indy
Full Member
Posts: 118
|
Post by indy on Jan 27, 2022 9:50:02 GMT -6
I remember reading you don't get to keep AMC's after the war. Seems like wasted money to me. I budget for other things. As for getting an enemy to capitulate, if the war is going well, I start putting more cruisers on Raider patrols. I also use a lot of submarines. But perhaps there's something I'm missing. Am I playing it wrong?
|
|
|
Post by hawkeye on Jan 27, 2022 11:06:41 GMT -6
Yes, AMCs (and KEs below 600 tons) are auto-scrapped at the end of a war. As such, I as well tend not to use them. There are exceptions. If I am playing Germany and I get in an early war with Italy (neither bases in the Med nor good subs yet), for example, I build tons and tons of them, just to force them to give in.
On the plus side: They are fast to build (4 months, iirc) They are cheap
On the negative side: As mentioned, they are scrapped after the war They cost quite a bit in terms of _monthly_ building cost (since they are build in 4 months, the ~3,000 they cost in total is only split up over 4 months), so you are unlikely to be able to build a dozen per month. They work best in numbers (so you have to invest some serious money - that you will lose after the war. If they are caught by an enemy's anti-raider cruiser, they are dead.
Of course, opinions differ and I'm sure some will like them
Well, that are my two cent anyway.
|
|
stww2
New Member
Posts: 39
|
Post by stww2 on Jan 27, 2022 13:15:04 GMT -6
The main advantage for both AMC's and small corvettes is the four month build time. With how short conflicts tend to be in RTW, the short build time means that they are highly likely to actually get to see action in wartime, whereas almost any other ship type is likely to still be building by the time the war ends (with the possible exception of small destroyers). Of course, if the war does end up going on longer the lack of new warships may be sorely missed, and as Hawkeye points out if you want to build them in numbers they are not really that cheap.
I think their utility tends to be highly situational. If you need some additional ships for trade protection or minesweeping on short notice, then the <600 ton KE's can be a useful stopgap measure, and the AMC's will quickly get you raiders that you can throw at the enemy. I think they work best for poorer states (such as Austria Hungary) caught in a war with multiple much more powerful states (I was in a war with Germany, France, and Russia when I resorted to building AMC's), when warships are already likely to be scarce and therefore every bit of warship tonnage needs to be on active fleet. In most other situations, it's probably better to wait the longer period of time for a purpose built raider, ASW corvette, or submarine.
|
|
|
Post by cormallen on Jan 27, 2022 13:29:02 GMT -6
I've had some success with AMCs optimised for mine warfare in some larger wars against multiple opponents (when blockading everyone is hard) and the conflict is more likely to stretch into a couple of years or more.
Ideally auxiliaries should be super cheap and even faster as often is service in under a month due to pre-planning. The Germans refitted a liner into a massive merchant raider in WW1 at a random Island in the Southern Atlantic using guns lifted by ships derricks from a small colonial Gunboat!
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Jan 27, 2022 13:56:43 GMT -6
The single, most valuable thing about AMCs (and surface raiders in general)?
They can never sink a neutral liner
Having had very unlucky turns where my Subs have managed to sink 2(!) neutral liners and plunge me into a World War, I consider this a very Good Thing (TM).
|
|
w2c
Full Member
Posts: 178
|
Post by w2c on Jan 27, 2022 15:55:57 GMT -6
I think the biggest issues with them comes down to the short nature of most wars and that they're effectively no different from a sunk ship by the end of the war. You put all that money in only to watch it evaporate. It may as well have been sunk. When I'm fighting the AI and I see them lay down a bunch of them I tend to think it's only going to give me an even bigger post war advantage and one good fleet battle will likely end the war by the time they're starting to hit the seas anyway.
Longer wars could possibly help, and the multi national types of wars we may find ourselves in could create more need for them but I'm doubtful. The lost resources at the end just kill their usefulness to me and I find them to be nothing but a desperation measure. Perhaps if you recovered some of the cost afterwards they'd be more useful, but I'm not sure how realistic that is. That or keep them listed in a database of currently inactive assets so if I wind up in another war 6 months after the last one ended I won't be having to start building them all over again from square one.
|
|
|
Post by ludovic on Jan 27, 2022 16:10:12 GMT -6
I only rarely use them. What I use them most for is to build up my fleet tonnage quickly when I am in danger of or am being blockaded since each of them seem to add (1) to the area strength if they are big enough.
Or, if I cannot reach my opponents to blockade them - for instance like previously mentioned if I am in a multi state war where I need most of my ships at home to prevent or enforce a blockade, I will create some as raiders to give a little marginal oomph to the merchants already being sunk by my subs.
|
|
|
Post by cormallen on Jan 27, 2022 17:58:00 GMT -6
Historically the real cost of them was a bit of dockyard time, half a dozen old 4-6 inch guns out of storage (lifted off the previous generation of cruisers scrapped) a handful of officers pulled from reserve and a mix of the ships prior crew and green recruits. The ship itself was sometimes one that had been subsidised slightly with this in mind (sunk cost as spent already regardless) and the owner only compensated fully of it didn't survive the war. They should be hugely cheaper and rather faster to get in service. Same with requisitioned trawlers and yachts tbh...
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Jan 27, 2022 18:47:03 GMT -6
I use AMCs to build carriers. You can build an AMC in 4 months, and immediately upon commissioning, convert it into a carrier. As long as you begin the conversion to a carrier before the war ends the ship will remain with your fleet and will not be automatically scrapped like an AMC.
In my fleet, these converted AMCs are designed with minimal speed, guns, AAA, and armor while being designed for maximum air capacity. That's because I have no intention of taking these ships to war. They are there to train pilots and serve as a holding space for carrier pilots. Without excess deck space, it is quite difficult to have carrier squadrons available and trained when a large, new carrier arrives. I prefer using experienced pilots and I'd rather not have my nice new carrier sullied by a bunch of rookie pilots, so these training carriers stay pretty active training pilots.
During war, you can protect these ships by putting them into reserve to prevent having them actively engaged. However, I must admit this is not foolproof, at least it has not been while playtesting. I've had two occasions when training carriers were yanked out of reserve by the battle generator and thrown into large battles. Surprisingly, they performed quite well, and their aircraft contributed meaningfully to the battle.
Other than as carrier seeds, I don't generally build AMCs.
|
|
indy
Full Member
Posts: 118
|
Post by indy on Jan 27, 2022 21:02:59 GMT -6
I use AMCs to build carriers. You can build an AMC in 4 months, and immediately upon commissioning, convert it into a carrier. As long as you begin the conversion to a carrier before the war ends the ship will remain with your fleet and will not be automatically scrapped like an AMC. In my fleet, these converted AMCs are designed with minimal speed, guns, AAA, and armor while being designed for maximum air capacity. But they are still 600 tons, yes? How effective are they at carrier training when they have so little tonnage? Seems like a lot of extra clicking for such a little benefit. Why not instead just add carrier ready planes to reserve. They will increase to Fair condition in time and you skip having to worry about the AMC Carrier... I dunno. I'm trying to wrap my head around your idea and my brain isn't getting it. Thanks for sharing! I'm going to try at least one carrier converted AMC to see what happens and how useful it is. <SNIP>...ship itself was sometimes one that had been subsidized slightly with this in mind (sunk cost as spent already regardless) and the owner only compensated fully of it didn't survive the war. They should be hugely cheaper and rather faster to get in service. Same with requisitioned trawlers and yachts tbh... Yes, I think the cost factor is why I don't build them. It's so much money that's seemingly wasted. I don't like the mechanic used in the game to simulate this. I only rarely use them. What I use them most for is to build up my fleet tonnage quickly when I am in danger of or am being blockaded since each of them seem to add (1) to the area strength if they are big enough. Or, if I cannot reach my opponents to blockade them - for instance like previously mentioned if I am in a multi state war where I need most of my ships at home to prevent or enforce a blockade, I will create some as raiders to give a little marginal oomph to the merchants already being sunk by my subs. So creating AMC's (They need to be put on R for Raider to work, yes?) will add to chances that an enemy will collapse when you don't have bases in their sea zones. Interesting. I don't know if I would build them to alleviate a blockade. It seems I'd be out a tremendous amount of money and that money would be better spent using coastal subs at that point. Am I right? When I'm fighting the AI and I see them lay down a bunch of them I tend to think it's only going to give me an even bigger post war advantage and one good fleet battle will likely end the war by the time they're starting to hit the seas anyway. Perhaps if you recovered some of the cost afterwards they'd be more useful, but I'm not sure how realistic that is. So how do you counter an enemy that is building masses of AMC's? Put more CL's on patrol? On your second point, I think that after a war, the guns would be removed and now you have a merchant vessel that can be sold and part of the money recouped. That isn't the case in the game? You should get scrap money back for every AMC that survived the war imo. Maybe this needs to be added to suggestions. It's such a total loss of monetary investment that I can't think I'd ever do it. The single, most valuable thing about AMCs (and surface raiders in general)? They can never sink a neutral linerHaving had very unlucky turns where my Subs have managed to sink 2(!) neutral liners and plunge me into a World War, I consider this a very Good Thing (TM). What are you trying to say? That when the enemy sinks one of your AMC's that they get a political Tension penalty that swings in your favor and reduces tensions vs you among other nations you are not at war with? I did not know that... That's a good trick when you're practicing unrestricted sub warfare and have high tension levels with other nations you don't want joining the war. Is this really how it works? Ideally auxiliaries should be super cheap and even faster as often is service in under a month due to pre-planning. The Germans refitted a liner into a massive merchant raider in WW1 at a random Island in the Southern Atlantic using guns lifted by ships derricks from a small colonial Gunboat! I'd like to challenge the devs on the 3k/mo for 4 months fee for these things and they are scrapped at the end of the war, but do you or do you not get $$$ for that? Maybe you should get more scrap value because the ships are going to be used in merchant trade, not cut up for scrap. stww2 and hawkeye thanks for those great points, I agree!
|
|
w2c
Full Member
Posts: 178
|
Post by w2c on Jan 27, 2022 21:51:08 GMT -6
When I'm fighting the AI and I see them lay down a bunch of them I tend to think it's only going to give me an even bigger post war advantage and one good fleet battle will likely end the war by the time they're starting to hit the seas anyway. Perhaps if you recovered some of the cost afterwards they'd be more useful, but I'm not sure how realistic that is. So how do you counter an enemy that is building masses of AMC's? Put more CL's on patrol? On your second point, I think that after a war, the guns would be removed and now you have a merchant vessel that can be sold and part of the money recouped. That isn't the case in the game? You should get scrap money back for every AMC that survived the war imo. Maybe this needs to be added to suggestions. It's such a total loss of monetary investment that I can't think I'd ever do it. I tend to rely on 1600t colonial corvettes for convoy protection which have been more than a match for any AMCs they throw out. The only real damage their AMCs tend to inflict on me is a higher casualty rate for my submarines, but I consider subs to be way too OP in their current implementation anyway that I intentionally restrict myself in their construction anyway so the hit while existent is minimal. I almost never engage against them in battle though and on the rare occasions I do they go down fast to my actual fleet units which will also continue to serve once the war ends so they aren't just wasted money. Besides that, I tend to get a fleet battle after a few months where virtually the entirety of the enemies fleet is left in shambles and the war score massively in my favor so any advantage their AMC construction gains never lasts long enough for it to matter.
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Jan 27, 2022 21:59:04 GMT -6
AMCs can be built up to 26,000 tons. My two training carriers have a capacity of 72 planes each. As to extra clicking, I guess it depends on your tolerance. I prefer to fight battles with better material than can be scraped out of the reserve pool.
|
|
|
Post by ludovic on Jan 27, 2022 21:59:22 GMT -6
I only rarely use them. What I use them most for is to build up my fleet tonnage quickly when I am in danger of or am being blockaded since each of them seem to add (1) to the area strength if they are big enough. Or, if I cannot reach my opponents to blockade them - for instance like previously mentioned if I am in a multi state war where I need most of my ships at home to prevent or enforce a blockade, I will create some as raiders to give a little marginal oomph to the merchants already being sunk by my subs. So creating AMC's (They need to be put on R for Raider to work, yes?) will add to chances that an enemy will collapse when you don't have bases in their sea zones. Interesting. I don't know if I would build them to alleviate a blockade. It seems I'd be out a tremendous amount of money and that money would be better spent using coastal subs at that point. Am I right? The money would be better spent on almost anything else, but they come online in 4 months, not the 14-16 of coastal subs. I only use them for home region strength out of desperation. You can support a number of raiders in zones you don't have bases in and still sink commerce. If you put too many in, some of them will either be detained or scuttled or lose crew quality, but until then they will still be sinking merchant ships every month.
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Jan 27, 2022 22:24:30 GMT -6
The single, most valuable thing about AMCs (and surface raiders in general)? They can never sink a neutral linerHaving had very unlucky turns where my Subs have managed to sink 2(!) neutral liners and plunge me into a World War, I consider this a very Good Thing (TM). What are you trying to say? That when the enemy sinks one of your AMC's that they get a political Tension penalty that swings in your favor and reduces tensions vs you among other nations you are not at war with? I did not know that... That's a good trick when you're practicing unrestricted sub warfare and have high tension levels with other nations you don't want joining the war. Is this really how it works? No, losing an AMC doesn't give you any benefits. Sub, other than when on Fleet Support (I think), always have a chance of sinking a neutral liner - which comes at a cost of prestige and tension. This is massively increased if you use the Unrestricted Warfare setting. AMCs and other Raiders never make this mistake, so you will never gain tension from AMC ops. They also intercept enemy vessels at the same rate regardless of the sub warfare settings. Note that the minimum vessel size for an AMC is 1800t. I've also found that by sticking as many mines on as possible they can sometimes disable or kill enemy warships - so you don't lose out on that aspect either. It's just not possible right at the start of the game (need active mine warfare tech in the mid 00s if memory serves). Edit: One other thing I've though of - you won't lose more than 1 AMC per month (unless you get unlucky and two or more show up in a scenario - fortunately for me that was the AI putting it's AMCs on AF!). Subs I see sinking at the rate of about 5 a month which is even less healthy for the bank balance.
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Jan 27, 2022 23:57:58 GMT -6
I use AMCs with some regularity and find them to be a quite valuable asset. The ability to go from having no raiders to a decent number is something that cannot be done with cruisers. Dedicated raiding cruisers are often a more significant investment than several AMCs, while also having a number of disadvantages. Raiding cruisers often have little to no utility in a war situation you're winning, especially if you're enforcing a blockade. You also must upkeep them between wars. However, I will have to disagree with one thing that many have argued, in that AMCs are essentially helpless against intercepting cruisers. Rather, I'd point out that with the lack of tonnage used up by large engines and heavy armor, AMCs can punch well above their weight. You can fit a large number of intermediate caliber guns on an AMC that are capable of penetrating a light cruiser's armor, while also being able to have both above and below water torpedo tubes. This fire may not be the most accurate, but quantity is a quality all it's own. There is also the matter of ambushes. AMCs have the small chance to surprise the ship intercepting them. This means the battle begins with the intercepting ship stationary and unable to act for several minutes, and that ends up with situations like this: This leads me to the final point, which is that single sunken cruiser will often make up for multiple lost AMCs.
|
|