Ironclads suck
- Thread starter Jim Bro
- Start date
ruskyandrei
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2009
- Messages
- 144
They have their uses, in coastal waters they will rape frigates which are the ship they will be going up against in that time period.
The reason nobody builds them is because it is almost always better to just use your coal on factories.
The reason nobody builds them is because it is almost always better to just use your coal on factories.
what is the chance that a frigate encounters an ironclad on its way if no one builds them for the reason you mentioned? therefore, this unit is useless.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
It's pretty much tradition in civ for these things to exist and suck. It seems to be their fate given that their actual historical presence was small and they don't fit nicely in tech or balance in the gameplay sense. I don't fault firaxis for this one; frankly there's not a lot you can do with them and still have them be reasonably balanced.
Gameplay wise, you could have the choice between slow coastal Ironclad versus the fast ocean Destroyer, where the Irconclad is tougher to destroy (higher defense strength) and a little earlier to get, and upgradable to battleships. Destroyers would have the advantage on the offfensive (ranged attack), detect subs, more visibility and indirect fire.
Randall Turner
King
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2011
- Messages
- 679
The ironclad in the game (looking at the picture) represents the entire class of pre-dreadnought "battleships". Seriously, the picture looks just like the USS Maine, of Havana harbor explosion fame.
Coal is accurate, too. Actually, the HMS Dreadnought and (I believe) all dreadnoughts up to the Queen Elizabeth class were coal-fired.
And also of course, those ships were incredibly tough - an 1890 "ironclad" would handily stomp a WWII destroyer. Armor thick enough to shrug off an 1890 10" rifle isn't going to notice a WWII 5" round.
So. I modified them to upgrade to battleship. That, in and of itself, made them worth building. ummm... I also upgraded battleship and carrier speeds, they're a bit too slow in-game. But the killer was I also bumped the nuclear submarine speed waaay up, damn those things are mean now. Made them require uranium, though.
Regardless - after tweaking a few things I'd been thinking were "wrong", dang I'm having fun. TL;DR - don't like it, just tweak it a little yourself, no harm done. <shrug>
Coal is accurate, too. Actually, the HMS Dreadnought and (I believe) all dreadnoughts up to the Queen Elizabeth class were coal-fired.
And also of course, those ships were incredibly tough - an 1890 "ironclad" would handily stomp a WWII destroyer. Armor thick enough to shrug off an 1890 10" rifle isn't going to notice a WWII 5" round.
So. I modified them to upgrade to battleship. That, in and of itself, made them worth building. ummm... I also upgraded battleship and carrier speeds, they're a bit too slow in-game. But the killer was I also bumped the nuclear submarine speed waaay up, damn those things are mean now. Made them require uranium, though.
Regardless - after tweaking a few things I'd been thinking were "wrong", dang I'm having fun. TL;DR - don't like it, just tweak it a little yourself, no harm done. <shrug>
Kerosene31
Prince
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2001
- Messages
- 409
Yes, those are one of those things if you are going to build ironclads, you may as well just research up a bit and go for something that will last.
When you cram 4000+ years of history into a few hours, there's not much point in building these soon to be obsolete units.
You're right. I usually don't build ironclads because of the coal requirement. As they are iron-clads IMHO they should be changed to require iron instead of coal.
can Ironclads be upgraded?? if not, i'll never build one again lol.
Why the heck should ironclads be coastal anyway? The first handful of them weren't seaworthy. Then they were the default naval type in the late 19th century. They evolved into Battleships; most warships before the aircraft carrier were essentially evolved ironclads.
Yes, this would be the reason for me to play at least in epic or marathon speed. It is very though to find right balance and I guess epic speed is nearest.
Ironclads should have ability to patrol in the rivers, but graphically this is hard to achieve. Also they should be upgradable.
bryanw1995
Emperor
I actually built one a couple of weeks ago on a fractal map. GW kept randomly attacking me, and the ironclad was the best naval unit I could build at the time, I was going for a science victory, etc etc etc. looking back on it makes me concerned, but at the time it seemed like a good move.
Dragonflow
Emperor
I really wonder why they made the Iroclads a coastal based vessel, historicly only the early Ironclads weren't seaworthy. The French were the first to build seaworthy Iroclads and later on every navy used Ironclads and they were seaworthy, the in game Ironclad seems to be based on one of the late 19th century Ironclads graphically so why shouldn't they be able to cross oceans.
seasnake
Conquistador
i think naval combat needs an overhaul for ranged and melee naval units. Iron Clads and Triremes should have no ranged attack but do a devastating melee attack instead, while Frigates, and Galleys do the ranged damage. A Battleship should be able to do both.
GoodSarmatian
Jokerfied Western Male
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 9,408
I think a proper buff would be to make them able to go into oceans. They're ok to build if you have lots of coal, i actually built one. Once.
I think removing the movement restictions won't be enough, they are also too close to destroyers in the tech tree.
The only way to make them useful would be to allow ocean travel and extend the early industrial era with additional techs.
Or if Civ had rivers broad enough for naval units...
Similar threads
