Search the Community

Situation: A friend and I decided to do a player port raid but because we were just 2 we agreed on one will kite the Ai while the other will pull close to the Hulk and cut it free. So far so good everything worked fine. My friend lured the Ai into a trap while I could sneak up on the Indiaman. I cought the Indiaman crew unprepared and they surrendered. To my surprise my crew would not want to go onboard of said Hulk and rig an emergency rig on it (no [X] appeared - and before some will ask we both made it available for all) So it seems mechanic is like you need to kill the Ai warships in order to access the Hulk. Now to the game mechanic griefing part It is not possible to leave this mission. The only ways out are by winning, surrendering or staying in battle the whole duration of the battle time. It is not possible to sail away and retreat. Like proper raiders would do when they would notice that their mission failed.

Hey, I'm struggling in understanding the full strategic value of having/giving people the wind, I've no naval background or experience, until I started playing this game so a lot of the naval terms are coming slow to me. I've played on and off for a little while, and I believe I understand part of its value, however I'm sure I don't have the complete picture, I've seen it mentioned that is is bad giving an enemy the wind, I can see why its not ideal, but it seems a primary concern of some captains to avoid, and as I don't share that sense of priority, and i'm woefully inexperienced with pvp, I assume there is something I'm missing, and its not something I'm prioritizing in battle. I'm hoping that someone out there can explain the concept to me so that I can play more effectively. I'm used to fighting A.I also so I have no idea if they are trying to gain wind-related advantages on me or if they are just playing as simple as I assume I am, and if I got sunk in pvp more maybe it would become apparent. What I think giving the enemy the wind means: If the wind is blowing from S to N, and the enemy is to the S of my ship, and we are both sailing due N that enemy has the wind. Why I think that is bad: if someone is downwind of me it is more difficult to close the range of the engagement assuming we both want to fight, and we have comparable speed and stern/bow chasers Where I believe my confusion lies: If players are presumably using longs in pvp as its the dominant weapon isn't their range the same (I'm aware pen is not)? If so when they turn to shoot, as long as I can meet their turn can't we exchange fire the same regardless of the wind? Assuming we can pen each other of course. if I'm in front, they have to sail towards me to engage which means they can only shoot when we are in effective range of each other, they cannot force me to a specific side for fear of losing distance, doesn't that mean that if I'm in front I dictate which side I fight on? If I have the wind (by my thought of what that term means) and I turn to shoot, do I not get pushed into the water lowering my aim and presenting a nice flat surface for my enemy ship, which is up wind to shoot assuming their elevation is too high? Additional questions: Is having the wind only useful if you are the faster ship? I know the consensus is that speed is king in PVP but if its that important and a player is that good at staying in that pocket why have much Armour at all? And why isn't everyone just attacking and kiting from that sector of the compass? Can a slower ship do anything against a faster ship that can sit back their effectively? Maybe I've simply got the concept backwards now that its typed out in front of me and I've read over it, it wouldn't be the first time a Naval term has done that to me. Either way I'm definitely missing something and I know its simple and I'm going to feel a fool when its pointed out, but I've been married long enough to know sometimes that's just the order of things.

After being in battle against a national (both in pirate frigates) I thought how pirate mechanics are supposed to offer a different gameplay - but a pirate only ship (pirate frig), through game mechanics can be sold for gold or w/e, which means the chance (certainty) that a national will be purchasing one. I suggest : When you are pirate - the armaments on your ship changes to the upgraded fit when you dock, unless it is already pirate statistics. Such as the pirate frigate vs the frigate. Same ship - different cannon fit, sail/speed bonus or whatever (the bonus/statistic change is not really relevant to the suggestion, no flamewar plz) An example of how it works: -capture a ship from a national/AI -dock at a port -captured ship then updates to its pirate statistics This can also work the opposite way if you are a national capturing a pirate: -capture a pirate ship from a pirate -dock at port -captured ship reverts to its civilian/navy statistics This would allow you to temporarily use a pirate fitted ship until you next dock, after which it reverts back. This way the nationals wouldn't be able to sail our ships whenever they want, because they would have to be a pirate to get access to the alternate fitting for the ship, or capture a pirate ship off a player and use it until you next dock. The ships would look exactly the same, but have better class, more crew, or whatever the bonus is for the ship based on how pirates used the ship differently, or w/e. No flame :^)

Outside of combat and trading, there's a core gameplay element that seems to be missing from this game, to make it fully engaging and more sim-like. My main gripe with Naval Action is not its slow pace, nor its detailed trade system. And certainly not its tension-filled sea combat. Rather it is in the feeling of grinding for XP that this game conveys, a game design sin typical of MMORPGs. To be sure, this feeling of grinding for XP is the single biggest reason for my install/play-a-few-sessions/uninstall relationship I've had with this game over the last two years. It's also my belief that no amount of tweaking with ship speed and manoeuvrability - or ship teleportation - will solve the current XP grinding issue tied to the open world portion of the game. No, what Naval Action needs right now is a feature that adds depth to the moment-to-moment gameplay in the open world sailing part of the game. My suggestion is as follows : add an additional layer of simulation to the sea travel gameplay. Specifically, a crew management "layer" should be added on top of the auto-skipper function, so the player can micromanage crew tasks and activities while engaging in sea travel, and be reactive to changes both in weather events and aggregate crew behaviour. How I see this feature in my mind's eye : a replacement/upgrade of the current very basic ship management interface available on the top left of the screen in the open-world sailing portion of the game. Basically : while sailing on the high seas using the WASD controls and mouse for ship and camera control, the player should be able to hit the space bar (or caps lock) at any time to get a full "ship dashboard" translucent overlay superimposed onto the the main screen, for the tasks of both crew and ship management. This "ship dashboard" could be a simplified cutaway of the player's current main ship, side view or overhead view (or both). Using the mouse, the player could then click at sections of the ship cutaway and select specific tasks, from simple pop-up contextual menus appropriate for each ship section. Thus, from the overall pool of sailors, a set number of sailors could be assigned to a specific task located at the selected part of the ship. Beyond the ship cutaway, the "ship dashboard" overlay could also provide a basic sailor task assignment table - à la Banished - for crew assignment to specific tasks from the overall pool of "free" crew. Or, a visual 24h crew scheduler - à la Prison Architect - to play around with different schedules of crew rotations. Sailing modes could also be implemented into the regular scheduler, such as a "discipline mode" for an unruly crew (a "crew loyalty" metric would have to be added, of course), an "emergency mode" (full crew mobilization) in the event of storms. In terms of visuals, this system would require no animations or complex visuals. No need to do full cutaway visuals à la Silent Hunter (or the upcoming UBoot). Just a good visual implementation of real-time crew management mechanics via a visual dashboard and ship schematic. Simple metrics could do, so long as feedback to player management actions in implemented in a clear fashion. Of course, I'm also aware that the main challenge of implementing such a system lies at the level of game mechanics. For effective crew management to work at the moment-to-moment gameplay level, the design team will have to tie crew management activities to overall ship and sailing performance. So the crew management model needs to seamlessly blend in with the ship sailing mechanics. At minimum, this would mean that optimal crew management by the player would impact ship speed and manoeuverability. One could also tie a crew "morale" metric to tangible sailing performance benefits : i.e. optimal crew management - the sweet spot between discipline and meeting diverse crew needs - would result in an overall better, and more adaptive sailing experience. More experienced crew would also handle weather situations more responsively, etc. I am mindful that there already exists a simple version of moment-to-moment crew management mechanic in Naval Action's combat mode. My view is that this feature needs to be extended onto the regular sailing gameplay, via a crew management screen overlay that can be toggled on or off at will during the activity of sailing - or even as an optional feature available in the options menu for players who don't want a crew management layer added to the existing sailing experience, but with XP generating activity to incentivize players who do wish to occupy themselves with crew management for the added challenge. Naval Action : it's the name of the game. So let's add a little bit more action, and a little less grind, and this game will truly shine ! In my opinion, real-time crew management mechanics would be a definite cure to the bore out and grindyness of the moment-to-moment sailing gameplay. Properly implemented, this feature could make the sailing portion of the game even more immersive, propelling the sim qualities of the game a notch up from its current state. So that's my two cents, for what it's worth. As for the feasibility, the devs and the NA community are in a better position than me to assess whether this is desirable (or realizable) feature for the current game. Many thanks to all of you who've taken the time to read this for hearing me out. And my apologies if I've missed somebody else posting an identical suggestion : my bad!

Yesterday I had a strange situation happened. In the Battle of Gaines' Mill, because my I Corps were too strong (and my skills too good, I suppose), the battle ended with most of my II Corps arriving from the flank not having fired a single shot or received a single casualty. However in the camp post-battle, even the brigades that did not enter combat and their respective commanders received EXP and leveled up. So am I correct to think that just arrive at the battlefield give brigades and commanders EXP, they don't have to actually fight?

Hello... I am new to this game as I just started playing with some friends the other night. I have to admit that I have some mixed feelings about this game but am willing to hang with it since I understand how difficult it is to develop such games. I have seen a lot of suggestions and discussions regarding the actual features that many people would like to see in this game. I have no idea how a development group could accommodate so many requests (and hopes). In any event, I have been building software for 44 years and am already in the planning phases of a new product. I have a lot of experience with intuitive interface design and I believe this is the area that is causing most of the complaints and negative reviews people are seeing about this game. An interface in any application should intuitively guide the user or player in this regard as to what is available and what the limitations of the application are. In a game such as this, the limitations would calculated to be the level of experience that a player has gained over time by successfully playing the missions in the game. In business software, limitations are usually imposed as result of the level of access to certain functionality that any one user can have. This is what is known as "security" rights. I see the biggest issue that could generate negative reviews and comments is a result of the confusing interfaces, which appear as if they are not completely finished. As a result, the game has an incomplete feel to it and I found the game mechanics as a result, difficult to ascertain. From what I have experienced so far it appears that the game interface is on the right track but is still in need of quite a bit of refinement. If I may here is what I would suggest as some refinements... I. Instead of having separate screens that move you back and forth between actual game play I would refine your existing menu design to be much smaller with the entirety of your game play options under various master menu options. Each selected option would then bring up a new form for the user to interact with over the playing screen. II. A refined menu would also be able to be hidden so that users could play the game without the menu being visible. In its place you could use what you are already using in the game, which is the icon with the horizontal bars, which would be display in a corner when the menu is hidden. III. Another facet to the menu system, which is standard in all well-designed applications is a HELP option, which provides the various screens for each of the sections of an application with information on how to work with it. In the case of a game, this information would be mostly relegated to the keyboard and mouse options that are required. None of my friends I was playing with knew of any such option in the game and they had been playing it for a while so this is something that is definitely lacking. Like the menu icon, which is already being used in the game, a standard help icon could also be placed in a corner when the menu is hidden. IV. I noticed that prior to entering a battle a new screen comes up and tells the player that you are about to enter a battle. From what I have seen from playing the game, I don't see this as a necessity and it also interrupts the actual game-play making it feel somewhat rough. The game play has already shown that the physics are rather sophisticated. As a result, there should be a more refined way to inform the player that he or she has entered a combat zone and should ready is ship for an engagement if he or she would like to do so. If not, the player has the option to sail away from the combat area. As a software engineer interface design has always been paramount in application design as it guides the rest of the application's development since that is what all the internals are supposed to react to; the users selections. Poor or incomplete interface design can ruin the potential of any application and over the many years I have been in the software development field I have seen many a software tool fail as a result. I believe you have a naval simulation that has all the possibilities of becoming a very high quality product, which could go a very long way to providing other periods of time for naval action in new products down the road However, I see all the symptoms from the many forum responses I have read that your efforts may be headed in the wrong direction in that you will continue to add and refine features and complexity in the game in the hopes that you will be able to maintain interest without refining the interface adequately to be to accommodate them smoothly. No doubt these comments may cause an uproar in the forums. I am becoming used to that since I have made various proposals in the Rise of Flight forums for which I have been vilified to a degree. However, my proposals were an attempt to enhance a community that has all the earmarks of one that is declining in relevance to the general market, while the developers pursue other, unrelated projects. Unfortunately, my predictions for that community are being borne out and I would hate to see the same for another potentially, fine product that has what appears to be a loyal following. With all respect... Black Falcon

Port Raids Where a Port Battle is a large scale PvP engagement aiming at conquest of land, a Port Raid can be something that smaller groups can do to further the metagame and maybe trigger some PvP combat along the way. Ideally this will have the dual function of providing opportunities for those not yet capable of a Port Battle, or those operating in the off peak hours to affect the metagame, while also providing an economic "toll" for nations who have expanded perhaps beyond their means to supply and defend their territory. What is a Port Raid? A Port Raid is an attack aimed at reducing enemy defenses and installations. Local property and facilities are damaged or eventually destroyed, reducing production and increasing demand. This can have the effect of softening up a port for an ensuing Port Battle by reducing fortifications, AI defense ships or just damaging the economy of the port. Port Raids can be instanced much like Fleet Orders or Events (with AI defenders) but can be open for a period of time for player defenders to reinforce. The Economics of Port Raids The level of Port defense can be increased with investment (constructing production buildings) and supply by player tradeships (fulfilling Port contracts enables rebuilding or expanding of harbor defenses) or by escorting AI convoys in ranked admiralty missions. Raided Ports will require tradeships and investment to rebuild and failing that should eventually revert to a Neutral status (reflecting the lack of administration). A Raided Port that is then captured in a Port Battle will require considerable investment before defenses have recovered. An additional perk to Port Raids for the attacker is a higher damage to gold reward ratio - reflecting the pillaging aspect of the attack (encouraging lower ranked players to raid for gold). Also for Pirate faction there may be a captured ship reward as well (again reflecting the grab and go nature of the attack). After a raid a simple cool down timer is initiated wherein one cannot re-raid (though buying a flag to attack should still be possible). Additional: Some of the other topics in this forum have touched on a variety of ideas that would fit pretty well with Port Raids (town morale, pirate mechanics etc)

Hello all, Just a few things i was wanting some input from the player base. First off I personally feel like the entire game is headed down the same path as Pot BS. With that said the developers seem to be trying to make a certain group or player base happy, and not focusing on the game mechanics as a whole to make everyone equally happy. Lets take a look at port battles, who can organize in just a few short minutes and then only have 2 mins to join after that. Nothing like that even makes any sense. You would think that the developers would want to see a fair fight for that port in general but instead all you see is this one sided battle that get blockaded by the bigger force leaving but a 25 ship battle vs 5 towers. Is this even a fair mechanic? Every nation is left out of their own ability to participate in defending this entirely. DEVELOPERS rework this please! There should be a count down with a 24 hour timer so all the time zones can coordinate to defend properly. and the defenders should have the ability to teleport directly to the battle to defend since you are not giving us any other means to get there. The mechanic as it stands is the bigger force gets there prior to the flag being pulled and blockades it then pulls the flag with an equally sizable force and a screening fleet. How are we even suppose to get to the battle? this leaves the bigger nation the ability to take as many ports as they want. There is ZERO balance to the port battle system and it needs to be reworked seeing how this is the only way we are able to even craft ships period is through conquered ports and trading between them. How is a nation suppose to even exist when u make it so easy for the biggest nation to sweep and mop up the all the smaller nations. Maybe make it more and more expensive to pull flags after you conquer so many ports? That would slow them down enough to let the beaten up nation regroup at least a little bit. But this last min 45 min flag timer has got to go, you are leaving no room for all the time zones nation wide to participate and make arrangements, It would be nice to "accumulate points" either from sinking traders, or players to initiate your intentions to raid that port. Once there is enough chaos in that area they can start the conquest and have a 24 hour period to begin. that would slow the conquest of the map down considerably and make these port battles actually worth something besides a 100 xp and 2k gold power house sweep for these overpowered nations. Port battles are a huge deal, you are stripping a nation from their property, people live in these cities operate business' and live life, is it really realistic that a port can change hands 10 times in a week? Really now this is not a realistic concept that should be embraced by our development staff. Again, make port battle a great feat!!!! Make people want to be there, Make it a worthy spectacle and let others who cant join be able to spectate!!!! that would give the game alot more meaning in my opinion. What do yo all think?