Wars and blockades

[Stan Rogers]

Perhaps if blockade could only prevent ships from port entry or the ability to prevent ships from leaving a port could be severely curtailed allowing a blockaded nation to get to other supply ports. Also no blockade would be totally effective in curtailing ship movement in and out of port.
Cutters sloops and howkers perhaps could slip past an armed blockade undetected or small single ship fleets are less noticeable and could smuggle in needed supplies to a blockaded nation.
When I think of Blockade I think of not only denying supplies to an enemy nation,l I also think about trying to deny them from purchasing goods in your own market through denying their ships to enter your ports forcing unfriendly nations to travel further for their goods.
As trade is the lifeblood of any nation, blockades would be a final step before war as well as useful during wartime but not something that would be abused just for kicks

[Haron]

Danik: Yes, trading is what makes the world go round. Which is why my suggestion had severe limitations, as you can see: 1) 1 gem needed to enter a fleet into a blockade. 2) Blockades ONLY affect "enemies of state" (specific pirates) and members of warring nations. Thus, the only way to block a person flying under antoher nations flag, would be to declare war on that nation. It would NOT be possible to single out that person and block him only. Combined with national dimplomacy, I think this opens for many possibilities.

As for offensive blockades, they are even harder, as they can only even be ESTABLISHED after war has been declared. Sure, they would block everyone from that port, but on the other side, everyone would be able to attack it too. I think you would find that keeping such a blockade over time would take an enormous amount of gems, especially since ATTACKING blockades doesn't require gems.

The reasons behind my suggestions are 1) I would like other ways to compete for port control than only voodoo. Thus an ability to attack ports is necessary. 2) I think it should be possible to defend ports with dedicated fleets 3) Since trade is so important, the ability to block people out of ports seems like the natural way for large nations to wage wars. This ability should be possible both for those controlling a port, and their enemies. Note also that I think this would work very well together with the suggestion of port stock companies, paying dividends. I'm sure wars would affect the stock values a lot.

[Haron]

Like I said earlier, if such a thing as this is to be implemented, ports need to be even more profitable, since it will become more difficult and more expensive to hold them. Also, it should be desireable for a port to have as many people trading there as possible, so that when a port DOES block people from trading there, that carries a small cost for the port nation in the form of lost trade. I therefore think some sort of trade tax would be a good idea. This could come in many forms, but here are three possible options:

1) Every time someone buys/sells from a port (including the use of "party cards"), a small percentage (0,1%?) is paid to the treasury of the nation holding that port. This is a very simple solution, can can be implemented in todays rules.

2) If the suggested "port companies" with stocks, that pays dividends based on trade is implemented (see separate suggestion), then the ports could tax the dividends of such companies.

3) If, in the future, every resource will somehow be generated by the players ("mining" to get iron, "cotton harvest" to get cotton, "tool makers" to make tools, etc., just like fishing produces food today), then the port could put a tax when such goods are put on the market.

[John jacob astor]

1) Every time someone buys/sells from a port (including the use of "party cards"), a small percentage (0,1%?) is paid to the treasury of the nation holding that port. This is a very simple solution, can can be implemented in todays rules.

This already happens (sort of):

Taxes
-Every resource sold from the port market, returns 1% of the value to the nation that controls it.

[Haron]

Thank you. Norway does not own any port, unfortunately, and I never found that rule (despite looking, hmm, poor searching skill). Is this applied on buying only, or both on buying or selling?

[Meliva]

only on buying the ports resource. an example would be- Egypt owns seaglory, whenever someone buys cotton in seaglory Egypt gains 1% of the value, but does not gain anything when resources are sold in seaglory.

[Haron]

I see. Thank you, Meliva.

If so, then applying a tax on sales as well may be a way to increase the value of ports, and for each port to desire as much trade as possible, so that blocking fleets carry a cost.

Anyway, the MAIN idea here are the wars and the blockades.

My intentions with the proposal is this:

1) To make naval combat play a part in the takeover of ports. Today, only voodoo and gold matters. Thus: Attacking a port to reduce the defending nations influence was one element. Naturally, it must be possible to defend against this, thus: Defensive blockades that have to be bypassed in order to attack the ports.

2) Holding ports should be more difficult, particularly holding MANY ports (which means the profit from holding ports also should be increased). Thus, entering ships into defensive blockades should carry a cost. This is in form of ships and captains "locked" in such fleets. Also, in the form of the cost to enter fleets into blockades (suggested cost: 1 gem, but this could be altered if gems are not introduced).

3) A more "formal" form of warfare between nations should be a part of the game. Thus: Wars. And, since trade is the lifeblood of the game, the consequence of wars are to reduce the other nations trade options. Thus: Defensive blockades to stop a warring nation from trading at your ports, AND offensive blockades to prevent ANYONE from trading at your enemies ports.

These were the intentions behind this suggestion.

[Captain Jack]

We need to keep existing rules in new features and at worse, extend them.
Altering them is most of the time something we do not want to do. You can't have a set of special complicated danger rules for the blockading fleet for example.

Blockading should not prevent players from using/entering the port. This is a very global effect. Even if it targets a specific nation or even a specific guild. A single player might have 200 fleets. What happens when there are 10 of such players? Also, take into consideration that game population grows and if the numbers are already high for something like this, then it will break in the future.

Besides numbers, we need to look at gameplay too. You have a player that runs his trade routes at an automatic way. What exactly will happen at these cases? The first thought that comes in mind is that a bloackade that prevents you from entering the port, will also affect your trade routes. Even in the case we could decide to except the trade fleets, this is not self-explanatory at large and must be avoided.

At the other hand, we like the Blockade concept and we want to implement it somehow. It needs a more specific target though.

I agree that naval combat should play a role in port control. Playing a role is different than defining it. Influence is a game concept and cannot be abandoned.

Let's see the following scenario:
Imagine the British Empire at its greatest. They send a big fleet to takeover Malta (wait?Malta? No, I do not think anyone managed to conquer Malta so let's go for something simpler). They send a big fleet to capture a small African and defendless island. The locals, upon the presence of the fleet and army, surrender the island management to the British with no battle. The war fleet at this case only served in "influence gain" and from there after the British must maintain army and navy there to keep their control (which is translated in an upkeep).

You could create many variants of this example. At the end, it is gold that pays for the navy and army so any gold costs is good enough to justify Influence.

The main problem here is that someone with ONLY a big fleet/army cannot capture a port unless they have gold. I think this is the correct identification of the root problem here and this is what we need to solve.

A working scenario could be the following.

WAR BETWEEN TOKELAU AND BERMUDA scenario

I am using existing neutral nations to give you a bigger picture.
Let's suppose that King Kart decides to conquer the Tokelaun port of Aiora.

To achieve this, he orders his Bermudans to assault and blockade the port.
Several nobles respond to his call and decide to send their fleets against Aiora. This is how the Blockade begins.

Tokelau decides to fight for the port and King Sir Henry Morgan orders the counterattack. His fellow Tokelaus respond with the dispatch of their own war fleets to prevent the blockade. Additionally, SHM manages to get support from several individuals; they also send their fleets to aid.

So, we enter a state where both nations will use their fleets to clash outside Aiora.

End of Scenario

At the end of the day (daily update), based on the fights that took place (here we might need some extra rules, inevitably) the system determines if the blockade has been successful or not.

In case of a successful blockade, the attacking nation "steals" a percentage of the defending nation (which can only be the port controller nation) influence. This influence is divided among the attacking players depending on their contribution. It is removed equally (according to their holding percentage) from the defending nation's players.

If the port is won, then the blockade is by default removed. If not, they can continue for a new blockade.

So, the blockade can be a DAILY (or more days) EVENT where two sides enter a contest for the port. Any player can assist the side they want. At the end of the day, there are influence wins/losses.

If this idea sounds charming enough, we only have to determine the following:
1.Initiation Rules (Should be a majority,2 days long voting with immediate ending in case current majority is met)

2.Engaging rules (We could use Danger system)

3.Winning rules
*What will define the winner? Plundering gold, damage dealt?
*Minimum requirements for a blockade to be successful will be needed; a single howker cannot win a blockade against a 100M population port, even if no defenders appear. Not to mention that we should avoid any "spam cases". We cannot have a single small player attempting blockades anytime he wishes. It must be a group action mostly.

4.Reward rules (Percentage based influence - exact figures are needed)


WAR declarations should not play a role. It should be up to each Nation's honor whether or not they will declare a war before entering hostilities. A successfully initiated blockade though, should set the diplomacy status to WAR.

We can have a public nation log that will record such events so everyone will be able to track this. This log can include all promotions/arrivals at the nation, diplomacy status changes and port blockades attempted/defended.

[Haron]

We need to keep existing rules in new features and at worse, extend them.
Altering them is most of the time something we do not want to do. You can't have a set of special complicated danger rules for the blockading fleet for example.

I think fleets in a blockade need SOME sort of "special rules". My intention with danger increasing, and removing fleets from blockades when their danger gets below 3, was to have a way to "defeat" fleets in a blockade. By my suggestion, a fleet in a blockade with full danger (180) would be defeated after 10 successful attacks. I'm sure there are other ways to make such fleet "defeatable", but they all probably require some sort of special rules. Note that "gaining 1 danger pr hour" would be the equivalent of 2 FFJ cards specifically for that fleet, so the basic functionality exists.

So I think these "special rules" should be possible to implement and understand. Now, if these rules and their consequences are UNDESIRED, that is another matter, obviously.

Blockading should not prevent players from using/entering the port. This is a very global effect. Even if it targets a specific nation or even a specific guild. A single player might have 200 fleets. What happens when there are 10 of such players? Also, take into consideration that game population grows and if the numbers are already high for something like this, then it will break in the future.

Besides numbers, we need to look at gameplay too. You have a player that runs his trade routes at an automatic way. What exactly will happen at these cases? The first thought that comes in mind is that a bloackade that prevents you from entering the port, will also affect your trade routes. Even in the case we could decide to except the trade fleets, this is not self-explanatory at large and must be avoided.

At the other hand, we like the Blockade concept and we want to implement it somehow. It needs a more specific target though.

Blocking a player from a port can already be done with the "Terrorize" voodoo card. A blockade would obviously be stronger, because it couldn't be removed by voodoo, and it would effect more people (everyone in the nation at war with the port controlling nation). So, I don't see players with automated trade routes having special problems. Besides, they could move their trading routes to different ports once they log in and notice the blockade.

YES, it IS a rather global, and powerful, effect. But then again, I think wars should be. And oh, it would be costly to keep up blockades. Particularly at several ports simultaneously. One thing is the reduced trade, which means reduced income to the blockading nation (defensive blockades). Another thing is the cost of keeping fleets in the blockade - such fleets can be used for nothing else, and require captains and admirals. Also, people with strong ships in blockades would want to have lots of gold on hand, to avoid having their blockade ships stolen. That means their weaker trading fleets are vulnerable to attacks, which costs them lots of gold.

Finally, and most importantly, I think the concept of attacking trade, by blocking someone from trading at certain ports, would be the very heart of wars. Like many have pointed out, trade is what makes the game go round. And so, trade is what should be attacked during wars. If not through my suggestions, then in some other way. The "offensive blockade" I suggested would have VERY large effects, and I realize this, but they would also be VERY costly and vulnerable. I don't see the problem with large number of players or large numbers of fleets. Basically: Move your trading fleets to other ports, if they are blockaded. Or help destroy the blockade, to reopen the port to trade. Again, I am after the EFFECT of blocking trade. My suggestion os ONE way to achieve this, but it's the EFFECT that is important, not my specific suggestion of how to achieve this (although it would be preferable if it is done through fleets somehow, and not merely gold and voodoo).

The main problem here is that someone with ONLY a big fleet/army cannot capture a port unless they have gold. I think this is the correct identification of the root problem here and this is what we need to solve.

In my suggestion, a nation could attack another nations port - after first defeating their blockade. The consequence would be loss of influence by target nation. HOWEVER the attacking nation would need to build up the port themselves to gain enough influence to control and hold the port. In fact, if nation A attacks nation B at a port where B has most influence, but nation C has second most influence, if enough influence is destroyed from nation B, it would be C who gained control of the port, NOT A.

A working scenario could be the following.

WAR BETWEEN TOKELAU AND BERMUDA scenario

I am using existing neutral nations to give you a bigger picture.
Let's suppose that King Kart decides to conquer the Tokelaun port of Aiora.

To achieve this, he orders his Bermudans to assault and blockade the port.
Several nobles respond to his call and decide to send their fleets against Aiora. This is how the Blockade begins.

Tokelau decides to fight for the port and King Sir Henry Morgan orders the counterattack. His fellow Tokelaus respond with the dispatch of their own war fleets to prevent the blockade. Additionally, SHM manages to get support from several individuals; they also send their fleets to aid.

So, we enter a state where both nations will use their fleets to clash outside Aiora.

End of Scenario

At the end of the day (daily update), based on the fights that took place (here we might need some extra rules, inevitably) the system determines if the blockade has been successful or not.

In case of a successful blockade, the attacking nation "steals" a percentage of the defending nation (which can only be the port controller nation) influence. This influence is divided among the attacking players depending on their contribution. It is removed equally (according to their holding percentage) from the defending nation's players.

If the port is won, then the blockade is by default removed. If not, they can continue for a new blockade.

So, the blockade can be a DAILY (or more days) EVENT where two sides enter a contest for the port. Any player can assist the side they want. At the end of the day, there are influence wins/losses.

If this idea sounds charming enough, we only have to determine the following:
1.Initiation Rules (Should be a majority,2 days long voting with immediate ending in case current majority is met)

2.Engaging rules (We could use Danger system)

3.Winning rules
*What will define the winner? Plundering gold, damage dealt?
*Minimum requirements for a blockade to be successful will be needed; a single howker cannot win a blockade against a 100M population port, even if no defenders appear. Not to mention that we should avoid any "spam cases". We cannot have a single small player attempting blockades anytime he wishes. It must be a group action mostly.

4.Reward rules (Percentage based influence - exact figures are needed)


WAR declarations should not play a role. It should be up to each Nation's honor whether or not they will declare a war before entering hostilities. A successfully initiated blockade though, should set the diplomacy status to WAR.

We can have a public nation log that will record such events so everyone will be able to track this. This log can include all promotions/arrivals at the nation, diplomacy status changes and port blockades attempted/defended.

Having blockades be "events" would be another way to handle this. I've seen something similar implemented in other games.

Regarding your point 3: I think something like my suggested "forts" (NOT to be confused with the OTHER forts thread ) could help out here: A port has a baseline "fleet" of "forts", which will automatically appear when a blockade starts, to prevent small fleets from being able to win blockades. Further, if you really wish to restrain the ability to start such blockade events, you could require that they can only be started by a nation among the top 5 nations measured in influence in the port in question, and only after a national vote, of course.

Finally: Thank you for your extensive reply, and I hope some of these intentions are implemented - the ability to attack trade by blocking ports, and the ability to attack a nations influence in the port through some sort of naval combat. That was may main intention behind this suggestion. I thought a complete suggested implementation would make it easier to discuss a way this can be achieved; my hope was always that the INTENTIONS someday will be fulfilled. Having said that, I DID but quite a bit of effort into the suggested idea, to make it "complete", functional and coherent

[Captain Jack]

I agree that some set of new rules will be needed. I mostly wanted to underline that we need to use as much of the existing ones and avoid altering them where possible. Adding extra rules (like the one you suggested that these fleets gain danger instead of losing, is acceptable. Simply put it is a +2 danger per hour (-1 lost at the hour = 1 danger per hour)).

This is a big idea and needs much discussion. Check at implemented suggestions topics (namely banks for example) to see how large they have been. Expect a completely new element to take a lot of time in discussion. The more we clear out the details, the faster it can become a reality. The good thing is that we are dedicated in this game more than ever and this means that we can make miracles in terms of implementation time.

However, it is not only implementation time. Earlier this year, we reached a point where we said (as administration) to slow down a bit in implementation of new features. The game was growing too fast for most. That's another variable we keep in mind.

Back to the idea, I will keep the objectives in a new list:

Objective 1:

Code: Select all

Ability to attack port influence with ships

Objective 2:

Code: Select all

Ability to attack trade by blocking ports

I have not read the fort idea yet but I think it can be easily added in the port buildings sketch I posted yesterday.