Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

War and Peace


Recommended Posts

My dear gentlemen.

We are all men of the sea ..... We are all soldiers ...... Not fucking politicians ... Our place is the sea and not the royal court with its ridiculous wigs and its lies....

My proposal is to separate the policy of the Seamen, that is, to create an automatic system of alliances and wars. There are thousands of possibilities, (looking for the balance between the populations of countries, or between the number of dominated ports..... etc). So that the players, when they choose a country, must follow that flag, we will be at war or we will be allies of whom God and the King orders us .....

You can create amount of content in the form of missions that are based on the relations between countries, alliances and wars, which could change monthly, or bi-monthly ... Or when necessary.

The faction of the pirates would have another deeper sense. They would have freedom of action because they did not have a flag, but they would lose the support of a nation. You can attack all nations, but all nation can attack you......

This is just an idea, feel free to develop it, or throw tomatoes ... :)

Greetings to all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/17/2018 at 1:18 PM, van Veen said:

Third step is individualized nation leader preferences to add the spice to it. Would be great to have a really mad King George with erratic decision making, have warmongering pirates that quickly go to war and beg for peace quickly, peace loving dutchies who want trade agreements with everyone and so on....

During King George III's 'mad' phases he was never allowed anywhere near running the country, that was and still is the province of Parliament (for example Queen Elizabeth never said " "Cheeky Argentinians, they've swiped my Falklands Islands, launch Operation Corporate", Constitutional Monarchies do not work that way, the Government decides then they advise her) indeed the American Revolution/ War of Independence was solely a British Government decision with little or no input from His Majesty or the Prince Regent who represented the King during his mad phases. People tend to forget that after the English Civil War and post execution of Charles I, no British Monarch has ruled by divine right, but, by the tolerance of Parliament, even Queen Victoria had to defer to Parliament!

It is true of every European Nation that still has a Monarchy that the King or Queen is a figurehead, with no real powers to run their countries, Parliaments who run Constitutional Monarchies do so in the name of their Sovereign, and when they get things wrong, naturally, it's not their fault, but their Sovereign's, in whose name they exercise power (Republics like the USA and France can actually blame their politicians for their actions since they don't have a Royal fall-guy! The best argument for becoming a Republic ever devised).  

Of course since everything is done in the name of the King, then it is technically an order from the King, even if he was incapable of stringing two sentences together, in that respect then it would actually work in game, especially if you consider that the King says he wants Bermuda, then, the clans, as fleets of  His Britannic Majesties  navy are they guys who figure out how to get Bermuda and hold it in his name,  Nation wise, the only role it plays is that the King says I wish this, and the clans fight under his colours, How and what they do to achieve it is in the hands of the clans. The role players among us have it pretty much right, The actions of the Swedes, the British, the Spanish and up to a point in the timeline the French, the King rules O.K. Even though in reality he does not!    Imagine the French Day crew as Royalist and the Night crew as Republican, there we have their difference of opinion, then again, perhaps not.....

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, van Veen said:

Right now, RVR is done by clans. Each nation is just a locked alliance of clans and individual players. The game does not foresee any such thing as war and peace. Yet, players do declare war, negotiate peace and forge alliances. Not in game, but on Teamspeak and in the forum. So, the concept of war and peace is well known and it is applied. Consequently, it should be part of the game. Just because the previous attempts if implementation failed does not prove the concept wrong.

 

Frankly, it wasn't perfect but I thought the only major flaw in the previous alliance system was the unfortunate state of the permalliances.  That part was bad.  I was never a member of any large clan, but the national majority should be able to vote on war and alliances IMO.  Clan members will naturally vote with their clan politics for the most part.  Solve the permalliance issue, perhaps allow clan wars as well, and the system could work.  I wouldn't be opposed to RNG wars dictated by Admiralty either, as suggested above.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Jean Ribault said:

 

It certainly does need a real name, doesn't it?  PVP-only players probably don't care about it, but just calling it PVE server is a bit lame I must admit. :(

It is and it needs a nice name, not just PvE.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me that the DEVS should set the alliances rather than the players or at least have the chair of a council. They have the membership details (i.e. numbers in each Nation) and other statistics and also control of resources. They can see when a Nation is being destroyed or becoming all-powerful. I am not saying that they need micro-manage but should keep oversight. It is in their interest to keep the players interested by a considered balance of power and ensure continuity of PVP. Whereas its great to be on a winning team its not so much fun to fight a long defeat against overwhelming odds nor is it good to be lacking in direction. I don't see a hands-off approach being successful in the long term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/16/2018 at 5:09 PM, van Veen said:

The nation-to-nation status should identify the rules for the following events: 

  • other nation port
    • entering with a trade ship (not when at war)
    • entering with a war ship (allied only)
    • placing sell/buy contracts (trade agreement or allied)
    • setting up outpost (trade agreement or allied)

This outpost setting would be quite risky, when policies change, your outpost is doomed and you may have no longer access.

And I have an idea which revives the "smuggler flag" thing. People in a trader who set smuggler flag are the only ones able to enter ports of a nation they are at war with. What for? Let's double the profits for them (only on smuggler mission) to give enticement, for the risk of getting caught by the enemy.

This reflects merchandise which became rare during war times (blockade) and achieves insane prices once a bit of cargo gets through on the local market. Nice new challenge for traders in fast boats: become a blockade runner with double profit, double risk!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Cetric de Cornusiac said:

This outpost setting would be quite risky, when policies change, your outpost is doomed and you may have no longer access.

And I have an idea which revives the "smuggler flag" thing. People in a trader who set smuggler flag are the only ones able to enter ports of a nation they are at war with. What for? Let's double the profits for them (only on smuggler mission) to give enticement, for the risk of getting caught by the enemy.

This reflects merchandise which became rare during war times (blockade) and achieves insane prices once a bit of cargo gets through on the local market. Nice new challenge for traders in fast boats: become a blockade runner with double profit, double risk!

Considering a significant number of Great Britain's richest families made their money during the Napoleonic wars importing Lace, Brandy, and other spirits from the continent, all of which were contraband goods, all of which were smuggled in via remote beaches and coves, it is I think a good Idea!

It's also why the Inland Revenue were set  up, they would impound contraband and sell it off raising revenue for the country much as Customs and excise/border control do today (although most contraband is now burned). 

The Revenuers worked very closely with the Royal Navy and often used Cutters to intercept smugglers, and if boarded by the RN the ships were subject to prize regulations too :) so the crews got a share of both vessel and cargo, a nice title earner for Jack Tar!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/18/2018 at 10:16 PM, Jean Ribault said:

Frankly, it wasn't perfect but I thought the only major flaw in the previous alliance system was the unfortunate state of the permalliances.  That part was bad.  I was never a member of any large clan, but the national majority should be able to vote on war and alliances IMO.  Clan members will naturally vote with their clan politics for the most part.  Solve the permalliance issue, perhaps allow clan wars as well, and the system could work.  I wouldn't be opposed to RNG wars dictated by Admiralty either, as suggested above.

Totally agree. I proposed the system to overcome exactly this problem in the first place. 

Please note that the concept does not foresee RNG, but an AI based on scripted/programmed rules or server admin manual settings. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Cetric de Cornusiac said:

This outpost setting would be quite risky, when policies change, your outpost is doomed and you may have no longer access.

Yes, it is a risky adventure. But it makes sense in some scenarios, e.g.

  • allied nations may setup outpost in foreign ports and support naval warfare in that region, or 
  • allied traders may setup outpost in foreign ports for higher profit. 

But setting up outposts in foreign ports is not the main feature proposed. I like the idea though and thought when implementing such a system it would be a good opportunity to implement this on the fly. 

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...