Treaty Ports need a limited duration
[deleted]
Posted Nov 6, 2022, 7:33 PM UTC · edited
08
I just think it should be access to whichever market they "won" and not whomever ends up bordering them. Tho maybe conquest of the neighbouring land starts an event along the lines of "the status of [Treaty Port]" where the owner can either push its continued status as a freeport, keep in just as a regular piece of territory, or have it over to the new owner of the state. If the owner of the main state disagrees it can escalate further into a proper" diplomatic play".
2
This makes sense too. Might be a bit more complicated to add into the game though.
1
They took a subprovince that you now think is yours. Blood and Iron, by Jingo!
1
I agree with other people that a short limit on a treaty port isn’t a great idea. However I think there needs to be other ways of gaining it back. You should be able to buy treaty ports or trade them for obligations and things like that.
1
That's fair - if I could buy it back by diplomatic means I would. I've held good relations with Austria all game and so all-out war for a mere treaty port seems wrong haha
1
Kick them out! The Ottomans had to kick out the Genovese and Venetians after destroying the Byzantines, so you absolutely should have to take that clay back. Get out there and fight!
1
I mean, the treaty ports from this era didn't really have limits, at least not on the game's time scale. Hong Kong reverted in what, 1997? Macao, Goa, etc. None of those had 5 year limits.
So no, I don't think that's a great idea.
Go to war with Austria. It's weird. But them's the breaks.
I get you but that doesn't address the fact that they would now be able to enforce free access to my trade. That would have been a diplomatic play against Ottomans, not me. That's why I just think this might have been overlooked when designing this mechanic.