Anolytic

You don't have to defend all ports, because other players are around to defend when you are not there. We don't have that luxury. If we don't show, the ports that we worked hard to get fall defenceless. RUS/RDNN only go to the PBs we set up ourselves or that we are invited to. And we haven't had a full fleet in months. We always invite other players and other nations to our operations, and we always welcome players new to PBs to our ranks and to try out PBs.

Wait, you don't want to fight 24/7? Welcome to the hello kittying club! And we have both offered and suggested multiple times to rearrange the alliances. YOU were the ones who refused even to consider that option.

You are purposely committing an equivocation fallacy to obfuscate the issue. The Western Alliance is only ever under attack in EU timezones in which they have 2-3 times the population at least of the Eastern Alliance. This is not in any way equivalent to the Eastern Alliance being constantly under attack in US Timezones where they cannot field even a quarter of a fleet natively. PvP.

Seems like the Brits and the US both have a full US timezone fleet. Remind me again, has it ever been suggested before that they fight each other?

Giving any individual player(s) formialised power in the game, and particularly when that power is over other players, is an extremely bad idea. "Diplomats" and other positions should remain firmly in the meta to this game. The politics mechanics implemented have already gone too far in the wrong direction to begin with. We asked for them, but turns out it was a bad idea.

Would just change this for clarification. That bigger ships will be able to join but obviously won't be able to receive any points from the battle. I used to have a few rooms on the Danish TS for the small battle challenge back when Fellvred was running it. Mostly Swedish and Danish were using them, but I would be happy to offer the use of the Danish TS for the Small Battle Challenge.

Castries wasn't a troll. As far as I heard the French screened you when you tried to get there. Also, no one screened at Wilmington? I was screened at Wilmington. Ask slaugthererer. I have his Indefatigable as proof of it. We ended the battle right before the PB would have started and I was in range of the PB, but by that time I had heard that the french had determined they couldn't get their main fleet past the screen at Little River because of the sheer number, so I TPd to port instead. I believe they went out in other ships and fought against some of the screeners. Also, afaik only 1 player was logged out in the vicinity of the port, and he didn't come home from work in time to join the PB. More than 25 people intended to join that PB. That, by definition, makes it not a troll flip.

There were several players that entered the PB and several more that tried to sail there. Calling it a troll PB is utterly stupid. If you want the PB, then don't screen. Your player base is vastly larger than ours.

One single danish player (who is Spainsh IRL btw) in Islamorada does not make it "mostly danish players" PB. And after Nassau I thought that the 26 players in PB bug was a once in a thousand times event that the server accepted two players clicking enter at the exact same time. I was surprised to see it happen again. But it probably has to do with that in the Eastern alliance everyone is invited to the PB, so once the battle opens up everyone tries to click as fast as possible, and we don't decide beforehand 25 players that will sail leisurely to the circles and enter the PB.

You need to be level 10 I think (crafting), and in a town that produces labour, and you set up a labour office there. You can use the trader tool to find out where the closest labour producing port is.

It seems variable though. Because I still use attack against Fire deck guns successfully. And in the first boarding I won the boarding that way. In the second boarding I took him down to 1 morale using Fire deck guns, then after that fire deck guns seems to kill 3/4ths of what attack does even when enemy has much less crew left.

My apartment has a window. For about one hour every day there's a beam of sunlight shining over a rooftop and through it. It hits right at my computer screen and creates a shine that makes it impossible to play. I have to get up to close the blinds.

Hmm. I didn't notice the abnormality in press gang before. But after watching the video again I notice that in the second half of the second boarding enemy Fire deck guns are a lot more powerful compared to my attacks than it normally is, and that might partially account for why the morale did not drop from 1 to 0. At least in the beginning. Although Fire deck guns in being so effective against attack is in itself an oddity when it normally isn't.

Look at the video please.

Try it with pictures or quotes in the spoilers. I don't know why, but I had the exact same issue as @Hagen v Martius and I made several attempts definitely with the correct spoiler tags.

Had the same problem. Couldn't figure it out either.

Puerto Plata - 24v25 I recommend muting the first 40 seconds

While grinding a mission I was boarded by an AI and it was stuck on 1 morale for a very long time without any possibility for me to kill it. I had to kill all of its crew, even though by the end I had 10 times its crew and still plenty of morale.

They fought 14v21 yesterday.

Sink/board them.

Large battles or OW?

(sorry mods for off topic, but this is a direct response to a comment addressing me and a previous tribunal case) The issue that the french complaint was based on has supposedly been fixed with the solution that the mission now gives points when you leave even if the enemy is trying to do this. The tagging of sails just to delay other player for 90 minutes is not something I look upon as gentlemanly, yet it is such a big part of many aspects of this game like Screening, kiting and so on, and I am not certain that it is tribunal worthy. I am however happy to see the devs rule on this. However much they frown upon this I'm not sure it is possible to root out or to punish this behaviour. Just the other day a pirate in a fir snow shot my h.rattle's sails for 90 minutes with no intention to fight me. Once I realised how it was going to go I lowered my sails and went afk to watch a movie. On the other hand I have sometimes shot sails for 70 minutes on an enemy, before turning to grape and board him. This is incorrect. I put before the tribunal a case with proof based on admitted intentional griefing by specific US players. Unfortunately that case was dismissed by a US moderator without reading or addressing the accusation in the OP. Like with the no-show attack at Santo Domingo by yourself, Orinoco by the Swedes, or Trinidad by the French, players get frustrated after wasting their time. But I think that most will realise that in neither of these cases was this intentional griefing. It is simply a feature of the new conquest system that attackers will not always be able to make their own port battles. Previously we had flags, and people only bought them if they had already gathered enough people to go attack a port. Now we set port battles, but there is no guarantee that 46 hours later we will have enough people or the logistics to make a proper attempt to attack that port.

Video still processing. Will clear up in a bit.