When is an LC an AMC?

[mariandavid]

This really to seek clarification: Several times now have built a fast, unarmoured LC (obviously for Raiding) only to be told needs to be classed as an AMC. Which (I think) means that the definition recently added as in the 1.1 manual should add for LC - must have at least 1" of armour on deck or belt?

[ccip]

I think the game just doesn't believe in "unarmored cruisers" as such - for it to be considered a war cruiser, it needs to have at least an armoured deck. I think in the protected cruiser configuration, you don't actually need belt armor, just the deck.

[mariandavid]

Thanks - there go my ambitions of a cruiser close to a big RN flotilla leader with guns traded for fuel tanks!

[ccip]

I should say, it's not that difficult. I was playing around at the start of a new game for Russia today and had no trouble creating this with 1899 Russian technology:



2500t is the limit for submerged torpedo tubes, but in theory, you can build even smaller CLs and don't need the CT armor either - all you need is the 1in belt. What's more, I noticed that in the lower ranges, CLs actually hit a sort of "sweet spot" where because of how small they are, having a very fast ship comes at very little weight cost (and in fact adding tonnage to the ship reduces available displacement at that point).

So I think flottilla leaders are entirely possible to make, as long as you're willing to spare an inch of armor.

[Sven]

As much as i know, completely unarmored cruisers were already obsolete in 1899. Although there were a few around they were mainly used on colonial stations.

Actually, the AMCs are perfect for raiding, esspecially in waters were you do not have bases. They can be build quickly (4-5 months) and if you lose one it is no big deal since you can replace it fast.