Improving Conquest, Aliances, and Empire Building in this Game:

[Yar Matey]

Let me start off this proposal by saying that I really hate the new region conquest mechanics and I feel like conquest in this game is happening way too fast.  I would like to propose an Idea to improve the conquest in this game by going back to port capture instead of region capture.  However, in the new port capture proposal, you can only attack ports from ports in your nearby vicinity.

Example 1:  The dutch (in orange on the map) want to expand their empire in that area on the map.  They will have to launch an attack from Fort Baai or Oranjestad.  If they were to attack from Oranjestad, then the only ports within range of launching an attack would Gustavia or Basseterre.  If they launched an attack from Fort Baai, then they would only be able to attack Spanish Town, The Settlement, or Phillipsburg. 

Also, to improve the alliance system to hopefully break the deadlock, lets say the French or Swedish wanted to attack the Spanish ports, they could ally with the Danish and launch attacks on the Spanish ports from the Danish ports in the nearby vicinity.  This would help break up alliances and help new alliances form as nations figure out ways to expand where they want to expand by working with allies.  For example, if the Swedes were allied with the Danish, they could pull a flag from Cabo-Rojo and attack Arecibo or Higuey. 

I know that from a coding perspective, that having different terrain and adding circles for capture regions for each port can be a daunting task for the developers, but if need be, just use a preset map type for most of the ports, that way you only need a handful of different map types for conquest. 

Also, for alliance voting, each nation can only have 1 ally, but nations that have more ally votes than war votes will become neutral and players of neutral nations can attack each other, but not attack their ports. However, for neutrality be be established, both nations will need to have more ally votes than war votes, or the nations will stay at war. 

Edited February 10, 2017 by Yar Matey

[Jean Ribault]

What I do like about this proposal is that I believe it will produce the effect you want, of slowed conquest progression.  I think that would get accomplished, not sure how much exactly but it is likely.

What I'm not so sure about is whether I like the limitations it imposes on surprises and hidden agendas.  We sort of have that now, and we can go wherever we want whenever we want.  In your proposal, France would never have been able to claim the Texas region as we did a while back (even though we were not able to sustain it).  Part of conquest, or just war strategy, is the element of surprise, so maybe we lose a little there?

I do agree that moving away from region only conquest may be good.  There have been several suggestions or proposals on conquest that included all the ports in regions, or more ports, or some variation of that.  I would like to go there.  Your proposal sort of goes that way by making conquest by port.

Questions:

What about regional bonuses?  Do they now get shared, or do they go away?

What about free ports?  Can you not launch an attack from a free port?  You didn't say either way.  But if yes, then it changes your dynamics, because now you can jump across the map (say, France to Texas again e.g.), and also it makes us less reliant on our allies or not in need of them at all if we adopt our free ports strategically.

Overall, maybe a nice shift in conquest thinking.

[Yar Matey]

33 minutes ago, Jean Ribault said:

What I'm not so sure about is whether I like the limitations it imposes on surprises and hidden agendas.  We sort of have that now, and we can go wherever we want whenever we want.  In your proposal, France would never have been able to claim the Texas region as we did a while back (even though we were not able to sustain it).  Part of conquest, or just war strategy, is the element of surprise, so maybe we lose a little there?

Questions:

What about regional bonuses?  Do they now get shared, or do they go away?

What about free ports?  Can you not launch an attack from a free port?  You didn't say either way.  But if yes, then it changes your dynamics, because now you can jump across the map (say, France to Texas again e.g.), and also it makes us less reliant on our allies or not in need of them at all if we adopt our free ports strategically.

Overall, maybe a nice shift in conquest thinking.

Hey thanks for giving some thought to my proposal. 

On your first concern, I like surprises and hidden agendas.  Players should be doing what is in the best interest of their nation first and foremost.  Also, If France wanted to start claiming Texas, then they would need to make a deal with a nation that owns the ports in that area so they can become allies and start launching attacks from allied ports.  Remember, the idea of the proposal is to try and break up alliances and make new alliances form.  I would like to see a game world where the political situation is constantly shifting.

For example:  If the Danes are allied with the French and the Danes are using French ports to launch attacks on another nation but keep failing to capture a port they need to launch further attacks, and the French are getting antsy to start pushing into Texas and they need to Break the Danish Alliance and form an Alliance with the United States to do so, then the Danes will not be happy with the French, and we will have a constantly shifting political situation.  

Maybe you missed it but allies can launch attacks from other allies ports.

Question 1:  I hate regional bonuses, and I wish they were never implemented, but if we are stuck with a game world that uses them, then crafted materials in that specific region should be used instead of needing to craft a ship in a specific region.  Example:  Pirate refit bonus would require 100 doubloon's to craft.  or Strong hull would require live oak reinforcement parts, only these reinforcement parts and doubloons could only be crafted in a specific region. 

Question 2:  Attacks cannot be launched from free ports. 

Edited February 10, 2017 by Yar Matey

[Aventador]

On 2/10/2017 at 2:39 PM, Yar Matey said:

Let me start off this proposal by saying that I really hate the new region conquest mechanics and I feel like conquest in this game is happening way too fast.  I would like to propose an Idea to improve the conquest in this game by going back to port capture instead of region capture.  However, in the new port capture proposal, you can only attack ports from ports in your nearby vicinity.

I agree completely. If they keep the current hostility system but reincorporate flags somehow and make it so it's a 1 port capture instead of an entire region etc...