Port Blockades (Large)

[Sir Thalius Hayle]

Haron- what would you think about the defender benefiting from a boost in loyalty from the citizenry when a blockade is successfully defended? A temporary boost in influence for the nation members that have invested influence at the port, perhaps?

I am not sure a temporary boost would have much value. As for a "permanent" influence gain: I think that gaining anything like this from a successful defence is not a good idea. It might lead people to want others to "fake" a blockade in order for the port holders to gain something. Also, I believe that for any "real" blockade to succeed, attackers will also have to initiate several other blockades as diversions - blockades which will be initiated, but not really fought with any fleets except the initiating MoW fleet, just to force the defenders to face several simultaneous threats.

Probably should have worded it better- had a lot of thoughts running through my head. "Temporary" was not the right word. What I meant was one time boost to influence.

I hear what you are saying, and it is unfortunate that you would have to be concerned about such a thing. I would imagine that with all the behind the scenes tools that admin has to catch cheating that they could head that off. In reality, a nation successfully defending its people would benefit from at least two things: They keep what is theirs, and they gain favor with their people. Seems there should be a way to put such a thing in place in the game.

[sXs]

Again the lack of foresight, and what I assume to be a farcical attempt at humor to belittle someones opinion, is bordering on ridiculous now.

Haron has an opinion just like everyone else here. His point has some validity. You guys have shot down every attempt I have made to come to some sort of equitable compromise. CJ has said it is already approved and has presented 2 options. He has stated that it will tie in with future updates but you all have dismissed them. If you feel this unjustly targets port owning nations then simply give up your ports. I for one, look forward to the challenge on both sides. I will defend to protect what we have and also be an initiator of a blockade if strategy dictates that is the best option. Profit will not be the motivation in either case. There are much easier ways to make gc, like simply gathering resources for my Goldsmith and pumping out gold bars. For many, that alone provides enough profit on a daily basis to sustain other activities. No one complains about the ease of that aspect of game play.

I tend to agree with Haron on this, and considering I have some stake in the defense against a blockade and what it could cost a nation, my position holds weight.

This is intersting......

I like it : the possibilities are endless in strategy terms ; can the mere threat of a blockade be used as a lever in diplomacy, for example.

On a tactical level, again, endless possibilities and permutations arise, for both attackers and defenders : the 'final stand' of the 4 hrs period again provides for many many tactical moves. Some can be impromptu, reacting to the 'end game' itself. Others will need to be pre-planned and depend on making the right moves from the start.

All in all ; a fascinating range of choices will develop over the campaign with room for error, luck, skill and plain inspired lunacy all combining to produce the outcome :

Bring it on!

You also wrote this....

I strongly suspect that trade will fall away to pretty much zero in any blockaded port, be it under Toll or cargo plunder rules. There would be absolutely no incentive for any trader to go there, not when plenty of alternative routes can be used until the blockade period expires. Inconvenient, maybe, but its the only sensible option for any trader to take.
In which case, I dont see any great riches being that forthcoming for any successful blockade initiator. I do see it being valuable as a tool to attack a nation/port owner as part of some overall strategy but in and of itself, no big income stream.

So you admitted that strategy are "endless possibilities and permutations", and you said yourself "I dont see any great riches being that forthcoming for any successful blockade initiator".

The irony, you are now arguing against points you yourself made earlier.

[Most Lee Harmless]

Dont confuse a multiplicity of strategies and options for one side to hold equally for the other : the defenders currently have only two options : defend, lose and lose a lot : defend, win and lose less. Thats a farce in my book : its no incentive at all, just a choice of which stick you get beaten with.

I want a contest in which both sides can gain, and both sides can lose : not one side gets to keep less of what they already had regardless of outcome. I want a contest which, when Haron declares a blockade on Port A, the owners cry 'Bring it on!' and eagerly enter the fray : not 'Oh shyte, is it worth even trying to defend? Maybe we should just pack it in, its cheaper ?'.

Bear in mind, once you win and denude the defender of their coin and influence and they lose that port, they aint there to be attacked again. They aint going to spend more coin getting a port back under these terms. No-one with half a brain would. So, who is going to defend against these blockades? Who will be left of sufficient weight and power to do so? Very few. And you may say you are eager to defend under these terms, not after a few losses you wont be. And not after a few wins either, cos both outcomes will cost you coin.

I think the successful side should gain plunder commensurate with their efforts : that promotes action and risk taking by both sides : you argue only the initiator should stand to gain, the defence must always pay the cost of defence and never gain : if thats 'equitable' then maybe I'm a fool not to believe it but, I am more than happy to be so cos the alternative just stinks of a pre-ordained plunder for some and I dont feel the game needs that, though some players may feel its their right cos, you know, they are the attackers and defenders always deserve to lose, even when they win.

[Shadowood]

Dont confuse a multiplicity of strategies and options for one side to hold equally for the other : the defenders currently have only two options : defend, lose and lose a lot : defend, win and lose less. Thats a farce in my book : its no incentive at all, just a choice of which stick you get beaten with.

I want a contest in which both sides can gain, and both sides can lose : not one side gets to keep less of what they already had regardless of outcome. I want a contest which, when Haron declares a blockade on Port A, the owners cry 'Bring it on!' and eagerly enter the fray : not 'Oh shyte, is it worth even trying to defend? Maybe we should just pack it in, its cheaper ?'.

You are speaking as you will always be the Defender or the Defenders can never attack back. The purposed option is "Balanced" because you will be afforded the same "Winnings" as everyone else who starts a blockade. Simply start a blockade and win your loses back. Right?

We wanted more sea battles. This game feature gives us that.

[sXs]

Dont confuse a multiplicity of strategies and options for one side to hold equally for the other : the defenders currently have only two options : defend, lose and lose a lot : defend, win and lose less. Thats a farce in my book : its no incentive at all, just a choice of which stick you get beaten with.

I want a contest in which both sides can gain, and both sides can lose : not one side gets to keep less of what they already had regardless of outcome. I want a contest which, when Haron declares a blockade on Port A, the owners cry 'Bring it on!' and eagerly enter the fray : not 'Oh shyte, is it worth even trying to defend? Maybe we should just pack it in, its cheaper ?'.

Bear in mind, once you win and denude the defender of their coin and influence and they lose that port, they aint there to be attacked again. They aint going to spend more coin getting a port back under these terms. No-one with half a brain would. So, who is going to defend against these blockades? Who will be left of sufficient weight and power to do so? Very few. And you may say you are eager to defend under these terms, not after a few losses you wont be. And not after a few wins either, cos both outcomes will cost you coin.

I think the successful side should gain plunder commensurate with their efforts : that promotes action and risk taking by both sides : you argue only the initiator should stand to gain, the defence must always pay the cost of defence and never gain : if thats 'equitable' then maybe I'm a fool not to believe it but, I am more than happy to be so cos the alternative just stinks of a pre-ordained plunder for some and I dont feel the game needs that, though some players may feel its their right cos, you know, they are the attackers and defenders always deserve to lose, even when they win.

You completely misrepresent my position. I have proposed several enhancements, permitting fees including in a blockade pool similar to CJs suggestion, influence boosts for successful defense or successful blockades were just a few. They were ignored so I went to the other extreme.

I think initiating a successful blockade should be one of the most difficult things to accomplish in the game because of the ramifications and I have never advocated for a scenario that would make it a "walk though".

Now just because someones opinion differ from yours, does not mean they should be ridiculed even in a satirical sense. This is an approved game upgrade and CJ has asked us to review, comment and possibly propose changes to make it better. Several have stated opinions and made suggestions.

Your argument that port owners only have 2 options, lose or lose less, is ridiculous. You have several options, successfully defend and lose nothing, even gain a few things that may seem meaningless now, but will tie in later. Initiate your own blockade against offenders, after all, retaliation is respected and welcomed by most in PG, initiate diplomacy with another nation, a Mutual Defense treaty that could tie into upcoming plantation considerations. Some of won't generate immediate reward, but could mean huge rewards in the future.

[Most Lee Harmless]

that will be the outcome, Shado : lots of attackers, no-one wanting to defend... skirmish for ports.

Well, maybe thats something to welcome : but its not Blockades as I think they could be : its just another income stream for skirmishers and a waste of a great opportunity to add another level to the game.

Feniks : CJ will probably implement it as is : thats his right, its his game , after all : but if he asks for opinions and comments : I dont think he just wants to hear a chorus of agreement. Maybe he does, in which case, we are both wasting our time.

[sXs]

Feniks : CJ will probably implement it as is : thats his right, its his game , after all : but if he asks for opinions and comments : I dont think he just wants to hear a chorus of agreement. Maybe he does, in which case, we are both wasting our time.

On that point I agree. I do believe it will eventually be that "next level" of game play we are hoping it will become. Your points are valid about defense. I have stated as much. I just think those points can be addressed via other upgrades.

In CJs second suggestion he stated he would be open to a watered down version on a temporary basis. I think this is a good idea for all concerned. He stated it would be fairly easy to re-adjust later. Maybe a few dry runs would help us all understand it a bit more and give us some clarity to the areas that need to be adjusted. It would also probably provide us with a bit more insight into how to address each concern.

[Stan Rogers]

I don't think Blockade should be a profit vehicle for either the initiators or the defenders. It should cost both parties lots of GC, win or lose. Blockade should be a tool to help make a nation "heel" to a world order costing the initiator more out of pocket GC than the defender but, costing both with the defender losing in trade revenue as well as ship damage/;oss. Essentially a tool to deny a nation from importing or exporting goods thus weakening it

To make Blockade a profit generating action is not what blockades were designed for historically. They were designed to weaken the opponent and that should not be an opportunity for blockaders to earn money except if the blockade was successful and the receiving nation fell or lost ownership because of the assistance of the blockade in weakening it.
Right now, a blockade would have a marginal impact on a nations ability to earn revenue but when plantations and port forts come into reality, it would then have a much greater impact on two warring nations

[sXs]

bump

[Jack Teach]

awesome