Influence Alliance/ Peace Treaty Cap

[PFH]

This is an example scenario for this function.

Albania and Spain are now peace treaty nations.

Spain proposes a law within their nation. An Influence daily raise Cap to put onto Albania. Proposed law is:

Maximum of 200,000 influence maximum influence added on Spanish ports from Albanian citizens daily.

Spanish members now vote on the proposal.

The proposal passes (in this scenario.)

The proposal now gets sent to Albania. Albania now gets to either: Add their cap to the proposal, accept the terms as is of the proposal, request rewrite of the terms proposal, or outright deny the proposal. This is done solely by the council members.

The Albanian council decides to add their cap to the proposal. The Albanians propose a 200,000 influence cap on their ports from Spanish members daily maximum. This proposal is voted on by the albanian country for approval.

The proposal passes, and is now sent back to Spain.

Spain, now as a country, either accepts the terms of the proposal or denies the terms of the proposal, which is

Soain can only add 200,000 influence on albanian ports maximum daily

Albania can only add 200,000 influence on Spanish ports maximum daily.

Spain accepts the proposal.

Any player of spain can add influence to an albanian port, however, if 200,000 has already been accumilated fromother members of spain, then no one player of spain can get influence from pouring gold into the port. The same applies to Albania.


EDIT

general rules of the mechanic are :

This is optional, and isnt mandatory for any treaty or alliance

This only is an option for peace treatied nations or allied nations.

This law can be abolished by either a whole nation voting 100% abolish OR both sides agreeing to drop the law. A revision works the same as an adoption of law.

Thoughts?

[sXs]

Remember you must invest in a port to hire crew in that port. Also, nation missions require you to add I influence in ports. I think an influence cap is a bad way to go.

Just my opinion though.

[Kangaroo]

I believe I know what you are trying to mitigate, but when I was running 150m + influence I was invested in many non nation ports, not for any reasons around takeover but simply to spread risk and this was encouraged amongst other high influence holders of my nation.

Suggest that a simple mechanic that prevents peace treaty nations being able to take over a port of the other party to the treaty via influence, regardless of those two nations single port influence is more workable?

[PFH]

Remember you must invest in a port to hire crew in that port. Also, nation missions require you to add I influence in ports. I think an influence cap is a bad way to go.

Just my opinion though.

You can still hire crew and dump gold, you just wouldnt get influence for it

And maybe a cap per port? Maybe as a list? Isntead of 200,000 for all ports (for exaple) it could be 15,000,000 tortuga, 5m tzogos, etc etc

Or maybe a cap per player?

Each player can add a certain amount of influence per day. Maybe based on rank?

[sXs]

I still don't think influence caps are the way to go.

#1 What Roo said. I did the same in UK. 100 mill influence spread out.
#2 Influence is one of the core mechanics of the game.
#3 Tranferring of ports becomes problematic. When I was in Grenada and we were gifted Baramas from SKN, one if the conditions was PK would maintain influence in the port for 90 days until nation was strong enough to defend itself. That becomes problematic under this change.

If you want to add teeth to diplomacy, do it with hostility penalties. You also must consider making it possible for nations to expel citizens who violate diplomatic agreements. This would not address that at all.