I was under the impression developed acreage to a nation would not count if the port changed ownership and the new owners would start out with the initial 20K acreage.
If the port was retaken by the original developers, the developed acreage would again show and be usable.

We have just been given the opportunity to see if this holds true with change of ownership in Pania however, total acreage is still more than double than the original allotment of 20K acreage.
Was I mistaken in my assumption ? This is rather important to clear up if a nation was negotiating to sell or buy a port.

Stan Rogers wrote:I was under the impression developed acreage to a nation would not count if the port changed ownership and the new owners would start out with the initial 20K acreage.
If the port was retaken by the original developers, the developed acreage would again show and be usable.

We have just been given the opportunity to see if this holds true with change of ownership in Pania however, total acreage is still more than double than the original allotment of 20K acreage.
Was I mistaken in my assumption ? This is rather important to clear up if a nation was negotiating to sell or buy a port.

Here is the question. If it reverts, how do you determine who loses acres? It would be unfair to revert back to the 20k level in my opinion.

Feniks wrote:

Stan Rogers wrote:I was under the impression developed acreage to a nation would not count if the port changed ownership and the new owners would start out with the initial 20K acreage.
If the port was retaken by the original developers, the developed acreage would again show and be usable.

We have just been given the opportunity to see if this holds true with change of ownership in Pania however, total acreage is still more than double than the original allotment of 20K acreage.
Was I mistaken in my assumption ? This is rather important to clear up if a nation was negotiating to sell or buy a port.

Here is the question. If it reverts, how do you determine who loses acres? It would be unfair to revert back to the 20k level in my opinion.

Good question I'm sure there was some sort of formula. Perhaps as acreage comes due, its no longer available for renewal and acreage expires instead ?

Stan Rogers wrote:

Feniks wrote:

Stan Rogers wrote:I was under the impression developed acreage to a nation would not count if the port changed ownership and the new owners would start out with the initial 20K acreage.
If the port was retaken by the original developers, the developed acreage would again show and be usable.

We have just been given the opportunity to see if this holds true with change of ownership in Pania however, total acreage is still more than double than the original allotment of 20K acreage.
Was I mistaken in my assumption ? This is rather important to clear up if a nation was negotiating to sell or buy a port.

Here is the question. If it reverts, how do you determine who loses acres? It would be unfair to revert back to the 20k level in my opinion.

Good question I'm sure there was some sort of formula. Perhaps as acreage comes due, its no longer available for renewal and acreage expires instead ?

It is a really good question for CJ. If You have your quartermaster assigned, then the highest bid would prevail I guess.

Depends if it was considered an investmentor just another gold sink for nations to toss their coin into.

Acreage expansion does not revert between nations.

Acres are indestructible.

Original Suggestion on Acreage Expansion:

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=4445

Lol..just another way for nations to spend their money... lose it to the toss of a few cards then guess what... have to spend their money to get it back. What joy!

I just assumed that it stays the same even when changed hands. Improving the acreage would just increase the worth of the port. Making it more worth it to defend and to steal. I mean, whenever a port gets successfully stolen and is ont that lastes, the old owners could just kill all the pops as revenge.

Its not a smart move to increase acres :as you say.. just makes the port worth stealing... which means hugher defence cost. Plus the rents take forever to repay the cost. Leave acres in shortage and let rents rise that way. No extra cost but extra income. Perhaps a feature to allow nations to reduce acres might have some use in jacking demand and thus income from higher rent bids. Makes more sense than paying for the diluting of demand with more and cheaper acres.
Increasing acres is a long term strategy. Keeping a port long term is rare.. expensive and so dont justify putting money in.. only taking it out in treasury payout and such.

Thanks Dez. My memory must have been based on an earlier proposed version of Plants. Link posted is quite clear on acreage remains active regardless of quantity or ownership change.
Therefore, no bug !