port development related with supply and demand

[Maha]

let me start on the demand side.
the nobles (the un-developed class in this game) set an additional bonus for x imported specific cargo. this extra will come out of the treasury.
when port growth is linked to imported/consumed goods, than ports need a steady import. growth means a larger income to the nation, so a fine balance between bonus and port income has to be found.

next, as suggested before, port population defines port production. a decline in population will cause a reduction in produced goods.

population still can be regulated by TI, BD, immigration and goldcoin investment. but a failure in supplying the population will lead to scaled population decrease. (1-5% failure, 1 % reduction;.. .. ; 50-60% failure 60% reduction) the opposite (more goods imported than needed) will lead to a slow increase of that port. Ports will balance out on a level that they can sustain. the more merchant they can entice to supply them the better the port will do.

large nations will find it hard to supply all their ports by themselves, it may lead to more nations on the map, or to schemes of wealth sharing

party cards should not count as supplying the port for it is consumed in one extravagant party.

this overall scheme will lead to a new balance that depends and grows on the amount of trade fleets. the more fleets are trading the larger the ports can be.
the bonus the nobles can add to stimulate import is a way to lure merchants to favor their port above other ports.

the competition in this scheme is not between merchants directly but between ports. they have to lure merchants to supply them to maintain current size and continued growth.
this competition could imo stimulate the development of ports and blockades as well. ports have with this scheme reason to blockade other ports. however, ports and blockade is a different topic that is unrelated to this topic.

[sXs]

the competition in this scheme is not between merchants directly but between ports. they have to lure merchants to supply them to maintain current size and continued growth.
this competition could imo stimulate the development of ports and blockades as well. ports have with this scheme reason to blockade other ports. however, ports and blockade is a different topic that is unrelated to this topic.

All topics are related. I can see some aspect of this being added to port buildings, diplomacy with proposed port lease between nations.

I am in favor of any thing that makes nation play stronger.
+1

[Dmanwuzhere]

St Kitts for example is one of the richest nations and could easily afford to raise incentives. Where a port owned by a nation with a collective less financially endowed could not so easily maintain the same monetary principles to lure traders. In essence it would allow for the choking of smaller countries with ports at the whim of a larger more financially stable collective thus effectively adding another manner of attack. So I guess my question is how is this a better system for those who could be choked out? If a new attack enters the game it should be able to be utilized by all and I don't see that balance in this. Perhaps I am missing something. If so could you elaborate how a smaller poorer country could defend its port in this situation.

[Maha]

Spoiler: show

St Kitts for example is one of the richest nations and could easily afford to raise incentives. Where a port owned by a nation with a collective less financially endowed could not so easily maintain the same monetary principles to lure traders. In essence it would allow for the choking of smaller countries with ports at the whim of a larger more financially stable collective thus effectively adding another manner of attack. So I guess my question is how is this a better system for those who could be choked out? If a new attack enters the game it should be able to be utilized by all and I don't see that balance in this. Perhaps I am missing something. If so could you elaborate how a smaller poorer country could defend its port in this situation.

Raw recruits vs trained veterans will always be an uneven battle. this proposal does not change that dynamic for worse. each port produces income, each port needs to be maintained. multiple port nations have the disadvantage that their own traders are spread out over those ports and thus need outsourcing the supply import.

[DezNutz]

-1

The gist of your suggestion is: to maintain port population a port has to consume x amount of x resources (Food, Tobacco, Cotton). This by itself is not a bad idea. However, the expectation that this will create extra supply and demand or that large nations may not be able to maintain this, I don't see happening.

Any resource that is sold to the port's market would belong to the port and thus apply to the needed "supply". As you said, party cards wouldn't apply as they aren't sold to the market. Depending on the port, some resources will already be covered by non-nation players via normal trade, thus players from other nations are already supporting the supply of resources. This will only increase uncommon trade routes, if at all.

Secondly production should not be solely tied to population. Production should be broken into two parts. Production Cap and Production Rate. Production Cap is the maximum amount of resource available at the market before port production ceases. Population would tie into the Cap. The larger the population, the more resources that can be produced by the port. Production Rate is the rate at which resources are produced. Both population (possibly paid nation workers) and supplied resources (Tools, Iron, Wood) effect the rate of production. This would tie into shifting resource productions from solely ports to include player based production.

[Maha]

I don't see happening.

Any resource that is sold to the port's market would belong to the port and thus apply to the needed "supply". ... Depending on the port, some ready supporting the supply of resources. This will only increase uncommon trade routes, if at all.

Secondly production should not be solely tied to population. Production should be broken into two parts. Production Cap and Production Rate. Production Cap is the maximum amount of resource available at the market before port production ceases. Population would tie into the Cap. The larger the population, the more resources that can be produced by the port. Production Rate is the rate at which resources are produced. Both population (possibly paid nation workers) and supplied resources (Tools, Iron, Wood) effect the rate of production. This would tie into shifting resource productions from solely ports to include player based production.

you are correct that normal trade already supplies the ports. but will that be enough? with overproduction and bad trade routs it is. overproduction thru fertile cards has already been mentioned. a 'hands on' trader adjust his trade to where the max profit is. thus some ports may lack the resources they need. imported goods as a way to prevent unlimited population growth is imo both realistic and needed. a cap on production that allows for growth and prevents overproduction at the same time is also a need as i see it. player based production is only a temporary limitation. if there is gold in it it will attract a crowd. and maybe even more goods will become available.

what i have proposed is an integrated system that allows growth in player base and amount of fleets while the production will always be just a bit scarce enough to create competition between nations.

[Dmanwuzhere]

Spoiler: show

St Kitts for example is one of the richest nations and could easily afford to raise incentives. Where a port owned by a nation with a collective less financially endowed could not so easily maintain the same monetary principles to lure traders. In essence it would allow for the choking of smaller countries with ports at the whim of a larger more financially stable collective thus effectively adding another manner of attack. So I guess my question is how is this a better system for those who could be choked out? If a new attack enters the game it should be able to be utilized by all and I don't see that balance in this. Perhaps I am missing something. If so could you elaborate how a smaller poorer country could defend its port in this situation.

Raw recruits vs trained veterans will always be an uneven battle. this proposal does not change that dynamic for worse. each port produces income, each port needs to be maintained. multiple port nations have the disadvantage that their own traders are spread out over those ports and thus need outsourcing the supply import.

Raw recruit may apply to me, and if I were speaking only of me I would agree it would not be profitable for me to bother with any influence other than what was needed for crew. In fact as a new guy if this were in play there would be no point in me playing period. But in keeping with my original example of St. Kitts its membership runs hand in hand with Merc and Vuduu. This partnership was created for the security that collective offered. (In my opinion) This created a possibility of a monopoly and that is within the dynamics of the game. If someone were to decide to take St Kitts on to remove the monopoly it would be costly and a very painstaking loss filled journey. It would entail utilizing major resources in both voodoo and cash and so no one has bothered. That dynamic is in play and working. But to try and further that agenda and make it an even harder battle by trying to implement yet another stumbling stone to be used to strengthen an already established and working entity is in my mind in poor taste. The act of presenting ideas for better game play should by definition mean better game play for everyone and I do not see that in this suggestion.

[Maha]

But in keeping with my original example of St. Kitts its membership runs hand in hand with Merc and Vuduu. This partnership was created for the security that collective offered. (In my opinion) This created a possibility of a monopoly and that is within the dynamics of the game.

go to tavern, rankings select influence and st kitt and look at the members in that nation. [merc] is really part of it!!! not.

next: nations don't provide security, guilds do! (or should do!)

i understand that the world is unfair because junior assistant managers don't have the same influence and income as Partners. all what partners do is to enrich themselves, they should share their wealth with those junior assistants!

the strange thing is that many established players spent time, resources and energy to build up new players. Ranting about 'protectionism' is not proper imo.

seeing this proposal (to get back on track after this derailment) as a way to hurt the interests of new players is imo misunderstanding this proposal. seeing it from a biased point of view.

[sXs]

go to tavern, rankings select influence and st kitt and look at the members in that nation. [merc] is really part of it!!! not.

next: nations don't provide security, guilds do! (or should do!)

There is a role for nation guilds, it just isn't utilized i guess.

Dman makes a few good points though. the one place his arguement falls short is the us v them arguement....... anyone can join St. Kitts. No restriction on change of nation.


Vet vs newcomer/rookie is a debate that rages amongst all gamers. I come from an Evony Age 1 background. This same debate raged there also. It got to the point that they started dropping new servers once a week. That along with other factors destroyed what was at one time, the ultimate battle and strategy game.

[Maha]

There is a role for nation guilds, it just isn't utilized i guess.

that's true, both have purpose, combining them creates strength but also vulnerability.