On Map Air Units

[Herr Straße Laufer]

I posted this up on the personal ROE's sticky thread.


Just running into something that caused me to review and add to my personal ROE's.

On map airplanes. I'm beginning to dislike them.

ON MAP AIRPLANE ROE:

No taking victory hexes by flying "over" them.
No blocking movement of ground units.
No using them in ground assaults.
No blocking the movement of air units with ground units. (Yes, I had a situation where I had an air plane surrounded by ground units so that I could not move it. LOL!)

I can see air units blocking ground unit and preventing retreats during assaults ...

Bugs, and defects in design mostly call for "house rules/personal rules". Why can't on map air units act like air units?
If they can't be programmed that way, why include them in an OOB in the first place?



HSL

[Skryabin]

Airplaines look funny when they are looking for a "shorrt" way for themselfs using paved and unpaved roads :)

[Warhorse]

I would have to agree with this.

[K K Rossokolski]

There are many problems with them, largely because, IMO, CS is a two dimensional game with bumps. It doesn't do altitude in an aviation sense. But how could Vietnam for instance be done without helicopters?

[von Manstein]

Airplaines look funny when they are looking for a "shorrt" way for themselfs using paved and unpaved roads :)

You can always say that they using roads as navigation points? Especially when they flying so low that even tank turret is a problem on the way. ;)

[Herr Straße Laufer]

There are many problems with them, largely because, IMO, CS is a two dimensional game with bumps. It doesn't do altitude in an aviation sense. But how could Vietnam for instance be done without helicopters?

Precisely my point. At the base of the case is how can they release a Vietnam scenario using helicopters, if the helicopters act more like tanks or trucks then the fly around "game changers" that they are?

:jeep: "Sorry men, you'll have to go around. We've used our full movement value." :chopper:






HSL

[K K Rossokolski]

In a sense, helos were/are tanks and trucks..... both of which in days when few armies had them were "game changers" too.
There are problems and some limitations simulating helos in CS, but it can be adequately done IMO. It used to be impossible to blow a full hex bridge, but this now can be done, can it not?
Consider a helo combat assault. As I understand how CS works, own forces may only enter a hex occupied by the enemy if the assault protocol is selected. In this case it is not the helos per se which assault, but rather the troops they transport and unload. The slicks will get out of the area ASAP, having drooped off the troops in an adjacent hex. Not a perfect simulation, but not too bad either.

[junk2drive]

Having played a bunch of Vietnam battles against Jorge, helos work like any other AFV except that they can go over any terrain. Some are transport, some have an MG like the landing craft in RS, some have auto cannons. The US player must fear the hidden RPG team or SAMs.

[K K Rossokolski]

The main danger was not SAMs or RPGs, but small arms and AAMG such as the fearsome 12.7mm, although the RPG was nasty in a low and slow flight regime suh as approaching the LZ. We used to fly as much as possible above the danger height, but there comes a time when it is necessary to get down and dirty. US transport helos ("slicks") were armed with an M60 each side for suppressive fire. Sometimes effective.

[junk2drive]

I was talking about the DGVN game, not real life.