[Vanilla] Civ6 Ironclad

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

I've just test animations of Civ6 Ironclads and it turns out that port and starboard guns aren't dummy at all. actually it could be modded to be either Naval Ranged or Battleship (Naval unit class in my mod project, which i might consider removing it if you don't agree with separations of Naval Ranged and Battleship class). In default games (including in Civ5 as well) Ironclads are naval melee with (usually) available with Steam Power (except in Civ3 expansions which it has its own separate tech (And the sillest 'tech' ever exists).
1. Do you agree with the default Ironclad Civilopedia entry?

The best-known clash between ironclads – those steam-propelled, lumbering behemoths covered by iron or steel plating – at Hampton Roads in May 1862 AD ended in a draw. The C.S.S Virginia had earlier wreaked havoc on the Union’s traditional warships there, and while there was a lot of fighting still to come, the age of wood and sail in warfare was doomed. But the American ironclads weren’t very seaworthy, and tended to sink in open water. The British Royal Navy built the first classes of “seagoing ironclads” (actually armored, iron-hulled frigates) in the early 1860s, and soon enough they added steam-engine driven screws to the designs. Seeing how the Virginia had handled wooden warships far larger, every nation scrambled to build ironclads. The first fleet action fought on the open water between ironclads was near the island of Lissa in the Adriatic between the Austrian and Italian navies; of the 19 ironclads involved, two went to the bottom. But, like that battle, the age of the ironclad didn’t last long.

https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Ironclad_(Civ6)

I don't! After extensive online research i've found out that the term isn't only limited to the broadside steam ship with iron platings -> American Civil War variants (which they're strictly riverine), the term is colloquially referred to Battleships until the release of HMS Dreadnought. and the term becomes very hazy in 1870-1890s but some still called 1890s era BB as Ironclad until Dreadnought came. To be precise. Ironclads are the predecessor of Battleships (As well as Ships of the Line are). Also the earliest Ironclads are also oceangoing ships of the line with steam and sail propulsins and armor platings.
In First Sino Japanese War (AKA the Jiawu War). Qing China bought two (or maybe more) Battleships (Also referred to as Ironclads) from German Empire, the most modern by the time. both are named Zhen Yuan and Ding Yuan (The ONLY BBs ever owned by China ever). both came with ridiculously positioned main battery.



https://www.naval-encyclopedia.com/ww1/china/dingyuan-class-ironclads-1881

Too bad the ship is humbled by Japanese tactical superiority. by then Japanese Navy doesn't have any Battleship yet (I'm not sure if Koutetsu/Azuma which formery owned by Confederate State of America can be called such but they didn't use it against Qing Empire in that war). their flagship is a big French made Cruiser (not sure if it is 'protected' (only engine rooms armored) or 'armored'.) but they used alot of Torpedo Boats and smaller cruisers there.

2. Why Firaxis assigned Ironclad as Naval Melee? What did Ironclads really are? ACW armored river gunboats? did they have so much impressum with ACW?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City-class_ironclad

and a little item of note. US Army once owned these Ironclads before transferred them to Navy. Is it because there's no Navy base along Missisipi? this is not so usual that Land oriented 'Army' owns warships which usually 'Navy' thing (similiarly like Navies never add cavalrymen to their marine corps )

 

[Victoria]

Why Firaxis assigned Ironclad as Naval Melee? What did Ironclads really are?

It's a general term covering an long era rather than a specific class as you have discovered.
They have tried to fit naval warfare into melee vs ranged and in that era it was melee's turn for a ship. The whole area does not stand up at all well to scrutiny from a historical perspective but mechanically it is sufficient.
so in answer to your queries.
1. Yes to some degree. It is not inaccurate but does not encompass all uses of the word. It is still good history.
2. Because Naval ships take turns at being the best, Galley (melee), Quad (ranged), Caravel (melee), Frigate (ranged), Ironclad(melee), Batteship (ranged), destroyer(melee), Missile cruiser (ranged)... I feel this works OK.

 

[Melliores]

All the classes in the game try to cover broad categories of land, naval and air organisation. As I understand it, Naval Melee are short-range, manouverable ships mostly intended for patrol, convoy and maritime combat. Naval Ranged are bigger, better-armed vessels dedicated to strategic operations like blockades, coastal bombardment and the like. They can still engange other ships.

As pointed out by Victoria, Ironclad is too broad of a term to be able to fit the full definition and history on the civilopaedia page. It does a good job explaining what it was.

Ironclads were mostly used as a support ship and did not have to much firepower to begin with. You could not level a part of city with them for example. You can still try, as this is possible in game, though the results will vary.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Ironclads were mostly used as a support ship and did not have to much firepower to begin with. You could not level a part of city with them for example. You can still try, as this is possible in game, though the results will vary.

Are you referring to ACW Ironclads rather than HMS Warrior or La Gloire ones or 'Armored Frigates' and other 'Cuirass Ships' 'Armored Ships' which shortly later referred to big size BB.?

 

[AlanC9]

What's the actual proposal here? Throw out the naval melee concept and make all ships with guns ranged? I dob't see where this is going.

 

[Abaxial]

I disagree re Hampton Roads. Ironclads were the staple of navies round the world for decades, and any naval action up to 1900 involved them. Perhaps it should read "The best-known clash between American ironclads ...". The two ships that fought at Hampton Roads were very early designs and quite atypical of what was to follow, which is why the ironclad model in Civ 5 was much better.

As the officer on the CSS Virginia said when asked why he had stopped firing, "I could do as much damage by snapping my fingers every five minutes." Not a model for naval warfare!

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

What's the actual proposal here? Throw out the naval melee concept and make all ships with guns ranged? I dob't see where this is going.

I am quoting the dubious historical accuracy about Ironclads here from what I've read. where most of them are BB and including what's later called 'Pre Dreadnought Battleships' (From Two Qing Battleships mentioned earlier to Mikasa and SMS Pommerania (Pre-dread design, released several months AFTER HMS Dreadnought, served Germany until later days of WW2). And ones fought in Chile in their civil war is also Ironclad and was the first victim of torpedo boat attacks.

I don't mean that every ships with guns should be ranged (though I prefer Atomic Era Destroyers to have ranged attacks in addition to melee). Boris even suggested that Frigate shown up too early and placed in wrong class. he suggested that Frigate should be Melee (and should be fast). Also 'Galleon' and 'Ship of the Line' should be ranged choice as well as Ironclad.
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/navy-reform.650637/

 

[AlanC9]

It's not usually all that useful to rely on past usages of language; Civ's never worked that way. Do modern speakers call ships like Mikasa "ironclads"? I've never heard ships of that era referred to as such. But Civ 6 can't really match modern usage either, since the industrial naval melee type has to exist for a lot longer than current usage of "ironclad" would permit. Conceivably we could call the type "armored cruisers" if you'd prefer.

In game terms, it works well enough, doesn't it?

 

[Victoria]

It's not usually all that useful to rely on past usages of language; Civ's never worked that way

Very true.
After all we have Frigates, not exactly triple decked or 74’s were they? Razeed perhaps but Frigate itself is more general than this specialised evolution. Frigates were certainly not first rate ships but they had their time, then they were matchwood.

 

[Sostratus]

Our Civ series ironclad has always been depicted as the ACW style (except for the civ5 model, although they later added ACW models.)

Because you have the leapfrogging upgrades between classes, you can’t really model the ranged ship of this period (I would probably say the Civ game’s representation of any Dreadnought and later capital ships is the battleship unit.)

So this is what we get. It at least tries to capture “ironclad ships show up and counter frigate/ship of the line types.” And in turn falls to the almighty Battleship.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Our Civ series ironclad has always been depicted as the ACW style (except for the civ5 model, although they later added ACW models.)

Because you have the leapfrogging upgrades between classes, you can’t really model the ranged ship of this period (I would probably say the Civ game’s representation of any Dreadnought and later capital ships is the battleship unit.)

So this is what we get. It at least tries to capture “ironclad ships show up and counter frigate/ship of the line types.” And in turn falls to the almighty Battleship.

Is this firaxis concepts of naval warfare that one era favors melee (did Firaxis took Ironclad ramming attacks seriously) and the other era ranged weapons dominate naval warfare (Chordite ? shells and steel rifled guns) and defies 'class associations' like Ironclads are a predecessor to Dreadnought BB and thus it should be upgraded to it. so they favor ACW Gunboat Ironclads over oceanic ones?
Actually the Civ5 Ironclad is a ship that is a transition stage between ironclads and BB. the model used is French Navy BB Redoutable



Also I don't understand why Firaxis choose Frigate name over Ships of the Line for ranged late Renaissance unit?
And do you think oceangoing Ironclad / Armored Frigate is a good naval range unit for that era too?? or you disagree because it will sorely ruin gaming balance in exchange of historical accuracy?

 

[Sostratus]

And do you think oceangoing Ironclad / Armored Frigate is a good naval range unit for that era too?? or you disagree because it will sorely ruin gaming balance in exchange of historical accuracy?

There's nothing wrong with adding an industrial era naval ranged unit. the real issue would be tech tree placement - and resource usage. Battleships already come at steel so the window of usage is a bit small.
However, something akin to a pre-dreadnought battleship would probably do the job admirably because those are a great example of what a "ranged ironclad" would be, if you counted the early ironclad as a melee unit. (And welding armor plates onto ships set up for broadsides is, basically, a naval melee ship.)

The problem is you have a TON of innovation in ships happening in a fraction of a Civ era - the HMS dreadnought was launched 41 years after the end of the ACW. But if an industrial naval ranged unit did exist, as long as its stats made sense, there would be no real issue.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

^This means reworking tech tree. mmm do you agree or disagree with STEEL is placed in early MODERN ERA rather in the late INDUSTRIAL ERA (after Steam and Rifling)? and why?

hehe actually i'm working on mod project and had already modified tech trees to slow the game down (civic tree will be adjusted oneday but after i've done with tech first). And with this many units including warships are added.
Also personally I disagree with FRIGATE being Late renaissancce naval ranged. I'm leaning more on Boris' proposal.

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/enlightenment-era.651890/page-2#post-15606784

 

[Abaxial]

Have a look at Hizkiyahu's Warfare Expanded: Reloaded

Naval Melee

• 
  Galley -> Cog -> Caravel -> Corvette -> Ironclad -> Torpedo Gunboat -> Destroyer -> Missile Frigate

Naval Ranged

• 
  Quadrireme -> Galleass -> Frigate -> Armored Cruiser -> Light Cruiser -> Battlecruiser -> Missile Destroyer

Naval Bombard

• 
  Greek Fire Dromon -> Carrack-> Ship Of The Line -> Pre-Dreadnought -> Dreadnought -> Battleship -> Missile Cruiser

Naval Raider

• 
  Privateer -> Merchant Raider -> Submarine -> Ballistic Missile Submarine
  
  

 

[ehecatzin]

I think I'm a broken record but:

The game needs an era between Renaissance and Industrial (Enlightement or Imperial).

There's a lot going on in this timeframe and civ just breezees through it, no wonder the unit tech tree starts to go weird starting on industrial.

In the case of naval warfare...yes, Ironclads could have a smoother transition, and we could actually have a time frame for Ship of the Line.

I'd rather they had given us that intermediate era instead of more future eras...climate change effects should hit like a truck on information era anyway.