It's not too serious a topic - it appears to be a thinly veiled use of threatening language which adds nothing to discussion.
It adds as much as if I had used a finger and a pipe imagery. I find you easily triggered if you take it as threatening, but will use pipe and finger from now on.
How have I demonstrated a difficulty in understanding that?
Anything used defensively in a chokepoint will ideally be used as a blocker, fleets as well. You complain about something used as a blocker in a chokepoint. You seem to not like the idea of an inhibitor being able to block. You seem to not consider the fact you can use armies as not being blocked more than when facing a fleet and having to defeat it. You have a weapon and a counter (FTL inhib/armies) as anything else in the game. You're in favor a solution (FTL debuff) which would be equivalent to faster invasions and would lead to the same problems.
I admit I have no clue what you demonstrated but you did. If you want quicker warfare and don't see the relation to the 3 FTL methods, even after answering your question about it, you seem to fail to gauge the effect of the time factor on the ability of the defender to deliver more than one significant battle and secure an area. Otherwise, all I can see is laziness to manage armies.
Strange. You picked up on that discrepancy in terminology. Now you acknowledge that nozzles increase velocity, and just before you were saying that nozzles decrease velocity? Which is it?
True there was a language abuse in my throat analogy, I should have said "breathing the same volume at the same speed requires more lung pressure if choked enough because there is a tightening point at which we close the materials breaking point enough that it translates in strain to the muscles pulling the lungs".
For a semantics soldier I'm supposed to be, you seem one hard to debunk from that inhibit definition.
We're talking about the word inhibition, the word inhibit means to slow down. And if you constrict the area through which a fluid flows, it doesn't necessarily slow down.
You are talking about the word inhibition. From the beginning I talk about how a chokepoint can be used to inhibit enemies from advancing, up to blocking them. I droped my first line on it, yes, but there was text under it, that was the important part.
Ships, troops, and space warfare tech can hardly be represented by simple fluids and noozzles. The noozzle has no troops in it so that's moot? Still velocity != flow rate.
If obstructing half a pipe exit with a finger, velocity increases, flow rate stays the same. If obstructing completely the pipe with a finger both fall to 0. The increase in velocity just maintains an equal flow rate for a narrower exit given the same pressure. So it's either blocking or not blocking, but actually never slowing down, as quantity/second remains the same. Except the thin limit where the choke is too tight, the pipe strong enough, and the pump or whatever not strong enough. You'll have a slow down there and a backflow.
Your noozzle has no "finger", so the analogy with a troop guarded chokepoint is irrelevant.
To come back to the game, what is slowing down is the obstruction you can set up at a chokepoint and what it takes to remove it, not the chokepoint itself. If there is only one ship it's still 100% blocking until it's destroyed. You want to remove the ground troop part of that, the game is balanced around that, and yes it would be fine to replace it with a FTL debuff.
But either make it as long as it would take to take a planet + an extra to represent invading forces being late, caught, whatever, which is less precise, as much fun, and less strategic because no need to reinforce troops, no possibility to catch them guerilla style, and no differenciation between invasion time and bombing time. Or make ship prod speed match the increased speed at which the enemy can enter in a territory. The first solution changes *nothing* except microing armies being gone, the second needs a rebalance of ship prod time and (cost or mineral income), which is a problem nest and a bulldozer to smash a fly. Otherwise this is a drift towards the case we had with warp/wormhole, hence the comparison in the first place.
Comparison which is as much a strawman as was your argument on Salamis, and while both are not strawmans and it's easy to yell "Strawman!" when disagreeing, you're wrong in both cases. 3 if we take the noozzle.
