To 'AG' or - not to 'AG'? That is a question... (Full Version)

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



Message

Gunner98 -> To 'AG' or - not to 'AG'? That is a question... (10/8/2021 1:25:11 AM)

As the allies there are quite a few cargo ships that will convert to AG. It takes a couple weeks to convert and you lose cargo capacity.

Is it worth it? All - none - some?

Thanks for any advice



BBfanboy -> RE: To 'AG' or - not to 'AG'? That is a question... (10/8/2021 3:07:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

As the allies there are quite a few cargo ships that will convert to AG. It takes a couple weeks to convert and you lose cargo capacity.

Is it worth it? All - none - some?

Thanks for any advice

I haven't found that I needed to convert more than about 8 xAKs to AGs. Their biggest use is reloading ASW ships that used up their depth charges, so it is good to scatter them around your convoy routes to be close to the action there. But ADs and AKEs/AEs can also provide depth charges and I convert a lot of them because they can also handle gun ammo and torpedoes for larger ships and subs.
The AG can also assist somewhat with repairs of small ships, but it doesn't take a very big port to repair the small fry either.



Nomad -> RE: To 'AG' or - not to 'AG'? That is a question... (10/8/2021 4:21:36 AM)

I don't make any, I use AKEs for rearming.



Maallon -> RE: To 'AG' or - not to 'AG'? That is a question... (10/8/2021 7:02:44 AM)

I never convert them, until now I never had the problem that I would run out of auxiliary ships.
If you loose a lot of them or distribute them widely, then it can be worthwhile to convert some.

As BBfanboy wrote, AEs and AKEs are far more useful than AGs and I personally also use AGs only for ASW reloading.



CaptBeefheart -> RE: To 'AG' or - not to 'AG'? That is a question... (10/8/2021 8:18:28 AM)

I'll convert a few, but I'm not sure if they help or not. I'll include one of them with ADs, AKEs, etc. at forward bases. It probably doesn't hurt to convert some as the cargo hit isn't too bad.

I might be playing sub-optimally as I never pay attention to ASW reloading. That said, if I were to play against a human, it would make sense to keep the escorts loaded with depth charges. The computer isn't very effective at using its subs.

Cheers,
CB



HansBolter -> RE: To 'AG' or - not to 'AG'? That is a question... (10/8/2021 10:00:20 AM)

I station one at every major port to serve the small craft so that other types like AKEs can concentrate on serving larger craft.

Ignoring the purpose they serve, while a personal preference, is one I choose not to pursue. Just as I choose not to ignore the purpose of replenishment carriers and replenishment air squadrons.

There is only a VERY SMALL downside to having converted more of them than you have a use for as they can still carry cargo, just slightly less.



btd64 -> RE: To 'AG' or - not to 'AG'? That is a question... (10/8/2021 10:14:05 AM)

I use the ones that I have. I don't convert any. Normally....GP



RangerJoe -> RE: To 'AG' or - not to 'AG'? That is a question... (10/8/2021 11:37:30 AM)

They can also instantly load while not even being docked. I think but I have never sandboxed this that they can help load the smaller AA ammo for larger ships, at least that they appeared to do so.



BBfanboy -> RE: To 'AG' or - not to 'AG'? That is a question... (10/8/2021 12:05:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

I station one at every major port to serve the small craft so that other types like AKEs can concentrate on serving larger craft.

Ignoring the purpose they serve, while a personal preference, is one I choose not to pursue. Just as I choose not to ignore the purpose of replenishment carriers and replenishment air squadrons.

There is only a VERY SMALL downside to having converted more of them than you have a use for as they can still carry cargo, just slightly less.


In case the OP had the IJN in mind, we should point out that the replies so far apply to the Allied side which has lots of xAKs and no shortage of supply after the first year or so. Converting lots to AGs does not hurt the Allies much. I haven't played the Japanese side enough to know details, but I know they are constantly short on supply and shipping and have a lot more PBs and other small combatants to service at poorly developed bases.



WEXF -> RE: To 'AG' or - not to 'AG'? That is a question... (10/8/2021 1:21:37 PM)

I do convert the Transmarine Class cargo ships. The AG has a 3" gun and upgraded AA (20>41) so if the AG runs into an enemy sub while transporting supply (only reduced from 3200>2650) the sub will have to use torpedoes instead of just engaging on the surface with a deck gun. The 3" gun is not great but it is a good counter weapon against the deck guns of most of the early Japanese subs. The 20mm AA guns that are also added are better than the M2 MG on the cargo ship.
Not big things but they can help.
WEXF



Moltrey -> RE: To 'AG' or - not to 'AG'? That is a question... (10/13/2021 8:40:26 PM)

To follow what WEXF said, I tend to convert some of both the small and large US xAK ships to AGs. Mostly for their added firepower in a convoy AAA role.
Might be a drop in the proverbial Pacific bucket, but every little bit helps. There are enough AK classes for the Allies that I believe it is worth doing to some degree.



Gunner98 -> RE: To 'AG' or - not to 'AG'? That is a question... (10/13/2021 8:54:46 PM)

Thanks for all the advice guys! Very helpful



WEXF -> RE: To 'AG' or - not to 'AG'? That is a question... (10/13/2021 9:29:47 PM)

I don't convert the larger xAK as they already have a 4" gun and the converted AG has only a 3" gun. The increased AA is a positive but IMO does not represent enough to make the change. The small xAK has no main gun at all, which is why I do convert them. I do agree that this is a small point, but the small points are what makes this game so much fun.
WEXF



Yaab -> RE: To 'AG' or - not to 'AG'? That is a question... (10/26/2021 7:02:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WEXF

I do convert the Transmarine Class cargo ships. The AG has a 3" gun and upgraded AA (20>41) so if the AG runs into an enemy sub while transporting supply (only reduced from 3200>2650) the sub will have to use torpedoes instead of just engaging on the surface with a deck gun. The 3" gun is not great but it is a good counter weapon against the deck guns of most of the early Japanese subs. The 20mm AA guns that are also added are better than the M2 MG on the cargo ship.
Not big things but they can help.
WEXF


Yep, the MGs (0.303 inchh/7.7mm; 0.5inch/12/7mm ) on xAKs almost do no shooting when a ship is attacked by enemy aircraft. On the other hand, the 20mm guns DO shoot. The only downside of the conversion is ships VP value which jumps from 2 to 5-6 points. If you use AG aggresively in forward areas, the Japs may score more VPs for your sunk AG ships.



WEXF -> RE: To 'AG' or - not to 'AG'? That is a question... (10/26/2021 2:02:35 PM)

True. The Transmarine conversion raises the VP cost from 6>12. Everything is a tradeoff.
Looking at it in another way, clearly the "game" values the AG higher than the xAK.
WEXF



Zeckke -> RE: To 'AG' or - not to 'AG'? That is a question... (10/26/2021 3:41:15 PM)

try to get Pearl Harbour just at the beguining, dont be afraid of mines, dont be afraid of inches, but be afraid of AGS at surface combats

remark (to get PH must send the entire fleet japan dont miss any DDS japan

yeah¡ does AGs are terribles

THE AI LOVES AGs

and remenber the big 5 USA carriers (with L-ISland dauntless) can destroy two K-Butai (12 carriers) japan if bad weather, just go to salomons with your five carriers usa plus long slow island 16 dauntless north lunga

this game can stop at 1941 at salomons north lunga the two KB with bad weather first sight, thats the problem of this game is that japan carriers strike first, why they strike first¡..why japan strike first, if bad weather¡¡ dont strike, but USA strikes because the AI makes only bad weather for KB¡. yes¡



Moltrey -> RE: To 'AG' or - not to 'AG'? That is a question... (10/26/2021 10:30:32 PM)

Erm... whaaat? [sm=rolleyes.gif]



Zeckke -> RE: To 'AG' or - not to 'AG'? That is a question... (10/26/2021 10:50:37 PM)

sorrryyy

playing allys i did join the FIVE big carriers and de cve Long island with 16 dauntless

i knew that japan has two kido butais (12-13 japan carriers) and we engage at salomons i put my Task force just north of the salomon airfield and the two KB shown at 4 exes but not together just comming from truk, and bad weather cancel his attack but not me with good weather launch all my planes and the react put together the two KB, a massacre all japan carriers were hit by 1000 pounds bombs, and the game finish. the japan could not did the second attack by all carriers in flames decks

and thats why japan always strike first,



Chris21wen -> RE: To 'AG' or - not to 'AG'? That is a question... (10/27/2021 7:37:42 AM)

Reading this made me think, dangerous that.

Just thinking about rearming in say a level 1 port with an AG, AD, AKE.

You have a TF with MSW DD and CA docked after combat needing rearming. Does the AG rearm the MSW, AD the DD and AKE the CA or would the AKE do all assuming enough small?



Alfred -> RE: To 'AG' or - not to 'AG'? That is a question... (10/27/2021 1:57:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris21wen

Reading this made me think, dangerous that.

Just thinking about rearming in say a level 1 port with an AG, AD, AKE.

You have a TF with MSW DD and CA docked after combat needing rearming. Does the AG rearm the MSW, AD the DD and AKE the CA or would the AKE do all assuming enough small?



Rearming consumes both supply and operation points. Therefore it is possible that all three rearming sources might be involved as their operation points are used up.

Alfred



BBfanboy -> RE: To 'AG' or - not to 'AG'? That is a question... (10/27/2021 6:15:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris21wen

Reading this made me think, dangerous that.

Just thinking about rearming in say a level 1 port with an AG, AD, AKE.

You have a TF with MSW DD and CA docked after combat needing rearming. Does the AG rearm the MSW, AD the DD and AKE the CA or would the AKE do all assuming enough small?



Rearming consumes both supply and operation points. Therefore it is possible that all three rearming sources might be involved as their operation points are used up.

Alfred

It is also possible that the AKE could arm them all. IME, with multiple rearm sources for ships available the AI uses the sequence: Port, AE, AKE, AS, AD, AG/AGP. I have not done trials on this - it is just observations over time that seem to be consistent with what I am suggesting. It could be that the AI looks at the amount of supply on the rearming vessels to decide which will do the deed.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.109375