Fighters vs Jets depends upon the number of promos. CIV fighters (Cha with some crap or a long air war prior) can do reasonably well against jets. Just send in a few suicide units and the high promo fighters will down the jets.
Least Important Unit?
- Thread starter JTMacc99
- Start date
Fighters vs Jets depends upon the number of promos. CIV fighters (Cha with some crap or a long air war prior) can do reasonably well against jets. Just send in a few suicide units and the high promo fighters will down the jets.
Argh, I broke the golden rule, never say never in Civ. 
averagejoe
Chieftain
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2008
- Messages
- 48
You guys will have to remember my opinion is from someone who hasnt played Civ4 as much as the experts here so i may not understand the full potential of a unit.
I know the ironclad has been mention and i would too but historically the game may be correct. How long did the ironclads really last in the American Civil War? Im not sure if they lasted very long afterwards or if they did.
Maybe it depends on the settings you start with but for me the Warrior has been pretty much useless. I hardly get attacked before archers come along and id rather have a scout doing his job than a warrior exploring. Oh sure a warrior is nice if you need something cheap and quick but i rarely see that.
Now if i played on the highest level it might be different but im not interested in learning to win at all costs but stay at a level to where it is fun and i am being challenged though not overwelmed.
I know the ironclad has been mention and i would too but historically the game may be correct. How long did the ironclads really last in the American Civil War? Im not sure if they lasted very long afterwards or if they did.
Maybe it depends on the settings you start with but for me the Warrior has been pretty much useless. I hardly get attacked before archers come along and id rather have a scout doing his job than a warrior exploring. Oh sure a warrior is nice if you need something cheap and quick but i rarely see that.
Now if i played on the highest level it might be different but im not interested in learning to win at all costs but stay at a level to where it is fun and i am being challenged though not overwelmed.
r_rolo1
King of myself
Well, the fact is that the ironclad , in terms of gameplay, is a very bad unit for direct naval engagement , because they can be dodged by the wooden ships and are eaten alive by the oil navy. That is why people don't like them ( that and the coastal + civ's waters restriction ). The only hting that they are good at is at killing wooden ships that were stupid enough of not running away in time and in blockading, and that is in average less useful than any other ship in game.
Oh and about historicity ( @ averagejoe ):
True and false. Yes, ironclads were a short-lived form of ship. But the fact is that the ironclad in game represents all of the coal-powered ships and in that regard it is a absurdely bad unit. A 1900 state of the art coal-powered battleship ( using steam turbines ) would probably give a lot more of fight against a WW II destroyer than a Civ IV ironclad vs a destroyer
Oh and about historicity ( @ averagejoe ):
True and false. Yes, ironclads were a short-lived form of ship. But the fact is that the ironclad in game represents all of the coal-powered ships and in that regard it is a absurdely bad unit. A 1900 state of the art coal-powered battleship ( using steam turbines ) would probably give a lot more of fight against a WW II destroyer than a Civ IV ironclad vs a destroyer
A late era coal powered dreadnought would decimate any destroyers up until they started loading them out with missiles and long range torps. 13.5' guns (like on the Iron Duke, the last class of coal powered dreadnoughts) will shread the armor on any destroyer ever built (including modern destroyers). Depending upon escorts and armaments a late era coal ship might have been able to beat (or at least to withdraw) an oil destroyer up until the Korea/Vietnam era.
I'm still trying to figure out what a stealth destroyer is actually for. At that point in the game naval combat is decided by missiles/nukes/carriers. If you need a naval picket just to go bombard the coast, you know have the refrig bonus and quite likely can swing navigation anything else; which makes city to city hopping quite easy. If I do want something to kill weak ships and hide, subs are sooner and easier to come by.
As rare as it is for me to have a use for an ironclad, I still find myself in a position to build them FAR more often than stealth destroyers. Naval choke points, using them for bombardment duty/stack protection as I don't want to dick around with SoL, and blockading a wooden navy are rare, but much less rare than needy yet another late game sneaky ship.
I'm still trying to figure out what a stealth destroyer is actually for. At that point in the game naval combat is decided by missiles/nukes/carriers. If you need a naval picket just to go bombard the coast, you know have the refrig bonus and quite likely can swing navigation anything else; which makes city to city hopping quite easy. If I do want something to kill weak ships and hide, subs are sooner and easier to come by.
As rare as it is for me to have a use for an ironclad, I still find myself in a position to build them FAR more often than stealth destroyers. Naval choke points, using them for bombardment duty/stack protection as I don't want to dick around with SoL, and blockading a wooden navy are rare, but much less rare than needy yet another late game sneaky ship.
6K Man
Bureaucrat
I'd consider dreadnought battleships like the Iron Duke class to be Battleships in the Civ4 context. Rename the ironclad "Pre-dreadnought", boost it to STR 20 (and maybe increase the hammer cost), and eliminate the coastal restriction and you have a semi-useful ship.
Real world pre-dreadnoughts would have a hard time with WWII era destroyers simply because their guns didn't have an effective range long enough to hit destroyers before the latter got within torpedo range. Compound that with being very slow and not being well compartmentalized against underwater damage, and it's not a pretty picture.
Real world pre-dreadnoughts would have a hard time with WWII era destroyers simply because their guns didn't have an effective range long enough to hit destroyers before the latter got within torpedo range. Compound that with being very slow and not being well compartmentalized against underwater damage, and it's not a pretty picture.
Pikemen are the counter for a mounted unit that can't be countered by War Elephants -- the War Elephant. And the AI's build lots of Elephants if they have Ivory. (I assume humans in MP do so as well.)
Meh I view civ battleships as Queen Elizabeth and afterwards, afterall they require oil or uranium. Really what you need is Monitor style "ironclad" at steam power which is coastal restricted and gets a bonus vs wooden ships. Have either railroad or steam power + assembly line open up armoured and protected cruisers which require coal and iron; the former are higher strength, the later much more mobile. This increases the strategic options a navy has in the event it lacks oil (like oh say the British navy of the early 20th century).
r_rolo1
King of myself
Why would a bomber do intercept job? 
That is the same as asking to use axes to guard seafood vs barb galleys....
And please do not bring the "too late" argument. That only means that the person that says it is playing a ancient start and/or playing in a level to low for their skill in 90% of the cases.....
That is the same as asking to use axes to guard seafood vs barb galleys....And please do not bring the "too late" argument. That only means that the person that says it is playing a ancient start and/or playing in a level to low for their skill in 90% of the cases.....
rolo: I'm not one to normally give credence to the "too late" arguement but this IS stealth we're talking about, one of the terminal techs in the game.
For culture victories, its useless. Long before you get that far up you've turned off science (or EP) and it simply isn't worth teching.
For diplomatic victories it is only useful for diplomation type tactics. It is not even good trade/extortion bait given AI tech preferences.
For warfare, it is the last military tech in the game. While stealth bombers are powerful, they are also expensive. By that time you've already had the chance to play with nukes, jets, and most likely MArty.
Aside from that, you have the problem that a single plane + a normal destroyer beat them. That they suck at defense. At that their slight offensive advantage is meaningless as by this point in time you fight naval action at a range first.
I'm a late game guy and I certainly don't build stealth destroyers. What is their actual use?
For culture victories, its useless. Long before you get that far up you've turned off science (or EP) and it simply isn't worth teching.
For diplomatic victories it is only useful for diplomation type tactics. It is not even good trade/extortion bait given AI tech preferences.
For warfare, it is the last military tech in the game. While stealth bombers are powerful, they are also expensive. By that time you've already had the chance to play with nukes, jets, and most likely MArty.
Aside from that, you have the problem that a single plane + a normal destroyer beat them. That they suck at defense. At that their slight offensive advantage is meaningless as by this point in time you fight naval action at a range first.
I'm a late game guy and I certainly don't build stealth destroyers. What is their actual use?
