Port Blockades (Large)

[Vane]

If I understand right, Woflie and Danik want to see "profit" made by the defenders for being successful.

Defenders already enjoy the profit every day they own the port. If they want to keep enjoying it, they'll make the effort to do so. Their is little to no profit in most wars, and defenders even less. Defending is just that, "Defend" and "Keep" what is yours. It has motive in preventing loss.

Attacking is to take, hence the profit. Want to earn some, while your enemies have a blockade attempt running, instead of defending go start a blockade in their port or ports and take from them.


I agree the small loss on port income from trade is not a high enough motivation to defend in order to keep, so maybe some better "incentive" but profit for defending? That's ridiculous.

So, if you are attacked at sea, and win the battle, the defender should not get any plunder from their attacker? If you are skirmished, and win, you should not 'profit' from that either? if you blockade my port, and I send out my fleets and defeat you, what, you just sail away, unmolested? How real is that? No, I would take your ships, imprison your crew, and have your ships pay-chests sent to my vaults. And if the attackers won, why, they would cut out my finest war ships for themselves and rightly so.
One of the greatest sea battles, with enormous losses for the defeated, was the attempt to break the British blockade which ended up at Trafalgar. The last major sea battle was also an attempt to break a blockade, that was Jutland, with horrendous loss in life and ships. So, lets have a dose of reality here..

The way i see it, plunder and skirmish are boarding actions and thus yield rewards. A blockade... that is fight to the waterline. Want my timber splinters? go for it.

[sXs]

So let me get this straight, The people arguing the hardest against this are people who have clearly stated they see no benefit for themselves so won't participate. This seems to happen over and over again in PG. If you see no benefit to defend yourself then simply don't defend. It is a choice.

As CJ said, developers need to think of the future of the game. This is one upgrade that opens a world of possibilities. This brings battle sea battles back into the game. This adds A bunch of new strategy.

I see endless possibilities with this and I am sure once it is intiated more and more things will come to light.

Also, the "no reward for defending" is an argument many use now against plunder attacks. That is a decision people make based on what style of gameplay they prefer. Every upgrade can not cater to every players style. So this doesn't cater to you, fine, move on.

[sXs]

Futile to Bonaire perhaps, but not others.. as you just stated.

Would you defend port in this system? or you would just reroute? Also if Spain or SKN pirt is blocked they will probbably leave it because they have other ports for that income so better said noone not small or big nations have reason to defend

If a nation does not defend the port, the merchants using it as say a party port and one they have invested a lot into to increase their warehouse size may perhaps seek to see it controlled by a different nation. One that will protect it and they can continue their trade. Back door politics and funding new ownership will become even more necessary.

If you want more reason to defend, and claim the profits are small as it is, perhaps a larger tax on goods is to be added, one which is lost entirely when trade is blockaded.

Exactly...... this is a strategy. Imagine how this could tie into plantations, contact shipping, diplomacy.

It seems those arguing against it prefer to click and forget.

[Sebena]

Futile to Bonaire perhaps, but not others.. as you just stated.

Would you defend port in this system? or you would just reroute? Also if Spain or SKN pirt is blocked they will probbably leave it because they have other ports for that income so better said noone not small or big nations have reason to defend

If a nation does not defend the port, the merchants using it as say a party port and one they have invested a lot into to increase their warehouse size may perhaps seek to see it controlled by a different nation. One that will protect it and they can continue their trade. Back door politics and funding new ownership will become even more necessary.

If you want more reason to defend, and claim the profits are small as it is, perhaps a larger tax on goods is to be added, one which is lost entirely when trade is blockaded.

We get back on voodoo then if I wanted someone else to control port I just use my cards take port and then gift it to other owner. So again reason for defending goes down the drain. I don't need failed blockade to cause it. You want to keep party port then defend it yourself. Why would I care about port where you use party cards. Either way people have no reason to interefeere with blockade when risk is too high for return. Maybe you use psaral akroitiri for party cards someone else use other port so no reason to risk anything, either way there will be always more attackers and less defenders only because there is no point in defending in a system like this

[Sebena]

And fdniks you prefer attack for greater reward for small risk... so how we are different then. I want profit and risk equal to everyone while you just want to bully people because you can and call it strategy

[Mack]

Then why defend now?

[Sebena]

Then why defend now?

Exactly question that both danik and I raise and other seasoned players like SHM and PHX supported and asked countless time and got no real answer

[Vane]

Again, defend to prevent your loss... that's the point of defending.

You risk minimal in defending anyway.. what 18 DR per fleet? most vanilla plunder and sit with more on the board.

[Mack]

Then why defend now?

Exactly question that both danik and I raise and other seasoned players like SHM and PHX supported and asked countless time and got no real answer

Due to the high tax income im pretty sure.. you cant convence me that you dont come out ahead over time. Otherwise noone would try

[sXs]

And fdniks you prefer attack for greater reward for small risk... so how we are different then. I want profit and risk equal to everyone while you just want to bully people because you can and call it strategy

Not true, I said earlier I do not want a "walk over", but the proposed loss of all attacking ships is ridiculous. A single fleet lead by a MoW can be worth 70 mill plus. That kills it because of risk reward.

Tie it into port influence for the winning side, honor points for new EotC upgrade, Maybe successful defense gives defenders 72 hours of 20% greater trade revenue, Maybe the permitting proposal I made that the initiator and attackers need to put up a ransom style deposit ahead of blockade which goes to the winning side.

But to involve the loss of ships as part of the resolution kills it outright before implementation.