Tanks vs Helicopters (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Modern] >> FlashPoint Germany



Message


IronManBeta -> Tanks vs Helicopters (1/21/2003 1:09:39 AM)

I have a design problem with helicopters. I am visualizing US attack helicopters loaded with ATGMs flying 'nap of earth' around the battlefield. They are very fast, ignore terrain, and have a wicked ATGM punch but are lightly armored and despite their many redundant systems, quite fragile.

My problem is that they kept getting completely shot out of the sky within 5 -10 minutes of first being sighted. Is this realistic?

My assumption was that if they were in a hover (or just moving < 40 km) using available cover or concealment then they would not be that much harder to hit than a tank or IFV _by another tank or IFV_. In particular, the sensors and gun sighting mechanisms would be as good against helicopters in these circumstances as against ground targets. Now I'm rethinking that.

In the 1973 Arab Israeli war (which I am just reading up on again right now) it was considered a complete fluke when a tank shot down a helicopter. Only one instance was recorded that I know of. Was it really that flukey or might serious numbers of helicopters have been brought down by tanks and IFV with 20 - 30mm guns in 1989?

The original SimCan notes for Main Battle Tank described the role of attack helicopters as a kind of modern day horse cavalry. Their job was to be the commander's high-speed, high-punch reserve that can be rushed to a trouble spot when all else failed. They are not a shock weapon (ie not a tank) - rather their job is to stand well back and deliver precisely targetted armor defeating fires at the critical time and place. This implies that they would never come within a kilometer or so of the forward edge of battle. They would hang back and ambush enemy penetrations from the side or possibly rear, but otherwise expose themselves no more than an artillery unit would.

That certainly changes my attitude to sending them off on an end run around the enemy line into the rear with a licence so shoot up anything they see... No wonder they melted away so fast. In real life though I think helicopters are used extremely aggressively and there is no particular bar to venturing into no-man's land, much less the enemy rear. Was this a recipe for disaster?

As of a few days ago I have set it so that only AA rated weapons and missiles can touch helicopters but that makes them darn near impossible to kill - clearly a swing too far in the other direction. I'm trying to model this thing properly and clearly don't have a handle on it yet. Sabre, you flew these things, can you give me a hand? Anyone else have a good feel for it?

Cheers, Rob.




jrcar -> (1/21/2003 3:30:49 AM)

My understanding of US AHelo doctrine is to engage from max range using popup. Now the scout helo acts as the "Sensor" and the Attack helo acts as the shooter. They use this doctrine to minimise the threat possed by the OPFOR. If an AHelo gets to small arms range (400-1500m) it is in big trouble.

I know our armoured doctrine is to fire 105mm canister (effective out to about 1.5km with time delay fuse I think) and heat at any helo seen. Likewise for 25mm on th LAV25

Effective at long range, but at short range under 1500m they are in big trouble.

I also know from our military simulations that Ahelos get chewed up by AD and BMPs if theey get to close (in one game I saw the enemy conducted an anti helo ambush and blue lost all their assets).

cheers

Rob




IronManBeta -> (1/21/2003 4:06:53 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jrcar
[B]My understanding of US AHelo doctrine is to engage from max range using popup. Now the scout helo acts as the "Sensor" and the Attack helo acts as the shooter. They use this doctrine to minimise the threat possed by the OPFOR. If an AHelo gets to small arms range (400-1500m) it is in big trouble.

I know our armoured doctrine is to fire 105mm canister (effective out to about 1.5km with time delay fuse I think) and heat at any helo seen. Likewise for 25mm on th LAV25

Effective at long range, but at short range under 1500m they are in big trouble.

I also know from our military simulations that Ahelos get chewed up by AD and BMPs if theey get to close (in one game I saw the enemy conducted an anti helo ambush and blue lost all their assets).
[/B][/QUOTE]

Ah, now that is info I can use. Does this mean that a lot of scout helicopters get shot down? I was reading about "pink" patrols like you describe (one scout and one attacker in overwatch, both out looking for trouble) but I guess that kind of activity had to be restricted to low intensity situations. It sounded completely suicidal to me ("fly low and slow until you draw some ground fire and then I'll swoop in and bag them" - Yikes!) and I remember from my study of WW2 aircraft casualty rates that even a seemingly small number like 3 or 4% per sortie was unbearably high in the long run.

I'll disable the AA-only limitation to ground to air fire, think more in terms of the 'horse arty' concept, and try to analyse more when the helos are vulnerable and when the aren't.

Right now the Soviets keep calling in the divisional arty to barrage them every time they take up a fixed position. In real life that would be extremely serious for the helicopters, but I imagine they could scoot instantly and would not likely suffer any damage if they did. I should teach them to scoot, or more generally, to try and preserve their lives a little better in dicey situations.

Cheers, Rob.




jrcar -> (1/21/2003 4:34:18 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RobertCrandall
[B]Ah, now that is info I can use. Does this mean that a lot of scout helicopters get shot down? I was reading about "pink" patrols like you describe (one scout and one attacker in overwatch, both out looking for trouble) but I guess that kind of activity had to be restricted to low intensity situations. It sounded completely suicidal to me ("fly low and slow until you draw some ground fire and then I'll swoop in and bag them" - Yikes!) and I remember from my study of WW2 aircraft casualty rates that even a seemingly small number like 3 or 4% per sortie was unbearably high in the long run.

I'll disable the AA-only limitation to ground to air fire, think more in terms of the 'horse arty' concept, and try to analyse more when the helos are vulnerable and when the aren't.

Right now the Soviets keep calling in the divisional arty to barrage them every time they take up a fixed position. In real life that would be extremely serious for the helicopters, but I imagine they could scoot instantly and would not likely suffer any damage if they did. I should teach them to scoot, or more generally, to try and preserve their lives a little better in dicey situations.

Cheers, Rob. [/B][/QUOTE]

Well the scout helos have a smaller visual, acoustic and IR signature, thats why they are used this way. I think its 1 scout to 2-4 AH64. Sabre can provide better info I suspect :) (we don't have attack helos in Oz, we are buying armed recon helos instead).

I think the doctrine was different in the early 80's... the threat wasn't as great until the BMP2 and lots more ZSU23-4 came along.

From playing "Decisive Action" from HPS games, a game used at US Army CGSC and conforms to US Army Div/Corps Doctrine, the helos are used to kill any enemy penetration, and when enemy AD assets are I'D to go for the flanks of armoured units and to attack log and command units in the rear.

Arty is real dangerous to helos, it normally makes them run away!

Cheers

Rob




Mac_MatrixForum -> (1/21/2003 4:36:07 AM)

A couple amusing tricks from a handbook that I have, mostly suitable for urban scenarios. Of course they don't replace real AA weapons ;) should those be available.

Whatever place the choppers might fly near to, trap with 'chopper mines'. Barrel with explosives and lots of pieces of scrap metal, chains, bits, whatever on top. Dig to ground/put to building. Blow when chopper above/near.

Dig an empty LAW barrel into ground, explosive to the bottom, grenades on top... remove pins ;) (less effective but quicker to make).

Shoot with bazookas if they stay put.

I'd guess in WW3 the attrition eats the choppers fast. Rather different circumstances against Saddam with air superiority. Have to remembe there are a LOT of AAMGs waiting for them ;).




DavidW75 -> (1/21/2003 5:43:37 AM)

Have you tried with Soviet Hinds yet. Soviet attack helo doctrine was for waves of Hinds to sweep over battlefield. Try it if you can, see what happens?
I think from NATO's point-of-view the ZSU-23-4 would be the threat most often encountered. They'll be forward attached probably overwatching advances when possible.
As far as tank and ifvs are concerned, if they got the first shot off I'ld say they could probably have a decent chance. More likely though, the helos will shoot first, forcing the armored vehicles to worry about surviving. Obviously any unit under fire finds it harder to hit their targets.




IronManBeta -> (1/21/2003 9:18:08 AM)

"Waves of Hinds" - I'm saving that treat as a reward for later. It should definitely be the subject of a scenario.

Testing the game with full fog of war is a really scary experience. There are all these hidden units and you never really know where or when you are going to be hit. This is completely nerve wracking and the best part of the original SimCan design. Even when I know where the other side is, the empty map still scares me.

Accordingly, my interest is switching over to the recon helicopters - a well positioned couple of Kiowas can see pretty well and are a big relief to have around! More than tank busting, I just want to be sure I won't be in for a nasty surprise. Such a simple thing, but quite possibly the most valuable of all.

Cheers, Rob.




byron13 -> (1/23/2003 2:17:13 AM)

Where is Sabre when you need him? Typical Cav attitude.

I forget, Robert: what time period does this game take place? In the late 70s/early 80s the Army did some tests with Cobras v. armored formations called the Ansbach tests or Ansbach trials. Maybe a web search would find something. I believe the results were that Cobras were only three feet wide and very hard to spot a max TOW range, and the opposing force was not able to engage the Cobras at that range - even if they did see them. These trials dictated tactics for a long time.

My guess is that most of the time, the AH units will be called for by a unit in visual contact with the enemy and will be aware of where the FEBA is. Their tactics would be to stay behind cover while the Scout pops up and finds targets - preferably at long range. The unit that called them in probably had good defensive positions with good fields of fire; the rotorheads would plan their firing position to be at least as good if not better/longer. As before, a Kiowa or Loach would be hard to spot at 2-3 kms, so little risk there. Now that most of the front line scouts have that goofy looking golf ball/sensor suite mounted on the mast, there is even a smaller target to see. In the old days, the AHs would then pop up, shoot, guide the missile, and drop down again - providing little time to call in accurate direct fire. The Hellfire used on the Apaches should be fire and forget, so they pop up, shoot, and duck down again within seconds. Haven't kept up with the literature, but there's a chance that they can shoot Hellfires while masked.

If done right, the AHs aren't going to take heavy losses. If they're ambushed, that's another matter. This could easily happen if the good guys lose track of the FEBA or your in a fluid situation to begin with. I'd have to say, though, that a fast moving helicopter would be hard to hit at close range (500m or less) with most AFV mounted systems unless you knew they were coming. You'd have to slew the turret, have the gunner find and identify the target, then you'd have to track for awhile to get a computer-generated lead. If the helicopter is close enough, his aspect would probably change, throwing your lead off. Your best chance would be when they're approaching or when they've already flown by and you get an ***-end shot with a constant rear aspect. If you had constant visual on a helicopter at 1km - 2km range, I'd think you could take him out regardless of speed. Tanks would have a good shot at long range against a hovering helicopter, though 3km is a long shot - especially against a narrow head-on helicopter - and you have to be able to see him in the first place.

I don't believe cannister (if that's beehive) is in the inventory anymore. Personally, I'd shoot sabot since it's faster and has a flatter trajectory. Against a head-on helicopter, there's not much I could hit with a sabot round that wouldn't ruin their day. From the side, I guess its possible you could just punch a hole in the skin of the a/c and do nothing, and HEAT would give you an explosive punch. Still, for a rapid engagement, the HEAT round would take too long to get there, and if I ranged wrong or the range changed since I lased the target, the HEAT round has enough of an arc where I might have the round fly over or under the target.




IronManBeta -> (1/23/2003 2:39:09 AM)

Thanks Byron for another very helpful reply! I'll do the web search you suggest.

Cheers, Rob.




IronManBeta -> (1/23/2003 2:49:10 AM)

This is what was turned up by Google:


April/May 1972
Germany/NATO The Katterbach-Test (also known as the "Ansbach Test") takes place in Bavaria. This is the first large scale simulated battle pitting helicopters against armor. US Army Bell AH-1 Cobras take on "WAPA aggressors" (Bundeswehr Leopards), simulating Russian tanks; these are supported by Canadian F-104 Starfighters flying reconnaissance). Guns and TOW-missiles are simulated by lasers that trigger orange smoke grenades when targets are "killed." The Cobras demonstrate an 18:1 "kill ratio" against the aggressor's tanks and helped launch the the next 20 years as "the age of the anti-tank helicopter".

cellmath.med.utoronto.ca/B47/history/wernChron.html


How do people feel about the 18:1 kill ratio? High? Low? It is hard to tell from the outside what the agenda really was at the time and which way they wanted the test to really go.... Taken at face value that is a pretty impressive ratio!

Flashpoint is set in 1989 so the results should be comparable in a general way to 1972. Why limit the "age of the anti-tank helicopter" though to just 20 years? Was 1992 some sort of watershed for anti-tank helicopters? Or was the guy just being rhetorical?

(Gee I wish there was a spell checker around here so that I could double check some of these hard words!)


Cheers all, Rob




jrcar -> (1/23/2003 5:35:33 AM)

Byron. Yes Canister is beehive. We still have it in inventory as do most 105mm users. I don't think there is an inservice 120mm version? I don't know about Soviet useage though...

I thought one of the reasons for the Soviet laser guided gun launched missiles was AHelo attack.


Rob 18:1 sounds plausible in perfect situations, long range (4-6km), low/no AD (ZSU23-4 didn't come into widespread use till the mid 80's, and the ZSU57-2 was pretty crapy). As usual when one side starts to rely on a weapons system the other side does the counter, in this case a massive increase in LLAD (SA7 in every squad as an example!).

My feeling is that by the time of your sim the days of AHelo's flying unmolested over the battlefield is well and truly over (if that were ever the case). They have to hide, avoid or suppress AD and choose their time to strike. This is all reinforced in doctrine.

Cheers

Rob




byron13 -> (1/23/2003 7:43:28 AM)

I don't know. Where in the heck is Sabre?

I didn't realize the Ansbach tests were conducted in 1972. Helicopter mounted TOWs would have been a radical technological jump for the time, and an 18:1 kill ratio may have been possible given WP capabilities at that point. As jrcar says, though, by 1989, things had changed. I've been out of the game for too long and wouldn't know how many Apaches were around then or what weapons systems they would have had. The Hellfires were certainly used two years later in the Gulf War, and that would have provided some advantage in '89. But I just don't know how the Cobras would have faired. I assume that SPAA would have been at least 500 m behind the advancing armor line, making it an even longer shot for them. If the Cobras have 2 km shots on the advance elements, you're talking 2.5 km shots for the ZSUs, which is pretty far. What's the effective range of the ZSUs?

As for armor-launched guided missiles, I don't know about that either. If the armor is not being engaged by ground units, I suppose they'd have a good chance to bring down an AH. If they being engaged by tanks to their front and flank, they're probably going to focus their attention on the closer threat or doing evasive maneuvers.

Unfortunately, the real answer is: it depends. Ambush helicopters at a FARP and they're dead. Ambush troop carriers while they're low and slow, and they're dead. Shoot down Cobras head-on from 3 km away while you're taking fire from M1s to your front and I think the Cobra pilots are drinking beer at the O-Club that night.

I don't know about the game system, but maybe the difference is in what phase the helicopter is being attacked. If the helicopter is fired upon during the helicopter movement phase (or maybe while being actively moved), the helicopter is unmasked, exposed, and possibly presumed to be unaware of the enemy's presence until shot at. If the helicopter is fired upon during the ground unit's movement phase, the helicopter is assumed to be masked and in an advantageous position vis-a-vis the firing ground units and gets a substantial bonus.

As for the beehive, which has little to do with any of this, our gunnery manuals (in the U.S. Army) had instructions on setting the fuse, etc., but we were never trained on the round nor was it part of our basic load out. They may have used them in Korea, the Pacific, or somewhere else, but I don't think they were planning on using them in Europe where the primary mission of the tank was killing other tanks. To the extent they are still in the inventory, they may be like the battleship 16" shells and virgin gun tubes that the military maintains: we paid for it so we're not throwing it away and, besides, you never know what might happen . . . .




byron13 -> (1/23/2003 7:57:09 AM)

This website apparently sells a video on teh Ansbach Trials. http://www.ihffilm.com/296.html

$14.95 for a 17 minute video. Sounds like a reasonable R&D expense to me! Just make a copy of it for me.




Sabre21 -> (1/23/2003 12:49:55 PM)

Hehehe...sorry guys....I have been pretty busy lately.


18 to 1 ratio is about what we expected in real life although it varied a lot depending on the terrain and the enemy. Also the Apaches would have a much higher ratio considering their standoff was around 5-8 kilometers...they cheat anyways...they don't even have to be the one looking at the target..heck..any laser designator would work. Problem was the OH58C did not have one..the OH58D did but they were not organic to the Apache units.

The terrain in Germany was great for attack helicopter operations...lots of rolling terrain and urban areas to hide in. I would always prefer to engage from 2500 to 3500 meters out but actually the average was probably closer to 1500.

I was not concerned the least with missiles except the SA19 on the 2S6. We flew too low for most missiles, the SA19 pops up and has terminal homing...nasty missile...fortunatly not many of them out there. Another nasty threat were the guns on the 2S6...reaches out to nearly 4k...where as the ZSU23-4 was 2500 meters. Those systems were few also and very vulnerable...usually our first targets in any ambush.

Tank guns were not much of a threat, although the Soviets had designed an anti-helicopter round in the late eighties...it was a proximity type projectile good for stationary or slow moving helicopters. The problem is trying to get a good line of sight on them. German terrain from a ground perspective is tough...lots of trees over there. I would probably agree that a sabot round was the best bet due to speed and trajectory if you could see the guy long enough.

By far the worse threat was Ivan with his AKM rifle. Tanks are easy to locate...but the grunts are a real pain. As a Cav pilot, we were always out looking deep...and it was most likely we would end up flying over dismounted troops or light vehicles hiding in the trees.

Another threat were Hind helicopters...but again...I welcomed them:)

Our attack methods varied too. Usually we would hand off a large target to an attack battalion and then go look for more trouble. On occasion, we would form multiple Cav teams into hasty attacks based on targets of opportunity. We might engae from a hover or in running fire. If it was a moving target that had a lot of blocking terrain that forced me to get close...then I would always go with running fire. A tank turret cannot turn fast enough to get me when I'm flying at a 125 knots plus jinking around trees and buildings...that's my favorite flying by the way..I've pissed off more than 1 tanker in my days..hehe.

The ratio of scouts to guns varied. In an attack battaion..it was usually a pair of scouts for 6 guns. In the Cav...we had a 1 to 1 mix...sometimes even 2 scouts to a gun...but that was rare.

Soviets would almost always use runnng fire. The Hind could not hover with a full load...even empty it has a tough time. They would approach the target area in 2 pairs normally. Then about 4-6 km's out would pop up high enough to see the target and fire their missiles. Usually about 300 feet. The AT3 on the HindD wasn't much of a threat but the AT6 on the Hind E and F is another story. That missile is supersonic (500m/sec). Faster than even the Hellfire, plus the Hind was built like a tank...lots of armor around the crew...but the rotors and tail are the weak areas. Actually...where the big red star is painted on the fuselage...the engine oil reservoir is there and is unarmored...that was always a good point to aim at:)

well...break time is over...back to work.

Andy




byron13 -> (1/23/2003 9:29:17 PM)

Sabre - Dude! - you're back!

You really shouldn't drop off the net like that; we have a game to design, darn it! You should check in daily.

Would you agree that the helos are most vulnerable when moving? They are obviously harder to hit than a hovering helo, but aren't you much more likely to be surprised by someone close by when you're moving?

Robert, do the helicopters have movement modes like ground units? If so, seems their defense strength should be based on their mode, and the defensive modifications based on mode would be more pronounced than with ground units.




IronManBeta -> (1/23/2003 10:07:30 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by byron13
[B]Robert, do the helicopters have movement modes like ground units? If so, seems their defense strength should be based on their mode, and the defensive modifications based on mode would be more pronounced than with ground units. [/B][/QUOTE]

They do indeed have 'postures' which greatly effect their visibility and vulnerability to fire. These are the same as for other units except that helicopters cannot 'dig in' or 'fortify' for obvious reasons.

'Very exposed' when they are just trying to get from point a to point b as fast as possible and are not expecting any trouble. The will be flying at several hundred feet potentially. This would never be used on a battlefield except in the gravest emergencies.

'Exposed' means they are moving normally from point a to b and are somewhat wary. They will fly low and possibly slower and keep a careful eye out on the kind of troops they are flying over. They are not actually expecting trouble though, just moving around in a safe area.

'Exposed but stealthy' means that they are flying nap of earth (or just above) and doing everything possible to move safely. They are expecting trouble. This will be at about 1/2 of their exposed speed overall but will give them nearly full benefit of terrain they are in. It is not that they slow down, but rather that they may take a more roundabout route to where they are going to get advantage of good terrain, and they may go to the hover every now and then to figure out their next move. Sabre, does this sound right?

'Covered' means that they are flying nap of earth or hovering and not trying to get anywhere in particular. They are taking full advantage of the terrain while waiting for events. This would be while they are screening an area or setting up an ambush, or just waiting to be called forward from reserve.

Does this sound reasonable? Generally what speeds should I attach to the first 3 categories?

Cheers, Rob.




byron13 -> (1/24/2003 4:49:33 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RobertCrandall
[B]Does this sound reasonable? Generally what speeds should I attach to the first 3 categories? [/B][/QUOTE]

Sabre?

Seems like your on the right track. Our uber-pilot could give you an idea as to speeds and bonuses.

I guess one is issue in all of this is how you LOS/LOF works. Cobras could be extremely careful, but if they happen to round a hill with a ZSU battalion on the other side that they couldn't see until they were 500m away, they're toast. That seems to be the most likely ambush scenario. Does the game allow stealthy, or "covered," Cobras to stumble upon bad guys at very close range? If so, then it sounds like the system will work.




jrcar -> (1/24/2003 5:07:25 AM)

Rob that sounds good.

Thanks Sabre, but you were in Germany in the 90's? or the 80's?

We need to be careful about that changes in weapons that occured, like scouts being able to guide the weapons. I thought in the 80's the scout could only scout, and the shooter had to pop up and guide the weapon in.

AT6 is very good :) and was standard fit on all Soviet (and east German?) Hinds, but I think many of the WARPAC countries still used AT3 and AT2?

In this timeframe 2S6 was only just starting to come into service I think, ZSU23-4 is the main threat , but some Cat 3 and Warpac countries still have the ZSU57-2.

Also remebre all the 14.5mm MG's on the BTR's, from the BTR70 on they have increased elevation (70 degress?) to engage helos. The 30mm on the BMP is also a danger, but turret speed will be an issue.

I agree with Byron in that tanks will engage helos if they don't have anything else to shoot at. Also rember that Soviets use platoon and company fire against targets, so at worst case a coy could be shooting HE at a single helo :) The training of the unit will also impact on this. Cat 1 units are probably trained to carry out fire at helos... but Cat 2 and 3 units?

Their should be a big negative morale impact on a unit that is being engaged by armour and helos simultaneously.

Cheers

Rob




Sabre21 -> (1/24/2003 5:08:16 AM)

Yea..I should have been checking more frequently...but this darn Threat catalog I'm working on is really eating up a lot of my spare time...and sleep:) I have well over 200 pics so far...70 are US alone.

Anyways....as for the helicopters...we are much safer on the move....much safer! If you stay in one spot too long you're gonna die...we would usually make 1 shot then move if we were using hover fire.

As far as airspeeds versus altitudes....egads...I would never, ever climb to 300 feet unless I had a death wish...even 100 feet is pushing it, and that includes in the rear area.

Ok...Nap of the Earth...this is where airspeeds and altitudes vary and the aircraft tries to stay as close to terra firma as possible...usually 5 to 10 feet within obstacles..I was always brings dirt clumps and twigs back stuck to my skids.

Next is contour, this is what we usually operated at when doing recon missions and flying in the Brigade area forward, including across the FLOT. You would be surprised at the speeds you can maintain here. Altitude is typically within 10-25 feet of obstacles and following the contours of the terrain..maybe lower or higher depending on the skill of the pilot...but airspeeds could get up around 120 knots...I hit 130 on occasion...but normally 60-80 is about right. This can even be done at night.

The next flight realm is Low Level. This usually included altitudes up to 100 feet. You get to that altitude and you're dead meat anywheres within 20 kilometers of the FLOT. You're just asking for trouble when you fly that high. I saw a pair of F15's come down and attack an OH58 that was flying low level on an exercise...them F15 guys had to have been really bored. Anyways this is where you can maintain a pretty constant altitude and airspeed...cruising speeds would be anywheres from 90 to 170 knots depending on the aircraft. But again, in a combat zone, this is a 1 way ticket to the morgue.

FYI, did you know that our AWACS and ADA radar systems in Germany could detect aircraft actually on the roll on runways before they even got into the air. I watched an ADA radar crew detect a pair of MIG25s in Poland as they began takeoff...climb up and head to the border in an attempt to intercept an SR71...hehe...what a joke...I wonder what term is used for "Eat my dust" at 100,000 feet:)

Sabre21




David Heath -> (1/24/2003 6:02:46 AM)

Hi Guys

I just finishing playing the early beta and it is sweat.... Robert was worried but I think this game going to be a surprised to many gamers.

David




jrcar -> (1/24/2003 7:15:19 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by David Heath
[B]Hi Guys

I just finishing playing the early beta and it is sweat.... Robert was worried but I think this game going to be a surprised to many gamers.

David [/B][/QUOTE]


LOL thanks David, now share the bounty around :)

Cheers

Rob




Sabre21 -> (1/24/2003 7:25:48 AM)

I hope it's not too much sweat...but I guess I could use the workout:)


Sabre21




IronManBeta -> (1/24/2003 8:40:43 AM)

Thanks Sabre!

So now I have made the following game changes based on your suggestions:

My two more 'exposed' postures now correspond to Low Level flight, 'stealthy' to contour flying, and 'covered' would be nap of the earth flying. That is not exactly as you described it so eloquently, but it is close enough I think. I will also try out a generic flight speed of 110 kph (up from a rather sedentary 70 kph) and see what happens. I know 110 kph is a little slower than the max possible you suggested but I need to see how the game engine reacts to this before I go any higher. My guess is that by the time reaction fire has been triggered by the helicopter unit, it will have already have moved out of the LOS of the ground unit - a pretty realistic result in most cases I would guess. That was already happening at 70 kph and I didn't know how realistic it was.

I had an elaborate spreadsheet years ago that tried to work out 'virtual protection' scores for WW2 tanks as well as their 'actual protection' scores based on armor thickness and slope, chance of a hit on the various surfaces, etc. The virtual protection idea was that smaller and more agile vehicles were intrinsically harder to hit and therefore had a better battlefield survivability rate then the basic armor rating would otherwise indicate. This helicopter discussion is bringing that all back to mind now.

In response to Byron's earlier question re stumbling over ZSU batteries unexpectedly, YES, this can definitely happen in the game. I like the point too that the helicopters can be moving so close and so fast that it would be largely a matter of luck if a gun could be brought to bear in time. I need to figure out how to model that. Thanks everyone for the great discussion.

Cheers all, Rob.




byron13 -> (2/6/2003 9:23:57 AM)

Ho, hum. So, what's the weather like where you are?




Sabre21 -> (2/6/2003 3:22:22 PM)

You aren't bored now are ya Byron? :) It's freezing here.

Sabre21




jrcar -> (2/6/2003 3:50:54 PM)

Well its 2000hrs here and bloody hot still. No rain on the horizen for another month. We are in the midst of the biggest drought this centuary.

The upside is I'm going surfing for a few days so I can cool down :)

Catch ya on the beta.... I hope :)

Cheers

Rob




byron13 -> (2/6/2003 9:27:48 PM)

Yup, I'm bored. It's like being the SDO and it's 0400.

You know, JR, when the response comes on the beta-testing, you'll have to respond within two hours. If you're out surfing . . . . well, sorry lad. Maybe I'll put in a good word for you even though you're slacking off at the beach. No, probably not.

Actually, this response is grounded in my jealousy. It's a cold, rainy day here, and there's nothing to do but work and look at the Matrix forum. :(




DavidW75 -> (2/6/2003 10:19:20 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jrcar
[B]

The upside is I'm going surfing for a few days so I can cool down :)



[/B][/QUOTE]

No fair....I won't be able to get down to Florida for a couple of more months...catch a wave for me.




jrcar -> (2/7/2003 2:32:35 AM)

I'll be sure to tell you all about it... sun, surf and young women in skimpy clothes (assuming my wife doesn't poke my eyes out!).

Cheers

Rob




byron13 -> (2/7/2003 8:48:50 AM)

Well, at least you get to stare at your wife while she's wearing skimpy clothes. Or is that no reason to go to the beach?




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.65625