Plantations Expansion

[Sir Thalius Hayle]

Resources grown at the plantations should be available as trade-able resources in the game. Resources automatically sold to the port feed the availability of the resource for sale, and sale value determined by the product's supply in the game and the port of sales distance from production points.

Nations and governors would have to determine what crops are most valuable for their port's location when determining permissions.

A port producing the same product nearby would cut into another port's profit and could lead to action to reduce the opposing plantation's production of a given resource, thus plantation wars.

I would naturally assume ports and nations profit from taxes on sales and purchases of the plantation resources, so keeping the resource at max value would be a priority.

Another post addressing the desire for new trade resources could be addressed through plantations in the manner I have shared here.

Contract shipping could also be an interesting dynamic with regard to certain plantation products and worked into nation missions involving plantations.

[Captain Jack]

Regarding the Governors role being too important, based on the arguments, another way that could work is the following:

-Governors are selected by the King instead of higher influence. However, the King might only appoint Dukes (if King's options are depleted/unavailable, the existing selection/top influence system will be used as default).

-To encourage trade between King and Governors, port giving will also come in terms of a contract between the two. Such contracts will last for 1 month and will be valid till they expire, regardless if the King changes. At the last week, a renegotiation will be possible. If port changes hands, the contract will remain valid and if the previous nation reclaims the port, the Governor will resume.

-Gold coins will be used for port contracts.

The rest can remain as they are already described. Perhaps we could add a cut for the King for every contract sold by the Governor which could be 5% to 15%. This cut will be set on will by the governor and the percentage will only be visible to the governor (so the king will still have no way knowing the exact income of the governor).

[Vane]

I like it, much more realistic than auto system currently in place on influence.

[Shadowood]

Looks better CJ

[Captain Jack]

So King and Governor roles will get a significant update on their roles. There can be at max 21 Governors and 21 Kings. A total of 42 veteran players.

This is a potential issue as we already have more than this amount of Veterans (as Player Awards prove). Competition will be fierce for a while so we might need to add a few new ports eventually, once the number grows more. About 21 new perhaps on an expanded map perhaps. That's merely an early thought. Although, I remember that more ports is something that has been suggested before.

[PhoenixKnight]

Interesting change. I was always surprised that kings have no say on who represents them and who is in their courts.

[sXs]

So King and Governor roles will get a significant update on their roles. There can be at max 21 Governors and 21 Kings. A total of 42 veteran players.

This is a potential issue as we already have more than this amount of Veterans (as Player Awards prove). Competition will be fierce for a while so we might need to add a few new ports eventually, once the number grows more. About 21 new perhaps on an expanded map perhaps. That's merely an early thought. Although, I remember that more ports is something that has been suggested before.

I am all for expanded nation play, but seems excessive to me. An expansion of that size, in essence doubling the map size, would dramatically alter every aspect of game play. I think a few more ports would be an interesting addition, but diluting the map would seems a bit extreme.

JMHO

[Kangaroo]

Regarding the Governors role being too important, based on the arguments, another way that could work is the following:

-Governors are selected by the King instead of higher influence. However, the King might only appoint Dukes (if King's options are depleted/unavailable, the existing selection/top influence system will be used as default).

-To encourage trade between King and Governors, port giving will also come in terms of a contract between the two. Such contracts will last for 1 month and will be valid till they expire, regardless if the King changes. At the last week, a renegotiation will be possible. If port changes hands, the contract will remain valid and if the previous nation reclaims the port, the Governor will resume.

-Gold coins will be used for port contracts.

The rest can remain as they are already described. Perhaps we could add a cut for the King for every contract sold by the Governor which could be 5% to 15%. This cut will be set on will by the governor and the percentage will only be visible to the governor (so the king will still have no way knowing the exact income of the governor).

I am unsure as to how this diminishes the Governor's importance.
The only variation is that the king appoints him, (potentially on a roster) the governor is still the one setting rates in most circumstance, this feels unbalanced from a national POV firstly and from an influence perspective secondly?

[Vane]

May not diminish the Govs role, but it sure bolsters the kings.

- Govs best be on the good side of their ruler or why would you be selected for office again?

- Kings draw up contracts with the governors where the Govs pay them.

- Kings earn 5-10% on all contracts the gov hands out to others.

Not seeing where this is unfair mate?

[DezNutz]

My only disagreement is that the Governor should be appointed period, no auto-fill. If the king fails to appoint a Governor to a port, say within 3 days, the council can vote in a governor. Additionally the king should be able to initiate a vote to remove a governor and revoke/renegotiate a contract.