Anolytic

Some crew replenishment cost after getting fireshipped twice.

The Bellona joined a PB that wasn't full after several minutes. I could put that down to wanting to help out or simple eagerness. And if you didn't have 25 1st rates ready it didn't make a difference. The Cerberus is quite suspicious however. He must have joined at the same time as the 1st rates. It took us several minutes to even realise that it was a Cerberus. We just saw a small ship at the back of the enemy line and assumed it was a Mortar Brig. We were discussing your choice to bring it when someone pointed out it was a Cerberus. It's frustrating, because it robbed all of us of a good fight.

It was a fun fight. Having been accused of creating a specialised 25 man fleet at the expense of the fun of other players in the Nation/Alliance, we wanted to involve some of those other players in the Danish nation. I was sure we would get slaughtered, but overall they fought very well and eventually started following orders. The defenders should have reorganised and charged instead of cowering by the towers half the battle. We would have lost a lot more ships then. We had plenty of ships that were heavily damaged from fighting 10 vs 25 for the first half hour of the battle.

I think it's absolutely something to explore. I believe it has been mentioned before, but not really discussed in detail. There's a lot of potential for grief and whining though, by people getting attacked by apparent greens and loosing their ship or cargo. Already having disabled attacking allied smuggler players, probably due to abuse, any implementation of this idea risks being prone to the same kinds of abuses and more on top of that. But if it could be implemented in a good way, or even just tested, I would be interested. False flags were a part of the age of sail.

It's better that they flock there than not play the game at all. This sounds like something that could bring lobby players into the OS, if only occasionally to get to the challenge and to get the ships needed for the challenges.

I look forward to testing this.

No way. That is pay2win. My comment was directed at Mrdoomed's objection that it would make the OS empty. I was pointing out that his point wasn't necessarily valid. Other than that I am not heavily invested in this debate. I am quite happy with the capacity and speed on the LGV for the most part. I wouldn't put goods on a fleet trader, and until recently I didn't use deliveries at all. I still sail most of my goods from A to B manually. But I don't object to the implementation of these features save for this cautionary statement: If we make NPC fleets cargo capable, trade raiding could become an intolerable shell game for lone privateers and pirates. A player can put all his valuable goods in one of 3 equal trader ships, and the pirate has no way of knowing which one to capture. On the other hand you get players sailing war ships trying to protect their trader fleets, which could be a good improvement on the game.

Deliveries are only between freetowns. So increasing delivery sizes will still have players sailing to and from freetowns. Which by the way is perfect for raiders and pirates.

You have no idea what is discussed where. There are places where we can seriously and thoughtfully discuss the mechanics of this game, away from the flaming, trolling and false accusations that permeate this topic and others. The "loophole" you talk about doesn't apply specifically to danes. Anyone can do it. And we have every interest in it getting fixed like anyone else. However when people here scream that they have the quick fix and the solution, they do not take into account that those quick fixes introduces new problems to the game. Why would you put fair in quotation marks?

"Developed" by Danes. Don't make me laugh. I've said my piece on that topic elsewhere. Repeating it here would be off topic. We definitely are discussing and suggesting other alternatives. It's you* who keep derailing the topic by yelling exploit all the time. *you and others

Actually, the point I was making was that all the players "defending" around Bermuda are port huggers, so sailing anywhere near Bermuda as long as it is not too close to a town is pretty safe from both spotting and interception. Hostility bombs are the best and surest way to get port battles at the moment, and to schedule them at reasonable times when the most players are available. Clearly the hostility system needs an overhaul, which should also work to make hostility bombs much less relevant or even redundant. Until then they are a part of the game, and for a small nation like Danmark-Norge with dedicated PvP/RvR-players the most favourable way to get port battles. It's Geography. Are you trying to say that Danes are responsible for there not being any significant land formations between the Virgin Isles and Bermuda? Believe me, if we could control tectonic plates and the formation of islands millions of years back, using it to start port battles in Naval Action would be very low on our list of priorities. Personally I would have stopped a few Tsunamis from ever happening and then made a rift in New York to swallow Trump Tower. There is no similarity to using alts for hostility generation. That is against written rules for the game and an obvious circumvention of the game mechanics as opposed to utilising game mechanics to full effect. To allow the devs to work on improving the game they need data that they get from us playing the game. And saying that you can do something is very different from actually doing it. Until Georgia Brits thought war supply bombs couldn't be done and some argued that war supplies were underpowered and therefore useless. You say you want PvP. Why are you allied with US and VP? You can fight them can't you? Same argument. With War Supplies we can guarantee that we get our reward (Port Battle) and that our efforts aren't counter grinded to futility during the night. Out of the alternatives available to us at the moment, it is the best one. For us at least. You might prefer PvE-but that doesn't mean we have to. And besides, the whole nation is invited to join the screening fleet at Bermuda, but it is a long sail for people who cannot spare the 3 hours to get there and then the 2 hours to fight. The devs are definitely looking at the issue with high priority. They will probably communicate to us once they have had time to consider solutions. They have already shown that they are up on the issue by making the hotfix to change the weight of the war supplies. You cannot expect devs to have a solution and have it coded overnight. If you don't want erratic development with solutions and fixes all over the place you need to be patient.

All your speculations are wrong. This is just part of the conversion from 9 day alliances to 3 week alliances. Admittedly I cannot see the Brit/US/VP politics screens, but considering that the exact same thing is happening to the Swede/Dane/France/Spain alliance I feel safe to assume that the cause is the same: It's very simple. It is not because you cannot renew active alliances or anything of the sort. It is because the fix to the alliance bug required that alliances were converted temporarily back into 9 day alliances in a 3 week system. Meaning that last voting round GB had 2 alliances expiring - the one with VP and the one with US. The alliance with VP was set to expire after 6 days - so 2 days before the voting round ended, and the alliance with US was set to expire in 9 days as per the old system. In both cases this was 9 days ago, so the VP alliance ended 3 days ago and the US alliance ended this morning. For most of last voting round the GB/US alliance was less than 6 days since renewed and therefore in it's second round active. Thus it couldn't be voted back in. Therefore Brit/VP votes were forced towards each other and GB had to renew their alliance with VP unless they had the foresight and organisation to wait for the last 2 days of the voting round where they would have a real choice in the matter. Then 2 days before the voting round, the GB/VP alliance expired, but it was already scheduled to renew at the end of the round. According to the history drop down in the politics tab this is what happened. The GB/VP alliance was renewed on the 9th. It was then renewed for 3 weeks and not 9 days, meaning that it is now fixed to fit with the new system and in 1 week you will be able to vote to renew it so that you can renew it 1 week before it expires. Provided alliances follow the old rules. Otherwise you will be able to renew it in 2 weeks, which is just in time to renew it before it ever expires. Either way it should cause no problem again unless of course other new bugs present themselves that haven't been identified yet. Or in case you choose not to renew it at some point. GB is now voting for renewing the US alliance that they lost, and in 5 days when this voting round ends you will have your 3 week alliance with US activated again. After 1 or 2 weeks you will be able to renew it again, meaning it doesn't have to expire before it can be renewed. Just KEEP CALM and CARRY ON, and wait for the alliances to run for a full round since the hotfix so that the old alliance system can be converted into the new one.

And I am saying that if they did it that way they should and would get banned.

That's the worst example of hearsay I've heard in a long time. You do realise that to wait for good wind out of sight of land there's no need to log off? Nobody is going to spot you out there anyway.

Please stop with the bullshitting.

All my alts are in the Danish nation. And you need a lot of enemy alts to get all the labour hours then. Anyway I think doing that would be easy for devs to just check if accounts involved were trading war supplies across nations and it would probably be banable under the same rule that applies to attacking your own alts to get PvP-points.

Before people say making a hostility bomb is too easy they should try making one themselves. It seems easy when you make the calculations on paper. So far only Danes have been determined enough to generate port battles we have taken the challenge to create the so-called "hostility bombs". Everyone else keeps telling us it's easy, but why are nobody doing it then?

Hostility bombs generate Port Battles, the best PvP this game has to offer, events that players from all nations watch streams and recordings from. Epic fights, guaranteed 25v25 (barring bugs). And everyone knows exactly when they are going to happen and has the time to prepare. There are far too few port battles at the moment.

You can't craft in ports you don't have outpost. And you can't create outposts in enemy ports.

I see a lot of answers here, and they all basically say it takes a few weeks to a month to get PvP capable. It doesn't. You should start PvP-ing in your basic cutter as soon as you create your account. Go to the rookie-zone in the Bahamas and start attacking stuff right away. You don't need a Surprise or Renomee. There there is a limit on how much you can be outmatched by your enemies, with only shallow draft ships capable of sailing around, and the distances are shorter, so you don't get reset so far away when you get killed. Using the basic cutter lets you learn to not fear loosing your ship. Just invest some of the money you get from PvP and or attacking AI traders to replace the free base medium 6 pdrs with some 6 pd longs. Within a short time you will be able to ugrade ship to a snow or mercury and you are now very PvP capable. At this point you have to start learning not only to maneuver, but to use manual sails to do so more effectively and to improve aim. Some clans will be able to help you skip through all the first ranks easily in the first day or few hours in the game, if you want to sail slightly bigger ships like the surprise and explore more of the world. But there is no shortcut to learning how to manual sail. You need to practice a lot, on top of watching youtube tutorials or getting someone to instruct you and demonstrate to you.

I like this, but if titles specifically like this are awarded they should not be listed anywhere and the specific conditions for getting a specific title should only be revealed once somebody has actually fulfilled them gotten the award. Otherwise the lineup at the battle of Pampatar is going to be full of boarding ships. For my own part I've been considering awarding such titles on Teamspeak, on the Danish National Teamspeak. It might be enough to have it as a metagaming feature and not specifically in the game. On another note, I remember Creative Assembly, the devs of the Total War-series had a title/achievement going around for the multiplayer of Shogun 2, where if you defeated someone from the dev team you got the achievement, and if you defeated someone who had gotten that achievement you got it as well.

What I mean by "this is not an issue" is that locking one account to one nation doesn't change anything, because one account is already locked to one nation by not being able to have more game accounts per steam account.