Port Battles -- Get Rid of Circles

[AfkSailor]

Now that Legends is here, can we please get rid of capture circles and go back to the more realistic attacking/defending forts?

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

9 minutes ago, rediii said:

I like a system more where it is about control of the surroundings

Should a PB be reviewed as mini-campaigns ? Like 1 to 3 battles, simultaneous or chained in succession ( depending on port ), for control of vital approaches to port and then the port itself ?

 

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

I agree.

Just picking up on your comment of the surroundings and thought it was very cool.

So please... stop acting like you own the parade.  

[Christoph]

it would be interesting if there were different pb systems

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

Fair enough.

Idea is great.

Cartagena raids were multi step operations. Portobelo, etc.

[Sir Lancelot Holland]

18 minutes ago, rediii said:

Different question. what is wrong with the current PB system?

Could we stop working on things that are not broken and instead put work into things that are and on new content?

Battlemechanic wasnt broken and PB battlesystem isnt broken

While I do not think that port battles are broken, I would suggest perhaps incomplete. Would you consider the addition of the use of Marines to take key points, dock facilities and forts in conjunction with the Mortar brigs. Perhaps the performance of the Marines could be linked to the performance of the sea battle going on in the bay? 

[monk33y]

+1 for port battles over a few days..

Securing supplys/ blockade 

Fort attacks/defence 

Port battle to capture/defend harbour (old circle system)

[Stepp636]

5 minutes ago, monk33y said:

+1 for port battles over a few days..

Securing supplys/ blockade 

Fort attacks/defence 

Port battle to capture/defend harbour (old circle system)

All that effort for a dot on the map? 

[monk33y]

13 minutes ago, Stepp636 said:

All that effort for a dot on the map? 

I just feel conquest should be slower...

Look at our (russian) fight with gb. We capture key ports left, right and centre from gb. They ask the usa to abandon ports and in 12 hrs they have re-coop'd there loses.

Either remove the greenzone ports from the conquest tab or slow down conquest...

[Batman]

Just now, monk33y said:

Either remove the greenzone ports from the conquest tab or slow down conquest...

I think conquest is mainly to fast because of (partly) broken hostility missions. Especially for shallow ports the defender has hardly any time to react if four guys in Wasas start four hostility missions at the same. Of course hostility is still better than looking for OW fleets three days in a row, I am not denying that.

But with the upcoming insta-PBs I see a lot of potential ragequit when you as defender simply can't react.

[Fletch]

1 hour ago, Batman said:

I think conquest is mainly to fast because of (partly) broken hostility missions. Especially for shallow ports the defender has hardly any time to react if four guys in Wasas start four hostility missions at the same. Of course hostility is still better than looking for OW fleets three days in a row, I am not denying that.

But with the upcoming insta-PBs I see a lot of potential ragequit when you as defender simply can't react.

Why should it always be possible for a nation to react to a surprise attack.?  I think it would make the game much more tactical and nations would have to be a bit more careful where they stock all their ships if other nations could make surprise attacks. It also makes owning vast areas of the map a little harder and gives smaller nations a good chance to grab some real estate.

The nation being attacked could always take the port back later. 

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

1 hour ago, Fletch67 said:

Why should it always be possible for a nation to react to a surprise attack.?

Empty port battles ?

I know some people love them empty and then forge propaganda coups, but...but...

Nevermind...