Nation Play Suggestions

[Sir Henry Morgan]

Another idea to consider with bounties: instead of simply targeting an individual, perhaps one could place a bounty on a nation, particularly on skirmish and Plunder wins, perhaps ship plunders as well.

This could be the precurser to blockades...

[sXs]

Another idea to consider with bounties: instead of simply targeting an individual, perhaps one could place a bounty on a nation, particularly on skirmish and Plunder wins, perhaps ship plunders as well.

This could be the precurser to blockades...

From a nation standpoint, are you thinking Letter of Marque(basically a bounty system for nations) or simply an expansion of EotC?

The difference is mainly a lawe based on council vote or a declaration Made by the King.

[Sir Henry Morgan]

I am thinking of simply adding this to the bounty system - bounties are placed by individuals. Anyone could bounty a nation this way.

The Letter of Marque would be a nation feature with voting,larger purses and more options.

[Lachlan]

How many cannons for forts would be allowed? How can nations without a port contribute?

[The Lamb]

Greeting Ladies and Gents, I had a few thoughts for port control.
Law of diminishing returns:
A. Best Returns : Your inputs (a) produce the most results (in this cash tax revenue)
B. Diminishing returns : Each added input after (a+b) leads to diminishing returns (in this case tax revenue)
C. Negative returns : Each added input after ((a+b)+c) actually decreases output (in this case tax reserves)

What does this mean in terms of ports? It has to do with total ports controlled.
As a nation, its easy to control one port. It may still be easy to control 2 ports, but the more ports you control the more resources (portions of your tax revenue) it takes to keep the population under control (in the form of guards, social programs, name your expense) as you get further from your power center or circle of influence.

What does this mean? As a baseline, You have three economic layers.
A. Bet Returns - Port 1 = 100% Tax revenue (great for small and single port nations)
- Port 2 = 66% Tax revenue (Still great for small to medium sized nations)
B. Diminishing returns - Port 3 = 33% Tax revenue (Medium to large nations, still show a profit)
- Port 4 = 0% tax revenue (only the largest nations would want to have 4 or more ports, as income only comes from production)
C. Negative Returns - Port 5 and further sees 33% + 33% costs for every extra port after 5. (With so few ports, it should not make sense for any nation to see this amount)

The second part of this is the developers secrets. The cost multiplier, base on ACTIVE members of a country. The fewer people in a country, more the cost to control any given port, the more people in a country the less cost. You start with the base with one port always being 100%, and from there you increase or decrease the % of tax withheld for "upkeep" based on total number of ACTIVE members.

This will allow the best returns diminishing returns and Negative returns to slide with ACTIVE country populations. A country of 1 would never be able to hold 5 ports as the second port alone may cost money just to control, where a country of 50 could more efficiently manage 4 or more ports since they have so many active members and the negative return may start at 6 ports.

Pirates get one profitable port, sorry, still needs to be time frame realistic. This would have a very positive effect on the number of port holding nations and player activity and recruiting.

Feniks was right, at the moment voodoo is all that determines port control, we need more realism this isn't witch doctor glory economics of controlling ports might be what is needed.

[sXs]

Interesting idea. I think the diminishing returns of 3 ports is a bit much. It would discourage port action. The way it is written a 3 port natio would have more income than a 4 port nation if all were equal ports.

I do not think controlling a port should be a penalty, but your idea is actually based on a realistic scenario. Maybe tweak the percentages.

Negative is too harsh. Diminishing returns yes I can agree with.

[The Lamb]

The idea is a sliding scale based on a (base level of diminishing return +/- 33% based on country's ACTIVE members count. Basically its a way to quantify larger nations being able to economically hold larger amounts of ports before loosing tax revenue and smaller nations only being able to effectively hold one or two. Its a real world approach.

[Dmanwuzhere]

port play has been an ever changing beast since i have been here ports have been changing during my whole pg experience and the rules never seemed to stop nation play in that sense

i would like to see more actions within the nation and until there are there is no realism that needs to be brought from real life as it currently is not modeled around real life scenarios

you cant choose a type of government like monarchy democracy dictatorship federal or unitary and all would have an impact

thats just one aspect but there are a million big and a billion little things that decide the outcome of profits or losses venezuela is a perfect example