Gunships vs. Mech infantry

The APC still has a machine gun, doesn't it? In my experience as a somewhat decent World in Conflict player back in the day I can assure you that half a dozen APCs will be able to shoot down a single gunship, while you would need ten times as many heavy tanks.

What I remember from my army days is that all APCs had mounts for 12.7mm heavy machine guns called "anti-air machine guns" on the roof.

MyOtherName said:

That unit isn't equipped with ground to air missiles because it's equipped with ground to ground missiles and intended to operate in the presence of close air support, helicopters, and air defense.

Click to expand...

Actually, I wiki'd the missile launcher, and it's good for gunships too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin

This missile also has the ability to engage helicopters in the direct attack mode.

Click to expand...

Wiki isn't the most credible source, (because I could edit that info out of it to support my argument), but I did find the same statement somewhere else' so there you go.

http://www.marines.com/operating-forces/equipment/weapons/javelin-law-at-4-smaw-tow#features

However, the range of a Javelin is ~2500 meters and the range of a Hellfire missile is ~8000 meters. I'd say the Attack Helicopter has the advantage.

http://www.bga-aeroweb.com/Defense/AGM-114-Hellfire-Missile-System.html#specs

elitetroops said:

What I remember from my army days is that all APCs had mounts for 12.7mm heavy machine guns called "anti-air machine guns" on the roof.

Click to expand...

That's a .50 caliber MG right? Now, since you have some experience with APCs, would you feel comfortable/ confident facing down a fully armed attack helicopter with a .50 caliber MG?

I am guessing they'd just out range an APC.

I don't think I'd be comfortable being attacked by an attack helicopter in any situation. But in the OP you are confused why Mech infantry has a chance to intercept air attack. I'd assume those APCs wouldn't be equipped with anti-air guns if it didn't provide at least a chance to intercept air attacks.

After this discussion (and some reading about what can do what).. is Mech. Infantry overpowered in civ4? Or is Gunship underpowered (or just would need upgrade version? I mean.. early Gunships propably were ~24 strength.. with just guns and simple missiles... if add some "behind horizont" missiles or some night/termal vission sensors, it becomes into deadly >30 strenght unit that should be able to kill Modern Armor on open field with more than just 50% chance... And Mech. Infantry pretty much is unit behind war front line.. so if enemy can get that far.. you should be in losing position and Mech. Infantry shouldn't have a strong chance to turn war to other side (like Modern Gunship 32, Mech Infantry 26-28 strenght would be more precise.. with fortify and inside city it should have winning odds.. open field - not)

Edit.. But than I realise that both are very late game units so for most of games that would make no difference.. So I guess - "just some game balance with smaller number of units"

elitetroops said:

I don't think I'd be comfortable being attacked by an attack helicopter in any situation. But in the OP you are confused why Mech infantry has a chance to intercept air attack. I'd assume those APCs wouldn't be equipped with anti-air guns if it didn't provide at least a chance to intercept air attacks.

Click to expand...

Hehe, exactly what I thought about that after I posted it, "would anyone feel comfortable being on the receiving end of an attack helicopter assault?"

Looking at the game stats on Mech Inf. & the info in this thread, javelins AA mg etc., I'd relent and say 20% chance of intercepting an air attack is fair. Plus, interception does not always equal a kill.

However the dynamic that the attack helicopter will lose more often than win, I think, is still a discrepancy.

Imp. Knoedel said:

I really don't get what the fuzz is about. Of course an APC filled with infantry with various weapons has a better chance of shooting back at a helicopter than a main battle tank would have. Of all the faults this game has (suicide archers and siege, crossing a river not taking any extra effort, people being able to to move twice as fast through forests or hilly terrain than flat ground) you go and make a problem of something that's perfectly realistic?

Click to expand...

Sorry to quibble but the helicopter isn't going to fly overhead. It's peering from behind a ridge or other terrain feature just above the horizon and launches its missile(s) from miles away. It's doubtful the crew or passengers of an AFV would even see the missile before it's too late. If--a big if--they spot the helo they might have a chance of firing a wire-guided AT missile (but not a SAM, it's too close to the ground). Better have radar-guided flak around; it can spot the helo and its rapid-fire cannon has a fair chance of shooting it down.

Well, most of the time mech infantry are city defenders, in which case they aren't exactly sitting in APCs waiting for inbound missiles. And to take them out the heli would have to get much closer.

But in any case, I wouldn't think too deeply about real world implications of the combat mechanics in a game where it takes a battleship several years to cross the Atlantic.

a single flyby gunship is ridiculously easy to take out - a single guy with a hand SAM standing under a tree will take it out without ever been seen.

yes its also easy for a group of attacking gunship to attack a large group of people standing in the open, However attacking an entrenched battalion fortified in the field or in the city, armed with few dozen of SAMs would a suicide.

Gunship main purpose to take out tanks and say strategic targets in rough terrain - like radar station.

If you looking for a flying craft capable of engaging ground targets head on - you should look at something like Thunderbolt - its a dedicated ARMORED ground attack aircraft. Its much faster than a gunship to be taken out by a hand held SAM.