Anolytic

Too bad.

What happened with the cancelled matches?

While I look forward to alliances lasting weeks instead of days, I think it is not yet time to implement. The current short periods should be kept for a few more weeks to allow at least two full alliance cycles to test every aspect of the system in a sped up environment before it is set to normal speeds. I have a number of concerns and questions about the current implementation of the Alliances, but instead of me pestering the devs with all the issues I can potentially think of - and which they have likely thought of all or most of them already by themselves - let us test the limits of the system a bit more and learn how it works. Just as an example, even though the alliance between France and Danmark-Norge shouldn't expire for another 4 days, we are able to vote to renew that alliance already. Which is a bit confusing. I guess once we learn how this works and understand it, this will be a part of the system that allows flexibility and makes it possible for alliances to actually change (otherwise an alliance and a war would be expiring each round and you would always have to vote in accordance with your previous choice. However right now it is confusing players into voting to reaffirm their primary alliance a round early, instead of using that round to add another alliance, which would seem to be possible.

Trading flags in port is impossible (last time I checked). You cannot drop a conquest flag into the trade UI. And afaik you do not get a flag above your ship from carrying an expired, inactive flag. You shouldn't really need to trade flags a lot, but if you do you should know that it is possible to trade between players ships with cargo in them...

That would be highly amusing. I'm in. Danmark-Norge has a tradition to uphold. Just don't bring frigates like Britain did historically.

Do you really struggle so much to find a captain of such description in your nation...? On a serious note, I anticipate your choice and whomever you choose I will give him a well-aimed 69 gun salute and welcome him to a talk with Danmark-Norge. I've had pleasant dealings quite recently with your interim diplomats. Your council might want to look no further.

Why quote me if you didn't read what I wrote? The salt you display in every topic on this board is quite amusing, but you should notice that I have not called for any of what you accuse me of. And I am flattered by your high opinion of mine and my fellow Danes' oratory skills, but I believe you will find that Great Britain themselves have done most of the work in convincing other factions to fight them. It's just that it's so much fun sinking you. You guys are so cute when you're loosing.

As a matter of fact I have never argued for alliances to be made on the basis of some goal to achieve "server balance". Rather I have occasioned to mock those that do talk of "balance". You must be confusing me with someone else. However I have no wish to have "the numbers work for [us]" as you say. This game uses real historical nations, and some nations were historically larger or smaller than others. I chose a small nation with full awareness of the implications and I do not wish to form an alliance that covers too large a portion of the server population. Glory and fun comes from winning, or fighting valiantly, against a superior foe. From a strictly dispassionate standpoint, disregarding the current strategical and diplomatic positions, I would have liked to see the US disentangle themselves from the sticky octopus hug of the British and together with one or two nations from the opposing block, the one Danmark-Norge is a part of, form a third alliance block. However I don't see this happening as long as geographical neighbors cannot get over their differences. But the admirable attitude displayed by Sweden recently may leave it a slight possibility for the future.

I think this argument should apply to the US on PvP1 as well.

In order to make it public so everyone is informed, and further because there was some ambiguity in point V.1. of the original Treaty, the four nations have agreed to a common interpretation, in accordance with the spirit of the treaty and intention of the authors, that the Treaty is to be considered officially valid until server maintenance on August 22nd, (the first Monday after the diplomacy/conquest patch first iteration). http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/16000-dissolution-of-the-treaty-of-the-antilles/

Danmark-Norge Council agrees.

Declaration of the end of THE TREATY OF THE ANTILLES, COMMERCE AND FREE NAVIGATION The here signed nations France, Danmark-Norge, Sverige and Verenigde Provinciën, parties to the The Treaty of the Antilles, Commerce and Free Navigation, as ratified on June 24th, 1716, hereby declare in unison the mutual understanding that the Treaty shall be officially dissolved as of Server Maintenance on August 22nd, 1716. As per the spirit of the Treaty and intention of its Authors. RATIFICATION For the French Council (CSNF) Kaïr For the Danmark-Norge Council Strategist For the Swedish Council SinkingN0ob For the Dutch Nation Council Ronnevaer Willemzn

I think you're in the wrong subforum mate.

Wait... What ceasefire?

Through all our differences in the past, this would not be in the character of the Swedes. We've had conflicts over misunderstandings, warmongering, politics and simple proximity, but never about how to play this game.

They definitely do nothing of the sort. Apart from this there are currently few or no consequences from being branded rogue. Which I'm okay with. There's been some talk about possibilities in the future to become outlawed, an idea that I like, but fear abuse if a clan can be outlawed within a faction. As of yet you do not need to worry about this. Let the council clans of your nation do their thing and you do your thing and you will probably be alright.

Feel free to attack whoever you like, and "organise" your own port battles.

Port timers as we know them currently are being phased out soon™

This topic has been very focused on the total victory and capital conquest issues, even though these are just suggestions that the devs say they are considering and might not even be included features. I wanted to ask a question about how capturing regions is actually going to be handled: When you create a PvP-zone I assume that zone is for the entire region. And once a PvP-zone is successful enough all of the ports in that region will be open for Port Battles. But since the conquest flags are going to be done away with, without that attackers will not have a way like before to select a port they are going for, so is this then going to mean that 24 hours after a PvP-zone is «won» all the ports in that region are open for attack for say 2 hours and then close again? And then they reopen again after another 24 hours? So a nation can choose to divide their forces and try to attack every port in a region at the same time (except probably the regional capital), or they concentrate their forces on taking one port after another. Or am I wrong? How is the conquest of a region planned to work, and how will you avoid rushing/zerging within that isolated part of the mechanic while maintaining variability of strategy. I've kind of grown fond of the flags and believe they could still be useful to some extent (not least to make conquest expensive) except they need to be ruled by different principles. And have I understood it correctly that region conquest is going to be win everything or loose everything (that if you don’t take all ports of a region within say 4 days (or whatever) you loose any ports in that region that you did conquer back to the defending nation)?

Are you sure it's not you who is lagging?

Dear fox2run. You want us to stay out of how you play the game - fine. So please show us the same courtesy and stay out of our diplomacy and how we play the game.

I'm not sure it will be a good idea for the devs to share this information. It will just be another thing to argue about between factions.

Probably because he seems to be in a clan named R0YAL and not the clan named ROYAL.

Can't you guys (brits, dutch) just talk to each other directly? And tell each other what players/clans are (/not) in your respective councils. This really doesn't need to be "officially declared" in the National News section. Until the diplomacy patch, the meta-game should be considered opt-in not opt-out.

Sometimes after adding someone to my clan I've experienced the clanlist being slow to update and the player having to re-log or wait for server maintenance before everything is in order. Any chance this could be the simple explanation? Is the player able to write in the clan chat?