Can anyone tell me the point of Ironclads?

[Xellos-_^]

I occasionally wonder if ironclads are in Civ mostly because it's a US-developed game, and it seems that most US high schoolers learned about those awesome Civil War battles involving ironclads... ... this leads to a perception (among future game developers and gamers) that ironclads were historically important.

Actually they were only built for around 30 years total (according to wiki) before the next generation of technology (battleships and destroyers) was reached. To quote wiki again:



Nonetheless they were clearly superior in close-quarters battle against wooden ships, although much less mobile.

So assuming they need to be in the game (personally I think they don't, but whatever ) they should retain their current awful movement abilities but get a big bonus DEFENDING against all wooden ships.

The end result would probably still be - like now - that they remain a barely-used unit except in specific situations. I think that's ok, seeing as it's also basically what happened in real life

they should still be allow to enter the ocean. The latter build ironclads were very seaworthy. The last confederate built ironclad cross the atlantic just in time for the end of the civil war.

should be slower then a frigate but allow to enter the ocean and have a 100% modifer againt wooden ships.

 

[Rusty Edge]

I agree that they aren't very useful.

I use them to protect my seafood, to defend my coasts from enemy amphibious task forces, and in rare situations, to attack an enemy down the coast.

I think that Wolfshanze filled the most glaring gap in BTS. I don't mind that BTS has coastal ironclads such as they are. I wish that they were the end of the upgrades for wooden ships,( and that ironclads themselves could not be upgraded) that they had a big bonus against all of the wooden ships,and that protected cruisers and pre-dreadnaught battleships were added to the coal navy.

 

[Supr49er]

Ironclads are always at or near the top in numerous "Worst Unit" polls.

 

[Tephros]

I didn't mind them when they were as fast as enemy frigates, i.e. when I was viking and circumnavigated the world first. My privateers had a ball that game too.

They're a defensive unit. I usually build a couple in a game, especially for ocean resource tiles (whales and fish). Since I typically prefer bureaucracy over vassalage, sometimes my other ships aren't adequate to defend against better-promoted rivals. I find that I might lose some units (hammers) defending these tiles without ironclads.

They should be buffed against wooden ships in some way. 2 frigates should almost never be able to destroy an ironclad. First strikes, a strength bonus, or whatever.

 

[QuixotesGhost]

There's games when I've teched towards assembly line incredibly hard and have gotten it before astronomy. My Ironclads (ironclads don't require astronomy) were very useful in protecting my coasts while I tore up my opponents riflemen with infantry and cannon.

 

[brainshannon]

I think the main reason ironclads are included, and well remembered, is that they represent a major advancement in naval military technology. Not just their armor, but also their use of steam power and (perhaps) most importantly the development of the revolving turret, were all revolutionary developments in naval military technology. In that sense, they represent a major technological leap forward for human civilization (both real and in-game).

 

[ezwip]

I think they suck and don't build them. I don't mind them being in the game. Same for muskets other people build them I don't. I don't build grenadiers either. Can't recall the last time I built a horse archer, or even a longbow.

I definitely don't think they should be crossing oceans.

 

[Xellos-_^]

I think the main reason ironclads are included, and well remembered, is that they represent a major advancement in naval military technology. Not just their armor, but also their use of steam power and (perhaps) most importantly the development of the revolving turret, were all revolutionary developments in naval military technology. In that sense, they represent a major technological leap forward for human civilization (both real and in-game).

yes, but the civ4 developer could done more for the ironclad. A Ironclad should at the least have a 100% against all wooden hulls and the 2nd generation ironclads (after the merrick and Monitor) can defintely sail in Oceans.

I think they suck and don't build them. I don't mind them being in the game. Same for muskets other people build them I don't. I don't build grenadiers either. Can't recall the last time I built a horse archer, or even a longbow.

I definitely don't think they should be crossing oceans.

On January 6, 1865 the vessel took on a Confederate crew at Copenhagen under the command of Captain T. J. Page, CSN[3] and was recommissioned the CSS Stonewall while still at sea. [4]

The arrival of the "formidable" Stonewall in America was dreaded by the Union, and several ships tried to intercept her, among them the USS Kearsarge and the USS Sacramento. The Stonewall sprung a leak, however, after leaving Quiberon, and Captain Page steamed her in to Spain for repairs. In February and March, the USS Niagara and the Sacramento kept watch from a distance as the Sumter lay anchored off Corunna during February, 1865. On March 24, the Stonewall steamed out to sea, while Captain Page challenged the US Navy vessels, which turned and fled, fearful to engage in the attack. Finding that the enemy had run, Captain Page steamed for Lisbon, with the intent to cross the Atlantic Ocean from there and attack at Port Royal, the base of Major General Sherman's attack on South Carolina.[5]

they certainly can and did enter oceans and did quite well.

 

[ezwip]

yes, but the civ4 developer could done more for the ironclad. A Ironclad should at the least have a 100% against all wooden hulls and the 2nd generation ironclads (after the merrick and Monitor) can defintely sail in Oceans.

they certainly can and did enter oceans and did quite well.

Yes but in the time line that would be just a few turns before a destroyer. So you'd have the ability to purchase this unit that would be irrelevant by the time you completed it. I think it would be more accurate if the ironclads just sunk for no reason or got caught in a storm if they tried to go into the sea and disappeared forever. Or my favorite as someone else pointed out you have two opposing iron clads line up and shoot at each other for 50 turns and neither one sinks.

 

[Justin Somnios]

I can see one use for the Ironclad.
coastal defense against privateers. Just keep them at your cities

 

[Gothic_Empire]

I think they suck and don't build them. I don't mind them being in the game. Same for muskets other people build them I don't. I don't build grenadiers either. Can't recall the last time I built a horse archer, or even a longbow.

You don't build longbowmen OR musketmen? What do you do for defense? There's a pretty big time gap between archers and riflemen.

 

[Joshua368]

You don't build longbowmen OR musketmen? What do you do for defense? There's a pretty big time gap between archers and riflemen.

Macemen???

 

[SirDrake]

- [Ironclads] seem pretty useless.... it's 12 strength is only really a bonus when defending against Ships-of-the-line.

Either Ships-of-the-Line are useful, or else they are not.

If not, then it is not useful to build Ships-of-the-Line. Ergo, Ironclads are valuable for fighting Frigates.

If so, then the Ironclad is an effective counter to a useful unit, namely, Ships-of-the-Line.

Quad erat demonstrandum.


- the Ship-of-the-Line is the same strength when vs Frigates...

Undamaged and without promotions, yes. But not always.

Compare a Ship-of-the-Line & an Ironclad, each with Combat II promotion and facing a Frigate.

Ship-of-the-Line base = 8 +20% (Combat II), +50% (vs Frigates) = 8 X 170% = 13.6
Ironclad base = 12 + 20% (Combat II) = 12 X 120% = 14.4


Even more significant is how they measure up after each has taken, say, three points of damage (assuming no promotions in this case):

Damaged Ship-of-the-Line = 8-3 +50% vs Frigates = 5 + 150% = 7.5 (probable loss)
Damaged Ironclad = 12-3 = 9 (probable win)


Plus Military Science is a dead end tech that some of us like to skip if we aren't being swamped by riflemen.


Cheers,
J

 

[say1988]

Your calculations are flawed, you may have the right conclusion, but they are not the right numbers, or you may be dead wrong.

My calculations show:
Ship of the line (attacker) vs. Frigate (lets say both Combat 2 in open water)
SoTL: 8 +20% (CII) = 9.6
Frigates: 8 -50% (SoTL vs frigates) + 20% (CII) = 5.6
9.6/5.6 = 1.71

Frigate (attacker) vs. SoTL
Frigate: 8 + 20% (CII) = 9.6
SoTL: 8 +20% (CII) +50% (cs. Frigate) = 13.6
13.6/9.6 = 1.42

Ironclad vs. Frigate (attacker and defender does not matter):
Frigate: 8 +20% (CII) = 9.6
Ironclad: 12 + 20% (CII) = 14.4
14.4/9.6= 1.5

SoTL has the advantage (better odds to win each round) attacking, Ironclad defending.

Your damage model is wrong too. Each unit has 100hp, whice when lots results in a corresponding decrease in strength, and this is calculated at the end.
Lets say full strength frigate vs. 50/100 health Ironclad and SoTL (no promos for any).

SoTL (attacker) vs. Frigate
SoTL: 8 *50/100 (health) = 4
Frigate: 8 -50% (SoTL bonus) = 4
4/4 = 1. They are equal strength, but frigate has the advantage as it takes fewer successful rolls to win the battle.

Frigate (attacker) vs. SoTL
Frigate: 8 = 8
SoTL: 8 *1.5 (vs. Frigate) *50/100 = 6
6/8 = .75

Ironclad vs. Frigate
Ironclad:12 *50/100 hp = 6
Frigate: 8 = 8
6/8 = .75 Frigate has advantage in rolls, and once again in health.

There are probably some things I missed (I don't know how much HP is lost per fight exactly, and most ironclad battles will include a defensive bonus for one side, but this shows my point without needless complications.

So a SoTL always has an advantage vs. a Frigate compared to an identically promoted ironclad in an identical situation Ironclad when attacking, Ironclad usually hold the advantage when defending (I think my defending calculations might have an error somewhere, though). Will look later.

TIP: Always remember that all bonuses go to the defender except combat promotions. So base strength of the attacker doesn't matter the defender does.

But the two most important things IMO are: mil sci is a dead end, and wooden ships are faster and can cross oceans.

 

[nanomage]

My calculations show:
Ship of the line (attacker) vs. Frigate (lets say both Combat 2 in open water)
SoTL: 8 +20% (CII) = 9.6
Frigates: 8 -50% (SoTL vs frigates) + 20% (CII) = 5.6
9.6/5.6 = 1.71

Are you sure combat bonuses vs particular unit type are applied THAT way?
mounted units without combat promotions would then have 0% attacking spears or pikes...

 

[Iranon]

Negative modifiers are still applied to the defenders, but in a different way (combat-assisted strength is divided by 1+m). In the case of SotL vs. Frigates it'd be 8+20% vs. (8+20%) / 1.5.

The distinction of who attacks is mostly relevant if there are defensive bonuses from terrain.

***

The monitors (which the in-game ironclads match) might have had a ridiculously short shelf life and probably wouldn't be missed historically by anyone outside the US, but they were an interesting development and have the potential to be a fun and quirky unit.

I think they could do with a noticable power upgrade; as units that are good only for scaring away the competition rather than forcing engagements they wouldn't be overpowered and it would reflect their historical abilities.
I'd keep the lack of seaworthiness - that's both realistic and would make the unit more unique and interesting if it was actually useful.

 

[Xellos-_^]

Negative modifiers are still applied to the defenders, but in a different way (combat-assisted strength is divided by 1+m). In the case of SotL vs. Frigates it'd be 8+20% vs. (8+20%) / 1.5.

The distinction of who attacks is mostly relevant if there are defensive bonuses from terrain.

***

The monitors (which the in-game ironclads match) might have had a ridiculously short shelf life and probably wouldn't be missed historically by anyone outside the US, but they were an interesting development and have the potential to be a fun and quirky unit.

I think they could do with a noticable power upgrade; as units that are good only for scaring away the competition rather than forcing engagements they wouldn't be overpowered and it would reflect their historical abilities.
I'd keep the lack of seaworthiness - that's both realistic and would make the unit more unique and interesting if it was actually useful.

ironclads outside of the first gen were very seaworthy. it would be unrealistic to keep then to the coast.

 

[Iranon]

This was less a question of generation than type of ship... the HMS Warrior predated the USS Monitor, to name two iconic ironclads of vastly different design.

The in-game Ironclads reflect the Monitors. Later designs along similar lines had somewhat better seaworthiness... but it remained a weak point.

 

[MonRiverMonarch]

I still believe that ironclads are only a blip historically - but they are vividly (disproportionately?) remembered because of their prominent role in the US civil war.

They aren't even remembered today for their role in the Civil War...Most people couldn't name 3 ironclads in service during the war. "Monitor, Merrimac and .....???"

 

[Rusty Edge]

Manasas, but I take your point.

On second thought, can most people name three ships from any war?