Helicopters

[Whiskey Priest]

Can anyone give me a reason to build helicopters?
It's nice that they cna see subs but beyond that it seems almost useless. Any job you give it can be performed better with another unit.

 

[Smash]

They are good units,they are just way too expensive to build.100 sheilds.Howie is only 70.20 more and you have a bomber.Thats always been my problem with them,Could never justify 100 sheilds.And they have poor defense,
100 sheilds,use it once..goodbye chopper.No thanks.

 

[The Shargon]

Thye should be able to carry one unit or something. And i really hate when computer uses them. Always sending them to my territories just like damn hower tanks in AC. Maybe they are good units when u are in peace and just patrolling.

 

[starlifter]

It is implied in Smash's thread, but I'll state it explicitly... Helicopter are so weak on defense, particularly because land units can attack them and fighters get the 2X attack bonus. Helos are dead meat in a modern battlefield.

That said, there are three times when helos might be more than expensive useless weapons.

1. Sub patrols in an AI naval game. A helo can accompany a transport, or naval task force and spot/attack subs, plus keep a 2X eye out for enemy ships. But remember, subs can easily "sink" helicopters, though!! LOL...

2. Collecting Intel/Capturing cities. If a city is beyond the range of your paratroopers, like inland a few tiles from your task force, you can use the helo to fly in and capture a city after your fighters/bombers/missiles clear the AI city.

3. Helos can suppress partisan creation. When capturing a big enemy city, and you are preventing partisans, helos can easily block terrain... particularly difficult unroaded terrain and/or terrain that can't be reached (e.g., across a narrow channel).

The clincher for me in not using Helos is a combination of their single attack per turn, slow movement (only 6), high cost, constant deterioriation, and.... drumroll... the unhappiness they cause in a Democracy. Since they can't be transported by rail for some silly reason, moving them to another city to balance things is difficult.

So for me, I don't like choppers, and rarely build them. The only unit I build less is bombers, which is almost never. Except for stealth bombers (which is of course never).

 

[slothman]

I sometimes build a few heliocopters (suncopters?) because they can go over 6 squares of land and water. You can put them in edge cities to attack barbarians faster than land. If you have roads or rails then they probably aren't as usuful. I build bombers and stealth for similar reasons. I can attack over non-railed terrain.

 

[Sodak]

If you build them, don't send them out alone - use them in groups of 3 or 4. You can, in one turn, empty and capture an enemy city. Remember, air units ignore city walls! Also, if the enemy has not discovered flight, they are very strong units. They are excellent units for a front wave attack on a large world, particularly with much water to cross. They can clear out piles of defenders while you sail in the land units or carry in the bombers.

In sum, they are an excellent support unit for your core force - but not all that grand on their own.

 

[starlifter]

by Sodak: If you build them, don't send them out alone - use them in groups of 3 or 4. You can, in one turn, empty and capture an enemy city. Remember, air units ignore city walls!

And here is a bonus... if you attack from water, a city without walls will not lose population as you defeat the city defenders! BTW, this will work for ANY unit attacking from the water, and is not a special chopper characteristic. Note: the chopper won't supress partisan formation (if that is a factor) if it is in the water.

 

[catullus]

Originally posted by slothman
I sometimes build a few heliocopters (suncopters?)

Just to nitpick:
It's not heliOcopter. Name not related to sun. I guess heli- comes from helix (spiral).

C.

 

[WUM]

i only use the heli´s for conquering an overseas enemy-city. After that i bring in my land-troops to conquer the other cities on the continent.
Most of the time i attack my first city of a continent by battleships, though.

 

[Jorge]

Starlifter, are you joking when you say that never use bombers????

 

[slothman]

I know I always use them. I just realized that a stealth bomber can fight a mech inf. and win even behind a SAM battery. Plus they look cool. And yes I know about heli-copters without the o - I just like adding extra letters to words or wordls.

 

[The Last Conformist]

If anyone cares, "helicopter" properly divides as "helico-pter". The first bit is from "helix", the second from Greek pteron "wing".

 

[starlifter]

Starlifter, are you joking when you say that never use bombers???

When I first got Civ 2 and began playing it 2 years ago, I built a few bombers ust before the game that is in TF's HOF. I was not an early trade/democracy guy at the time, so unhappiness was not an issue... but I quickly realized that in a competitive game with the AI, the bombers just get shot down after bombing a city. CMs are better and have more range, and half the price.

Nowadays, even in an all-out war with evenly matched sides, I don't build bombers... it is vet fighters, spies, and howies all the way, with vet BB support when necessary. I hav never built a stealth bomber in any game, ever.... except using cheat mode when doing tests on things. I would probably destroy my computer in frustration if a stealth was shot down. Plus, the unhappiness.... I always fight in Democracy. Bombers are just too weak, compared to other Civ II units... vet Stealth Fighters can pretty much rule the world, except I never use them to punch thru a well defended city that has a SAAM.

But no, absoultely not... I don't build bombers of any sort in my games. If the game is "even", teh bombers get shot down. If I have the advantage, they are a waste compared to other methods. If I am behind, stealing tech and making Vet Howies/BBs will even things up quick. If I am waaaay behind, vet spies (from prior dirty deeds) will nuke the world until the game is more even.

But there are many fine approaches to the game... in mine, i just have no use for bombers at all (however, if I played MP, I might use them in the "bomber pile" trick that Smash and others have talked about).

 

[slothman]

In my current game I use them because I can't get ground units to my forces as quickly. Since I can build several in 2 moves, even if they are shout down, I can get more. If you use them far away from enemy cities them being attacked is les likely. Plus the problem with CM's is that they can be defended against with SDI's. Which makes them really bad unless you have many. Since they cause the same unhappiness then the only advantage is that they might be cheaper. It also depends on then enemy science. If they don't have flight then bombers are a real good deal. I may lose them pretty quickly though in MP. I only play SP as I don't have the right version.

 

[The Last Conformist]

One advantage with Bombers over CMs is that they don't require Rocketry to build.

 

[starlifter]

by Slothman:

... Since they cause the same unhappiness then the only advantage is that they might be cheaper.

True, but not the only advantage.

Bombers are a better deal than CMs, if the bombers survive for about 3 turns. But CMs can pretty much punch through any regular defenses, esp. vet CMs. If a CM is not getting the job done, a bomber is sure to die and not inflict as much damage as the CM .

by The Last Conformist:

One advantage with Bombers over CMs is that they don't require Rocketry to build

That is a good point!

If no one is doing science in the game, like in a fundamentalist fight, this could open up a "window" of tech superority. Normally, I am researching at least one advance per turn, though... and some times as much as three per turn, so this superiority gap would be closed after one or two game turns. But if the AI was nowhere near even flight, bombers are pretty much invulnerable. They certainly can't be attacked if the enemy does not have flight (or rocketry or stealth).

But I personally never build bombers because a few turns later, I usually have Stealth (and then build lots of Stealth Fighters!).

 

[jc011]

you know what i think,
i think that choppers should be able to hold the paratroopers, and from the helicopter, the paratroops should be able to paradrop 10 space radius from the helicopter their in.
what do you think abou this?

 

[starlifter]

i think that choppers should be able to hold the paratroopers, and from the helicopter, the paratroops should be able to paradrop 10 space radius from the helicopter their in.
what do you think abou this?

I think it woud be reasonable for a chopper to carry two units. paratroopers to drop in a 3 square radius crom the chopper, not ten .

 

[jc011]

okay maybe 10 is a lot for a paratrooper , but they have those other ones with the wings that can fly far distances, perhaps aeronautics(spelled?), should be another tech to allow this unit.

 

[Sodak]

The real downside to a chopper carrying someone is that the game does not allow air units to carry anybody. That would definitely make for some interesting unit use, to be sure. Alas...