I am not necessarily Comparing the ADS to the Apache. I called the ADS, and I quote: "some bastardized version of an attack helicopter and a transport one."

Also, I am comparing the diverse and distinct roles of real life helicopters to the homogenized and indistinct roles of current DUST dropships. -->

I never explicitly called the Apache the equivalent to the current flawed ADS. I am looking at general helicopter types, and the Apache/Mil MI-24 Hind are both fall under "Attack helicopter." (Assault dropship = Attack heli) My use of the Apache was only to personify a real attack helicopter and its very different armaments.

More to the point, many are saying that the ADS SHOULD act like an Apache, and lose the passenger seats for more attack and defensive power.

Certainly the purpose of the Hind is to be an attack helicopter, but it can also carry as many as eight people- that's slightly more than what the current, garden-variety Grimsnes/Myron can handle, and anywhere from 2-4 times what the ADS can carry (depending on turret configuration, or lack thereof).

I'd say that the term 'gunship' is more apt than 'attack helicopter' in the case of the Hind. (certainly both could apply... but that is unimportant).

What is important is figuring out the various roles helicopters play, and transferring those roles to DUST.

In DUST, there are different icons for aircraft sizes (light, medium, and heavy). The icons, for reference.

I believe that the Huey is comparable to the current regular dropships, which are the light variey. We still need to fill the others (medium and heavy).

The Apache, given its small-ish size, higher maneuverability and high firepower, could be translated to the role of an ADS and be classified as a medium aircraft.

The Hind, given its large size, lower comparative maneuverability, high armour, firepower and troop transport capabilities, would translate to a gunship, which would be a heavy aircraft.

There is absolutely no need to limit things based upon the way things currently are. It is not a matter of only having the regular DS and the ADS. There are more options.

Given the above, I'd say that the Apache informing what the ADS becomes is very much appropriate.

The ADS does not act like the Apache, but my point is that it SHOULD. We have a transport DS, we need an attack one. Personally I think the ADS should be light aircraft, small and maneuverable with some firepower but very fragile.

But the point is, regardless of how we use it, CCP has never defined what the ADS, and all vehicles for that matter, are supposed to do. Imagine if there was a dropsuit that kind of had the tank of a sentinel and kind of the ewar of a scout. Too many hats means those hats are all too gimped to be worth it. ADS need one hat to wear, and in my opinion that role should be to attack. Like the Apache.

Prior to the 1.7 Tankpocalypse I was actually working with two types of HAV.

The commonly established 6573 Armour Madrugar - 2x Hardners 1x Repper, and Heavy 180mm Polycrystaline Plating

and a 5015 Light Armoured Scout HAV with Passive Resistances, Duration Based Armour Repper, and Scanners.

The current over simplified system reduced the need for low EHP vehicles when I can have speed, armour, and firepower in one package.

I'd like to see a break down of Vehicles into

LAV- 1 or 2 man rapid terrain traversal units
MAV- Larger, Better armoured Squad sized ground transport units which double as spawners/ mobile bunkers for engaging/supporting infantry
HAV- Bigger, More Expensive, Greater Firepower for taking down Vehicles and Objectives.

As I see it the Cycle Should looks like

Match Begins
* Team A launches LAV to reach objective X first
*Team B responds with Armoured MAV to allow them to push Team A from Objective X
*Team A calls in an HAV to pop the MAV
* Team B responds with LAV mounted AV to destroy the HAV which is not mobile enough to react.