Ironclads seem too wimpy (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Gary Grigsby's War Between the States



Message

Gneisenau -> Ironclads seem too wimpy (6/21/2008 4:09:13 PM)

The Ironclads in GGWBTS seem to only be slightly better than gunboats. If my memory serves me correctly the CSS Virginia got underway one sunny morning, proceeded to Hampon Rhodes and sunk the USS Cumberland, USS Congress and ran the USS Minnesota aground before she retired. She sustained only slight damage in the battles ( Stack shot away, Ram broken off in enemy ship ). In one day the Confederate navy rendered the navy's of the world obsolete. The before mentioned Union ships were full size frigates (not gunboats) and were easily defeated by one Ironclad. It's seems that GGWBTS should increase the Ironclads attack and greatly increase their defense values. Even though they were not good blue water ships they were excellent brown water ships and should be able to travel from port to port without worrying about opp fire from the blockade ships. A blockade ship would not want to tangle with an Ironclad ( They would be sharing a brewsky with Davey Jones ).



Erik Rutins -> RE: Ironclads seem too wimpy (6/21/2008 4:39:12 PM)

How many battles with Ironclads have you tried? They seem pretty powerful to me.



Capt Henry_MatrixForum -> RE: Ironclads seem too wimpy (6/21/2008 6:45:43 PM)

I haven't seem major problems with ironclads yet. Other Confederate ironclad battles like Chicora and Palmetto State didn't achieve Virginia results either. Keep in mind, if the ironclad scores two hits during an engagement, it has matched the performance of the Virginia as my recollection is that each fleet is two ships so each hit equates roughly to one ship sunk. Page 121 of the Manual (10.2.2) states (for information purposes only) that a damaged fleet sufferes the loss of 100 + 1 ship (table).



Hanal -> RE: Ironclads seem too wimpy (6/22/2008 12:37:42 AM)

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...I have held off long enough!!!!!...first excuse was that I would delay purchase until EURO 2008 was over...next excuse was that OOTP 9 has come out so I will be spending time with it...next excuse is that I needed to wash my underwear!...but this talk about Ironclads has done me in....dirty underwear be damned, and full purchase ahead!!!!!!!



Joel Billings -> RE: Ironclads seem too wimpy (6/22/2008 12:47:30 AM)

By my calculations, in 1862 these are the basic chances to hit:

In non-river area
Ironclad firing at Cruiser--58.6%
Cruiser firing at Ironclad--5.9%

Ironclad firing at Union Gunboat--66.8%
Ironclad firing at Confederate Gunboat--74.2%
Gunboat firing at Ironclad--0.1%

In river area
Ironclad firing at Cruiser--80.8%
Cruiser firing at Ironclad--22.3%

Ironclad firing at Union Gunboat--66.8%
Ironclad firing at Confederate Gunboat--74.2%
Gunboat firing at Ironclad--2.7%


Seems to me that the Ironclads have a big edge, although there's always the chance of ganging up on a lone Ironclad which will improve the chances of the non-Ironclads.



Crimguy -> RE: Ironclads seem too wimpy (6/22/2008 2:06:59 AM)

OOTP9 - do I really need to upgrade from 2007? Aside from ball flight it just doesn't seem to have to much new to offer.

Ahem, back on topic. I have 2 gunboats trying to retake the Mississippi and they're having a hard time with the Union gunboats, which just shouldn't be a possibility.

And for historical sake, the Virginia/Merrimac and Monitor did indeed have a stalemate of sorts after the Merrimac took apart the fleet at Hampton roads. They. Were. That. Tough. The South had big problems making engines powerful enough to power them (they couldn't make them, actually).

quote:

ORIGINAL: J P Falcon

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...I have held off long enough!!!!!...first excuse was that I would delay purchase until EURO 2008 was over...next excuse was that OOTP 9 has come out so I will be spending time with it...next excuse is that I needed to wash my underwear!...but this talk about Ironclads has done me in....dirty underwear be damned, and full purchase ahead!!!!!!!




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.453125