Originally posted by Ethelred
That would look better anyway but I think the idea was to use one of the earliest massive rifle armed units. Of course Sid being into the Civil War could have a bit to do with it as well.
That would look better anyway but I think the idea was to use one of the earliest massive rifle armed units. Of course Sid being into the Civil War could have a bit to do with it as well.
Granted, they were a great idea that revolutionized naval warfare and rang the death knell for the age of wood and sail, but they were obsolete almost as soon as they were built. The Monitor and Merrimack slugged it out in 1862. Only ten years later the French were building the first iron and steel battleships, and in 1876 the British were building all-steel battleships.
Plus, the movement rate for Ironclads in the game is a bit off. Six knots was about the best an Ironclad could do, and that was in calm waters. Frigates could travel at least that fast, but could do up to 10 with good wind. Frankly, it wasn’t very difficult for sailing ships to avoid Ironclads if they wanted to. Also, Ironclads had serious troubles in rough waters; the Monitor sank due to high seas, not enemy action. Personally, in CivIII I think Ironclads should be restricted to costal waters only.
*notices entire post is off-topic*
I think you're right, though, about the riflemen. They wanted to capture the period between the age of musket and the era of machine-gun warfare. I think the current unit does that pretty well, although setting aside game balance, I can't see why muskets and cavalry require saltpeter while riflemen don't. Still gotta have gunpowder to make the bullets go real fast, folks; they just don't hurt that much when you throw 'em by hand....
Comment