soft targets or primarily heavy targets, then you will excel in combat choosing a helis that fits your situation. If your opponent is not playing CRV at the start of the game for example, and only motorized infantry or something to that effect, then why not go a level one gunship? It is two more damage to soft targets and is cheaper.
      However, in the case that your opponent is playing smart, they'd have a mix of heavy and soft targets, which means if you are going helis, you'll need both attacks and gunships to complete the full job. Together, that would cost 850 supplies and 900 gears, plus all the microchips needed, vs the naval strike fighter which only costs 1k gears and it deals decent damage to both soft and heavy targets.

      So sure, naval sfs do two less damage to both soft and heavy targets compared to gunships and attacks, but it makes up for it by dealing more damage than between the two. Moreover, you can carry out attacks against both heavies and soft using naval strike fighters. You don't have as much liberty with the helis because their strengths are as listed above.

      Choosing a naval strike fighter gets the best of both worlds without sacrificing too much, and in the end, is cheaper to construct than making two separate helis to do two separate things. Not to mention, it does better against surface vessels and has a longer range, which I haven't even factored into this analysis. So more bang for your buck.

      And if we wanted to run this through a hypothetical: let's say you constructed one gunship and one attack to deal damage to both heavies and soft, your battalion would deal
      9.5 to softs, 9 to heavies.
      If you constructed two naval strike fighters, it would deal 10 to heavies and softs. Better in both categories. So in my opinion, naval strike fighters are the best pick.

      I am sure that some would disagree with me on the point that naval sfs are better than helis, but you can never go wrong choosing a naval sf because it fits perfectly into many situations; you can go wrong by choosing either a gunship or attack because they only fit the role they are meant to fill.
    • You do not just need to consider the cost of building a unit, but also how easily it can get countered:

      What do you need to spot choppers? AWAC T2, Frigate L6

      What do you need to spot SF? Radar T1, AWAC T1, any ship (SFs not maxed out yet)

      How do you neutralize SF? SAMs, ASF, RG T2, Frigate, (TDS, MAAV, Cruiser)

      How do you neutralize Choppers? ASF, RG T2, (MAAV, Cruiser)



      The OP premise is however 'wrong', if he separates Gunships and Attack Choppers, they are variants of each other and should be put in the same bracket, the same as SF and its variants


      In regards of versaility ASF are the best unit, in regards of air to ground I always would go for chopprs.
    • JoeSlackman wrote:

      I think you have to consider the units the enemy is using. If he has SAM traveling with his stacks, helicopters are needed. If he has AS fighters patrolling the area, then you need to use SF fighters to hit the targets.
      AS kill SF nearly as easily as choppers, so not sure, what your point is.

      However this thread is about 'general best unit' not 'circumstancial best unit', I believe.
    • Kalrakh wrote:

      You do not just need to consider the cost of building a unit, but also how easily it can get countered:

      What do you need to spot choppers? AWAC T2, Frigate L6

      What do you need to spot SF? Radar T1, AWAC T1, any ship (SFs not maxed out yet)

      How do you neutralize SF? SAMs, ASF, RG T2, Frigate, (TDS, MAAV, Cruiser)

      How do you neutralize Choppers? ASF, RG T2, (MAAV, Cruiser)



      The OP premise is however 'wrong', if he separates Gunships and Attack Choppers, they are variants of each other and should be put in the same bracket, the same as SF and its variants


      In regards of versaility ASF are the best unit, in regards of air to ground I always would go for chopprs.
      I agree that SFs have many more counters, especially ones that are easy to get an early game. That is a really good point. I don't really have an answer against the counters. Helis are better than SFs in that regard. I still think naval sfs are a good early game to mid-game pick, because of my reasons above.

      I do not think that we should separate attacks and choppers. They are two separate branches that need two separate types of research for them and need to be constructed two separate times, one for each. We should be discussing this in terms of "separate bodies." It wouldn't be fair to say "elite bombers and naval sfs" because they are two separate things, with two separate goals. Why would we say "attacks and gunships?" The same logic applies.

      In that regard, naval sfs are better than gunships or attacks. But naval sfs are not better than gunships and attacks.
      If I am looking for the best air game, I'd play gunship/attack duo. If I am looking to get the job done, I'll probably stick with naval sfs.
    • the problem with SF is just that it is a fiexed wing.
      have a problem with fixed wing shooting ya troop and heli?

      slap them with a couple of SAM and they will cry running

      also don’t pull out that argument “SAM is trash”.
      it just a person doesn’t know how to plan ahead or collect intel to
      know enemy force.
      This post was made by Leader of the Church of ROAD
    • Elite Bomber are not even the same type as SF. Elite Bombers are heavy fixed wings and SF are light fixed wings. Speed and range also are completely different, so the comparison is quite lacking from the start.
      Gunship and Attack are both choppers, with similar speed and range. Each by itself is not really good. Because they are only good against only one type.

      Though NSF by themselves are also not as great as a mix of SF and NSF.

      No idea, who would say, SAMs are trash though.
    • Kalrakh wrote:

      Elite Bomber are not even the same type as SF. Elite Bombers are heavy fixed wings and SF are light fixed wings. Speed and range also are completely different, so the comparison is quite lacking from the start.
      Gunship and Attack are both choppers, with similar speed and range. Each by itself is not really good. Because they are only good against only one type.

      Though NSF by themselves are also not as great as a mix of SF and NSF.

      No idea, who would say, SAMs are trash though.



      -I would say that attack helicopter is an exception and are good by themselves. Helicopter gunships are really only damage dealers for taking out the enemy, while attack helicopter open up a wide range of possibilities for other units. The gunships rip infantry especially early game, but late game they are less useful as the enemy defense has developed. Attack helicopter, on the other hand, will reduce stack to feeble infantry. SAM? gone. MRLS? Gone. Tank? gone. MAA? Muahahah-Gone. BM launcher? Gone. The remaining infantry will be vulnerable. All that’s left is an insignificant infantry unit shell of what was once a thunderous stack of destruction. At that point, chemical warhead, IFV, Strike fighter will finish it off. This isn’t even considering the attack helicopter attack vs infantry, which is alright for getting rid of them in a pinch, but cannot rival Gunship.

      SAMs are really good don’t know why anyone would be against them
      Yee Haw
    • Kalrakh wrote:

      Elite Bomber are not even the same type as SF. Elite Bombers are heavy fixed wings and SF are light fixed wings. Speed and range also are completely different, so the comparison is quite lacking from the start.
      Gunship and Attack are both choppers, with similar speed and range. Each by itself is not really good. Because they are only good against only one type.

      Though NSF by themselves are also not as great as a mix of SF and NSF.

      No idea, who would say, SAMs are trash though.
      All I am saying is that the two are mutually exclusive, just like SF and elite bombers. I didn't compare the two, I said both are different but apart of the same family. Helis are the same in that regard and are both mutually exclusive.

      Yeah, idk what they are talking about. No one said sams are trash lol.