Real Diplomacy

[oldcrankyman]

I have a suggestion that I think would make the game politics work.  If one could choose which nations had access to which port, then an infinity of deals becomes possible. 

Edited November 20, 2017 by oldcrankyman

[Hethwill]

Interesting approach.

Could you please illustrate the suggestion with a example and stating the how to, what for and why would that be?

Thank you.

[victor]

6 hours ago, oldcrankyman said:

I have a suggestion that I think would make the game politics work.  If one could choose which nations had access to which port, then an infinity of deals becomes possible. 

yep ... but who is that "one" is the real problem.

If you mean the clan owning the port, this will shift all the diplomacy for resources and access to ports on clans, while OS engage rules around the port will still be based just on nation (unless you provide an area of influence in the waters around the port in which engage rules shift according to the access to the town and the players of the faction of the clan owning the port cannot attack the players of all the factions that can access that port).

In short: it is a nice idea, but is likely to create a mess (maybe I can personally like it, but still .... it would be a mess).

[Sir Lancelot Holland]

37 minutes ago, rediii said:

doesnt work in OW.

 

RoE and the way battles work have to be reworked completly to fit the clanbased system we have now.

Conquest has to work with cooperations. Battles have to be cooperation/clanbased before the nation has something to say here. Swedes have to be able to attack other swedes in a normal battle for example but then new (old) exploits are shown again. (attacking each other to escape a third group of enemys)

With instances the current problems we have are unsolveable in my oppinion. (without affecting other things)

 

In my oppinion the OW tagging etc. needs a rework. If you want to make the game clanbased conquest has to be clanbased but not on a national level. For that you need cooperations. Clans within a cooperation have to be able to be of different nations. Another cooperation member but of the same nation has to be able to attack you. Then you have to be able to attack everyone of your nation though ofcourse which allows you to tag eachother to run away from someone or use speedboost to get to a portbattle.

Ports are a farce though since you get nothing from them and economy is as it is like now. You can get reduced to your safezone and its the same like if you own a big part of the map. Actually you even get penalized. 

 

But yea anyway, clanalliances dont work on the OW.

There is nothing wrong per se with  what you are saying, I would suggest though that a co-operative is little different to an Alliance. Alliances are formed by and large through the fear of a common threat or for economic reasons. as re co-operatives, coalitions, call them what you will they are the same thing. As you have  pointed out In game there are no economic reasons to form alliances or co-operatives, There are of course nations that are feared for whatever reasons, In game, nations are simply a co-operative of clans  who fight under a unified banner.  For any nation, or alliance/co-operative to work there has to be leadership, leadership of groups is gained either by right of conquest or by consent of the people governed, for a war there has to incentive, no one fights for the sake of fighting, Agamemnon fought for the love of a woman Helen of Troy, Ceasar for territory and political ambition, or for the betterment of the people, all civil wars were justified on those grounds.  Even in a game there needs to be a reason to fight, a reason to cease fighting, then fight again, no war has ever been eternal or for the sake of war.   I think that until there is reason to fight and the duration of fighting does not mean the elimination of a faction things will go on as they are. Put in the reasons, for war, put in a limit on the duration of a war with defined win loss parameters and we will have a game worthy of the title Naval Action. 

 

[Sir Lancelot Holland]

1 minute ago, rediii said:

Nations are no cooperation of clans per se. Its just many clans. Most nations are deeply seperated like france as a example. One clan is allied with brits, the other clan hates brits.

Nations have to go in this game or just be startingnations or something like that. You should be able to attqck everyone everytime and you should also be able to create international battlegroups.

Yes sir, indeed, but is this not how Italy, France, Germany, the United Kingdom all started out, a collection of individual clans, nation states et al?  I would really like to see international battlegroups they add flavour to the game and paradoxically underline our respective positions on nationality, I think that  our positions are actually a lot closer than we think, the devil Sir is in he details.

[Sir Lancelot Holland]

2 minutes ago, rediii said:

They didnt start out as big nations yes. But they were also able to fight eachother when theye nations were just many small nations. This is not possible in NA at the moment which is a problem

That is the point in the road where our positions meet, that is the situation that should be resolved.

[Hethwill]

Interesting.

So, the "nation" would be only "chosen", after clans have decided to unite and declare it ? 

( hypothetical question as the system doesn't work like this. It is "individual" base choosing nation. )

[Hethwill]

Okay.

How do non clan players fit in ? 

Totally unaligned ? Who can they help ?

If they can do everything what is the "strategic" purpose of clan ?

 

[Hethwill]

Got it. Clan focused "end game".

Then why not take it one step further and make it so clanned players can only interact with clanned players ? apart from chat and clan management for invites/kicks.

That would eliminate the pesky individuals from interfering.

[Hethwill]

I just want to understand the benefit, to all players, new and old, of the suggested system

Be it players in big clans, small clan, big "companies", small "companies, and individual players.

[Slim McSauce]

If we want friendly diplomacy between any clan we have to have hostile diplomacy as well.

I agree for devs to allow clans placed on hostile to be attacked, regardless of nation. New and individual players would be safe from any of these in nation attacks. The clan MUST be put on hostile with a buffer of 1 maintenance cycle before its members can be tagged.

Very little room for abuse this way while adding new dynamic that clans desperately need in this game

Edited November 20, 2017 by Slim Jimmerson

[Hethwill]

Wow... that was unexpected.

A ton of mechanics to explain one mechanic  Yep. That's NA for us. A web of things where you touch a string and everything else shakes.

Good one but that wasn't my question, maybe I did not make it in the correct form. So let's start small.

What is the benefit to be in a company ? Can a individual player access all game content if not in a company ?

[Slim McSauce]

1 minute ago, The Red Duke said:

Wow... that was unexpected.

A ton of mechanics to explain one mechanic  Yep. That's NA for us. A web of things where you touch a string and everything else shakes.

Good one but that wasn't my question, maybe I did not make it in the correct form. So let's start small.

What is the benefit to be in a company ? Can a individual player access all game content if not in a company ?

New players benefit because when they become old players they'll get a really enjoyable mechanic for when they advance in skill step into a clan.

Individual players will be left alone, they would want no part in clan v clan warfare.

Edited November 20, 2017 by Slim Jimmerson

[Hethwill]

Perfect.

So a Company is a franchise of clans ?

Let's say a clan in a company doesn't like a clan of another company but the companies work together...

How does that go ?

Clan goes "individual" ?

[Slim McSauce]

Just now, rediii said:

So I see a group of a hostile clan wanting to attack me in my 4 indiamans.

I then leave my clan so im safe

Then add a timer to leave your clan, as long as someone cant do it right away then it can't be abused.

[Sir Lancelot Holland]

37 minutes ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

Then add a timer to leave your clan, as long as someone cant do it right away then it can't be abused.

would you consider also a timer  to rejoin your old clan or another clan? If a player wished to give up the risks of clan life for immunity then surely they should not be able to retake the advantages of clan life with impunity.

[Sir Texas Sir]

I would prefer to see open world stay the same with the nations. Make the port battles clan base though. So that same nation clans that have a beef with each other can fight, but only in the port battles.    Just put a longer cool down on these type of battles so folks don't get trolled by some alt clan or a clan that just flats out hate them.  Make the hostility missions free for all for the most part so you can join either side and help either clan if they are the same nation friendly clan list says who can join the port battles.  Some clans might be on both list and can actually join both sides.  This wasn't to unheard of back in old times when houses fought each other even though they where under the same national flag.

The other thing is just make Pirates Privateers FACTION (not nation) and if a pirate clan gets a Letter of Marque they can work for that clan as a Privateer, but only for that clan.   This will allow small clans to hire out other players to fill there port battles and help them fight bigger clans..   

The way you can make this work in OW is to have zones for type of OW battles.  

• Safe Zones around capitals your normal PvP fights with the join circles and reinforcements.  NO GREEN ON GREEN ALLOWED
• National owned waters normal PvP battles with join circles. NO GREEN ON GREEN ALLOWED OF SAME NATION.  
• PvP hot zones FFA style battle with positional join.  The tag circles decides the side when you start but after that any one can join on either sides.  ANY ONE CAN SHOOT ANY ONE NO MATTER WHAT SIDE YOU JOIN SINCE IT"S A POSITIONAL JOIN. 

There are two ways to make PvP hotzones.  Number one way is to put agro on a port and it gets a red zone around that port.  It is only activated once the port is put into port battle status and it stays active until the port battle happens.  I would even go as far as allow it to stay until port is off cool down.  This is to show that area is a war zone and any thing can happen.  The other way is to allow clans that own a port to set the port a PvP Hotzone and the port will remain so until it's taken off hotzone or some one else captures it.

[Hethwill]

Don't the three new nations, pvp oriented, would be a escape to the clans that wish to really mess up with the old nations ? Ain't a perfect solution but seems nice somehow. Kind of the place to be for rebel causes.