Search the Community

Here is a very interesting picture, one of the few times where a carrier was ever targeted by hostile battleships. We see USS White Plains, a CVE, being bracketed by main-caliber battleship shells. The pic was taken from USS Kitkun Bay during the last stand of Taffy 3 at Leyte. Some things say those are 18.1 shells from Yamato. Others say they could be 16in shells from Nagato, or 14in shells from Kongo or Haruna. To note, the smaller BBs used dye loads in their shells for identifying purposes, while the Yamato did not. It's guns would make the biggest splashes and would therefore be easier to distinguish from its compatriots. In the picture, it doesn't look like the splashes are tinted at all. So which ship of the four is making those, any ideas?

Hello Devs! I did see this kind of map/video ages ago and i was wondering if the same can be done with Naval Action, like on a monthly base indicating all the sinking taking place in the Caribbean. ***** "A Time-Lapse Map of Every Nuclear Explosion Since 1945 - by Isao Hashimoto" *****

We, as a clan(FPM on PvE), have done numerous port defenses and I would like to make a suggestion please. The NPC/AI circle control and attacks are extremely difficult. I will be nice if the NPCs numbers, and capture control points could be reduced sligthly (I recommend a start of about 20-30%). I suggest instead of 6 Indiaman- 2 total and their number capture points reduced by half. If the war ships capture points could be reduced by 20-30% that would bring it to a more attainble level and contribute to a more engaging battle. The crew/hull numbers reduced sligthly the battles would be more engaging and maintain their challenge; our last defense battle the Bellonas had crews of 797ish - consider 650 to 695. Right now, port defense it's extremely difficult to win. The few we have managed to win and where very close to a loss, sometimes within a few points short of the 1000 (maybe increase the capture number to 1500). I understand the setting the bar high will turn ports over to the Raiders for attacks by other nations and give clans a teamwork challange, however, please consider these tweeks for future port defense battles. Attacking port battles; the defending NPCs could be increased (I shudder to say this) slightly. I suggest NPC defenders be given a ship or two more or increase their BR at most. That would bring the challenge up slightly for now and once the dust settles you could look at the challenge factor again consider further modifications. Another idea I have, please bare with me. What about Raiders attacking more unused or lesser used ports including Freetowns or Freeports such as La Mona, give the Freetowns guns emplacements and make those "tough as wallnuts" to crack.

What is the criteria for joining an enemy nation's capital battle, why can I join some and not others?

@admin and players, Would it be possible to take a break of 5 minutes every 30 minutes in all combat operations? The game would be frozen and a clock is running. (Of course it would be possible for you to suffer a disadvantage as well, but on the other hand you could also benefit from an advantage.) The reason: Philanthropy and disability-friendly This would give time for the fulfillment of human needs and a brief relaxation from a physical and mental compulsory attitude. Often you play to yourself. Suddenly you are drawn from outside into a fighting. These battles can take 90 minutes. When resolving a combat action, you can be drawn into a new fight. And again, a duty of possibly 90 minutes begins. Already we would be at 3 hours, etc .. Personally, I think it would be interesting for game developers to incorporate these basic human needs. "Gambling Addiction and PC Addiction" are well-known terms and I think that even a gaming community would understand an adequate compromise. (Ger man texts are always translated with the help of Google.) @admin und Spieler, wäre es möglich bei allen Kampfhandlungen alle 30 Minuten eine Pause von 5 Minuten einzuführen? Das Spiel würde eingefroren und eine Uhr läuft. (Natürlich wäre es möglich, daß man dadurch auch mal einen Nachteil erleiden würde. Auf der anderen Seite könnte man aber auch mal von einem Vorteil profitieren.) Der Grund: Menschenfreundlichkeit und Behindertenfreundlichkeit Dieses gäbe Zeit für die Erledigung menschlicher Bedürfnisse und eine kurzzeitige Entspannung aus einer physischen und psychischen Zwangshaltung. Häufig spielt man vor sich hin. Plötzlich wird man von Außen in eine Kampfhandlungen hineingezogen. Diese Kampfhandlungen können 90 Minuten dauern. Beim Lösen aus einer Kampfhandlung kann man in einen neuen Kampf hineingezogen werden. Und schon wieder beginnt eine Pflicht von eventuell 90 Minuten. Schon wären wir bei 3 Stunden, etc.. Ich persönlich fände es interessant, wenn Spielentwickler diese menschlichen Grundbedürfnisse mit einbeziehen täten. "Spielsucht und PC-Sucht" sind bekannte Begriffe und ich denke, daß auch eine Spielgemeinschaft Verständnis für einen adäquaten Kompromiss hätten.

I'd like to see outlaw battles brought back for every nation. If every nation had outlaw battles, this would keep the mechanics even so nations couldn't complain about the mechanics being abused or one nation having an advantage, etc. I do think that nations besides pirates would need a deterrent from doing outlaw battles, however the past mechanic of the attacker becoming pirate was too extreme. There are a couple options for deterrents that I'd like to suggest. First Option: After the attacker sinks a player from their own nation, and they try to enter one of their nation's ports, they would go into port and a message would pop up saying something like "Due to your attack on local forces, you must pay a bribe to dock" with an accept or decline button. If they accept it would take 10% of their gold up to 250k or something, if they decline it would put them back in the open world before they could repair or do anything in port. They would of course have use of free towns without paying. Second Option: After the attacker sinks a player from their own nation, they'd have a timer for an hour or so during which they couldn't enter ports of their nation. They could also have a marker or a flag over them in the open world. Maybe if someone from their nation kills the person with the timer, that attacker wouldn't get a timer. Everything else about the outlaw battles would remain the same, no xp, gold, or marks would be given. People could only join the defender's side, etc. Edit: I guess in the past there were two versions of outlaw battles. One where it was a free for all with everyone against everyone else, and one where it was the attacker vs everyone else. Although I enjoyed both, I think the second version - where it is only one attacker vs the defender and everyone that joins is on the defender's team - is the better version of the two. This version allows for 1v1s, but does not allow for a single clan or group to 'terrorize' or 'rule' a nation. In this second version the attacker can never be the ganker, and the defender can not be ganked.

Hi Devs, I have the following suggestions regarding Open World Battle Instances: Variable winds in battle instances: I believe that the radical changing of wind direction inside battles is not realistic and screws up tactics inside battles. I believe that more subtle changes in direction and adding variables to wind strength would be far more realistic and immersive. This along with real time time scales which I discuss below would improve immersion of battle instances significantly. Open World Battle Timers: I am of the opinion that battle timers in open world could be removed leaving battles open. With the more constant wind direction stated above the action would constantly drift away from the battle join circles, the later you arrive the less likely you are to affect outcome of the original combatants. However with constant joining on both sides could result in some fantastic battles. Obviously the willingness of allies to join and the obvious difficulty in finding distant battles would add considerably to immersion and action. Battle Instance Time scales: I sincerely believe that the time scale in battles should be real time and not scaled as in the open world. Therefor 1 hour in battle is 1 hour real time. Thereby reducing the constant changing of daytime to night time. Rarely did battles last from day into nighttime. This to me is a realism issue. I know the result would be that daytime would vary then from battles to open world. This to me is irrelevant. Positional exits from battle Instances: The issue of revenge ganking in my opinion would be resolved with the following: The relative position of the ship gained in battle instance when leaving becomes the relative position of the ship dropping into open world when leaving battle. In other words the distance he sailed away from the join circle is transferred to open world. This open considerable tactics regarding intelligence. i.e.: drop a player in the instance to report enemy position to remaining fleet in open world. The fact that the timescale in battle instance as stated above is 1:1 would limit unreasonable distances sailed away from battle center. What do you think?

This is a comprehensive list of game scenarios, with linked info, aimed to help unfamiliar players make an image of the whole conflict. Work in Progress. List of American Civil War Battles Eastern Theater Historical Battles: 1st Battle of Bull Run (1st Manassas) July 21, 1861 Battle of Gaines's Mill (1st Cold Harbor) June 27, 1862 Battle of Malvern Hill (Poindexter's Farm) July 1, 1862 2nd Battle of Bull Run (2nd Manassas) August 28–30, 1862 Battle of Antietam (Sharpsburg) September 17, 1862 Battle of Fredericksburg December 11–15, 1862 Battle of Chancellorsville April 30, 1863 Battle of Gettysburg July 1–3, 1863 Battle of Cold Harbor June 1, 1864 Custom Battles: Battle of Dunker Church September 17, 1862 Pickett's Charge July 3, 1863 Marye's Heights December 13, 1862 Battle of Philippi June 1, 1861 Potomac Fort (Aquia Creek) May 22, 1861 Mule Shoe (Spotsylvania) May 12, 1864 Devil's Den July 2,1863 Gettysburg, Day 1 July 1, 1863 Culp's Hill July 2, 1863 Stony Ridge August 29, 1862 Laurel Hill May 10, 1864 Cold Harbor, CSA right Flank (First Corps, Anderson) June 3, 1864 Western Theater Historical Battles: Battle of Shiloh (Pittsburg Landing) April 6–7, 1862 Battle of Stones River (2nd Murfreesboro) December 31, 1862 Battle of Chickamauga September 18–20, 1863 Custom Battles: Nashville Pike January 2, 1863 Hardin Pike December 15, 1864 Chickamauga, Day 1 September 18, 1863 Hornet's Nest April 6, 1862 Career Battles: 1861 1st Manassas Campaing Potomac Fort (Aquia Creek) May 22, 1861 1 Corps, 10-9 Brigades Newport News June 15, 1861 1 Corps, 0/3 Brigades 1st Battle of Bull Run (1st Manassas) July 21, 1861 1 Corps, 0/4 Brigades 1862 1st Western Campaing Ambush Convoy September 29, 1861 1 Corps, 0/10 Brigades Stay Alert February 25, 1862 1 Corps, 0/10 Brigades Battle of Shiloh (Pittsburg Landing) April 6, 1862 1 Corps, 0/20 Brigades 1st Winchester May 25,1862 Cross Keys June 8, 1862 Port Republic June 9, 1862 Cedar Mountain August 9,1862 Manassas Depot August 27, 1862 Chantilly September 1, 1862 Weapons Factory September 12, 1862 Corinth October 3, 1862 Prairie Grove December 7, 1862 Everettsville December 20, 1862 Blackwater Heights March 15, 1863 1st Franklin April 10, 1863 Rio Hill 25 April, 1863 Salems Church May 3, 1863 Brandy Station June 9, 1863 Siege of Jackson July 11, 1863 Mansfield April 8,1864 Saunders Farm May 5,1864 Hall's Ferry September 14, 1864 Hardin Pike December 15, 1864 Battle of Richmond Battle of Washington April 10, 1865 Would appreciate some feedback, completion and fixing of inconsistencies (not sure if all links refer to the proper battle)... My objective would be, separate the battles by date, and organize them by Theater.

Now that some of our clan and I have had a chance at a few Epic challenges I realize that it's not just difficult but almost impossible to beat. I love a challenge as most do but I think the present difficulty level for Epic missions is a little too high. Facing off against 9 hardened, seemingly faster ships that not only load quicker but also have laser guided cannon balls is beyond anyone I know.. so far. I'm not a new player and certainly not the best. But 4 of 6 First rate ships (and players) lost their ships last night. The last 2 barely escaped with more then 60-70% damage. I suggest the NPC/AI ships be cut back to 6 or 7 not 9 and the AI ship be slightly reduced in armour and speed. I do like the extreme challenge of the Epic battles though and feel the missions are worth while keeping, just tamed a bit. What about different level Epics like before. Epic 1,2 and hardest 3. All for first rate competitors. I really don't mind losing my ship to a worth while challenge but sunk within a few minutes wasn't fun. I will refrain from calling is AI cheating but it was mentioned by more then one of our team.

My sound seems to stop while in battle. All sounds work fine in OW but as soon as the battle starts with or without players the sounds stops working. Any ideas? I have the sound enabled in game.

We still struggle with problems caused by the difference between OW speeds / time compression and battle instance speeds. Here's a new (I think) idea. In port battles, attackers already have to be inside an outer circle while defenders join inside the inner circle. Could we use an expanding outer circle idea in OW? The first circle represents the tag and immediately after. Players within the tag circle are pulled into battle like they are now. Players outside the tag circle need to be within the outer ring (but not inside the inner circle) to join the battle. Obviously they will be joining further away from the battle start and will sail to the combat at real world speed. As time passes, the outer ring grows larger and further away from where the battle started. One can still join the battle, but only from inside the outer ring and will join the combat at battle instance speed. Eventually, the join ring is quite far from the original tag. With this solution, I don't think you even need to close the battles. Reinforcements may join at any time while the battle is going on but the more time that has passed since the battle began, the further away they will be when they join. The camping of crossed swords problem will still have to be dealt with by the player invisibility/hyper speed "solution" but ALL PLAYERS and AI NEED TO BE INVISIBLE while you are cloaked.

Are there any plans to implement port battles into PvE?

In the upper right corner there's a timer to show how much time there's left of either a smaller battle or each phase of a larger battle. Instead of having only one timer in large battles, it would be better to also have the time for the whole battle. In Gaines' Mill, when you play for the CSA, there is first the phase until you receive the reserves in your 1st and 2nd Corp (1:59 hours), then another phase until the beginning of the evening (2:29 hours) and finally a phase until the end of the battle (1:59 hours). When a battle is made up that way with a mission to overtake positions in a first phase we don't know whether there will be another phase or the reserves will come within that phase and whether we'll loose the battle if we don't manage to take the positions within the specified time. When we don't know whether there will be a second phase and how much time we'll might get in a possible second phase, we feel a need to rush to be able to finish the mission in due time so we don't loose. Of that reason I think it would be good to have not only the timer for each specific phase (Mission Time) but also a timer showing the full length of the battle with all phases added up (Battle Time). That way we don't feel the need to rush our brigades to overtake one position or more, but can stay put for a while and let the rifles and guns do their job to ease up the area a bit before we decide to push forward. If Game Labs want us to rush to take positions within a specific time, they could give the general we're playing some extra reputation points, money or something else if he succeeds with this, which makes it worthwhile to send the brigades on a suicide mission. It would be great to have the indicator for rifle's and gun's shooting distance in a colour that is possible to see. If the colour is of a kind that might be disturbing for certain people, there could be a hotkey to toggle it on and off. Some Questions: Why isn't it possible to turn a brigade with the help of the keyboard, like in Total War games, instead of only by the help of the mouse? It has happened to me several times that I want to turn a brigade a few degrees left or right and the brigade turns around almost 300 degrees instead with the result that they get flanked and routs. Is there a reason why brigades sometimes don't charge when ordered to do it? Is the refusal to charge sometimes connected to them being in a forest or any other reason except not having enough stamina (condition)? How come skirmishers often run quicker than cavalry and how come cavalry (except enemy cavalry) is so slow in general? How come the visibility of some enemy brigades is so bad when it's possible to see enemy brigades not far away from them. It would be great if it was possible to group brigades and give them a number on the key pad. If I for example have three artillery brigades that I want to shoot on a specific spot, instead of each time holding the Ctrl key and picking each brigade I would be able to choose the number on the keyboard that is dedicated to them and decide where they should shoot. The field of view should be greater for all brigades. I understand that enemy brigades in a forest or behind a hill sometimes can "disappear", but when they're out in the open the brigades should be able to see them if they're not too far away. Brigades being blocked from shooting seems a bit out of the blue. It seems that sometimes brigades which have an open field in front of them, but are behind two other brigades with a small part of each flank, get the "Blocked" obstacle and can't shoot. What exactly are the reasons for when they are blocked although they don't seem to be?

Hello Folks Capt Gosnell here the following is a video diary of my adventures in Naval Action I approach the game from the simple point of view which is Have a good fight regardless of the odds,have fun,and dont regret anything. Enjoy Video 37 Two for the price of one,sailing out in my newly aqquired Victory,i chanced upon a fleet battle near KPR,this led to an intense battle,in which i lost my victory,but ultimately captured 2 belonas. Video 36 Whilst engaging the enemy off Kingston,the oPpurtunity presented itself to board a Victory.The subsequent hand to hand combat,can only be described as a butchers shop. Video 35 After offering equal combat with a pirate,we arrange to meet at La Navasse,for a 15 v 15,when battle commenced the Pirates brought in reinforcements making it 15 v 22.Never Trust A Pirate. Video 34 The Pirates decided to sail to Kingston in 6 first rates,the valiant KPR Patrol sailed out to meet them.A great large ship battle,no one left unbloodied,broadsides to broadsides,hulls were smashed,crews masacred.Well Fought on both sides. Video 33 Death Of A Victory Given the imminent Asset wipe in April,iI decided to test drive my new Victory.To be completely honest i had little hope of surviving,this was more a lets see what happens kind of fight. P.S Im aware i cant manually sail,I am also aware that i fight poorly at fighting. Video 32 One of the most enjoyable battles i have had.Engaging a small french fleet of 2 Bucentaurs, a Bellona and a Constitution,east of La Navasse.An absolute bloodbath for both sides.This is what naval action does best,small ship engagements pounding away broadside to broadside. Video 31 With a large pirate fleet ,threatening Englands Capital,a valiant force sailed out to fight.Leading to a large, veryclose quarters battle in and around the Kingston Channel. Video 30 Footage from Liquicity's Monday night small battle competition,with a prize pool of over 50 million.Few notable mentions Hans the Hawk and Jon Snow Must go,the damn buggers just didnt know when to die. Video 29 During a pvp event we rallied a large fleet,sadly picking were slim.Still no losses on the british side. Video 28 Undocking at La Tortue for a late night a.i hunt,I found myself being pursued by a Spanish Endymion,and his 2 escort Endymions.battle comenced near Monte Cristi.For 30 minutes i ran occasionally firing my chasers ,in a hopeless attempt to slow the oncoming ships.Meanwhile my own rigging was repeatedly shot.Slowly the lead spaniard closed upon me.Soon we were broadside to broadside.However it became readily apparent that my foe had a poorly made ship,as each of my shot killed a good portion of his crew.Finallly he broke off.At this point i realised i had no repair kits,however his escorts as the a.i is wont to do kept sailingg in each others way.Finally much battered i decided to risk it all and board the enmy ship.Lady Luck smiled upon me that day. Video 27 As everyone knows im a notoriously bad sailor,thus when i found myself in battle with a pirate frigate outside kpr harbour,i decided that i would make a run for the forts.As realistically there was no way on earth i could out manouver the more agile frigate.However,my first choice of kpr forts was impossible due to the wind ,thus i had to endure 30 minutes of raking as i fled towards Carlisle. Video 26 With an inbound French fleet,England mustered a defence,a large scale fleet combat,sadly let down yet again by people leaving the battle early. Video 25 One of my favorite battles,while sailing my Indefatigable from Port Morant towards Kpr I found myself being headed off by 3 danish,hoewever i had allies already on route from kpr,battle was comenced in the kpr island channel.Where outgunned and with the wind against us for raking,we entered into a cat and mouse game .Trying to tempt the heavier danish ships to come within range of the towns land forts. Video 24 Following on from my first pvp win of the day,i set sail from La Navasse,within seconds a large Danish force undocked.Quickly scapering back to port,i waited until they disapeared into PVP waters.Looking around I spotted Khal Drogo and a small force of Americans.Grouping up with set out in pursuit of the Danish force our numbers boosted by 2 Bucentaurs.Battle was soon comenced. Video 23 Found a small force during a pvp event off La Navasse.A short and fun battle. Video 22 During a late evening hunt,we found ourselves devoid of any enemy players to fight,so we decided to suicide against an A.I dread fleet of 7/6th rates.Those ships are like bee's. Video 21 While hunting near La Navasse ,we happened upon 3 Bellonas and A La Ocean,offering a fight battle soon commenced. Sadly my ship was fitted with caronades which meant i had little option but to get close.... Video 20 Late one night,after losing a round of cards i ended up in a duel with Captain Tuck,a short fun little engagement between 2 surprises.Also i have now started using rolling broadsides thanks for the tips. Video 19 On patrol at KPR Fellow Captain John Keats found himself tagged by a small swedish force of 5th rates,rushing out in my surprise we entered battle just off of Kingstons harbour mouth,sadly I was at a considerable distance.John Keats attempted to pass through the wind and bring his ship safely into the Harbour.However it soon became aparent that the heavier Swedish Frigate would demast him before he reached safety.Watching from afar ,i decided to render a suicidal assistance.Ramming Speed. Video 18 Whilst patrolling near La Navasse we came upon a Belona.All alone,well lets just say we gave him a good reception. Video 17 Leading a small band of fellow minded captains we chanced upon a gorgeous Black Constitution.Following the age old mantra of oppurtunistic englishmen,and women "Lets be avin that mateys"We engaged him,leading to a short pursuit. Video 16 During our recent multi portbattle event ,we found ourselves badly positioned with a large french fleet baring down upon our targets.A disappointing port battle. Video 15 Undocking at La Tortue, for a late night trader hunt, I happened upon a pirate endymion undocking ahead of me.Offering single combat in equal ships.the duel was accepted. We sailed away from the a.i crowded La Tortue channel.Then we engaged broadside to broadside. Video 14 Patrolling north of La Navasse in the aftermath of an admiralty event ,we stumbled upon a Swedish Bellona with a Surprise,the slow moving Bellona was soon tagged and battle commenced. Video 13 Due to the requirements of my real life service,i was sadly unable to provide any battle reports,however here is the legendary constitution v gunboat armada,filmed last october just after the gunboat was added. Video 12 Sailing past Fort Royale,I found myself being chased by 2 french frigates with an escort.Alerting my nation,2 frigates were dispatched from Castries to support me.Deciding to pursue the now fleeing frogs, we engaged them just east of Fort Royale.A Particularly bloody and messy fight,due in large part to poor positioning and poor sailing. Video 11 During our screeening operation at Castries,we came across some pirates eyeing up a lone british victory,sailing to help we engaged them just north of Castries.No quarter was given. Video 10 Whilst Screening our Les Caye's Port Battle 6 Brave British Captains got dragged into battle against 24 french/spanish screening ships. Hopelessly outnumbered ,we fought till we sunk,with one heroic captain sacrificing his ship in order to blow up and inflict maximum damage on the enemy. Video 9 Whilst patrolling an event area,we encountered a small force of Swedish ships.Engaging them north of La Navasse.A pirate jumped in on our side making the battle 5 v 4,however as always our poor co-ordination led to disaster.... Video 8 During a late night hunt at La Tortue,we decided to engage the only thing we saw worth fighting A Victory. However our Bucantaur Captain was slightly drunk. Salute Captain Nordmann for maintaining the fine tradition of the british navy. Video 7 An interesting battle,tagged while attempting to enter La Tortue,i found myself facing an Ingermanland,An Agamemnon,and some smaller 6th rates,For a while the Inger was afk,then just left,leaving the battle to me and a undercrewed Agamemnon.Sadly however i am a poor sailor,and the Aga managed to stay close on my rear,the weight in broadsides finally deciding the matter.However a very enjoyable fight. Video 6 Thanks to great communication,we managed to pincer a small force of Spanish Endymions that were preying on our shipping near Jamaca. Video 5 A cutter managed to pull an entire British Fleet into Battle,so we decided to make some kindling. Video 4 A new CAPTAIN CAPSLOCK has joined great britain,in honour to defend my name,i challenged the young pup to a duel to make it fair SruPL stood for him.The resulting Duel was well fought though a lucky shot from SruPl changed the tide of the battle. Video 1 Indefatigable v Agamemnon,showed up late for a port battle,got chased by 2 age's and a connie,1 age and connie left so i decided to scrap with the remaining agamemnon,was good fun. Video 2 While sailing to Kingstown an enemy constitution gave chase,due to not paying attention i ran onto shallows giving him time to catch up,tagging me just outside of kingstown harbour.sailing upwind i struggled to bring my ship into the safety of the towns land forts.One of the most enjoyable chases i have had.

Hi all, I recently saw that once again someone has suggested the inclusion of division commander during battles, and the equally valid opposing view (that they are one more thing to manage when you are trying to coordinate a 60+ unit army) was raised as well. I would like to propose a means of inclusion that satisfies both viewpoints. In many ways, this game is a spiritual successor to Civil War General and CWG2. In that game, the corps commander was portrayed, like in UG:CW, as a standalone unit on the field with a radius of benefit (or malus, based upon the general's skill, but that's a discussion for another time). In contrast, division commanders were indicated by a gold star on one of the brigades of that division, indicating it was the brigade to which the division commander was attached. I propose a similar solution here, where in the camp screen you are able to select which brigade to attach each division commander to, where they might provide a very small additional bonus for their presence to the brigade they are with, and a minuscule bonus to units from their division in close proximity (to encourage keeping a division together). On the battlefield, the brigade in question would have an additional name along with its given name, to indicate the presence of the division commander, for example "Iron Brigade / Reynolds". This would apply to enemy units as well, as you would see where their division commanders were once you engaged that brigade. Likewise, the only way a division commander could be killed was if the unit he is with was engaged, so you at least can keep them "safe" by keeping that brigade out of combat should you wish. No micromanagement, yet the division leaders would be present on the battlefield.

Who would like to see a Create your own custom battle in UGCW? Creating cover on generated maps (A.K.A. Map Editor) And an unlimited amount of weapons and troops. Your thoughts?

Would like to have these men and units in the game for recruitment or rewards for completing a battle. CSA: officers: James Kemper William T. "Bloody Bill" Anderson John Singleton Mosby "The Gray Ghost" Joseph Johnston Edmund Kirby Smith Edward Porter Alexander Barnard Bee Patrick Cleburne Benjamin Terry Wade Hampton William Quantrill Units: The Alabama Brigade Louisiana Tigers Orphan Brigade Shelby's Iron Brigade‎ Stonewall Brigade Texas Brigade Laurel Brigade Terry's Texas Rangers Hampton's Legion Quantrill's Raiders ____________________________________________________________ Union: Officers: Robert Anderson Nathaniel Banks George Custer Abner Doubleday Arthur Macarthur Daniel Sickles Benjamin Butler George Thomas John Pope Oliver Howard William Starke Rosecrans Adelbert Ames Daniel Butterfield Units: Irish Brigade Lightning Brigade Vermont Brigade‎ Philadelphia Brigade‎ Michigan Brigade‎ Excelsior Brigade‎ Gibraltar Brigade‎ The Lightning Mule Brigade U.S. Horse Artillery Brigade Spinola brigade Mississippi Marine Brigade ____________________________________________________________ Wants: Would like to see a Civil War Newsletter for every battle pop up for realism Need to show the Division Commander as a Corps General unit so that i can keep him alive or know what brigade he's with. Division Commander's should have combat bonuses as well. Brigade cap at 2600. Custom battles within the campaign as a what if scenario. Defensive custom battles for CSA and Offensive for Union. Would like to see naval battles. Detach brigades into five regiments if in a tight spot or able to deploy skirmishers (x3). Able to dispatch all five Corps if available. Unit detail. Able to nickname Divisions. Artillery and Sharpshooters need more damage.

Would someone please give me a brief description on what each of these choices are. Do you have to have a specific rank or ship to participate? If you lose, do you lose a durability? After the event, battle, or duel, does your ship have the damage you suffered? TIA

Heyho, I leave this here, but I think wraith solution might be the better one. You'll find it here:

Hello all, One of the things I've noticed in certain battles is the narrow method of achieving victory based upon certain criteria that are, often, relatively easy to accomplish. This gives you the full "victory reward" so your goal in each battle is simply "satisfy victory condition and sustain as few casualties as possible". That is fine enough, but the fact is that during the Civil War it was rare for a battle to have its objectives so clear cut. Sure, there was a key piece of ground that was defended or seized, or a lop-sided casualty count, etc. But there was a lot more to it than that. As of right now, particularly due to the limited way in which your actions affect the enemy's condition in future battles in the campaign, the player's key objective is to sustain as few casualties as possible. Anything else - even the victory conditions for the battles, outside the reputation points needed to not be removed from command - are secondary. This is counter to what was the ultimate strategy used by each side at one point another, specifically by Lee from 1862 to 1863, and Grant from 1864 until the end of the war, which was the annihilation of the enemy army. Consider, as an example, Second Manassas/Bull Run. As a Confederate player, you need only hold the line, inflict more casualties (which is almost impossible NOT to do) and...well, that's it. You win. There is NO incentive, apart from a dubious gain in unit XP, to use the reinforcements you receive as anything other than men to beef up your already considerable defensive line. Historically, Longstreet's troops counter-attacked and thus won a crushing victory, routing Pope's army from the field. I propose either a "bonus" victory condition or degrees of victory, to encourage the player to act towards a historical objective, while still maintaining freedom to act in an ahistorical way. Since this would generally require inflicting further damage on the enemy at risk to yourself, I do not suggest an increase in the reward given to the player should necessarily be the result, but rather it would function as another malus to the enemy army in the next battle phase - perhaps giving you an advantage in the small battles, just as the next couple small battles give an advantage to the "grand battle" of that phase of the campaign. To return to my example of 2nd Bull Run, this bonus goal might require the Confederate player to counter-attack and seize certain terrain further out, perhaps even as far as Henry Hill, in addition to the other victory conditions related to casualties, holding your original line, etc. It would encourage a player to act decisively as Lee did in such an occasion, rather than simply remain on the defensive. Thanks for the consideration.

When you join on your allies side you take the flag of the country that was the initial attacker/defender. Could there be a way to always have your national flag in any battle no matter who started it? I know this is not extremely important but it would be cool to see all of the colors flying in a battle when there are people from different nations. What do you guys think?

Personally, I've never had more fun in battles than the ones that took place on storm maps. They disappeared in the transition from sea trial battle mechanics to the open world and the new damage model. It's unclear to me if it was simply a software porting issue, or if there were complaints about gameplay difficulty. Either way, I'd love to see them back in the game.

[edit] I broke the questionnaire. I need to redo this topic. Please hold your votes. How about having (dense) fog where people are on their battlescreen? Coming out of http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/14485-hiding-in-battle-screens-solved/?p=271155 and http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/14485-hiding-in-battle-screens-solved/?p=271532. Somebody who is in a battlescreen can get an outside view via external means. (Calling in a scout.) Somebody sailing on Open World can not get an inside view of the battlescreen with any means. So, the balance is broken. For enticing people to come out (from the battlescreen) and play, I amended http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/14627-where-is-the-action. This, however, does not address the above statements. It does not need to be exactly centered on the battle, nor does it need to replace existing fog banks. It can work in addition to the red dots or on its own. Ships will no longer magically appear on Open World, but turn up through the fog. Yes, it might be extremely close, but then again you sailed into a fog bank. You have been warned that you are taking a potential risk. People will just have to sit on the tip of their chairs sailing through fog. :evilgrin: (We might need to add a 30 second timer for mandatory sitting in battlescreen, so the fog bank can come up.) Likewise the anti-gank will have a hard time as it'll need to be coordinated while the fog slowly lifts. [edit] June 14th 2016, changed the poll to allow for negative choices.

Just a question; I would really like to see port battles of some sort in PvE. I speak for a group of us whom feel the same way about port battles in PvE - it would sure add a new interesting dimension to PvE even if the battles are held by AI.

My idea is a pretty complex one but it's one that'd make life on the PVE server pretty interesting, keep in mind, this is an idea for the PVE server, for those that want this to be applied to the PVP server changed would have to be made to my idea, but it goes as followed. The Pirate Nation: On the PVE server, there aren't many who play pirates as of yet, why not make this an NPC nation, make them the big nemesis of the seas for the PVE server with big AI fleets that roam, and attack people, occasionally even when those fleets are big enough, attack ports. It gives everyone on the PVE server a chance to experience massive port-battles. Pirates could capture our ports, we could capture theirs, and it's still PVE seeing the pirates would be AI enemies. we've already seen that the AI in this game is very advanced so actually implementing this sort of NPC behaviour shouldn't be hard at all. Not only does this give everyone on the PVE server an incentive to be active at the later levels because right now let's be honest once you get into your shiny victory there isn't -that- much to do. It actively gives Conquest as a possibility for the PVE server. Of course one or two pirate ports would have to be protected from being captured so the nation couldn't be completely wiped out and according to the NR. of players online there would have to be a comparable amount of pirates, maybe not 1:1 but 3:1. a pirate for every three people online, when you then look at several hundred people online on our PVE server it's quite plausible that there's pirate fleets around large enough to attack smaller ports, which we then have to go and defend, or re-capture, as well as the other way around, assembling a group of people to go attack pirate ports would force the AI pirates to congregate at these ports, and would again lead to some proper fun end-game content and large-scale sea-battles, as well as decent rewards for all who participate. Now, as you can probably guess by this part in the article, what about the few players that -do- play the pirate faction, we could simply give them a several week-long notice to move to another nation of their choice and allow them to keep their rank/items/ships. They of course wouldn't lose anything, wouldn't be fair. How would this influence the open world itself. Well, as we all know, Pirates are Marauders by nature, they roam in little packs, or by themselves, ambushing little ship convoys, or traders. As a trader ship, you would have to try to run away from these pirates, or combat them, depending on which trader ship you're in this might be mildly hard, to quite hard. and it'd add a challenge to trading, because right now it's just sail to a port, pick up your goods, and sail off again with barely any danger. And yes, for some traders it'd be hard but, Take the Gros-ventre for example. 250 men, twenty guns. an exceptional one rigged to defend boarding attacks will make it nearly impossible to capture it, where anything that could capture it, it would simply out-run. it'd give the smaller traders an incentive to team-up, or hire their own little NPc fleets as you can do at lower ranks. Of course this is prone to balancing, it wouldn't be fun to be in a trader lynx and have 3 frigates jump you, as a result I suggest a very simple aggro system. that goes as followed. Depending on enemy ship, VS your ship, you both get a rating of 1-10. where 10 meaning they will chase you and try to engage combat, and 1 meaning they couldn't care less if you had nude ladies standing atop of your deck. and how this would be calculated depends on your ship tier/class/cargo capacity, and what the pirate AI is sailing, for example, if a single pirate frigate sees a lone Gross-ventre the aggro-rating would be quite high, for the frigate its a juicy trader target, and from the trader's PoV it's something they can defend themselves against. But imagine an open world and game environment where all of this would be implemented. you could do something new every day without ever really running out of things to do, because everyone one could do on the PVP server one could now do on PVE. and let's admit it, there's a lot of us that want a taste of PVP without the full-life of it and with this I mean sailing a little frigate and having 25 third rates chasing you just cause they can, no, I mean the end-game action such as port battles, and cooperating trade-missions with fellow players. sounds pretty good, no? Any feedback on this idea is welcome, and thanks for reading this frankly, huge post. ~Nelgatha.