Haron wrote: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?