Naval Blockades and the AI

[HazieDaVampire]

Does the AI know how to create naval blockades, and when to use them!?

[LaRusso]

um, it would take a lot to block any empire that has more than one port

[campmajor!]

Well it can be done of course. I also block land areas with defensive units if possible. You can draft enough units to do such a thing!

But naturally the AI does not use such strategies, at least I have not seen them doing so. They prefer gathering a large pile of units and march them into your land and seek for an easy target...

[Flanker]

Does any human player actually use naval blockades? I find it very hard to totally block the trade for a large empire - if they have airports it is really impossible. Often the large empires also have all the things they need in their own territory and are selfsupplied. So does naval blockades actually do any real use? I think there are more important uses of your navy then just being on sentry duty outside enemy ports.

[HazieDaVampire]

Does the AI get annoyed when you do it?

[dunk]

No, the AI would never create a blockade.

Why? Because it moves every unit it has the maximum allowable tiles every turn.

[Inverse Icarus]

the AI pillages more than it blockades. teaching an AI to blockade contains too many algorithms for soren. calling the createAIunit(); infinateAIgold(); cheatcheatcheat(); functions wouldn't help too much.

[Grrr]

I do, but the AI doesn't.

[Jaybe]

... you would have to blockade every port of EVERY civ that is not at war with and does not have a trade embargo with your blockade target.

Could easily get you into a war with all those civs whose ports you are blockading, since you would have to physically have ships stationed within their borders.

OTH, If your target was an island/small continent, it could at least be an endeavor worth considering (but I play LARGE continents).

JB

[Ethelred]

I have done it occasionly. Its hard to do when the target civ has a lot of harbors but early on the AI often has only built one harbor. I once got annoyed and blockaded a port with privateers but I don't know if it really worked.

I have never seen the AI try a blocade. They usually like to move bombard and then move away. Of course I usually have too many harbors for a blockade to be effective anyway.

[Cyclotron]

I have only done it when a civ I am attacking, who is on an island with only a few harbors, does not have the strategic resources to fight me but is trading them from the other AIs, and I can't get trade embargos with everyone.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by LaRusso
um, it would take a lot to block any empire that has more than one port

That's why naval blackades are useless.

Merchant shipping and sea trade routes SHOULD be threatened and damaged by privateers and subs which were not intended in reality to attack other warships. Firaxis got that wrong too. I could have a hundred privateers and subs on a trade route and it would accomplish nothing

[nato]

I succesfully blockaded a large empire just once. The Russians had a lot of cities, but only a few on the coast. My large navy was able to do it, by using every ship, including obsolete ones. I also made a point of conquering along his coast first, like Alexander denying the superior Persian navy its ports by going along the coast.

It would be better if one or two warships in a coastal city's sea squares were enough to count it as blockaded. This would be much more feasible than literally ringing the city with ships.

What I would really love would be for ships to be able to blockade coatal cities a different way ...

Like if warships in an enemy city's sea squares each inflicted say 10 gold (or some number) on the enemy civ (maybe only if they sat in the square the whole turn). This would show up as an expense like corruption ... like "Blockade: -40 gold".

Submarines should get a big bonus for doing this. Like say each surface ship deducts 10 gold, but each submarine deducts 20.

This would not work for strategic resources ... perhaps they would continue to work under the existing model.

This would make blockading easier, and less of an ALL OR NOTHING thing like it is now. Also it would make submarines unique and more useful.

Unfortunately it would require programming.

[Ijuin]

How about a port should be blockaded if there is one or more enemy ships FORTIFIED within the city radius?

[Stuie]

Originally posted by nato
It would be better if one or two warships in a coastal city's sea squares were enough to count it as blockaded. This would be much more feasible than literally ringing the city with ships.

Well, that's what a blockade is - completely obstructing access to something, in this case water access to a city. Remember the scale here. The little squares are an abstraction meant to represent thousands of square miles.

As for your other ideas, the defending civ already loses use of the resources (food/trade/shields/fish/whales) in the square(s) you occupy. Additional penalties would just unneccessarily complicate the game.

I think it's fine as implemented.

[Ironwood]

Probably the only place where blockading is feasable is when the AI capital is on the coast. Then, when you send in hordes of mobiles to raze the roads, you can complete the capital cutoff (destroying their internal trade network) by blockading the capital.

Ironically, it's harder to use the "cut off the capital" strategy when the city is NOT on the coast, since your units will have to travel farther to do the job.

[nato]

Well, that's what a blockade is - completely obstructing access to something, in this case water access to a city. Remember the scale here. The little squares are an abstraction meant to represent thousands of square miles.

Well actually I disagree. A blockade is not completely obstructing access. It is posting ships outside major ports. On maps, when they show the line of ships to represent a blockade, that line is not actually there, it is just a representation. There are not enough ships in the world to literally ring a coast.

Smugglers get through all the holes, but easy access to major ports is stopped. You have a point about scale, but really I think one or two ships should be enough.

As for your other ideas, the defending civ already loses use of the resources (food/trade/shields/fish/whales) in the square(s) you occupy. Additional penalties would just unneccessarily complicate the game.

I think it's fine as implemented.

Fair enough, though I didn't think my idea was at all complicated. I would prefer my method because:
1. it would make blockades not an all-or-nothing thing
2. it would make submarines more unique and valuable
3. it would actually be possible to do

I find the way it is currently implemented basically impossible to ever happen, so it may as well not even be there.

How many times do you ever make it happen?

[Coracle]

The Germans almost won two World Wars by having their subs attack MERCHANT SHIPPING on trade routes.

The Americans in the Am. Revolution in large part beat the British because so many American privateers on British trade routes were sinking his merchant ships causing not only the losses but insurance rates to skyrocket.

Neither of those can we do in Civ 3 as Firaxis has no idea what naval units really are for.

[Stuie]

Originally posted by nato
I find the way it is currently implemented basically impossible to ever happen, so it may as well not even be there.

How many times do you ever make it happen?

Ha! You have a point. I think I've bothered with a blockade in exactly one game thus far. The Greeks had four or five cities on an island, their capital was on a continent. I managed to destroy the harbors in all but one city, and then blockaded that city while trying to destroy the harbor (my barrages proved to be ineffective as it was the largest city on the island).

As for Coracles "comment", some level of abstraction is necessary in any computer game. But obviously your invectives against anything and everything in this game show that you derive more enjoyment from derision than you do from constructive comment or (gasp) actually playing computer games. If it were otherwise, you would have moved along by now.

[Capt Dizle]

I disagree. I believe Coracle is on point. What is the point? After Brian left, Sid ensured that Civ3 would be the kind of game that would leave that hollow feeling in the stomachs of gamers. So that we will be ready to buy the next game. Sid intentionally tanked it by putting B class designers on the project.

[HazieDaVampire]

lol, i hope he has A class designers on the XP, evn better A class designers on the patches!

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
I disagree. I believe Coracle is on point. What is the point? After Brian left, Sid ensured that Civ3 would be the kind of game that would leave that hollow feeling in the stomachs of gamers. So that we will be ready to buy the next game. Sid intentionally tanked it by putting B class designers on the project.

Well, thanks for that baseless, conspiracy fearing insight, Nostradamus. Was sid on the grassy knoll, too? I have an idea: Talk about things you actually know something about, and get back to me when you find something worthwhile to say about them.

[Deornwulf]

The game totally abstracts trade routes to the point of not being a factor in the game. It's almost like an on or off switch.

Firaxis knows exactly what naval units are to be used for....carrying units, protecting the carrying units or destroying the carrying units, and exploring the map.

p.s. - jimmy, give it a rest. You are stating the obvious to those who already know the truth and irritating those who perceive the truth as something else. If you continue to bang your head against the brick wall, you will only get a headache.

[nato]

Another thread changed from its original topic (naval blockades) to the same old Firaxis-is-evil junk.

Don't you guys get tired of that? How are posts like that making you happier? Pretty sad...

Anyway, trade routes are exactly like an on-off switch. That is why blockades are all-or-nothing. I don't think this could be easily changed as far as resources/luxuries are concerned.

However it would not be hideously complicated rules-wise to let blockades chip away at gold like I suggested. You could even let bombers inflict gold damage to represent bombing of the economy. This would let economic warfare be a choice.

However it might be hard programming-wise ... always the problem ... but in an expansion things are possible...

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Deornwulf
The game totally abstracts trade routes to the point of not being a factor in the game. It's almost like an on or off switch.

Firaxis knows exactly what naval units are to be used for....carrying units, protecting the carrying units or destroying the carrying units, and exploring the map. . .

If that is what Firaxis knows, it knows NOTHING about the reality of what navies are for. Nothing.

[nato]

What are they for then Coracle?

To my limited understanding, the ocean is only useful as a means of transport. Navies are for keeping that means of transport open for yourself, and closed for your enemies.

Thats basically what Deornwulf said.

But I'm not a navy guy ... so what are they really for if not that?

[Admiral PJ]

Blockades could be useful, if you have total sea supremacy. In my big game, I've destroyed the US's navy and I could blockade their small island which has all their rubber. I like to capture harbors so i'd rather blockade than destroy them with bombarrdment(another good tactic).
I'm not completely sure the game sticks to the rules properly.. one time the AI had a resource which it shouldn't havebeen able to have - I'd split their civ into 2 and no harbours or airports could join it - I may have been wrong but this shouldn't be allowable.

I don't think anyones really used blockades enough to know of their strategy value.. maybe multiplayer will show more uses.

[Promethus]

Sounds like this game need 2 new ships

1. Mine Layers

2. Mine Sweepers

Then you could Mine their Harbors.

EDIT: Typo

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Admiral PJ
I'm not completely sure the game sticks to the rules properly.. one time the AI had a resource which it shouldn't havebeen able to have - I'd split their civ into 2 and no harbours or airports could join it - I may have been wrong but this shouldn't be allowable.

They only need a road connection to a non-enemy harbor. It doesn't have to be their own harbor. Although I have seen cases where I had to look a lot before I could figure out how they were making contact.

[Grrr]

And once two civ's have airports, then real problems come about trying to find trade routes.