Blockade changes

[Zachriel]

There are actually many problems with the trade model. With airports, you can always participate in trade even without an airforce and with enemy jets flying directly overhead every turn. But hey, it's just a game. You have to suspend your disbelief. It's something like Shakespeare, "can this computer similation hold the vasty fields of France? or may we cram within this plastic O (monitor screen) the very helmets that did affright the air at Agincourt? O, pardon! since a crooked animation may represent a million soldiers;"

But pardon, and gentles all,
The flat unraised spirits that have dared
On this unworthy scaffold to bring forth
So great an object: can this cockpit hold
The vasty fields of France? or may we cram
Within this wooden O the very casques
That did affright the air at Agincourt?
O, pardon! since a crooked figure may
Attest in little place a million;

Shakespeare's similation of the great battle of Agincourt probably consisted of about a dozen guys with fake swords and no scenery -- and the active imaginations of the audience."

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Zach: I don't want to get into it, as we both probably have the same opinion on it - but why are resources all or nothing..... I suggested the above thing to ease that concept a little...

you are right about the bombard range! Why didn't I think of that?

 

[Flavor Dave]

Maybe I'm not understanding the proposal, but I agree that one ship is too low of a standard for a city with several coastal tiles. It think it should be restricted to the tiles that directly border the city.

In Civ 2, I liked to build subs as defensive/attack units. I would build them as cheap, pop-out-and-kill-something units. It was a way to keep transports away from your lesser coasts, without having to build a battleship.

This proposal, in whatever form, might bring the sub into it's own as a defensive/attack unit. A sub as a blockade runner, so to speak.

 

[Venger]

Originally posted by GI Josh


Then why the need to say it again? and again? and again? The thread is entitled "blockade changes" not "repeated dribble from other threads".

Because it's germaine and topical, relevant to the original post and the topics intent? Are you some type of stalker, following him around like a hall monitor? If he's said it before, and says it again, grow up and IGNORE HIM if you don't like it, especially when what he says is relevant.

What he's said makes sense and is contextual, no reason to pick a fight with him over it.

Venger

 

[Venger]

As noted, airports and harbors are not properly represented re: trade and interdiction. I've in the past called for such a method of trade interdiction - a ship within 2 hexes of a city port gets x% per A/D point to interdict trade.

So, a privateer modded to 2/1/2 has a 15% chance of interdicting a trade route on any given turn. Two would make it 30%.

A battleship at 18/12/5 interdicts any trade. As well it should!

I'd also like to see the trade from airports interdicted if enemy air units are within range of the city. Again, same formula, so a fighter at 4/2/4 has a 30% chance of interdicting trade, 2 have a 60% chance...

This should be VERY easy to do, and in fact since it's been mentioned so much, may very well make it into PTW (otherwise known as Civ3 1.0)

Venger

 

[narmox]

I still like the CTP way, where trade routes were actual blue lines (routes!) that had a specific trajectory and could be pirated. Didn't need huge blockades.

 

[Pygzilla]

I think this is obvious but I'll say it anyway.

You would still have to blockade every port of the nation AND every port of a freindly nation connected by road to actually cut trade.

Or should blocking 1 port reduce income from trade (1 port of 4 blocked 25% GPT and benefit lost)

The blockade should be in place 1 FULL turn before it takes effect

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Originally posted by Pygzilla
I think this is obvious but I'll say it anyway.

You would still have to blockade every port of the nation AND every port of a freindly nation connected by road to actually cut trade.

Or should blocking 1 port reduce income from trade (1 port of 4 blocked 25% GPT and benefit lost)

The blockade should be in place 1 FULL turn before it takes effect

you can't blockade at all if they have friends you're not at war with....

 

[Venger]

Originally posted by Pygzilla
I think this is obvious but I'll say it anyway.

You would still have to blockade every port of the nation AND every port of a freindly nation connected by road to actually cut trade.

Yep, but especially in the early game, not every city has a harbor (not port, harbor). Blockade their two or three cities, and voila.

Later in the game, airlift and interconnectedness makes it less useful, BUT, there are instances say with small remote island or smaller continents where properly used, it can be a powerful weapon.

As to the 1 full turn requirement - I'd say that if the unit is there when your trade is calculated, it's blockaded. After all, you can sink it that turn too...but either way, it's a step in the right direction...

Venger

 

[cgannon64]

Lt. Killer M

This is to be calcuated for every good transported - i.e. if you have four deals going, there is a high chance that 1 will be cut the first turn, 3 on the third.... and so on...

Good idea, but don't forget an important aspect that would make pirating worthless---if Nation A pirates Nation B, show B's deal with Nation C is broken, don't let Nation B take the blame! That would make piracy extremely pointless---do you want to be blamed for your opponent's actions?

You would still have to blockade every port of the nation AND every port of a freindly nation connected by road to actually cut trade.

This would make blockading ports undesirable and way to costly. And it doesn't make too much sense to me.
To go back to my A,B,C example (I must sound dorky ), why do you have to blockade the ports of both B and C? Did the Germans blockade England and America? To stop shipping from a port of Nation B (I'm talking realistically), you just sink all their ships as they leave port, not blockade both ports.

Sorry for a long and probably too lengthy post!

 

[cgannon64]

Sorry, Pygzilla, I forgot to mention your name on the second quote in my post---and sorry to all for the odd nature of my quotes---this is the first time I've quoted someone!

 

[knightmare]

Why not give them some sort of blockade ability similar to the fighters planes ability. That being, when an enemy comes within range it gets attacked. That would be effective vs ships moving in the area esp. transports. As for cutting off trade maybe having trade routes that could be cut would be better (c.f. Call to power).

 

[Rory_20_uk]

I would have thought that the problem of stating "1 of 4 ports = 25% loos in trade" is that the other 3 might increase the amount of trade that they were undertaking (something that would certainly happen in real life). I imagine that getting into the distance between ports, access to the ports and all that gumph is again too much minutae to bother with

 

[Pygzilla]

Originally posted by cgannon64

This would make blockading ports undesirable and way to costly. And it doesn't make too much sense to me.
To go back to my A,B,C example (I must sound dorky ), why do you have to blockade the ports of both B and C? Did the Germans blockade England and America? To stop shipping from a port of Nation B (I'm talking realistically), you just sink all their ships as they leave port, not blockade both ports.

[/B]

You misunderstood my Suggestion. I guess I wasn't clear. You don't have to blockade all allies. Just all allies ports connected to the capital of the target neation.

If Seattle was blockaded. Shipping to Vancouver and trucking to USA would not be a impossible effort.

 

[DaDoo]

Originally posted by Pygzilla

Or should blocking 1 port reduce income from trade (1 port of 4 blocked 25% GPT and benefit lost)

This would make sense *IF* we get GPT bonus when we build harbor.(We don't) Civ3 only count a city as a port when the harbor is built and even then we only get a food bonus from the harbor if I remembered it right.

I think the suggestion of having a "blockade" command for naval ships is good. Perhaps make it have a range effect like bombing runs(or air superority missions? don't know how that one work *shrug*)? When you choose blockade the ship will patrol within the affected tiles? This way you might still need 2-3 ships to effectively blockade 1 port city that has a lot of coastal tiles but not 5-6 ships or more that is needed now.

 

[Rory_20_uk]

I tihnk that a small number of ships should be able to blockade a port. After all, the whole point of the ineffiency of the blocade would be that one ship can easily get destroyed by the blockaded player.
Along similar lines, I'd imagine that having afriendly ship in a square next to the port would hae the effect of negating the blocade?

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by Venger


Because it's germaine and topical, relevant to the original post and the topics intent? Are you some type of stalker, following him around like a hall monitor? If he's said it before, and says it again, grow up and IGNORE HIM if you don't like it, especially when what he says is relevant.

What he's said makes sense and is contextual, no reason to pick a fight with him over it.

Venger

I was gonna say exactly the same thing.

Back to the topic at hand. how about if every ship has a zone of control (1 square in each direction it can reach easily). The blockade can either be a ship, or within 1 square, if you get what 1 mean. It means you may need more than 1 ship, but not 1 for each square.

I'm not sure about rates. The way the rest of the game has been made, i'd say you have to keep the all or nothing. There is a trade route or there isn't. They get all the luxury/resource, or none.

Now the other option i can think of is thus, by placing a ship (or maybe this just works for privateer) in a blockade that effectively blocks the trade route, the cargo (luxury and/or gpt) is routed into the privateer's home nation instead. Maybe just a cash reward is right. I entirely agree with Zouave on the subs and privateers. This concept is not given enough credit in the game.