Port Blockades (Large)

[Sir Henry Morgan]

Blackbeard used blockades for profit - it worked okay for a while, but the risk eventually caught up with him.

Most, blockades, however, were done for political power. England blockaded the Dutch for political reasons as much as financial.

That will be the key to blockades - the why.

Defense will depend not so much on the nation controlling the port, but who be the target of the blockade....and what the Target will be losing - power? Financial gain? Resource? Honor?

A blockade for a blockade's sake will rise and fade. A blockade initiated for a purpose will make history.

[Vane]

Blackbeard used blockades for profit - it worked okay for a while, but the risk eventually caught up with him.

Most, blockades, however, were done for political power. England blockaded the Dutch for political reasons as much as financial.

That will be the key to blockades - the why.

Defense will depend not so much on the nation controlling the port, but who be the target of the blockade....and what the Target will be losing - power? Financial gain? Resource? Honor?

A blockade for a blockade's sake will rise and fade. A blockade initiated for a purpose will make history.

Music to my ears someone else who understands it!

[DezNutz]

Blackbeard used blockades for profit - it worked okay for a while, but the risk eventually caught up with him.

Most, blockades, however, were done for political power. England blockaded the Dutch for political reasons as much as financial.

That will be the key to blockades - the why.

Defense will depend not so much on the nation controlling the port, but who be the target of the blockade....and what the Target will be losing - power? Financial gain? Resource? Honor?

A blockade for a blockade's sake will rise and fade. A blockade initiated for a purpose will make history.

Music to my ears someone else who understands it!

The why doesn't fix the concerns with this suggestion. What is going to motivate those effected by the "why" to counter the blockade?

Tax income from trade is minimal, and increasing it still won't change the fact that with the current setup, a nation can ignore it and still gain more tax income than what would be lost. (Blockade is 3 days. 2 days of cool down before new blockade can be initiated, 1 day for battle setup, 1 day for battle. That's 4 days of income for 3 days of loss)

Trade routes can be altered with a few clicks.

If the issues with this suggestion can be worked out, I'd be 100% behind this suggestion. I'm 100% for blockade functionality as my Forts suggestion included blockade functionality; however, blockades need to be setup so that the reason for the blockade results in action countering the blockade. Without a counteraction, the feature would one-sided and a pointless implementation. I say counter instead of defend because there are reasons that a port owner should and would institute a blockade on port traffic.

[sXs]

If the issues with this suggestion can be worked out, I'd be 100% behind this suggestion. I'm 100% for blockade functionality as my Forts suggestion included blockade functionality; however, blockades need to be setup so that the reason for the blockade results in action countering the blockade. Without a counteraction, the feature would one-sided and a pointless implementation. I say counter instead of defend because there are reasons that a port owner should and would institute a blockade on port traffic.

Yes I thought of a few scenarios where i would consider a directed blockade of one of UKs ports.

[Most Lee Harmless]

Aye, off the coast and near port, but blockade sims larger naval battle with many ships. Those fights are not about disabling and boarding, its about filling them with holes and sinking.

To attempt boarding a ship in the middle of a large scale naval battle would be quite the silly notion.

Um, dunno what naval histories you are reading : but that's exactly how it was done.

Trafalgar : The 27 SotL's of the British meet and defeat the 33 SotLs of the combined Spanish/French fleets : they capture 21 ships and destroy one for no loss.

Nile : the 13 SotlS of the British meet and defeat the 13 Sotls and 4 frigates of the French : they capture 9 SotL's and destroy 2, plus 2 frigates, for no loss.

[Vane]

My "point here" is the concept behind blockades and normal plunders are different, there are also just as many naval conflicts where the vast majority of ships on the losing side were sunk.

Fact remains, blockades are a "different" form of combat and the reasons for starting them or any benefits from them are also meant to be different than plundering.

I will also quote an earlier response of mine where I did acknowledge some ships were salvaged..

Much less likely giving the type of battle, and with such little left, who says your captains would salvage it before the next guys?

Again back to concept, simulation, direction, aim, and points.

Blockades are "not" plunders, there is a difference in their points, uses, and thus their outcomes.

[Most Lee Harmless]

A point being, Trafalgar was the result of the French/Spanish ships trying to break a British blockade : A similar result was Camperdown, where the Dutch fleet tried to break the British blockade with equally one-sided losses. The Nile followed French attempts to deny the British use of the Mediterranean while they took Egypt and thus opened up routes to the Indies, denied them by.. yep, a British blockade.

Its not that surprising : naval officers never grew rich on their salary, they grew rich on prize money : from capturing ships. In that, the formal navies were as attentive, and motivated, as any pirate.

[sXs]

Let's get back to the point at hand. Daniks issue is there is no motivation for defense which is true. Ummmmm..... Hornigold's? point is nations defend to prevent loss. also true.

Also true is that port blockades can not be compared to plunder or skirmish. It is a completely different game mechanic.

Danik and several others point that tax revenue from port trade is so insignificant that defense is not justified. So let's focus on this point.

Let's say port trade revenue and population tax revenue were reversed. A nation gained most of its' income from trade revenue. Would that then justify a defense? I believe it would in the minds of almost everyone. Smaller nations income of 5-10 million a day maybe not as much as say Spain or SKN, but still significant enough to trigger defense.

[DezNutz]

Let's get back to the point at hand. Daniks issue is there is no motivation for defense which is true. Ummmmm..... Hornigold's? point is nations defend to prevent loss. also true.

Also true is that port blockades can not be compared to plunder or skirmish. It is a completely different game mechanic.

Danik and several others point that tax revenue from port trade is so insignificant that defense is not justified. So let's focus on this point.

Let's say port trade revenue and population tax revenue were reversed. A nation gained most of its' income from trade revenue. Would that then justify a defense? I believe it would in the minds of almost everyone. Smaller nations income of 5-10 million a day maybe not as much as say Spain or SKN, but still significant enough to trigger defense.

Even if it was the most. The nation would still earn more than losing. There is a minimum of 4 days between successful blockades (2 day cool down, 1 day to setup for battle, 1 day of battle to determine success). The blockade is only 3 days.

As well, that revenue limitation would only be an issue for a small nation with 1 or 2 ports. So unless you are going to blockade every port of a nation, you aren't going to limit their revenue.

[Shadowood]

CJ has already stated that if the initiator wins they can keep blockade going with out pause. Making your argument not valid anymore dez. Will that work for you?