Hethwill, the Red Duke

IRL age of sail even the fisherman would be taken by enemies. ( john paul jones, prince de neufchattel, etc ) GB almost starved to death by action of french corsairs during the 17th century. ( yes, the original 'uboat' blockade )

All good battles and I don't disagree with what you say. I just see too many excuses not to engage the enemy ! Would not expect suicide but some measure of bravery. You have an entire fleet of Trincs, Wasas and other vessels holed up in Santiago hugging the forts. Wouldn't those be better used attacking enemies ? Not even defending waters, but taking the fight to the enemy ? 'Tis a War sir, not Peace.

No. It won't help you. Attacking enemies helps though.

We do, not every day but we do. But we also sink many times. Any problem with that ? You don't try you don't play. ATTACK !

I'm not defending the offender but also not supporting inaction from the offended. Attack enemies sailing your waters. Right away. No waiting. No sitting in port. Just get out and engage. Every second you wait a newcomer dies ! Sail and attack the enemy and engage them closer !

Warships in the age of sail are nothing more than gun platforms. ( let's exclude trader vessels for the moment being ). They were designed with usage of certain guns in mind. So the framing, planking and woods to be used all were focused on being able to transport into battle a certain set of guns. My proposal is this: - tie the structural strength of the ship - mainly the woods used can reflect this - with the size of the guns than can be equipped. For example, a USS Constitution built of Live Oak and Oak would be able to carry the heaviest guns for her - the 24's and the 42's. But a Fir and a Teak construct wouldn't be able to carry that heavy armament. Just an idea of how variety in regards of wood choices may also balance the broadside weight. Ships were weapon platforms and built as such. That's why some models that tried heavier armaments didn't go too well and had to downgrade them, IRL. ( carronade introduction is a good example of trying to upgun ships that weren't built to carry heavy broadside guns ) And is all about woods chosen in the construction. So the effect would be: - we can still choose whatever woods we want with the limitation of the gun sizes the final ship may carry with success.

only during the initial 2 minutes.

Locked for review.

I don't care about current situations hence will ignore the comment on specific situations. I simply commented that the dev admin opinion on a simple mechanic was really cool. Is simple and I like it. So, take your "present situation with this and that clan" to those that are interested. I'm not a fishwife.

The simplest form of Civil War is then one as Admin posted somewhere - Any port "open to all" being open to attack from clans of the same nation as well. Was just an idea post, same as we do everyday. And simplicity is sometimes the best format.

Welcome back to active duty.

Posts that are off topic regarding a tribunal case - offended, offenders and proof providers - will be removed without hesitation. Thank you all for your maximum efforts in keeping the community up to standards!

Closed temporarily. Re-Open Posts removed and warnings issued. 1. Respect This is rule number 1 for a reason.

Nations that have only 1 port do not need a civil war. Nations that have more than 1 equivalent port can afford a limited civil war. There's plenty of 15 points ports for inner clan vs clan as you posted. Power creep will be contained within the nation. Want to prove you're worthy big fish ? No need to kick the puppies. Fight enemy nations clans that are big fish as well and steal their ports. ( or don't )

It is unfair to the newcomer clan, but surely protects the weak against the vile and the intention is that - to control power creep inside a nation automatically. Other than that, we are good as we are. Want ports ? Take them from enemy nations. Else, I stand by my suggestion Attack the ones as strong as you.

Adjustments 1. By declaring war on one clan you would be declaring war on all the clan's friendly clan as well. Friend lists would become locked for the duration of the civil war ( normal PB cycle + counter PB if it happens, see below ) 2. Only a Clan owning a Port would be able to declare war on another clan and this must also own a port of equivalent points. 3. WarDec would have to have an objective ( not simply OW pvp ). Control of a port. 4. Stakes are equivalent ports points. 5. Failure to conquer the objective ( the one issuing the declaration of war MUST mean it ) during the normal PB time frame would automatically setup a PB against its own port of equivalent points. So, only equivalent power clans can declare war on each other. A 45 points clan cannot declare war on a 15 points clan, nor vice versa. This serves to control power creep. At the same time, stake are high. A port for a port.

Close to 100% profit might be possible with some routes ( but has to be a variety of goods and not only one ), but very high risk and long ( reason why when we see them they are some indiaman fleets sailing with some player escorts ). Try something like from anywhere on the gulf and down to guayguayare area for example. But good discussion albeit I'm only reading benefits for the trader. Where's the benefits for the corsair/privateer ? Trade goods aren't it, this I can guarantee you. Crafting goods is where it was always at. Those are the cargo worth capturing and bringing home. Where are those at the moment ? Privateer has to sail far and wide to hit a resource convoy ( it happens rarely, but it happens ). I guess same as a very high profit for a trader. At the moment it has to sail far and wide. So both are in the same boat. By opening the trade lanes profit, what does the privateer benefit as well ? Again, trade goods aren't it. They are as valuable as cargo missions. So at the moment both trader and corsair share the same risk/reward. What would a different system benefit the risk/reward for both ?

SWEden vs DENmark sweDEN vs denMARK 😯

There are as many seal clubbers as Admirals confused about what server they want to play on. But... A character transfer ( combat and craft ranks only; forfeit assets ) from Peace server to War server ( with no rollback ) after the player hits Rear Admiral would be more interesting than safe zones in War server ( that, let's be honest, were more used by Admirals ). my 1 and half cents

reals are everyday currency. doubloons are crafters currency, mostly. Also used for Admiralty baseline items. Combat medals are the Admiralty currency by excellence. One of the beauties of this new system is the ease of access to items. I don't need to "hunt for reals" to acquire books or modules. I simply can use the other currencies both player to player or in the admiralty. The same way, and the game is practically run by player made economy ( no matter how greedy that economy is), one can acquire ships from crafters using the other currencies and not only reals. Is this whole scenario bad or good ? Well... neither. But at least any player ( war server ) can access excellent equipment from the Admiralty if said captain fulfils missions. But at the same time, the trade that represents the age of sail got a bit lost and majority are barrels and passengers in transit without any intrinsic value for the privateer or corsair. But then again the clans have the ability to build everything they might need in the ports they control, it is safer and not so open to constant raider presence in production ports. Is the whole scenario bad or good !? Neither. Some like it more historical simulation credible, others like it more mmo mechanized. In the end is all about the clan and how them members play with each other. It reaches a point where cash is almost never used. Ships for OW are crafted by the dozens and everyone always has a half a dozen ships to spare in all outposts.

I usually play late EU hours mostly. Rarely play at EU peak except on some weekends. Everything happens still at office hours But onwards to the subject RoE 'deficit' regarding attacking AI favours the bold, as i see it. By attacking equal or higher BR AI your battle will be locked after the initial 2 minutes, if no one joins on your side and raises it of course. So, as an example, instead of attacking an AI Essex with a Wasa, why not attack the same AI Essex with a equivalent frigate ? A Cherubim ( Frigate ) is a good choice. So, rule of thumb, don't overpower AI as the battle will be open for the enemy side until the BR equalises or gets over ( if so, then opens to your side ) or until it hits the 20 minutes mark, then it closes for good.

Hey Crusty. I was at Canaveral since Friday, on and off, and yes it is highly populated by enemy players. ( was even chased by a sizeable US navy squadron from San Augustin back to Canaveral ) ( sidenote: USN and the pirates in the area had both similar ships but neither confronted each other as i passed the Cape. pirates went into port, US turned back north ) But it also has AI of all rates that do actually sail as far as San Augustin. I did shadow one pirate Wasa up the coast and did see AI pirate Surprises, Essex, etc sailing up and down. They were not really hugging the coast though but more off to sea with coastline in the distant haze. Granted that enemies will try to hunt pve'rs. There's no denying that.

Smallest i've seen are 9pdr.

So that guys that want to play group don't get tagged on 1v1. What could be done though, devs willing, is have daily rotation of 2 zones. Example: Nassau normal PZ + Tumbado 1v1 PZ next day rotates.