Haron wrote:
more reason to fight over port control, and also it gives people a higher incentive to trade in ports controlled by their own nation.
And this.
Haron wrote:
more reason to fight over port control, and also it gives people a higher incentive to trade in ports controlled by their own nation.
Shadowood wrote:DezNutz wrote:Shadowood wrote:That is unrealistic to block 21. But perhaps a group could block 2 or 3 of a nation they are warring with. And Blockades aren't just about the money.
Isn't that the whole point of this suggestion.
The point of the suggestion is to make Defending more appealing.
Shadowood wrote:Not defending is one tactic, as all attackers will have danger at the end.
DezNutz wrote:Shadowood wrote:Not defending is one tactic, as all attackers will have danger at the end.
That's a point that Danik and a select few others are making. Why defend?
Shadowood wrote:DezNutz wrote:Shadowood wrote:Not defending is one tactic, as all attackers will have danger at the end.
That's a point that Danik and a select few others are making. Why defend?
To stop the attackers from getting the plunder. Why else?
Wolfie wrote:
Which plunder? All merchants well not all but 90% will reroute and won't care about blockade. Nation doesn't live out of trade tax so they will not defend. Any other lose can be replaced easily with voodoo. Making entire idea of Blockaes go down the drain and futile spending of developers time
Shadowood wrote:Wolfie wrote:
Which plunder? All merchants well not all but 90% will reroute and won't care about blockade. Nation doesn't live out of trade tax so they will not defend. Any other lose can be replaced easily with voodoo. Making entire idea of Blockaes go down the drain and futile spending of developers time
I'm so glad you are hear to tell us how this will go down before it even starts. Thank you.