A Little Bit of Balance via Three methods.

[Gungy]

Looking at the Map (US PVP server) recently I noted the Americans have pretty much steam rolled down the US coast. I say more power to them, crack on lads. However it did get me thinking what is to stop a nation with overwhelming numbers from just steam rolling the entire map. With that in Mind I propose the following two ideas to add longevity and intrigue to the tactical map.

 

Port Capture Flags

 

Change the cost of the flag in an extreme fashion to more clearly represent supply line cost. A simple and easily enabled method of doing this would be to base off the number of ports currently held. This would also have the opposite effect of reducing the initial cost for smaller Nations which should encourage their expansion.

 

1-10 ports, flag cost = 200,000

11-20 ports, flag cost = 500,000

21-30 ports, flag cost = 800,000

31-40 ports, flag cost = 1000,000

41-50 ports, flag cost = 1,500,000

 

This approach would have three effects.

 

• More cohesion and tactical thought on which ports to attack.
• Prevent rapid expansion of larger population nations.
• Ports being flipped for no strategic reason

 

Which brings me nicely to the second Idea.

 

National Alliances

 

Allow the nations for a Levy to form alliances, this would allow the smaller nations to seek assistance from more powerful nations. However there would be a cost to the nation that initiates the request. The levy would be based off the perceived power of the nation assistance is being requested from. This would have a very similar cost as the flag costs based on the requested nations ports numbers. These alliances would last a specific amount of time and would need to be renewed at the end of the period, or they end.

 

Prolonged alliances would become cheaper by a % each renewal period, let's say 5% for now. So if the Dutch for example requested an Alliance with the Royal Navy. They would need to pay (purely example) 800,000, but the following renewal period that would be reduced to 720,000 so on and so forth till it reaches a maximum discount of say 60% of the original fee.

 

The Alliance itself would be a 3 way in game vote. The nation wanting the alliance would first have a popup window with a simple yes no button asking all players if they want to ally with X nation. this lasts one week at log in till it expires. the next vote would be to agree to pay X to the nation. and the 3rd vote would be from the requested nation to accept the alliance once the cost has been reached.

 

Once the Alliance has passed the vote they will have one week to build the funds to make the payment to the nation they want to ally with. This could be achieved by direct donation to the admiralty or sending captured ships to the admiralty till sufficient funds are available. There would be nothing stopping a nation from building funds before a vote.

 

The allied nations would have the following benefits.

 

• They have the same protection as ships in the same nation (you attack an ally you go pirate)
• You will be able to dock at each nations ports and trade, but will not be able to buy Outposts.
• You can join each nations battles and port attacks, the port changes to the nation that used the flag. (rewards distributed as usually to all participants) 

A Nation can only enter into ONE alliance, to prevent one overly powerful nation from recruiting all the smaller nations to stomp on their highest threat rival.

 

Admiralty Donations (Influence)

 

These will allow a small amount of influence to be given to the person who makes the donation, if they are in a clan/fleet it goes to them. There must be a certain amount of influence accrued with the admiralty before a Flag may be bought. Influence may be donated to the purchase of a flag by clan/fleets/individuals till the fresh hold is reached. Or alternatively a clan/fleet and hold onto their influence till they have enough to launch their own.

 

This area I haven't really give as much thought to as the previous two. However I hope any one reading this can see what I am aiming at and how it would add more intrigue and strategy to be considered over the current mechanic of just steam rolling everything in your path.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Hethwill]

number of ports =/= number players in a nation

 

I can see the solution having truly adverse effects.

 

Now if the proposition would actually take into account the population in a Nation it could be more sensible and even indirectly have a positive effect on the balance of power ( distances to war zones are not considered ).

[Aetrion]

Why should the number of players matter? If a nation is conquering a lot of ports because they have superior population they get hit with the upkeep for having many ports, and if a nation is conquering a lot of ports because they have the most powerful hardcore clans they also get hit with the upkeep - seems like in either case it's perfectly deserved and required to uphold some balance.

[Hethwill]

It matters when we all start a new map and a nation has 100 ports and only 20 players for example. Or only 1 port but 500 players. It is not balanced for both scenarions, number of ports and population.

[Gungy]

It matters when we all start a new map and a nation has 100 ports and only 20 players for example. Or only 1 port but 500 players. It is not balanced for both scenarions, number of ports and population.

But has those two nations in your example either lose or gain ports it will begin to balance out. 

 

A nation with 1 port can expand fast especially if they have high population. 

 

And any nation with low population and high numbers of ports will not be able to hold what they have so why would they even try to expand.