Age of Strategy Forums

Posted: **Fri Jul 31, 2020 6:25 am**

Not sure if this fits in the era this game is set but I might as well try.
Expensive, ranged ships with tough armour using cannon.
Bonus vs other ships
Categories
Anti ship ship
Anti siege machine
Anti Structure, etc.
(sort of a ranged trireme, oh and since it has metal all over it will be immune to burning)
(This is so ridiculously OP Stratego will never implement this)

Posted: **Fri Jul 31, 2020 6:55 am**

There is something ingame very similar to ur idea,the turtle ship..it seems it replaced the role of the 19thc iron clad ship..

Posted: **Fri Jul 31, 2020 10:51 am**

Real world first ship named ironclad ship came in 19th century and was already steam powered.
Meanwhile turtle ships are from 16th century and technically could be constructed earlier (there are plans from 14 th century, but there was no need to construct - deemed to costly). It's disscussed if they could really be ironclad, but most sources seem to agree, that they were covered with wooden planks, maybe wet animal skins and iron spikes.
Generally in history armored ships appeared few times, but before steam - they were only covered with thin plates of non-corroding metals (lead, bronze) or just animal skins.
As lead is not very tough, nor protects from fire - it was probably mainly used to decrease wood degradation against sea water.
But again - there was really no need. Even cannon fire didn't really destroy ships that much - it was more important to protect crew and own ammunition, provision stores.
Korean turtle ship was effective, because it covered the whole deck, so less targets were visible and sailors were protected against smaller caliber weapons pretty good.
There could be similar ships to this in other regions, so it could be introduced in the game, but fitting name should be found and I believe ironclad would be misleading.

Posted: **Fri Jul 31, 2020 10:00 pm**

Darn it, looks like that part of my (unofficial) Multiplayer Campaign is going to have to be scrapped.
Out of interest, what other weapons were used in the 19th century?

Yes, I am hoping that one you point out I can use to justify adding the Ironclad

Posted: **Fri Jul 31, 2020 10:54 pm**

In AoS - there is none.
Even the namings suggesting 16-17th century stuff are just names - and technically xould be used earlier.
But images/abilities are following the rule stricly - this game period ends on 15/start of 16th century (before knights/archery/full body armor/brick and stone structures became outdated in warfare).

But when you need it only for campaign - it can be made as map editor only. Provided there will be an image.

Posted: **Fri Jul 31, 2020 11:38 pm**

actually this could fit AoD, i am not sure about dates but i will search so this can be added latter...

Posted: **Sat Aug 01, 2020 1:19 am**

L4cus wrote: ↑Fri Jul 31, 2020 11:38 pm actually this could fit AoD, i am not sure about dates but i will search so this can be added latter...

As far as I know its 19thc

Posted: **Sat Aug 01, 2020 2:03 am**

yeah, i just searched an it is after mid 19th century

Posted: **Sat Aug 01, 2020 6:44 am**

Not to sound whiny or anything but it feels kinda unfair if other people can't use it or produce it outside of using it in a map editor. If you can agree to producing it then I will agree to giving some stats to it, and making it less OP. (I'm no good at images)

The reason why I say this is because my Multiplayer Campaign says that the pride of their Navy is 4 ironclad ships, and the goal of the Central Empire's side (that canonically wins) is to defend them, because in map 2, their coastal city was captured and the rest of their Navy was wrecked. The only way they could have 4 ironclad ships as the pride of their navy, or even 1 ironclad ship, is if they made it, meaning they have to be able to produce them.

Posted: **Sat Aug 01, 2020 7:32 am**

Why you think they should be able to produce it?

There were real world cases of having a powerful weapon, which is something king was very proud of, but his people had no capacity to make it on their own.
Specifically - I am talking about siege machines (some of them - cannons). Knowledge how to make them was often limited to selected people (commonly foreign and just hired to make one machine) and in the event of their untimely death - technology was sometimes forgotten for many years.
That is btw. one of the important reasons for starting national foudries - to preserve knowledge.

Posted: **Sat Aug 01, 2020 9:59 pm**

Actually it is possible to make unit producable in some factory (-ies) but making at the same time limited it to map editor.

One of variants - lock it behind some unresearchable normally tech and auto research it via trigger on the map.

Posted: **Sun Aug 02, 2020 8:57 pm**

In the context of my campaign, the Ironclad is relatively new tech, and the Central Empire, which the Ironclads belong to, is quite advanced, and is coming on in leaps and bounds. They know how to build it, and they have the plans for it secured at the place where the Ironclads are made (which is another reason to defend the outpost, to stop the enemy sinking the Ironclads and also seizing the plans)

So the Ironclad Ship is still a little good and fresh tech, so they can still produce them.

Posted: **Sun Aug 02, 2020 9:13 pm**

It doesn't change much.
To put it into the game as makazuwr suggested is viable.
Dummy tech it needs doesn't even have to have image, as it won't be researchable anywhere. There can be red x icon.
But ironclad needs it. Without sprite - there is no unit.

Posted: **Mon Aug 03, 2020 9:35 am**

OK, so give me the reason that I am looking for, because you are evading the point of my question:
Why should it not be usable for other people in regular games?

Posted: **Mon Aug 03, 2020 9:59 am**

Endru1241 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 31, 2020 10:54 pm this game period ends on 15/start of 16th century

Posted: **Mon Aug 03, 2020 10:06 am**

Because ot doesn't fit the game concept.
AoS is concentrated on late anticity and medieval period with some renessaince on the late game.
And all based on real historical armies.
Any non-fitting elements can only be added as fun games only or map-editor exclusive.

Modern times changed the entire concept of warfare.
When acurate, high power firearms appeared, personal armor became useless. When their shot preparation became faster - also any melee fights.
Implementing out of times modern units properly would make most of other units outdated, useless.
And that doesn't really grant any strategy use.
Late game would be entirely populated by those few most modern units.
So when someone is making a propostion like - "Hey, lets add modern op ship, which is almost immune to arrows, doesn't burn and is protected from cannons and other earlier siege weapons, uses most powerful weapon type in the game" - I see it like "lets make 95% of current units totally useless, so only noobs would still build them".
And that is not OK.
What's more - even adding unit only flavoured as modern is a little dangerous, because it asks for opinions saying it's too unrealistic.

Posted: **Mon Aug 03, 2020 7:36 pm**

True. Especially in cases when you build such modern units while your opponent concentrates on for example atl-atls and elephants.

It is just too unrealistic and will make game unenjoyable.

As for ironclad ships:
They were designed in end of 18th century and first types were made in the beginning of 19th century while game itself is up to early 16th century.

Giving such ships for construction will equial to giving during for example napoleonic wars ability to produce and use tanks and airplanes with nuclear bombs.

Posted: **Thu Aug 06, 2020 9:06 pm**

OK then. I suppose I will have to use it as a fun unit, as that would have been my last resort.
I can always just add more in the map maker if I want to say that more were produced by the Central Empire.
The only downside is very minor, and that is that I will have to amend the mapp description to say that the resources to build more are unavailable at the moment (but I can easily use the "supply lines are cut" excuse)

Posted: **Tue Aug 11, 2020 5:57 pm**

Ironclads are very heavy armored ships with great big cannon in your two sides but i believe that had a lot of cost and still have good handling of that iron kraken at that time I believe it was very difficult to drive.
Hp:200
Atk:25
Armor:10/15
Speed:2
Range:5
Sigh:4
Cost:15
Action:2
Bonus 100% vs ships,anti ship ship
Bonus 30% vs buildings
Bonus 120% vs tie fighter
Bonus 75% vs fortifield buildings
Bonus 475% vs mega buildings

Posted: **Tue Aug 11, 2020 7:13 pm**

I mean most guys with bonuses vs ships have a lower one vs anti ship ships
So like 40% vs anti ship ship

Posted: **Sun Aug 23, 2020 5:18 am**

Posted: **Mon Aug 24, 2020 10:40 am**

Yeah we'll go with that

Posted: **Mon Aug 24, 2020 10:57 am**

Morningwarrior wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 5:57 pm Ironclads are very heavy armored ships with great big cannon in your two sides but i believe that had a lot of cost and still have good handling of that iron kraken at that time I believe it was very difficult to drive.
Hp:200
Atk:25
Armor:10/15
Speed:2
Range:5
Sigh:4
Cost:15
Action:2
Bonus 100% vs ships,anti ship ship
Bonus 30% vs buildings
Bonus 120% vs tie fighter
Bonus 75% vs fortifield buildings
Bonus 475% vs mega buildings

how do we kill that? Lol.

Posted: **Tue Aug 25, 2020 9:41 am**

How about they are vulnerable to fire?
Or, we could have it so if a unit from a different player captures it it is theirs. Like a wagon, but capturable.

Posted: **Fri Aug 28, 2020 8:53 pm**

QuadrupoleStrat wrote: ↑Mon Aug 24, 2020 10:57 am
Morningwarrior wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 5:57 pm Ironclads are very heavy armored ships with great big cannon in your two sides but i believe that had a lot of cost and still have good handling of that iron kraken at that time I believe it was very difficult to drive.
Hp:200
Atk:25
Armor:10/15
Speed:2
Range:5
Sigh:4
Cost:15
Action:2
Bonus 100% vs ships,anti ship ship
Bonus 30% vs buildings
Bonus 120% vs tie fighter
Bonus 75% vs fortifield buildings
Bonus 475% vs mega buildings
how do we kill that? Lol.

Simple,using himself.

Posted: **Fri Aug 28, 2020 8:55 pm**

He is very slow with a limited range,pertardiers can be have a bonuses vs ironclads.and he is very high costs to kill,make he is thread with no concience.

Posted: **Sat Nov 21, 2020 7:53 pm**

Ironclad is empty

Posted: **Wed Apr 21, 2021 8:20 am**

Stopping to think, it might not be literally the iron clad, but a simulated prototype

Posted: **Wed Apr 21, 2021 10:08 am**

ProtectorLordGarmin wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 9:06 pm OK then. I suppose I will have to use it as a fun unit, as that would have been my last resort.
I can always just add more in the map maker if I want to say that more were produced by the Central Empire.
The only downside is very minor, and that is that I will have to amend the mapp description to say that the resources to build more are unavailable at the moment (but I can easily use the "supply lines are cut" excuse)

U can always use triggers to produce more, for example after suppose player 1 10 turn passed, a trigger will give message that dock produced new batch of ironclads, and u can place 4 iron clads in front of dock, u can also block the area with stones and destroy them later so player wont accidentally put units in the place for spawning ironclad and block it, if u want that dock will only make ironclad and no other navy, u can simply disable dock and showcase it as decoration, but if enemy destroys dock then ironclad producing triggers will b deactivated

Posted: **Thu Apr 22, 2021 2:44 am**

maybe this of a better balanced
Name:Ironclad prototype
Hp:150
Atk:20
Spd:1
Armor:5/10
Range:5
Sight:4
Miss:15% per speed of enemy unit
Same bonuses than canonship
Action:1
Aoe:1
Mental resistence:50%
Construction bonus:-95%
Mend bonus:+10%
Cost:12

Age of Strategy Forums

Ironclad Ships

Ironclad Ships

Re: Ironclad Ships

Re: Ironclad Ships

Re: Ironclad Ships

Re: Ironclad Ships

Re: Ironclad Ships

Re: Ironclad Ships

Re: Ironclad Ships

Re: Ironclad Ships

Re: Ironclad Ships

Re: Ironclad Ships

Re: Ironclad Ships

Re: Ironclad Ships

Re: Ironclad Ships

Re: Ironclad Ships

Re: Ironclad Ships

Re: Ironclad Ships

Re: Ironclad Ships

Re: Ironclad Ships

Re: Ironclad Ships

Re: Ironclad Ships

Re: Ironclad Ships

Re: Ironclad Ships

Re: Ironclad Ships

Re: Ironclad Ships

Re: Ironclad Ships

Re: Ironclad Ships

Re: Ironclad Ships

Re: Ironclad Ships

Re: Ironclad Ships