Main idea of this suggestion:

- I was thinking to make nobles path more specific, more interactive in game.
- This suggestion will work perfectly with nation diplomacy feature and Commonwealth system. (viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1797)
- More in debth interactions for ports. more player will involve to protect ports include nations without ports.

"The nobles’ place in society was essentially to function as middle-men between the peasants and the royal family. Nobles provided work, land, and protection to the peasants while providing funding, supplies, and military service to the king."


Requirements:

-Territories
1 New building (or addition to mansion) in Hideout (Castle)
1 New research (or addition to political science)
2 New voodoo cards
-Only available for noble class or higher in a nation


Descriptions:

Territory: Territories are part of ports. Each port can split up to max 10 territories.(or we can make it region which already exist in game and max amount will be 9)

Castle(Mansion): Each level of castle will increase your territory population counts cap.(Max amount %X of port's total populations(still thinking about that count))

Political science(or new research): In addition to current ability each level will increase population gain from build up ports by %10 (max amounts %200 additional for territory usage only by territory owners(questionable))

Small TI(need a proper name: Instant Territory Increases population of target territory by %1
Small BD(also need a proper name: Instant Territory Reduces population of target territory by %1

How to Apply:

1-) When you become a noble in a nation you can request for controlling your own nation's ports territory.

2-) If your nation dont have a port than you can apply for another nation's ports territory.

3-) Even if your nation have a port still you can apply for another nation's ports territory.

How System works:

Lets say Tokelau decide to split Aiora for 10 territory after vote process.
The size of territories depends on kings and councils votes and decisions.

1 Duke from Tokelau applied for owning a territory,
1 Baron from Colombia also applied for owning a territory,

Tokelau voted for decision. And they agreed to give territories for those two. After that Agreement conditions are discussed and voted.

Agreement conditions:

- Each territories going to have 50m populations(nations will decide).
- 1 month's total tax amount of 25m(calculated for 30m tax paying citizen) will be paid in advance(this is max amount nation can change the amount).
- If territories population will drop more than %X of first population Agreement will be cancelled and territory owner cant request control of territory again for 1 month.
- Another nations need to pay additional %X land rent tax.
- During territory controls, owner nation can take fully benefit from rank perks same as port owner nation.

-If you fulfill the terms of the agreement, the control period is automatically extended.

- During territory control the tax payment by citizens will be added to Nation's treasury. If Territorries owner in same nation who control the port than he will get the payment.

- During agreement other nations influence will be count as your nation's influence. and when they quit from being ownership of territory they will lose X% amount of their influence in that port.
It will prevent them to make an agreement with a nation and increase their influence safely and try to takeover port.

-During wars territory owner Nobles also must join to fight.


Pros: This suggestion will work perfectly with nation diplomacy feature and Commonwealth system.
- More in debth interactions for ports. more player will involve to protect ports include nations without ports.
- They can have all port benefits.(port owner nations rank perks)
- It will decrease pressure on port owners.
- It may open new possibilities to take ports.(10 nation can make an agreement to take a port and than divide it to territories.)
- Well suited feature for nobles as a roleplay.


Cons: How black death and Transport immigration should effect territories of ports. still gain %1 and lose %1 of total amount equally which can be a burden on territories owners(lose pop part).

- There is no real benefits for nobles if they cant increase pop amount of territories slightly.


Suggestions: Tax payment amount can be decided by nations and can be tuned.
Nations can decide how long they want to give territory.

Well i stucked at some point thats why im prematurely Making this suggestion.


Im open for any kind of suggestions and feedbacks feel free to comment.


Sincerely Mugiwara...

I actually made a suggestion in the past on splitting up a port. Looks like people don't like having things like that and will attempt to find the worst in it.

It is also because things like this will change the game too much.

If there are further talks from others, I will add in my thoughts.

+1

HUGE +1

+1. as someone who hopes to rule their own nation one day, I am very fond of any suggestions that will help develop nation diplomacy, and make it to where being in a smaller nation is easier and make it to where they don't need to seize a port just to gain some stable income and power, as it is now the map is dominated by superpowers, we have all seen attempts made by individuals of small nations attempt to seize a port, and all have been crushed so quickly, but with something like this, a more diplomatic and friendly solution will be available that will give smaller nations the ability to partner with bigger nations to benefit both.

i don't really get the purpose.
so players can own a territory in a port.
that will give them...... gc profit?

at the cost of ...... loyalty to the portholding nation through their influence

how will this generate more game play? if their is gc to be made and a nation can decide how many territories there will be in a port or who gets them then the top brass in a portholding nation will divide the goodies among them selves. why being altruistic?

the 'be loyal or lose your influence' will stifle port control battles when other nations can get acces to the only reason to own a port (goldcoins)

Avonmora is a very capitalistic world where gc/credits rule. if you have it you can make more and if you have a lot you gain access to even more ways to make more.

the idea to share wealth will not add action. the idea that all should have access to wealth generating ports is a nice thought but foreign to the avonmora world. ports are unique because there are so few of them! to increase the number of wealth generating places tenfold will reduce the scarcity and thus their reason to covet them.

(this idea is a way to create strive through port dominance.)

Hmm. Mixed feelings. I can see some advantages to this but there is also major drawbacks.

The Castle level cannot be possibly infinite and that would require adjustments to the territory size. Let's say 10 territories and 10 castles at different levels and size is level dependent. It won't be long before demand for internal strife aspects to be developed.
Internal battle for territory size, castle siege, introducing inflation, ..etc. That aspect will take the game in a different direction and I am strongly against it.

I like the more interactive roles though. I feel that not everyone in the same rank should be on equal footing.

Thanks for all comments.

Maha wrote:i don't really get the purpose.
so players can own a territory in a port.
that will give them...... gc profit?

at the cost of ...... loyalty to the portholding nation through their influence

how will this generate more game play? if their is gc to be made and a nation can decide how many territories there will be in a port or who gets them then the top brass in a portholding nation will divide the goodies among them selves. why being altruistic?

the 'be loyal or lose your influence' will stifle port control battles when other nations can get acces to the only reason to own a port (goldcoins)

Avonmora is a very capitalistic world where gc/credits rule. if you have it you can make more and if you have a lot you gain access to even more ways to make more.

the idea to share wealth will not add action. the idea that all should have access to wealth generating ports is a nice thought but foreign to the avonmora world. ports are unique because there are so few of them! to increase the number of wealth generating places tenfold will reduce the scarcity and thus their reason to covet them.

(this idea is a way to create strive through port dominance.)

At first thanks for your detailed feedbacks. I will try to give you answers about your concerns. I hope i will be clear enough.

Lets say Spain decide to seperate their ports for territories. total of 50 territories.
- They need to find 50 Noble or higher class to make a deal with them.
- IF they give all territories to nobles with an agreement of %20 lose populations will cancel the agreements. And all of the nobles ruined this job what will happen? They will lose %20 total pop in less than a month. So those 50 nobles wouldnt have a chance to get a territory again. Not only in Spain but also in other nations ports.

Bermuda USA will benefit more from this feature than Spain or Egypt.

Maha wrote:Avonmora is a very capitalistic world where gc/credits rule. if you have it you can make more and if you have a lot you gain access to even more ways to make more.

the idea to share wealth will not add action.

The thing is when you own a territory and started to gain wealth. you will be able to get more golds which as you said you can rule this world. Lets say Australia took a territory from Isle of Man and controlled it really well. They gained more gold and wealth at some point they decide to have their own port's because they know how to handle with port management as a sub port controller. This idea not an lmaginary one. It can help small nations more than bigger ones.

Maha wrote:the idea that all should have access to wealth generating ports is a nice thought but foreign to the avonmora world. ports are unique because there are so few of them! to increase the number of wealth generating places tenfold will reduce the scarcity and thus their reason to covet them.

Captain Jack wrote:Nation Diplomacy Discussion

Trade Pacts
Peace status will be required

Trade pacts will be forged between nations.
They will share the port's market bonuses in between participating nations. (ie, if there is a trade Pact between Egypt and Spain, then Spaniards will get port market bonuses on Egyptians ports and Egyptians to Spanish ports respectively).
There will be the ability to include or except ports for increased diplomatic options.
Daily fees (optional) will be available (especially handy for nations that do not control any port).

CommonWealth System Expansion

Ability to create a CommonWealth could become possible. Ruler of the Commonwealth will be a King of the participating countries. Initially the founder but there will be a periodical election system (ie, every 3 months) to declare a new Ruler.

Entering a commonwealth will have certain buffs and limitations by default. Here is a list with some that could be included:
-Peace between all nations will be obliged.
-Trade Pacts will be active by default in between every member of the CommonWealth.
-Participating nations could share their tax income based on a pact signed by each participating nation.
-Nations will not be able declare war to any nation in the same commonwealth. Either nation must leave first.
-Entering and leaving a commonwealth will be based on votings. Once entered though, you will be obliged to stay for a specified amount of time (ie, 1 month).
-Vassal Countries will not be able to join a Common Wealth other than the Commonwealth that their Overlord is participating.

Actually my suggestions not that much against the avonmora world. These are the informations Captain Jack shared with us. i already shared the full link on my first post. What is the difference ? Eventually without port owning you can get benefit from trade bonuses or such. Nation diplomacy not different than this one. you wont give your territory to your enemy. you can give them which you alread have diplomacy with them.

If im not clear let me know so i will try my best to response.

Sincerely Mugiwara...

PhoenixKnight wrote:Hmm. Mixed feelings. I can see some advantages to this but there is also major drawbacks.

The Castle level cannot be possibly infinite and that would require adjustments to the territory size. Let's say 10 territories and 10 castles at different levels and size is level dependent. It won't be long before demand for internal strife aspects to be developed.
Internal battle for territory size, castle siege, introducing inflation, ..etc. That aspect will take the game in a different direction and I am strongly against it.

I like the more interactive roles though. I feel that not everyone in the same rank should be on equal footing.

As i already mentioned on my suggestion its not %100 necessary to make a new building. We can add this ability to mansion if we dont want more changes in the game. Also numbers can be changeable. Territory battles will be like port battles for now. But(If it will be approved) at future those nobles who controlled your territories will suply and fight alongside with you during blockades).

About castle normally i was thinking level 20 for cap like other buildings in hideout. Im open for any kind of feedbacks to make it better on action not on paper. Thats why i shared my suggestion. I want to make it better for all of us. more balanced and promising.


Sincerely Mugiwara...

This would change the game too much, -1.