Why i hate blockades

[Mike III]

Like i said, dont be rude on the post. if you dont like it, then dont rant at me.


In gods of old, the future era, my alliance member pacal declared war on the romans. i wasnt prepared. I had only one army set up to kill his biggest stack. I took a few cities. Suddenly, destroyers and transports appeared. I was done if i didnt destroy the transports. I sent destroyers to kill them. It worked, but more ships came. They killed most of my own ships. I had Miketopolis ( my capitol) to make ships. Their average life span was no more than 5 turns. New Miketopolis made modern armors, and new york made Mobile artillery. I had to get my stack moving again. Suddenly, my coastal cities began starving. They lost large numbers of people, while i made submarines and destroyers to find the under sea menace. But then i realized: it was stealth destroyers. It took 20 turns until the Romans were in no position to blocade me. During the blockade they attemted to blocade the island of washington, my only source of oil. Luckily, pacal gave me some just in time, so i could make tanks and artillery. My stealth destroyers found and sunk the other stealth destroyers. The blocade ended. If i didnt stop the blocade then, my cities wouldve starved all the way to one. that is why i hate blocades...

 

[tdy99]

Me too.. but, the AI spams naval ships. I always keep about 2 battleships + a destroyer in my vulnerable coastal cities that rely on sea tiles for food. It helps to have an air unit stationed in that city too. The odds for battleship vs. destroyer are something like 75% or so, but with a bomber to bomb them first it goes up to the 90's so you can avoid losses. Not sure what the best strategy would be with stealth destroyers. I rarely reach that point in the game and never build them or encounter them. Does any unit detect them the way destroyers do for subs?

 

[Mike III]

Stealth destroyers spot Stealth destroyers, any type of submarine spots submarines, and destroyers do too.

 

[Mukersman]

First post here - I haven't played enough BTS games to encounter stealth destroyers consistently, but you would engage in combat with them if you happened to run into one of them with your ship right? Would recon flights with planes do anything?

 

[Mike III]

First post here - I haven't played enough BTS games to encounter stealth destroyers consistently, but you would engage in combat with them if you happened to run into one of them with your ship right? Would recon flights with planes do anything?

use stealth destroyers to spot them. you cam then engage them with the stealth destroyer or any other ship or submarine. Planes can attack them if the enemy stealth destroyer is visible.

 

[Crimson Phantom]

Blockades are great - historically, they've been a defining factor in wars, especially modern ones - Germany and Britain in both world wars, and Japan in the 2nd.

Blockades only suck when you're the one being blockaded - in my current ROM:AND game as Japan on the Giant Earth Map, I would be completely vulnerable to blockades - all my home island cities are reliant upon sea tiles for food. The solution is to simply have the biggest navy. And don't have allies that will draw you into conflicts you're unprepared for.

My weakness so far has been the fact that, while I can destroy any invading ship, I can rarely do so before they offload troops, which means that I have to keep reserve units around to counter invasion. It's only a minor problem - 3-4 reserve units (apart from the 2 I have in the 5 cities in Japan) can deal with any threat I've yet seen, allowing me to focus on the main battles in Asia.

 

[damerell]

Blockades are great - historically, they've been a defining factor in wars, especially modern ones - Germany and Britain in both world wars, and Japan in the 2nd.

I think one might reasonably mention here the conflict which was, until the 1910s or so, known as the Great War. Absent the blockade (as I'm sure you know) there seems little doubt that Napoleon would have conquered Britain.

 

[traius]

I think one might reasonably mention here the conflict which was, until the 1910s or so, known as the Great War. Absent the blockade (as I'm sure you know) there seems little doubt that Napoleon would have conquered Britain.

World War 1 (1914-1918) was known as The Great War and/or The World War, until World War 2 happened, and it got renamed to The First World War or World War 1. I don't know what you mean by your post, as the Napoleonic wars were not known as 'The Great War' nor did the name 'The Great War' die out in the 1910's (it either hadn't occurred or was still being waged for 9/10 years of the 10's!)

 

[Te_Wheki]

I think he meant the Battle of Trafalgar, but that was just a battle in the War of the Third Coalition, and ultimately Napoleon won the war.

 

[damerell]

I don't know what you mean by your post, as the Napoleonic wars were not known as 'The Great War' nor did the name 'The Great War' die out in the 1910's

Is the wrong answer. (See, for example, http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=great or https://sites.google.com/site/friendsofnormancross/a-detailed-history/the-napoleonic-wars or, well, any Victorian book of military history). And for obvious reasons, use of that expression for the Napoleonic Wars did die out in the 1910s.

 

[traius]

I didn't just haphazardly reply to your post. I attempted to find some mentioning of the napoleonic wars as "the great war," but could do no such thing. I have since re-attempted to do so. Other than your given links, I cannot find any mention of the napoleonic wars as the Great War.

 

[damerell]

Atkins & Atkins, "The War for all the World's Oceans", 2006, page xv: "For a century, until World War I inherited the title, the Napoleonic conflict would be known as "The Great War".

Spenser Wilkinson, "Britain at Bay", 1909, Chapter IX, three references to the "last great war".

Admiral Cyprian Bridge, "Sea-Power and Other Studies", 1910, Chapter X, "At the close of the Great War, which ended in the downfall of Napoleon..." (and other references).

R. D. Blackmore, "Springhaven: A Tale of the Great War", 1887 (obviously, about the Napoleonic Wars).

Want some more, or will that do?

It's a usage which is almost forgotten, being nearly a century obsolete; but it was a real one.

 

[Tlalynet]

I think one might reasonably mention here the conflict which was, until the 1910s or so, known as the Great War. Absent the blockade (as I'm sure you know) there seems little doubt that Napoleon would have conquered Britain.

That strongly indicates he was talking about the Napolianic wars to me. I think you just misread his post.