Port Traits

[Maha]

I know this sounds fun. My fear, however, is that this will all make taking a port more difficult, more expensive, and have a smaller benefit. Which, in turn, will cause even less fighting over ports than we have today. Do we really want this?

Again, I think we should start by determining what we want to achieve, and then find game mechanics which will support that goal. Just suggesting a feature without having a clear opinion of what we want to achieve with that feature, is a bad idea, in my opinion.

i agree. let us have a clear objective first. why do we want to develop the port?

my reason is to create more strive. let controlling a port be so beneficial that it is worth fighting for.
but with the current easiness to change nations that won't easily happen. as long as it is easier to join the port controlling nations than to take a port from them, no port-development or trait will create more strive.

once there is a good reason to fight rather than join we have to think about 'balance'; if ports can be attacked they should be defendable. yet, to wich degree? super ports who are too strong to attack stifle the port battle game and too easy to attack does the same.

William's suggestion belongs to the 'balancing' aspect. it is good to discuss it. yet how do we create a reason to own ports rather than join portholding nations?

[Grimrock Litless]

If it would make taking a port hard, it should also make it maintaining a port hard as well to make it fair.

[William one eye]

I know this sounds fun. My fear, however, is that this will all make taking a port more difficult, more expensive, and have a smaller benefit. Which, in turn, will cause even less fighting over ports than we have today. Do we really want this?

Again, I think we should start by determining what we want to achieve, and then find game mechanics which will support that goal. Just suggesting a feature without having a clear opinion of what we want to achieve with that feature, is a bad idea, in my opinion.

i agree. let us have a clear objective first. why do we want to develop the port?

my reason is to create more strive. let controlling a port be so beneficial that it is worth fighting for.
but with the current easiness to change nations that won't easily happen. as long as it is easier to join the port controlling nations than to take a port from them, no port-development or trait will create more strive.

once there is a good reason to fight rather than join we have to think about 'balance'; if ports can be attacked they should be defendable. yet, to wich degree? super ports who are too strong to attack stifle the port battle game and too easy to attack does the same.

William's suggestion belongs to the 'balancing' aspect. it is good to discuss it. yet how do we create a reason to own ports rather than join portholding nations?

port buildings if permanent would make ports more desirable
- for example farms that increase populations would grow huge populations in ports,
these populations bring tax income, along with desirability of the port.
- a port based shipwright - would also bring income, and benefits to the owners of the port
- I also suggest a market - that would boost trade

if these port buildings did not degrade or get lost when a port changed hands it would very much
increase the value of a port and the reason to fight to take one or to defend one.

I suggest port buildings be built by levels, the higher the level the more affect they have.
and the more desirable they will be to capture.

[Maha]

port buildings if permanent would make ports more desirable

For me, it makes 'belonging' to a port owning nation more desirable. It is cheaper and less risky to join Egypt than to wage war with them over a port. Same-o with Spain.

what reason is there to battle away a port from another nation as long as i can join that nation with less costs or risk?

[William one eye]

port buildings if permanent would make ports more desirable

For me, it makes 'belonging' to a port owning nation more desirable. It is cheaper and less risky to join Egypt than to wage war with them over a port. Same-o with Spain.

what reason is there to battle away a port from another nation as long as i can join that nation with less costs or risk?

There will always be those who will want to build their own nation, or rebuild a past nation that has fallen.
They may not want to join a nation someone else has built even given the opportunity to have equal part in that nation and no matter
the assets that nation may control.
The current USA is an excellent example of this.

however if a small nation wants to grow they must control a port and build it up.
then once it is built up they must defend it from smaller nations that have no port,
or perhaps larger nations that want more.
A port with farms that has a maxed out population generates a lot of income,
that is worth fighting to get and worth fighting to defend.

certainly there will be those who would just prefer join a large port controlling nation.
that is not much different then with the current system

[Maha]

certainly there will be those who would just prefer join a large port controlling nation.
that is not much different then with the current system

that is why i asked what the objective is for the port development.
as i stated, my objective is more strive; generating in more pvp action.

just adding 'gimmick' to the game for the gimmicks sake won't serve the goal i have in mind.
But maybe it does someone else's.
Therefore i asked, and ask again: What do you hope to achieve with the port development?

[Shadowood]

certainly there will be those who would just prefer join a large port controlling nation.
that is not much different then with the current system

that is why i asked what the objective is for the port development.
as i stated, my objective is more strive; generating in more pvp action.

just adding 'gimmick' to the game for the gimmicks sake won't serve the goal i have in mind.
But maybe it does someone else's.
Therefore i asked, and ask again: What do you hope to achieve with the port development?

More action in the game. That is what is desired. More action, More Attacks, More Danger Points, More people carrying Capital Ships, More Profit (trade/plunder), more, More, MORE!!!

[Maha]

More action in the game. That is what is desired. More action, More Attacks, More Danger Points, More people carrying Capital Ships, More Profit (trade/plunder), more, More, MORE!!!

we're together in this
and i take the majority shares this objective.

i asked myself 'why isn't there more action over ports?', and came up with the following.

1) what a port has to offer can be gained easier and cheaper by joining the nation who owns the port.
2) the way to fight for a port is too narrow; gold coins and voodoo (in liberal amounts )

The solution to the second reason is simple, some way to fight ports with fleets.
. However, this implies that ports can defend themselves. (see war and blockades) i have not properly researched it, but i would not be surprised that the idea that a port could defend herself against ships started a chain reaction that moved the focus from 'how to defend against enemy ships' to 'what kind of structures can we add to the port'. i have nothing against extra'structures, but they don't help on the defense against ships development.

the discussion about 'statues' is in relation to 'more and more action' meaningless; it provides tools to fight with, not reasons to fight for.

[DezNutz]

More action in the game. That is what is desired. More action, More Attacks, More Danger Points, More people carrying Capital Ships, More Profit (trade/plunder), more, More, MORE!!!

we're together in this
and i take the majority shares this objective.

i asked myself 'why isn't there more action over ports?', and came up with the following.

1) what a port has to offer can be gained easier and cheaper by joining the nation who owns the port.
2) the way to fight for a port is too narrow; gold coins and voodoo (in liberal amounts )

The solution to the second reason is simple, some way to fight ports with fleets.
. However, this implies that ports can defend themselves. (see war and blockades) i have not properly researched it, but i would not be surprised that the idea that a port could defend herself against ships started a chain reaction that moved the focus from 'how to defend against enemy ships' to 'what kind of structures can we add to the port'. i have nothing against extra'structures, but they don't help on the defense against ships development.

the discussion about 'statues' is in relation to 'more and more action' meaningless; it provides tools to fight with, not reasons to fight for.

I'll save you some research Nation Ports: Fort

[Maha]

I'll save you some research Nation Ports: Fort

thanks for the link!
stuff like this helps to develop the 'how can fleets fight ports' question.

but more options to fight with does not generate more fighting if there is no change in the "why we should fight"

if the front door is wide open, why set off the alarm by breaking the locked backdoor?