Wars and blockades

[PhoenixKnight]

I think this is a subsidiary of nations functions. There should be a proper war declaration though.

[Haron]

PhoenixKnight: Declarations of war is included in my suggestion. A war is declared after a vote in the declaring nation. I have thought about whether there should be a 24 hour period between such a declaration and the outbreak of war, but I think that since a vote has to be passed (takes three days from it is suggested), having an informant in that nation would give you 3 days warning. Including the 24 hours between declaration and outbreak would reduce the need for such informants, which I think is a neat part of the game.

Anyway. The concept is suggested as a whole, because these things go together:

Attacking ports with ships to steal/destroy influence - the defending nation must have a way to defend itself, thus defensive blockades. If defeating the blockade, it still should not be possible to attack the port with a puny fleet, thus forts to defend the harbour. Trade is the lifeblood of the game, and so it should be possible to lock a warring nation from your port - another use of the defensive blockade. And it should likewise be possible to target the trade of your enemy nation (even if your own nation has no ports) - thus offensive blockades to stop all trade in the target port. Yet, these things should be difficult and costly, thus the price/inconvenience of having blockades should be high - and they should only work against a warring nation. And pirates need to play a role in this, thus allowing for pirates to join any blockade, defensive or offensive. And then, the nations must have a way to strike back at such pirates, thus making them enemies of the state.

I'm not saying this is a "take it or leave it" suggestion - obviously it is not! It is something to be discussed. First: There are two main concepts here: 1) An ability to target a nations influence through naval warfare with fleets, and 2) An ability to target the trade options of an enemy port/nation. The first point to discuss if these main concepts are good - is this something we want in the game? If not, then no need to go further with this.

If it IS desired, then the next question is: Is a suggestion along the GENERAL LINES of this suggestion the way to go? That should be discussed. Are there better ways to do this through other principles? If so, which principles? And make sure things work together. No discrepancies.

Let's assume that this IS the way to go. THEN we should discuss the finer parts of the suggestion. What should be tweaked? Should this be altered in some way? Finally, there are the last details, like the numbers suggested. How much should it cost to enter a fleet into a blockade? How hard should it be to defeat? How strong should the forts be? Should there be a delay between declaration and outbreak of war?

What I really would like, is the discussion about the main concepts. I suppose most players find my "Walls of Text" too big, but they are necessary to give a decent suggestion with enough detail to explain what I mean. Anyway, I had hoped that after Captain Jack entered the discussion, other players would see that this is something that may, some day, become reality (not tomorrow, but who knows, maybe next year). And THAT, I thought, would cause more discussion. Primarily about the main concepts and the general lines of my suggestion. So: Hit me! What do you think?

[DezNutz]

I'm not saying this is a "take it or leave it" suggestion - obviously it is not! It is something to be discussed. First: There are two main concepts here: 1) An ability to target a nations influence through naval warfare with fleets, and 2) An ability to target the trade options of an enemy port/nation. The first point to discuss if these main concepts are good - is this something we want in the game? If not, then no need to go further with this.

Here is my take on the two main concepts notated. I'm on the fence (leaning no) with the ability to directly attack influence through naval warfare. I completely agree with the base concept of #2. How it is implemented is debatable.

[Meliva]

Maybe instead of attacking the influence directly, when a port is blockaded by an enemy nation, the defenders can not add influence during the blockade, meaning until they get rid of the blockade, they will slowly lose influence(the 1% a day loss). and maybe while the blockade is on-going, it would double the loss(2% a day). so while blockading a port, the attackers can slowly drain its influence, while adding their own.

[Stan Rogers]

I still like the concept of nations arming ports with cannon and paying NPC militia to man the cannon (much like ship crew) and the number of cannon a port can buy is dependent on its population.

Ships can fire on ports to reduce population and some fame and ports can fire on ships to damage and reduce crew.

If 2 nations are at war as decided by diplomacy, port will fire automatically on any enemy fleet entering the harbor. Ships should have the advantage of shooting first so I can choose to engage the port or leave port without firing a shot.
If ship/fleet shoots, the port automatically responds with return fire and a few less citizens.

Rules are simple and it can set the stage for more complex port takeover methods once mentioned and would dovetail into land battles in the future as well using the same metric only with crew instead of cannon.

Sorry for light twist in topic... back to regularly scheduled programming.

[DezNutz]

I still like the concept of nations arming ports with cannon and paying NPC militia to man the cannon (much like ship crew) and the number of cannon a port can buy is dependent on its population.

Ships can fire on ports to reduce population and some fame and ports can fire on ships to damage and reduce crew.

If 2 nations are at war as decided by diplomacy, port will fire automatically on any enemy fleet entering the harbor. Ships should have the advantage of shooting first so I can choose to engage the port or leave port without firing a shot.
If ship/fleet shoots, the port automatically responds with return fire and a few less citizens.

Rules are simple and it can set the stage for more complex port takeover methods once mentioned and would dovetail into land battles in the future as well using the same metric only with crew instead of cannon.

Sorry for light twist in topic... back to regularly scheduled programming.

There is a topic on this. http://www.piratesglory.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2165

[Vane]

I really like the idea of increasing the motivation to start wars and conflict.

Blockades would be an amazing addition to the game and give a much needed reason to control and maintain both ports and relations.

I would remove the requirement for a "gem" to be used for a blockade however. (At least until such a thing existed if it ever does). As a war needs to be voted on and passed, I would think a blockade should follow the same process. One submits a vote to create an offensive or defensive blockade and designate a port target. Once passed the blockade becomes active. At that time members may add a fleet to the blockade.

The blockade should in my mind also "allow" any fleet to enter that port with the exception of fleets belonging to any nation you are at war with (assuming more than one war may be active at a time).

Example: Spain is at war with Egypt and they set a defensive blockade around Hannes. No citizen of Egypt could enter this port without first defeating the blockade in place.

There should also be a cool down once a blockade is defeated, this could be as simple as the blockade being removed and a new 3 day vote must pass before another may be active in Hannes if we stick to the above example used.

I would like to see most of the effort put into blockades being created to start. As a declaration of war is required this could easily be reduced to a simple status that becomes active and is removed once peace is voted and accepted by both sides.

This will also increase the amount of capital fleets used. If you place a fleet within a blockade you will need another to place it in any other port.


All in all, I love the concept and believe this would work well in synergy with my recent post on classes and bonuses. (A naval officer blockade could be tough to beat ).

[Haron]

The "Gem" was added as this suggestion was made during the "Gem" discussion. Without gems in place, those would obviously have to be dropped Some price should be paid to enter a fleet into a blockade, though. Maybe 1M gc will suffice.

The blockade should only block fleets belonging to nations at war with the port nation, or "enemies of the state", which only can be pirates (not allowed to single out a player from another nation as "enemy of the state"; you'd have to declare war to the entire nation". This means, in my eyes, that there does not need to be a vote to put a blockade in place. The voting should be who the blockade stops - IE, declarations of war or declaring enemies of the state.

More use for capital ships were indeed one of the intentions behind this proposal, although a way to wage wars with ships rather than only voodoo was a more important reason.

A "cooldown" may be an alternative, or an addition, to the price to enter a fleet to a blockade. A short cooldown is already inherent in the suggestion, though, but it may be sensible to extend this.

Not sure the concept in itself will increase the motivation to start wars and conflicts, though. For that purpose, I have two other suggestions: "External Political Events", and "Enhanced Supply and Demand". Sadly, I've not got a single comment on that last one yet...

[Vane]

I would expect the cost of a blockade placement to be paid by the treasury personally. This to me would mean a vote should be carried out.

This is how I would picture such a feature (cost is only for demo purposes, could be anything). Also assuming a war is already declared on another nation:


1. Council member from spain proposes a Defensive Blockade on Hannes

2. Vote passes, 5 mill removed from the national treasury, Join blockade link appears at the Hannes plunder board for members of Spain
- Blockade does not become active until at least 5 fleets have been added to the roster

3. Members of Spain head to Hannes and begin adding their desired fleets.


Am I way off?

[Haron]

It's hard to be "way off" for a feature that does not even exit yet! This is under discussion, after all I pictured it slightly different, though.

In my suggestion, defensive blockades have two purposes:
A) Defend the port against attacks from enemies
B) Prevent enemies from trading in the port

I pictured it so that for every port there is always a "blockade" in place. It may be empty, or there may be fleets in it. The blockade only affect members of a nation at war with the controlling nation, or enemies of the state. Those are also the only ones able to attack the port. With no fleets in the blockade, they can attack the port. So even if they are not at war, the controlling nation may wish to have some fleets in the blockade t defend the port against enemies of the state. Otherwise, they may attack the port, stealing gold from the treasury and draining influence from the controlling nation. And any pirate can become an enemy of the state by his own desire (by a "personal declaration of war", if you like). So I picture ALL ports always having a blockade, but during peace their purpose is simply to protect the ports against attacks from enemies of the state.

Yes, this makes holding ports more expensive, as I've stated, and so I also propose larger advantages to holding ports.