Unless I missed a post, has anyone noticed that the Gunship gets a penalty for attacking across a river? If it flies, it shouldn't get any bonuses/penalties whatsoever. So, in regards to the OP, if they get a penalty for attacking across a river, they should be able to get a bonus for using railroads.
Gunship does NOT benefit from railroad, why?
- Thread starter Viperace
- Start date
Some of you seem a bit confused about gunships and helicopters. Helicopters are not that fast and have poor range. Thats why the movement is not super far. Apaches do about 180mph and have a range of about 300miles.
Also tanks can and have (in wargames) shoot down helicopters. Shells travel faster then missiles, travelling a few 1000 metres in a matter of seconds and a helicopter hovering or even one moving which is not making evasive manouvers can quite easily be shot down with a tank cannon.
Also the Machine guns on the commanders position on most tanks will take down most any attack helo at close range (500 metres or so).
So tank vs chopper is not as clear cut as games make out, specially not chopper games where you take out 100's of tanks !!
As for packing one onto a train it takes time and a lot of effort. They have to be stripped of many parts, including rotors, sometimes wings ect. Then rebuilt at the other end and checked. Though the game turn does last a year though. I think its cool as it is as attack helo's are very powerfull in game already cept when people try to use them to attack fortified cities lol..
Also tanks can and have (in wargames) shoot down helicopters. Shells travel faster then missiles, travelling a few 1000 metres in a matter of seconds and a helicopter hovering or even one moving which is not making evasive manouvers can quite easily be shot down with a tank cannon.
Also the Machine guns on the commanders position on most tanks will take down most any attack helo at close range (500 metres or so).
So tank vs chopper is not as clear cut as games make out, specially not chopper games where you take out 100's of tanks !!
As for packing one onto a train it takes time and a lot of effort. They have to be stripped of many parts, including rotors, sometimes wings ect. Then rebuilt at the other end and checked. Though the game turn does last a year though. I think its cool as it is as attack helo's are very powerfull in game already cept when people try to use them to attack fortified cities lol..
MarcAntiny
Arrghh!
Thank you for the insight... at least that answer that question... Rebase would then, therefore be a great idea...atc_chief said:
Zhahz
PC Gamer
CorruptAssassin said:
Yeah but, you can't put a gunship on a carrier - they're transported the same as ground troops. Gunships can't "fly" over water - they're limited as ground troops. SAM and interceptors have no affect on gunships because they're treated as ground troops (cavalry, actually).
But when it comes to rail or large scale noncombat movement in your territory gunships are treated differently - neither ground nor air.
I like the rebase option myself, perhaps limited to same continent only.
Raggamuffin
Warlord
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2003
- Messages
- 244
snepp said:
No they don't. I lose one for every two or three tanks I kill. Against Modern Armor they're not a viable option. And they're not a super-pillager either since they are so easy to kill with other units.
In Civ3, I modded in a Gunship for the epic game and game it the Stealth ability, short range and loadable (didn't have the transport limitaiton that the Helicopter had due to no hold--a really irritating limitation Firaxis added to prevent people from loading troops onto Carriers by using air transports).
Should have the same options in Civ4 but without the hardcoded limitations.
Should have the same options in Civ4 but without the hardcoded limitations.
snepp
King
Did you intentionally ignore the points made in my post? I made a pretty clear distiction between the tank and the modern armor.Palantir30 said:
snepp said:
I consider even odds viable, especially given the gunship's innate withdraw ability. You kill more tanks than tanks kill your gunships, yet they're useless? Fine, mod the gunship to have 100 strength, 20 movement, 100% withdraw, and a bonus vs every unit type. Heck, why not just open the world builder and delete every enemy unit that you would have attacked with a gunship.Raggamuffin said:
Helicopters are easily transported in real life by trains and planes, (broken down in to smaller parts then rebuilt at there destintation), i think they should also be as strong if not stronger than any armoured unit in the game as in real life they dominate the battlefield but the movement should remain as 4 as this reflects there low radius of operation in real life so i think a rebase option would be the most logical
c-mattio
Chieftain
Dominico said:
Actually, no. Just checked. They cruise at 150knts, which is about 280mph, much faster than a cargo train. Their range is 250miles with only internal fuel, but increases to about 1,200miles with external fuel load. The hellfire missile (anti-tank) has a range of 8000m, so it could take out a tank without worrying about its retaliation (from the tank anyway). Transport options are by road or air NOT rail.... Therefore...
Should be slightly better against armour (say +125%), movement stays at 4 (maybe 5), get road benefit but not rail benefit and not rebase (short range). And IIRC they can be airlifted. Also, vunerable to AA and fighters, no river penalty, limited sea travel (coastal), travel on carriers. If we want it realistic
Source: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ah-64.htm
Dominico said:
Surely riflemen are stronger than musketmen as they have faster rate of fire, greater accuracy, higher penetrance projectile...
snepp
King
Discussing the Apache is irrelevant, because the unit in the game is the Cobra.
Tarkhan
King
details, details. Now I know why they called it the generic "Gunship". 
And why tanks are simply called "Armor" instead of Panzer or whatnot.
And why tanks are simply called "Armor" instead of Panzer or whatnot.snepp
King
Tarkhan said:details, details. Now I know why they called it the generic "Gunship".
You're right, but it can make for interesting discussion, sometimes educational, and many times your typical pissing contest.After some testing last night, I have found some fact about Gunship. U guys probably know some of them:
1. They don't benefit from railroad... (this is the whole point of the thread
)
2. Cannot cross ocean.
3. They KILL tank - (20 + 100% = 40 VS 28 )
They can stand against modern armor! ( 1 to 1 chance)
*Gunship get 100% bonus VS armor (tank and modern armour) but NOT mechanized infantry
4. Can be loaded into transport
5. They get -50% penalty if doing amphibous attack directly from the transport
lame..i thought they fly
6. Penalty for attack for crossing river, again... lame
7. Cannot be loaded into carrier
8. With 4 movement point in enemy territory, they can pillage twice.Move->pillage->move->pillage.
Something is seriously wrong with this beautiful unit, the attack penalty doesn't seems right.
GIVE THEM AN "AMPHIBOUS" PROMOTION PLEASE!
Furthur Mod suggestion:
-benefit from railroad
-free amphibous promotion
-can be transported by carrier AND transport
-limited movement across ocean
1. They don't benefit from railroad... (this is the whole point of the thread
)2. Cannot cross ocean.
3. They KILL tank - (20 + 100% = 40 VS 28 )
They can stand against modern armor! ( 1 to 1 chance)
*Gunship get 100% bonus VS armor (tank and modern armour) but NOT mechanized infantry
4. Can be loaded into transport
5. They get -50% penalty if doing amphibous attack directly from the transport
lame..i thought they fly6. Penalty for attack for crossing river, again... lame
7. Cannot be loaded into carrier
8. With 4 movement point in enemy territory, they can pillage twice.Move->pillage->move->pillage.
Something is seriously wrong with this beautiful unit, the attack penalty doesn't seems right.
GIVE THEM AN "AMPHIBOUS" PROMOTION PLEASE!
Furthur Mod suggestion:
-benefit from railroad
-free amphibous promotion
-can be transported by carrier AND transport
-limited movement across ocean
Runriot
Chieftain
Just to keep things in perspective. Here are 4 of the most used attack helo's from around the world. Info from www.fas.orgDjc said:
**AH-1W Huey SuperCobra
Specifications
Contractor: Bell Helicopter TEXTRON, Inc, General Electric, Kollsman Inc.
Power Plant: Two General Electric T700-GE-401 Turboshaft engines
Each engine delivers 1,690 horsepower.
Accommodations: Two seats, in tandem (pilot in rear, copilot/gunner in front)
Performance: Climb rate: 1,925 feet per minute
Maximum altitude: 14,750 feet
Maximum attainable speed: 170 knots (195 mph)
Maximum cruising speed: 152 knots (173 mph)
Countermeasures: AN/ALE-39 Chaff system and SUU-4/1 Flare dispensers
Armament: One M197 three barrel 20 mm gun (mounted under the nose with 750 round ammo container)
Underwing attachments for four TOW missiles, eight Hellfire missiles, or one AIM-9L Sidewinder missile
Can also be equipped with Zuni rocket launchers (2.75" FFAR's)
**AH-64D Apache Longbow
Specifications
Contractors Boeing McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Systems(Mesa, AZ)
General Electric (Lynn, MA)
Martin Marietta (Orlando, FL)
Propulsion Two T700-GE-701Cs
Crew Two
AH-64A AH-64D
Length 58.17 ft (17.73 m) 58.17 ft (17.73 m)
Height 15.24 ft (4.64 m) 13.30 ft (4.05 m)
Wing Span 17.15 ft (5.227 m) 17.15 ft (5.227 m)
11,800 pounds Empty 16,027 lb (7270 kg) Lot 1 Weight
Maximum Level Flight Speed 150 kt (279 kph)
[Sea Level Standard Day]
153 kt (284 kph)
Range 400 km - internal fuel
1,900 km - internal and external fuel
**SA341 Gazelle
Specifications
Country of Origin France & UK
Builder AEROSPATIALE, WESTLAND
Date of Introduction 1973
Role General utility
Blades Main rotor: 3
Tail rotor: 13 (fenestron enclosed in tail)
Rotor diameter Main Rotor Diameter: 10.5 meters
Tail Rotor Diameter: 0.7 meters
Length rotors turning: 11.9 meters
fuselage: 9.5 metres
Height 3.1 meters
Width 2.0 meters
Cargo Compartment Dimensions (m) Floor Length: 2.2 Width: 1.3 Height: 1.2
Standard Payload (kg) Internal load: 750
External on sling only: 700
Transports 3 troops or 1 litter, or cargo
Weight (kg) Maximum Gross: 1,800 (SA 341), 1,900 (SA 342K), 2,000 (SA 342L/M)
Normal Takeoff: 1,800
Empty: 998
Engines 1x 590-shp Turbomeca Astazou IIIB turboshaft
Fuel (liters) Internal: 445
Internal Aux Tank: 90
Additional Internal Aux Tank: 200
Range (km) Normal Load: 670 (SA 341), 735 (SA 342)
Speed (km/h) Maximum (level): 310
Cruise: 270
**MI-24 HIND
Specifications
Country of Origin Russia
Builder MIL
Date of Introduction 1976 (HIND D)
Role Assault, gunship, antitank
Similar Aircraft AH-1 Cobra (all models), UH-60 Black Hawk, AH-64 Apache, Mangusta A129
Blades Main rotor: 5
Tail rotor: 3
Rotor diameter Main Rotor : 17.3 meters
Tail Rotor: 3.9 meters
Wing span 6.5 meters
Length Length : 21.6 m (rotors turning)
Length : 17.5 m (fuselage)
Height 13 ft., 11 in.
6.5 meters (gear extended)
Cargo Compartment Dimensions Floor Length: 2.5 meters
Width: 1.5 meters
Height: 1.2 meters
Weight Maximum Gross: 11,500 kg
Normal Takeoff: 11,100 kg
Empty: 8,500 kg
Fuel Internal: 1,840 liters
Internal Aux Tank (in cabin): 1,227 liters
External Fuel Tank: 500 liters ea.
Engine 2 x 2,200 shp Isotov TV-3-117 turbines
Maximum speed 168 mph / 335 km/h
Cruising speed 295 km/h
Range Normal Load: 450 km
With Aux Fuel: 950 km
CorruptAssassin
Chieftain
we're getting all caught up it too much detail people...
I think having the gunship move over a certain number of sea squares (dont know how this would be implemented), transportable by the Aircraft Carrier, and recieve a bonus from rain tracks, it could work well.
O, and amphibious is a good idea too
I think having the gunship move over a certain number of sea squares (dont know how this would be implemented), transportable by the Aircraft Carrier, and recieve a bonus from rain tracks, it could work well.
O, and amphibious is a good idea too
Jazz_Newton
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Messages
- 100
I think amphibious is a must, but I don't think the rebase is a good idea.
If you put in rebase, then in MP people WILL spam gunships, and they WILL swarm you with them as soon as you cross the border into their territory. Tanks will become completely useless as an offensive weapon because players will have that many gunships that they'll be able to tear through your meatshield and not care about the losses. In summary, giving gunships rebase will make them the only unit in the game that replicates CIV3's infinite rails movement - and none of us want to go back there.
I think airlift is sufficient from a balance standpoint. If you're that badly organised that you get caught without anti-tank support when you're being invaded by tanks, the laws of game balance say you HAVE to pay the price for that. Assuming you have 3 cities near the point where you are invaded, that's three gunships you can move into the warzone each turn, in addition to any that are already stationed there.
If you put in rebase, then in MP people WILL spam gunships, and they WILL swarm you with them as soon as you cross the border into their territory. Tanks will become completely useless as an offensive weapon because players will have that many gunships that they'll be able to tear through your meatshield and not care about the losses. In summary, giving gunships rebase will make them the only unit in the game that replicates CIV3's infinite rails movement - and none of us want to go back there.
I think airlift is sufficient from a balance standpoint. If you're that badly organised that you get caught without anti-tank support when you're being invaded by tanks, the laws of game balance say you HAVE to pay the price for that. Assuming you have 3 cities near the point where you are invaded, that's three gunships you can move into the warzone each turn, in addition to any that are already stationed there.
Similar threads
