Britain Too Isolationist?

[gash]

Meh, who cares about navy anyway?

1. Blockade

2. Avoid economic loss by blockade (needed for troop building)

3. Sea bombardment (Ships are more mobile than siege weapons)

4. Stop invasions of land (it's easier to kill a transport at sea than four infantry on land)

5. Attack far flung empires with a war of attrition (troops can't be everywhere)

6. They're easier to move from isolated islands than troops

Navies are important for support. If you attack your enemy at sea, they'll never reach the shore. Maybe it won't win the game by itself, but having a naval advantage can be a decisive advantage.

 

[onedreamer]

none mentions amphibious attacks... In no particular order:
1) faster (don't loose one turn landing)
2) higher k/d ratio since the enemy can't retaliate against your wounded units that have attacked
3) the AI is more unprepared against this type of attacks, which means the AI is better at expecting a land attack from neighboring civs, and seems to me that it doesn't even consider the possibility of amphibious attacks.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

But marines are not going to be able to kill an infantry without air support or a suicide artillery, which means that you need more units to achieve the same thing as a tank would.

 

[onedreamer]

the amphibious promotion is available quite earlier than Marines, and air support is not optional anyways IMO. Also, tanks cost much more production. In the modern age, you shouldn't have a problem maintaining 4-5 extra bombers...

btw if I read 3.17 changelog correctly, you can't attack amphibiously with artillery anymore.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

Also, tanks cost much more production.

True, but it doesn't seem that way when I can produce 1 tank in 1 move in Denver (well, if it's 2 moves then I make a marine or infantry instead )

 

[onedreamer]

Well, if you own Denver, you own the world