Anolytic

@Lars Kjaer #richestmanontheserver There are clans with more than 1 billion reals in their clan-warehouse. Heck, there are players alone with more than 500kk reals. 3500 CMs is not that much if you've upgraded a couple of crafting ports. And 140k doubloons is less than what I paid for 2 special flags. It's not worth half as much as the insane prices the bids have reached. It's not even the ship that's more worth, but the guns. I would buy the guns from that ship for 50kk (individually - no, but as a full set - yes), and I'd go to 65kk to get the ship too.

This looks like a depiction of a similar, if not the same, (18th century) chinese pirate flag as you posted:

Updated with the flags for the new Chinese nation. China

Hello old friend (enemy)! Welcome back from retirement. I hope you can awaken again the sleeping lion that is SLRN. I miss our old battles at Port Morant and Aves.

The issue seemed to pass and I was able to enter, but multiple people in my clan and also other nations reported it happening to them at various times throughout the day.

Trying to get into the game, I get stuck in endless loops of login queues. The queue doesn't progress and my place in the queue increases gradually rather than decreasing. Sometimes my queueing gets interrupted by the steam ID not found message and I have to start over again. Others are reporting the same.

The Pirate surprise was surrounded and dying when I joined. The snow fought long and bravely. The requin won the fight, finishing the demasted ships.

I think we can say for sure this is NOT working as intended. 2 examples from the map today: 1) La Blanquilla, captured by Prussia: No cooldown. And presumably timer still cannot be set until after first maintenance. Hence, tomorrow it has no timer and can be flipped from 11-08. 2) Road Town defended by Sweden today at ~05:30. New PB set at 06:24 tomorrow - 25 hour later, because there's not even cooldown the day the PB happens. The fact that these critical flaws were anticipated and described by the community before the hotfix, and yet was not addressed, is kind of concerning.

First of all, the burnout is going to be real. I'm not sure the consequences of this was fully thought through though. Without cooldowns. Unless something else is also changed. Any port that is captured will be immediately nightflipped the day after, because you cannot set timers on a port now until after maintenance the next day. Scenario: 1. Port A is captured. 2. After maintenance capturer logs on to put a timer on the port. 3. For 23 hours the port is attackable without a defence window. So at ANY time. Which means for most nations it is pointless capturing ports at all. Then it would be better to just stop RvR altogether until a solution is found. Or keep the system we have now, albeit flawed, until a better one is found, but punish those who abuse it openly and admit to it as in the case linked. TBF: Cooldowns should be longer than now, not removed.

I don't need to imagine this as a hypothetical scenario. This happened to REDS at Nassau after the bugged NPC-raids weekend (yeahyeah, they say they weren't bugged, but a week later they were fixed so). An alt-clan tried to take Nassau and do just that, something admin had said explicitly was just fine: So why should there be different rules when Sweden is the affected party 2 weeks later?

There used to be a rule in the tribunal that only the accused, accusers or people with evidence was allowed to post, and no off topic. I guess that's out the window. If the port would have been A) handed back and fort between Sweden/Britain, or B ) The Swedish clan would not have shown up to the PB to complete the trade, then this comment would've been relevant. As it is, it's not and you're just spamming the tribunal with irrelevant accusations. For the case you refer to, the tribunal in question was closed and dismissed before I had the time to make a statement there. But REDS only showed up on the assurance that the flip was part of a legitimate port-trade, and neither A or B above would happen. We joined a hostility mission at the request of an ally, with the express purpose that the port would be both flipped and the attack was real. This is no different from the time that we joined British hostility missions for Mugeres and Conttoy to help finish this hostility while the British fleets were engaged by Swedes. Nor was the trading of the port any different from the trading of San Juan from Denmark to Sweden, or the 10+ ports in Bahamas and Florida that REDS has traded to the US, or all the ports that Sweden has traded to Spain. Sweden does port-trades. Spain does port-trades. How is it different only when REDS is involved? We didn't even get the port or give the port away. We were just there shooting AI. If you want to argue about the Truxillo incident, go to the tribunal about the Truxillo port-trade. Don't spam other tribunals with it. And Hostility stacking was deemed explicitly legal on several occasions, including when Sweden did it. Again, if you want to argue about it, do it in the appropriate topics. This is neither here nor there. It's like saying that alt-farming is fine, because none of the 1000 other players on the server beat you to sinking your alt. We were never even there or intending to be. That doesn't change the fact that the hostility was done with the intent solely to put the port on cooldown. Maybe Russia would have wanted to attack the port the next day. It's irrelevant to the intentional offense. First of all, this is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Secondly Russia did not attack Spain. Russia hasn't bullied Spain. Spain attacked Russia, and even then, REDS didn't retaliate and tried leaving Spain alone. Spain ramped up their griefing, and instead of retaliation we offered Spain almost all the ports that we conquered from Dutch in the Florida Keys. REDS has been absolutely as careful as possible not to do unnecessary destruction to our enemies. When we were at war with Britain and they cried that we were getting too close to their crafting area, we backed off and went to fight them somewhere else instead - to allow them to keep fighting us, rather than destroying the nation. When REDS was attacked by Denmark. We refused to take the easy route to end the war by attacking San Juan and destroying the nation. Instead we attacked only useless ports, even while our enemy was trying to attack our own crafting areas. When REDS was attacked by Dutch, and we were at the door to their crafting areas, we did not ask them to surrender, we backed off and stopped attacking. Only defending our gains from repeated attacks yet without retaliating. When REDS was attacked by Spain, we held back completely for months. And when, after weeks of griefing we took Remedios, we instantly gave it back, as soon as was possible. Contrast this with how other clans operate. And how they treat their enemies, or even their friends. You are in the wrong topic mate. And your accusation is pointless, all the time hostility stacking has been deemed legal every time, wether it was done by Russia or Sweden. Apples and oranges. Spanish are allowed to trade Remedios to pirates if you want. You are even allowed to trade it to one of the Spanish alt-clans in Russia if you wish. You are not allowed to simply make the port invulnerable by fake attacks to put it constantly on cooldown. Because we need devs to give an ultimate ruling on the legality of this "tactic". And because intentionally cheating should be addressed. Nobody is hurt directly by others alt-farming. But we still want it punished. This is irrelevant, but we weren't even trying. Well, their own declaration of intent helps like above. But it also comes down to what ports are involved. If Spain and Pirates simply wanted a training port-battle, they could've done so in Cayo Romano, which is a much less critical port. On no less than 4 occasions I've been approached by clans from 3 different nations offering us actual training battles in important frontline ports that we had just captured from Sweden. Each time I refused because holding the training fights in those particular ports would make no sense other than the obvious ulterior motive, and if it would've been about any other ports, we wouldn't have had time for training fights. But judging from the opinions of some Spanish and Swedish captains here I may have been too quick to dismiss these proposals. Maybe next time.

2 days ago Pirate clan MERCY flipped the spanish port of Remedios. Pirates and Spanish work together and operate as allies in this area. So the attack was out of character. We quickly learned that the attack was not real, and only a ploy. A way to put the port on cooldown for several days and prevent another nation, in this case Russia, from launching a real attack on the port and possibly take it. As anticipated, the PB arrived and passed, and this happened: As far as we know the pirates didn't even go to the PB, or they may have been there, but making no attempt to win it. Pirates have been open about the fact that this was simply an exploit to protect the Spanish port from attack: This is an abuse of the hostility and cooldown system. If it is allowed to pass unpunished it would allow nations to turn their ports permanently invulnerable from capture by another nation and completely halting the RvR-system. This is different from trading ports, as ports that have been traded still allows the taking of hostility missions for surrounding ports. While ports on cooldown are still fully usable for the nation that holds them and blocks off that entire frontline from attack. We expect that the players deemed to be involved are warned, and that the port of Remedios is turned neutral as a reaction (we will let the Spanish recapture the port afterwards as we have no more interest in holding this port than we did the last time). EDIT: In case Discord messages don't quite cut it, here's an admission from the forum, in this topic, that the port was flipped simply and entirely to put the port on cooldown.

Afaik, these are the Admiralty Doubloon flags: Admiralty flags Commonwealth (Royal Ensign Flag) 50k doubloons flag Denmark-Norway (Admiralty Norge Marine Royale) 50k doubloons flag France (Merchant flag) 50k doubloons flag Great Britain (Customs Flag) 50k doubloons flag Pirate (Jean Dulaien flag) 50k doubloons flag Pirate (Kronstadt flag) 100k doubloons flag Prussia (Bavaria River Fleet) 50k doubloons flag Russia (Second Muscovy Flag) 50k doubloons flag Russia (Kronstadt Flag) 100k doubloons flag Spain (Burgundy Cross Yellow) 50k doubloons flag Sverige (Marine Royale) 50k doubloons flag United States (Betsy Ross) 50k doubloons flag Verenigede Provincien (VOC-flag) 50k Doubloons flag *Please let me know if I'm wrong about any of these, or if I'm missing one.

I tried revising my old list of the flags of Naval Action, but it is easier to make a new topic. As my ability to upload attachments directly to the forum was revoked, organizing the list is now a rather more elaborate job, as it has to be done manually picture-by-picture, but here we go. The old guide, for reference, can be found here: ============================================================================================================================================= Below I have listed all of the flags found in Naval Action, organised by nation. They include default flags, DLC-flags, and flags bought in the admiralty store for 50k or 100k doubloons. Feel free to share in the comments what flag is your favourite, along with a picture of it flying at your stern. China Commonwealth of Poland-Lithuania Denmark-Norway France Great Britain Neutral Pirates Prussia Russia Spain Sweden United States Verenigede Provincien Port UI flags: Admiralty Flag Symbol Pendants and Signal Flags: Duel room flags: Alternative flags: Map Icons: Other flags: Notes: 1. I was unable to confirm for what nation the Courland flag was added, and placed it with the Commonwealth flags. Feedback or confirmation would be appreciated. 2. There are 2 (actually 3) Emanuel Wynne-flags in the game that are almost completely identical except for slight texture variations. I don't currently have access to a pirate alt with flag-dlc and was unable to check if both of the Emanuel Wynne flags can be selected in the flag UI. Information on this would be appreciated. 3. There are 2 Bavaria River flags in-game with a different Coat of Arms shown. For lack of information to say otherwise I placed both flags with the Prussian collection. Corrections would be appreciated. 4. Some of the newer flags that have been added after the initial DLC-release, as well as some of the Admiralty doubloon-flags may be mislabeled as well as differently ordered from how they appear in the UI. Feedback on the naming of flags would be appreciated. 5. At the time of writing this, no flag from the game should be missing, but if you do find that I have overlooked, misplaced or forgotten one, please let me know so that I can correct this.

Look again please. They are not identical. The 2nd one is from before the addition of the St Patrick Saltire cross representing Ireland.

This list is almost complete. Looks like I'm missing a couple of the doubloon flags at least. Great Britain: Danmark: Sverige: Russia: USA: France: Spain: Prussia: Poland: Verenigde Provincien: Pirates: Neutral/Free Towns: Btw, I made this in the beginning, but haven't updated it with the newer flags because I have to change the format.

You can choose more or less where they spawn by just opening them in a different location. They always spawn within a set distance from where you open them (used to be 4 map-squares if I remember right from when we had the map grid).

@Liq That comment clearly didn't age well. I was surprised about Saint John, but figured: It's a hard port layout, and swedes are not used to NPC raids. But after Nassau I inquired with Brits and even in Truxillo AI reached almost 800 points. Previously in our NPC raids if it wasn't bugged (Nassau) or we made some mistake, NPCs would not get any points. Now both the speed and pathfinding of NPC raiders have changed so that they are impossible to catch up to, impossible to intercept, impossible to block, and impossible to push out of their route. In Saint John and Truxillo there were clearly the same issues causing the difficulties as for us in Nassau. And since in Nassau the possible spawns are so far apart it makes it even more impossible than ports where all the NPC spawns are relatively closely grouped. There's no lack of knowledge on our part. We knew that NPCs get points not just from reaching the circle, but from being in it. We knew that it's not enough to sink the traders (even though it has been officially stated that it is enough), but there was just no way of winning the PB. There's no point in bothering with the NPC PBs if they're a default loss.

NPCs in raids are now faster... In Nassau we had no chance to even intercept the LGVs coming from the north before they reached the circle. The NPC renos were faster now than before to reach the circle. From the exact same spawn as in the test raids we could not reach them in time before they all reached the circle. I think this mechanic needs some testing - or better yet - scrapping.

We already did that. In Morgan's Bluff we killed a fort and would have won the PB if not for some accidents such as one ship getting beached and being kept out of the entire fight. Against a competent defender I might add. What really is needed, is increase the BR of all those shallow ports where forts are extremely well placed. With 3000 BR instead of 900, attackers can bring more mortar brigs, and the BR lost to mortar brigs will have less of an impact on a fleet that size. Also make mortar brigs stronger again so it takes a little less time to kill a fort.

Admirals, Today some REDS-players entered a hostility mission at Gasparilla, thinking they would find a fight against the Spanish players that had joined on the opposite side. What they found is shown here: 4 Spanish players had already surrendered in this battle. All presumably in store-bought ships (without cannons maybe?) The logical conclusion from this is that Spinacia, who currently tops the PvP-leaderboard as I type this, is an alt. Our suspicion is that the surrendered Spanish players are working with this alt in an effort to set a port-battle on Gasparilla, where with no clans on the friendlist of NRED2, this would leave the port invulnerable for several days, preventing a real attack on Gasparilla. There is a very recent and very relevant precedent that applies here: In this recent tribunal hostility on a port was also raised with the use of surrendering enemies. But in the case at hand, the purpose is more malicious. This time it is not a creative way to trade conclude a mutually agreed port-trade. In this case, all evidence suggest the purpose is to make a port invulnerable by cheats. I want to point out that all the players that joined on Russian side after the initiating player are unaware and uninvolved in the action. Both REDS and RIC players joined looking for a real fight. On the Spanish side, the actions of the surrendered players in the screenshot speak for themselves. As for the rest that joined I don't have enough information to determine their involvement or not.

Battle Ratings are too low. Too many ports are just 5000 BR and involve too few people. The people who screamed for lower BR in the first place are now complaining that they get screened out of every fight. These low BR ports are detrimental to clan-play, player-development and player-retention. With so low BR battles are determined as the first ship sinks, and there is no room in these fights for players in training. Clans/nations only bring their most experienced players when every individual ship counts so much. With higher BR individual skill is less important and group cohesion is more important, which allows groups to try out and integrate new members. How do you think experienced players are made? They don't grow on trees. They are forged in the line of fire, by bringing them to battles. If you always bring the same "quality players" to every battle you're going to eventually run out of players from natural selection. And we're going to have to lower and lower BR again and again.