Correct use of ...

[justanick]

So what's the best/correct use of privateers? I don't bother with them I must say but maybe there's a cool use for them.

Given that they can enslave you can use them to attack ships that have been bombarded down to a few Hitpoints. That will be much more effecient than using frigates for the actual fighting.

Also you can use privateers to sink ships from nations you are not at war with in the crucial time of colonizing all those island that become available with magnetism. Sinking transport ships of your competion in settling those island gives you a nice edge.

Also they might be use to block trade routes of your undeclared enemies, but due to their low defence value those privateers could be removed easily.

 

[walletta]

Given that they can enslave you can use them to attack ships that have been bombarded down to a few Hitpoints. That will be much more effecient than using frigates for the actual fighting.

Also you can use privateers to sink ships from nations you are not at war with in the crucial time of colonizing all those island that become available with magnetism. Sinking transport ships of your competion in settling those island gives you a nice edge.

Also they might be use to block trade routes of your undeclared enemies, but due to their low defence value those privateers could be removed easily.

Block trade routes? At sea? I didn't even know this was possible. What do you do - make a chain of them across the water or blockade a port or what?

As a continental player with an aversion to naval play, I pretty much focus on eliminating the two rivals on my continent (small map) before building a giant Donald Trump navy ('no one will ever mess with us') of destroyers and a few transports (plus battleships now re-introduced for the fun of naming them). No place for ships with sails in my games, aside from the early curragh.

 

[justanick]

Block trade routes? At sea? I didn't even know this was possible. What do you do - make a chain of them across the water or blockade a port or what?

A trade route over sea requires a chain of tiles that is not blocked. If you eliminate all possible chains there cannot be a trade route. It might take a lot of ships to a achieve that. While there is only one harbour available blocking that would suffice, but later on so few ships would not suffice.

 

[walletta]

A trade route over sea requires a chain of tiles that is not blocked. If you eliminate all possible chains there cannot be a trade route. It might take a lot of ships to a achieve that. While there is only one harbour available blocking that would suffice, but later on so few ships would not suffice.

I guess there might be specific maps on which this would be feasible with economical use of shipping but I can't see this being absorbed into my play.

 

[justanick]

Neither do i. It seldomly is efficient and if for some reason it is i will find excuses to not use such means.

 

[agonistes]

If the civ's sole source of, say, horses, is in a city located across a body of water from the civ's capital complex, a naval blockade can be very effective. And they can quite often be achieved with one ship in a situation like this, because the AI hates building coastal cities - the AI coastal cities are usually coastal by accident or starting cities, and so often the number of tiles of coast touching the city is 1 or 2.

You only need to block the harbor.

The AI frequently blocks trade routes when there is a 1-city-harbor-export type situation. All the frickin' time.

One game I was doing my best to prop up a dying civ, and was trading resources to them so they could build decent troops (gunpowder maybe?). Civs kept declaring war on them, and kept blocking their one harbor so they couldn't build defensive troops. I had to station a naval force there permanently. When I did, the enemy civs kept trying to destroy my fleet so they could the block the harbor again.

I am sure the AI equation considers the no. of tiles that would need to be blocked.

 

[walletta]

If the civ's sole source of, say, horses, is in a city located across a body of water from the civ's capital complex, a naval blockade can be very effective. And they can quite often be achieved with one ship in a situation like this, because the AI hates building coastal cities - the AI coastal cities are usually coastal by accident or starting cities, and so often the number of tiles of coast touching the city is 1 or 2.

You only need to block the harbor.

The AI frequently blocks trade routes when there is a 1-city-harbor-export type situation. All the frickin' time.

One game I was doing my best to prop up a dying civ, and was trading resources to them so they could build decent troops (gunpowder maybe?). Civs kept declaring war on them, and kept blocking their one harbor so they couldn't build defensive troops. I had to station a naval force there permanently. When I did, the enemy civs kept trying to destroy my fleet so they could the block the harbor again.

I am sure the AI equation considers the no. of tiles that would need to be blocked.

That's interesting. The AI (and players here) devotes a lot more detailed attention to the map than I do.

 

[Jivilov]

That's interesting. The AI (and players here) devotes a lot more detailed attention to the map than I do.

Really. Just playing a large-Island/ small-Continent map as Spain with two or three main land masses--didn't know exactly 'cuz after discovering everybody decided to disband the lone Curragh for economy's sake--went after neighboring Arabs since they had Iron, Horses, Spices and Saltpeter. Before the war had two over-Coastal Lux trade deals. Immediately after declaring those deals were canceled and the first of numerous settlements went into disorder. Couldn't see them of course but presumed there were enemy Galleys in strategic positions blocking the trade routes. Arab settlements kept flipping and Spain's strong mililtary got whittled down to weak over about twenty inconclusive turns. Another lost game down the drain. C'est la vie.

 

[tjs282]

Before the war had two over-Coastal Lux trade deals. Immediately after declaring those deals were canceled and the first of numerous settlements went into disorder.

Trade-routes limited to Coastal waters are nearly always risky — they can be blocked by a single Barbarian Galley appearing on any straight section of Coast tiles (i.e. running NE/SE/SW/NW, and 3 or more tiles in length) between the 2 Harbours being used by the trading-partners.

But assuming that you had not yet learned Astro (=Sea-trade) or Navi/Magnets (=Ocean-trade)(?) when you declared, and if the trade-route losses coincided exactly with your DoW, it sounds to me more likely that those Luxury trade-routes both depended on your (hypothetical) "merchant-caravans" being able to pass freely through Arab-controlled territory.

As such, an Arab ship-blockade sensu stricto would not have been necessary: if your trade-route(s) necessarily passed through even a single Coastal tile within Arabian borders (or a single roaded tile through Arabia to a 'friendly' Harbour?), your DoW alone would have caused those route(s) to be cut.

 

[Jivilov]

] Hadn't learned Astro or Navi/Mags yet IIR. There was an alternate route NW of Spain but that Arab town on Mao's island could've ruined everything. Likewise was at war with Mao as well after refusing a Tech demand (can't remember when that was precisely). At any rate here's a couple screenshots and a save about 15 or so turns into the war. Shows how much Coast there was but as you say a single enemy Galley in the right place could ruin any water trade deal. Live and learn eh?

 

[tjs282]

Yes, I think your screenies confirm my hypothesis.

You should (now? again?) be able to trade with GreyCiv along your own roads (presumably via formerly Arabian territory?), but since the only land-tiles you have mapped further inland from that one GreyCiv town, are still controlled by the Arabs (SE of that 'Mediterranean Sea'-analogue), even if you'd had any potential overland routes to the rest of your continent, you would have lost them when you DoW'd the Arabs (and have not yet regained them).

The remnant Arab-controlled Coastal tiles on your continent (and presumably the Arabs controlled even more of that coastline before the war?) are enough in themselves to block your 'clockwise' northeastern route to the 4(?) Civs beyond them (LightGreenCiv, BlueCiv, RedCiv, and DarkGreenCiv). And since the minimap also shows that you didn't finish mapping the southern coastline of your continent any further than GreyCiv's first town*, even if the Arabs had not founded (or captured?) that cape/island town due south of Spain, you still would not have a viable 'anticlockwise' southern water-route to the rest of your continent.

Since your merchant-ships cannot currently reach LightGreenCiv's Coastal waters, there is also no potential northeast-then-northwest water-route to the PurpleCiv(s?) on China's continent.

So if you were already at war with China, then the founding of Fez would have made no difference. Despite your direct Coastal route to their continent via the Strait of Asturias, Chinese control of all those Coastal tiles north of Chinan and south of Fez (already) blocked anticlockwise access to the PurpleCiv(s) up the Chinese east coast — and their control of the southern end of their continent (plus your incomplete mapping of their west coast) similarly blocked your clockwise access — along with any indirect/ circumnavigational western routes to DarkGreenCiv, BlueCiv and RedCiv back on your own continent.

*I'm actually not sure if you even mapped that far? (If not, I assume it's only showing on the minimap through someone establishing an Embassy?)

 

[Jivilov]

I'd already met everybody; in Caesar's case by contacting his units engaged in war. Two of his settlements later appeared on the map after establishing a Lux trade after the territory they're in now (680 AD) was bypassed by the Curragh before they existed. Anyway thanks for your replies. This has indeed been a learning experience..