Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
That said, because they were so low to the water, they did badly in choppy water and sometimes sank as a result.
The ironclad gunships had a lot more firepower and saw a lot more action versus forts and other ships, mostly in bays and rivers. There was a somewhat fuzzy line between CSA ironclads as some of them were designated "ironclad rams" (the most famous ones) and the rest...which were glorified floating batteries with little maneuverability but lots of guns and armor.
The union riverine ironclad gunboats we're probably the "best" in the war as they caused the most damage relative to their production cost and could be constructed quicker than monitor with all the fancy moving parts.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/USS_Keokuk_h59546.jpg
Started in 61 and I am now into 63. this has been the longest campaign I've had.
So sorry, No. I haven't tested the difference.