USN 4 stacker conversions (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room



Message


ctangus -> USN 4 stacker conversions (12/9/2012 8:41:03 PM)

Q for fellow AFBs: what if any Clemson-class conversions do you do?

No Pearl strike in my current game so I'll probably keep a few of them as DDs to serve as BB escorts until I get more modern destroyers. But my opponent has also launched a painfully successful sub war and DEs would be welcome. I could additionally use more fast-transport capability so I'd also like more APDs. I haven't played AE late-game but in WITP I could have used more DMS once on the offensive - but maybe not because there are fewer mines around in AE?

I know that no 2 games are alike but I'd be interested in hearing what other players do & the reasoning behind it. Thanks!




rms1pa -> RE: USN 4 stacker conversions (12/9/2012 10:26:38 PM)

as APDs the Soerebya,and the cargo capable CMs are the only allied ships able to work the Fast transport Mission with cargo. I convert them all as fast as possible. the increased ASW does not hurt.

there are drawbacks to this. early war aggresive Allied commanders will miss the torpedos and carefull staggering of upgrades of other DDs will be needed to have escorts for the Air combat task forces.

rms/pa




Grollub -> RE: USN 4 stacker conversions (12/9/2012 10:33:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rms1pa

as APDs the Soerebya,and the cargo capable CMs are the only allied ships able to work the Fast transport Mission with cargo. I convert them all as fast as possible. the increased ASW does not hurt.

there are drawbacks to this. early war aggresive Allied commanders will miss the torpedos and carefull staggering of upgrades of other DDs will be needed to have escorts for the Air combat task forces.

rms/pa


Agreed. In my earlier games I went for the 8 ASW DE conversions. Later in the war I found out that I hadn't nearly enough APDs for that time period operations, while at the same time I was swimming in modern high ASW auxilaries. So in my current campaign, I've converted all available four-stackers to APDs.




SBD -> RE: USN 4 stacker conversions (12/10/2012 5:25:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Grollub


quote:

ORIGINAL: rms1pa

as APDs the Soerebya,and the cargo capable CMs are the only allied ships able to work the Fast transport Mission with cargo. I convert them all as fast as possible. the increased ASW does not hurt.

there are drawbacks to this. early war aggresive Allied commanders will miss the torpedos and carefull staggering of upgrades of other DDs will be needed to have escorts for the Air combat task forces.

rms/pa


Agreed. In my earlier games I went for the 8 ASW DE conversions. Later in the war I found out that I hadn't nearly enough APDs for that time period operations, while at the same time I was swimming in modern high ASW auxilaries. So in my current campaign, I've converted all available four-stackers to APDs.


+1

APDs for sure. They have an ASW rating of "6" so they're still useful for that duty when not otherwise engaged.




rms1pa -> RE: USN 4 stacker conversions (12/10/2012 1:56:16 PM)




[/quote]

+1

APDs for sure. They have an ASW rating of "6" so they're still useful for that duty when not otherwise engaged.
[/quote]

they can still fight, i had 2 Omahas and 6 Clemson APDs eat one of those E/PB/T task forces the AI is so fond of.

rms/pa




John Lansford -> RE: USN 4 stacker conversions (12/10/2012 5:13:07 PM)

I converted some of my old DD's to APD's, but most went to DE's for that longer range. I honestly don't use fast transport TF's so the APD conversion isn't really helping me very much, and I'm into mid-43 in my latest campaign game. The DE's and their longer range are helpful for those long transits from PH to Australia, and into the mid-Pacific where there aren't any good base locations.




aphrochine -> RE: USN 4 stacker conversions (12/10/2012 7:31:10 PM)

+1 for APD Conversions.

As AFB, you have so few Fast Transport options, so convert every ship possible to APDs.




Gridley380 -> RE: USN 4 stacker conversions (12/10/2012 9:32:40 PM)

In my current game I went for DMS conversion for maximum range - next time I'm going for the APD conversion. Short range sure, but good ASW ratings early on are scarce and later on APDs make good escorts for Amphib TFs.




Crackaces -> RE: USN 4 stacker conversions (12/11/2012 1:55:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gridley380

In my current game I went for DMS conversion for maximum range - next time I'm going for the APD conversion. Short range sure, but good ASW ratings early on are scarce and later on APDs make good escorts for Amphib TFs.


+1 IN my current game I was being terroized by IJN subs off the west coast so I opted for the DE option. Now I am in Oct 1943 there are so many DE/DD's I can't count. But I can count the number of APD's and there is not enough as I get stuff of atolls before the port level = 2. [enough to park the bigger xAK's xAK's > 6K tons ..]




John Lansford -> RE: USN 4 stacker conversions (12/11/2012 4:22:19 PM)

I just use the LST/LCI/LCVP's to unload/load at atolls with small ports. They can unload in one turn and don't need a port to get maximum loading, but they are slow.




ctangus -> RE: USN 4 stacker conversions (12/11/2012 11:08:13 PM)

Thanks for all the responses. I've decided to convert at least 2 divisions of Clemsons to APDs & just converted the first two ships. I'll do the upgrades over time so I don't have them all off line at once.

I have @ 4 divisions of Clemsons still afloat (17 DDs to be precise). I'm still considering converting 1-2 divisions to DMS for future offensive ops. I don't see a lot of DMS in the reinforcement queue but I do see a ton of minesweepers. How is later war allied minesweeping capability in AE? I remember that in WITP mines/CD guns could be a lethal combination and DMS performed much better than minesweepers. At the very least they weren't sunk in droves.




John Lansford -> RE: USN 4 stacker conversions (12/12/2012 1:27:37 AM)

If you're playing against the AI you will never need minesweepers to get rid of mines ahead of an invasion. The DMS conversion isn't very useful, therefore, against the AI; I'd convert them to either APD's or DE's instead.




ctangus -> RE: USN 4 stacker conversions (12/12/2012 9:29:17 PM)

PBEM if it makes a difference.




jeffk3510 -> RE: USN 4 stacker conversions (12/12/2012 9:54:08 PM)

The DEs have the most ASW, but it is nice to have an APD around or two.

However, the difference in ASW (8 vs 6) for the DE or APD, it might not be worth it to convert to DE. In other words, anything you want to convert to DE, probably convert to APD if you feel that 8 vs 6 in ASW isn't much at all. On top of that, you have small troop carrying abilities.




ctangus -> RE: USN 4 stacker conversions (12/12/2012 10:22:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

The DEs have the most ASW, but it is nice to have an APD around or two.

However, the difference in ASW (8 vs 6) for the DE or APD, it might not be worth it to convert to DE. In other words, anything you want to convert to DE, probably convert to APD if you feel that 8 vs 6 in ASW isn't much at all. On top of that, you have small troop carrying abilities.


Thanks. Since starting this thread I'm now convinced APDs > DEs at least for me. Still trying to decide if I might want some more DMS though.




General Patton -> RE: USN 4 stacker conversions (12/14/2012 4:40:09 PM)

APD's are more flexable.[:)][:)][:)]




crsutton -> RE: USN 4 stacker conversions (12/14/2012 6:02:45 PM)

Initially, you are short of both APDs and ASW assets. You will start to get a good flow of decent ASW assets and upgrades by the end of 1942. By the end of 1943 you will have more ASW than you can use. You will "never" have enough APDs. The choice is easy.




Commander Cody -> RE: USN 4 stacker conversions (12/17/2012 1:50:50 PM)

You'll get AMs out the wazoo in time. I'd go APD.

Cheers,
CC




Gridley380 -> RE: USN 4 stacker conversions (12/17/2012 5:51:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ctangus

Thanks for all the responses. I've decided to convert at least 2 divisions of Clemsons to APDs & just converted the first two ships. I'll do the upgrades over time so I don't have them all off line at once.

I have @ 4 divisions of Clemsons still afloat (17 DDs to be precise). I'm still considering converting 1-2 divisions to DMS for future offensive ops. I don't see a lot of DMS in the reinforcement queue but I do see a ton of minesweepers. How is later war allied minesweeping capability in AE? I remember that in WITP mines/CD guns could be a lethal combination and DMS performed much better than minesweepers. At the very least they weren't sunk in droves.


I wouldn't waste those AM's either - a lot of them have excellent range and good ASW ratings = great convoy escorts!




wneumann -> RE: USN 4 stacker conversions (12/29/2012 7:53:29 PM)

A word of caution for those not immediately converting Wickes or Clemson DD to another ship type (APD, DM, DMS, etc).

I'm starting 5/43 in my PBEM and did not convert any US Clemson or Wickes class DD from their DD configuration, my original plan was not converting any of these DD until such time as I determined exactly what I wanted to convert them to. In the meantime, I had been applying ship upgrades for these two classes as they became available. At this point in the game (5/43), I was beginning to consider plans for converting these DD to either APD or DMS.

While looking at displays for individual Clemson/Wickes DD’s, I noticed options for converting these ships to other configurations (APD, DM, DMS) had disappeared from the Ship Displays. I did some research using archived save files from previous game turns to determine when the conversion options disappeared and perhaps why they did.

I found type conversion options to APD, DM, DMS on Clemson/Wickes DD were no longer available after these ships completed upgrade to “LR Class” in 1942 – the “LR” upgrade for Clemson occurring in 4/42, “LR” upgrade for Wickes in 5/42. What appeared to happen is the “LR” ship upgrade for these two DD classes removes type conversions to APD, DM and DMS from the upgrade paths – once an individual Clemson or Wickes class DD passes the 1942 “LR” upgrade, you have basically committed this ship for use as a DD or DE.

The moral of the story… You can leave Clemson and Wickes class DD’s unconverted but make sure ship upgrade on individual ships is turned off (Upgrade = "No") if you're intending to convert these at any later time from DD to an APD, DM or DMS. Once these DD go through a ship upgrade after 2/42... Oops! It appears Clemson and Wickes DD can go through the 2/42 upgrade without losing the ability to convert to APD, DM, DMS, etc – after that, all bets are off.




crsutton -> RE: USN 4 stacker conversions (12/31/2012 5:48:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wneumann

A word of caution for those not immediately converting Wickes or Clemson DD to another ship type (APD, DM, DMS, etc).

I'm starting 5/43 in my PBEM and did not convert any US Clemson or Wickes class DD from their DD configuration, my original plan was not converting any of these DD until such time as I determined exactly what I wanted to convert them to. In the meantime, I had been applying ship upgrades for these two classes as they became available. At this point in the game (5/43), I was beginning to consider plans for converting these DD to either APD or DMS.

While looking at displays for individual Clemson/Wickes DD’s, I noticed options for converting these ships to other configurations (APD, DM, DMS) had disappeared from the Ship Displays. I did some research using archived save files from previous game turns to determine when the conversion options disappeared and perhaps why they did.

I found type conversion options to APD, DM, DMS on Clemson/Wickes DD were no longer available after these ships completed upgrade to “LR Class” in 1942 – the “LR” upgrade for Clemson occurring in 4/42, “LR” upgrade for Wickes in 5/42. What appeared to happen is the “LR” ship upgrade for these two DD classes removes type conversions to APD, DM and DMS from the upgrade paths – once an individual Clemson or Wickes class DD passes the 1942 “LR” upgrade, you have basically committed this ship for use as a DD or DE.

The moral of the story… You can leave Clemson and Wickes class DD’s unconverted but make sure ship upgrade on individual ships is turned off (Upgrade = "No") if you're intending to convert these at any later time from DD to an APD, DM or DMS. Once these DD go through a ship upgrade after 2/42... Oops! It appears Clemson and Wickes DD can go through the 2/42 upgrade without losing the ability to convert to APD, DM, DMS, etc – after that, all bets are off.



Good point. The good news is that by the end of the year. You will have little need for APDs and it won't matter.

The Allies need APDs the most in 1942 and early 1943. After that, I found that I did not use them so much. You get a flood of them in 1944 but by then your overwhelming air and sea power allows for the use of better and bigger ships.




Sardaukar -> RE: USN 4 stacker conversions (12/31/2012 6:10:30 PM)

APDs help in Amphibious TF, since not only they unload fast, but are well armed and suppress defences a bit.




JeffK -> RE: USN 4 stacker conversions (12/31/2012 10:29:55 PM)

I have split mine about 50/50 APD /DE.

Especially early on you need some assault shipping as well as LR convoy escorts.

By late 43 attrition has bitten into both types so the late war arrivals serve to rebulid the force rather than be an addition.




Bullwinkle58 -> RE: USN 4 stacker conversions (1/1/2013 12:02:45 AM)

Something similar happens with the three (?) subs which can convert to SST. If you do you lose their ability to carry the really good mines in 1943.




Sardaukar -> RE: USN 4 stacker conversions (1/1/2013 12:08:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Something similar happens with the three (?) subs which can convert to SST. If you do you lose their ability to carry the really good mines in 1943.


Guess how many times that has happened to me.. [:(]




crsutton -> RE: USN 4 stacker conversions (1/1/2013 6:01:38 PM)

Yes, I find the SST to be of little use.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.734375E-02