Port Blockades (Large)

[sXs]

The way CJ has set it up is fair. The risk to both sides is equal, we just need to figure out reward for defenders side.

[Sebena]

That is already a possibility

"During the battle (the whole 24hours phase):
-All damage conducted is final (it will not depend on the winner of the battle). This means that all ships get damaged during battles."

But they can be repaired later this way reward gets high enough for defenders to risk and also gets some extra for attackers to gain. Most people will join the fun then and we will have more blockades than we will have now with this idea

[sXs]

Yes and defenders can repair as well.

Repairs and upgrades to a MoW cost more than they do to a fl and Sotl. Already costs attackers more this way.

[Mack]

I wonder if it should be something like a % of lost ships value in a succeful defence

I still think the attacker should have a chioce of different types of attacks

[Sebena]

Yes and defenders can repair as well.

Repairs and upgrades to a MoW cost more than they do to a fl and Sotl. Already costs attackers more this way.

Then don't lose abd I said highest att points lets say I bring my SotL which is 60 pointer in blickade I do damage in blickade but I lose it that same SotL that I spent (minimum of 9 MCs if I get 5 points per level) is back to lvl 1 making me lose those cards and lose money which I spent on raising levels... I need to bring big guns if I want to win I can't fight MoW with SotL that has 41 point

[Sly]

Will this also apply to fishing fleets leaving/entering ports? And if so will the same mechanisms apply to the empty fishing vessels as to the proposed outcomes for an empty trading vessels when the blockade is in place?

[Haron]

If a nation does not defend the port, the merchants using it as say a party port and one they have invested a lot into to increase their warehouse size may perhaps seek to see it controlled by a different nation. One that will protect it and they can continue their trade. Back door politics and funding new ownership will become even more necessary.

If you want more reason to defend, and claim the profits are small as it is, perhaps a larger tax on goods is to be added, one which is lost entirely when trade is blockaded.

I agree. I have always felt that port owners should get more income, and that this income should be based on trade. Independently of Blockades.

I also believe that making ships sink will make the concept worthless, as it will not be used. The stairs can't be that high. Also, one will often have to do several Blockades at once, where only one is "real". This is, I believe, necessary under the suggested mechanism.

This, however, also leads me to reconsider my support to the idea that all fleets on the winning side should get 18 danger. I now think this will be too hard on the defenders. Rather, all fleets who get 99% damage during the blockade (those who are defeated), should get danger, I believe. That makes it impossible for an attacker to start a blockade, force the defender to place lots of ships on the water, then adding no more fleets himself, just to get lots of fleets with danger out there to plunder.

[Meliva]

There have been Some valid points about the flaws of defending against blockades, since to me it seems rather pointless to try to break a blockade.

Since there is a grace period, that can give every active player who pays attention to change routes. And if no one is using said port for trade while the blockade is on, then what will the aggressors gain from it? They will just have their ships tied up in a blockade earning practically nothing due to no traders paying fees or being plundered entering it. Then all you have to do is wait until the aggressors give up blockading. If for some reason they decide to do so for as long as possible, then they are just keeping their ships tied up and collecting dust.

So there definitely needs to be some sort of incentive for defenders to try to break a blockade, and perhaps some sort of other effect blockades have-such as influence, population loss, plundering the tax income etc. Otherwise I think any smart player will just avoid the port until the initiator tires and gives up.

[Most Lee Harmless]

Mel : the fact is, the smart folk avoiding the port are the only ones who can benefit from a blockade, in that it costs them nothing whatever the outcome : yet the defenders are supposed to fight to allow them to not have to avoid the port and the attackers fight in the hope they dont avoid the port. The ones who make no contribution whatsoever are the reason the rest have to fight : it's surreal...

[Vane]

If a nation does not defend the port, the merchants using it as say a party port and one they have invested a lot into to increase their warehouse size may perhaps seek to see it controlled by a different nation. One that will protect it and they can continue their trade. Back door politics and funding new ownership will become even more necessary.

If you want more reason to defend, and claim the profits are small as it is, perhaps a larger tax on goods is to be added, one which is lost entirely when trade is blockaded.

I agree. I have always felt that port owners should get more income, and that this income should be based on trade. Independently of Blockades.

I also believe that making ships sink will make the concept worthless, as it will not be used. The stairs can't be that high. Also, one will often have to do several Blockades at once, where only one is "real". This is, I believe, necessary under the suggested mechanism.

This, however, also leads me to reconsider my support to the idea that all fleets on the winning side should get 18 danger. I now think this will be too hard on the defenders. Rather, all fleets who get 99% damage during the blockade (those who are defeated), should get danger, I believe. That makes it impossible for an attacker to start a blockade, force the defender to place lots of ships on the water, then adding no more fleets himself, just to get lots of fleets with danger out there to plunder.

+1 to all of this.