Development plans for conquest mechanics (RVR)

[Captain Kibble]

Then look at the Costa del Fuego area. Cabo Canaveral, San Sebastain, Jobe, & Rio Seco are all freetowns with only Ays (regional capital) & Cayo Bisayno as Spain and therefore capable? I think the (I) is something else.

 

You're right, and Calcasieu has no letter (typo?)

 

Admin, give us a clue!

 

 

 

@Vernon, neutrals are cappable, Freetowns (Independent?) are not.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Captain Kibble

[Ledinis]

So far every negative comment here is written by people that have not followed what they are doing with Port battles, alliances and so forth. Seriously at-least read through previous developer posts on upcoming changes before commenting ... On the note of rewards it should be some cosmetic stuff, or ships that are inferior game-play wise but just look awesome as to not force people all jumping to one nation, but rather be a symbolic rewards.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Ledinis

[Cragger]

Keep in mind in PoTBS nations would hold off flipping the map to force smaller nations to suffer endlessly because they could neither fight their way out of the corner or do anything outside of making alt accounts on the winning nation to capture the last ports and force a flip. 

 

It was one of the things that hurt PoTBS a lot in the long run.

[Barberouge]

 I have one question though: what does the letters in parenthesis after port names stand for? It's probably obvious, but I just haven't figured them out yet. Anyone care to clear that up for me?

 

Those are the rulers of the port circa 1790, or the historical rulers if the port had changed hands recently (except for the US and Sweden). - (approximately)

 

N = neutral, no specific pirate or Indian (I) activity

[Skully]

I very much like that this is coming early to the table. Kudos to admin.

The change from a perpetual to an ephemeral game is however very drastic. Is this a trial or is this to be final?

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/14244-hegemony/?p=269119

Now it should be clear to everybody why Pirates are not allowed to conquer. We can not draw players involuntary into the asymmetrical setup of Pirates.

It does however pose the question again with regards to alliances.

I understand the alliance mechanism dosnt really factor in the pirates, so do we become mercenaries?

Because right now alliances don't allow for it (properly).

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/15623-pvp1-august-3rd-the-french-émissaire/

Neither can Pirates join PBs on behalf of their "allies". (Which can be either side. )

Do we really want regional goods distribution? Or still stick to global?

I must admit I had to use global supply lines to bring the Medkit production up to par. But it added to the challenge.

The only issue I saw was that long supply lines bring a lot of cost, if multiple players want to be part of it.

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/15513-nation-ports-production-most-importantly-medkits/?p=289196

(Mid-level captains still have problems with crew pricing. While this can be resolved by having high levels craft Medkits, it is not a great solution. Topic for another day. )

Do we want to have civil wars? Or independent nations?

Folks like fox2run might not find a spot that suites them. They want to have the freedom of Pirates, but also be land owners.

Or would Clan edicts overriding Nation edicts (up to a point) be sufficient?

Now we can truly look for potential exploits in this mechanism and hopefully flush them out before we get to patch day.

[Anolytic]

Regarding conquering capitals, I would suggest considering the Swedish solution. Guerrilla warfare and basing in the territory of an ally. The conquering nation could consider it an ultimate victory, while the nation that lost their capital would fight on based out of their allied nation's ports until they could recapture their own ports. Although probably any nation who lost their capital would have to reconsider their alliance partner(s) after they did not come to their aid and help defend their capital. Maybe being forced into a temporary protectorate would not be so unfair.

 

I'm also thinking that this regional divisioning could be used as a basis of the economic system as well once this gets an overhaul. While probably all goods have to be available in all parts of the map to some extent in order to balance the advantages of nations, I believe that each region should have 1 or 2 resources that were historically significant to that region be available in every port of that region as sort of a special produce of that region. For instance suger was a very significant export from the Danish West Indies, so the region named "Vestindiske Øer" on the map should be a strong producer of sugar in every port of the region. This special product should then also be part of the reward to a conquering nation for conquering a region.

 

 

Those are the rulers of the port circa 1790, or the historical rulers if the port had changed hands recently (except for the US and Sweden). - (approximately)

 

N = neutral, no specific pirate or Indian (I) activity

Thanks!

I was about to suggest that (I) was code for Portugal.

[Prater]

We've already seen in game that a lot of people in conquered nations either quit or change nations.

[Horror]

I approve.

[Anolytic]

We've already seen in game that a lot of people in conquered nations either quit or change nations.

I think that slowing down conquest and making it a huge effort to conquer a region and defending it would lessen this issue. If steamrolling isn't possible, then people will feel that they have a greater chance to turn things around and they will also not feel like they are being overwhelmed and loosing territory at a rapid pace. And a nation can rely on it's strengths to defend its territories. Open water PvP to slow down the rise of the conquest-meter, big 1st rate battles to defend the regional capital, or frigate/4th rate battles to defend the other ports of a region. Succeeding at any 1 of those would beat back the invading nation.

[Dragonfire]

And here is where something has to be implemented to stop ppl from jumping ship with next to no penalty.

Chose a nation wisely or cost to jump ship should be hefty very hefty to discourage the ALTS and the going to play for the winning side now ppl.

[NorthernWolves]

Well the Spanish would have been subjects to the US and the British several times over already. What fun would that be for the victors anyway?

That proposal is a no go, total disaster waiting to happen. I would even go so far as to say that not only should a capital be uncapturable, every nation should have one small region safe from conquest.

 

Also switching nations is far too easy and is being exploited, this affects diplomacy.

 

If you want to switch nations, you can but you will lose two full ranks and 20 ranks of crafting. 

 

If your mates join the game and they really want to play as the Dutch but you're already Swedish, you can switch and take the hit, if it is truly worth it you'll get over it and they can help you grind up, yet this would dead stop all the back and forth swapping.

[TheAmerican]

I think that if this plan is to be implemented, then trade should really be revised.

If nation A has overextended their effective capabilities and conquers half the map, nation B should be able to attack their unprotected trade. This can be accomplished in a two step process.

- Further localizing the manufacture of goods to their historical areas. This might keep nation B relevant to trade industry, because they might specialize in goods that no other nation can produce at their current ports. It will also add another dimension to the in game politics, and might even sway the wars.

- Trade should be 100% "tangible" in game. For example, if I want American cotton to be transported down to the Yucatan from the US, then an actual NPC or player ship must sail in OW with the requested goods in its hold. Think of how many enemy traders players casually sail past every day because, "it isn't even worth the fight"! This will allow nation B to send forces to raid what might be largely unprotected trade routes of the overextended nation.

Something like this would help to keep large nations from focusing all available captains in a few small areas, creating what could become the dreaded "steamroll". The smaller nation would be able to concentrate more of its players on its smaller area of influence, keeping them more competitive in the long run of the campaign.

- Another good idea I saw in the thread is civil war. There have been major fallouts of the top clans in some nations already. Maybe a certain group of uneasy players can incite civil war in a nation instead of just re-rolling pirate? This might also help with keeping one massive nation from conquering too quickly. What if clan A wants to ally with a certain nation, but clan B hates said nation.....?

Edited August 4, 2016 by TheAmerican

[TheAmerican]

Also switching nations is far too easy and is being exploited, this affects diplomacy.

If you want to switch nations, you can but you will lose two full ranks and 20 ranks of crafting.

If your mates join the game and they really want to play as the Dutch but you're already Swedish, you can switch and take the hit, if it is truly worth it you'll get over it and they can help you grind up, yet this would dead stop all the back and forth swapping.

Agreed, but I think a player should lose a whole lot more if they turn sides!!

[Fastidius]

YAY!!!   This makes the game a thing...great stuff....hopefully it works effectively because SEASONS is a big boon.  

[Elmarby]

 

Capitals could become capturable. 

If nation have lost all the ports the last county (with capital) will open for capture. Losing the capital will force an alliance with the conquering nation.

 

I cannot readily think of an idea more ill conceived than this. It will invite the larger nations to just snowball out of control. As one nation bites the dust, the nation apparently already pretty powerful enough to pull off such a feat will be made MORE powerful. Gameplay wise that is very short sighted.

 

And worst of all force people to co-operate with rivals they've been fighting for months on end, often without any feigned animosity.

 

DO NOT DO THIS!

[ajffighter86]

I think that if this plan is to be implemented, then trade should really be revised.

If nation A has overextended their effective capabilities and conquers half the map, nation B should be able to attack their unprotected trade. This can be accomplished in a two step process.

- Further localizing the manufacture of goods to their historical areas. This might keep nation B relevant to trade industry, because they might specialize in goods that no other nation can produce at their current ports. It will also add another dimension to the in game politics, and might even sway the wars.

- Trade should be 100% "tangible" in game. For example, if I want American cotton to be transported down to the Yucatan from the US, then an actual NPC or player ship must sail in OW with the requested goods in its hold. Think of how many enemy traders players casually sail past every day because, "it isn't even worth the fight"! This will allow nation B to send forces to raid what might be largely unprotected trade routes of the overextended nation.

Something like this would help to keep large nations from focusing all available captains in a few small areas, creating what could become the dreaded "steamroll". The smaller nation would be able to concentrate more of its players on its smaller area of influence, keeping them more competitive in the long run of the campaign.

- Another good idea I saw in the thread is civil war. There have been major fallouts of the top clans in some nations already. Maybe a certain group of uneasy players can incite civil war in a nation instead of just re-rolling pirate? This might also help with keeping one massive nation from conquering too quickly. What if clan A wants to ally with a certain nation, but clan B hates said nation.....?

 

I really, really like this idea in regard to the trading aspect, at risk of going off topic. It could probably be implemented loosely with the national goods that already exist in the game, and causing multiple types of them to be needed to make certain things, like upgrades, perhaps.

 

Say, to make light canvas, you need: American cotton, Swedish iron (lol, just an example), and French wine (just, use your imagination). So, yeah, to make certain things, you'd actually need materials from different nations, so that going to war with them actually carries some economic penalty.

Edited August 5, 2016 by ajffighter86

[Snoggy]

Prefer to see more freeports, give the pirates options to move around as we watch the world burn.

[Snoggy]

Perhaps new pirate freeports... only useable by pirates? Keep the naughty traders out but lets the pirates raid freely.

[TheAmerican]

I really, really like this idea in regard to the trading aspect, at risk of going off topic. It could probably be implemented loosely with the national goods that already exist in the game, and causing multiple types of them to be needed to make certain things, like upgrades, perhaps.

Say, to make light canvas, you need: American cotton, Swedish iron (lol, just an example), and French wine (just, use your imagination). So, yeah, to make certain things, you'd actually need materials from different nations, so that going to war with them actually carries some economic penalty.

Yeah, I tried not to stray too much from the topic. I guess when it comes to this political gameplay, everything starts to become woven together.

I do like the suggestions though.

[Kanay]

Waiting to see this in action the get a real judgment, but magical free towns spans points still present ....

 

A Nation is able to raise the hostilities into another nation area while themselves are sitting at the other side of the map for them closest owned city and having no allies near the attacked Nation, no allies ports to start from in a 3h sailing time radius ... able to establish shipyards in the free town and produce warships there without even having to sail to bring the materials needed, just using the free towns delivery system sending parts already crafted, this will be a piece of cake for teams ... all this completely safe while at the same time capitals will be able to be captured ... ??!!??

 

 

Free towns should not allow warships production, should not allow warships storage beside pirates that will be the only legitimate ones needing this, for the Nationals it should allow only trader ships to be stored there ( an even this... ) , warships of any Nations could dock for a bit, repair ship but not buy crew, nor being able to buy warships there, not even basic cutters, make an unarmed version of the basic cutter that will be the only thing available for free in those tows + small trader ships, and not able to leave a warship there and teleport, not able to leave a warship there and logout.

 

 

Let's say Sweden have a diplomatic alliance with France and is at war with USA, both having no allies nearby the USA, they will still be able to use free towns to raise the hostilities on the US coasts while US will not have time to raise hostilities back near those 2 attacking countries if they also have to deal with let's say Spanish alone or Spanish + Danes alliance attacking them, or also some pirate s raising them, they will be forced to counter the attacks on them coasts, able to attack Spanish near by, maybe also some Danes areas but would never be able to fight back on all fronts to raise the hostilities against all Nations attacking them, especially since some will be at the other side of the map with no allies around and just using free towns as safe spawn points where they can also produce ships ... The use of free town becomes even more absurd in this new scheme of conquests.

 

 

PS:

- The pve missions at the border of the Nations sounds nice on the paper, but not fair for new of low level players i think .

[Pugwis]

Mission change, woah, so bad idea...

Already boring as hell to do mission concidering the long travel and the AI is alway outnumbering in BR and in numbers, and now, you want to bring some opportunity for gankers to join the battle ?

As a Flag cpt. im playing Flag cpt. fleet order, using a 3rd rate here is the balance:

-Allies: 2x 3rd Rate (including mine), 2x Constitution, 2x Ingermanlan

-Ennemeies: 1x Bellona 2x 3rd Rate, 2x Constitution, 2x Ingermanland

It is even worse if i play post captain fleet order or so, with Frig or Consti, 3 or 4 AI ships outnumber our side.

 

That is also easy to imagine how, even a basic mission order is going to be impossible to accomplish, you, alone VS 2 AI ships + gankers.

 

And you want to bring possibility for players to join easily the opposite side ? Best condition to stop playing, maybe the playerbase is still too big for your taste...

Edited August 5, 2016 by Pugwis

[Sire Trinkof]

Nice changes!

One thing : battle royal would be a cool mechanism IF YOU CAN ENSURE EQUAL NUMBER OF PLAYERS IN NATIONS....

until this, if you keep the current free nation choice, then I am strongly against it, as it will cause some small nation to loose anytime... Which will be frustrating.

[Anolytic]

Those complaining that the total conquest option will definitely lead to the frequent destruction of nations, fail to realise that combined with other planned changes this system will significantly slow down conquest and make conquering a region much more of an effort for a nation. And the regional conquest will add many new levels to strategy, allowing a faction to find their strengths and utilise them to effectively defending their core territory despite having fewer players and fewer 1st rates. Moreover the alliance system will allow allies to help each other out with defence. And if capitals and capital region ports are given special and extra strong fortifications, plus natural barriers with the land in port battles implementation, then a nation can even rally their PvE-ers and crafters to put up a strong defence of their last region even against a significantly more organised nation.

 

I see the same problems as everyone else here, but I think if we test this system those can be identified and fixed within the currently proposed system. 

[Chromey]

Perhaps new pirate freeports... only useable by pirates? Keep the naughty traders out but lets the pirates raid freely.

pirates should not be allowed to craft traders then

[Hethwill]

Still going carefully on the map, seem solid as a wargame board.

 

I am very happy to see that you are seriously considering the rework of economy based upon the regions and goods distribution. Definitely needs that and strategic value.

 

About the Capital, Forcing an Alliance can work. Unlike what has been said there is nothing that forces a defeated nation to change to a new nation.

As I see it, the final battle for the capital region is lost and it triggers immediate Peace. Defeated nation keeps the Capital but is, by peace treaty, unable to continue the war thus being a continuous thorn on the side despite being battered into submission. So a full cycle ( 2 weeks ? ) of no Diplomatic votes versus the conquering nation calling and established Status Quo.

 

Freetowns. I would shuffle them a bit. Cayman Brac to Bone Cay and La Orchila to La Tortuga being the two I see the most needed IMO.

 

Regarding Missions I would always move the missions availability to frontier regions. Meaning the regions with no contact with any other nation would not spawn missions ( similar to what Gibraltar was a while ago ).

 

I see the (P) all over the place. Interesting kickstart of the new map taking they will be at war with the world.