So how long until the pirates take over and what will happen to the game when they do?

[KrakkenSmacken]

Yeah a fine could be used too but i only said port ban so they got they "feel of a rat" for just a short time.

I dont think it would give pirates much of an advantage (i see a HUGE disadvantage with it) because pirates still can get nothing but a hard time from attacking each other and being known as a pirate who attacks his own.

What did you see as an advantage i may have overlooked something.

 

Being chased by your own AI does that better than port ban IMO.

 

Well the disadvantage you mentioned "being known as a pirate who attacks his own", is a social one, not a game mechanic.  So the advantage would be that they could be dicks to each other and not incur a game enforced mechanical disadvantage and penalty.

 

The other side of that is that as a pirate you have chosen a hard life, and part of the hard life would be having to put up with dicks that face no game enforced consequences for being so.

 

It also devolves the "purity" of the open sand box mentality that Admin seems to espouse, that being everyone has the same tools to play the game as they like.  

 

That is in diametric opposition to pirates being "different" in any way.

Edited April 7, 2016 by KrakkenSmacken

[Johnny Rotten]

letters of marque - a barbary nation would just be a port anyway

[Potemkin]

United States even paid tributes to pirates

The U.S. Pays Tribute

After finding American commerce in the Mediterranean had almost stopped due to the pirates, the Continental Congress agreed in 1784 to negotiate treaties with the four Barbary States. Congress appointed a special commission, consisting of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, to oversee the negotiations. The following year, Congress authorized a maximum of $80,000 to spend on tribute treaties with all the Barbary Pirate States.

In 1787, the United States signed a tribute treaty with Morocco. This proved to be a reasonable treaty, costing the United States a one-time only tribute of about $20,000. Except for a few brief disagreements, Morocco never again harassed American shipping.

Algiers, the most powerful of the Barbary Pirates States, was a different story. In the summer of 1785, pirates from Algiers captured two American merchant ships and held the 21 men aboard them for ransom. The United States offered $4,200 for the captives. The ruler of Algiers, called the dey, demanded nearly $60,000. The Americans refused, and negotiations dragged on for more than 10 years.

The two commissioners most involved in tribute treaty negotiations were John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Adams favored paying tribute as the cheapest way to get American commerce moving again in the Mediterranean. Jefferson disagreed. He saw no end to the demands for tribute. He wanted matters settled "through the medium of war" and proposed a league of trading nations to force the end of Barbary piracy.

In 1790, pirates from Algiers captured 11 American ships and more than 100 prisoners to add to those already held for ransom. This shocking news produced a serious debate in the newly formed U.S. Congress over the need to build a navy. But it took five years before Congress authorized the construction of six warships.

Finally, in 1796, the United States signed a peace treaty with Algiers. The United States agreed to pay $642,500 plus annual tribute of naval supplies and presents to the dey. In exchange, the dey promised to release of the American captives and protect American shipping. The United States had to borrow money to make the primary tribute payment.

After 1796 US paid another 160,000 us dollars in tributes and presents to pirates, and even had to borrow money to make the payments. In 1801 Pirate ruler canceled the agreements and requested more money. This time US refused and went to war with Barbary states.

Eventually....

The scope of corsair activity began to diminish as the more powerful European navies started to compel the Barbary States to make peace and cease attacking their shipping. However, the ships and coasts of Christian states without such effective protection continued to suffer until the early 19th century. Following the Napoleonic Wars and the Congress of Vienna in 1814–15, European powers agreed upon the need to suppress the Barbary corsairs entirely and the threat was largely subdued. Occasional incidents occurred, including two Barbary wars between the United States of America and the Barbary States, until finally terminated by the French conquest of Algiers in 1830.

The book 6 Frigates by Ian Toll covers this in detail. Its a fantastic account of the creation of the USN and its early engagements.

Edited April 8, 2016 by Potemkin

[GrapeShot]

four Barbary States.

 

 

The Barbary States were part of the Ottoman empire.

[Quineloe]

Yeah, the barbary corsairs are basically the terrible Trafalgar comparison here. Does not apply. Does not apply. Does not apply. Please stop it. They were not pirates by the outlaw definition of a pirate.

[Potemkin]

Was quoted from admin post, accidentally deleted poster tag, just throwing that out there.

[Justme]

Yeah, the barbary corsairs are basically the terrible Trafalgar comparison here. Does not apply. Does not apply. Does not apply. Please stop it. They were not pirates by the outlaw definition of a pirate.

Yeah the pro status quo pirate guys will say anything to keep their bland pointless pirate faction going as is.

[William the Drake]

Yeah the pro status quo pirate guys will say anything to keep their bland pointless pirate faction going as is.

 

Too bad that by all accounts the Barbary Corsairs where funded and legitimized by the Dey of Algiers, as well as the other quasi-independent Barbary States/Kingdoms, some of which were vassals of the Ottomans and almost all of which practiced state-sponsored piracy. "State-sponsored Piracy" i.e. Privateering sans a Letter of Marque. 

Wait, if anything this is promoting a "non-nation pirates". Is that what you are arguing against?

[Justme]

Too bad that by all accounts the Barbary Corsairs where funded and legitimized by the Dey of Algiers, as well as the other quasi-independent Barbary States/Kingdoms, some of which were vassals of the Ottomans and almost all of which practiced state-sponsored piracy. "State-sponsored Piracy" i.e. Privateering sans a Letter of Marque. 

Wait, if anything this is promoting a "non-nation pirates". Is that what you are arguing against?

TBH I have seen a lot of back and forth over the Barbary states being actual internationally recognized as nations so I have no clue lol.

My issue is the devs backed off( so far anyways ) of making pirates a legitimately unique and difficult faction as is believe the original intent was.

[BusterGut]

So with more and more players and even entire clans turning to pirates, what will happen to the game when they reach numbers that the nationals can't stop them.

Will the game still be playable if 75% or more of the ports are controlled by pirate players?

Assuming the current perceived rate of player change to pirate keeps pace how long before the takeover?

What will the pirates do when they win the map and resistance is futile?

I know it will be hard guys, but I'm hoping this will remain a serious and CIVIL discussion.

Historically pirates were the scumbags of their era and what goes round comes round

[Cragger]

TBH I have seen a lot of back and forth over the Barbary states being actual internationally recognized as nations so I have no clue lol.

My issue is the devs backed off( so far anyways ) of making pirates a legitimately unique and difficult faction as is believe the original intent was.

 

You have to understand the terminology. Piracy is an act. A pirate is a person that engages in the act of piracy. Such an act can be performed by anyone. Great Britain once committed an act of piracy (no at war with Spain) against a Spanish silver fleet which resulted in the death of an Spanish govenor's family.

 

The Barbary Corsairs were pirates under the command of the Barbary States and part of the Ottoman empire and thus outfitted, paid, and supported by the Barbary states to enforce their claim of tribute. And thus the corsairs were dependent on those nations. Cut off from that via a successful land campaign (which would have required war with the Ottoman Empire) they would no longer have functioned. A key difference in how the corsairs and the buccaneers were treated is that captured corsairs were treated as prisoners of war and exchanged for crew and captured ships and cargo. Buccaneers were outside the law of any nation and thus executed on capture.

 

The Buccaneers where outlaw pirates during the Golden Age of piracy in the Caribbean, under protection of no nation and only found safe anchorage either by impersonating registered traders or at ports that turned a blind eye to their acts (Great Britain and France) because they were causing harm to those that they held as adversaries but could not challenge openly in war at the time (Spain). The Spanish Round and the Spanish succession era fall under this area as well. Not supported by any nation directly and left to their own fate, crews had to pay for their own supply and provisions from what they took. Where in comparison the Corsairs were paid by the barbary states regardless if pirating or not because tribute was being paid.

 

Privateers are not pirates as they are not engaging in an act of piracy. They are a private individual (Thus their name) owning an armed ship offering service and legitimized by a nation to act against shipping of another nation war was declared against. Essentially mercenaries of the high seas.

 

 

So TLDR what does this all mean?

 

Well pirates can be both a nation engaging in an act of piracy but then would be subject to military and other repercussions such as the Barbary Wars. Or they can be independents operating outside the law left to their own fate. But they can't be both at the same time and thus gain all the benefits and none of the negatives (such as being hung from the yard arms on capture). And naval officers just can't flip to them at will. If a United States officer 'defected' to the Barbary states to become a corsair in 1801 all that would have happened to him is him being taken prisoner by calif for information and family randsom but he'd certainly not be trusted to be in command of any corsairs.

[Ruthless4u]

You have to understand the terminology. Piracy is an act. A pirate is a person that engages in the act of piracy. Such an act can be performed by anyone. Great Britain once committed an act of piracy (no at war with Spain) against a Spanish silver fleet which resulted in the death of an Spanish govenor's family.

 

The Barbary Corsairs were pirates under the command of the Barbary States and part of the Ottoman empire and thus outfitted, paid, and supported by the Barbary states to enforce their claim of tribute. And thus the corsairs were dependent on those nations. Cut off from that via a successful land campaign (which would have required war with the Ottoman Empire) they would no longer have functioned. A key difference in how the corsairs and the buccaneers were treated is that captured corsairs were treated as prisoners of war and exchanged for crew and captured ships and cargo. Buccaneers were outside the law of any nation and thus executed on capture.

 

The Buccaneers where outlaw pirates during the Golden Age of piracy in the Caribbean, under protection of no nation and only found safe anchorage either by impersonating registered traders or at ports that turned a blind eye to their acts (Great Britain and France) because they were causing harm to those that they held as adversaries but could not challenge openly in war at the time (Spain). The Spanish Round and the Spanish succession era fall under this area as well. Not supported by any nation directly and left to their own fate, crews had to pay for their own supply and provisions from what they took. Where in comparison the Corsairs were paid by the barbary states regardless if pirating or not because tribute was being paid.

 

Privateers are not pirates as they are not engaging in an act of piracy. They are a private individual (Thus their name) owning an armed ship offering service and legitimized by a nation to act against shipping of another nation war was declared against. Essentially mercenaries of the high seas.

 

 

So TLDR what does this all mean?

 

Well pirates can be both a nation engaging in an act of piracy but then would be subject to military and other repercussions such as the Barbary Wars. Or they can be independents operating outside the law left to their own fate. But they can't be both at the same time and thus gain all the benefits and none of the negatives (such as being hung from the yard arms on capture). And naval officers just can't flip to them at will. If a United States officer 'defected' to the Barbary states to become a corsair in 1801 all that would have happened to him is him being taken prisoner by calif for information and family randsom but he'd certainly not be trusted to be in command of any corsairs.

So with all that being said, where does/should that leave pirates as far as the average player understands them in game?

[GrapeShot]

Badly broken. that's where.