Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Free port of Viques


Gysendorf

Recommended Posts

Today fellow captains  -  the Royal Teutonic Society [RTS], which is in the service of the danish Lord Protector of the West Indias Christian VII, announces Viques as free port and invites all captains of all nation to come to the lovely port for trade and other stuff.

The port of Viques remains as free port as long the roque clan Baltic Fleet [BF], only pardoned pirates, closes their free port of Guayama or abandon Guayama. When this happens we announce the revoking of the free port status of Viques and three days later we will close the free port after the annoucement.

We didnt want to do this but we was forced to do this because the offical represantatives defended the unpatrotic behaviour of the roque clan BF and ignored the fears of the solo captains and the smaller clans in the danish nation.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christian VII was mad. That's why I like him.

1 hour ago, Gysendorf said:

The port of Viques remains as free port as long the roque clan Baltic Fleet [BF]

How can a clan be rogue for doing with their port as they like? And how are you not also rogue for doing the same with yours?

1 hour ago, Gysendorf said:

We didnt want to do this but we was forced to do this because the offical represantatives defended the unpatrotic behaviour of the roque clan BF and ignored the fears of the solo captains and the smaller clans in the danish nation.

Who are these official representatives? They sound really bad and completely useless.

You know, there used to be a couple of players in the Danish nation that would spend a lot of their time to talk to and listen to each and every clan in the Nation and try to take all of their concerns into consideration. I think that they could have sorted this situation out in a heartbeat by talking to the different parties and mediate between clans. They never claimed any official status though and they never claimed to represent anybody that didn't give their express consent to be represented. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I see it there's not much difference between yesterday and today. Guyama was a national free port and now Viques is as well - it makes no matter since there's no real response as long as the national free ports can't be flipped by the nation that is hurt by its presence. We could ofcourse camp the two sites but really - I much prefer hunting. It is odd tho that several of those "honourable" british captains that has for a long time accused me of "ganking" is sailing around only in groups of ten - I'm not calling chicken but I am saying that those shouldn't throw the first stones if y'all know what I mean :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Anolytic said:

How can a clan be rogue for doing with their port as they like? And how are you not also rogue for doing the same with yours?

Maybe after the case of DNP they thought that 'doing as they liked' was synonymous with being called out as being rogue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Graf Bernadotte said:

Of course things changed since yesterday. Safety zone around CS is expanded and now reaches to the shore of Vieques. Not the best harbour anymore to do pvp from. 

Clan wars would be a consequent addition to the executive possibilities clans have now in their ports. But then the clans would mostly fight in their nations, instead of fighting foreign enemies. But wasn't it you who blames RDNN running the nation as a dictatorship. Wouldn't the possibility to force another clan in a certain doing by violence be such a tyranny you pretend to avoid.

I confess RDNN and RUS would have solved this problem with talks like Anolytic described. But the game mechanic changed and you shouted too loud that we decide too many things without asking for your approval. Now it's up to you to find a solution. Go ahead.

Please don't get confused Graf. I understand that these issues are complex but hear me out anyway. When a port is set to "available for all" it essentially becomes a free port - then imo it should be flippable for all. The justification for this is basically that corrupt governors were liable to consequences from the central administrations back in Europe. This isn't to say that there were no corrupt governors but they became more rare in the period where this game takes it's ships from.

This is not akin to clan wars - I have no possibility to attack RDNN in OW even if I'd like to - and this is as it should be. Otherwise all nations could be replaced and we'd just as well drop the map too since it's so ill-suited in terms of gameplay. 

I don't believe that this is a matter where we can come to a compromise and even if we could I can't see why DNP should. We can take care of our own and as far as I know it has been mainly RDNN that has been sunk by the interlopers - a situation I am perfectly fine with. If the ports were flippable I'd unleash the dogs and have the matter settled by the next maintenance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Bearwall said:

Please don't get confused Graf. I understand that these issues are complex but hear me out anyway. When a port is set to "available for all" it essentially becomes a free port - then imo it should be flippable for all. The justification for this is basically that corrupt governors were liable to consequences from the central administrations back in Europe. This isn't to say that there were no corrupt governors but they became more rare in the period where this game takes it's ships from.

This is not akin to clan wars - I have no possibility to attack RDNN in OW even if I'd like to - and this is as it should be. Otherwise all nations could be replaced and we'd just as well drop the map too since it's so ill-suited in terms of gameplay. 

I don't believe that this is a matter where we can come to a compromise and even if we could I can't see why DNP should. We can take care of our own and as far as I know it has been mainly RDNN that has been sunk by the interlopers - a situation I am perfectly fine with. If the ports were flippable I'd unleash the dogs and have the matter settled by the next maintenance.

So you would unleash "the Dogs" and beat RUS/RDNN in a defensive port battle?? I'll like to see that:D

Remember we swore to protect danish ports, unless it's yours

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, North said:

So you would unleash "the Dogs" and beat RUS/RDNN in a defensive port battle?? I'll like to see that:D

Remember we swore to protect danish ports, unless it's yours

lol I was refering to the free ports.. But yeah I can't imagine the three or five RDNN players that are normally online being any threat to anyone..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Gysendorf said:

Today fellow captains  -  the Royal Teutonic Society [RTS], which is in the service of the danish Lord Protector of the West Indias Christian VII, announces Viques as free port and invites all captains of all nation to come to the lovely port for trade and other stuff.

The port of Viques remains as free port as long the roque clan Baltic Fleet [BF], only pardoned pirates, closes their free port of Guayama or abandon Guayama. When this happens we announce the revoking of the free port status of Viques and three days later we will close the free port after the annoucement.

We didnt want to do this but we was forced to do this because the offical represantatives defended the unpatrotic behaviour of the roque clan BF and ignored the fears of the solo captains and the smaller clans in the danish nation.

If i correctly understand.

If clan have port and set its as available for all then this clan is rogue.

So Danmark-Norge have many rogue clans :D

Port Nation Owner
Port-de-Paix Danmark-Norge DARK
Cap-Français Danmark-Norge DNP
Fort-Dauphin Danmark-Norge RSAP
Monte Cristi Danmark-Norge DARK
La Isabela Danmark-Norge DARK
Puerto Plata Danmark-Norge RUS
Baní Danmark-Norge RUS
Barahona Danmark-Norge RUS
Guayama Danmark-Norge BF
Vieques Danmark-Norge RTS

 

Edited by qw569
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Graf Bernadotte said:

Once more it's you without a proper view on facts.

The game mechanic in Naval Action defines the rules of the game. With the patch the decission to make a port free for all is layed in the hand of the officers of those clans, which owns the port. It's up to those officers to weigh advantages and disadvantages of such a move. Other clans with other priorities have no say in that matter. Therefore an accusation of being corrupt is always baseless as long as there is any advantage for the owner clan to open its port. The right to attack such a port wouldn't be used to execute the game rules in that case but to violate them by forcing the owner clan into a decission made by players which are not competent for. Since the game rules gives the constitutional frame for our nations such an attack would eliminate the constitutional order, what is sentenced with death penalty due to high treason at the beginning of the19th century. :P

Like North already pointed out, RDNN and RUS would immediately fight such criminal plans against our nation and protect the rights of the clan attacked by unscrupulous rogues to hang the offenders at the yard after they have been catched.

Only the right for clan wars would allow clans to rule in other clans business and would protect the offenders from prosecution. Then the tyranny you're seeking would be legal unless you're unable to enforce it. What is most likely the case.

As long as we don't have any tools for a clan war, clans have to negotiate, if they wanna change a decission another clan made. If you don't like that Guayama is open you have to offer compensation for the losses BF faces closing the port. But as long as critics of BF insult them as Russian drinkers there are no good foundations for such a deal.

So it's in your hand to find a solution. Stop complaining and go ahead. Offer them 50.000 a day to close the port and another 950.000 a day for the right to insult them. Maybe they agree.

Again.. It is getting tiresome having to lecture you. I'm not only thinking in terms of gameplay but also the historical pretext this game is set in. According to the historical pretext "clans"/"squadrons" couldn't even own ports, but for gameplay we have allowed the clans to take ports for themselves and not only the nation. The right to set a port as free for all is basically high treason to allow ships of war into ports the nation is actively in a war with and hence - the need for the nation to take appropriate action against such clans/ports.

The accussation for "corrupt" is mainly my interpretation of the historical pretext where f.ex. governors in Charlotte Amalie (St. Thomas) allowed pirates and capers to dock and resupply in the port during the officialdom of governor Esmitt - the danish nation did however take action, arrested the governor and after a lengthy trial he was found guilty. The governor was replaced by another - in that specific incident equally corrupt governor. However from the period of the early 18th century and untill the end of the age of colonialism the central administrations tightened control with the colonies and hence the frequency of corrupt officials declined. The pretext period is the mid-17th century.

As for RDNN's claims to defend ports that are made available for all, I can only reiterate that I am extremely unconcerned with the actions/opinions of a clan that has so few active members.

And btw *sigh* I am not complaining but merely trying to correlate the current iteration of gameplay with the supposed historical pretext of the game. There is ofc also the possibility that any historical pretext is either rewritten or simply dropped - in that case I want a Bismarck!

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Is Danmark-Norge a nation ?

It looks like a selfish anarchic suicidal assembly !

We  the ACN did not join the Nation to face such a chaotic situation ! 

we had anough with our own nationals...have a look at the map and consider their present situation : they are struggling to...survive !

 

Time to clarify my fellow captains !

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Graf Bernadotte said:

Wrong!

Danish West India Company played a major role in colonization of the West Indies. Soon they took over defense of the ports and Danish waters and raised taxes. Aren't you a teacher for history? You should know that colonization all over the world started with trade companys, which bought, conquered or blackmailed land for their own account. Later they turned those private owned colonys into national overseas territorys for better protection. But for a long time it was the companys which arranged the defense as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_West_India_Company

The game mechanic gives the clans a tool to set a port free for all. It's not your business to decide about ports, which are not yours. DNP had the chance to decide about Guayana. But you have been too weak, too laizy or too incompetent to take control of this port. Now other people decide. Blame yourself for your failure.

ffs.. The danish west-india company like all companies in this period of time were oktroje companies. It is roughly translated to "sovereign" companies, except that interpretation would be misleading. The Oktroje companies operated with a royal charter, using royal navy ships either during a lease period or under the command of naval personel. The largest stock-holder of all oktroje companies in Denmark (there were three from 1671-1753) were the danish crown. This is as far as I know the case for all oktroje companies in the world, including the largest - british east india company. The dutch VCP was the only exception that comes to mind and this has mostly to do with the veregnigde provicien being as decentralised as they were and even there the majority stockholder in the dutch west-indies company were the seven provinces.

Please read a book and don't depend on wikipedia overly much.

As for the gamemechanic - all I'm arguing for is a change to them, that is why were testing after all. As of yet I have read no response that didn't seem more concerned with antagonizing me than with the development of the game. I can understand the affection you have for me, but really Graf it is getting embarrassing. As for the DNP being too lazy to take the port to begin with, well we aren't opposed to others taking ports - we leave that to RDNN, but we are opposed to a free town in the middle of the danish traderoutes. If you recall, well ofcourse you wouldn't recall since you don't get informed of much. Well let me enlighten you - the conflict between RDNN and DNP basically stems from divergent priorities. WE priotized getting the ports in the CS area secure before going out to bash brits, the RDNN prioritized bashing brits before securing homewaters. After wasting time and effort on a futile endeavor RDNN decided to go for the ports in CS area - with the full appreciation of DNP. We did however take offence that it apparently had to be to the expence of our time, our efforts and ACN that would have to wait with testing the new port ownership mechanic.. The end result is that neither can be entirely satisfied. Wether or not DNP has failed :) well.. I can't say that we have, since - and I've tried to explain this before but apparently you're more than a little dense - NA is about the battles and DNP gets it share. That it appears to be RDNN that's losing ships to the raiders from Guyama is just a bonus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Graf Bernadotte said:

One cannot link a book in a post to proof you wrong. ;) Wikipedia is most of the time a quite good source for fast information.

And it turned out that also in our case I could force you with my link to talk about reality and not about an imagination which might fit to your critic.

You confirm what I wrote. Only in the matter of constitutional law you are lacking knowledge. Those companies have been privately organized and used company law as legal frame. It doesn't matter if the state or the crown did hold the majority of shares. Even then those companies didn't turn into a government body. They ruled the colonies with indirect public administration. Absolutely comparable with the system devs implemented in NA with the last patch.

We are discussing in the national news and not in the development section. You are blaming BF for setting the port free for all not the devs who enabled clans to do so. And you ask for consequences for BF for their misdoing and don't demand sanctions against the devs. That's why a proper answer to your posts has to respect the possiblilities existing game mechanic gives you and your clan to react the moves of other players.

I think as well, that giving the power into the hand of clans is a bad idea, which destroys the nations.

They did not use company law as a legal framework. The fact that you would even write this underscores the lack of understanding and appreciation of the subject.

Take DK/NG as an example. Disregarding Russia it is the only country in Europe where absolutism became set in a legal framework. That very law (kongeloven 1665, + enevoldsarveloven 1665) makes the existence of a sovereign private company illegal. Instead most countries organised companies along the ORGANIZATIONAL lines of privately owned business' but in LEGAL terms they were to be regarded as extended parts of the sovereign nation. In the case of Denmark-Norway (as with almost all oktroje companies) the directors, the governors and the higher officials were directly appointed by the sovereign monarch. The "indirect" public administration was for the most part local councils whose authority stemmed from royal decree as much as the fact that they were there and the crown were not. Graf I don't really want to waste my time discussing a subject matter you clearly lack the understanding and appreciation for. If you are interested - by all means enlist at a university and take classes. I however are not payed to give you semipublic tutoring in my free time.

Suggestions to check up on (and no you will not find the answers in wiki pages)

- Oktrojecompanies.

- Sovereignty.

- Mercantilism.

- Monetarism.

- Colonies and their legal affiliation with their parentcountries.

-. Absolutism and the legal framework surrounding it. - This is opposed to your invalid notion of constitutional frameworks that just happens to be approx 150 years too early (depending on the countries)

If you don't know how the libraries function I'm sure there will be a nice clerk that can assist you. If not - well I still don't have the years nor the patience to teach you.

_______________________________________________

To state that I demand sanctions against BF is simply not true - what I am arguing for is a way for nations to sanction any clan that acts in a treasonous manner and unlike RDNN I consider any act against the nation as treasonous - not only those that work against my own clans interests. As I have already stated - DNP is not losing ships because of this and it is not really a problem for us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Peter Goldman said:

You've been accused of seal clubbing mostly, ganking was probably the least of a problem :)

lol oh right I was sealclubbing the kbear rearadmirals.. srry - my bad :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Graf Bernadotte said:

The East India Company (EIC), also known as the Honourable East India Company (HEIC) or the British East India Company and informally as John Company,[1] was an English and later British joint-stock company,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company

A joint-stock company is a business entity in which different amount of shares of the company stock can be bought and sold by shareholders. Each shareholder owns company stock in proportion, evidenced by their shares(certificates of ownership).[1] That allows for the unequal ownership of a business with some shareholders owning more of a company than others. Shareholders are able to transfer their shares to others without any effects to the continued existence of the company.[2]

In modern-day corporate law, the existence of a joint-stock company is often synonymous with incorporation (possession of legal personality separate from shareholders) and limited liability (shareholders are liable for the company's debts only to the value of the money they invested in the company). Therefore, joint-stock companies are commonly known as corporations or limited companies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint-stock_company

Corporate law (also known as business law or enterprise law or company law) is the body of law that applies to the rights, relations[disambiguation needed], and conduct of persons, companies, organizations and businesses.

It studies how corporations, investors, shareholders, directors, employees, creditors, and other stakeholders such as consumers, the community, and the environment interact with one another.

Corporate law is a part of a broader companies law (or law of business associations). It is often considered to be a branch of civil law and deals with issues of both private law and public law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_law

Same thing with the biggest colonial company the Dutch East India Company.

In the first Danish East India Company the crown had only a minority share of 12,5%. The rest of shareholders have been nobles, citizens of Copenhagen, Danish provinces and Hamburgian merchants. It was organized as a corporation by civil law and owned by individuals. The fact that those private organizations executed public duties doesn't change their legal status. Also the matter that the state or the king had to approve the appointment of directors of such companies doesn't change that. Also today we have a lot of business which execute indirect public administration. By example chimney sweepers or notaries. Their appointment has to be approved by the state. Their business is a public duty, but they deliver their services in the frame of civil law.

By the way history is full of cases where the crown leased the right to raise taxes to private entities. Jakob Fugger became one of the richest individuals in modern history amongst others with such deals. The raise of the Medici has a main reason in raising taxes for the Vatican. Anyway their business remained a bank and didn't transform into a tax office.

One of the biggest crimes in history of colonialism happened in Congo, back then privately owned by Leopold II King of the Belgian. That's why Belgium never took over responsibility for the Congo Cruels.

In all those cases private persons or corporates executed public services without turning into a public institution.

You cannot use modern day understandings of joint-stock companies and apply them to 18th century oktroje companies.. Please Graf - don't rely only on wikipedia.. READ A BOOK!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, pietjenoob said:

The first one known to use stock was the Dutch VOC. Est. in 1602 to unite the merchants into one business and stop the rivalry between them

Aye true. But the major point of contention is the sharing of sovereign powers. I.e. the VOC became more or less an extension of the seven provinces, in part due to the presence of appointed members of the board, in part in the mixture of foreign policy with trade and domestic policies. A very, very short explanation that doesn't in any way do justice to the nuances of the subject, would be to follow the swedish historian Jan Glete in his explanation that the states incorporated private interests and harnessed them to the interests of the state. Private shipping expertise could see mutual beneficial advantages in joining the state. The resulting mix is what were at the time called a oktroje company (oktroje comes from the latin word for delegation or subdelegation. I can find the proper latin phrase if anyone is so inclined). To compare them in any way to private business' would simply be wrong. Have no doubt that the resulting enterprise were at the beck and call of the states interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bearwall said:

Aye true. But the major point of contention is the sharing of sovereign powers. I.e. the VOC became more or less an extension of the seven provinces, in part due to the presence of appointed members of the board, in part in the mixture of foreign policy with trade and domestic policies. A very, very short explanation that doesn't in any way do justice to the nuances of the subject, would be to follow the swedish historian Jan Glete in his explanation that the states incorporated private interests and harnessed them to the interests of the state. Private shipping expertise could see mutual beneficial advantages in joining the state. The resulting mix is what were at the time called a oktroje company (oktroje comes from the latin word for delegation or subdelegation. I can find the proper latin phrase if anyone is so inclined). To compare them in any way to private business' would simply be wrong. Have no doubt that the resulting enterprise were at the beck and call of the states interest.

That only happened in the later stages. They bought the monopoly off the state and used it to great succes (and suffering) for a long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...