Ironclads - What point?

[Thalassicus]

It seems in every version of Civ, Ironclads are not worth building. Compare to a Frigate:

• Require many more techs
• 120% strength
• 137% cost
• 80% movement points
• Restricted to coastal tiles
• Now also takes a valuable Coal resource away from a potential Factory

At the very least, if you have surplus Coal after factories are built, it's a sidegrade from Frigates - not an upgrade. Destroyers are 1 tech later, twice as fast, have a huge sight range and can cross oceans.

Ironclads seem underwhelming from both a gameplay and realism perspective. Ironclads were quite common... simply coal-powered wooden ships covered in iron plates. The Monitor/Merrimac variety are only well known because it was the first battle between two ironclads.

Perhaps if Ironclads had 22 strength instead of 18 it might be worthwhile... bringing them equal to Destroyers, but with the disadvantages listed above.

 

[King Jason]

I don't think Ironclads have ever had a point in any of the civ-games.. except maybe civ2..

I never built them in civ4 either. It's probably a joke or something..

 

[Iberian]

I don't think Ironclads have ever had a point in any of the civ-games.. except maybe civ2..

I never built them in civ4 either. It's probably a joke or something..

Lol, I think it is an inside joke.

That is the funniest/most insightful thing I have read.

 

[Pragmatic]

I think I'm going to run a Civ 4 game starting in the Industrial Era, running at epic or marathon speed, just to have the ironclads, blimps, and such for awhile...

 

[Raulito]

Ironclads never really had a real purpose in real life. It was just another advancement in machinery. I usually never build those, just one that's it.

 

[Bibor]

Building factories or SELLING COAL is a much better investment

 

[Kaar]

Actually, the whole Ironclad thing not being able to go into oceans is historically accurate. When iron-plated, steam-powered warships were first constructed, they were forced the stay close to land because they couldn't carry anywhere near enough coal for anything longer than a short trip.

As for in game, they make for very good coastal defence ships, or bombarding enemy coastal cities on the same continent as you. Of course, that's not to say I ever build them either

 

[SerriaFox]

Another thing, Ironclads were the dominant navy for a very brief time. They were very quickly replace by dreadnoughts the battleships.

As fast as the games move it is surprising anyone would build em

 

[Thalassicus]

Very true about the coastal requirement being historically accurate, and also their brief timespan of viability.

Consider this, though:

• What we think of the modern battleship (pre/post dreadnaught) began after 1890, and the start of aircraft carrier construction in the 1930's made that class of ships obsolete.
• Likewise, the first iron-plated ships started construction in the 1850's, and were phased out for construction about four decades later with the start of the dreadnaught era. Iron-plated wooden ships still were heavily involved in combat all the way up to WWI, however.

Historically, the duration of time these types of ships were viable was about the same, so it makes sense for Ironclads to have a stronger impact on the game. Also it's odd to put time/effort/money into designing and creating a unit no one builds.

 

[rj86]

I remember it being awesome in Civ 2... although late-game ships were even more ridiculously overpowered in 2

 

[Abremms]

they can be useful as a stop-gap defense against frigates, i like to keep a couple around to watch my coasts. beyond that, not much use for them. not much use for coal at all, just factories for your main production cities. need to mod in another coal unit or two...

 

[Liquidated]

Historically, the iron clad was a highly specialized solution to a rather specific situation, the American Civil War's naval blockades. Outside of its assigned task, it was cumbersome and outright unbalanced, being towed to the battlefield from afar and even then, prone to floundering when in deep water.

What the ironclad did though, was kill wooden ships in crowded harbor while remaining effectively invulnerable. Outside of that limited role though, the design was merely a liability. The deathknell of the wooden ships of the line had been sounded though, only two decades after the American Civil War, the coal driven Dreadnoughts had started taking the oceans.

If Civ5 (and 4) really wanted to make the ironclads viable, they would be given 100%ish bonuses vs 'wooden ships' as then they would be useful for their intended role, harbor protection/interdiction. Too bad there's no distinction for which units are 'wooden' eh?

Cheers!
-Liq

 

[evanbgood]

Huh... this may support the point: I didn't realize ironclads were even in this game! I thought it went straight to destroyers... and those, most certainly, rock.

 

[magikarcher]

This thread has motivated me to change my Avatar to an Ironclad.