• Weapons are more lethal. Tank companies and infantry battalions can be rendered combat ineffective in just a few hours of deployment.
  

• Artillery loads are more varied (Air drop mines, persistent chemicals, tactical nukes, regular bombardments) Players can interdict road networks with artillery deployed mines and WMD make hexes very "nasty" for any units that enter the chemical or radioactive impacted hexes.
  

• Vertical deployment. The use of helos (scouts, troop carrying, and attack) that can range far and wide in the battlefield makes even rear positions vulnerable to attack. Gone are the days that rear positioned units (HQ, artillery) are nearly invulnerable (or at least not detectable) by the enemy.
  

• Air power.  Jet recon and day / night equipped attack bombers allow players to deliver lethal payloads to enemy targets anywhere on the battlefield. 
  

• Specialized units / capabilities. Many of the Warsaw Pact mech infantry battalions and recon units are amphibious - allowing river crossings without the need for bridges. Enemy HQs can be detected, based on their radio traffic without the need for an adjacent spotting unit. 
  

For me, I favor playing as the Warsaw Pact forces and they are a blast to command!   It's like having one foot on a car's accelerator and the other foot on the brake... and not always knowing when to punch it forward or brake it! 

(04-07-2020, 02:27 PM)Ricky B Wrote: Thanks Mike. Same here, at first I was a doubter of the MC games, but they are a blast, every one of them.

Rick

(04-08-2020, 05:01 AM)Fog of War Wrote:

(04-07-2020, 02:27 PM)Ricky B Wrote: Thanks Mike. Same here, at first I was a doubter of the MC games, but they are a blast, every one of them.

Rick

I also want to say they have a Excellent AI for those who enjoy playing the computer. I`m up to T 39 as the WP in DF and still a very tense Game.

RL

(05-15-2020, 09:54 AM)Elxaime Wrote: I agree MC is amazing and fun.  However a knotty issue seems to often plague it in PBEM, which is the use of helicopters.  In the early days of the series, players would often complain how opponents would have helicopters roaming hundreds of hexes in the rear, not bothering to refuel or rearm, but causing havoc nonetheless by spotting for airstrikes or using their lower, diminished (e.g. unfueled, low ammo) combat values to still savage soft targets in T mode.  Then the designers invented the FARP concept to keep helicopters tied to some sort of supply network.  Not sure FARPs are still in there, I think the concept was abandoned.  At any rate, scenarios like Bolt from the Blue seemed to have resolved the issue by making anti-air (SAM and point defense) values more lethal.  Roaming around with your helicopter and bumping into enemy units, especially large infantry battalions, can cause crippling losses to the choppers.

I am curious what you think about the current modeling of helicopters?  I am tempted to get back into MC PBEM, but I dread the memories of the old arguments about helicopters, which sank a number of matches.

• do not block enemy supply (cannot isolate enemy units)
  
• do not exert a ZoC
  
• can move through enemy ZoCs
  
• are subordinate to their FARP, which usually has a very short nominal command range (3-4 hexes)
  
• if detached (starting their turn outside their FARP's nominal range): artillery strikes called by detached helicopters only have 50% firepower; air strikes called by detached helicopters still have 100% firepower though! (OVERSIGHT?)
  
• need to LAND (deployed mode) at their FARP to fetch ammo (if "low ammo") or refuel
  
• test for ammo normally (1. local supply test, 2. command/FARP test), but can only get rid of the low ammo status if landed at their FARP
  
• test for fuel normally? (1. local supply / 2. auto-succeed if within modified FARP range) [I'm not sure about this one, it seems as if the choppers always fail the local supply test?]
  
• are spotted normally, like ground units (they seem to be flying very low...?)
  
• can only be targeted by AA fire
  
• cannot be isolated while flying (travel mode)
  
• can only hold objectives if landed (deployed mode)
  
• can fly over/pass enemy units (see manual p. 29)
  
• "Blocking Helicopter Elimination" optional rule: helicopters cannot block the retreat-path of enemy units (the helicopters are eliminated if they do)
  
• Can be assaulted normally (for 2/3 of the movement cost, triggering opportunity fires) but are automatically forced to retreat (with 0 casualties on both sides) if it happens
  

(05-16-2020, 12:39 AM)Elxaime Wrote: OK, just checked D85 Gold and the FARPs are still there, for both vanilla and alt scenarios.  I think it is only Volcano Man's Bolt from the Blue that doesn't use them, as he relies on stronger AA and SAM to limit wild roaming.  If I recall one older campaign game, it was a mod that had many Warsaw Pact units with limited to no anti-air, so you had stacks of helicopters devastating whole divisions, heh - the designer must have been a former attack helicopter pilot.  I also remember the old days when people used to use helicopters to surround and block retreats, block advances by planting them on roads, etc.

One aspect I have wondered about is why NATO seems to have comparatively less anti-air defenses, including to defend against Pact helicopters.  I have always assumed this was because NATO doctrine assumed eventual air superiority, meaning Warsaw Pact helicopters would increasingly face an air-to-air threat.  I assume NATO helicopters would also face some kind of air-air threat as well, even if just from obsolete enemy combat aircraft.  

My own two cents is that it is highly likely an intense war like this would create a zone of denial for helicopters as they are just too vulnerable even to infantry weapons like HMG.  It has always stuck in my craw that helicopters were able to roam so much without consequence.

Do the FARPS do the trick of making helicopter operations more realistic?  Or do people prefer the Bolt from the Blue approach (no FARP, better AA and SAM)?