Ironclads Good or Bad?

[The Last Conformist]

In Vanilla/PTW, they were a decent unit that came with an essential tech - nothing I drooled over, but not bad.

In C3C, they got moved to a dead-end optional tech, and lost a point of movement. No thank you.

I don't see the logic in the A/D changes either - it's now the only combat ship with higher defense than attack, which means they have to be used in bombarder/attacker groups to be effective against other Ironclads, which the AI sucks at. And givent the movement changes, they probably fare worse against destroyers now - they'll be defending just about all the time.

 

[atomicgopher]

Wow, I've been getting much more varied responses then I first expected. I never thought that a good number of people actually used the ironclads.

 

[Dida]

I don't even know their stats because I have never used them.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Perhaps, to keep them useful and extend the age of sail put them with some other tech, industrialization perhaps. Or weaken them somewhat

I've heard of the idea of making them wheeled and making ocean impassable to wheeled units.. that way you still need sailing ships but they perform a powerful coastal defense function. Then just put them back with Steam power with the current ADM stats.

 

[OzJeremy]

It's a damn shame that ships are so worthless in Civ3. And it's a shame that in Civ2 you can't upgrade them.

I guess that's one other thing that SMAC gets right.

 

[Dida]

I have never played SMAC, how was ships handled in that game?

 

[OzJeremy]

Ships behaved like in Civ2, but you could upgrade them when you tech advanced (for a cost, of course), like in Civ3. SMAC was great.

Is it just me or is bombardment pretty useless? Half the time it doesn't seem to work, and the other half it will destroy something useful in the city I'm working so hard to capture.

 

[binyo66]

C3C handles better. Most of the time units on the city or the population.

 

[King Alexander]

I built ironclads only if I'm loosing big time in sea, and even then I think hard. I hate them.

 

[rschissler]

Well obviously, whether ironclads are good or bad depends on what version of Civ3 one is playing. Vanilla-Good. Conquests-Bad.

 

[paladin_yang]

If you have no oil, then...

 

[phil87]

Originally posted by OzJeremy
Is it just me or is bombardment pretty useless? Half the time it doesn't seem to work, and the other half it will destroy something useful in the city I'm working so hard to capture.

Am i missing something big? When I capture a city all the improvements are destroyed...

 

[Vizurok]

Originally posted by phil87
Am i missing something big? When I capture a city all the improvements are destroyed...

Well, almost. Only the culture-producing bulildings get razed, the others can remain (like Barracks, Walls, Harbor).

 

[XOVER]

If you have a tech lead, then ironclads, though a "dead-end" tech, might well be researched early, especially in hopes of obtaining a SGL.

Plus, ironclads are upgradgeable to destroyers up the tech tree. So ironclads, in and of themselves, are not "dead-end" naval units.

In my current game, I was bordered with the Dutch, who had this significant ancient navy full of frigates. When war came, I was glad I had a few ironclads laying around because they disrupted the Dutch navy quite well.

In general, I agree that dead-end techs are suspect. But if you've a tech lead, go for it. Keep in mind also, if you've got the tech lead, that you can sell off that dead-end ironclad tech to the AI for valuable coin too.

Ironclads? Depends on the game, sure. But keep an open mind.

 

[phil87]

Originally posted by Vizurok
Well, almost. Only the culture-producing bulildings get razed, the others can remain (like Barracks, Walls, Harbor).

Ah phew thought I had been doing something massively wrong

 

[Gumby78]

Bad in C3C: Now with it being its own optional tech. I never research the tech, better tech to research at the start of the Ind. Age.