New relationships

    • I only mentioned that as an example to help explain the situation that I am trying to describe better but you focused on the example instead on the effect I am trying to describe.

      I shall try one last time. The ocean is different then the land in the sense that it doesn't belong to anyone its international so units in the sea behave exactly like units on land with a nation you have RoW they are free to move where ever they please.

      As I have said from the beginning putting up a blockade implies a state of war in essence I find the game works just fine as is. Your ships should only fire if a state of war already exists. You should not be able to posts ships where ever you like and they automatically fire upon any ship crossing their path and thus declaring war. I find that, very gamey and see great potential for abuse both against human nations and NPCs.

      Think about this all I have to do for you to war dec me its put a sub infront of your port and sooner or later you are bound to pop a ship out and we are at war. I have my casus beli presto. Or if I am slightly smarter I trail your ship for a bit and when it goes into a zone where I know the newspaper has trouble naming i.e. Atlantic Ocean then flip the diplomatic status to what you guys want to call blockade park my sub infront of your ship and boom you just war dec me! Added bonus you have no clue what just happened as its in the middle of nowhere and I can easily sell it to the international community as perfidious war. Like I said amazing potential to abuse this blockade function you want added.
    • @Kanaris:

      "units in the sea behave exactly like units on land with a nation you have RoW" - Yes, there is an implied RoW with all nations at sea unless at war.

      "putting up a blockade implies a state of war" - I disagree, especially for a defensive position. It would be a state of POTENTIAL war, not unlike ordering a unit into another player's position. Not a war until units engage.

      "Your ships should only fire if a state of war already exists." - Purely a matter of opinion, and again I disagree. I really don't see why it shouldn't be possible to order troops to defend their positions against approaching units, starting a war if necessary.

      "You should not be able to posts ships where ever you like and they automatically fire upon any ship crossing their path and thus declaring war" - Doing so may not be wise, but I don't see why such a limitation should exist in a war game. If it can be ordered directly, what's really so different about ordering a unit to shoot on sight other than online/AFK status?

      The only question for me is whether the OP's suggestion would be implemented via Fire Control, relationship status or both.
    • Nooberium wrote:

      @Kanaris:

      "units in the sea behave exactly like units on land with a nation you have RoW" - Yes, there is an implied RoW with all nations at sea unless at war.

      "putting up a blockade implies a state of war" - I disagree, especially for a defensive position. It would be a state of POTENTIAL war, not unlike ordering a unit into another player's position. Not a war until units engage.

      "Your ships should only fire if a state of war already exists." - Purely a matter of opinion, and again I disagree. I really don't see why it shouldn't be possible to order troops to defend their positions against approaching units, starting a war if necessary.

      "You should not be able to posts ships where ever you like and they automatically fire upon any ship crossing their path and thus declaring war" - Doing so may not be wise, but I don't see why such a limitation should exist in a war game. If it can be ordered directly, what's really so different about ordering a unit to shoot on sight other than online/AFK status?

      The only question for me is whether the OP's suggestion would be implemented via Fire Control, relationship status or both.
      Exactly what he said.
      BMfox
      Moderator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh
    • Kanaris wrote:

      shall try one last time. The ocean is different then the land in the sense that it doesn't belong to anyone its international so units in the sea behave exactly like units on land with a nation you have RoW they are free to move where ever they please.
      As I have said from the beginning putting up a blockade implies a state of war.




      Your ships should only fire if a state of war already exists. You should not be able to posts ships where ever you like and they automatically fire upon any ship crossing their path and thus declaring war. I find that, very gamey and see great potential for abuse both against human nations and NPCs.

      Think about this all I have to do for you to war dec me its put a sub infront of your port and sooner or later you are bound to pop a ship out and we are at war. I have my casus beli presto. Or if I am slightly smarter I trail your ship for a bit and when it goes into a zone where I know the newspaper has trouble naming i.e. Atlantic Ocean then flip the diplomatic status to what you guys want to call blockade park my sub infront of your ship and boom you just war dec me! Added bonus you have no clue what just happened as its in the middle of nowhere and I can easily sell it to the international community as perfidious war. Like I said amazing potential to abuse this blockade function you want added.
      for the first point: i strongly disagree.... both in game then in real life, pick a battleship with and some troops and cruise just out of new york city, cairo, bombay, sydney harbour..... check if both the real minister/president/head of state or player will not say something about it and most of the times not even talk and just declare war

      for the second point: i can place a DD or sub to check on you and see what you are up to(a sub even better since you will not see it) and in real life an example of blockade without being at open war would be cuba embargo, germany blockade out of florida in 1939 or japan wall of ships in front of Nkorea in the 1980....none of those wars happen when those blockade had been establish. for the game should be the same, if i place a boat in suez and you try to pass by i will enforce my land ownership of the mediterran sea. for it being gamey, how so? if i want to fight you i can do the same change the relantionship and will attack nonetheless, but rather then declare war to 99 players i enfoce it on whoever tries to pass(as in my example, texas was on the other side of the map, i couldnt predict he would have embarked in that moment)

      third point: if you do the blockade, and i force it, you are the one that declare war bombing me.... not the other way around, in the newspaper you will read "country X declare on Y cause he tried to force his blockade" i can do the same now, stablishing war and sunking you and still will the newspaper paint me as the aggressor. there is so far you can spin a lie.... and if you follow me and sunk me pretending it to be a blockade, to do that you need to declare first(cause if i dont want war im not gonna do it) and you will be still be painted on the newspaper as the agressor, you have to be at least in the little gray area for it to be belivable if you are southafrica and im bolivia, you sunk me inbetween caraibi and spain there is no way you would own all of that sea(obviously assuming there is still other players. if you are in all of africa and invading europe it would be making sense you do that)
    • Kanaris wrote:

      As I have said from the beginning putting up a blockade implies a state of war in essence I find the game works just fine as is. Your ships should only fire if a state of war already exists. You should not be able to posts ships where ever you like and they automatically fire upon any ship crossing their path and thus declaring war. I find that, very gamey and see great potential for abuse both against human nations and NPCs.
      all I can say is think of it as an alert system, a preparation for war or an attack much like defcon 1-5. You are telling your troops you expect an attack and defend. You don’t go to war because you think they’re going to attack, you go to war after a direct attack against them/you

      As for country’s not owning the ocean that’s correct but they do claim ownership of them just look at China in real life they claimed ocean that don’t belong to them and threatens military action if anyone violates it.
    • Kanaris wrote:

      Spiffolo wrote:

      for it being gamey, how so?
      I explained precisely how it was gamey I gave 2 examples and I can think of a dozen more.
      As for your understanding of the game mechanics its totally wrong. Unless they change how things are currently programmed if your force my blockade (visible or not) you are the one declaring war like it or not.
      those example that you gave are wrong tho. if you place a sub in my port and i pop a ship, if we are both at peace i can simply sail away and doing nothing, same as with a convoy passing a sub belt blockade. if you dont want me to pass( becasue if i want to attack you i surely will not declare war hours before landing) you have to change your diplomatic status ergo you have to declare war on me.... same will be with the blockade. i force your sub in my port effectivly you are declaring war on me. the newspaper will say ive forced it and you attacked thats the opposite of being gamey ?(