Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Sign in to follow this  
ICE_MAN

Realm vs Realm / Faction warfare

Recommended Posts

Couldn't find anything on this topic so here goes:

 

Realm vs Realm is the ultimate endgame, the part of the game that keeps max level / gear players engaged beyond the levelling grind thus giving the game itself longevity, benefitting players and publishers alike.

 

What is good RvR?

Good RvR has a number of attractions to individuals, groups, guilds and the factions itself, in the form of rewards for success, examples:

 

Individual: Reputation points which could be used for allowing players access to the highest tier of ships (3rd, 2nd and first rates). These could degrade naturally over time, mothballing those ships if a certain threshold is reached thus necessitating continuous RvR participation.

 

Guilds: Conquests of cities/buildings/ports/natural resources, which could then be upgraded with fortifications, additional economy/crafting buildings, etc.

 

Factions/nations: Access to newly conquered resources / ports. Conquest of specific hotspots may yield additional bonuses, for example holding Tenochtitlan, the Aztec capital, could give a 5% bonus to money earning for that nation.

 

Examples of Excellent RvR:

 

Dark Age of Camelot - Each faction had a large territory where other factions could not enter, and a large area where everyone could enter though with one unconquerable keep in there. Guilds could claim smaller keeps throughout the RvR zone and upgrade their defences, and those keeps had crafting facilities. Each faction had a particularly well defended keep with a bonus-conferring artifact in it, which could be conquered only at great difficulty.

RvR was always active and generally great fun. Individuals would earn realm points by being in RvR which could be spent on permanent character bonuses.

Lastly, there was one free-for-all high-xp gain dungeon with 3-way RvR. People would go there to gain experience and loot but with the risk of PvP - this also took place in the RvR zones themselves.

 

 

Pirates of the Burning Sea had very good RvR, the flipping of ports and port battles were good, and in particular the interaction with the economics of the game were well implemented. Drawbacks included too many silly rules around the flipping of ports, too much of the map where RvR/PvP was impossible, too many complicated rules about which enemies could be engaged on the open sea, and worst of all:

Limiting port battles to 24v24. DAoC on the other hand allowed unlimited numbers of players in any RvR engagement, making coordination a pain! (we didn't have teamspeak back then).

 

What am I really suggesting here then?

I'll draw up the concept here, there is a wealth of more detail in my head, in particular interaction with the game economics are quite intricate:

 

1) Playable nations - need at least 3 (France, Spain, Great Britain). Should consider Portugal, Holland, Sweden, Denmark-Norway, Russia, maybe the Ottoman Empire and possibly one of the Eastern nations (China? Korea?)

 

2) NPC nations - not sure this is needed but one could have merchant ships from smaller ocean going nations that are not playable - need to be careful they don't just become Inanimate Objects of Grinding Desire TM.

 

3) Diplomacy - nations need to be able to be in one of 3 states with each other;

Peace - no hostile actions

Hostile - privateering will occur

War - obvious isn't it?

The changes in stance could be based on actions taken by a nations captains on the open sea - a kind of relationship points system, or nations could have an elected leader from the major guilds/alliances. Personally I favour the former as it encourages diplomatic activities across the nations and adds an element of direction caused by cooperation, whereas a person with a title of 'King' might just aggravate people and cause internal strife.

 

4) RvR objectives

Holding key ports and objectives while some are unconquerable.

Great Britain for example would have London and Chatham wharf as unconquerable, whereas most of their Caribbean and Indian ports could be conquerable. Maybe New York is unconquerable, being the HQ in north america, same for Port Royal. You get the point.

Guilds could be able to found their own cities, upgrading the defensive and economic capability. If these are not marked on the map, that in itself prevents most direct griefing, and allows contribution to the economy and individuals' purses.

Guilds could also conquer ports, making them their own and investing in the upkeep and improvement of defences, economy, etc.

 

5) Reputation

As outlined above, taking successful RvR actions should earn you Reputation points. these points will degrade when you are online, so in order to keep at a certain level, ongoing activity is needed.

One could consider constant rewards earning like being in a guild that owns a port in RvR territory, but balancing is needed to ensure that RvR activity is absolutely needed to maintain a high level of points (who says the degradation of points is linear?).

Reputation points could then be spent with the admiralty to get a commission on the 3rd, 2nd and 1st rates - all other ships should be purchasable by other means.

As mentioned if you don't have enough Reputation to own a ship, it will be mothballed until such time as you again have enough points.

Reputation points could come from defeating player ships, conquering convoys from enemy nations, patrolling or privateering missions, etc.

 

6) Conquest of ports

Taking inspiration from Pirates of the Burning Sea here, a dedicated port battle may be the way to go, though I am more in favour of it being more spontaneous and directly linked to the time at which you actually 'flip' the port rather than scheduled. However there must be enough reaction time for the defending part to assemble a flotilla to counterattack / defend the port. Also, the numbers limit should be closer to 100v100 rather than 24v24.

In order to prevent night flipping and griefing, the battle lighting should be set to the correct time of day and things like reefs and limited visibility should ensure that any fleet attacking a port at night will have a bad time.

The defending side should have assistance from the port batteries, as well as possibly a favourable positioning. Wind gauge should be (almost?) guaranteed to the defending side.

 

7) Pirates and Privateering

Consider a Pirate nation that is not a nation as such but is constantly at war with everyone, limited range of ships but possibly more experienced/ruthless crew in general? Maybe an open sea speed bonus.

Alternatively consider all Pirates Privateers, thus being a member of a nation, but able to attack Hostile nations with no penalty to Relationship and Peace nations with some penalty. Then the nation itself needs to sort out its privateers if it wants to stay at peace. This also allows for a distinction between a Privateer (generally attacks War and Hostile nations) and Pirate (attacks any nation).

 

That's enough writing for one post....

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elaboration on the diplomatic state between nations:

The natural state between nations is Peace.

 

As hostile actions are taken against another nation, Hostility Points are accumulated. 

Once a certain threshold is reached, the state goes to Hostile, allowing extended privateering type activity.

Once the highest threshold is reached, a state of all-out war is declared.

 

The Hostility Points will degrade at a variable rate, depending on the duration of the war and the number of losses incurred by either side (ports, settlements, ships, convoys). The higher the losses / duration the higher the degradation of points. Once the points drop down below the War threshold, a peace treaty is enacted, resetting the Hostility Points and forcing a (5-10) day peace. This way, war have a defined way of starting and ending based on player actions, and the duration is limited by War Fatigue accelerating the loss of Hostility Points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elaboration on conquerable vs. non-conquerable territories:

 

A nation's original Old World territory is unconquerable

for each region, one national capital will be unconquerable, a region being i.e. the Carribbean, North America, SE Asia, Middle East, Pacific, Sub Saharan Africa, south America, Latin America.

everything is conquerable, including guild-founded settlements.

 

An example: For Great Britain the following would be unconquerable: England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, New York, Port Royal, Calcutta (?), Sydney (?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing colonial wars would be nice.  Generally naval invasions of other great power's "home turf" did not go well, at least until the Napoleonic period when they saw some minor success.  Nations simply didn't have the logistical capacity to ship an 18th century army overseas without local support (the reason the Russians managed some success in Italy, they had the support of the locals.) 

 

Overseas, though, there was the possiblity for territorial change.  I think that having a 'world map' with various powers holding onto certain colonial hotspots would be a fun mechanic.  Players could ship troops and equipment to those areas on government contracts to help capture them.  If a land war developes in Europe, then the amount of troops would decrease and all sorts of economic fun would occur.

 

I would say that only home territories should be unconquerable.  The UK would only get the British isles as its 'guarunteed' turf, which would lead to fun situations like Dutch Quebec and Russian New York and so forth.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that only home territories should be unconquerable.  The UK would only get the British isles as its 'guarunteed' turf, which would lead to fun situations like Dutch Quebec and Russian New York and so forth.

 

In principle I would agree with this, however when I suggested the regional capitals be unconquerable that was mostly a mechanic to avoid a nation being trampled to the ground, losing any foothold in an entire region, destroying that nation's economy there and creating an immense barrier to re-entry.

Artificial and illogical from a realism perspective? Yes.

Necessary for everyones gameplay enjoyment? I believe so.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some very good ideas here, IMO.  It IS based upon Pirates of the Burning Sea for some of this stuff.  So, perhaps this topic will help with the total annihilation issues you were talking about with RvR?:

 

Real World Map or Not?

 

Basically all nations would be represented on a Real World Europe.  The benefit to this, is that this part of the map would be a no-hostility map portion, where all the capital cities would be.

 

The other portion of the map in the suggestion would be fantasy-based map of equal opportunity for all players.  These portions of the map would be where the RvR would happen.  The actions here would affect trade routes and diplomacy between the fantasy RvR map, and the Real World European capital cities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there should be any places where hostility is outright banned, at least, outside of some ports.

 

Rather, I think a bounty system and the national navy's presence should be what discourages people from violence.  Players themselves should have an interest in keeping the local economy functioning, and if, say, Rotterdam gets a rep as a port where people just let merchant ships be sunk within view of the harbor, then those merchants are going to go somewhere else.

 

Intra-European (and piracy) was an important part of the economy and warfare in this period, as demonstrated by Napoleon's attempted blockade of the UK.  It simply didn't work because hardly anybody was willing to stop trading completely with the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there should be any places where hostility is outright banned, at least, outside of some ports.

 

Rather, I think a bounty system and the national navy's presence should be what discourages people from violence.  Players themselves should have an interest in keeping the local economy functioning, and if, say, Rotterdam gets a rep as a port where people just let merchant ships be sunk within view of the harbor, then those merchants are going to go somewhere else.

 

Intra-European (and piracy) was an important part of the economy and warfare in this period, as demonstrated by Napoleon's attempted blockade of the UK.  It simply didn't work because hardly anybody was willing to stop trading completely with the UK.

 

The closer you are to a nation's capital, the more likely you are to run into CONCORD. ;) Excuse the EVE reference, but you are correct. I think combat should be allowed in all areas accept undisputed ports and nations capitals. If you want to run a raid on a player owned port you can, but that will notify the society that owns it, and you may find them to be rather unimpressed with your actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The closer you are to a nation's capital, the more likely you are to run into CONCORD. ;) Excuse the EVE reference, but you are correct. I think combat should be allowed in all areas accept undisputed ports and nations capitals. If you want to run a raid on a player owned port you can, but that will notify the society that owns it, and you may find them to be rather unimpressed with your actions.

 

For realism reasons I would agree.

 

From a point of view of building and retaining a large, live and dynamic population one has to consider very carefully how to protect the new players, preventing seal clubbing, and gradually expose newer players to the full reality of the harshness of the open sea. The notion of having (high level) patrolling ships attacking seal clubbers in certain areas is preferable over having areas where certain levels or nations cannot sail their ships. However the patrolling ships need to be really tough so as to deter flotillas or fleets of seal clubbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For realism reasons I would agree.

 

From a point of view of building and retaining a large, live and dynamic population one has to consider very carefully how to protect the new players, preventing seal clubbing, and gradually expose newer players to the full reality of the harshness of the open sea. The notion of having (high level) patrolling ships attacking seal clubbers in certain areas is preferable over having areas where certain levels or nations cannot sail their ships. However the patrolling ships need to be really tough so as to deter flotillas or fleets of seal clubbers.

 

Personally speaking, if I was in a brig, and I ran across a fleet of five ships of the line escorted by a number of Frigates and corvettes, I would turn around and run as fast as my little sails could take me.

 

One way of making a security force is to overpower the ships. For example...

 

NPC Coastguard: 3 first rate, 5 second rate, 5 fourth rate, 2 corvette

NPC Coastguard: 50% bonus to damage, accuracy, reload speed, ship acceleration and maneuverability

 

However I don't think this will work on it's own. Sooner or later people will ask themselves 'can a big enough fleet win' and at that point things will only go downhill.

 

I think the best way of doing it is to create a fleet of normal NPC's, but give the person who fights them no reward for destroying any of them. No crew XP, no loot, no nothing. If you don't get reward, why fight them? Furthermore, for every NPC ship destroyed, a new one is automatically spawned in to take it's place. Call it reinforcements if you like.

 

NPC Coastguard: 5 first rates, 5 second rates, 6 fourth rates, 6 fifth rates, 3 sixth rates

NPC Coastguard: +1 respawn per defeated ship

 

I think this is much more likely to work, however you could go one step further and combine the two. Smaller fleets make it look more realistic to the outside observer (very rarely did a fleet of 15-20 line of battleships go out for a cruise, if ever), however if you are attacked by them, then theres no chance of survival.

 

NPC Coastguard: 1 first rate, 3 second rate, 3 fourth rate, 3 corvette

NPC Coastguard: 50% bonus to damage, accuracy, reload speed, ship acceleration and maneuverability, +1 respawn per defeated ship

 

Also, I think NPC ports should be in Europe while player owned ports are elsewhere in the world, aside from perhaps one NPC 'capital' per nation per area (West Indy's, South America, Med, etc) where these NPC coastguard fleets would be found. Port Royal for example.

 

In Europe, as Europe is the starting point for new players coastguard fleets should have a territory to patrol, or be able to roam out to a certain distance from that nations shores. The further you are from the nations capital, the less likely one of these coastguard fleets will spawn. Coastguard fleets will chase enemies until the enemy is dead, or out of the coastguards patrolled territory.

 

Any thoughts?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The no loot/xp mechanic is a great idea!

 

On the ships numbers, a bit of historical realism will be necessary. The Royal Navy never had more than a few 1st rate ships in service at any given time, same goes for the other major naval nations. 1-2 of these would be in the Home Fleet.

 

A good mechanic could be a rapidly escalating intervention in seal clubbing by the National Navy. Initially, seal clubbers would be fighting a coast guard of some coastal patrol vessels and maybe a few frigates at most, however each seal clubbing activity would prompt the admiralty to send both nearby coast guards and eventually the Home Fleet towards the protected areas and keep it there for a good while.

 

Can you imagine clubbing seals at Dover and all of a sudden the HMS Victory, 5 2nd rates, 10 3rds and a mass of frigates descend on the area, taking anyone out who has a bad rep with Great Britain? Then ofc marry that up with your mentioned bonuses and respawn mechanic.

 

/Ice

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frigates generally weren't that common, from what I've seen.  They tended to be independent and seldom appear to have been massed.

 

I'd suggest that, in addition to a potential response by patrolling naval ships, gaining a 'reputation' for attacking new players will lead to increasing harassment by frigate forces (just one or two at a time, not a whole fleet,) no matter where the player is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frigates were extremely common. They did everything. They were rarely massed together because the whole point was to be independent. In areas not controlled by real battlefleets, temporary squadrons of frigates were not uncommon. In the Royal Navay, one captain might be appointed commodore to lead the,.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The no loot/xp mechanic is a great idea!

 

On the ships numbers, a bit of historical realism will be necessary. The Royal Navy never had more than a few 1st rate ships in service at any given time, same goes for the other major naval nations. 1-2 of these would be in the Home Fleet.

 

A good mechanic could be a rapidly escalating intervention in seal clubbing by the National Navy. Initially, seal clubbers would be fighting a coast guard of some coastal patrol vessels and maybe a few frigates at most, however each seal clubbing activity would prompt the admiralty to send both nearby coast guards and eventually the Home Fleet towards the protected areas and keep it there for a good while.

 

Can you imagine clubbing seals at Dover and all of a sudden the HMS Victory, 5 2nd rates, 10 3rds and a mass of frigates descend on the area, taking anyone out who has a bad rep with Great Britain? Then ofc marry that up with your mentioned bonuses and respawn mechanic.

 

/Ice

 

My only concern is how does an NPC fleet know 'seal clubbing' is taking place? If the fleets aren't out at sea already patrolling their territory actively on the look-out for enemies of the nation, I don't see any way to make an escalation type of security work. Do you have any ideas?

 

I personally like the idea of patrolling fleets with the bonuses and +1 respawn I mentioned above, as it makes coding and implementation easier for the developers. You could have the respawn doubled, so for every ship killed, two more take it's place, which means there is no fleet large enough to take on the coastguard fleet. Eventually you will perish, though it would be somewhat unrealistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends what you mean.

 

In game coding terms, basically detect when someone of level X or lower is being attacked by level Y or higher in area Z.

 

In logical terms, someone in the nearby harbour would observe the action, alert the coast guard and for repeated clubbing send a horse or light signal to other naval stations.

 

Clearer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends what you mean.

 

In game coding terms, basically detect when someone of level X or lower is being attacked by level Y or higher in area Z.

 

In logical terms, someone in the nearby harbour would observe the action, alert the coast guard and for repeated clubbing send a horse or light signal to other naval stations.

 

Clearer?

 

That could work. It would mean that the further you are from a nations capital, the longer it would take for help to arrive. Are the developers going to be adding levels? I can never remember. And what if (for some really strange reason) an English brig attacked a French heavy Frigate in English territorial waters. Would the coastguard still be triggered, or would the little English Brig be on it's own to fight for glory? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Level / size of ship / some other counter.

I envision these zones would be only around home nation ports - maybe a few in the new world - basically n00b areas for levelling new players etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Level / size of ship / some other counter.

I envision these zones would be only around home nation ports - maybe a few in the new world - basically n00b areas for levelling new players etc.

 

Thats about what I envision as well. As I play over your suggestion on my mind, I find it growing on me quite rapidly. Just a rundown to make sure I understand it as you do.

 

Each nation has a capital and a number of smaller NPC ports (for the sake of missioning) in Europe. Each nation also has a capital in each region of the map. Surrounding the capital and NPC ports are national waters. Waters under the protection from 'coastguard' fleets comprised of 3-4 ships of the line and a number of frigates. These 'coastguard' fleets spawn in the nations capital when triggered, and move on the open sea to rendezvous with their target and destroy it.

 

A 'coastguard' fleet will be triggered by an enemy of the nation attacking allied players (not NPC's) in territorial waters. Once triggered, the 'coastguard' fleet with move on the open sea until in rage to join the combat instance, or to initiate one with it's target. Once engaged, the fleet will not stop attacking until the target is dead, or it has escaped territorial waters. Targets can fight back, however no reward will be given to the player for fighting or destroying 'coastguard' ships.

 

'Coastguard' ships are buffed to aid in their defensive duties. 50% bonuses to damage, accuracy, speed and manoeuvrability. For every 'coastguard' ship destroyed, two identical reinforcements are instantly spawned in to take it's place. Once the target has been destroyed (or escaped) the fleet will return to it's nations capital, where it will despawn. Multiple 'coastguard' fleets can be spawned if multiple friendly players are under attack in national waters.

 

My only issue is to trigger a 'coastguard' fleet, an enemy must be attacking a friendly, which kind of defeats the purpose of having the fleet if the friendly is destroyed before the fleet can get there. :\

 

Did I forget anything? :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really enjoying this thread, interesting and largely coherent ideas makes for some compelling stuff :) Thanks to all responsible so far. If you'll forgive my not getting involved, I've got a slightly alternative vision I'd like to share that might stir things up a little more than just my thoughts on the ideas being discussed above.

Funilly enough, it's kinda rooted in a pretty close representation of the real world...!

We know that the starting map is the English Channel, and despite that very exciting collection of flags we've been shown, for now I'm going to restrict this vision to this area, my preferred time for this game (first quarter of the 19th C as a ballpark), and just to Great Britain and France. To make up for all those restrictions I'm going to talk about more than just RvR. Sorry :)

Real world things I'd like to mention: territory on land is not gained by navies. Neither country invaded the other. The battle, the RvR, was not about conquest, but about control and the freedom of movement that gives. Not every captain sailed a SoL.

So, the map would consist of a beautiful Channel. Key features would be the naval bases at Chatham, Portsmouth and Devonport (Plymouth), Calais, Cherbourg and Brest. No laughing at the back. Trading hubs might be London and Southampton, Le Havre and St Malo for example. New players start our at one of these, career depending. All (apart from Chatham, shhh) are, or are just upriver from, some of the best natural harbours in the world. Which is handy, cos this is where you as a new player are going to conduct your sail trials or whatever the tutorial/learning period ends up being. Sheltered and well protected by forts and resident warships, this is your safe place.

But this is Cochrane Sails Again! not Carry On Boating, so you head out into the wider world when the time is right. In Baggy-VisionTM your reason for this is your first mission and first command are assigned to you by the Admiralty, or your merchantman has been chartered by a merchant to get stuff from A to B. So far so nothing to do with RvR, but hopefully this is effective scene setting for the kind of not-very-gamey game I'd like NA to be if it was just for me.

The meta-mechanics I have in my head are sketched out here and revolve around national diplomacy:

- friendly: navy gets a lot of housework done (training, those exams that have been mentioned, maybe some sort of hydrographic/cartographic minigame, small boats most common commands, but harbour defense etc means there will still be a couple of big ships about if captains want them, there just won't be much to do). Bit of smuggling, bit of customs work. Merchants and civilian economy flourish. Shipwrights deal with high demand for merchantmen. Taxes swell Admiralty coffers.

- Hostile: Navy inshore and offshore patrols, preparations for next diplomatic stage, frigates become most common commands, up to 3rd rates more common. Control of tactical fleet positions and area denial general mission criteria. Trade cancelled with offending nation, smuggling rife, customs force becomes potent giving those who'd rather command cutters and luggers something to do. Civilian economy winds down, merchants and shipwrights start to gear up for war, fuelled by Admiralty demand for warships, coffers start to be dipped into.

- At war! Navy in full badass mode with frigate and small vessel offensive cruises, defensive patrols and full fleets potentially taking to the seas to assert control and give battle. Smuggling reduced volume,but higher rewards. Customs force to match. Merchants and shipwrights flatout to build and maintain a superior fleet.Admiralty still controlling commands assigned, orders given, and warship requirements. Sadly running out of money as spend on warships outpaces dwindling tax income.

First country to run out of money loses basically. Peace treaty signed, winner pays out damages, effectively a map reset. Off you go again.

I envisage diplomatic status to be set by player/dev/NPC run/monitored Admiralty, but strongly influenced (read 'can be forced') by player action. I'd like it so no artificial constraints were placed on player action other than raiding those main ports listed at the start...... Other harbours totally up for destruction and damage by raids, but not capture. Such raids would obviously be financially advantageous to the winner and painful for the loser. Options of cutting out if you're stealthy or forcing an aggressor to surrender would yield those vessels as prizes if successful. I think it would be neatest if these ports were run by the head of a merchant guild, who could build facilities and infrastructure, and provide a home to shipwrights (vessels available for construction to match the geography and facilities of the harbour). Shipwrights could also work for the Admiralty direct at one of the main ports. ...anyway.... So you, a bored naval captain could turn privateer and have a crack at he other nation's merchant shipping and spark a war...or you could be disowned by your flag state, branded a pirate and be hunted by everyone. Communication and cohesion are the aims here. A free open world where anything is possible, but where not everything is a good idea is what I'd like to see.

It should be possible to de-escalate situations as well as escalate them - if you don't have the fleet or the funds to offer a fight then ts not only ill advised but barely possible to enter into a war. A better option would be go for peace, wage commercial war to bump up your funds faster than your opponent and then be ready when things next turn sour.

So, my vision of RvR is all about area control and trade.l, trying to cause financial ruin. If the enemy dominates your tradelanes and blockades your ports there will be no flow of goods. This means no tax income for your nation, and no materials for vessel construction. So you try to do the same to them, and destroy their fleets in the process. Simples.

Obviously, as they're all from my fevered brain, I see this working quite nicely with my ideas of vessel acquisition, how to deal with prizes, actions on sinking/capture etc as detailed elsewhere.

So yeah, that's me. Not very gamey I know, but a little different, hopefully interesting as an alternative approach. More details available if desired. What do you reckon?

Baggy

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guerre de course, whoever runs out of merchant vessels and tax revenue first loses... great idea. It's not as dramatic as POTBS conquest, but much more historically inspired and well-suited to MMO mechanics. Suddenlly merchant captains and privateers are of equal importance when fulfilling their natural roles.

 

If the game expands to the Carribean, then we can see some island grabbing.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, it's not, but you still get 'port battles' in the blockades if the enemy comes out to break it and the extra option of sneaky cutting out expeditions and port raids. Map-wide offensive PvP and PvE matched with defensive PvP. I think every kind of captain has a meaningful role, and even those who don't want to sail but like the period economic stuff or strategy have roles as 'harbour masters' or in the Admiralty. Mostly it's a slightly more naturalistic approach to making the economy central without having individual players buying warships!

Here's to anti-piracy in the Med and colonial expansiea in the Indies!

Baggy

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, it's not, but you still get 'port battles' in the blockades if the enemy comes out to break it and the extra option of sneaky cutting out expeditions and port raids. Map-wide offensive PvP and PvE matched with defensive PvP. I think every kind of captain has a meaningful role, and even those who don't want to sail but like the period economic stuff or strategy have roles as 'harbour masters' or in the Admiralty. Mostly it's a slightly more naturalistic approach to making the economy central without having individual players buying warships!

Here's to anti-piracy in the Med and colonial expansiea in the Indies!

Baggy

 

I really like whats been suggested by you both (Maturin and Baggy.) The more realistic approach to this games open world combat will undoubtedly appeal to the history buffs. +1!

 

And I'll join you in that toast Baggy!  :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just pointing out one little thing:

The Royal Navy was not funded solely by tax income, or customs duties.

Great Britain had an innovation called the Bank of England that would loan money from the general population at a certain interest rate, thereby furnishing the nation with a near-endless stream of money. Great Britain was never, to my recollection, brought to anything near a shortage of money during the 17th century.

 

Therefore using the monetary system as an indicator for ending wars would not really work here. I'd much rather look at war as a temporary state that can only be maintained while the nation's players continue to engage in hostile actions, as explained in the original posts.

 

 

 

I really like the coastguard operations, however it should be complemented with the Home Fleet, as mentioned. This is to counter fleets of seal clubbers who could take down the coast guard, as well as a shock, horror and AWESOME effect of this massed fleet of death descending on the evil clubbers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Entirely true (although I mentioned that in the scenario above it was the 'first quarter of the 19th C' I was centered on, rather than any point during the 17th. I assume you read my post, feel free to demonstrate it :-P). I like the idea of port population being a factor in NA as some others have mentioned, but even with the population being modelled in a fairly detailed economic way, I don't see how you turn that into a fun playable game mechanic? Have I missed something?

Hence the approach I took re taxed trade. It keeps the entire system in players hands hopefully without being overly complicated or confusing and in a way that's easily and demonstrably influenced by players on both sides of a conflict. All this with an eye to the real world so that he mechanic rings true with the rest of game world. Of course it is a conceit to produce a certain effect in game. Not saying it's perfect, or necessarily the complete system or anything, just a suggestion of that kind of solution to the issue of the economy. Improvements or alternatives would be interesting to see :-)

The lack of money wouldnt be "an indicator for ending wars" but the cause of the end of the war. No ships. No money for new ones. No war. Si?

In your version, how do you make "war a temporary state...hostile actions"? You mention a points system, which I like, and a variable rate at which these 'hostility points', having being accrued by naval actions against a certain nation, may be lost. But's missing is any reason. Why on earth would naval captains not go round sinking shit left right and centre? Where's the incentive for peace? I don't see how the world would ever get as stagnant as to lose enough of those points. The counter to this I see is to make the rate of loss so high and an active national effort is needed to tip the country into war. But this smells gamey to me, and then what's the benefit of war? You make a big effort to attack enemy shopping to start the state of war so that you...can...go on making a big effort to attack naval shipping? And what's the role of non naval players in all this? These are genuine questions, apologies if the list sounds rude.

About seal clubbing, my hope with the suggested system would be that new players would be at these large well defended ports while they get to grips with the game. After that the allocation, rather than purchase, of ships should ensure both sides are about equal and sealclubbing shouldn't be as easy as in level based games. Which the devs have already said this won't be, which is nice. Of course it's a risk, but by keeping new players inshore until they have got a bit of nouse about them should counter the worst of it. If you're at war it'll be bloody dangerous to operate so close to the enemy shore, as it was in reality, although the lure of prizes there will be strong, as it was in reality.

Baggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If taxes, collected by the harbour master, would implemented nicely, smuggling would automatically arise. Since this kind of activity is just the thing I like, I'm all for taxes being a major factor in the game.

If taxes also resulted in income for a (player driven) realm, smugglers would be seen as criminals by the player population investing in climbing the ranks of the navy, giving them a nice incentive to hunt down the smugglers.

 

The differences in tax-rates could be an incentive for merchants to prefer certain port above others. While, for example, London pays good money for herring, the port taxes per ton burthen* are high, as are the taxes on trading goods. As a result, mooring in London is expensive, even if you don't trade anything. At the same time, the population of London is very high, so there is a lot of demand for herring (or just about anything else for that matter) an since the citizens pay good money for each barrel the merchant has to balance the taxes v.s. the higher profit margins and pick the best place to sell his wares.

 

Cheers

Brigand

 

*) Tonnage Measurement of Ships: Historical evolution, current issues and proposals for the way forward. Aji Vasudevan, World Maritime University, Malmö, Sweden, p.16

 

Builders' Old Measurement:

Length on Deck × Beam × Depth in Hold / 100

Carpenter’s formula (a.k.a. Carpenter's rule):

(Length on Deck × Beam × Beam) / 2) / 94

Builders' (new) Measurement (a.k.a. Builder's Tonnage):

((Length on Deck - (Beam×0.6)) × Beam × Beam / 2) / 94

Edited by Brigand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...