Ironclad = meh?

[Eagle Pursuit]

It seems to me that the ironclad will have a shorter lifespan in Civ V than it even did in real history. I believe that a person probably won't even build one.

For starters, it requires coal. It's the only unit that requires coal, but factories require coal too. Factories are a lot more important in the long run, so unless you are swimming in coal, there is no reason to waste it on a unit that...

Is obsoleted by the destroyer in the very next tech and the battleship two techs after that.The destroyer is only 4 strength less that the Ironclad, which isn't much in the industrial era, and has twice the movement and a whole bunch of other bonuses. The battleship totally obsoletes the Ironclad in every way except movement, where it is equal.

The only way I see the Ironclad being useful is if you have a supreme abundance of coal and almost no oil and you need the oil for your tanks and airplanes, but don't want to neglect your navy.

 

[Schuesseled]

I pratically never built an ironclad in civ 4, so if i have the compulsion to build or upgrade to at least a few then civ 5 would have succeded in this matter.

 

[Olleus]

Its also weaker than a frigate in defence, barely stronger in attack, more expensive slower and cant go into oceans.

Its not only obsoleted by destroyers, its obsoleted by a unit which comes an era before it!

Then again, I assume that they got the frigates stats wrong. How can it be twice as strong as a caravel (which is only 1 tech behind it), but virtually as good as a destroyer, and even better than it when you take into account the relative cost?

 

[Ahriman]

Then again, I assume that they got the frigates stats wrong

This seems the most likely explanation.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Where did it say that it can't go in open ocean? I know that was true in Civ IV, but I haven't seen that said for Civ V yet. The design looks like a post-Civil War Ironclad which could be ocean-going.

 

[Shurdus]

It sounds to me that this time around they made the ironclad a niche unit that may actually even be a viable option now and then. Suppose you have a water canal to defend, then what do you are about movement? You can better spend your oil elsewherem so you use a coal unit as long as you can see a use for it.

I can see it happening, even though it remains a nice unit.

 

[Olleus]

Where did it say that it can't go in open ocean? I know that was true in Civ IV, but I haven't seen that said for Civ V yet. The design looks like a post-Civil War Ironclad which could be ocean-going.

p211 of the manual.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

p211 of the manual.

I see. It doesn't say that on pg 140, where I got my info.

 

[Olleus]

meh, so many inconsistencies and mistakes that I don't really trust much of it. Lets hope the game isn't as buggy as the manual...

 

[Monbijou]

I like the trade off factor of having to choose what to do with your Coal in the early industrial period. Increased production which will benefit for the whole rest of the game or navial advantage against frigates before destroyers. (long term vs shourt term, also in a game you could start your coal in the water for a fast local sea victory and then refund anc convert to factories) But choosing the ironclad as the repressentation i think is bad. I would have prefered more of a dreadnaught like steamer, that used coal, and would overlap with a mid industrial era choice (destroyer) Freeing using a little extra oil to use on land based units. Using a coal based ww1 unit, but at the exspence of less movement and weak to subs...etc, but could cross the ocean, could be a successful strat?. In my opinion I think the iron clad should be replaced with an early 1880-1910 coal steamer with guns.

 

[Shurdus]

Oh but it is, I can assure you. Know that I know, but with a game as complex as civ mistakes are easy to make and overlook.

 

[12agnar0k]

Well the iron clad is supposed to be a slow but strong coastal ship compared to any enemy frigates that can be brought to war against you, so it does have its purpose, it would be better if they lengthend the time where a mix of frigates/ironclads are used, if its just 1 more tech for destroyers, then yes, I don't see much point in getting them.

 

[Shurdus]

Btw, welcome to civfanatics Monbijou!

 

[Schuesseled]

ironclads not being able to travel across ocean, and not being upgradable from frigates made them enitrely pointless in civ 4.

 

[DalekDavros]

Once you get rid of the ironclad, you get the coal back for some other use. I never really built ironclads in Civ 4 anyway, but if you need the extra naval defense in the pre-destroyer/battleship period you could build the ironclad and then delete it/upgrade it/send it on a suicide mission as soon as the better alternatives come in.

 

[Shurdus]

Once you get rid of the ironclad, you get the coal back for some other use. I never really built ironclads in Civ 4 anyway, but if you need the extra naval defense in the pre-destroyer/battleship period you could build the ironclad and then delete it/upgrade it/send it on a suicide mission as soon as the better alternatives come in.

This, plus the 1upt makes the ironclad a decent coastal defender against invasions because the IC is strong in it's era, and while it's maneuvrability is a problem when trying to force an individual shop into battle, it is not a big deal when faced with a formidable invading force consisting of lots and lots of military units embarked and shipped in civilian vessels, and all those vessels suffer from the 1upt rule, and they are all coming your way...

This pretty much forces the opponents to face your ironclad, and since in it's era there is nothing stronger that can cross oceans, it can now be a formidable coastline defender indeed.

 

[PawelS]

If you pursue other techs than Electricity, it can be useful for a while, especially in Marathon games.

Btw it seems that Destroyer doesn't require Oil, seems they made one ship not require it to allow you to expand your naval force even if you don't have spare oil for better ships.

 

[Olleus]

The Iron clad isn't strong in its era. Its weaker than a frigate in defence. Until we know the correct stats for a frigate (assuming they are not the given one's) then it is impossible to hypothesis anything at all.

 

[shostrock]

I hardly ever built ironclads in Civ 4, and think that they won't be very useful in Civ 5, because they will become obsolete quickly. Two observations:

- One part of the manual says that ironclads have strength 35, ranged strength 26, but the table at the end of the manual says strength 25, ranged strength 18! I'm guessing it's the former.
- The manual says that destroyers don't need resources - this would make ironclads even less worth building, since even if ironclads do have a stronger ranged strength than destroyers and are much cheaper, destroyers are more useful in every other way (increased movement, sight, anti-air and anti-sub capabilities).

I don't think I'll be building many ironclads in Civ 5...

 

[Mustakrakish]

Ahaha like someone actually built it in civ4...