Port Blockades (Large)

[sXs]

Personally I still like CJ's OP better, but there are many things here I like that could be combined.

Maybe some compromise or combination could render this better than original.

I like removing voodoo from the equation. I think the payout structure here is workable. I love Danik "fog of war" description and how that could work for a lot of different strategies. I also like the fleet danger structure.

I think this is progress and definitely open to making changes as long as they keep moving it to a better end product. I think some of this definitely does that.

[DezNutz]

Personally I still like CJ's OP better, but there are many things here I like that could be combined.

Maybe some compromise or combination could render this better than original.

I like removing voodoo from the equation. I think the payout structure here is workable. I love Danik "fog of war" description and how that could work for a lot of different strategies. I also like the fleet danger structure.

I think this is progress and definitely open to making changes as long as they keep moving it to a better end product. I think some of this definitely does that.

CJ's OP isn't a blockade. It's a naval battle with a "blockade" as a consequence. There is no blockade, just a game mechanic that says X happens because Y won a battle. Y doesn't actually do anything to block or control traffic.

Run down of CJ's suggestion.

Person A says I'm going to block Person B from entering.

Person A and Person B get there gangs together.

Person A and Person B battle it out.

Person A Wins.

Person A walks away.

What is being blockaded? NOTHING Because Person A isn't there blocking it.


That's what is called a fundamental flaw.

[sXs]

Simply requiring the fleets to stay in the blockade until the 72 hours is up fixes that. Fleets may not be removed until blockade period expires.

[DezNutz]

No. A blockade should be created and last until its fleets are defeated. Its length should not be predetermined, nor should you need to fight a battle to create or extend it. You create a blockade and it remains until it is either defeated or the initiator calls it quits. Simple and straight forward. Anything is else is over complicating it. The only thing that would need to be done is work out the details, which for the most part is done.

K.I.S.S.

[Sir Henry Morgan]

As I have listened and thought, I have started to post and didn't as I really added nothing to the conversation.

There has been much work and thinking and discussion as why blockades will work and why they won't.

Perhaps should ask why do we seek a blockade feature?

The answer I come up with "to battle with big ships without (or very limited) voodoo with justifiable risk."

If that is the case, perhaps we are not there yet, as other mechanisms are needed - we await flagships, ship specialization, plantations, treaty pacts and more.

These too, would change blockade as a battle mechanism as to how it would work and its rewards.

Regardless, hammering out details and ideas are good. Sometimes putting the cart before the horse works, if indeed that is what this is.

Kuodos to those up to that challenge.

[sXs]

As I have listened and thought, I have started to post and didn't as I really added nothing to the conversation.

There has been much work and thinking and discussion as why blockades will work and why they won't.

Perhaps should ask why do we seek a blockade feature?

The answer I come up with "to battle with big ships without (or very limited) voodoo with justifiable risk."

If that is the case, perhaps we are not there yet, as other mechanisms are needed - we await flagships, ship specialization, plantations, treaty pacts and more.

These too, would change blockade as a battle mechanism as to how it would work and its rewards.

Regardless, hammering out details and ideas are good. Sometimes putting the cart before the horse works, if indeed that is what this is.

Kuodos to those up to that challenge.

I agree. I would like to see plantations released with Blockades at very least. I think alot of the issues could be resolved with the two in combination.

[Haron]

Perhaps should ask why do we seek a blockade feature?

The answer I come up with "to battle with big ships without (or very limited) voodoo with justifiable risk."

The question is an important one, and should always be asked when introducing new features. In fact, one should ask "what do I want to achieve?" before even starting to suggest anything new.

However, I see a different answer than you. I see this as a way to make ships part of fights for ports and nations. Today, only gold and voodoo matters in such respects. With the introduction of blockades, we get a new element in this fight. Another tool in the toolbox, adding to more exiting and complex strategy options.

As suggested, the blockade will only block trade. However, CJ also suggested that influence could come on the table at a later stage. I hope it does - fighting for influence with ships was one of the things I wanted to achieve with my original "Wars and Blockades" suggestion. Perhaps, for instance, players from the nation controlling a blockaded port lose 10% influence per day in that port, instead of the usual 1%? I see this as a nice addition in the tools available to those wanting to fight for ports or nations.

[sXs]

Perhaps should ask why do we seek a blockade feature?

The answer I come up with "to battle with big ships without (or very limited) voodoo with justifiable risk."

The question is an important one, and should always be asked when introducing new features. In fact, one should ask "what do I want to achieve?" before even starting to suggest anything new.

However, I see a different answer than you. I see this as a way to make ships part of fights for ports and nations. Today, only gold and voodoo matters in such respects. With the introduction of blockades, we get a new element in this fight. Another tool in the toolbox, adding to more exiting and complex strategy options.

As suggested, the blockade will only block trade. However, CJ also suggested that influence could come on the table at a later stage. I hope it does - fighting for influence with ships was one of the things I wanted to achieve with my original "Wars and Blockades" suggestion. Perhaps, for instance, players from the nation controlling a blockaded port lose 10% influence per day in that port, instead of the usual 1%? I see this as a nice addition in the tools available to those wanting to fight for ports or nations.

+1

100% agree but we are not supposed to consider anything not included in the mechanics. We are not supposed to consider the possibilities of what and where this could go. We are only supposed to consider it on face value.

Anyway, I for 1 agree with you, and have stated similar things. CJ has also discussed blockades tying into plantations which is so obvious that it should be considered.

But I guess we will need to rework, or at the very least, re-litigate the value of certain aspects of blockades each time a new upgrade comes out instead of making plans and improvements now to make the upgrade better

[DezNutz]

Perhaps should ask why do we seek a blockade feature?

The answer I come up with "to battle with big ships without (or very limited) voodoo with justifiable risk."

The question is an important one, and should always be asked when introducing new features. In fact, one should ask "what do I want to achieve?" before even starting to suggest anything new.

However, I see a different answer than you. I see this as a way to make ships part of fights for ports and nations. Today, only gold and voodoo matters in such respects. With the introduction of blockades, we get a new element in this fight. Another tool in the toolbox, adding to more exiting and complex strategy options.

As suggested, the blockade will only block trade. However, CJ also suggested that influence could come on the table at a later stage. I hope it does - fighting for influence with ships was one of the things I wanted to achieve with my original "Wars and Blockades" suggestion. Perhaps, for instance, players from the nation controlling a blockaded port lose 10% influence per day in that port, instead of the usual 1%? I see this as a nice addition in the tools available to those wanting to fight for ports or nations.

+1

100% agree but we are not supposed to consider anything not included in the mechanics. We are not supposed to consider the possibilities of what and where this could go. We are only supposed to consider it on face value.

Anyway, I for 1 agree with you, and have stated similar things. CJ has also discussed blockades tying into plantations which is so obvious that it should be considered.

But I guess we will need to rework, or at the very least, re-litigate the value of certain aspects of blockades each time a new upgrade comes out instead of making plans and improvements now to make the upgrade better

There is a difference in making considerations of possible future features and using a future feature that doesn't exist yet for supporting a method that without that feature would be unbalanced.

[sXs]

There is a difference in making considerations of possible future features and using a future feature that doesn't exist yet for supporting a method that without that feature would be unbalanced.

I understand this completely, but we cant ignore it either or we will have to rework it again. We know Plantations are coming. It has been approved and stated it should be released before the end of the year. We know more upgrades related to diplomacy are coming in the same time frame.

Wouldn't it be better to make some adjustments now based on those forthcoming upgrades? Why not work on both plantations and Blockades at the same time. Get the tie-ins in place and ask for them to released at the same time?

That would seem to me to be the logical path forward instead of re-litigating everything.