In my view, there are simple too many nations and an awful lot of them are anachronistic or plain silly : Vatican City, Andorra, Switzerland, for example : all land-locked countries : Why have England, Scotland, Wales, Isle of Man AND the United Kingdom? Israel? hardly a key player in the Pirate Age, and the same applies to minor pacific island nations like Midway, Wake, for example : Then there are a whole host of countries that didnt exist until the early 20th Century and the fall of the Ottoman Empire: Iraq and Syria, for example.

I propose, to tighten up the nation part of the game and add some numerical spice to the pot, that the total number of nations available be reduced to 20 plus the pirate flag : The nations should be relevant to the Pirate Age and which are open to debate.

Any how, : discuss.

I think nations serve the purpose of nations in the modern world so the players can be a part of their country in game as well. And Wales had pirates!
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 1520,d.eWE

a big problem with this, is what happens to all the players in a nation that gets removed, or what if someone is a king of a removed nation, only for the nation to disappear and his title with it. I like all the nations there are, as it allows for plenty of places someone can go and make a nation for themselves, if they do not want to be a part of a big nation.

mister chalbooti wrote:I think nations serve the purpose of nations in the modern world so the players can be a part of their country in game as well. And Wales had pirates!
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 1520,d.eWE

Wales is part of the United Kingdom : if you are going to have the constituent nations, dont have the aggregate : otherwise, why not each of the American States as well? Or the Kingdom of Bavaria? Prussia? Flanders? Aquitaine? Normandy? Catalonia? Pomerania?

Some people in Wales might love Wales but not the entire United Kingdom. If I lived in Puerto Rico I'd prefer to have that flag over the United States because we don't show them too much love. It's an identity of the player and what they prefer I guess

eh, no reason. Nations will overcrowded by inactives. Rather have these other nations soak up the inactives.

You are forgetting about the spice of life...

Grapefruit wrote:You are forgetting about the spice of life...

vietnamese cooking?

The food here is terrible most of the time
I was talking about VARIETY...

This is an interesting suggestion. Let us discuss it based on the implications to the game play, though, not based on which nations were around at the "pirate age", things like "I want my nation represented" or "But then I won't be king!". Let's think about what such a change would mean, and whether or not it would be beneficial to the game.

Most likely, it would mean that relatively soon, there would be no "empty nations". Every nation would probably have a king, for better or for worse. It would also mean fewer small nations. If you don't want to fly the Jolly Roger, you would have to be in a nation with several other players. What would it mean for port battles? Probably relatively little. Even now, there are only six nations controlling ports. Of course, reducing the number of nations even LOWER than 20, would have consequences for this as well. But let's use 20 as an example. Even with 10 nations fighting over ports, there would still be 10 nations not having any. So there would still be the possibility - for better or for worse - to be able to join a nation with no port control ambition.

Now, what would this mean for "national pride" - the sense that you belong to your nation? Hard to tell, I think. But I believe there would be increasing instances of people sharing nations with players they don't necessarily agree or cooperate with. On the other hand, every nation would probably mean something. And with more people in each nation, will it become harder to be a "pirate" without flying the Jolly Roger? If you're part of a large nation, there are many people you cannot attack, because of hostility.

The most interesting question, I think, is how this would work together with rules of more advanced diplomacy. With such things as "non attack agreements" between nations, giving you hostility for attacking specific nations other than your own, you must be even more careful about who you attack. And with outbreaks of war, there will be fewer nations to "flee" to, in order to escape the war.

I think whether or not this suggestion would benefit the game, may depend strongly on what forms of advanced dimplomacy is implemented, and how that will play out. I am not sure yet if this is a good idea or not - or if the number of nations should be even smaller (like perhaps only 5, which would have strong impacts on the port control battles). I think this idea needs some serious consideration, though. Emphasis on "serious".