Helicopters Stabilization

[michaelk]

Hi all,

If this has already been answered my apologies. I am unable to locate the stabilization number S1 or S2 for example for helicopters.

[Big Insect]

Hi - (not got my rule-book with me) but the S1 & S2 stabilization impacts for Helicopters are the same as those for AFVs. Once I am back home (in a couple of weeks time) I'll find the specific page numbers.
Cheers
Mark

[michaelk]

Thanks.. I saw that the impact was the same, and that Helos are impacted, I just can't find the acutal statistics in the army lists I have reviewed.

I will use S1 for US and S2 for Soviet Warsaw for the timebeing.

Thanks again.

[Big Insect]

Thanks.. I saw that the impact was the same, and that Helos are impacted, I just can't find the acutal statistics in the army lists I have reviewed.

I will use S1 for US and S2 for Soviet Warsaw for the timebeing.

Thanks again.

If a unit stat doesn't have S1 or S2 in the lists* then it is not fully stabilized.
So must remain static to shoot (e.g. it is considered to be hovering in the turn it fires).
*Do check the on-line lists, as against the printed book-lists, as the online ones have been updated with errata & are usually more accurate and up to date.

Thanks
Mark

[michaelk]

Thanks much. I have reviewed the online stats. It must by my American bias at work and a case of me wanting things to support my own conclusions and not those of the rules writers. I do see stabilization stats for British helos not for Americans or Russian. I shall play as written!!! Again thanks.

[Big Insect]

Thanks much. I have reviewed the online stats. It must by my American bias at work and a case of me wanting things to support my own conclusions and not those of the rules writers. I do see stabilization stats for British helos not for Americans or Russian. I shall play as written!!! Again thanks.

Hi Michaelk
There should be no UK rules bias (honest  ) - I'll review the stats.

Stabilization shouldn't have much of an effect other than when using certain weapon types.
You cannot shoot most ATGW weapons from a moving helicopter - so weapon stabilization is irrelevant for that.
Whilst yes, technically it is possible to shoot ATGWs on the move, it just wasn't done (even with wireless weapons) it's just too hard to keep the missile locked on target & avoid the chopper being shot down.
With later (post Cold War) 'Fire & Forget' weapons Stabilization should be standard in the lists (I will double check that) and you can fire them on the move.

For most helicopters shooting non-ATGW weapons - HMGs, Cannon, Rocket-pods stabilization makes very little difference to the weapons performance. Even with weapons such as manual nose cannon gunners in Soviet Hinds or Apache 30mm chain guns (which can automatically track a target) they are just part of an overall weapons package (usually including rocket pods - which are not auto-tracking) and CWCII doesn't separate those weapons out*. Again, the aim here is game balance. As I've stated in another recent thread - the rules (which are primarily designed for pre-1990 weaponry/technology) also need to represent the actual use of Helicopter gunships in reality. Vietnam, Afghanistan and both Gulf Wars (& Syria and now Ukraine) demonstrated that whilst helicopters were great in specific roles, they were not really that effective over a busy AA rich battlefront. I use mine in hit & run strikes or flank attacks. Keeping them on-table for too long usually means their destruction.
All the combat data shows that they were really not the 'uber weapons us gamers would like them to be. They were highly vulnerable, and actually fairly limited in numbers and usually used with extreme caution and care 
 
NB: If you want really 'uber battlefront table-top flyers, maybe playing Future War Commander might be a fun addition to your gaming repertoire    You've got flyers with multiple weapons, shields, stealth camo and exotic armour and weaponary, mostly with stabilized weapons (some of them even with pulse energy weapons & teleportation)         

I hope all that helps?
Cheers
Mark

[michaelk]

Definitely not suggesting bias. I was imagine that the author and brain trust knew more than I about the subject.

I played CWC for many years and am now very much enjoying CWC2.

I have found as I play other rule sets that I bring my own bias, based on playing other games or reading history or personal experience to a rule set. I end up bending the rules, unintentionally to my ideas. To counter this I am trying to be a rules purist thereby trying to play what an author is attempting to model. My view is that the author has done the research and game testing so trust in them. As always thanks for the response.