atomicgopher
Minigodzilla
Whats your opinion?
I think they are worthless.
I think they are worthless.
Ironclads Good or Bad?
- Thread starter atomicgopher
- Start date
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
I think they are good, but I rarely build them now that I have to dedicate a tech to it.
Pook
Bloviating
I concur. The effort to research them could easily be spent on something far more productive. Besides, destroyers come along soon anyway.
Maybe that's historically accurate because ironclads only dominated naval warfare for 40 years or less, from 1862 to about 1900.
Vizurok
Magyar Soldier
Hard to decide... in Vanilla they weren't too strong with A/D 4/4, so a fortified galleon or frigate could beat them sometimes...
But now in C3C they are (much) stronger but there are lots of more important techs, like Industrialization or Med/San...
Well, I never research them but if the AI gets it I always build some of them to get rid of the old medieval ships!
But now in C3C they are (much) stronger but there are lots of more important techs, like Industrialization or Med/San...
Well, I never research them but if the AI gets it I always build some of them to get rid of the old medieval ships!
Jake5555555
Warlord
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2004
- Messages
- 149
Ironclads used to be worth building, but in conquests they have a seperate tech, so they are worthless. I would rather hurry to more modern ships then waste my time on ironclads
In vanilla I've found that they're extremely useful as picket boats. You can string them out along your coast to "detect" any approaching ships, thus freeing your BBs and destroyers from doing sentry duty. Granted, the AI's lame attempts at seaborne invasions are rarely dangerous, but it's handy to know where his fleet is.
The Commander
Warlord
I don't like them because you have to dedicate a whole tech to them, and much better things are just around the corner. The only time i could conceive of building them is in an emergency if i had naval warfare going on, which NEVER EVER happens in Civ 3 because the AI is especially lame with all water-related activities.
Maybe they'd be better in a multiplayer or PBEM game though.....
Maybe they'd be better in a multiplayer or PBEM game though.....
atomicgopher
Minigodzilla
Thats the main reason I don't like them. I don't wat to devote an entire tech to them.
LordKestrel
King
I like playing with them. I don't play to get a high score, or a fast victory time, I just play to enjoy the game. I don't mind "wasting" 5-10 turns researching a tech that isn't required, because I like making Ironclad fleets. Now that they upgrade as well, it's even better. I prefer 80% arch maps, so Ironclads are a good thing.
Crazy Jerome
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2002
- Messages
- 210
I like the change to separate tech, because it makes age of sail meaningful (or as meaningful as any navy action is in Civ). The whole point is to make it something that isn't researched every time by every Civ. From a gameplay POV, however, the tech needs a little something to spice it up. Perhaps a small wonder or a cheap great wonder would be a nice addition? No clear idea what they would do, though. 
How about a Statue of Zeus equivalent that spits out a slightly better version of the ironclad?
The best thing that would help it would be to make naval warfare more important in the game. Then the upgrade to destroyer would be more meaningful, like warrior to swordsman or even horseman to knight.
How about a Statue of Zeus equivalent that spits out a slightly better version of the ironclad?The best thing that would help it would be to make naval warfare more important in the game. Then the upgrade to destroyer would be more meaningful, like warrior to swordsman or even horseman to knight.
rychan
CS geek
I think they're worthless as a seperate tech. This could be alleviated by making it a) a cheaper tech and b) removing the silly 4 turn minimum for techs.
I think lots of cool things could be made seperate dead end techs with those changes.
I think lots of cool things could be made seperate dead end techs with those changes.
Well..., yes it's a dead end tech, but combustion is 5 tech's away.
Now people are saying that 5 tech's until destroyers is too little time to bother with ironclads. But of those 5, steel does nothing, refining does nothing, and corporations are not useful if you're maxed out for research. While industrialization is a wonderful thing, right after getting industry my priority is building factories and power plants, not ships.
Furthermore, while you're racing up the tech tree from steam to combustion, you're NOT getting sanitation, nationalism, fascism, communism, scientific method, replaceble parts nor electronics. All of which compete with the path from of steam to combustion, and any of which slap destroyers silly.
And suppose you do go straight for combustion, you won't even get to know if you even have any oil until after you've research half the required techs.
Lasty, ironclads are just vastly improved in Conquests, they're stronger, faster, and they now upgrade when you finally do get to combustion.
Frankly, it seems to me that ironclads are an important stage in naval developement, while destroyers are merely a incidental benefit on the way to tanks.
The ship I really don't get is the Cruiser. It's slower than the destroyer, destroyers are perfecty adequate to kill other destroyers, and battleships and subs are the NEXT tech.
It seems to be the only real selling point for cruisers is that they move at the same speed as transports in convoys, whoo-freakin-hoo.
Now people are saying that 5 tech's until destroyers is too little time to bother with ironclads. But of those 5, steel does nothing, refining does nothing, and corporations are not useful if you're maxed out for research. While industrialization is a wonderful thing, right after getting industry my priority is building factories and power plants, not ships.
Furthermore, while you're racing up the tech tree from steam to combustion, you're NOT getting sanitation, nationalism, fascism, communism, scientific method, replaceble parts nor electronics. All of which compete with the path from of steam to combustion, and any of which slap destroyers silly.
And suppose you do go straight for combustion, you won't even get to know if you even have any oil until after you've research half the required techs.
Lasty, ironclads are just vastly improved in Conquests, they're stronger, faster, and they now upgrade when you finally do get to combustion.
Frankly, it seems to me that ironclads are an important stage in naval developement, while destroyers are merely a incidental benefit on the way to tanks.
The ship I really don't get is the Cruiser. It's slower than the destroyer, destroyers are perfecty adequate to kill other destroyers, and battleships and subs are the NEXT tech.
It seems to be the only real selling point for cruisers is that they move at the same speed as transports in convoys, whoo-freakin-hoo.
Commander Bello
Say No 2 Net Validations
Speaking about C3C, ironclads are completely useless in my eyes (playing on uber-huge archipelago maps). For sure they are strong but very slow (3 mp), so you can't even use them as an escort.
The only thing you can use them for is blocking "canals" and very short sea routes.
Any time spent for the research is just lost, since there are other, much more important techs around. I even don't trade for them, except if I get them for peace.
A completely misplaced and useless tech in my eyes.
The only thing you can use them for is blocking "canals" and very short sea routes.
Any time spent for the research is just lost, since there are other, much more important techs around. I even don't trade for them, except if I get them for peace.
A completely misplaced and useless tech in my eyes.
1. On emperor or below, If I play as Sci Civ (like Germany), I never research deadend techs (the only dead end tech that I reserach is prepress and Economics) I prefer buy it and let the AI do that (including chivalry, democracy etc). By doing this, I could lead on techs.
2. I usually go to SciMet and done ToE wonders, and got 2 tech free to electronics. As sci. civ, u got 1 free tech free on any era. If u are lucky u got steampower free (it happened only once
)I just cant afford to search all the techs. The only possible thing to lead is by skipping deadend tech. But thats my style (and I havent play it on deity yet).
edit:
Yes, I skipped sanitation, because the pollution. And I dont see the advantage of it from my city placement style. But I will buy at when the price is cheap
SuperBeaverInc.
Groucho
They can be good, but I never use them.
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
If the tech were reduced in price to say half the current or so, they'd probably be better.
