HOw does blockade work?

[Dida]

I think you can impose naval blockade, or block a inland city by positioning military units outside the cities.
How exactly is that achieved? Do I have to physically place a unit on every single tile w/ in that city's radius, or just surround the city square with units?

[Harovan]

Re: HOw does blockade work?

Originally posted by Dida
or just surround the city square with units?

that's it.

[Willem]

If your aim is cutting off a resource, pillaging his roads will work just as well, and be a lot less work.

[Dida]

The little weak Germans are pissing me off my continueous bombardment of my shore cities, and repeated refusal to seek peace. My goodwill toward them came to an end when they landed and destroyed one of my less important city.
I will give them some punishment by destroying his navy, and a blockade of Berlin, everyone in that city is going to starve to death.
Is it true that if you cut off the road to their capital, their whole nation will lost all luxury and strategic resources?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Dida
The little weak Germans are pissing me off my continueous bombardment of my shore cities, and repeated refusal to seek peace. My goodwill toward them came to an end when they landed and destroyed one of my less important city.
I will give them some punishment by destroying his navy, and a blockade of Berlin, everyone in that city is going to starve to death.
Is it true that if you cut off the road to their capital, their whole nation will lost all luxury and strategic resources?

No, you have to disconnect each and every city from the resource, meaning you have to sever the roads connecting everything. The best bet is to find the resource and pillage the road there. It's the only way you can cut off the supply to the entire empire, at least in practical terms.

[Encomium]

Re: HOw does blockade work?

Originally posted by Dida
I think you can impose naval blockade, or block a inland city by positioning military units outside the cities.
How exactly is that achieved? Do I have to physically place a unit on every single tile w/ in that city's radius, or just surround the city square with units?

More realistically, a civ's trade and commerce SHOULD be damaged by having an enemy's civ's privateers or submarines on his trade routes. This blockade stuff is crap, and not historical.

Sid has no idea how navies work. And they do not muck about bombarding improvements in reality.

[Fiji]

sure they don't.
why, because the other guy has a navy too.
In those cases where a navy owning nation went up against a non-navy owning nation, the navy did bombard (gulf war, boxer rebelion, Tripiz in the arctic circle, Guadacanal, Okinawa)

the problem is not that Sid doesn't know how navies work, it's most players who are clueless.
remember the game that put Sid's name on the map?
that might give you a clue

[fittstim]

Why would anyone bother with building an expensive navy anyhow? It's so much more efficient to build land units and transports.

Land units can take advantage of existing roads and RR networks while navies are stuck moving at 3-5 squares per turn (yawn). Ever try using a navy on a huge map??? It's excruciatingly painfull. Then when you finally get to where you're going, you get one bombardment per turn that has no capacity to actually kill a soldier but has plenty of power to kill people and/or improvements. Thus defeating the purpose of capturing the city in the first place (unless you plan on razing the city, of course).

To add a bit of reality to the game, one should take into consideration that, with the exception of rowed galleys, boats can move 24-hours per day. A human (even driving a tank) needs to sleep for 1/3 of the day thus limiting the moves that any land unit should have.

Yes, mech. infantry can drive 100 km/h no problem but they're the only ones that can. Tanks top out at around 65 km/h on paved roads (which become destroyed in the process). But a mechanical boat should be able to MOVE...

Just my opinion but I like playing on continents anyway...

[steelehc]

...navy... ...transports...

Transports are ships, right? That would make it a navy, I would think. What if someone else attacks your transports with destroyers/cruisers/battleships/submarines? You would lose an expensive army.

Steele

PS: Unless you escorted your troop transports with lots and lots of empty decoy transports....

[Dida]

In my game, I doubled movement points for all ships in the ancient age, and more than doubled movement for modern ships. Now they are so fast, you can bomb your enemy and run.
In CTP, you can use your navy to pirate enemy trade route and protect your own, which is historically why navy exist in the first place. I don't think you can do this with your navy in Civ3, which really defeats the idea of navy.

[Optimizer]

The Maritime Manifesto

I agree that naval units are too unimportant in Civ 3. Much can be done with the Editor, though.
Please read my Maritime Manifesto and post your opinions.

[Dida]

An very annoying thing about naval bombardment (bombardment in general rather) is that it tends to destroy city imp. rather than damaging military units. Which make an expensive navy not worthwhile

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Dida
An very annoying thing about naval bombardment (bombardment in general rather) is that it tends to destroy city imp. rather than damaging military units.

i think that's by design choice...

[Dida]

Originally posted by MarkG
i think that's by design choice...

I know it is by design choice, but that is very lame.
Why would you want to build an expensive navy if its bombardment does not really help your landing troops taking the city.

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Dida
Why would you want to build an expensive navy if its bombardment does not really help your landing troops taking the city.

well, they help you control the sea so that your troops can safely make the trip

in a recent world-map game the americans has 20 battleships and i had my poor tanks sitting there until i made an navy of the same size...