Alliances discussion + Poll

[Suricato Rojo]

British and pirates should be allied.
Historically they have been the same

[Beeekonda]

1 minute ago, Suricato Rojo said:

British and pirates should be allied.
Historically they have been the same

I want to have my own office at KPR like Morgan did 

[Michiel the Ruyter]

My vote: Enforce game rule coalitions. Reasoning: too many nations at war with each other. The current situation is too chaotic. Enforce game rule coalitions is just one of the solutions.

Alternative solution is too reduce the total amount of playable nations, as many people above already suggested.

My point of view: remove all the impossible nations (Russian Empire, Prussia and Polish Commonwealth). This will reduce the total amount of playable nations from eleven (11) to eight (8). 

Not sure about Denmark and Sverige as a nation. Three (3) options:

1. You could keep them as a separate nation (current situation), keeping eight (8) playable nations. 
2. You could merge them into one (1) nation (for example called Nordic or Scandinavian, where Russian Empire could fit into the 'Nordic' description, but obvious not Scandinavian :-) ). 
3. You could remove both nations from the map, reducing playable nations to six (6). 

To keep your game historically accurate, please create/make Elite NPC of the nations you decide to remove. In this way, these nations keep some form of 'presence'. If you decide to remove Denmark and Sverige (going for option three (3)), they should have more Elite NPC's than the impossible nations. Besides Elite NPC, you can also keep spawning regular NPC's of these removed nations from freetowns.

Another point about population: you can enforce game rule population. In the playable nation select screen, you can remove the option to join the nation(s) with the most average active players, calculated with hours active a day. For the sake of the gameplay and the historical accuracy, the treshhold percentage (%) for closing certain nations to join should be variabel to their historically presence.

For example: Great Britain and Spain should have a higher treshhold percentage (%) than Dutch and a way higher treshhold percentage (%) than Denmark and Sverige if you decide to keep them in the game. Assuming you remove the impossible nations, it could be something like this:

Current populations                   - Treshhold percentage (%) of server population

Great Britain 26.86%                  - 25% (should be highest due to most famous Navy in history and also a new player 'easy' nation)

Spain 8.83%                                - 20%

France 10.21%                           - 15%

Pirates 14.52%                           - 15%

Dutch  4.88%                              - 10%

United States 9.15%                  - 10%

Denmark 2.87%                          - 5%

Sverige 8.76%                             - 5%

Russian Empire 9.33%              - Remove from game

Prussia 3.61%                            - Remove from game

Polish Commonwealth 0.97% - Remove from game

                                                     - Total 105%

Edited May 4, 2019 by NOJODU
Layout

[Archaos]

14 hours ago, Tiedemann said:

Forced coalitions or less nation is basically the same. Only difference is that players get to chose their preferred flag. Why deny anyone that choice?

That is not strictly true, I may want to sail under the Prussian flag but have no interest in being allied with Russia, so in this case the game is forcing me to sail alongside people I do not want to sail with (just using this as an example, I have no issues against Russians or any other nation).

If it is just about the flag they prefer then allow them sail with a version of that flag in any nation, but with reduced numbers of nations rather than forced alliances.

[Gregory Rainsborough]

16 minutes ago, Suricato Rojo said:

British and pirates should be allied.
Historically they have been the same

Oof.

To make it interesting, Spain and GB should be allied

[Jecka Puls]

А как по мне было бы круто сделать пользовательские нации, их можно даже внести в DLC.

Заранее извеняюсь за ошибки и непоследовательный текст. Не имею опыта написания больших текстов, ну и конечно он на скорую руку.

Суть идеи.

  НА старте имеется только 5 наций: Британия, Испания, Франция, Португалия и Пираты, Нации разделены на 2 союза(фракции) воюющие между собой Британия-Франция, Испания-Португалия (пример) и отдельно Пираты. Расположение наций соответствует союзам, один союз к примеру находится на северо-западе карты, другой на юго-востоке, Пираты не имеют столицы, но у них раскиданы по всей карте пиратские логова (на примере фри таунов, для других наций их убрать)
Каждый клан в этих нациях может создать свою нацию обьявив революцию за независимость. Для этого надо выполнить определеные условия: захватить столицу региона и 1-2 города рядом с ней; собрать определенное кол-во ресурсов (желательно торговые) для постройки Адмиралтейства (дерево, каменые блоки, еду(кукурузу, пшеницу, свинину, скот и тд), Картахенских столяров и тд.); придумать название для нации не соответствующее реальным (проходит модерацию админа); загрузить флаг нации (проходит модерацию админа); если все пункты выполнены обьявляем революцию при которой надо защитить новую столицу в виде ПБ на стороне защитников, ведь корона возможно захочет вернуть себе обратно бунтующий регион; если все проходит гладко тогда клан распускается и создается нация, которая получает независимость и имунитет 3-7 дней от атак (нейтралитет ко всем) для перегрупировке сил, создание союзов и тд.;
   В этой всей системе уже могут быть реализованы дипломатия, политика, торговля, ведь лидер клана становится основателем и уже сам может решать с кем союзничать, воевать или держать имунитет, но со стартовыми нациями война всегда.
  Дипломатия тоже поделена на пункты:
          Война - неогрониченое кол-во наций с кем можно воевать, в порты к таким нациям нельзя заходить вообще
          Союз - ограничено 2-3 нациями, военых действий нет вообще, торговый налог 10-15% ...
          Нейтралитет - вход в порты только на торговых (как сейчас), торговый налог 15-20% делится на 3 пункта:
                 друг - союзник вашего союзника потопление такого игрока понижает ваш рейтинг в списке нации
                 нейтрал - бонусов и штрафов нет
                 недруг - союзник вашего врага, потопление дает плюшки (к примеру увеличеное получение опыта и реалов, можно добавить мисии...)

У основателя есть возможность создавать приглашение в нацию, которое будут видеть игроки всех стартовых наций в определенном списке. В нем он сможет описать требования к вступлению, правила и тд. Назначать совет(офицеров), у которых будут свои возможности. Основатель и офицеры смогут видеть весь список участников нации, с их рейтингом, информацией их онлайном и тд. Любой человек в нации может создать свой клан и играть в свою игру, но должны помнить что политикой управляет основатель или совет и все действия которые будут во вред нации будут отображаться в таблице рейтинга и вас могут изгнать из нации.

 Сделать ограничение в кол-ве участников в нации 100-200, чтобы небыло возможности создать зерг.

Атаковать столицу такой нации можно только тогда когда все остальные города у нее захвачены. Если столицу захватят нация исчезает и все участники возвращаются в свои стартовые нации.
Ну и так далее...

[Rufus Swipe]

The only thing I thought was bad about the old alliance system, was how the alliances and wars were decided (by player poll). Now that clans own ports, they could vote based on the number of ports they hold.

23 hours ago, admin said:

previous alliances system broke down because humans tend to ally with the strongest which will cause top 3 nations in power to ally and create the unbreakable status quo

Funny but I don't remember that at all. Most of the time it was GB, US and VP versus the rest. I don't remember US and VP being all that strong at the time. At the end there were rumours that VP (or was it US?) would join the other alliance as GB had become too strong. And that is how it should work to provide content. A shifting balance of power leading to perpetual but inconclusive war.

If one nation (11 nations at war) or coalition (4 fixed coalitions at war) conquers most of the map it will be no fun for anyone.

[Thonys]

i think Russia and the Dutch would be a good alliance

 

because i like Vodka / Jus de orange

and perhaps they can build me a good wrecker class..........

[Suricato Rojo]

3 minutes ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:

Oof.

To make it interesting, Spain and GB should be allied

If Spain and GB become allied y change to Tetris.

[redbear]

we really cant talk about historical accuracy when it come to allys off that era and then portend the nation off that time have the same navys power in the game compared to the historical navys the only reason GB was on it own (historical) because it was able to be alone with it greatly more powerful navy. this historical fact will not be show in the game and i do believe if this sys come in to the game it will do more harm to player content and count then most player will no.

but i not just shooting the idea down just this one keep working on some ofter way off allowing something like this.

[Dalai Lama]

These "Coalitions" won't change the relationships some clans across nations have. So if they end up in different Coalitions they are still able to help each other by not helping the coalition or even sabotaging. It looks like another mechanic full of exploits to me and will cause more harm than good in my opinion. 

[Busterbloodvessel]

I can't see the benefit of 'fixed' alliances. Might as well just reduce the number of nations to 5 if you are going to do this. Personally I don't think that would be an improvement.

Buster 

 

 

Edited May 4, 2019 by Busterbloodvessel

[Marques]

19 hours ago, Grundal said:

I like the forced alliances.  They should be dynamic and change over time.  Admin forced story line that changes over time.

Exactly....only if the DEVS rule the game the alliances will work.  So it's better  4 Nations and more small nations.  It´s not possible a Chess game with many nations,

would be better to regulate because sometime in future could be 1000 or 2000 players and the game would be broken if nobody rules the alliances. This game should be controlled and ruled to avoid a disaster and boring system that will never bring more players. If people want current system is because are happy, and them never thinking about raise or increase new players.  plz thinking future and regulate de alliances.

[skantb]

Netherlands were from 1795 to 1813  were under french rule ... During 1776 american independance war they were allied to the French and spanish too . Why put them with France's enemies ?

[nutyperson]

Ive not made an account here because I felt content to just watch and read the posts made but this poll has driven me to make an account, this proposal wants to put 13% of the population, the most organized and hardcore pvp players  in one alliance. in which there is already a 9% of the pop who can at will outclass any other nation (not to mention are using methods that are not available to their Russian nation accounts to get hostility missions to take ports in southern spain. I personally think this would be a disastrous thing to do, I have voted as such and I thank you for your time.

[Kloothommel]

21 minutes ago, skantb said:

Netherlands were from 1795 to 1813  were under french rule ... During 1776 american independance war they were allied to the French and spanish too . Why put them with France's enemies ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Spanish_Succession

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Dutch_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flanders_Campaign

[van der Clam]

9 hours ago, King of Crowns said:

limits on an already limited field. 

Players already limit targets on their own. If devs force over populated nations to fight over populated nations then perhaps it could work.

Edited May 4, 2019 by van der Decken
because i have no idea what i wrote

[LeBoiteux]

30 minutes ago, skantb said:

Netherlands were from 1795 to 1813  were under french rule ... During 1776 american independance war they were allied to the French and spanish too . Why put them with France's enemies ?

6 minutes ago, Kloothommel said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Spanish_Succession

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Dutch_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flanders_Campaign

IRL alliances often changes over time. NA has no strict date. I guess devs focus on balancing the number of players.

[skantb]

36 minutes ago, Kloothommel said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Spanish_Succession

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Dutch_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flanders_Campaign

 

Wrong period komrad, dev was talking about Napoleonic Era alliances  ...

[Capitalism]

Third option: Clan-based Alliances

[Iam Aspy]

Make the game realistic and remove the nations that do not belong.

Edited May 4, 2019 by Iam Aspy
I miss the first part

[Captain2Strong]

There shouldn't be any mechanic that disables the option for a player from nation A to attack a player from nation B, noone needs some weird mechanic to make a 2 or 3 nation alliance, and if one nation decides to backstab another one - so be it - it's not like the backstabbed one can not learn from their mistakes and try to find a better solution next time.
Enforced alliances are just weird and it doesn't mean people would cooperate with each other, because if they don't want to cooperate it means that they will simply avoid doing that, even if they cannot attack each other.

 

On 5/3/2019 at 2:10 PM, Captain Woodpecker said:

No forced coalitions but add Portugal. Remove Poland, Russia and Prussia - their presence in the game is comical.

 

On 5/3/2019 at 1:54 PM, Hethwill said:

Introduce Portugal / as a new option or at the expense of one existing one.

Make Portugal an historical ally of Great Britain.

I don't dislike the system as you present, but not a fan of player made alliances as well.

 

 

On 5/3/2019 at 2:02 PM, Angus MacDuff said:

I voted for keeping 11 10 nations and pirates at war (but I would love to see Portugal instead of Poland!), with the caveat that ALL nations have a capitol and hostility cant drop from free ports.

Well yeah, half of the nations (Denmark, Poland, Prussia, Russia and Sweden) are pretty out of place in the caribbean and it's very weird that their flags were added to
the game instead of some Portugal, which would fit the game better, but hey, what does it change in the game? just the colors of the flag right? and is some flying sock attached to the sail an important part of the game? - well, answer this question yourself

but yeah it's kind of funny that these nations were added to the game - some new player is going to think "WTF???" XD

Edited May 4, 2019 by Captain2Strong

[Lancelot Teggin]

Add Portugal as a faction and remove Poland,Dans,Sveriges and Russia these nations are ridiculous to have around the caribbean 

Edited May 4, 2019 by Lancelot Teggin

[Captain2Strong]

Just now, Lancelot Teggin said:

Add Portugal as a faction and remove Poland and Russia both nations are ridiculous to have around the caribbean 

well I guess it would be better than what we have now, yeah, but what about Denmark, Prussia and Sweden?

[Gregory Rainsborough]

3 hours ago, van der Decken said:

Players already limit targets on their own. If devs force over populated nations to fight over populated nations then perhaps it could work.

Some do, I don't