Allied conversions

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Revthought

3. And I've just learned, an increase in the time to load at dock (how much I'm not sure)

Um, what?

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Revthought

3. And I've just learned, an increase in the time to load at dock (how much I'm not sure)

Um, what?

That is what I have seen in game. It takes about twice as long for a tender type to load and unload. I will see if I can experiment with it next time they go for upgrades.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Revthought

3. And I've just learned, an increase in the time to load at dock (how much I'm not sure)

Um, what?

That is what I have seen in game. It takes about twice as long for a tender type to load and unload. I will see if I can experiment with it next time they go for upgrades.

I don't see why it would be any different. Cargo load is cargo load.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

Early war, I would convert some, but not all xAKs into xAPs... for most of 42 they will be sitting as there is not a lot to move

By Q3/Q4 1942 is when I would absolutely convert all into xAPs

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

Early war, I would convert some, but not all xAKs into xAPs... for most of 42 they will be sitting as there is not a lot to move

By Q3/Q4 1942 is when I would absolutely convert all into xAPs

I convert all. Absolutely all. You'll need them later and better to have them early than to be looking around the map for more xAPs and realize you didn't convert a gaggle of xAKs and xAKLs.

[bush]

The AE is the only MUST conversion for me. I think there are enough of them and just plain ports to keep my bigger caliber weapons reloaded close to the front.

I go back and forth on the APD. I guess I do not use it enough in it's troop carrying capacity to make it seem worthwhile. On the other hand, there is not a big difference (especially before the later upgrade) between them and the DE.

AKE/AG seem like worthless upgrades to me. I prefer to keep the cargo capacity.

The xAP? Not sure about this one. I see the advantage later in the war as troops must constantly be brought forward, but I find just moving them in a Transport TF with Liberty ships does not cause an inordinate amount of disruption or fatigue. I also use the Symon HR of NO xAP in an Amph invasion TF.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: bushpsu

The AE is the only MUST conversion for me. I think there are enough of them and just plain ports to keep my bigger caliber weapons reloaded close to the front.

I go back and forth on the APD. I guess I do not use it enough in it's troop carrying capacity to make it seem worthwhile. On the other hand, there is not a big difference (especially before the later upgrade) between them and the DE.

AKE/AG seem like worthless upgrades to me. I prefer to keep the cargo capacity.

The xAP? Not sure about this one. I see the advantage later in the war as troops must constantly be brought forward, but I find just moving them in a Transport TF with Liberty ships does not cause an inordinate amount of disruption or fatigue. I also use the Symon HR of NO xAP in an Amph invasion TF.

I don't know why you'd limit your invasion TFs like that, but OK.

You don't get very many actual AEs. I find the AKEs useful to supplement them, and honestly you have so many xAKs anyway... literally swimming in them.

The biggest thing about the APDs, to me, is to help fill out amphib TFs without having to use another APA when I already have plenty of cargo space in the TF but just need more troop space.

[bradfordkay]

I definitely make the xAK to AKE and AE conversions as soon as I possibly can - as well as any conversions to AP/APA that are possible.

On the four piper to APD vs DE conversion I tend to run it about 50/50. The weakness of the APD conversion is a more limited range for the APDs and so I like to have a decent number of the four piper DEs as escorts - especially for the replenishment TFs, support TFs (need to get those AKEs safely to a forward base in order for them to do any good) and non-invasion troop convoys. YMMV.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

I definitely make the xAK to AKE and AE conversions as soon as I possibly can - as well as any conversions to AP/APA that are possible.

On the four piper to APD vs DE conversion I tend to run it about 50/50. The weakness of the APD conversion is a more limited range for the APDs and so I like to have a decent number of the four piper DEs as escorts - especially for the replenishment TFs, support TFs (need to get those AKEs safely to a forward base in order for them to do any good) and non-invasion troop convoys. YMMV.

It does. I really can't stress enough that having more APDs frees up an APA or two here and there throughout your invasion operations, which has enormous positive implications.

You get enough actual DEs (19- and 21-knot versions) eventually and can make due with YMS, AVD, PC, SC, etc. as escorts until then. You just need 1 escort in the TF to prevent a surface attack by a sub and you really need the DE-level ASW armament or DDs to even hit the subs anyway.

[bradfordkay]

"Eventually" is not the crucial '42 time period. I need good escorts during this time and so will continue to make four piper DE conversions. This doesn't mean that I exclude APD conversions, it is just that in early - mid '42 those DEs are extremely helpful. I see where you are coming from, though so far in all my campaigns I have had enough APs and APAs to make my invasions work with the lesser number of APDs that I have converted.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

In terms of 4-pipe conversions, I prefer all to become APDs
my simple rational is that the important year is 1942, and what I lack in that year is amphibious invasion capabilities. Almost anything can be used against submarines (minesweepers, minelayers, chasers, gunboats) including APDs which are quite capable ASW platforms on their own, but very few Allied ships can be used for fast invasions (in direct contrast to Japan, where any cruiser or DD is a capable auxiliar troop carrying ship)

Having a big fleet of APDs means that I can do credible small invasions and accept heavy APD losses in 1942 which is the year that matters the most. Once 1943 arrives it is all abundance for the Allies.

A 27knot APD/ AVD invasion fleet is pretty much impossible to detect/ intercept until it had reached its objective

[bush]

Lokasenna,

Well, Regarding the "limiting" of my Amph Invasion TFs, I guess I believe that some passenger liner is not really intended to be used as a run up on the beach and dispatch type of ship. However, I am strictly a vs. the AI player, so I can be stricter with what I allow myself.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

In terms of 4-pipe conversions, I prefer all to become APDs
my simple rational is that the important year is 1942, and what I lack in that year is amphibious invasion capabilities. Almost anything can be used against submarines (minesweepers, minelayers, chasers, gunboats) including APDs which are quite capable ASW platforms on their own, but very few Allied ships can be used for fast invasions (in direct contrast to Japan, where any cruiser or DD is a capable auxiliar troop carrying ship)

Having a big fleet of APDs means that I can do credible small invasions and accept heavy APD losses in 1942 which is the year that matters the most. Once 1943 arrives it is all abundance for the Allies.

A 27knot APD/ AVD invasion fleet is pretty much impossible to detect/ intercept until it had reached its objective

I concur. Very useful for countering token IJ invasions of various islands that are out of air cover for both sides. The only ways for Japan to stop them are costly in terms of early war fuel stocks at the front/opportunity costs.

ORIGINAL: bushpsu

Lokasenna,

Well, Regarding the "limiting" of my Amph Invasion TFs, I guess I believe that some passenger liner is not really intended to be used as a run up on the beach and dispatch type of ship. However, I am strictly a vs. the AI player, so I can be stricter with what I allow myself.

Sure, maybe not the big liners, but the more compelling reason not to use those is because they will take a very, very long time to fully unload. They are better used for shuttling units between bases due to their size and speed.

The early "Liberty" ships that you can convert, however (most arrive at Alameda)... I don't see why not. 19000 Endurance, 2000 Troop, 2250 Cargo (IIRC). Plus the others that start on map. Specifically, the Pacific(L) xAKs that convert to xAPs with 1000 Troop/1300 Cargo. Fun fact: if you have an amphibious command ship with amphibious force HQ (AGC/HQm combo), most of these xAPs will basically fully unload in a single day. The AGC+HQm more or less turn them into full blown APAs. Use them!

[bush]

I believe the presence of the AGC is all that is necessary for the increase in unloading tempo. The Amph Force HQ helps limit the disruption of the troops themselves.

[Dirtnap86]

With regards to the four-stackers, I convert the Wickes class to DEs (shorter legs) while keeping the Clemsons as APDs because of their longer legs. Haven't really fooled around with AKE/AG conversions because I didn't really know what the AGs did.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Dirtnap86

With regards to the four-stackers, I convert the Wickes class to DEs (shorter legs) while keeping the Clemsons as APDs because of their longer legs. Haven't really fooled around with AKE/AG conversions because I didn't really know what the AGs did.

I learned that hard way that an AM or KV in need of depth charges needs to find a tender or a size seven port to get them. AKEs can provide, but AGs are the intended vessel to support smaller ships, and they also help with repairs of small vessels.

You don't need a lot of them, but as others have mentioned you can convert for the better AA and have them hauling freight. My issue with this is that AGs are worth a lot more VPs to the IJN sub that picks them off than the original xAK was worth. The additional AA devices are what boosts the ship value.

[ny59giants]

Allied Fast Transport TFs - I gather up the AMCs and the old four stackers converted to APDs to form 1 or 2 of these TFs. You have to be careful in their use, but they are valuable to you in 42 and early 43.

APs to APAs - I get those that can do this to Mare Island and they sit there until early 43 when I can convert. The Allies need every APA they can get their hands on.

xAK Pacific C Class & Dominion M Class to xAPs- I move all those in Burma/India to Cape Town for conversion. Then, most go to USA for use in Pacific while some stay here or at Aden to move troops into India. They are small enough to be able to dock at size 1 or 2 ports when you need to unload Motorized Support and radar.

xAK C1-A Cargo & C2 Cargo Class to xAPs - Yes, in 2/42

[Yaab]

xAK to AG - this is a great conversion early war. Basically, you get lots of AA weapons pretty fast (xAK AA upgrades kick off in June 1942), you also get more endurance and the option to rearm depth charges. The reduced cargo capacity is actually a blessing for me, because I mostly move cargo in amphibious TFs. Thus I can have i.e ten AGs unloading 250 supply point per day in level 1 (2500 daily cargo limit) port without clogging the tiny docking space which is reserved for any troop transports or tankers/oilers.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: bushpsu

I believe the presence of the AGC is all that is necessary for the increase in unloading tempo. The Amph Force HQ helps limit the disruption of the troops themselves.

An empty AGC by itself helps just the TF that it is in.

An AGC with an HQm helps the entire hex.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: bushpsu

I believe the presence of the AGC is all that is necessary for the increase in unloading tempo. The Amph Force HQ helps limit the disruption of the troops themselves.

An empty AGC by itself helps just the TF that it is in.

An AGC with an HQm helps the entire hex.

I don't have AGCs yet but I want to use the V Amphib Force HQ for support of an invasion. I have an xAP available to load the HQ. What loss of benefit is there in using an xAP vs an AGC?