Port Blockades (Large)

[sXs]

And Benjamin, if the defenders losses are so trifling, why the heck are the attackers bothering?

Simply because of how it can and will tie into future upgrades.

The strategies and different possibilities are endless.

[Most Lee Harmless]

Why do you need an MoW or even Sotl's to win?

Well, with unlimited damage cards, I'd say a fleet of sows could win such a battle : but there will be limits with only 5 such cards per player and 24 battles to be fought and no damage repair. Somehow, I dont see a howker fleet surviving to the end to make up the defenders required 5 fleets standing so... maybe something a little more powerful would be required, no?

[Vane]

Why do you need an MoW or even Sotl's to win?

Well, with unlimited damage cards, I'd say a fleet of sows could win such a battle : but there will be limits with only 5 such cards per player and 24 battles to be fought and no damage repair. Somehow, I dont see a howker fleet surviving to the end to make up the defenders required 5 fleets standing so... maybe something a little more powerful would be required, no?

Many ship classes between howker and MoW. Not to mention an MoW wouldn't last 24 rounds against many of them.

So the whole premise on the argument is the fact its believed by a few that they must ante up an MoW fleet to have a shot at winning the defense, and in doing so risk their valuable fleet? A little bit more planning and dissecting of the idea will reveal many more options for winning without sending in the most valuable ships.

[Most Lee Harmless]

And Benjamin, if the defenders losses are so trifling, why the heck are the attackers bothering?

Simply because of how it can and will tie into future upgrades.

The strategies and different possibilities are endless.

What upgrades? Explain them, all of them fully please : no, you cant : they are not fixed yet : they might be what you hope they will be, they may not be so : we dont know, you dont know. Its all hopes, maybes, ifs, buts, perhaps : We are supposed to implement this as it stands : now, not a year down the road. We will be using it now, not a year down the road. The reasons to use it, and its success as a feature will be tested now, not a year down the road when, maybe, perhaps, it might be all different with upgrades creating a totally different creature.

If the flaws can only be fixed by future upgrades, well, thats all a bit Microsoft to me : I'd rather we de-bug and patch before it gets released.

[sXs]

Here we go again. " We don't know the future so let's not do anything."

Again, Plantations, contract shipping, Ship specialization, Crew specialization, Diplomacy, Letters of Marque along with recent EotC, Port building, Forts....... Some approved and some have not been but have gotten positive response from admin.

all can be tied into this. But by your way of thinking we can not do anything until we do everything. That is very unrealistic.

[Meliva]

I agree with danik, saying what this feature could be like with future features is not a valid argument for adding it as it is now. Instead we should be focusing on how to make this work with what we have now- then when those future features come then we could discuss changing it to compliment those features.

[PFH]

Why do you need an MoW or even Sotl's to win?

And Benjamin, if the defenders losses are so trifling, why the heck are the attackers bothering?

Perhaps stunting any nation profit in that port or all ports held by a specific nation is a goal? Trade accounts for a decent amount, and coupled with BD barrages a nation may as well give it up. Thats only one reason.

Someone doesn't have their MoW to win...No names being mentioned.

Imma grab more popcorn. Running out.

[sXs]

I agree with danik, saying what this feature could be like with future features is not a valid argument for adding it as it is now. Instead we should be focusing on how to make this work with what we have now- then when those future features come then we could discuss changing it to compliment those features.

All due respect Melvina, we wont be able to change it because of Daniks arguement. It must be perfect from the outset.

[Meliva]

Here we go again. " We don't know the future so let's not do anything."

Again, Plantations, contract shipping, Ship specialization, Crew specialization, Diplomacy, Letters of Marque along with recent EotC, Port building, Forts....... Some approved and some have not been but have gotten positive response from admin.

all can be tied into this. But by your way of thinking we can not do anything until we do everything. That is very unrealistic.

Until those features are actually being added its pointless to refer to them with a feature that is about to be added. That isn't to say we shouldn't think of the future that could affect this feature, but until then we need to adjust this idea so that it works with what we currently have, not what we plan to have. No sense in buying a saddle before you even get the horse.

[Vane]

I agree with danik, saying what this feature could be like with future features is not a valid argument for adding it as it is now. Instead we should be focusing on how to make this work with what we have now- then when those future features come then we could discuss changing it to compliment those features.

Aye, and we've established those who take issue with the defenders side being too risky for what is gained or kept have not fully contemplated the strategies behind this feature.

There is no risk to the defender aside from 18 DR gained if they win, and loss of trade profit should they move fleets into the blockade for the 72 hour period. The fear of risking MoW class fleets is only failure to come up with an alternative and adequate plan to defend. On top of this, "Anyone" can join the defenders side. They can win with no risk on sheer volume of fleets alone if planned accordingly.