AGC Ships and Amphib HQs - Proper use?

[dave sindel]

I know from reading the forum that for an atoll invasion, having an AGC in a separate TF with an HQm unit aboard is the recommended practice. It is designed to help with the automatic shock attack that atoll invasions generate. My question involves the best use of these units for non-atoll invasions?

For larger islands ( Guam for example) I have used the tactic of landing troops but not attacking right away. I land troops and then spend a few days bombarding and using air strikes to soften up the defenses. My troops on the island use that time to recover disablements and fatigue. Does having an Amphibious HQ ( HQm) on board an AGC have any effect on this later deliberate combat? Should I unload the HQm to have it help the attack as a "regular" HQ would ? Does having an AGC in a separate TF in the hex help during the actual turn of attack ? Or are these units only helpful during an atoll invasion?

[GetAssista]

The whole point of AGC is to have HQ benefits for landed LCUs while not unloading and exposing HQ itself. Best for atolls but also is useful for non-atoll invasions the same way. Should consider opportunity costs though. Most of the time it is better to prep HQm for another atoll and use regular unloaded HQ for non-atoll invasions instead.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

The whole point of AGC is to have HQ benefits for landed LCUs while not unloading and exposing HQ itself. Best for atolls but also is useful for non-atoll invasions the same way. Should consider opportunity costs though. Most of the time it is better to prep HQm for another atoll and use regular unloaded HQ for non-atoll invasions instead.

This is not correct. The Amphibious FORCE HQs do nothing but coordinate the unloading so that there is faster unloading and less disruption (because landing waves are more accurately guided to the correct section of beach). Accordingly, the AGC with appropriate HQ has the same benefits for any size island - the benefits are just more critical for an atoll because of the mandatory shock attack every day unloading takes place.

[BillBrown]

Note that an empty AGC will help the TF it is in to unload faster and with less disruption to the troops.
That is why you get many more AGCs than Amphibious Force HQs
The Amphibious Force HQ loaded on an AGC will help all TFs in the Hex.

[Sardaukar]

Note to put AGC (if loaded with Amphibious Force HQ) to separate TF from your landing TF, to avoid it to unload HQ. I usually stack it with CVE TF giving air cover from same hex. AGC itself will give benefits for landing and with loaded Amphibious Force HQ, even more.

Also not that Amphibious Corps HQ is just another Corps HQ and do not give additional benefits above normal Corps HQ.

[BillBrown]

According to michaelm, in this thread tm.asp?m=2799794&mpage=1&key=AGC&%2365533; the Amphibious Force HQ will not unload in an enemy owned hex.

[geofflambert]

It's been a long time since I played Allied, but as I recall such an HQ could not entirely fit on an AGC and what I did about that was first load the AGC, then when loading was complete I created another TF with an AK or AP and then loaded the remainder of the HQ on it. Once loading was complete there I merged the TFs into one.

[GetAssista]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: GetAssista
The whole point of AGC is to have HQ benefits for landed LCUs while not unloading and exposing HQ itself. Best for atolls but also is useful for non-atoll invasions the same way. Should consider opportunity costs though. Most of the time it is better to prep HQm for another atoll and use regular unloaded HQ for non-atoll invasions instead.

This is not correct. The Amphibious FORCE HQs do nothing but coordinate the unloading so that there is faster unloading and less disruption (because landing waves are more accurately guided to the correct section of beach). Accordingly, the AGC with appropriate HQ has the same benefits for any size island - the benefits are just more critical for an atoll because of the mandatory shock attack every day unloading takes place.

Yep, I stand corrected. You still heed regular HQs for combat bonuses.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

It's been a long time since I played Allied, but as I recall such an HQ could not entirely fit on an AGC and what I did about that was first load the AGC, then when loading was complete I created another TF with an AK or AP and then loaded the remainder of the HQ on it. Once loading was complete there I merged the TFs into one.

I thought that was the case too, but later learned that the HQ did fit if I loaded it in a stand-alone TF with no other units loading and competing for space.

[spence]

In the "olden days" when I was in the Coast Guard I actually served on two different ships which functioned as AGCs during WW2: USCGC Duane (WPG 33) - Invasion of Southern France, and USCGC Bibb (WPG 31) - Invasion of Okinawa. I am also familiar with the surviving others of the class (one sunk by a Uboat in 1942), all of which were converted to AGCs towards the end of the war. Just so's ya know: all six of them together couldn't fit an Amphib Corps HQ on board even if just for a day cruise.

The reason these ships were chosen was the large Captain Cabin (suitable for a General Officer) and their ability to absorb a large amount of extra communications gear (topside weight) aboard. Designed with terrible weather in mind they were very very stable - better than a lot of much larger ships.

Also just so's ya know: when most (not CGC Taney) of them served as convoy escorts in the Atlantic in 42/43 they were the largest (2500 tons) ships assigned to convoy escort duty at the time (USN DDs were only 1/2 to 3/4s their size). Also in 1943/44 CGC Taney moved to the Atlantic (withdrawal not in game) and got a unique upgrade for the class (4 x 5"/38 - also not in the game - the upgrade (in game) the Taney gets in 9/42 actually gives it the ASW capability it possessed on 12/07/41 - it was upgraded just prior to the war and was serving along with USS Ward as a harbor ASW guard on 12/07/41 - also although the aforementioned prewar upgrade had removed the aviation capability from the ship the ship still had a LT aviation officer who was the base OOD at Pearl Harbor on 12/07/41.)

[BBfanboy]

Interesting info spence! One wonders where the game designers got their info for ship capacity or Amphib Force HQ size. It may be one of those "abstractions" where there were elements of the HQ scattered throughout the landing craft and transport ships, radioing status reports to the AGC and signalling the charge to their set of landing craft when the AGC gave the word.

BTW, an additional idea about amphib unloading: if you have enough cargo (loaded in USA) in your TF you can create LCTs, which will then assist in ferrying troops ashore without any further instruction from you.

[jmalter]

I always had the impression that an Amph Force HQm loaded on an AGC would give a combat bonus (if prepped for the Target) as well as a substantial unload assistance - I made sure that the HQm's commander had a doubleplusgood Land combat rating.
It's possible to load all of an HQm onto an AGC (the only case I know of where a ship will overstack its load capacity), I've seen that the HQm will take substantial Disruption / Morale degradation if it's left onboard too long. It's certainly possible to split it between an AGC & another AP-type ship, but the fragment loaded on the not-AGC will contribute nothing to the assault.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

According to michaelm, in this thread tm.asp?m=2799794&mpage=1&key=AGC&%2365533; the Amphibious Force HQ will not unload in an enemy owned hex.

I don't trust such sorcery and rely instead on having it in its own TF that is set to not unload.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

According to michaelm, in this thread tm.asp?m=2799794&mpage=1&key=AGC&%2365533; the Amphibious Force HQ will not unload in an enemy owned hex.

I don't trust such sorcery and rely instead on having it in its own TF that is set to not unload.

+1 - I accidentally unloaded the HQ from the AGC when I forgot to split it out into its own TF before ordering the Amphib TF it was in to unload! [:(]

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: jmalter

I always had the impression that an Amph Force HQm loaded on an AGC would give a combat bonus (if prepped for the Target) as well as a substantial unload assistance - I made sure that the HQm's commander had a doubleplusgood Land combat rating.
It's possible to load all of an HQm onto an AGC (the only case I know of where a ship will overstack its load capacity), I've seen that the HQm will take substantial Disruption / Morale degradation if it's left onboard too long. It's certainly possible to split it between an AGC & another AP-type ship, but the fragment loaded on the not-AGC will contribute nothing to the assault.

The Force HQ contribution to combat is getting more troops ashore in better shape - so it is kind of a combat bonus!

[gmtello]

During 42 u dont have the agc availble. How do i have to use the anfibios hq. Keep it in a tf with ap or ak in the Same hex witoutt desembarking?

[rms1pa]

During 42 u dont have the agc availble. How do i have to use the anfibios hq. Keep it in a tf with ap or ak in the Same hex witoutt desemba

the HQ that starts the game is a corp HQ.
not an amphib HQ.

rms/pa

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: rms1pa

During 42 u dont have the agc availble. How do i have to use the anfibios hq. Keep it in a tf with ap or ak in the Same hex witoutt desemba

the HQ that starts the game is a corp HQ.
not an amphib HQ.

rms/pa

I think he is referring to the V Amphib Force HQ (Adm. Richmond Kelly Turner commanding) which arrives in Australia long before any AGCs are available. Others have said it helps somewhat if it is just on an xAP or AP, in its own TF and in the landing hex. An AGC makes it more effective because of the radio gear and CIC aboard.

[HansBolter]

I'm starting to wonder just how necessary, in game terms, these HQs are.

If I'm configuring my invasion TF with APAs, AKAs and beaching craft they are going to unload everything onto the atoll on the first turn regardless of the presence of an Amphib Force HQ.

Maybe, if I had no choice but to use APs and AKs with no beaching craft, or even worse, the dreaded xAPs and xAKs, then maybe my unload rate would be so atrocious that the AF HQ would do some good.

Has anyone ever attacked an atoll with ships incapable of unloading in one turn?

Don't get me wrong, I'm still dutifully preparing, loading, transporting and not unloading my Amphib Force HQs, but I'm scratching my head wondering if it is just chrome.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

I'm starting to wonder just how necessary, in game terms, these HQs are.

If I'm configuring my invasion TF with APAs, AKAs and beaching craft they are going to unload everything onto the atoll on the first turn regardless of the presence of an Amphib Force HQ.

Maybe, if I had no choice but to use APs and AKs with no beaching craft, or even worse, the dreaded xAPs and xAKs, then maybe my unload rate would be so atrocious that the AF HQ would do some good.

Has anyone ever attacked an atoll with ships incapable of unloading in one turn?

Don't get me wrong, I'm still dutifully preparing, loading, transporting and not unloading my Amphib Force HQs, but I'm scratching my head wondering if it is just chrome.

It isn't just the rate. I am sure there are fewer disablements and losses during unloading thanks to better control of traffic jams among landing craft. At least I think I read that was modeled in the effects of these HQs.