Disavowed

I think one single game edition would fix this, when all towers are down a capture point spawns in the middle. This capture point has One rule: "When the battle timer expires, only the Battle Rating of the ships in the circle will be counted towards the Nations overall Battle Rating" Adding this will force defenders to actually defend, instead of "win by fleeing".

This poll should be changed to, "Should Pirates only get half the game?". If people insist on making pirates abide by historic standards then ALL nations must abide by history as well, think about what that would mean for half a second and you will see how it is a bad idea. There is a point where you have to let go of historic realism and acknowledge it is a game. No offense to the OP, but this is a bad poll in my opinion...

You are getting into another debate all together when we speak of governance and, "How much freedom is to much freedom to give up in order to protect yourself and your family", I would rather not get into politics on the forums, I was pointing out the flaw in the argument of, "Crimes happen, so why try to limit or stop them?" by presenting you with a tangible counter argument. If you look back at my very first post you will see in bold, "I would rather the vote be One Character Per Server, not one character per account", so I do not disagree at all with you there. I do not think a character per server hurts the economy in any way, however multiple characters per server will significantly impact the economy of that server.

Well as I said in my previous post, the argument, "abuse will occur, so why try to stop it?" is quite honestly a terrible one, it should be obvious why. Let me present you with this counter argument to chew on in regards to this comment of yours, "Because someone willing to take advantage and having enough money will buy an other copy", and my response to you is, "That same person will buy a second account anyway and have even MORE room to abuse the system with even more characters". If you think about my counter argument, then it should become pretty clear why the statement of, "abuse will occur, so why try to stop it?" is a futile one. Limiting servers to single characters might not be convenient for everyone, but it goes a long way on limiting character and trade abuse. I would like to think you would not degrade your own society by giving criminals easier access to illegal goods based on the argument, "Crimes happen". So I would also like to think you would not want the game degraded, more so than it has to be, by giving people easier access to something readily exploitable like multiple characters.

It actually would have an impact on the economy and even more so if crafting resources become more scarce. Numerous people will park their alts at specific resource ports in order to monopolize trade resources, this is just one example of how it would impact the economy. Allowing multiple characters creates far more problems than it resolves.

I would rather the vote be One Character Per Server, not one character per account Establishing one character per server appears to be the most simple solution to limit character and crafting abuse. I would even go so far as to suggest connecting purchases to steam accounts making it so if a player wants to abuse crafting and multiple characters then they would not only have to buy a second copy, but also establish it on a second steam account. That may sound extreme to people, but it is a good way to limit character and crafting abuse while promoting team play. As much as I would like to support a compromise (like multiple characters with shared labor hours), the reality is that allowing more than one character per server creates more problems than it resolves. If given the option many people will take advantage of multiple characters by parking alternates at specific resource ports, which creates trade and resource abuse that destabilizes the game on a global scale. Stopping complete abuse may not be possible, but to me the argument of, "We can't stop it so lets not even try to limit it" is a bad one. I personally believe we should be trying to create solutions for limiting abuse, not capitulating to the idea that, "abuse will occur, so why try to stop it?", if you do not try to limit abuse then the game will be left in a degraded state, which is bad for everyone(including the people playing with family members).

I am reading this and the whole,"effective range" argument is really bothering me, if the goal of the aggressor frigates was to slow down a first rate, by hitting its sails or mast and the frigates were "effectively" doing that(keeping them in battle), then they were in effective range. If you do not understand how effective range is determined(accuracy + desired effect), then please don't use the words. Harassing an army with skirmishers has occurred through history for Millennia, why in the world would two ships with long guns catching a larger ship with short guns be exempt from enemy harassment? Larger ships should not get special treatment for poor decision making, it is that simple.