AMC in contested landings (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message


Boomer Redleg -> AMC in contested landings (7/21/2014 5:11:43 AM)

In amphibious landings, do AMC help suppress enemy CDs?

I'm guessing that because AMC can only be used in Escort and Cargo\Troop missions you can't really go hunting other merchant TFs - right?





LoBaron -> RE: AMC in contested landings (7/21/2014 5:40:10 AM)

Yes they do, and AMCs can be used in amphibs TFs. Also they can form Surface combat TFs for exactly the reason you cite - to go hunting. Both is possible ingame.


Can it be you are mixing up AMC with ACM?




Boomer Redleg -> RE: AMC in contested landings (7/21/2014 5:46:49 AM)

this is what I was looking at...



[image]local://upfiles/45436/DC0427A0883F4C848BE75F4164C08A91.jpg[/image]

I didn't even try to do a Surface Combat TF after reading the description. Thanks for the suggestion.




jmalter -> RE: AMC in contested landings (7/21/2014 9:58:32 AM)

Unless the AMC is itself carrying troops/supplies, it's prob'ly not the best to accompany a PhibTF.

For PhibTFs, you'll want warships w/ at least 5" or 4.7" armament - DDs, if not CLs or CAs.

When executing an invasion, many ships will expend most of their MA ammo. If your unload lasts longer than one day, you'll want to remove ammo-expended warships (& empty phibs) from the AmphTF & add full-ammo warships (& 2nd-wave forces) to the TF.

IMO, an AMC is best suited for high-speed Transport, & shouldn't be used for amphibious assault.




traskott -> RE: AMC in contested landings (7/21/2014 11:33:03 AM)

Some jap AMCs are great as raiders...




dr.hal -> RE: AMC in contested landings (7/21/2014 2:22:00 PM)

In fact every ship with a gun in the TF helps to suppress enemy fire including the merchant ships if they have armaments. But only warships can conduct bombardment.




Lokasenna -> RE: AMC in contested landings (7/21/2014 2:26:54 PM)

I believe that AMCs have the same unload rate as APs and AKs, so it's good to use them when you don't have access to AKA/APA or LSDs.

Some of the IJN AMCs have some good-size guns, and a couple of the Allied ones are very useful as well. At least one has ASW capability (it's a Q-ship) and several of the Australian/New Zealand AMCs convert to LSI(L) or LSI(M) within the first year or so.




Jorge_Stanbury -> RE: AMC in contested landings (7/21/2014 4:49:50 PM)

As already mentioned, if you want to use a AMC as a raider, simply create a "Surface TF" and it will behave as a cruiser. If you plan to do so, it would be better to put a better captain (more naval, more aggressive skills), as AMCs start with merchant fleet captains.

I would use AMCs during the initial 3-month Japanese amphibious bonus; but I would never bring them "empty". Japan needs as much troop carrying ships as it can get during the centrifugal offensive, and most AMC have at least some marginal capacity. Some even have relatively good capacity (former liners).

After the 3-month bonus... I don't know if I would use them, ideally the requirements for amphibious landings are less and thus less needed. Then I use them as gun carrying *APs






Lokasenna -> RE: AMC in contested landings (7/21/2014 6:02:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

As already mentioned, if you want to use a AMC as a raider, simply create a "Surface TF" and it will behave as a cruiser. If you plan to do so, it would be better to put a better captain (more naval, more aggressive skills), as AMCs start with merchant fleet captains.

I would use AMCs during the initial 3-month Japanese amphibious bonus; but I would never bring them "empty". Japan needs as much troop carrying ships as it can get during the centrifugal offensive, and most AMC have at least some marginal capacity. Some even have relatively good capacity (former liners).

After the 3-month bonus... I don't know if I would use them, ideally the requirements for amphibious landings are less and thus less needed. Then I use them as gun carrying *APs





They become even more important after the bonus expires, as they retain an unload rate of 600 points per turn, since they are commissioned ships. The bonus is listed as 1200 for all AP/AK and xAP/xAK during the bonus period. The regular rate of unload for xA* ships is 250 per turn.

I've always assumed that "per turn" means per unloading phase, and there are 2 of those in each game day.

I used AKs and AMCs exclusively when I invaded SW Australia against Bullwinkle. I lost a handful but they were worth it. 1.5 days of unloading means you can get all of the troops ashore, plus plenty of supply for the attack, with 1800 total points of unload.




witpqs -> RE: AMC in contested landings (7/21/2014 6:11:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

As already mentioned, if you want to use a AMC as a raider, simply create a "Surface TF" and it will behave as a cruiser. If you plan to do so, it would be better to put a better captain (more naval, more aggressive skills), as AMCs start with merchant fleet captains.

I would use AMCs during the initial 3-month Japanese amphibious bonus; but I would never bring them "empty". Japan needs as much troop carrying ships as it can get during the centrifugal offensive, and most AMC have at least some marginal capacity. Some even have relatively good capacity (former liners).

After the 3-month bonus... I don't know if I would use them, ideally the requirements for amphibious landings are less and thus less needed. Then I use them as gun carrying *APs





They become even more important after the bonus expires, as they retain an unload rate of 600 points per turn, since they are commissioned ships. The bonus is listed as 1200 for all AP/AK and xAP/xAK during the bonus period. The regular rate of unload for xA* ships is 250 per turn.

I've always assumed that "per turn" means per unloading phase, and there are 2 of those in each game day.

Yes, in that section of the manual "per turn" should have read "per phase", as you say there are two phases per day (and turns can be one or more days anyway depending on player option selected). That was an error in the manual that the developers pointed out.
quote:



I used AKs and AMCs exclusively when I invaded SW Australia against Bullwinkle. I lost a handful but they were worth it. 1.5 days of unloading means you can get all of the troops ashore, plus plenty of supply for the attack, with 1800 total points of unload.





Jorge_Stanbury -> RE: AMC in contested landings (7/21/2014 6:23:56 PM)

Is it confirmed by developers that AMC = navalized AKs/ APs?

instead of xAKs/ xAPs ?
if so, they are very valuable after the 3-month early bonus period.
second only to the few LSDs available




witpqs -> RE: AMC in contested landings (7/21/2014 7:19:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

Is it confirmed by developers that AMC = navalized AKs/ APs?

instead of xAKs/ xAPs ?
if so, they are very valuable after the 3-month early bonus period.
second only to the few LSDs available


I do vaguely remember that but I'm not 100% certain. Try using Google with

site:matrixgames.com

in front of your search term. It finds things better than the forum search.




witpqs -> RE: AMC in contested landings (7/21/2014 7:20:56 PM)

Found this:
quote:


Don Bowen -> RE: Japanese unload (amphib) bonus (1/8/2012 12:14:07 PM)


AMc are naval transport types - same grouping as AP.

Don Bowen is an AE developer.




witpqs -> RE: AMC in contested landings (7/21/2014 7:22:30 PM)

That previous post by Don seems to have had a typo (AMc versus AMC). This one is more definitive:
quote:




Message

Q-Ball -> AMCs (2/14/2013 3:35:31 PM)

Quick question: How are AMCs treated for unload rate purposes? Are they the equivalent of navalized AP - AK (as opposed to xAP or xAK?)

While on the subject, how to other use them?

As Allies, I noticed they are the only vessel other than APD that can fast transport troops; have you used that?

As Japan, I usually used them as extra landing ships/escorts; I didn't typically raid with them

Greyjoy did some raiding against me, and had some success, though the main problem with them is the low crew ratings. They get pasted by a warship.



Lokasenna -> RE: AMCs (2/14/2013 4:03:07 PM)

This is something I've wondered as well...



Don Bowen -> RE: AMCs (2/14/2013 6:01:35 PM)


Yes, AMC are transport ships for purposes of load/unload. They have the same rates as an AP.




Jorge_Stanbury -> RE: AMC in contested landings (7/21/2014 8:08:47 PM)

Thanks!!




rustysi -> RE: AMC in contested landings (7/21/2014 9:14:02 PM)

quote:

Unless the AMC is itself carrying troops/supplies, it's prob'ly not the best to accompany a PhibTF.

For PhibTFs, you'll want warships w/ at least 5" or 4.7" armament - DDs, if not CLs or CAs.


Just an FYI, Japanese AMC's are armed with 14cm (~5.5") and 15cm (~6") guns.[X(]




Lokasenna -> RE: AMC in contested landings (7/21/2014 9:30:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

Unless the AMC is itself carrying troops/supplies, it's prob'ly not the best to accompany a PhibTF.

For PhibTFs, you'll want warships w/ at least 5" or 4.7" armament - DDs, if not CLs or CAs.


Just an FYI, Japanese AMC's are armed with 14cm (~5.5") and 15cm (~6") guns.[X(]


And a few have torpedoes and float plane capability. Pretty much slower, unarmored cruisers. Very nice ships.




LoBaron -> RE: AMC in contested landings (7/21/2014 10:05:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Found this:
quote:


Don Bowen -> RE: Japanese unload (amphib) bonus (1/8/2012 12:14:07 PM)


AMc are naval transport types - same grouping as AP.

Don Bowen is an AE developer.


Thats hilarious, becaus AMc are coastal minesweepers. [:-][:D]




rustysi -> RE: AMC in contested landings (7/21/2014 10:15:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Found this:
quote:


Don Bowen -> RE: Japanese unload (amphib) bonus (1/8/2012 12:14:07 PM)


AMc are naval transport types - same grouping as AP.

Don Bowen is an AE developer.


Thats hilarious, becaus AMc are coastal minesweepers. [:-][:D]


Prolly a typo.[:D]




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.78125