Ironclad Needs Work

[binhthuy71]

I've been playing a lot of water maps lately and one of the things that jumped out at me is that that the Ironclad is, was (Since it showed up in, I believe CiIII) the one unit that almost no one ever builds more than once. As the only Industrial Age naval unit it deserves to be something better. A comparison between the Ironclad and the Frigate offers some reasons why the Ironclad is an orphan:


Frigate
Cost:
185
Combat:
30
Ranged Combat:
15
Range:
2
Movement:
5

Ironclad
Cost:
270
Combat:
35
Ranged Combat:
18
Range:
2
Movement:
4

In sum, the Ironclad is a unit that costs half again as much as a Frigate to build, offers only a modest increase in in Strength and Ranged Combat strength over the Frigate, can not enter deep water, and requires Coal which I would prefer to expend on the Factory. It's an orphan unit for many reasons. Besides its undistinguished stats it only upgrades to Battleship which means that you have to keep an Ironclad around until you tech Telegraph to upgrade it. I'd guess that many players tech a lot of other Industrial Age techs before they tech Telegraph.

What to do? I'd suggest a substantial increase in both Strength and Ranged Combat Strength as a starting point. Give it 45 and 22 as base stats. Both of these will go away when the unit is promoted to Battleship so it would not be unbalancing. I'm sure that better minds than mine can come up with other ideas.

The British built armored Barges for coastal bombardment during the Crimean War (1853-1856). The Union built them for bombardment from rivers and the Confederate States built them to break Union blockades during the American Civil War (1861-1865). So they do have a place in Industrial Age history and they definitely deserve a place in Civ. I'd like to see the Ironclad become a more worthy era-specific unit.

 

[_Calyx]

I've always thought that the implementation of "Ironclad" ships in civ has been weird - especially in Civ III, and the have certainly all been useless.

The developers seem to be basing the ironclad unit on the very earliest ships built by the Union (ie. the Monitor) in the American Civil War. The united states may have never significantly expanded its ironclad navy, but European nations did. England, for example, had a huge fleet of steam powered ships (they also used sails) that sailed around the world.

My point is, early American ships couldn't really enter open ocean - but later designs could and did, and these ships were by far the predominant type of "ironclad." So I think it would be historically accurate to have ironclads enter deep water.

 

[binhthuy71]

My point is, early American ships couldn't really enter open ocean - but later designs could and did, and these ships were by far the predominant type of "ironclad." So I think it would be historically accurate to have ironclads enter deep water.

That might be the beginning of a worthy fix for the Ironclad.

The battle of Hampton Roads, which pitted the USS Monitor against the "Merrimack" (Actually the CSS Virginia) was closely observed by the Europeans as well as by both sides in the American Civil War. One of the first things that they learned was that building a warship that could be swamped by four foot waves was a bad idea.

Subsequent iterations of Monitors, as they were known for their use of the revolving turret, were modestly more seaworthy than their predecessors. I say "modestly" because the amount of ordnance mounted and the machinery necessary for the turrets meant that the Monitor's coal bunkers were smaller than those of purpose-built oceangoing warships. Although second-generation Monitors had a higher freeboard than the USS Monitor the majority of them were still not deep water vessels. Because of those two constraints, early Monitors were often towed to a point near where they would deploy by larger vessels.

Enough of History, how do we make the CiV Ironclad better?

 

[Soryn Arkayn]

I agree that the Ironclad is poorly represented in the Civ games, mainly because of its inability to enter deep water. As the OP pointed out, its unimpressive stats only validate the reason why virtually no Player builds it, because its so much more expensive, only has +3 ranged damage, and requires Coal which is better used for Factories.

If the dev wants to make the Ironclad a viable warship, they need to mod with a special promotion that gives the Ironland +50-100% defence or damage resistance to attacks from pre-Industrial Era ships (Frigate, Ship of the Line, Caravel, Trireme, etc) -- or basically a -50% penalty from attacks from those ships. That would more accurately represent its armoured hull's resistance to the cannons from that era.

If the Ironclad was modified like that, it might actually be used like it's supposed to, as a coastal defence ship. If I was trying for a non-Domination Victory and a civ with a powerful Renaissance Era navy declared war on me, I might consider building Ironclads to fend them off -- but only if the Ironclad was resistant to damage from Frigates, like I suggested.

 

[binhthuy71]

Soryn Arkayn, great ideas! Even better because special promotions based on unit stats would not carry forward if the Ironclad was promoted to Battleship. Your ideas would make the Ironclad ideal for people like me who prefer to turtle up in order to work on a Cultural or Science victory.

 

[_Calyx]

I like the resistance to frigate damage - but should this extend to all ranged attacks (ie. archer, cannon, city?) It doesn't make sense that the ironclad would be resistant to just one.

I could also see a use for ironclads supporting a land force in taking coastal cities. Perhaps a bonus bombardment vs. cities? This would obviously only be helpful for cities on the coast of your own continent.

 

[Soryn Arkayn]

I like the resistance to frigate damage - but should this extend to all ranged attacks (ie. archer, cannon, city?) It doesn't make sense that the ironclad would be resistant to just one.

I could also see a use for ironclads supporting a land force in taking coastal cities. Perhaps a bonus bombardment vs. cities? This would obviously only be helpful for cities on the coast of your own continent.

I suppose it makes sense for the Ironclad to be resistant to ranged damage from all pre-Industrial units, including Archers, cannons, and cities.

However, the Ironclad should not be given any attack promotions or bonuses, because its hull armour made it nearly impervious to the smooth-bore cannons, but it was armed with the same smooth-bore cannons, which is why the battle between the Monitor and the Merrimack was a draw, because neither could penetrate the other's armour.

 

[ViterboKnight]

I suppose it makes sense for the Ironclad to be resistant to ranged damage from all pre-Industrial units, including Archers, cannons, and cities.

I second this.
Also, being steam powered, it should be far faster than a frigate. If a frigate has movement 5, an ironclad should be at least 6.
About being unable to cross ocean, well, it could be fine. With the suggested fixes, it becomes a strategic ship, and it could be funny to use.

 

[qalsip1977]

Also, being steam powered, it should be far faster than a frigate. If a frigate has movement 5, an ironclad should be at least 6.

I agree that the Ironclad should have a buff to defense. Obviously the transition in the Industrial Age from wood to iron hulled ships was inspired by the wood hulls being vulnerable to explosive shells.

I disagree that the ironclad should be faster than a frigate, however, because most (up until the late 19th century) had sails to compensate the steam power because of the vessel's weight (iron). I'd say equal movement would make sense. Ironclads weren't made to be cruiser (long range vessels) anyway. They were made to be battleships (pre-dreadnaught). That being said, a 5 damage increase is FAR too modest, ironclad ships boasted some pretty powerful artillery and I think this is where the devs are "missing the boat" (pun intended) the most...

 

[Derpy Hooves]

I find it amusing how they keep insisting it should be more 'like a game' (AI that tries to taunt and hate like a human player yet still wars like in Civ 4) and that realism is second to gameplay but they still insist on these useless things? I think I built one in all my games, when making an armada to bombard cities was still viable, even then it could'nt keep up with my frigates and most of the time arrived when the offending city had already been reduced to 1 hp.

 

[Teagen]

an extra 85 production, 1 coal, losing 1 movement point....all for 5 combat strength and 3 ranged strength.

The current trade off just isn't viable.

 

[Soryn Arkayn]

I disagree that the ironclad should be faster than a frigate, however, because most (up until the late 19th century) had sails to compensate the steam power because of the vessel's weight (iron). I'd say equal movement would make sense. Ironclads weren't made to be cruiser (long range vessels) anyway. They were made to be battleships (pre-dreadnaught). That being said, a 5 damage increase is FAR too modest, ironclad ships boasted some pretty powerful artillery and I think this is where the devs are "missing the boat" (pun intended) the most...

Some Ironclads could achieve over 16 knots at full power, which was faster than sail-powered frigates or ships-of-the-line, which could only achieve 13-14 knots at full sail with the wind. Considering that an Ironclad could be propelled faster regardless of the wind's direction, it's perfectly justified that it should have more Movement points than a Frigate or Ship of the Line.

Some Ironclads were designed to be cruisers -- primarily those belonging to the British. The British Empire was able to support a fleet of Ironclad cruisers because they had colonies and ports everywhere, where their coal-powered ships could resupply.

The problem is that when most people think of Ironclads, they always think of the Monitor and the Merrimack, the first two ironclads to do battle. And because those two American ironclads weren't designed for ocean travel, everyone assumes that all ironclads were incapable of crossing the ocean. But that's a fallacy. The British and most other naval powers began building ocean-going ironclad warships after the Battle of Hampton Roads in 1961.

Firaxis needs to do their homework and modify the Ironclad in Civ5 so that it's actually useful and isn't limited to only shallow water, then maybe players will actually build them.

 

[nokmirt]

<Row>
			<Class>UNITCLASS_IRONCLAD</Class>
			<Type>UNIT_IRONCLAD</Type>
			<PrereqTech>TECH_STEAM_POWER</PrereqTech>
			<Combat>45</Combat>
			<RangedCombat>24</RangedCombat>
			<Cost>270</Cost>
			<Moves>4</Moves>
			<Range>2</Range>
			<CombatClass>UNITCOMBAT_NAVAL</CombatClass>
			<Domain>DOMAIN_SEA</Domain>
			<DefaultUnitAI>UNITAI_RESERVE_SEA</DefaultUnitAI>
			<Description>TXT_KEY_UNIT_IRONCLAD</Description>
			<Civilopedia>TXT_KEY_CIVILOPEDIA_UNITS_RENAISSANCE_IRONCLAD_TEXT</Civilopedia>
			<Strategy>TXT_KEY_UNIT_IRONCLAD_STRATEGY</Strategy>
			<Help>TXT_KEY_UNIT_HELP_IRONCLAD</Help>
			<MilitarySupport>true</MilitarySupport>
			<MilitaryProduction>true</MilitaryProduction>
			<Pillage>true</Pillage>
			<IgnoreBuildingDefense>true</IgnoreBuildingDefense>
			<ObsoleteTech>TECH_TELEGRAPH</ObsoleteTech>
			<Mechanized>true</Mechanized>
			<AdvancedStartCost>50</AdvancedStartCost>
			<MinAreaSize>20</MinAreaSize>
			<XPValueAttack>3</XPValueAttack>
			<XPValueDefense>3</XPValueDefense>
			<UnitArtInfo>ART_DEF_UNIT_IRONCLAD</UnitArtInfo>
			<UnitFlagIconOffset>53</UnitFlagIconOffset>
			<IconAtlas>UNIT_ATLAS_2</IconAtlas>
			<PortraitIndex>10</PortraitIndex>
			<MoveRate>BOAT</MoveRate>
		</Row>

75% strength of a battleship more comparable to a dreadnought tan an ironclad. Basically I put some distance between iron ships and wooden ones to give the ironclad a true day for glory, even if it will be shortlived.

<Row>
			<UnitType>UNIT_BATTLESHIP</UnitType>
			<PromotionType>PROMOTION_INDIRECT_FIRE</PromotionType>
		</Row>

I was curious if I should give the ironclad indirect fire? For my current game I left it off. I may change that we'll see after this game.

<Row>
			<UnitType>UNIT_IRONCLAD</UnitType>
			<FlavorType>FLAVOR_NAVAL_RECON</FlavorType>
			<Flavor>8</Flavor>
		</Row>

I gave it naval recon because it is ocean going.

<Row>
			<UnitType>UNIT_IRONCLAD</UnitType>
			<UnitAIType>UNITAI_ESCORT_SEA</UnitAIType>
		</Row>

I gave it escort sea because again it is ocean going. erase the following code.

<Row>
			<UnitType>UNIT_IRONCLAD</UnitType>
			<PromotionType>PROMOTION_OCEAN_IMPASSABLE</PromotionType>
		</Row>

Erase it make it ocean going. To me it is more interesting. You can still have it protect coasts if you choose, but they still made ships of iron with the availibility to cross ocean. Countries like Britain needed to protect trade routes and convoys, so why handicap everyone that is no fun. These are my changes. In my current game I will let you know how these work out. I am getting closer and closer to being able to build them.

 

[binhthuy71]

nokmirt, nice work! Thanks for including your actual edits.

 

[kwikill]

not to be "that guy" but if I'm sitting on surplus coal, I actually DO build ironclads as they give me ready-to-upgrade battleships once I hit telegraph (assuming I have the oil)

 

[binhthuy71]

not to be "that guy" but if I'm sitting on surplus coal, I actually DO build ironclads as they give me ready-to-upgrade battleships once I hit telegraph (assuming I have the oil)

No worries; if Ironclads are working out for you then build them by all means. IMO they could just be better.

 

[KillingMeSoftly]

Yeah, I was under the impression that Ironclad is supposed to represent everything from the very first Ironclads used in the American Civil War, to the pre-Dreadnoughts. It's kind of silly that the Ironclad isn't much stronger at all than the Frigate, not to mention can't sail through the Ocean. Plus it requires a Stategic resource we use for Factories and is more expensive to produce.

I'd like to see the Ironclad able to enter the Ocean and have stronger Combat Strength and Ranged damage. But I feel that Naval units as a whole could be stronger and have access to the Siege promotion.

Thanks for the edit, nokmirt. I'll probably use it.

 

[binhthuy71]

I'd like to see the Ironclad able to enter the Ocean and have stronger Combat Strength and Ranged damage. But I feel that Naval units as a whole could be stronger and have access to the Siege promotion.

Siege promotion: Bingo! That would transfer nicely to the Battleship. The Battleship is, in my opinion, currently way under powered when bombarding cities. Battleships carried the biggest guns (Outside of railway-mounted siege guns) available at the time. CiV's Battleships very modest performance against cities is disappointing.

 

[General Awesome]

IMHO the best way to improve ironclads and units in general is to signifcantly increase the HP/Attack of units depending upon era. Civ5 did this a little, but not enough. For example if the ironclad had 50 compared to a frigate's 25 and to a battleship's 100 it would accuratly represent the tech gap, and bonuses/penalties would even everything out.

 

[headcase]

They should have way more defensive strength at least. Abstractions aside, how is iron only 1/6 stronger than wood?!