Port Blockades (Large)

[Sir Henry Morgan]

A good trader will divert his fleets the second he or she gets word of a blockade. Large traders will have more than one source of trade income. Attacker will commit ships and defender will wait it out - win or lose, the trade is already gone.

Attacker will then have to decide to continue or move on. Defender has waited three, four days. May decide to wait again.

Blockades may be premature - if port control is to be defended with the parameters used here, there has to be much more value to port control. Taking influence, population has been done, and can still be done with voodoo cards. I imagine that is where that battle will be fought, as adding population by ships is a slow process.

The true battle will take place after the blockade when ships hit the plunder screens, where the efficient use of a few battle fleets and voodoo may occur, if the rewards of the action is justified, or goals can be reached.

Finally, I don't get the idea that one goes into a massive battle and expecting to NOT lose ships, be you a defender or attacker. It is not realistic at all.

[Haron]

A trader need not divert his ships if he now pays to the Blockaders what he previously paid to the port holding nation. Also, other nations may be thrilled to get the extra tax income from the diverted trade.

As for the "realism" in not losing ships; arguing with realism is generally a bad idea. So many things are not realistic already. Why don't I get the entire tail ship when I win a plunder, just under 1% of its true value? Why don't more ships sink during plunder? Why can't I attack every ship that approaches a port, only those with danger? Better to argue with reasons as to why a specific mechanism is good or bad for the game; what consequences it will have.

And losing lots of ships i Blockades will cause this to not be used; the risk will be way too high. The cost of trying to set a successful blockade will be high enough already; losing high value ships is way too costly.

[Vane]

A trader need not divert his ships if he now pays to the Blockaders what he previously paid to the port holding nation.

This right here

The blockaders have the choice as well, either tax the goods, "plunder" the goods, or free pass.

This allows many options here, and removes the responsibility of the merchant to defend a port not theirs. Now it becomes the nations own problem, defend and maintain your ports trade income, or lose it.

[sXs]

There are so many positives and possibilities for future enhancements with blockades. The only negative people can come up with is compensation for successful defense?

I agree with Haron. Realism is not an argument that can be used in this game.

[Shadowood]

My patronus is Charles Vane

[Vane]

My patronus is Charles Vane

!

[sXs]

Finally, I don't get the idea that one goes into a massive battle and expecting to NOT lose ships, be you a defender or attacker. It is not realistic at all.

I think ship loss could be a possibility based on current battle setup. But the way CJ has blockade set up it is a completely random action.



•2)Blockade Battle
Once the Blockade Preparation ends, then the battle starts and lasts for 24 hours (version 1.0 metric)

At the top of the hour, a round of battles take places (total max: 24 rounds).
During every round, every fleet of the attacking side, randomly engages a fleet on the defending side.

-Every fleet can fight one battle per hour.

In this scenario it is unfair for ship loss because you have no control over your fleets once the battle begins. Neither side has control.

[Sebena]

If realisam is not welcome why we have legit nations, legit names of the ports from this time frame? I see once you all relise that people ehom disagree with you are right you go and say realism is not welcome. This is not welcome that is not welcome etc.... I see this will end like witch hut or that is also not welcome

[sXs]

Maybe as it evolves and more options are added, ship loss could become a factor.

Everyone seems to think this initial version needs to be the final version of how blockades will work. It can and will evolve.

[sXs]

If realisam is not welcome why we have legit nations, legit names of the ports from this time frame? I see once you all relise that people ehom disagree with you are right you go and say realism is not welcome. This is not welcome that is not welcome etc.... I see this will end like witch hut or that is also not welcome

Works both ways. Anytime some are against something they use realism as their argument, yet they will advocate for new and improved voodoo.

If you want to bring a realistic spin into blockades then there would be no question of whether or not you would defend. How many nations would allow a blockade without defense. They would not ask for compensation for defense, it is just expected they defend.