unit-promotion balance thread

[mystikx21]

In reference to this post. . I like to keep discussion over our overall goals separated from specific changes.

There seemed to be some agreement that there were useful changes to units made by CEP. But there are undoubtedly some changes that do not work very well, or are no longer necessary because of the dll or maybe AI improvements. Those need to be discussed before we add any of it to the balance mod package. Testing should proceed on the happiness system and changes to the game economy as those come online. Units and combat are basically a separate system that can be unpacked and rolled out alongside it.

A general set of goals for units would look something like this
1) Assure navies are useful and well-balanced throughout, and if possible fill missing unit gaps. BNW did some work in this direction already. It has some gaps. Most of CEPs work in this respect was to make islands and coasts more useful still, and not necessarily changes to units directly.
2) Assure cities and siege warfare are sensibly balanced. For example, have cities that don't hit as hard but would take longer to bring down because of extra HP from defences. Or have siege units that hit cities hard and are hard for cities to kill but can be easily dispatched by an army, suggesting an active defence.
3) Assure all available units have a clear role and sensible upgrade path that makes them potentially useful to build.
4) Avoid adding or removing units where possible.
5) Look to consolidate and add promotions to provide good choices for new promotions.

My immediate thoughts in looking over the changes CEP made

1) We should not use the cost factor (1.8/2x) until there are decisions made about the yields of tiles for production/gold. If those are increased significantly, then units can be increased in cost to some appropriate value. For now, costs should remain based upon vanilla cost but would remain adjusted up or down based on increases in the value of the units. Individual unit costs are part of the unit being balanced against other era units.

2) In general I'm much happier with the changes to units as "balanced" there. We may need to do some disentangling to remove all or most of the "vanguard" issues with promotions that weren't quite stripped out yet. For example how the medic promotion is made available and other "vanguard" promotions, like the "scouting" path could be useful to use for specific units. Most of the other promotion changes are consolidating weaker promotions or adding some gaps.

Note: The consolidated promotions for amphibious mean the Marine unit is useless. A civ is better off taking the promotion to make a unit a "Marine" unit as it will continue to improve over time as upgraded and have the same effects. As a result, the Marine unit was removed in the mod as it was made obsolete and unnecessary.

We also tended to find that the ATG was not a significant enough unit to need to keep as it was difficult to find an upgrade path for it that made sense. The vanilla upgrade path for it is a total mess and felt more like they were reaching to find a spot for the unit themselves in designing it. An anti-tank promotion could be rolled into the gunship and bazooka units to provide some base anti-tank power as with spears and pikes and anti-horse, and then just get rid of this unit. If we can find a use for this unit or an upgrade path that would make sense, then that would be fine too.

3) The main unit question marks I can see concern these units and effects:

Lancers/Dragoons (Cavalry) - How can we differentiate these to make the lancer and the Dragoon interesting and worth building. The current approach is to make the dragoon a skirmisher unit that can fight at range (1), hit and run, but is vulnerable on defence. This was previously the approach used for lancers instead but it makes more "realism" sense with mounted infantry units. This approach was also used on the chariots and gunships, they will hit harder and die somewhat easier (but also won't be more vulnerable to anti-horse units). I'm not sure how I like this approach or if it is indeed appropriate, how well the unit strengths are balanced as yet.

A reverse system was used on the GG-MG-Bazooka unit line to make them stronger on defence but weaker on attack.

Pike-Lancer ATG-Gunship upgrade path (vanilla) or Chariot - Dragoon - Gunship upgrade path (CEP). The latter is way too long a gap and we should at least allow the units to be upgraded to intermediate mobile units (horsemen or knights, landships). The former has all kinds of logical problems; speed and resource requirements keep shifting on and off.

Whether or not to add the missile destroyer (a late game melee ship as a post-destroyer upgrade alongside the missile cruiser as a post-BB capital ship) and the bireme (an early game ranged ship alongside the trireme).

I would also consider there to be a gap between galleons (privateers) and destroyers that ironclads should be filling, but ironclads are made into ranged capital ships. Which means there may need to be a dreadnought or a cruiser unit to fill the frigate-battleship gap so ironclads can remain a melee ship. I also do not like ironclads (or whichever unit becomes a capital ship in that era) requiring iron instead of coal as CEP uses.

Things we could now do that we could not before: separate promotion trees for specialised units within a unit class (airborne, the "skirmisher" units, spears/pikes, aircraft carrier, missile ships, ASW or AA on later game ships, ranged UU knights, etc). Also having airborne units drop and attack on the same turn.

We should still need a way to convert these effects for units that do not get them, such as if a unit swaps between ranged and melee when upgraded, the promotions should convert to appropriate effects.

Whether or not, or how best, to provide some city bonus for dealing with later game siege (3 range).

 

[Stalker0]

2) Assure cities and siege warfare are sensibly balanced. For example, have cities that don't hit as hard but would take longer to bring down because of extra HP from defences. Or have siege units that hit cities hard and are hard for cities to kill but can be easily dispatched by an army, suggesting an active defence.

A reverse system was used on the GG-MG-Bazooka unit line to make them stronger on defence but weaker on attack.


I would also consider there to be a gap between galleons (privateers) and destroyers that ironclads should be filling, but ironclads are made into ranged capital ships. Which means there may need to be a dreadnought or a cruiser unit to fill the frigate-battleship gap so ironclads can remain a melee ship. I also do not like ironclads (or whichever unit becomes a capital ship in that era) requiring iron instead of coal as CEP uses.

Whether or not, or how best, to provide some city bonus for dealing with later game siege (3 range).

I've quoted the areas I wanted to touch on.

1) I agree with a revamp in city/siege warfare. Cities should take more punishment and deal less damage....especially with a ranged garrison.

Also...what are people's though on ancient sieging? I think it takes a heavy investment of hammers to conquer anything before catapults, making ancient conquest particular daunting. However, perhaps that makes sense, and ancient warfare should focus on tribute from CS, barb killing, and pillaging wars.

What are people's thoughts here?

2) We have longed tried to find a balance for the GG/MG line. Honestly though, do these units really need to exist in the game? At that point we have melee units, we have multiple mounted units, we have greater siege, we even have aerial combat coming into play. What does the GG/MG units provide us that isn't handled by the myriad of other military options we have at this point?

3) I would agree that if there is one naval area I want to look at right, it is the gap between frigates and battleships. Frigates stick around for a really long time right now, and they simply do not compete towards the end of their lifecycle. I don't feel this way about any of the naval units before it.

As to the bireme, I don't think its necessary. That early in the game, it takes enough hammers just to put together a few triremes, and they serve the early navy function just fine imo. They are good scouts, they kill barbs, they have a strength that lets them function pretty well in assisting with city conquest.

I generally feel that by the time I am ready for a "real navy" then I can get compass.

4) City Range I agree is a topic for discussion. First of all, I have argued before that I think the +1 range promotion is fundamentally broken. Get that on a ship early in the game and you have an advantage that almost never goes away, and has no equal. A battleship with that promotion is laughably good.

I also think range 3 longbows are very overpowered.


Back to the original point, the argument can be made that once artillery comes around, the game changes from a "city centric" defense strategy to a more active defense. Basically you should use your armies more (and your own artillery) to defend yourself. And if the AI was tactically good at warfare I would agree with that argument.

But the AI is not good at tactical warfare (and though improvements have been made, its just not our equal)...however, it does a decent enough job with its city attacks. So I would vote to increase city range either by building or by tech (and I would be amiable to arguments made for either option).

 

[Stalker0]

Since we have DLL power now, let me ask about the feasibility of this.

Is it possible after gaining a tech, to give a unit increased strength AND a name change?

I'm thinking of the frigate -> battleship problem we just discussed. The current wisdom would be to add an interim unit between the two, but that has its own difficulties and complexities.

What if we could instead simply give the frigate a strength upgrade after a certain tech was reached, so it could remain viable longer?

Now that alone might be a little off putting to the player just off hand, so if we could also provide it a slight change to the name "like Frigate - Dreadnought or something cool sounding" and maybe a change to its icon graphic that might do the job.

That's a bit more radical in design, but it provides us a tool that might solve the problem more elegantly than just cramming in another unit.

 

[whoward69]

Since we have DLL power now, let me ask about the feasibility of this.

Is it possible after gaining a tech, to give a unit increased strength AND a name change?

I'm thinking of the frigate -> battleship problem we just discussed. The current wisdom would be to add an interim unit between the two, but that has its own difficulties and complexities.

What if we could instead simply give the frigate a strength upgrade after a certain tech was reached, so it could remain viable longer?

Now that alone might be a little off putting to the player just off hand, so if we could also provide it a slight change to the name "like Frigate - Dreadnought or something cool sounding" and maybe a change to its icon graphic that might do the job.

That's a bit more radical in design, but it provides us a tool that might solve the problem more elegantly than just cramming in another unit.

Seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Far simpler and easier for players to understand if you just create the interim unit with the new strength, name, etc at the desired tech and make all previous units auto-upgrade on researching the tech (hook one event and execute some Lua - event and Lua API methods already exist in the DLL)

 

[Stalker0]

Seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Far simpler and easier for players to understand if you just create the interim unit with the new strength, name, etc at the desired tech and make all previous units auto-upgrade on researching the tech (hook one event and execute some Lua - event and Lua API methods already exist in the DLL)

Good to know that much is feasible. Whether players would baulk at an "auto upgrade" for one type of unit but not for others I think would be up for debate.

Another option towards this line would be the addition of a promotion, similar to how optics provides everyone the embarkation promotion when you return to your borders.


So for example the frigate could receive "Dreadnought Paneling" that gives it an X% boost in strength. The only issue would be the aesthetics. I am sure we could adjust the upgrade to give us the right strength for the job. The fact that you still have frigates alongside destroyers is aesthetically weird...but from a balance standpoint doesn't matter.

This idea could also bridge the destroyer -> missile destroyer gap that mystikx was concerned about. Instead of a new unit, just add a "Missile Upgrade" promotion to the destroyer to keep it competitive.

 

[whoward69]

Is it possible ... to give a unit ... a name change?

Forgot to answer this part. I recently added the ability to name a unit based on a promotion, eg

<UnitPromotions_UnitName>
  <Row>
    <PromotionType>PROMOTION_INVULNERABIILITY</PromotionType>
    <UnitType>UNIT_KRIS_SWORDSMAN</UnitType>
    <Name>TXT_KEY_UNIT_INDONESIAN_ KRIS_SWORDSMAN_INVULNERABIILITY</Name>
  </Row>
  <Row>
    <PromotionType>PROMOTION_SNEAK_ATTACK</PromotionType>
    <UnitType>UNIT_KRIS_SWORDSMAN</UnitType>
    <Name>TXT_KEY_UNIT_INDONESIAN_ KRIS_SWORDSMAN_SNEAK_ATTACK</Name>
  </Row>
</UnitPromotions_UnitName>

 

[mystikx21]

@stalker, I'd agree you're looking at a sledgehammer approach. If there's a gap, the easiest thing to do is to fill it with a unit, not to do an automatic upgrade or a renamed unit. It's also unrealistic. Frigates, age of sail ships, became obsolete with the introduction of armored and steam powered ships that is represented by ironclads and this is approximately when they should in game terms. The issue is there's no ship filling in between frigates and battleships. I don't see how the historical or balanced reaction to that is to fill it with an "upgraded" frigate. You should be phasing out your frigates with new or upgraded ships.

The problem with destroyers later on isn't the lack of missiles either, it's the actual strength is too low for atomic and information era combat to attack cities and other ships. There's simply no unit there to do it while there is for battleships. You can use subs to attack other ships, but they can't attack cities and wouldn't have a natural counter in a fast and strong melee ship.

Gatling Guns-MGs are primarily an upgrade path for archers. They fulfill the same basic unit role, counter-units with ranged attacks. But in order to do it in the modern warfare they have to more obviously defensive in nature as a build. That structure makes them better as garrisons, or better for holding and defending key positions in an advance (screening your mobile units for example). I do not agree at all that they are useless in that function or should be eliminated. The vanguard units that were in GEM, yes (those were bad). These, no. Most of the discussion surrounding them in CEP was for a while that they were too strong, not that they were useless (I nerfed them a little in my version).

Siege: One reason it takes a heavy investment in hammers early is the default city strength is probably too high so few units will hit hard enough to take over a city in vanilla without siege weapons. The CEP approach was to weaken the city strength, raise the hitting power of swords (and to a lesser extent, the survival ability of catapults), and in turn raise the number of hit points in a city and provided by defence buildings (especially post-walls).

The combat model in vanilla is based around having lots of resources and expendable units, which is not how most people fight wars. For city combat that meant that you can use combined arms assaults with ranged units to down a city and walk in with a horse or sword (which is boring), but the primary design was to trying to hit a city very hard with superior firepower or multiple attacks in one turn to bring it down quickly rather than a protracted siege with units mostly surviving (if they have to pillage some), and the city more slowly coming down from multiple attacks. That also gives more time to assemble a counter-force to defend it and push away the besieging army in addition to helping the army survive on its own.

 

[Stalker0]

@stalker, I'd agree you're looking at a sledgehammer approach. If there's a gap, the easiest thing to do is to fill it with a unit, not to do an automatic upgrade or a renamed unit.

I would actually argue that the new unit is more of a sledgehammer approach, though it is certainly the more standard one.

With a new unit, you are exposing the player to an increased burden in hammers and/or gold to fix the problem. Further, there is a timelag as I produce these new units to bring to the battlefield.

If for example there is a short window between this new unit and the battleship, you can hit problems where just as I field a fleet of these new vessels its time to immediately produce battleships instead.


With an upgrade approach, I apply a fix to the problem that requires no additional burden or time on the player. His units are now more comparable to the times, and when the time for battleships come he can perform his normal upgrades at that time. It is an viable alternative solution to the problem.


Now I want to be clear, I am not saying a new unit is the wrong approach. We may find that the hammer/gold sink of that new unit makes plenty of sense. The timelag between frigate and battleship may be so long that even when adding a new unit, the new unit gets plenty of use before its time to upgrade. The new unit may be in fact the perfect solution.

I just want to note that a new unit is not the only solution. I have seen cases in CEP where we were shoehorning in new units, and the back and forth that caused. So I want to be cognizant of the fact, that if a new unit brings with it some unforeseen problems....we aren't backed into a corner. We have other avenues we can pursue to achieve the same goal.

 

[mystikx21]

no additional burden or time on the player.... Whether players would baulk at an "auto upgrade" for one type of unit but not for others I think would be up for debate.

I think you identified already the key problem with this solution though.

Why is it necessary or desirable to impose no additional burden or time on the player? And for only one unit line of upgrades?

We could work out the tech tree placement of these units such that you could have a gap between tech levels that should give time to assemble or upgrade a fleet of them. That's not too horrifying a prospect is to move around the tech unlock (Thal had a setup that allowed the AI to look at techs dynamically to evaluate their value, so we wouldn't have to go in and tell it that hey, we've moved BBs to this tech line).

I'm not sure these are really huge objections to "shoehorn" in these new units. They exist because there are gaps in the line of units in the game that can cause imbalances in naval combat. I'm not inventing those gaps. We seem to agree they are there. They are also the only new units (outside of UUs) that I would propose we have any use for. I would generally object to adding anything else as there aren't clear gaps that require a unit in them in my mind.

If anything, there's 3 or 4 units existing (lancers, ATG, Marines) that may not fill any viable role without some changes and could be eliminated or adapted.

 

[Stalker0]

Gatling Guns-MGs are primarily an upgrade path for archers. They fulfill the same basic unit role, counter-units with ranged attacks. But in order to do it in the modern warfare they have to more obviously defensive in nature as a build. That structure makes them better as garrisons, or better for holding and defending key positions in an advance (screening your mobile units for example). I do not agree at all that they are useless in that function or should be eliminated.

I will say that the burden of argument on this one is in my court, as it should be anytime I (or anyone else) argues to add or remove a unit. So lets see what I can do.

If we take a quick snapshot of early warfare, we have the following roles:

Melee/Screening Unit (warrior)
Mobile Unit (Horse)
Mobile Counter Unit (Spearman)
Ranged Unit (Archer)
Siege Unit (Catapult)
Naval Melee (Trireme)

When you actually put it in a list...that is actually a surprising large number. If we move on to when Gatling Guns are introduced, we have evolved into these roles:

Melee/Screening Unit
Mobile Unit
Mobile Counter
Ranged/Siege - Artillery
Short Ranged Defensive Unit - The new role the GG has
Air Counter - Fighters
Air Ranged/Siege - Bombers
Naval Melee
Naval Ranged/Siege
Naval Counter - Submarines

In general we have seen a few evolutions:
1) Ranged and Siege weaponry begins to merge. Artillery, Bombers, and Battleships are both designed to attack cities, but with their impressive range they actually do a decent job in the ranged attack role as well.

2) There are more counter units on the board, we now have specific units to counter air and sea along with traditional mobile counters (which are themselves now more mobile).

When I look at the GG, this is what I see:

1) Its ranged function is usurped by artillery. If I want to bomb something at range, that is what I have artillery for. In earlier eras siege didn't work this way. Melee units would be in ranged and could crush them. Archers could trade fire with them and actually beat them. But artillery's range advantage removes those obstacles...it really is a brand new ballgame in warfare.

2) Its garrison function is usurped by artillery. Why garrison something that can hit 1 away, when I can hit up to 3 away! And what good is a ranged garrison that cannot attack many of the siege weapons I am bringing to bear on a city (artillery/battleships). Artillery can.

3) Its defensive/screening role could be usurped by the melee role. Melee units are designed with oromotions in heavy terrain, they are designed to prevent units from moving past them, they are designed to be the unit to take a city. They have been doing this role since ancient times, why does that need to change with the addition of a new unit?

I am not saying the GG is weak....just that its somewhat pointless. I have other units that can do the job, why not just let them do it? Why do I need to worry about balancing a unit whose niche is somewhat artificial? After all, its not like I don't have plenty of other roles to worry about when it comes to modern combat.

 

[mystikx21]

2) I guess if they're really that weak we could consider adding counter elements, such as an anti-tank or anti-infantry effect. I'm not convinced they are in the current design but it would give us a place to park an anti-tank effect to merge that role.

2) If we are talking about increasing the relevance of melee strength on garrisons and maybe city range, GGs will be stronger than artillery in protecting the city itself (and allowing it to shoot back). The artillery advantage is in shooting back at longer range, but in most cases you would only need to keep killing melee units rapidly, which will be in range.

The artillery should also have an anti-unit penalty such that it can be very useful to soften enemy units during an advance or as a garrison, but not totally usurp the role. Bombers should be a bigger rival and are limited by a strategic resource (and can't garrison a city, and can take damage). But they're a bigger rival for artillery in the anti-unit department too.

3) Promotions for heavy terrain/defence/attack are useful here and can be accommodated easily enough.

The main advantages of GGs are that they're excellent at defensive warfare in a way that mainline infantry are not. They can attack without taking damage, which makes them perform the same job as archers and they should be stronger or as strong as infantry on defence. The downside is not being as good as artillery versus cities and the range is low. They should also be cheaper than artillery, which should be rather pricey by comparison.

Basically. If you are planning on warring for conquest, they're probably not what you want in large numbers, no. If you are planning on fending off challengers, they should be quite good at it, better than regular infantry in most cases. That seems like an adequate role.

 

[whoward69]

I'm going to muddy the waters slightly ... multiple upgrade paths are now possible, eg, X-Bow to GG OR Rifles, Pikemen to Lancers OR Musketmen. Couple that with "cross-promotions" (eg ranged bonus in hills becomes melee bonus in hills) and you can let the player decide what those controversial units become. And the logic for the AI can be executed in Lua, eg all range promoted X-bows become GGs and then three Rifles for every GG.

 

[ExpiredReign]

Muddy waters are fine. In fact I quite like a lot of his music and his influence on other musos is widespread.

If I can further 'stir the pot'.

Thalassicus made a lengthy and strident argument about the whole GG/MG thing based on this point:
There is inherently no difference to short range RANGED attacks and MELEE attacks.
This discussion is also falling into a similar vein with the GG/MG line. Forget about whether the are ranged or melee and look at whether they serve a role. IMO they do.

However, Whoward's 'No follow up after attack mod', which I haven't as yet tried, looks like it might change the way we can use MELEE units in that they, surprisingly, don't follow up after attacking. That is the garrisoned GG/MG role being done by any other unit.

What I'm saying is, we now have the tools to think a little more laterally than CEP was capable of, let's not paint ourselves into a corner.

Point 2 from the opening post speaks of city sieges. If I may just make mention of a recent bug report from the CEP thread. The user mentions pre-flight cities having a bonus AGAINST bombers attacking them. TBH, I have never been in a situation like that, but I guess it is possible. What that means is something in the CEP code for cities and/or bombers needs changing before assimilation in to this mod.
Probably could have put that in another thread thread but it seemed to fit, to me.

Now, navies. We most definitely need another unit after Frigates. What? Dunno!

Do we need an early melee ship like the bireme? Probably not, so long as the trireme isn't an easy target and can at least last a few battles. In CEP I always had biremes because triremes could be sunk too easily by barb naval units. Especially when you change eras and ALL the barbs start getting Caravels and the like, and I'm still sailing around in un-upgraded ships.

Early city sieges.
This has been for me a strange beast. I like to be able to rush any enemies too close to my initial city, but their pre-masonry cities, hence no walls, always seem to resist too well. I figure if I can pump out a few archers/comp. bowmen before they get their protection in place I should be able to pretty much stroll in. It doesn't always work that way. Very early on these 'cities' should be viewed as no more than a collection of buildings behind, at most, a palisade. A group of warriors/swordsmen could take such a city. IMO. Even after walls are built surely there are other ways to take a city without having to NEED catapults?
Not sure, just spit-balling.

 

[mystikx21]

There was a serious bug in the bomber promotions that I stripped out primarily causing damage dealt against ships to be too high, and another promotion issue that caused fighters to be too weak against air units (I think).

I'm not sure the bomber issue is still relevant or not (that post was from an old version). It doesn't indicate there was a bonus against the bomber in there. Just that the amount of damage was unexpectedly high.

The relevant feature isn't really how much damage they take in an attack, but how much they dish out first, then how much risk that puts them in to take damage. If neither of that was calculating correctly, we have a problem. Bombers may not be "taking damage" from units, but we could represent it as the expense of flying dedicated sorties against a unit that an air unit would need to shift down their combat operations.

One thing that I think was the case in CEP was there was a ranged defence calculation that effectively granted all units +25% against ranged attacks as an automatic nerf to ranged attacks. I don't think this was warranted and I did not include it in the files I've uploaded. It's possible this was interacting with the air strikes.

I don't know that a no-follow-up melee attack is needed for the balance patch. The only scenario I find that may be of use is a garrison attacking and clearing an enemy unit. I find this is usually smarter to attack with the garrison first (if melee) and then kill it with the city or ranged attack. Maybe it would help the AI, but the AI needs a lot more help than this tactical adjustment would offer in how it handles garrisons.

The bireme was ranged. Both early ships were a bit stronger and pretty cheap in CEP. I don't know if that new unit in particular is needed. Maybe a ranged UU early ship is fine, but not the new unit class? There's a gap there, but it's not a very strong or long lasting one. That's why I opened that point up about the additional units. I'm probably more concerned about the frigate-battleship gap (or the galleon-DD gap if the ironclad moves over to cover the other way).

I'd be fine with using multiple upgrade paths for certain units if it will help their viability or help provide a clear (if muddy) role. I don't think that helps Marines, or ATGs. But maybe Lancers.

 

[Gazebo]

Now, navies. We most definitely need another unit after Frigates. What? Dunno!

Do we need an early melee ship like the bireme? Probably not, so long as the trireme isn't an easy target and can at least last a few battles. In CEP I always had biremes because triremes could be sunk too easily by barb naval units. Especially when you change eras and ALL the barbs start getting Caravels and the like, and I'm still sailing around in un-upgraded ships.

Historically, we'd be looking at a Destroyer-class ship appearing after 'frigates' (if frigates are to define all age of sail 'ships of the line'). The game has the destroyer, which sticks around a bit too long. Perhaps move it back in time, and add in a late game ship that is simply an upgraded destroyer?

Also, if anyone tries to give barbs ranged attack ships in the ancient age, I'm going to be sad at them. That was awfully annoying.
G

 

[mystikx21]

The gap is the ranged ship between the frigate-battleship. So unless that's paired with moving ironclads to ranged, I'm not sure that resolves the question, though it does address the lack of a late-late game melee ship (post DD).

 

[Stalker0]

I figure we just gather a list of potential names and pick the one we like.

Dreadnought
Ship of the Line
etc

 

[ExpiredReign]

Doesn't the Civil War scenario use some sort of unit that we could 'steal'?

 

[whoward69]

Move the existing Iron Clad to ranged, and then insert an HMS Warrior class ship into melee - Wolfdog has already converted the Civ4 unit (by Gen Matt IIRC)

 

[Drakir89]

I figure we just gather a list of potential names and pick the one we like.

Dreadnought
Ship of the Line
etc

After some skimming of the wikipedia (starting from HMS Warrior) I found a reference to a "turret ship" (probably just another name for Ironclad) which could be used. I also found out that apparently later versions of Ironclads (1980s) used torpedoes, and in the 1870s there were specialized ships carrying primitive, short range torpedoes as their primary armament. Thus, "Torpedo Boat" makes a lot of sense as a melee ship of the Ironclad era.