Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.
Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).
No, it's not another question about dominating planets in EV, but something a bit more practical (if you're a 23rd century Napoleon, anyway). Say you wish to conquer an Earth-sized planet: fairly advanced technology (Earth-level tech, say), robust economy, with a population of ten to fifteen billion. Your forces have defeated the planet's own space force and whatever orbital defenses it may have had. No outside cavalry is coming to the planet's rescue. My question is: what do you do next? It seems to me that you have two choices:
One: Put an occupying force on the ground to suppress any resistance, pacify the natives, and take over the government.
Two: Set up a blockade to eliminate commerce and bring the planet's economy to a halt, thus forcing the government to capitulate.
To me, the chief drawback to option 1 is that you'd need a huge occupying force to subdue a world like the one in our example. What seems reasonable here - a million soldiers on the ground? Five million? More? A lotta grunts to capture important installations and institutions. Then too, the actual battles needed to capture cities could result in a scorched-earth (as it were) approach: destroying the very assets you presumably want to appropriate for your own. We won't even mention those darned resistance fighters who slip out of cities to carry on the fight.
Option 2 would rely on the interdependence of planetary economies to be effective. A world with a diverse economy and natural resources could hold out for a while, but others would feel the pinch in short order and might well decide that surrender was the better part of valor. One problem here is that this approach would tie up a lot of naval power - perhaps twenty to thirty cruisers and well over a hundred fighters, positioned in low orbit to prevent ships from entering or leaving the planet. And, again, there is the problem of resistance fighters who aren't in the mood to surrender.
Which approach seems most likely to you? Opinions, anyone? I'd be interested in hearing what others think.
------------------ (url="http://"http://fumbling.com/phloem/writing/full-internet.html")go away - the internet is full(/url) (url="http://"http://www.brunching.com/evilovermom.html")the adventures of evil overmom(/url)
Hmmmm, very interesting question. Depends a bit how ruthless you are prepared to be. You can see some of the EVO races razing the enemy planet but I can't see the Confeds or Rebels undertaking planetery bombardment. That being said, you could (if you are evil enough) put down an occupying force and leave a few (say five) cruisers in orbit. Declare your rule and then vapourise a random city every time the captured population are naughty!!
The ultimate objective is to persuade the residents to give in. Blockade makes them surrender to gain the resources they need. Occupation doesn't give them a lot of choice. Option 3 seems to suggest that they will cause some problems (sabotage, urban warfare) but will eventually capitulate without too many battles so fewer grunts are needed but at the same time will lead to damage to infrastructure. Something of a compromise that depends a lot on how much the defenders hate the invaders.
------------------ Non est ad astra mollis e terris via.
Who says you need millions of grunts? One highly-trained covert operative could subdue a whole planet on a Saturday afternoon.
------------------ 2300 posts as of 10.05.02, 9:10 AM (12:10 PM ASW time). (url="http://"http://www.weebl.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/b3ta/pie.html")Pie is good.(/url) Official minion of (url="http://"http://www.EVula.com")EVula.com(/url). (url="http://"http://www.evula.org/dragoon/")D(/url)o not resist. Beware the substance '(url="http://"http://www.EVula.com")E(/url)'. Official fan of Tim Isles' (url="http://"http://www.geocities.com/empire_trilogy/")Empire Trilogy(/url). Beware the other substance '(url="http://"http://www.geocities.com/empire_trilogy/")E(/url)'.
Quote
Originally posted by Great White Godfather: **...Declare your rule and then vapourise a random city every time the captured population are naughty!!
**
I guess it was a totally different situation, but if you remember the Star Trek DS9 finale, you'd know how bad an idea this is.
------------------ Mike Lee (Firebird) Visit Cymltaneous Solutions: (url="http://"http://cs.paching.com/")http://cs.paching.com/(/url) (hosted by (url="http://"http://www.evula.org")evula.org(/url))
Well if it was real I'd say option 2
The reason is that the people would have less food and start hating the government and rebeling or starving. Also you don't need as many people and after destroying much of their ships they won't be able to get more materials and things they need to build more, forcing them to either surrender or die. Thats if you have no mercy.
------------------ Join the Rebelions webboard at (url="http://"http://www.voy.com/115814/")http://www.voy.com/115814/(/url)
Originally posted by Firebird: **I guess it was a totally different situation, but if you remember the Star Trek DS9 finale, you'd know how bad an idea this is.
Never got to see the end of DS9. What actually happened (in terms of vapouriusing cities - I hope to see it someday so please try not to give too much away). In the policys defence (not that I advocate vapourising cities) there are a number of historical examples where reprisals against civilian targets has reduced the effectiveness of resistance forces.
Earth currently survives quite happily with no interplanetary trade, so it wouldn't surprise me if blockading a planet had little effect. Granted, if the planet needs food or metal supplies from elsewhere to function, it would work, but an earthlike planet shouldn't have big problems.
I think the invasion with the threat of vaporisation would be the most effective technique - but I personally think that taking over planets without a truly massive (Independence Day level) force is unfeasible.
------------------ (url="http://"http://www.mazca.com/")Mazca(/url) , Moderator, EV Developer's Corner There is no honour without pie (url="http://"http://www.AmbrosiaSW.com/cgi-bin/ubb/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&number;=9&SUBMIT;=Go")EV Developer's Corner(/url) | (url="http://"http://www.ambrosiasw.com/cgi-bin/vftp/show.pl?product=evn&category;=utilities&display;=date&file;=NovaTools.sit")NovaTools(/url) | (url="http://"http://www.AmbrosiaSW.com/cgi-bin/ubb/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&number;=29&SUBMIT;=Go")EV Development FAQs(/url) | (url="http://"http://www.evula.com")Obligatory EVula Link(/url) | (url="http://"http://www.AmbrosiaSW.com/webboard/Forum9/HTML/003196.html")Plugin Recruitment list(/url) | (url="http://"http://www.AmbrosiaSW.com/webboard/Forum9/HTML/003091.html")Plugin Beta-tester list(/url)
It depends on how much of the planet you need to take over for it to be considered "taken". Would an opposing force have to put their forces in Washington DC, London, Paris, Moscow, and Rome? More cities than that? Less cities? Could they just take a few military bases? Perhaps just touch down a few hundred fighters in the Sahara and decide that, since there was no resistance, the planet has been taken.
Global domination isn't as black and white as EV makes it out to be.
------------------ (url="http://"http://www.evula.com/")EVula,(/url) your friendly (url="http://"http://www.evula.com/")self-promoting(/url) EV & EVO Boards/Addon/Newswire/Chronicles moderator (url="http://"http://www.evula.com/")evula.com(/url) | (url="http://"http://www.evula.net/")evula.net(/url) | (url="http://"http://www.evula.org/")evula.org(/url) | (url="http://"http://www.ev-nova.net/")ev-nova.net(/url) :: (url="http://"http://forums.evula.com/")Lair Forums(/url) (url="http://"http://pftn.evula.net")pftn(/url) | (url="http://"http://dreamwave.evula.net")dreamwave(/url) | (url="http://"http://davidarthur.evula.net")davidarthur(/url) | (url="http://"http://ucplugs.evula.net")ucplugs(/url) | (url="http://"http://jager.evula.net")jager(/url) | (url="http://"http://stark.evula.net")stark(/url)
I've just had a though which suggests that possible blockade is the only way to take a major planet.
I started a game of EVO recently and actually watched the intro sequence which contains a spaceport with a turret guarding it. This gets into the ranges of weapons but basically the lasers (presumably travelling at the speed of light) can be dodged suggesting thatthey have a range of several light seconds. In addition a ship over Earth can hit something over Luna suggesting a large range (I know it's not to scale but if you do the sums it takes a laser under 2 secs to hit the moon and proton bolts/laser blasts last that long).
So lets say your victorious fleet is approaching this pitful, cowering, soon-to-be-subjegated planet. You issue you demands, prepare to blast a city and the hundreds of turrets iopen up on you and shred your fleet. Oooops!
After all, the mass of a ship is pretty small and that is what limits the number of turrets + the energy to fire them and generate shields. A planet would almost certainly shield their cities and have the power to make them insanely strong and to both defend and fire hundreds of ships worth of guns.
So the only option seems to be to starve them out (which could take a while). This does seem viable because, sure, while Earth is self sufficient now it is implied that Earth imports food in EV (commodity exchange price is high) and has a larger population to feed and house (more food needed - less space to grow it on).
You could try to infiltrate men to sabotage key installations but a planetfull of them? Very, very difficult.
As Mazca pointed out, any planet of this type would be self-sufficent. Blockade may work against a Spica or a Darkstar, but not against an Earth or a Capella. Historically, blockades have failed in great-power wars because a lot of resources at home are needed to make a great power in the first place, and I assume that I am not too much technologically superior to said Planet.
Once I would establish space superiority over a planet, I would proceede to bombard from orbit any such turrets or cannons based on the ground. Indeed, I would assume those to have taken part in the defense against my initial attacks, and to have been destroyed or subdued durring them. I would aim to destroy all such weapons on the surface of the planet. Then, the hard part would begin. I would have to root out any ground forces with my own ground forces if I wish to be sucessful and ruling my new conquest. I would imagine I would have air superiority over them, which would make it a tad bit easier, but it would be difficult. There would be untold destruction on the surface, both from my forces and their own.
This also depends on why I have conquered this world. If I merely want the natural resources, I could care less about whatever exists on there already. This is the approach most advanced sci-fi planetary conquerers take. If I want the planet's strategic location, I could also care less.
In these cases, I would release a biological agent to wipe out all human life on this planet and attempt to re-colonize it, with the hope that some of the structures left behind by the former inhabitants were not destroyed by the sick and dying in their last moments. Then again, I doubt I would have enough colonists outside.
However, if I want its economic or industrial prowess, destroying the workforce and replacing it with my own smaller one would be counter-productive. I would need substantial ground forces, superior to those on the planet both numerically and technologically.
------------------ "When he (Saddam Hussien) kills people, they die." -- Dan Quayle **(url="http://"http://www.siteofbruce.com")SiteOfBruce.com(/url) | | (url="http://"http://www.cafepress.com/homefish")The Store of Bruce(/url) | | (url="http://"http://www.sourcecod.com/~homefish") Return of the Webboard Theory Site (/url) **
Originally posted by Great White Godfather: ** So the only option seems to be to starve them out (which could take a while). This does seem viable because, sure, while Earth is self sufficient now it is implied that Earth imports food in EV (commodity exchange price is high) and has a larger population to feed and house (more food needed - less space to grow it on). **
If World History is any indication, blockades are useless. They have a very high failure rate.
I do not know the exact situation on EV Earth, it is still green and blue in the game, and assuming that agricultural technology would increase even a bit durring those 250 or so years, I would imagine Earth would still have substantial agricultural ability.
Originally posted by EVula: **It depends on how much of the planet you need to take over for it to be considered "taken". Would an opposing force have to put their forces in Washington DC, London, Paris, Moscow, and Rome? More cities than that? Less cities? Could they just take a few military bases? Perhaps just touch down a few hundred fighters in the Sahara and decide that, since there was no resistance, the planet has been taken. **
It could take only one area of the Planet and keep so much force there and above that it could simply enforce its will on the rest of the Planet pragmatically. i.e, if it gained nuclear superiority, being either the only power on the Planet to have nuclear weapons or having the ability to destroy the other powers' nuclear weapons before they could be used (which would be many times easier with orbital superiority), they could very effectively demand tribute from the rest of the planet, as it is a basic part of human nature to have a tendency to avoid getting onself nuked.
I would after destroying there weapons that can hurt my fleet. remove there ability to make war, meaning destroying every weapon on the planet.. Then putting in a elected goverment that will work with the population to accept me as the ruler.. then aid them to rebuild there economy if its damaged, and make all there lives 100x better, to make myself look good, and as if I helped them
------------------ Peace, Love, and Chicken Grease (url="http://"http://www.AmbrosiaSW.com/webboard/Forum26/HTML/007247.html")Event Horizon 2 Sign-Up(/url) (url="http://"http://evula.com") EVula's Lair(/url)| (url="http://"http://starfleet-ssf.com/index2.html")The SSF(/url) | (url="http://"mailto:jager@evula.net")mailto:jager@evula.net(/url)jager@evula.net
Originally posted by OctoberFost: **As Mazca pointed out, any planet of this type would be self-sufficent. Blockade may work against a Spica or a Darkstar, but not against an Earth or a Capella. Historically, blockades have failed in great-power wars because a lot of resources at home are needed to make a great power in the first place, and I assume that I am not too much technologically superior to said Planet. **
In thoery yes. that was my 1st though but consider this. In the past there was no real international trade. Countries were self sufficient. Then there was trade. Now there are large numbers of countries who are net importers of food which their population needs to survive. If there was a viable interstellar trade system then it is not unreasonable to suppose that planets are no longer self-sufficient and therefore that blockades are possible. After all, how many countries in the here and now do not import something?
In the example of Earth food is priced at high. Simple economics tells us that this is most likely due to a demand for food from which we can conclude that not enough is generated by Earth. Therefore cutting these suplies will bring about starvation followed by (in theory) capitulation.
Originally posted by OctoberFost: **Once I would establish space superiority over a planet, I would proceede to bombard from orbit any such turrets or cannons based on the ground. Indeed, I would assume those to have taken part in the defense against my initial attacks, and to have been destroyed or subdued durring them. I would aim to destroy all such weapons on the surface of the planet.... **
A logical step indeed and again my 1st thought. However, cruisers and the suchlike are a very small mass (a few thousand tons apeice) and so cannot put out the firepower of a whole planet. Given the extrapolated range of Proton and Laser Turrets (see above) roughly half the planets surface can fire at any ship attempting to bombard said planet. Even a conservative estimate of the defence grid for a major planetwould contain hundreds of turrets firing at any invaders. The sheer number of ships needed to match such a barrage beggars belief. You need to have hundreds of capital ships survive the initial engagement with the enemy fleet. Then you have the problem that a planet of several billion tons is supplying the power to the shields (and come on, what major planet is not going to shield its important structures?) and guns Vs a few hundred cruisers massing hundreds of thousands of tons in total. (Not quite a fair analogy but a planet has a LOT more power than a fleet could put together.)
If World History is any indication, navy bombarments are useless! Seriously. Unless you have a large numerical advantage (and I have tried to point out how big your fleet needs to be just to break even) this is a sure road to disaster. The defender always holds all the advantages.
A planet is very, very hard to beat and you can't Monty Python it!
Originally posted by OctoberFost: **If World History is any indication, blockades are useless. They have a very high failure rate. **
If you talk in terms of stopping every single ship then yes. Blockades are almost cetainly useless. However stopping enough ships to have a serious impact on a countries (or in this case planets) economy is not hard. eg. The Battle of the Atlantic in both WWI and WWII, the US blockade of Japan, the British blockades of Germany. The Total Exclusion Zone in the Falklands. All of these had an impact in the movement of materiel by those countries. Furthermore the situation in space is simpler than at sea. There is only one "port" (the planet) and any ship arriving can be targeted from the instant it exits hyperspace. In addition the ship does not have to be found since ship sensors cover the whole system.
This would require far fewer ships and far less risk than an all out assault (though I liked the biological agent idea). To answer the original question I see blockades as the only was of capturing a planet intact.
Since a full-scale invasion is nigh on impossible unless you're willing to take a scorched earth policy (in addition to not minding how many thousands of your own soldiers die in the process), the specifics of option 1 are made impossible. Bombardment depends on just how advanced the weaponry that we're talking about is. Our own level of technology isn't really compatible to the idea of warring planets, but if our weapon's technology could be said to be not much higher, or for some reason not advanced as quickly as spaceflight, then I suppose that's reasonable.
As currently, our only type of weapon that would be effective in bombardment is nuclear, there is a problem. The likes of anti-matter would be much more planet-friendly, as they are clean (but devastating) weapons. A nuclear bombardment, even a single strategic nuclear missile, could cause more harm to the planet that you are willing to accept. Quite often, you'll be wanting to take the planet as your own, either for strategic value, loot or resources, so turning it into a radioactive hell (or, come to think of it, a sphere of molten rock) isn't going to be the best idea.
Sieges are also very difficult to use effectively. Although you said there is no cavalry, the chances are that if you are the type of species to be in one war, there may very well be another war or two coming along soon, with other species, and you cannot afford to keep ships tied up monitoring the planet. And of course, planets will very often be self-sufficient. Fortresses have been known to last out years in a siege, and a fortress without its distrada is hardly self-sufficient.
The only option that I believe would be successful is covert operations and lightning fast raids. Use your spacecraft to clear out aircraft and wipe out as much of the SAM installations as possible... particularly paying attention to installations in areas that you aren't interested in. Follow up by striking as many SAM installations in your target area as quickly as possible, and then landing a strike force (preferably as well trained as possible - setting up satellites and a GPS with IFF decoding per soldier could be handy.) The aim of the strike force should be to kill civilians as much as possible. Slaughter them, and perhaps pile them up if time permits. Give the rest of the world something to really shake them. Taking away large numbers of women could be useful, also. Have them killed once you get them back to the ships, of course.
Repeat as much as possible. As long as you are able to destroy SAM installations quickly, and wipe out their air craft, there shouldn't be too much of a problem with this.
Meanwhile, work on assassinations. Political and military leaders, anyone that is known to the entire world or much of it. It might be a little more difficult than the strike attacks, but assassinations do work when handled right. If the world sees pockets of it being overwhelmed and slaughtered within less than a two hour period, and all its leaders slowly dropping like flies, the people will start to get a little distressed. The government(s) will likely need to make examples to keep control, or they'll lose control right away. You'll have caused dissent and despair, and the planet should be ripe for the picking.
Alternative: Assuming you have SDI Defence Use a slightly heavier strike team to attack one particular target. Set up SDI defences as quickly as possible, and establish a perimeter. Bombardment with the heaviest clean weapons you have around your perimeter will establish an area difficult for infantry to pass through. Hopefully, you'll have the artillery to deal with anything.
Take it step by step. SDI defence will protect you from missiles, providing its good enough. You might lose your first few footholds to massed bombardments, but hey, its expendable. You're only putting a relatively small amount of resources in one spot, and they're likely to throw everything they have at it.
This does rather rely on ground superiority. If you don't have it, it won't work.
Alternative 2: Divide & Conquer Probably the easiest. Once you've got things going, you don't need to put much effort into it. Stir up dissent, either between governments, or creating rebellions. They'll always be people who want to surrender to you, especially if you first target areas that are known to be disapproved of by other areas. Once you've got a planetary war going, or at least the planet concentrating inwards on itself, it's time to work on taking over, although if the war is particularly bloody, it could be worthwhile to wait until its over, so they kill as many of each other as is possible.
Alternative 3: Don't need the planet Several thousand nuclear missiles, fired all across the planet. 'nuff said. If you happen to have some technology to protect against radiation, or clean it, you can still make use of natural resources on the planet, although if you had any plans to loot it, you'll have to forget it.
Alternative 4: They surrender easily ...just kill them. If they surrender, that isn't game over, ended in victory. That means you have an advantage -- the planet isn't yours yet. Once they surrender, set up positions everywhere, and once the time is right, purge the planet. They'll regret surrendering to an evil, cunning bastard such as you.
Originally posted by GWG: In thoery yes. that was my 1st though but consider this. In the past there was no real international trade. Countries were self sufficient. Then there was trade. Now there are large numbers of countries who are net importers of food which their population needs to survive. If there was a viable interstellar trade system then it is not unreasonable to suppose that planets are no longer self-sufficient and therefore that blockades are possible. After all, how many countries in the here and now do not import something?
Except that they don't have any other planets, or any other allies. As Phil said in the opening post, there is no cavalry coming. Either that means you've dealt with the others, which will likely have taken a lot of time (and if you've had other planets to play with, you'll have already turned one into a radioactive hell and therefore everyone will be happy to surrender already), or there are none. I think it's fair to assume that this planet is self-sufficient, and has no outside contact other than the war with you.
------------------ -Esponer
(This message has been edited by SilverDragon (edited 11-15-2002).)
Perhaps not the best means of bringing on rapid victory, but they've certainly proved to be effective. A blockade is what ultimately starved the southern states in the Civil War into surrender.
------------------ Joseph Payne - (url="http://"mailto: joseph.payne@tmgmedia.net ")mailto: joseph.payne@tmgmedia.net (/url) joseph.payne@tmgmedia.net
Originally posted by Captain Skyblade: **Perhaps not the best means of bringing on rapid victory, but they've certainly proved to be effective. A blockade is what ultimately starved the southern states in the Civil War into surrender. **
Let's not forget that maintaining a space blockade, in a three-dimensional environment and with highly expensive equipment, is much more difficult than maintaining a blockade on an area of land or sea. Space-based weapons don't automatically have a godly effective range. In reality, trying to use even a laser at a great distance would be futile - it would take between 10 seconds and a minute to reach its destination, plenty of time for the target to have moved. And don't forget, keeping these ships in orbit of the planet, likely making patrols, with systems operational... is a tremendously expensive procedure. You need the conflict over as quickly as possible, before you collapse your own economy. Look at Russia and the Cold War. There wasn't even fighting, but that period of time with an active military emphasis ruined them, and the operation you're suggesting would be a thousand times more expensive.
Besides, as I said, if you've already gotten yourself into a conflict with one species, it's probable that you're going to do it again. A siege could take years - eternity if they're self-sufficient - and you can't afford to keep military ships away from base (where, might I add, you're unable to service and upgrade them en masse) for such a period of time.
A planet is indeed a formidable opponent. You might also want to consider what happens when tactics like the Afghanis hiding in caves is employed on a more advanced and widescale basis (the Hive of Alpha Centauri would be an example.) A society with numerous strongholds underground, particularly if they are able to produce their own underground biological farms to sustain them, is an extremely difficult target. It's why we science-fiction fans love planet busters.
Oh, if you happen to be a dictatorship government with a large number of not very happy citizens, conscript them into your army, and use them in conjunction with medium and elite forces for a fullscale ground assault. You'll use masses, but with the amount of cannon fodder you're throwing into the fray, your real forces will, with luck, be able to deal some serious damage. It's fast, it clears out people you don't want (low intellects, potential rebels -- oh, if they're thinking about joining the other side, this is where you mention remote detonators that they can't get off without blowing up, and can't deactive (no, it's not the red wire)), and as long as you don't mind a bit of scorched earth in the process, it can be quite an effective method. And if it fails, you've still cleared out people you don't want, and you can move to a different tactic while they're recovering.
But we can only dream of being such a powerful imperial force.
(Edit...)
Of course, the cleanest, easiest, simplest, and most effective way is simply biological warfare. Just remember to make sure your bio. weapon has an off switch, and/or doesn't adversely effect your species. I haven't mentioned it up until now because it's a fairly obvious way of going about killing people, and it's very rare that you'll have an opportunity to deliver a 100% effective, 100% safe biological weapon. You'll probably need a dictatorship, or be very good at hiding secrets, too, because the general populace tend not to like it when you play with such things.
Other options; chemical (if the atmosphere of the planet isn't compatible with you, introduce chemicals that you need and kills them), astronomical (screw around with whatever you have the technology to screw around with - manipulating asteroid orbits, electromagnetic poles, whatever.)
No, a sound military defeat is what forced the CSA into surrender, as did the lack of support from Europe. The Blockade certainly hurt the southern economy, but it did not collapse. Perhaps the Union Blockade's greatest accomplishment was its ability to stop CSA-UK diplomacy, but it certainly cannot take full or even large credit for the Union victory. Without Union land forces conquering the South, the CSA would not have surrendered.
Every single blockade that was not supplemented with ground forces (except one) has failed.
Napoleonic France's blockade of Great Britain failed. France's 1870 blockade of Prussia failed. Both of Germany's blockades against Great Britain failed durring the World Wars. The only acception was the United States' blockade of Japan durring World War Two, and the appearence of Mushroom clouds over Japan have may led to that exception.
The blockades that have worked have done so only when land forces were sent into the blockaded area. Blockades are not a method of conquest in themself, they are a supplement to land power, a way to weaken the enemy before having your death squads descend upon them.
Now, as for naval bomardment vs blockade, I would disagree with GWG that the latter would be easier in outer space and the former harder. In space, the blockade runners have a much greater area to operate in. The size of the spaceships, presumably, does not grow at the same rate that the area grows, and the blockade runners have a three dimensional space to operate with. Now, while the naval bombardment is certainly difficult to defend, it has advantages over such bombardment on Earth. Given that your ships will be in a three-dimensional space over the planet, it will have much greater range. It will be more of an air raid. Now, while many powers have anti-aircraft artillery, they have been, in the past, destroyed in battle with few casualties to the attackers. (We have see more of this involving the same players rather soon). However, airstrikes in that war did not lead to a surrender, only the deployment of ground troops did.
The advantages of the blockade runner increase as you move into space, but at the same time the advantages of the orbital bombarder increase as well. However, neither blockade nor bombardment are of any use without land power. That is what would be needed to defeat such a power, and it would certainly be needed to maintain power should another method bring surrender.
Did you ever wonder why the CSA didn't get European support, especially from Britain? It was the blockade that did the job. They weren't getting anywhere near the proper amounts of cotton from the Southern states and therefore found that joining the war would have been completely useless - if the South wasn't going to be able to keep up with Britain's import demands, then they didn't want to have anything to do with another messy war. France thought in similar terms. The blockade might not have a huge effect on the military side of things, but it certainly can economically and politically. Gettysburg and Vicksburg (lost the same day) pretty much finished any hope of European support.