|
Post by sittingduck on Jan 11, 2020 15:36:14 GMT -6
AMCs are an excellent way of ending wars. Oh you have just built 5? Sounds like a good time to declare peace. /AI troll face. AMC builds do indeed seem to end wars, don't they? Sink all that money into them and just as they finish working up and you send them out, the wars fizzles out and all that money is gone. Insert hair pulling/face palm here. Everytime.
|
|
|
Post by rodentnavy on Jan 12, 2020 4:22:34 GMT -6
AMCs are an excellent way of ending wars. Oh you have just built 5? Sounds like a good time to declare peace. /AI troll face. AMC builds do indeed seem to end wars, don't they? Sink all that money into them and just as they finish working up and you send them out, the wars fizzles out and all that money is gone. Insert hair pulling/face palm here. Everytime. Also colonial invasions, millions (or thousands depending on how you want to count it) spent on setting it up and no sooner have you landed the enemy sues for peace. Cue some irritated US Marine "But we only just got here!"
|
|
|
Post by anthropoid on Jan 12, 2020 8:10:24 GMT -6
You do get at least some of the money for the AMCs back though, eh?
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jan 12, 2020 9:37:38 GMT -6
You do get at least some of the money for the AMCs back though, eh? Not at all.
It simulates something like Kormoran or Carmania. You usually use merchant ships owned by private companies.
|
|
|
Post by anthropoid on Jan 12, 2020 10:47:37 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Jan 12, 2020 11:38:12 GMT -6
HMS Rawalpindi.
"Sir, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau ahead"
"Set course to intercept. Full speed ahead, make smoke"
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jan 12, 2020 12:31:07 GMT -6
I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the capital recovery mechanics that are used when the player scraps a ship manually were also used when AMCs and small KEs get sold off at the end of a war, though I've not checked to see if such is the case. Thing is, you only get about 1% of the construction cost back when you scrap a ship and most reasonable AMC designs don't cost much to begin with, so the capital recovered from AMCs (and small KEs) being sold off at the end of a war would be pretty negligible.
|
|
|
Post by zardoz on Jan 13, 2020 13:03:55 GMT -6
I think AMCs are not bad. Do not make them to costly (speed). Accept that if a battle occurs they are lost.
From my view in the early game good raiders are very costly and if you want save money on raiders you cannot use them in a battle because they are undergunned and weakly amored. Later, I use subs for commercial wars. In the meantime and if I am in a militay crisis I produce AMCs. You loose money on them as they vanish after the war but they are cheaper than a bad cruiser not usable for any real combat.
I send them mostly far away where battles are not expected. That works quite good.
|
|
|
Post by director on Jan 14, 2020 8:28:53 GMT -6
zardoz - I have the opposite advice. I make mine as fast as possible, arm them very lightly (4" guns or so and a couple of torpedo tubes for looks). In battle they are worthless; they cannot out-shoot anything, a single hit is often enough to kill them and they will never, ever fire a torpedo even under the most advantageous circumstances. So speed (and weather or darkness) is the only way to preserve them. Since I always play every raider mission - if I don't, my raider is always sunk - I find that I can use full speed and a rapid course change to shake most pursuers before 1920 or so. After that date it is a lost cause. If I use AMCs I grit my teeth and use a lot of them - build 2 to 4 per turn and keep it up until the enemy bows or breaks.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 14, 2020 9:34:29 GMT -6
My concept of operations is to use the stealthiest ship or boat that I have to attack merchant ships in trade warfare. The advent of the seaplane, floatplane, carriers along with land-based bombers makes the armed merchant ship just a target. They don't go away after the war. Submarines are part of my fleet and are deployable almost immediately. History seems to agree with me. It's cost per performance and I believe that the submarine is far more cost effective than the AMC. I have not lost a war as Japan yet, even against the French, and the British without them.
|
|
|
Post by zardoz on Jan 14, 2020 9:59:11 GMT -6
zardoz - I have the opposite advice. I make mine as fast as possible, arm them very lightly (4" guns or so and a couple of torpedo tubes for looks). In battle they are worthless; they cannot out-shoot anything, a single hit is often enough to kill them and they will never, ever fire a torpedo even under the most advantageous circumstances. So speed (and weather or darkness) is the only way to preserve them. Since I always play every raider mission - if I don't, my raider is always sunk - I find that I can use full speed and a rapid course change to shake most pursuers before 1920 or so. After that date it is a lost cause. If I use AMCs I grit my teeth and use a lot of them - build 2 to 4 per turn and keep it up until the enemy bows or breaks. That are at least partially the reasons why I also do not make them quick.
Even I make them quick the chance that they get a hit lowering the speed that they cannot run away is so high that from my view it is better to save that money for speed.
|
|
|
Post by cabusha on Jan 26, 2020 8:17:27 GMT -6
If I want raiders, I build minimum-cruisers. probably 3100 to 3500 tons, 1" belt and deck, 2"CT, no other armor. Then minimum guns, probably a pair of high-quality 5" or 6" mounted A and Y, then 3 or 4 secondaries per side of 3" or 4". Best speed I can make with reliable engines. Normal range is fine if you intend to operate them in your own waters, long range if you plan to raid a sea-zone over. If I have tonnage left over, I might add a torpedo per side as a hail-mary if interdicted. Once I get spotting aircraft I'll add 1-3, since the manual states they help raiders perform.
Basically cheap and fast, and they don't get scrapped after the war. If (when) you lose 1 or 2, you don't care because the investment is minimal if done right.
|
|
|
Post by skyhawk on Jan 26, 2020 12:26:49 GMT -6
Has anyone bothered trying to us smaller seaplane carriers(AV) as raiders? They're cheaper than larger CLs and often take less time to build, dont disappear like AMCs do after a war, can be built to be speedy, and have the advantage of scouts to better find targets.
|
|
|
Post by coyote on Jan 27, 2020 2:09:34 GMT -6
I have been using AV's as raiders. They don't seem to be doing well as my CL or CA raiders, but they're incredibly cheap.
My very first game I made an excellent raider DD class with long range, reliable engines and everything, only to find out they can't raid!
I also tried throwing a CV on raiding status, just to test things out. It didn't really do too well though.
|
|
|
Post by sagaren on Jan 27, 2020 8:37:52 GMT -6
Has anyone bothered trying to us smaller seaplane carriers(AV) as raiders? They're cheaper than larger CLs and often take less time to build, dont disappear like AMCs do after a war, can be built to be speedy, and have the advantage of scouts to better find targets. I've started doing that, great way to make use of them after they are no longer viable fleet units. And they can be built practically as powerful as a small light cruiser so they can even hold their own sometimes if run down.
|
|