AMC in contested landings

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Post Reply
User avatar
Boomer Redleg
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 7:27 pm

AMC in contested landings

Post by Boomer Redleg »

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?

Kaboom!

- See ya
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: AMC in contested landings

Post by LoBaron »

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?
Image
User avatar
Boomer Redleg
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 7:27 pm

RE: AMC in contested landings

Post by Boomer Redleg »

this is what I was looking at...



Image

I didn't even try to do a Surface Combat TF after reading the description. Thanks for the suggestion.
Attachments
amc.jpg
amc.jpg (27.97 KiB) Viewed 105 times
Kaboom!

- See ya
jmalter
Posts: 1673
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:41 pm

RE: AMC in contested landings

Post by jmalter »

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.
User avatar
traskott
Posts: 1570
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:30 am
Location: Valladolid, Spain

RE: AMC in contested landings

Post by traskott »

Some jap AMCs are great as raiders...
User avatar
dr.hal
Posts: 3447
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:41 pm
Location: Covington LA via Montreal!

RE: AMC in contested landings

Post by dr.hal »

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.
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9303
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: AMC in contested landings

Post by Lokasenna »

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.
User avatar
Jorge_Stanbury
Posts: 4345
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:57 pm
Location: Montreal

RE: AMC in contested landings

Post by 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


User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9303
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: AMC in contested landings

Post by Lokasenna »

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.
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: AMC in contested landings

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

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.

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.
User avatar
Jorge_Stanbury
Posts: 4345
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:57 pm
Location: Montreal

RE: AMC in contested landings

Post by 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
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: AMC in contested landings

Post by witpqs »

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.
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: AMC in contested landings

Post by witpqs »

Found this:
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.
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: AMC in contested landings

Post by witpqs »

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


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.
User avatar
Jorge_Stanbury
Posts: 4345
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:57 pm
Location: Montreal

RE: AMC in contested landings

Post by Jorge_Stanbury »

Thanks!!
User avatar
rustysi
Posts: 7472
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:23 am
Location: LI, NY

RE: AMC in contested landings

Post by rustysi »

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(]
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9303
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: AMC in contested landings

Post by Lokasenna »

ORIGINAL: rustysi
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.
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: AMC in contested landings

Post by LoBaron »

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Found this:
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]
Image
User avatar
rustysi
Posts: 7472
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:23 am
Location: LI, NY

RE: AMC in contested landings

Post by rustysi »

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Found this:
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]
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”