Naval action Fleets maxi capacity

[Celtiberofrog]

NAVAL ACTION: Fleets capacity rules & conditions for Nations

(Numbers are only examples, to be assessed).

 

Standard	4th rate	3rd rate	2nd rate	1rst rate
Nation maxi number	60 units	50 units	30 units	20 units
Clan maxi number	10 units	8 units	6 units	4 units
Beyond standard	Extra 4th rate	Extra 3rd rate	Extra 2nd rate	Extra 1rst rate
Nation maxi number	Extra unit = +50% unit cost	60,00%	70,00%	80,00%
Clan maxi number	Nation effect	Nation effect	Nation effect	Nation effect

 

Each of the current eleven Nations have same capacity settings.

 

By limitating the number of « expensive » ships per Nations and per clans, it is expected to push for a more balanced RvR theater.

 

It will normally spread players among every Nations. It might increase the number of clans.

 

To avoid ZERG effect, any clan will have only 1 (one) ally allowed at a time.

That feature might offer PB's opportunities with less heavy ships and with more ships diversity. Screening will remain an important National strategical step while PB's will become a 2V2 (maxi) clans battle with above ships restrictions.

 

 

Maybe a wrong suggestion, but your feedback is always appreciated.

 

 

Edited August 19, 2019 by Celtiberofrog

[Sea Archer]

Limiting the number of ships per nation will make many unhappy. To encourage people to use other ships it would be better to define the ships that can be used for a certain purpose. 

Some port battles: belle poule or lower, raising hostility: cerberus or lower,

Shall differ from port to port, and might be set by the port owner.

[Hethwill]

36 minutes ago, Sea Archer said:

Limiting the number of ships per nation will make many unhappy. To encourage people to use other ships it would be better to define the ships that can be used for a certain purpose. 

Some port battles: belle poule or lower, raising hostility: cerberus or lower,

Shall differ from port to port, and might be set by the port owner.

That's a interesting approach, as a genesis. All in all we can go through the ship for the task design but odds will never be kind.

A small group can take their 10 Cerberus, a bigger will take 30.

We see that now. A big group can hostility and deploy hostility mission screens. Small group can do jack...

There's zero asymmetry opportunities, say like there was in ol'patch 10. Eco was different and somehow linked correctly to world events - smaller nations could paralyse a bigger one production line - but also wasn't clan versus clan as it is today.

Any limitations, as the game rules stand now as today, will only reduce smaller groups capabilities while not affecting the bigger ones at all. It is a mathematical certainty.

But then, and i know i sound terribly romantic when i talk about patch 10, when a convoy of ship building parts was raided and some folk lost two weeks worth of resources and labour hours  the outcry was so big that game rules had to be changed to less hardcore options which favours a "blue versus reds" type of game setup.

I don't mind the road to that scenario. It is how we, the players, adjust to certain game rules and accommodate ourselves to the bigger game.

But I like your way of thinking. Worth working it more for a game base scenario where there is no odds and every player can bring whatever they want to the table.

 

[Snoopy]

This is far too draconic and doesn't scale with server population. Who will decide who gets to sail a first rate? How are the optics for a new player to be told 'no, you can't have one'.
It's far easier to reintroduce PB BR limits again to liven up the meta. Almost nobody wants to sail full stack first rate fleets, but that's what the meta is, and thats what ppl will do.

[Sir Loorkon]

I like the idea refering to the realism. The clan size should matter more in your suggestion. But I guess it will not work at all with the current mechanics for two reasons. First of all a lot of players love to sail 1st rates and limiting them might lead to many players to leave the game. Second  - and that is only my personal opinion - the game in its current state needs the option for large 1st rate battles because the skill needed to sail a first rate is much lower than the skill needed to sail a 5th rate. So if RvR should be the end game content and everybody should be able to participate, you need the first rates as „skill equalizers“. Btw. do not missunderstand me, I do not like the current RvR mechanics, esp. the high BR in port battles, the time consuming hostility, the huge advantage of the huge nations, but if they stay, unlimmited first rates are (sadly) needed.

Edited August 19, 2019 by Sir Loorkon

[Teutonic]

Lets say a nation is constantly below the "max" number.

 

what's to stop a nation that is above their max limit from creating or purchasing ships for cheap from a nation that that stays below the max number? I suppose it could create a market though.

[Angus MacDuff]

^^Yeah, the majority of the player base buys this game IOT sail the big boys and rip off those massive broadsides.  I can't see us limiting the amount or type of ships that we can own.  The logical solution (as has been constantly recommended) is to change the BR limits of the ports and/or place limits of the types of ships allowed in a PB.

[Captain2Strong]

very bad idea, I don't want the amount of my ships to be determined by some plebs

[Hethwill]

Realism tells that cost of construction + cost of operation is the deciding factor of numbers of ships in any given nation.

( alas now is clan vs clan... )

We have cost of construction in game. It is on a acceptable form, by general consensus.

We do not have to refit and equip for operations at all  ( for more information refer to operation costs of ships of the line and cruise frigates during the age of sail ).

Say, what would be costly: to equip a cruise frigate to go hunt a enemy frigate, say HMS Phoebe to go and hunt the Essex or to pay the cost of a HMS Minotaur to do the same job ?

That would be too draconian as some put it but is the most deciding factor IRL.

 

[Vernon Merrill]

The fact is that everyone is used to being able to have everything they want in the game.... 

Unfortunately (in my opinion), I believe its probably too late to re-introduce the concept of scarcity and austerity.

But yes, I too miss the days of patch 10 and actually being able to wage warfare in ways other than fighting AI to flip a port and one port battle that rarely actually ends up in a good fight.

Apparently, its just much easier to quit or switch over to the winning side at the first whiff of defeat.

[Gregory Rainsborough]

43 minutes ago, Vernon Merrill said:

Apparently, its just much easier to quit or switch over to the winning side at the first whiff of defeat.

Forger Papers was a bad idea.

[Papillon]

22 minutes ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:

Forger Papers was a bad idea.

Agreed.

[Guest]

39 minutes ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:

Forger Papers was a bad idea.

true, looking back at it GL would earn much more if they took 10$ or something for each nation transfer, and it would be much more healthier for the game