Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'conquest'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Naval Action Community and Support
    • Support
    • Tribunal - Трибунал
    • Forum and website problems and improvements
  • Naval Action - National Wars and Piracy
    • National news
    • Guilds, Clans and Trading companies
  • Naval Action Gameplay Discussions
    • Developer news and announcements
    • Patch notes
    • Gameplay Help Q&A
    • Guides
    • Suggestions
    • Combat mechanics discussions
    • Open world discussions
    • Economy, Trading and Crafting
    • General discussions
  • Naval Action: Age of Sail Historical Discussions
    • History
    • Shipyard
    • Tavern
  • Naval Action - Other languages
    • Naval Action (en français)
    • Naval Action - German language
    • Naval Action - Spanish language
    • Naval Action - Polish language
    • Naval Action - Українська мова
    • Naval Action - Italian language
  • Naval Action (Русский язык)
    • Новости
    • Обсуждение проекта
    • Предложения и идеи по игре
    • Морские тесты
    • Кланы и Гильдии
    • История
    • Таверна
    • Сайт и Форум. Проблемы и предложения.
  • Ultimate General
    • Ultimate General: Civil War
    • Ultimate General: Gettysburg
    • Forum troubleshooting
  • Game-Labs Forum
    • Jobs
    • Future games & special projects
    • General games discussions


  • Game Friv 4 School
  • Mad things going on
  • Duels (1v1)
  • semenax1's Blog
  • Bernhart's Blog
  • John Dundas Cochrane's Blog
  • The adventures of W. Laurence
  • kusumetrade's Blog
  • fastbug blog
  • tai game co tuong mien phi
  • Log Book
  • sellfifa's Blog
  • sellfifa's Blog
  • Captaine Arnaud Arpes' Log
  • Remir's Blog
  • Real Armada Española
  • Core Blackthorn's Blog
  • Saltback's Blog
  • British Privateer
  • Game App Development
  • Game App Development
  • Brogsitter's logbook
  • maturin's Blog
  • Ingemar Ulfgard's Blog
  • News Sports Blog
  • Saffronsofindia
  • Cpt Blackthorne's Blog
  • linksbobet88's Blog
  • Tube Nations Game Givaway
  • English Nation Gunners Blog
  • Commodore Clay
  • From the Conny's Deck
  • About Madden NFL 17


There are no results to display.


  • Community Calendar

Found 23 results

  1. As one of the admins posted in another thread : " the conquest is still being discussed/reworked. Current ideas are 1) return conquest flag - sell it for pvp marks and create PB on purchase removing all exploits potential 2) change (bring back) hostility missions to only generate for regional capitals and be open all the time (allow missions to generate only for nearest 2 enemy regions - to create some form of frontlines " These are the only possibilities to achieve sustainable conquest in the game. Why? 1 .FLAGS: Pos : Surprise, unpredictability, Conquest around the map(FOR THOSE WHO LIKE IT)Gather players,purchase flag and go. If you want to throw away the PVP marks,by not showing up in a PB, thats your problem/nations, and most important thing(NATIONS NUMBERS DO NOT MATTER), forces players to sail the f..k out Neg : Conquest around the map(SOME MIGHT NOT LIKE IT), Abuse through alt accounts,(who is this guy who bought the flag, wtf is going on) Abuse through multiple flag buys(although this is the only way of confusing enemy and forcing him to sail out)--imo this could be prevented by 72 hours cooldown on regions to avoid player attrition,and buying simultaneously ONLY 3 flags. 2. HOSTILITY : Pos : Idea of FRONTLINE, PvP self explanatory due the presence of friends and foes,(which are considered as such:) ) focus on certain areas. Neg: Blockbuilding(again),danger of "forever trying to rise hostility" ,NATIONS NUMBERS MATTER,unability to operate "mapwide",absence of surprise and unpredictability leads to static, in long terms boring conquest. Myself prefer FLAGS because of the named positive aspects. I would like to dicuss with my fellows in clan, and other clans in nation which areas are needed,and we can decide on our own where to go. Dynamic conquest does not force me to focus on regions which are useless,have no resources,but because of the game mechanics HAVE to be taken.Blue,red or yellow dots on the map DO NOT MATTER, silver,gold and refits do.:) With a given cooldown of AT LEAST 96 hours, it is worth for a nation to make an effort,conquer the region,AND gather resources in case of being defeated after cooldown by previous owner. Player attrition is not given, because the conquest can be organized by anyone,anywhere,for whatever the reasons.Take part or don`t. I hope one day there will be some sort of campaign for each nation.That is what i would like to see Thank you for reading.
  2. Due to the new announcement of the changes in the RvR conquest mechanics I really need to know if it is true that the community really wants the old conquest system.
  3. I think the current Region conquest needs to changed and testing Raids is urgently needed NOW to keep numbers up before the wipe. So, keeping the idea of Raids as laid out by admin, and hostility generation to create a PB, but with the follow changes: 1, Regions have kind of ruined the variation of PB locations (in combination with Resource locations). I think it should be possible to generate hostility in a Region, and then hostility generators vote which non capital port in the region to attack. If you control 50% of ports in a region (as number of ports in regions vary), then Region capital PB is now generated. Change these be to 26 hours, instead of 2 days. 2. Conquest can be too fast, this should slow it down. It will also allow for enemies to have a port in a region for a period of time, without totally taking it over. PB's Region capitals should therefor have some extra benefits, like ships for sale, more resources and materials. ?? 3. Conquest should be about the next region over. It should be easier to raise hostility in an adjacent region to your own, and the distance from capital should also count. Flags were good that way, as the attack had to be launched from a friendly port, which makes realistic sense. It should also be hard to create PB in a region close to the enemy capital, not impossible but the % increase should be tied into how loyal the region population is (if you were to think of it that way). So 100% loyal in capital (full reduction of hostility generation %, 3-4 times harder than now?) and a decreasing number, effected by distance, Raid successes, PvP/AI kills, making PB hostility creation easier. 4. Voting is an important part of this, so as to allow those who generate PBs to decide the target, and then to also decide who enters the PB. A majority vote to kick someone from the 25 should be possible, as this will avoid the frequent occasions when 1 or 2 ALTs or randomers who will ruin the chances of and attacker or defender joined. This is similar to Bobzillas RvR thread suggestion, but I do think it should be possible for people in the PB fleet to decide who they fight with. It should be pre battle instance. It would be really beneficial to see the hostility points the people trying to join have, as people will agree if someone has the points and the ship, they should get in ahead of someone who has not been around to attack/defend. 5. Alliance/Groups. One way I think Alliances in open world might work would be to allow attackers and defenders to create a PB group, based on hostility generation in defence or attack. A "Group" of 25 should be possible to create in OW, so if someone gets tagged or disconnected, a new person can be invited to the PB group. This could also be extended to inviting someone from another nation to join that group and be treated as that nation whike in that group, even if Alliance as a nation is not in force. This could allow Pirates to sell there skills to people who are willing to pay for there services. Creating screening groups of 25 would also be good, as the same could also be done. These groups could then be also rewarded with loot (but no ships, paint or BPs). It should be possible to Tow loot to an Outpost, like you can with a ship. Im sure they are similar to other peoples suggestions, but I just wanted to share mine as I wouild like to see the above happen. Feedback and comments/tweaks welcome!
  4. Volunteers for His Majesty’s Royal Danish-Norwegian Navy Ahoy Captains! To all who consider setting sail under the flag of Denmark-Norway. Our Royal Danish-Norwegian Navy requests you sign up with us. [RDNN] - The Royal Danish-Norwegian Navy, a company of brave sailors flying the white cross, is recruiting. We want all able captains and friendly sea creatures to join our ranks. When you join you will find we are a social group and you will find brothers in arms as well as good friends. Our clan is very Port Battle and PvP-oriented, and we arrange Port Battles and PvP events every single day. With tactics, communication and good spirits we always bring a good fight to any opponent. Having fought continuously in wars since the beginning of Early Access our players have deep knowledge of the combat mechanics. Our experience comes from never resting behind friendly lines, always seeking combat and glory. We always help our friends out and our captains are expected not to leave anyone behind. RDNN is always to be found at the front lines, always looking for good PvP and to help protect our nation’s borders. We have a cooperative playstyle and work closely with other clans playing for Denmark-Norway, spanning multiple nationalities and languages. Where others struggle with language barriers, we succeed. Our cooperative spirit ensures that together with our allies we form one of the most accomplished fleets in these Caribbean waters. If you think RDNN might be a group that fits your playstyle, don’t hesitate to contact myself or one of our other recruitment officers in-game or here on the forum. You can come on our TeamSpeak to learn more about us and sail with us to make up your mind. If you come from another nation, we will help you out with the transfer of ships and goods. We also do clan mergers. We are an international clan with members from all over the world and English is our primary language for communication. Members of RDNN are required to use TeamSpeak when participating in group events where orders and coordination are necessary components. We respect that players are different in their desire to communicate, and we do not strictly require that you talk a lot, so long as you are able to listen when instructions are given. Players seeking to join the ranks of RDNN are expected to be team-players, good-spirited and able to listen to orders when needed. You are expected to be gallant in victory as well as in defeat. We have a ship building system to provide all our members with ships and outfitting for Port Battles, and every member is expected to contribute with materials and labour hours. We have multiple level 50 crafters in our clan, holding every blueprint, so our members have opportunity to have built every ship they wish to set sail in. To join RDNN as a full member it is necessary to be of rank Kaptain (250 crew) or above. Special considerations can be made for players who prove their dedication or show particular aptitude. All sailors of all ranks are welcomed to join our TeamSpeak and play together with us until they are accepted into our clan. We will help you with learning the game mechanics, increasing your rank, finding fights and acquiring a fitting vessel. Applicants should come to our Teamspeak and contact an RDNN officer: ts3server:// Written requests can be submitted in our forum: We look forward to sailing by your side. May the winds blow in your favour. On behalf of His Majesty King Christian VII
  5. So, here's an odd idea I had. Premise: the gripe with port battles vis-a-vis nightflips and so on does not look like it will be resolved in the near future (for reasons that have been discussed in boatloads of other threads, so let's not rehash this here). It appears to me that the root causes people get so emotionally worked up are that, currently, the culmination and decisive point for conquering a region is happening at one point in time, in a very narrow time-frame (two hours for the battle, more like two minutes for the join window). Thus individual captains are upset when they themselves cannot take part in the decisive engagement, and nations as a whole are aggrieved as ports can change hands because of awkward timing rather than combat success (whether with malice aforethought or not, that’s not my point here). The hostility generation on the other hand, is less problematic: for one thing, it happens around the clock, so everyone can have a go; and its separate engagements are not individually decisive, so adrenaline levels are lower. So – thought experiment – what if we turn this on its head? The port battle opens conquest, rather than closing it: there is no pre-requisite for declaring a Target Region, merely an advance warning window (48 hrs or so); a limit to the number of Target Regions a nation can declare in parallel; and the requirement to declare an Attacking Region. Then the opening PB happens after 48ish hours. Defender wins PB: nothing happens. Attacker wins PB: the region is now open for conquest. Think: the port defences have been broken, and a beach-head has been established. Now we have different kinds of missions to generate Superiority (rather than Hostility). These missions run parallel, for a period of time. PvP engagements in Target Region: to gain/refute control of the sea-lanes. (Superiority accrues like the scores in the Admirality Events) Player convoys: running trader ships with War Supplies from Attacking Region to Target Region. Similar to War Supplies now. AI convoys: both Attackers and Defenders are notified in Missions tab that: Fleet of [trading vessels] will leave Attacking Region Capital for Defending Region Capital on [date and time]. If those AI ships make it to the Attacking Region’s capital, attacker scores Superiority, if they are taken or sunk, Defender scores. Nail mission: both Attackers and Defenders are notified in Missions tab that: [AI Fighting Vessel] carrying important personage will leave Attacking Region for Defending Region on [date and time]. If this AI ship makes it to the Attacking Region’s capital, attacker scores Superiority, if it is taken, Defender scores. Minor Port battles: open the non-capital ports for port battles, the outcome of which will contribute Superiority [randomtaskkk's idea] Smugglers: smuggling contraband into or out of the Target Region contributes Superiority for the attacker [Wraith's idea] After a period of time (2 days maybe?), conquest operations cease, and Superiority scores are tallied. If the Attacker wins, the region changes hands. So, in a nutshell we go from “distributed Hostility opens decisive single port battle” to “single port battle enables distributed Superiority engagements, which will decide conquest”. Worth thinking about, or utter balderdash? Discuss (in a civilised manner, please )!
  6. Seen a few of these posts but thought I might as well have a go The aim of these ideas is to make the pirates a unique 'hardcore' pvp faction with interesting mechanics but also limited economic and military strength compared to the nations. These should also keep a nice balance of power between the industrial and pvp players in the nations. Pirates Economy One economy building per player 25% tax for all trades between pirates and other nations, including player to AI and player to player (bribes, mistrust etc) Production/ships Largest ship produced by pirates will be 5th rates Cannot purchase ships from other nations, any ships larger than a 5th rate will have to be captured (1 dura) Conquest Pirates will be unable to participate in the current conquest mechanics Nations will be unable to launch a port battle/flag against pirate ports New 'control' system describing the difficulties nations had at the time keeping the peace in their colonies Each national port/region will have a base 'control' score (CS) which will naturally decay over time. Local merchants (AI) will create hauling missions for national players to take goods to any ports that need it (similar to the current missions) to increase the CS for that region. If the CS for the region goes too low the nation then has 24 hours to increase the CS above the base score or the region will flip to the pirates. To recover a pirate port (any) nation can send goods near the port to reduce the pirate CS. If the CS goes low enough and stays below the base CS for 24 hours the port will flip to the nation that delivered the most goods. Pirate CS is increased by pirates transporting their own goods to the ports or by capturing/sinking enemy (player) trade ships in the region. These mechanics should create a situation where pirates become strongest on the borders or quiet areas of the national empires. Finding opportunities where nations are fighting each other and playing them off against each other. Small groups of pirates will be able to harass areas and capture a region or two by raiding ports and shipping trying to supply those ports – but find it extremely hard to hold onto those regions when an organised fleet of traders and warships try to take them back. (If technically possible) Pardons could be purchased by a pirate player at any free port which will allow them to join one of the nations for a fixed time (7/14/28 days). The cost of these pardons would depend on the rank and fame of the captain (see Zooloo's fame system for ideas) meaning a famous Curse would find it stupidly expensive. At the end of the time frame the captain would revert back to a pirate (with xp and fame penalties) and lose any of the advantages of being a national captain – 5 dura ships etc. Any comments welcome
  7. Since the last pastch the differents nation are suffering of 2 behaviors First one is stacking of port battle. A nation is attack on multiple area on the same time to not allow the nation ot defend Second problem are the nightflip. The last patch introduce no solution for that when it was one of the most hating things for most of us. I would like to suggest the Pobt ssolution. I know the rvr may seems to be copy to potbs but if they used it it was because it was probably the best to do so First: The PB are on fix hours every 30 minutes. If a stack is token, the next pb is on hour after. It prevent stacking of pb on the same nation Second: PB are shedulded for 12 hour. You can flip a port outside of thie window but the pb is on 46h if in the window, if not, it's take the "better slot" the one in middle of the window. Or you can't make unrest while outside window
  8. Dear Devs, I was thinking about the new port/areasystem when the following idea crossed my mind: Right now, we have a lot of specelised ports which are a disputed area. When history told us something, than it is the fact, that a town or a land which is disputed can not get any affluence. But in peace, every town can gain wealth. Thus, I would like to ask if you can make the haul after a portbattle be addicted to the time where the ports was in peace. So: the more the area was under the peacefull control of a nation, the more value you can get if you conquere the area. Of course that would also mean, that the zones which constandly switch between the nations give you less after getting captured. This could change the "focus" on areas and get more zones involved into the fighting. (Like the area around Victoria/Nouvelle Orleans) Hope you like it! Twig
  9. Hey Developers and Community, We have been thinking the last weeks about the current PB system and the proposed 7 Day cooldown on captured ports. This post is rather long and elaborate, but please hear us out. Historically Naval Powers first needed to "win" a seazone. This works to our knowledge by an attack-fleet with supplies and ground forces stationed in a strategic port with infrastructure. Frigates, Brigs and even Sloops are the communication and scouting ships. Also they tried to break and harass enemy trading and supplies routes. When hostile forces were discovered invading and interfering in an area, usually major battles on open sea would follow to establish naval superiority over that area, or sea region/zone. If the invading navy won these battles and established a military advantage, this would open up the land installations, ports and territories in that area for invasion and conquest, often by the establishing of blockades of big harbours. Currently in Naval Action, ports change hands in a rapid pace. Nations can attack one day on one front, and then leave it undefended - or defended only by an impossible timer - the next day while they concentrate on another flank. This way lots of ports change hands uncontested one day, and then back the next day. It is a race not of winning PvP battles, but about who is able to bring flags and organise the capture of the most undefended ports. So, who is the fastest nations at defeating AI defences? Only when invading another nation’s immediate home waters, next to their capital, can you expect some PvP over those ports. Though even then it is much easier for the invaded nation to let the invader capture a lot of ports, and then take multiple flags from the capital the next days and because of the short distance capture the ports before the enemy even has time to sail there and defend. Moreover it leads to forces sitting and waiting to defend in a geographically important port, for an attack that never happens, often by a fake flag, while the enemy captures all surrounding ports without defence. This is not the way to good PvP and big battles in Naval Action. Even if this game grew to player numbers where nations beside Great Britain and Pirates could field enough forces to defend multiple ports simultaneously, it would only mean half or more of the forces would be waiting in futility for a battle that never happened. Players eventually tire of this. PvP and big (or small) battles between combat ships should be the goal of this game, a lot more than real time strategy and the clamour for holding the most ports. Yet if the strategy element is implemented correctly, it would facilitate PvP. The timers that were implemented do not alone work to ensure defended port battles. Probably 70% of ports which change hands every day in this game are undefended. So we wish to offer a suggestion for how to ensure more PvP and more meaningful port captures in this game. Based on the historical idea of maps divided into strategical regions to be controlled by a nation seeking naval superiority and to support conquest: The idea behind our suggestion comes from looking at a German U-boat coordinating system for the Atlantic. Working from the coordinate map as an example, we can think of the navigation zones as map regions to control: As you can see the map is divided into square regions named with letters (CC, CD, CE etc.), and each region is divided into 9 smaller squares. If you think of this in terms of conquest rather than navigation, to control the region you have to control the 9 zones. So what if we copied this idea onto the Naval Action map? -Some sort of grid system like the German one could be added onto the Naval Action map. -The size of each region should be carefully considered, and it could possibly vary from region to region. Let’s say somewhere between 3 and 7 ports in each region. Each region should have one regional capital - because it makes sense and to have somewhere for the controlling nation to store ships of the line in preparation to defend. This is just an example to illustrate: -Say a nation wants to conquer a region. They first need to establish naval superiority in this region. This is done by a show of force between the fleets of the nations contesting the area. Sort of a Trafalgar battle in open sea. The invading nation buys a flag, or in some other manner announces 24 hours ahead that they intend to invade. To add another layer to this, the opportunity to buy this flag could be only achieved by accomplishing certain missions in advance, like raiding trade routes, scouting, and fighting open world PvP in the area in question in advance. Once these prerequisites has been fulfilled, the invader can buy a flag, which announces to the current possessor, and the entire server, that they are moving into that area. 24 hours later, both sides can have their fleets ready, and somewhere in the middle of the contested region there is a generated event (with crossed swords above the sea) that both forces need to enter within the timeframe to initiate the battle. Say these crosses appear and are open for 2 hours, and in those 2 hours the forces have to enter. By the end of those 2 hours, or at an assigned time, the battle starts. The fact that the battle happens in the middle of the region held by the defender gives the invading forces a disadvantage, as they can be picked off and intercepted on their way to the battle. -In this open water Trafalgar style epic battle, where both nations have had the time to organise 25 players for the battle, every size of ship is allowed (except if some regions are made entirely shallow water, i.e in the cays, in the Bahamas, etc), including 1st rates. -If the defending nation wins this big battle for superiority, then the invader has to withdraw their forces for a while. The defender has established their naval superiority and the region cannot be invaded by the same enemy nation for a set number of days. Say 7 days. After this period, the enemy may again start doing missions in the area, which if successful opens up the opportunity to buy a flag for the region. -If the attacker wins, they have established naval superiority in the area and destroyed the enemy fleet. But they have not yet conquered the entire region in question. The ports in this region are now open for the invader to raid, assault, blockade and/or conquer. This opportunity is held for as long as the naval superiority is held by the invader. This could also be set to 7 days. So over the next 7 days the invading nation has to attempt to conquer all of the ports in that region. These ports would be shallow ports and deep ports like now, with 6th rates and 4th rates maximum in the Port Battles respectively. By capturing these ports the supply lines to the regional capital is cut off and it is weakened sufficiently to be assaulted. In the fight for the regional capital all ship sizes would again be allowed. -While the conquest goes on, the ports in the region are marked as contested from when they are captured by the invader. This still gives the nation holding them some time to evacuate their assets from those ports before warships and production is locked down. If the attacker captures all ports within the region after establishing naval superiority, including the regional capital as the last one, the region switches ownership to the new nation. Possibly there would be a mechanic that for 7 days after being captured it cannot be assaulted again, either by the nation that lost it nor any other nation. -If the attacker does not manage to capture all ports within 7 days, their conquest has failed, the region and any contested ports are reset to the defending nation, and the offensive nation has to establish again a new invasion from scratch. This would be realistic and historical, as the supply lines of the nation on the offensive would be stretched, and supplies would not last long enough for a nation to keep the conquest going if they were denied a decisive victory for long enough. Further details to consider implementing with this system are: That the attacker, when the “Trafalgar-battle” is done and naval superiority is established, can set the attack timer for the ports in the region. Meaning there are defence timers like today except they are set by the attacker, letting the defending nation know in which timeframe their ports in the contested region will be under assault. That when a nation has successfully conquered a region, all players of that nation gets an active bonus for some days, like increased XP gain by some percentage, better prices from production building/NPCs/etc in the conquered region, very cheap prices on a resource produced in that region, simply a visual bonus like a flag on their ship, or something else. It could also be considered that a nation fighting to defend a region could have some very slight bonus to the morale of their men due to being closer to their supply lines and so on. Tl;dr -Divide map into regions/sea zones -Trafalgar style epic battle to initiate conquest of a region -Capture all other ports in a region to allow assault on regional capital -If regional capital isn’t captured within 7 days from start of conquest, defender keeps the region. Thank you for reading, and thank for this fantastic game! PVP1, Danish Kontreadmirals Bartas11 [VIE] Anolytic [RDNN]
  10. UPDATE: The official map has been published by the devs with a few changes from the data I had. Go here to find out how the map will look after the wipe: And to find the ownership of each individual port, go here: Salut Captains, The September Patch is looking to bring significant changes to this game. It should be a huge patch, and contains many different updates, mostly relating to the map we use. In that regard the teasers and bits of information we’ve been given so far may leave some feeling it is a bit lacking. The patch isn’t ready yet, and devs might not have decided all that is going to be implemented. However we have already been given quite a lot of information. Still I read a lot of questions and hear a lot of rumours about what is coming that could be dispelled simply by people reading all the information. But the information is spread across multiple topics and multiple pages of those topics. Devs will obviously provide us more information as well as patch notes around when the patch will be clear, but in the meantime I thought that I will post the information that I have already sorted myself from the answers they have provided. My main interest is the general layout and implications of the new Conquest system and map wipe. The noob-zone in the Bahamas interests me less. The official information that I am basing myself on, can be found here: September Port Changes Plans for conquest mechanics Free Towns Rookie regions Again, devs will continue giving us more information as things get closer, but if you’re very worried about your outposts already, or you didn’t quite understand the maps they have shared, then this topic can hopefully aid you. The Map You can find the current iteration of the map the devs use here: Older public versions you can see [url='>here, here and here. I made a map legend to go with the maps: Map symbols: Orange lines: Region outlines Red circle: Capital Orange star: Regional Capital (1st rate port battle) Yellow pixel: Port location Yellow line: Port entrance with direction of inlet Blue circle: Shallow water port White line(on blue circle): inlet to shallow water port White circle: Freetown Green line underneath name: New Ports Striketrough text: Pacific ports not open until release Map letters: (Indicates historical ownership only) N: Neutral P: Pirate D: Danish S: Spanish W: Swedish UP: Dutch B: British F: French US: United States I: Indian/Native USC: US Capital SC: Spanish Capital DC: Danish Capital WC: Swedish Capital UPC: Dutch Capital FC: French Capital BC: British Capital B - PC: Pirate Capital, historically British B - NC: Neutral Capital, historically British UPRC: Dutch Regional Capital SRC: Spanish Regional Capital FRC: French Regional Capital BRC: British Regional Capital (N)-W: Historically Neutral, Swedish noobs’ capital (N)-UP: Historically Neutral, Dutch noobs’ capital ( -D: Historically British, Danish noobs’ capital ( -B: Historically British, British noobs’ capital (N)-F: Historically Neutral, French noobs’ capital (N)-S: Historically Neutral, Spanish noobs’ capital ( -US: Historically British, US noobs’ capital ( -P: Historically British, Pirates noobs’ capital I also added a map legend onto the map most recently shared by the devs: All the new ports are marked there with a green line underneath their name, and because a lot of people have made the mistake, Free Town is written next to every Free Town on the map. Some background information about the map: About the port wipe The information that we have so far, is that the September patch will introduce a new system of dividing the map into regions. Ownership of ports will also be reset, and whatever ports you own now will not matter to the map after the reset. In essence the map will be reset to how it was after last wipe, so if you look at the PvE server you will get an idea of how ports will be distributed. However, as the regions system means only one nation can own a region, it’s not as clear cut as that. The division into regions will mean that some ports that were historically belonging to one nation will now belong to another or be neutral. The map is based on the territories of nations approximately between 1780 and 1800. According to the developers Historical nations did not care about artificial regions invented today, and several nations may have owned ports in the same region on the map. If that is the case, according to the devs, the region will be all neutral ports in the beginning. There is however some ambiguity here. With Pitt’s Town as an example, that is the current Neutral faction Capital (made redundant by the removal of playable neutral faction). Pitt’s Town is said to become of another nation after the wipe. But according to the map, apart from British ports, there were also neutral and pirate ports in the region now named Crooked. By the strictest interpretation of the devs, Pitt’s Town will remain neutral, just not a capital. But as it has been stated to switch nationality the best guess is that it will become British. The question then becomes if Pitt’s Town is an exception, or if only «nations» mixed historical ownership counts. So if Denmark and Sweden shared a region, it will become Neutral, but if Dutch and Neutral shared a region, then that does not count as mixed and the region becomes Dutch. But what of Pirates? Do they count as a nation in this regard or not? And what if a nation is dominantly owned by one nation, but a single port was owned by another, like the Bovendwinds Region which is dominated by Dutch ports, but has a single French port. Does it become Dutch, or Neutral? I have not yet found an answer to this, but I have used the information available to make some calls about regions that are definitively going to fall to one nation, regions that will presumably fall to one nation, and those that are highly unsure. I will share my data below: The green background indicates the rookie regions. The first column lists the number of ports each region has. The second lists the name of the region. Three is the historical ownership(s) according to the devs’ maps. Four the ownership by the strictest interpretation of «mixed ownership». Five lists the current freetowns and their regions. Column six lists the new freetowns and their regions. The Region Capitals column lists the regional capital of each region. The "Maj. Owner» column lists the faction that historically was dominant owner in a region on the dev map by owning most ports and/or the regional capital. Under «New Ports» all the new ports that have been currently added to the map is listed. By the most liberal interpretation of «mixed ownership» the nation listed as «major owner» should spawn as possessor of a region. Where the nation is listed in cursive there is mixed ownership between two «nations». C means it is a capital region, and an asterix means the region is a capital with mixed ownership and thus mixed ownership will have to be ignored. Some more statistics: Number of ports: 378 Number of regions: 75 Number of Freetowns: 31 (formerly 33) New Ports: 14 By the most liberal interpretation, this will be the division of regions between nations: US: 3 Pirate: 4 Neutral: 4 French: 8 British: 18 Sweden: 1 Danmark: 1 Dutch: 2 Spain: 34 By the strictest interpretation of «mixed ownership», these are the regions per nation: Brit: 7 Spain: 13 US: 3 Dutch: 1 Sweden: 1 Danmark: 1 France: 6 Pirates: 1 I have also made a more visual representation of region ownership, to help decide where your ships might be safe and how nations will be positions when the new conquest system kicks off. The regions that are more or less guaranteed have been coloured according to their nation on this map: On the next map I have coloured almost all the regions according to what nation has the most claim to it on the historical map. The map is coloured based on the principle that what made Crooked a national region is a rule and not an exception. Sharing ports with pirates, Neutrals or indians does not make them mixed ownership and thus neutral. Rookie Zone The devs are going to establish a rookie zone in the Bahamas. You will be able to get most information available so far by reading the official OP here: Rookie regions - new player experience What happens in October Obviously we do not know that much yet. However: In the October patch we should expect a reset of the resources distribution which will affect production buildings. NOTE: I started writing up this and making the maps before today's announcements from devs. Some mistakes may be lingering from when I tried to adapt the text to account for the information changes. I will try to add more information to this topic as I discover it and as it is shared by developers. EDIT:UPDATED according to:
  11. F11 report submitted 15:13 UTC Today's server reset marked the end of a round of voting. From what I can see according to the Politics tab, none of the voting from last round went through. The History dropdown only shows from this round that two Votes failed to go through. It does not show the votes that went through. Danmark-Norge had an alliance with France that expired this round, so both factions voted to renew that alliance. Our alliance is now expired according to the politics tab, but not renewed. It does not either say in History that it did not go through. However, Danmark-Norge players still have access to French Nation chat. When I check the Conquest tab I also still cannot see timers for French ports or buy flags against France. Afaik (though I haven't had time to sail out and check) we still cannot attack French vessels at sea. From this I conclude that the alliance vote did go through, but the Politics screen is bugged so it is invisible there. The system works correctly, but the Alliance screen is bugged. This has one graver consequence however. All random players of Danmark-Norge look at the politics tab and see that we have no alliance with France. In fact according to it we are enemies. They want to be allied with France, hence they vote for a new alliance with France. If the system worked properly they should not be able to vote to renew an alliance that was renewed just last round of voting (at least that is how it worked last time). The problem is that Danmark-Norge has an expiring alliance with Sweden running out next turn. Our vote for alliance with France will be nullified by the system anyway, and it would be in Danmark-Norge's interest and within the majority's intention to renew the alliance with Sweden this turn (assuming - based on earlier votes - that if France wasn't possible to vote for, as it shouldn't be, most players' next choice would be Sweden). ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bug report for devs: Action: Danmark-Norge (mutually) voted for France as Ally last round. Voted for GB as War last round. What happened: France is showing as enemy in Politics screen, and voting for France as ally again is possible. Also, war with Great Britain is listed as expiring in 0 days. What should have happened: France should be listed as Ally (expiring in 9 days). France should not be possible to vote as Ally again this round. France should not be listed as Enemy. Great Britain should not be possible to vote as War target this round. Great Britain - War should not be listed as expiring in 0 days. History dropdown should be updated. ------------------------------------------------------------ Apart from fixing the bug, what is needed?: Reset all votes submitted so far this round, so that players can deliver their votes again with the right information and the proper limitations.
  12. I am not one to argue for the nerfing of pirates, nor to demand that they are made “no longer a nation”. I don’t argue against either of these positions either. I don’t have an opinion either way, and I’m not particularly invested in the outcome. I am sure that whatever the developers come up with for the pirates, with input and correctives from the testing community, will eventually serve its purpose. However, I have been contemplating a lot on the implementation and the implications of the regional conquest system, and I got to thinking about how the pirate faction will fit into this, both strategically and in terms of gameplay. And I wish to offer my thoughts and suggestions. So, I think there have been multiple posts by devs, arguing that historical pirates did own ports, and that the devs want them to be able to do this in the game. I have no objections to this. Regardless I think it will be interesting to have pirates be able to own ports, and should they be limited, basically, to open waters only, that would be a significant drawback to the faction. They should be able to attack ports at least, be it in the future only to raid ports or to capture them. Yet now that the regional conquest system is beginning to take form, I wonder how the pirates should fit into this. Did pirates ever really conquer an entire map area with infrastructure and a capital city - i.e a region? (I haven’t read enough about it to say either way, feel free to enlighten me) Suggestion for Pirate conquest So how about if pirates were not able to conquer regions the same way as every other nation will be able to? How about if pirates were left the only faction that would still be able, after the new system, to conquer individual ports (quite similar to the current conquest system) - rather than regions? What if pirates were able to raise hostility/conquest meter in a region just like any other nation, but where other nations then have to attempt to capture every port of that region, or lose it in its entirety, pirates would have to choose one port of that region and assault that one (the owning nation could be left to guess until the last minute which specific port would actually be assaulted)? If pirates won the assault, that individual port would then be owned by the pirates, despite being part of a region held by another faction. The pirate port would be immune from reconquest by the owner of the region for the same length of time that regions will be immune (if even) from reconquest by nations after changing hands, or possibly twice as long. After that the owner of the region would have to raise hostility outside that particular port to open it up for reconquest. Pirates would be able to hold more than one port of a region, but only by raising hostility once - and taking a port - and then raising hostility again to take another port (and so on). Pirates holding a port in your region would mean extensive raiding of trade and resources in the region, and result in a percentage loss to trade income and resource production in the entire region for the nation that owns it. Pirates conquering a port of a region, would make a good base for them to raid the resources and raze the infrastructure of that region, probably also weakening it severely in case a neighbouring faction then decided to invade that region. Pirate conquest would be completely unrestricted by proximity and distance. Pirates, from Mortimer Town, could raid Tampico in the Gulf of Mexico, Tulum in the Yucatan, or Lagunillas in the Lago de Maracaibo, and own ports in each of the four corners of the map. Pirates could conquer deep into national territories. No economic zone or PvE-area of a nation would be safe from invasion and conquest by pirates. ----------------------------------- I believe this proposal could work to make pirates something distinct and different from nations, while maintaining them as an interesting faction. It could make pirates truly the joker of the map, while avoiding that they would be just another nation competing for dominance of the map and with an advantage in both strategy and numbers over many of the nations.
  13. So this is my suggestion for port battles / flags. It is grounded on the belief that the further you try to reach into enemy territory the more it should cost you and the more notice should be granted to the defender. Point 1: The further the port you want to capture is from your Nations front lines the more the flag costs. For example, buying a flag to capture an enemy port immediately next to your front line might cost 250,000 gold. The flag for the next enemy port (further into enemy territory) might cost 500,000. The flag for the third enemy port might cost 1,000,000, etc. Such a mechanism realistically represents the increasing cost of waging war further from your empire (think supply lines, sail time, crew wages, provisions etc.), and reduces the effectiveness of “steam rolling” through enemy ports, as it will cost you significantly more the further you go. Of course, once you successfully capture the first enemy port, your Nations battle lines have extended, so what was the second port (which would of cost 500,000) is now the first port, and thus costs just 250,000. Point 2: Notification timers should be set to represent a “nation’s intelligence”. Think of all the small ships / fishing boats / outposts etc. dotted around a Nation which would warn of an impending attack by your enemy. Tying in with Point 1, the notification timers should be set depending on the distance from frontlines. For example, the attacking nation buys a flag to capture the defenders most remote port (i.e. the one immediately adjacent to the attacker). The defenders get 30 minutes notice to prepare a defence. If the attackers chose to buy a flag to attack the defenders next port (i.e. the second one from the attacker), the defenders get 60 minutes to prepare a defence. The third port might provide 120 minutes warning, etc. Such a mechanism realistically represents the increased warning a Nation would have, generated by its citizens, of an enemy fleet sailing deeper into their territory. This will concentrate fighting on the front lines, and provide stability to a Nations core ports. This should help with Nations losing huge swathes of their territory due to ninja attacks when the server population is low. Point 3: Sneak attacks should be possible, by decreasing the warning given to the defender. This would be achieved by paying more for the conquest flag. For example, the attacking nation wants to capture the defenders second port. Point 1 and 2 implies this would cost 500,000 and the defender would be given 60 minutes notice. The attacker however buys a “sneak attack flag” which costs double (1,000,000) but reduces the defenders notice to 30 minutes. Such a mechanism realistically represents the additional expense of preparing a sneak attack, such as the planning, bribery, waiting for the opportune moment, chasing down witnesses, etc. Point 4: All of this could of course be supplemented by a "cooldown" on port re-capture. The 7 day suggestion currently circulating seems too long - maybe 2 days, in combination with these other points, would represent a good balance. Example: The attacker wants to capture three ports on their front line. They opt to buy a normal flag for the first port – 250,000 gold and 30 minutes notice. They also buy a “sneak attack” flag for the second port – 1,000,000 gold and 30 minutes notice. They opt to buy a normal flag for the third port – 1,000,000 gold and 120 minutes notice. Assuming they are successful at capturing ports 1, 2 and 3 then the following day, what would have been the defenders ports 4, 5, 6 are now reclassified as 1, 2, 3 and the process can begin again. Of course the attacker could opt to also try and capture ports 4, 5, 6 on the first day, but the (exponentially?) increasing cost would bankrupt most players and the (exponentially?) increasing warning notice would give the defending nation time to mobilise their defence. Conclusion: I hope the point I am making is clear enough – the further you try to reach into enemy territory the more it will cost you and the more notice is granted to the defender. Of course the numbers are just suggestions and open to discussion. Cpt. Ed - Great Britain.
  14. This is how you capture British ports. We would have used just one Pavel, but having someone to talk to on TS is a lot better to pass the time. And 2 pavels cuts the capture time by half. Both of our Le Grosse Ventres supposedly got compass wood, so the flag more than paid for itself. It is the sincere wish of the Danish-Norwegian nation that today's patch gets rid of the trolling early morning timers. This is the time-zone of Denmark-Norway: For months now the British have zerged us with multiple flags by day and then put timers between 00 and 06 server time against us to avoid defending. It is frustrating having to look for players to stay up all night to capture empty British ports. We would have liked to do like the French and the Dutch do and post pictures of sunken fleets, but alas, ever since the battle for Aves brits have been unwilling to fight except for when they have our fleet split in half by having their Swedish puppets attack us in the east. P.S. This guide to capturing British ports will probably, and hopefully, be outdated by the time the server and patch comes online today. Though Babay's video of the capture of Aves might still be instructional to anyone seeking to capture a British regional capital. P.P.S. Nice to have National News back.
  15. This collection of suggestions refers to: ---- Nations must be shaken by the fear of dissidents and rebellions ---- The lenient and somewhat social status of Nations might be shaken by groups not wanting to go along with the flow, as we have seen before and will see in the future. The options at the moment is to change nation or to go free mode with the black flag without any problems to the original nation except the loss of a member. What if that actually hits hard in the established flow of a nation ? These suggestions make sense after a map wipe given the necessity for neutral ports and initial nations expansion. >>>> As we have it, all Ports, after conquered, are assigned a Lord Protector. Nice and dandy. Suggestion #1 - For healthy distribution of power amongst a Nation's clans and organizations >>> any player status as Lord Protector to a maximum of 3 ports. Now that we have established various interests across the realm, with ports being under the protection of different Lords, we can move onwards. Suggestion #2 - Lord Protectors themselves can only craft flags against other Nations from their own Protected ports. Exception for Flags aimed at Neutral Ports, these can be crafted from anywhere. This will enable a more diverse and elastic expansion while relying on a solid social and community driven Nation. A Naval Action Nation must work together and not be reliant on one or two big clans or two or three Lords only. Eventually the Nation will expand, wars will be fought and treaties will be signed. Council meetings, consortiums, accords, meetings of lords, and all that stuff that some people love. >>>> But... what IF one group completely condemns a resolution and really wants to rebel ( basically changing nation ) ? What then ? Suggestion #3 - Loss of a port due to rebellious Lords Port will change to Neutral when a Lord Protector changes nation resulting also on a return to default state of Conquest regarding the Port. ______________​______ Think the game as a whole without concerns for this or that nation nor considering your own interests. Read, connect, think and improve. Let's discuss.
  16. This game in my opinion has an issue regarding port timers. In its current form a defender can simply set a window for times where the server has a low player count. With servers having such a large swing of players from down time to peak times this has created a situation where almost all port battles will be left to a small number of players around DT. Leaving most players to only spectating, opening the map when they log on to see what has changed on the map. I am sure this could be verified if devs have the ability to see when port battles have been fought which I am sure is the case. So to change this I recommend switching to a system with vulnerablitiy windows every 12 hours instead of every 24. Still allowing the owners to pick the window of attack they can either choose to have one window they are very strong and one undefendable, or split their strength by have each window a little before and after their nations peak times. This all taking into account the strength of the enemy. It adds more strategy and allows more to participate. Everyone wins. Please take a close look at this issue because I feel it will only get worse if not fixed.
  17. So there are tons of options the devs. can take when it come to conquest. An right now Port battles are a very touchy subject. This Suggestion will focus on the the expansion part of the map rather then Port battles it's self. So here goes my suggestion. Keep in mind im not telling every one how it should be but just and ideal of what it could be. Lets start off by saying that open world is big and vast. With a map this size players can spread out and not even see another player for days. This can even be longer for lower pop severs. One of the main aspects of the game is PVP battles. To have a healthy pvp sever you need a healthy pvp population which can be contributed by a many of factors ranging from the rank of a player to overall econ of a nation. But the bottom line is player base and population. With out players looking pvp there will be no pvp. So back to the topic of the map. Since the map is so big, any given amount of players can be at any given place. which makes pvp lacking in some regards. Having a well know area where the enemy players will be or most likely will be, can help people find pvp. So if you know where the enemy fronts are you can easily go looking for a fight. So i suggest that the map should be like this. (Not fully finished this just and example) When you look at the map you see line between ports. and for this demonstration lets say i am playing the Spanish nation. The lines will represent the links between each port. ---------------- (green line) = ports are lined to ones nation port. Ports that are connected by this color can be captured unless its a free port. ---------------- (blue line) = neutral ports links. You will need to capture these port if you want them. ----------------(Orange Line)= Contested links. These link means that these are the enemies nation links. if an enemy link is connected to one of you ports the enemy can attack you port. With this suggestion it will make conquest more direct. It will also present clear boarders between nation and will focus players when taking ports.This in turn will make players who are focused on pvp/conquest be more present at said Fronts. This can also give a sense of security for players to move away from the center of their nation outwards as it would take a nation to capture ports systematically. More can be added to this concept. Like supply missions to bring x supplies to a port to bolster it. Certain ports can add nation buffs. Having so many ports can cause a nation economy to hurt. if allowed to get that way. There are so many possibilities from this.
  18. I would very much like to see a Search function added to the map. This would allow players to type in, or begin to type, the name of a port and have the map either pivot to the port, or highlight it. Too often while playing I am left thinking, "Where the heck is that?" and then spend five minutes combing the map to find the place folks are talking about. I would also like to see the Conquest section of the map upgraded so that a player can click on a port name under the Conquest Information section, and have the port be highlighted on the map. British attacking the neutral port of Pacer and don't know where that is? Just open the map, pull down Conquest information, and click on the notification. While we are at it, can we pretty please with cherries on top, have a section for Active Port Battles added to the map? Right now players can't tell what is going on once an assault flag reaches its destination. Just add a little section that says Battles in Progress. Thanks!
  19. My suggestion is to add a feature to the forums which allows players to view the current Conquest Map. This would allow players who cannot otherwise log in to the game to see how the dominance (or mere survival) for the Open World is going at any time.
  20. I have a little suggestion that maybe can hep balancing the conquest game. What if, after a nation conquers any port, the same nation has to maintain an occupation force in the city just conquered. It will mean that to "keep" the town the nation has to commit some forces to it. Maybe some players have to build an outpost, or any other special building to maintain possession. If this is not done, after a period of time, city can go back to a neutral state. Another solution would be that the conquering nation has to do some upkeep routinely, like maintaining a garrison or something like that, forcing a member of the invading nation to pay for it, or even visit regularly. This system could be further develop if we had a political system. Like a Viceroy,or someone in charge, that can appoint any player to be in charge of a city. It would be up to the player in charge to improve the city, maybe pay taxes to the central government. If a nation has to commit to some kind of upkeep... well it will surely slow down the fast conquest of 3 5 ports every night. I will stop here. But the possibilities are infinite.
  21. Hello everyone. I'm sure there is a topic already on a subject similar to this, but I'd like to raise the question once more. I'd like to point out a clear flaw in the game currently happening on the EU one server. I play for Spain and I have nothing against USA players trying to destroy every port in our possesion, but we should at least be able to fight back. USA has such a capture windows that there is no way you can gather more than 10 players in Europe who would actually try to get the ports back. 3-6 am isn't exactly a period in which people can play the game. If they can destroy our ports while we are sleeping, why shouldn't we be able to do the same? All of our main ports can be easily destroyed that way. Even if it turned out Spain doesn't have enough players and players of high enough ranks to actually recapture ports we should still be able to try. With a system like this all we can do is move to Mexico and wait for our deaths. I've literally seen around 20 new players gathering in La Habana the other day thinking they can capture something back, only to realise that there is a magical "port capture window" not allowing them to do so. A system where AI could replace the obvious lack of players on some nations would also be nice, but that's a whole other issue. I hope I managed to make my point. Cheers!
  22. Conquest shouldn't be only a way to create battles. Conquest rhymes with economy, war and politics. The conquest system should involve strategy and cooperation within the faction, in order to propose to players real choices that could actually make their faction better or worse amongst the competitors. In a sandbox game, the quality of the endgame depends on the diversity of the choices panel. For a rich metagame to emerge, there have to be multiple possible combinations, viable and different. During the Age of Sail, the fate of the naval powers lied in their ability to supply their navies and forge alliances. The history of trade and conquest is punctuated by peace treaties. A sense of freedom given to states should echo the sense of freedom given by an open world, so the players could make factions rise and fall, and rise again. Regional balance of forces As well as there could be ports and hinterland markets related to economy, there could be port garrisons and land armies related to conquest. Ports could be fortified against threat from sea and threat from land. This suggestion is about creating a balance of power system that would – while taking a bit of distance from realism – make the whole conquest system depend on what happens on the sea. The principle is simple : instead of simulating the land armies with battles, they are simulated by a balance of forces that depend on the armies supply. This supply would be men and guns, or whatever. For example, if Britain would conquer the port of Bayonne in the south west of France, the British would have to defend the port from the French land armies. A fair amount of supply would be required to keep the port from being re-taken by land. The British could decide to keep that port only and use it as a strategical base for its navy, or to conquer other ports in the same region coast. With enough army supply, they could even conquer the whole region and the hinterland market related to that port. Then supply would still be needed since land warfare would happen in the region borders. Each faction would be given an unconquerable base region, and there would be specific balance of forces relations depending on whether territories would be linked with each other or not (islands or factions at peace). Population allegiance It could be interesting to simulate the perception of the populations towards their rulers. The allegiance could go to playable factions or other factions. Each region would feature a list of different allegiances percentages. Keeping an aggressive population from revolting would require some army supply. Allegiances could change over time, and could be influenced by different factors such as tax rates. Political influence As well as there could be local governors, the states could be ruled by players. Historically, the states were absolute monarchies, parliamentary monarchies, republics. A fair guess would make the political power depend on the economic power. The kings were influenced by the courts afterall, and the courts by money anyway. I'm not sure how the political power should be given exactly though. A possible option would be to make the faction decisions be taken by the assembly of the ports governors, or the region governors. Another one would be to make them be taken by the governors of the ports with an arsenal, which could be built by companies or by states. Another one would require a bit more complex system, taking into account the victories and defeats of a society. The influence would then be a mix of economical power and renown. If companies would be different than societies, the political influence system could actually enable historically accurate political systems to happen within states. Decisions could be taken at the majority or a higher percentage, and that percentage (or the percentages that would give the right to take part into the state decisions) could change depending on the choice of the current power. Factions that would rely only on the game system could become plutocraties or timocraties, and factions that would rely on discussions between players could become aristocraties, monarchies or democraties. The difference between companies or societies and states, would be that in companies or societies the power would end up in the hands of a director or a leader, as in states the decisions would always be taken by a vote. That basically enables a feudal organization (as usually in games), which could evolve into another organization if the players would decide so. Faction political decisions The basic decisions of the the state would be the state tax rates. Maybe the states could also decide on the flexibility given to local governors. For example, the ports of Marseille, Bayonne and Dunkirk in France were given the free port status to let them compete against the Hanseatic ports and the free port of Livorno in Italy. Depending on the amount of taxes on faction goods, foreign goods, faction traders, foreign traders, importations, exportations, privateers takings and so on, the states could actually shape the economy of the faction. States could also decide to give trade monopoly to specific companies. I'm not sure whether the state treasury should be represented exactly with an amount of currency, or simulated with something else. As well as there could be a private contract system, there could be a military contract system. Free navy ships ! The purpose is to give to players not interested into economy a possibility to play on the open world. There should be some kind of limitation, as a cool-down timer and/or a lesser quality of ships. The states could decide to use their treasury to decrease the cool-down timer or to increase the quality of the ships. The coastal defences could also be paid by states. For example, the engineer Vauban fortified a lot of French border places during the 17th century. States could also decide on where to build arsenals, providing conquest supply bases to their navy. Diplomacy and treaties The basic state options regarding diplomacy would be forging alliances, declaring wars and negotiating peace treaties. The exchanges could include territories or money. I don't think it would be needed to program a complex system. The players could just discuss agreements. If the undertakings wouldn't be honoured, it would be remembered and punished. However, to keep the world from being a complete lawless area and avoid to players the tedious activity of making the agreements respected amongst their own faction, the game should feature some gameplay doors that could be opened or closed depending on the treaties. For example, the navy players should be restricted in their freedom to attack allied navy or neutral navy, as the private players would have most possibilities open despite the faction relations. Before France declared war to Britain during the American War of Independence, French privateers have been supplying American insurgents, and the Navy responded by capturing the hauling ships. Reputation and pirates A reputation system, which devs have said they want to implement, would open a lot of options. Attacking allied players or smuggling would decrease personal reputation until the captain would see some possibilities closed with some factions. Maybe both specific reputations with each faction and a global reputation with states could be interesting. A player could actually change his faction provided he wouldn't attack ships blindly. Pirates would be a faction without state. They could have local governors, but no faction common decisions, no global diplomacy. Each society would be its own state. Maybe there could be alliances between some states and some pirate societies. Maybe a state society could have a sister pirate society. To increase the wealth of their port, some state governors could accept that pirates would sell their takings, provided they would have a good enough reputation with the faction. There would be unofficial but effective local alliances between governors and pirates. Gameplay consequences From my point of view, a good Age of Sail conquest game should try to include historical elements in order to create an immersive atmosphere and distinguish itself from the usual MMOs. The purpose of all those features is to give a sense of freedom in the world, while keeping naval combat at the centre of the game. With a lot of cooperation options open to players, each gaming day is different than the previous one, because the combinations are almost infinite and each one creates a wide range of possible answers. The world is vast, rich, and it's up to the captains to chart their own course.
  23. Only a few coastal states could afford a ship of the line (SoL) fleet. They were more or less seven: Russia, Sweden, Denmark, United Provinces, Britain, France and Spain. In Europe and in the world, some other coastal states had a war fleet. Many had a merchant fleet and sometimes a privateering or pirate fleet. Milestones: the major European powers 1516: Charles Quint (dynasty of Habsburg) comes to power until 1556. Because of the succession laws, he is King of Aragon and regent of Castile (Spain and its colonies), Duke of Burgundy (sovereign of Netherlands), Archduke of Austria, King of Sicilies (Sicily and Naples). He is also elected Emperor of the German Holy Roman Empire in 1519. 1521: Charles Quint gives the Archduchy of Austria to his brother, dividing the reigning dynasty into the Austrian Habsburg branch (which will also keep from 1556 the crown of the Holy Empire by elections) and the Spanish Habsburg branch (which will rule Spain from 1556). The two branches will stay allied. 1523: Gustav I Vasa breaks the Union of Kalmar (Denmark, Norway, Sweden) declaring Swedish independance from the Oldenburg Danish dynasty. Denmark will claim Norway in 1536. 1559: Treaty of Cateau-Cambresis. This treaty ends the Italian Wars started in 1494 by the French dynasty of Valois. 1570: Stettin Treaty. The Nordic Seven Years War is won by an alliance of Denmark, Lübeck and Poland against Sweden. Between 1590 and 1634, a lot of wars happen in northern and eastern Europe involving Denmark, Sweden, Russia, Poland-Lithuania and the Ottoman Empire. 1571: the Holy League defeats the Ottoman Empire at the Battle of Lepanto. From Lepanto to the Napoleonic wars, a lot of maritime battles will happen in the Mediterranean and Black Sea, involving mostly the Republic of Venice and the Ottoman Empire, but also Spain, France, the Barbary Regencies (Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli), the Republic of Genoa, Tuscany, the Papal States, Malta, Britain and Russia. 1580: start of the Iberian Union: the Portugese and Spanish crowns will be united under the Spanish Habsburgs until 1640. 1581: Hague Act. Independance of the United Provinces (northern Netherlands). The southern Netherlands stay Spanish. 1588: the Invincible Armada is sent by Spain to Britain during the Anglo-Spanish war (1585-1604). 1640: Portugal gets back its independance under the Bragança dynasty. 1648: the Treaties of Westphalia end the Eighty-year War (Netherlands) and the Thirty-year War (most of Europe against the Habsburgs, and Catholics against Protestants). Sweden gains power in the Baltic Sea in detriment of Denmark. France gains some territories and Spain starts to decline. 1660: end of the First Nordic War started in 1655 by Sweden against Poland-Lithuania and then Denmark, Russia, the Habsburgs and the United Provinces. Sweden loses some territories. 1678: the Treaty of Nijmegen ends the Ducth War started in 1672 by France and its allies (Britain, Sweden) against the Quadruple Alliance (United Provinces, Holy Empire, Spain, Denmark). France gains some territories and Sweden gets back the ones it lost during the First Nordic War. 1697: the Ryswick Treaty ends the War of the league of Ausburg started in 1688, between Louis XIV of France (and the Ottoman Empire) against the Great Alliance (United Provinces, Britain, Holy Empire, Spain, Portugal, Duchy of Savoy and Sweden). France gains some territories of the Holy Empire, and western Santo Domingo in the Antilles. 1700: start of the War of Spanish Succession. As the last of the Spanish Habsburgs dies without any direct descendant, the Austrian Habsburgs and other European states propose an agreement to share the Spanish territories (Spains and colonies, Sicilies, Netherlands, Milan...). But the Bourbons (French) decide to use the official will and the Duke of Anjou, grandchildren of Louis XIV, becomes Philip V of Spain (starting the dynasty of Bourbon-Anjou). As Louis XIV also gives to Philip the inheritance rights to the French crown, the war starts. 1713: Treaty of Utrecht. France and Castile have been defeated by the Great Alliance of the German Holy Roman Empire, the Archduchy of Austria, Prussia, Britain, the United Provinces, Aragon, Portugal and the Duchy of Savoy. Spain loses a lot of territories: the Austrian Absburgs gain the southern Netherlands, Sardinia, Milan and Naples, the Savoys gain Sicily, Britain gains Gibraltar and Minorca. France gives to Britain a part of Acadia and Saint Christophe in the Antilles. France also recognizes the Hudson Bay and a part of Newfoundland as British territories. Philip V keeps the Spanish crown, but waives his rights on the French crown. Despite victorious, the United Provinces start to decline. 1720: the Hague Treaty ends a war started and lost by Spain in 1717 to recover Sardinia. Sicily is exchanged with Sardinia. The Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia starts under the Savoys, and the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies is reunified under the Austrian Habsburgs. 1721: end of the Second Nordic War started in 1700. Also known as the Great Nordic War, it opposed Sweden to the coalition of Russia, Prussia, Denmark, Poland-Lithuania and Britain. Some Swedish territories are shared between the coalition: Prussia gains the south of Pomerania, Denmark gains the north of Holstein-Gottorp, and Russia gains access to the Baltic Sea with Estonia. Sweden starts to decline. 1738: the Treaty of Vienne ends the War of Polish Succession. Stanisław Leszczyński (France, Spain and Piedmont-Sardinia) accepts to waive to the Polish-Lithuanian crown in favor of Auguste III (Wettin) (Russia and the Archduchy of Austria). Spain takes back the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies from the Austrian Habsburgs, who give Parma and Piacenza in exchange. Spain also gives Tuscany to the Duke of Lorraine, who just married Maria Theresa of Austria (Austrian Habsburgs), creating the reigning dynasty of Habsburg-Lorraine. 1748: the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle ends the War of Austrian Succession. The Austrian Habsburgs having no direct male descendant, Maria Theresa of Austria should succeed in Austria. But the Holy Empire can't have a woman as sovereign. The alliance of Prussia, France, Spain, Sweden, the Republic of Genoa and the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies fights the alliance of the Archduchy of Austria, Britain, United Provinces, Russia and the Kingdom of Sardinia. Despite a Prussian betrayal, the belligerents manage to find an agreement: Prussia gains Silesia and Maria Theresa keeps the crown of Austria. But the other states aren't pleased with the outcome, and tensions remain. 1763: Treaty of Paris. The Seven Years War, started in 1756, can be considered as a world war. Austria wasn't pleased by giving Silesia to Prussia, and Britain would like more colonies in North America. The alliances change: on one side Britain, Prussia and Portugal. On the other side France, Austria, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Poland-Lithuania and the newly independant Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. Prussia is almost beaten when Elizabeth I of Russia dies, and her successor signs a peace treaty. At sea and in the colonies, France and Spain are heavily beaten by Britain. Prussia keeps Silesia. France gives Acadia, Canada, the right bank of the Mississippi, some Antilles islands and India (except 5 trading posts) to Britain, aswell as the left bank of the Mississippi to Spain, which gives Florida to Britain. France loses its colonial empire, and Britain gains one. 1783: the Treaty of Paris ends the United States War of Independance. In 1775, the Patriots of the Thirteen Colonies rebel against Britain. In 1776, they declare Independance. France, Spain and the United Provinces join the war later. The United States obtain a territory limited by the Great Lakes to the north, the Mississippi to the west and the north of Florida to the south. France is given 5 more trading posts in India. Spain regains Florida. 1797: Treaty of Campo-Fermio. In 1792 started the War of the First Coalition, the French Republic fighting many European states (Britain, United Provinces, Austria, Prussia, Russia, Spain, Portugal, the Kingdom of Sardinia, the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, the Grand Duchy of Tuscany and the Papal States). Despite a strong British maritime blocus, the coalition fails to invade France and some allies start to quit. After the Campaign of Italy led by the republican general Napoleon Bonaparte, Austria signs the peace treaty, leaving Britain as the only state at war. The French Republic gains the Austrian Netherlands, and creates sister republics: Batavian Republic instead of the United Provinces, Ligurian Republic instead of the Republic of Genoa, Cisalpine Republic instead of the Duchy of Milan... Venice is given to Austria in exchange of Milan and the Netherlands. 1801: end of the War of the Second Coalition started in 1799. After the fleet of the Napoleonian expedition to Egypt was sunk by Nelson at the battle of Aboukir, the second coalition is organized by Britain. The Ottoman Empire, Austria, Russia, Sweden, Portugal, the Kingdom of Sardinia and the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies are fighting the French Republic and its allies (seven sister republics, Denmark and Spain). But the coalition doesn't manage to invade France, and Russia quits. Napoleon Bonaparte, back from Egypt, undertakes a coup, becomes First Consul, invades Italy again and approaches Vienna. Treaties are signed separately during the year 1801. Britain gives back Minorca to Spain and the Rhine becomes the French eastern border. 1815: Congress of Vienna, end of the Napoleonic Wars. In 1804, Napoleon I Bonaparte is proclaimed Emperor. From 1805 to 1815 there will be five more coalitions. In 1805, Nelson defeats the French fleet at the battle of Trafalgar. The maritime fights will continue in the Caribbean, but Bonaparte concentrates on the continental warfare, reaching Moscow in 1812 but being forced to retreat due to the arson of the city. The last two coalitions defeat the First French Empire at Leipzig and Waterloo. Britain is the world's commercial and maritime hegemonic power. Spain will have lost almost all of its colonial empire a few years later. From the Baltic to the Black Sea, and from Arabia to Japan, the coastal states are easily identifiable (even though some were small). In Africa, India, Indonesia and Americas, they were so many tribes or small kingdoms that I've found difficult and unnecessary to mention them all. It's sometimes difficult to differentiate between the political entities and the territorial entities. So let's follow the coast: Northern and western Europe Russia: 1328 Great Principalty of Moscow (Rurik) 1547 Tsardom of Russia (Rurik 1598 Vasa 1613 Romanov) 1721 Russian Empire (Romanov) 1917 Norway: 1397 Kalmar Union (... 1450 Oldenburg) 1523 (Denmark) 1814 (Sweden) 1905 Sweden: 1397 Kalmar Union (... 1457 Oldenburg) 1523 Kingdom of Sweden (Vasa 1654 Wittelsbach 1720 Hesse 1751 Oldenburg 1818 Bernardotte) Denmark: 1397 Kalmar Union (... 1448 Oldenburg) 1523 Kingdom of Denmark (Oldenburg) Poland-Lithuania: 1386 Kingdom of Poland (Jagellon) and Great Duchy of Lithuania (Gediminas 1440 Jagellon) 1569 Republic of Two Nations (elected kings) 1795 1807 Duchy of Warsaw (Wettin) 1815 Prussia (Hohenzollern): 1525 Duchy of Prussia 1618 Brandenburg-Prussia 1701 Kingdom of Prussia 1918 German Holy Roman Empire: 962 German Holy Roman Empire (... 1438 Habsburg 1556 Austrian Habsburg 1740 Wittelsbach 1745 Habsburg-Lorraine) 1806 Confederation of the Rhine 1813 Lübeck: 1226 Imperial Free City of Lübeck (German Holy Roman Empire) 1806 Lübeck (France) 1813 Hamburg: 1189 Imperial Free City of Hamburg (German Holy Roman Empire) 1806 Hamburg (France) 1814 Bremen: 1646 Imperial Free City of Bremen (German Holy Roman Empire) 1806 Free Hanseatic City of Bremen 1811 Bremen (France) 1813 United Provinces: 1482 Seventeen Provinces (Habsburgs 1549 Spain) 1581 United Provinces (Orange-Nassau, stathouders) 1795 (France) 1815 Southern Netherlands: 1482 Seventeen Provinces (Habsburgs 1549 Spain) 1581 Southern Netherlands (Spain 1713 Austria) 1795 (France) 1815 Britain: 924 Kingdom of England (... 1485 Tudor 1603 Stuart) 1707 Kingdom of Great Britain (Stuart 1714 Hanover) 1801 United Kingdom of Great Britain (Hanover 1901 Windsor) France: 987 Kingdom of France (... 1328 Valois 1589 Bourbon) 1792 French Republic 1804 First French Empire (Bonaparte) 1814 Spain: 1479 Crown of Castile and Crown of Aragon (Trastamare 1516 Habsburg 1556 Spanish Habsburg) 1556 Kingdom of Castile and Aragon (Spanish Habsburg 1700 Bourbon-Anjou) 1716 Kingdom of Spain (Bourbon-Anjou) Portugal: 1139 Kingdom of Portugal (... 1385 Aziz) 1581 Iberian Union (Spain) 1640 Kingdom of Portugal (Bragança) 1910 Italy States of Savoy (Savoy) : 1416 Duchy of Savoy 1536 (France) 1563 Duchy of Savoy 1713 Kingdom of Sicily 1720 Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia 1860 Genoa: 1528 Republic of Genoa 1797 (France) 1815 Corsica: 1511 (Genoa) 1553 (France) 1559 (Genoa) 1736 Kingdom of Corsica (Neuhoff) 1740 (Genoa) 1752 "Kingdom of Corsica" (democracy) 1768 (France) 1794 (Britain) 1796 (France) Sardinia: 1516 (Spain) 1708 (Austria) 1717 (Spain) 1720 Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia (Savoy) 1860 Modena: 1452 Duchy of Modena (Este) 1796 (France) 1815 Lucca: 1119 Republic of Lucca 1805 (France) 1815 Tuscany: 1530 Duchy of Florence (Medicis) 1569 Grand Duchy of Tuscany (Medicis 1737 Habsburg-Lorraine) 1801 (France) 1815 Siena: 1167 Republic of Siena 1555 (Grand Duchy of Tuscany) 1801 (France) 1815 Rome: 752 Papal States 1798 (France) 1800 Papal States 1808 (France) 1815 Naples: 1442 Kingdom of the Two Sicilies (Aragon 1700 Spain) 1713 Kingdom of Naples (Austria) 1720 Kingdom of the Two Sicilies (Austria 1735 Spain 1759 Bourbon-Sicilies) 1799 (France) 1815 Sicily: 1442 Kingdom of the Two Sicilies (Aragon 1700 Spain) 1713 Kingdom of Sicily (Savoy) 1720 Kingdom of the Two Sicilies (Austria 1735 Spain 1759 Bourbon-Sicilies) 1860 Malta: 1530 Order of Saint John of Jerusalem 1798 (France) 1800 (Britain) 1964 Ferrara: 1471 Duchy of Ferrara (Este) 1598 (Papal States) 1798 (France) 1815 Venice: 1172 Republic of Venice 1797 (Austria) 1806 (France) 1815 Mediterranean and Black Sea Austria: 1453 Archduchy of Austria (Holy Empire, Habsburg 1521 Austrian Habsburg 1780 Habsburg-Lorraine) 1804 Austrian Empire (Habsburg-Lorraine) 1866 Hungary: 1000 Kingdom of Hungary (... 1490 Jagellon 1526 Austrian Habsburgs) 1541 (Ottoman Empire) 1699 (Austria) 1866 Ragusa: 1358 Republic of Ragusa 1808 (France) 1815 Ottoman Empire: 1299 Ottoman Empire (Ottoman) 1923 Crimea: 1441 Khanate of Crimea (Giray 1478 Ottoman Empire, Giray Khans) 1783 (Russia) 1917 Egypt: 1205 Mameluk Sultanate (Bahri 1382 Burji) 1517 Ottoman Egypt (Ottoman Empire, Mameluk Pashas) 1805 Alaouite Egypt (Alaouite of Egypt) 1882 Tripoli: 1510 (Spain) 1530 (Malta) 1551 Regency of Tripoli (Ottoman Empire, ... 1711 Karamanid Beys) 1835 (Ottoman Empire) 1911 Tunis: 1207 Sultanate of Tunis (Hafsid) 1574 Regency of Tunis (Ottoman Empire 1756 Algiers, ... 1613 Mouradite Beys 1705 Husaynid Beys) 1811 Tunis Beylik (Husaynid) 1881 Algiers: 1515 Regency of Algiers (Ottoman Empire) 1830 Morocco: 788 Sultanate of Morocco (... 1472 Wattasid 1554 Saadi 1666 Alaouite of Morocco) 1957 Oceanic Africa and Arabia NB: the coastal states shouldn't be confused with the coastal trading posts - the colonisation isn't mentioned - there are sometimes ethnics rather than dynasties when the power isn't hereditary Senegal: 1350 Jolof Empire (Wolofs) 1549 Serer Kingdoms (Serers) 1960 Gambia: 1464 Songhai Empire (Sonni 1493 Askia) 1591 Ghana: 1620 Denkyira Kingdom (Akans) 1701 Ashanti Empire (Akans) 1797 Western Benin: 1600 Kingdom of Dahomey (Fons 1740 Oyo Empire 1823 Fons) 1894 Eastern Benin: 1500 Oyo Empire (Yorubas) 1897 Nigeria: 1440 Benin Empire (Edos) 1897 Northern Congo: 1550 Kingdom of Loango (Kongos) 1883 Southern Congo: 1390 Kingdom of Kongo (Kongos) 1885 Mozambique to Kenya: 10th Swahili city-states (Swahilis) 16th Djibouti: 1435 Adal Sultanate (Walashma) 1577 Ethiopia: 990 Ethiopian Empire (... 1137 Zagwe 1270 Solomon) 1975 Sudan: 1504 Funj Sultanate of Sennar (Funjs) 1821 Oman: 751 Imamate of Oman (... 1406 Nabhani 1624 Ya'ariba) 1749 Sultanate of Oman (al-Said) Saudi Arabia: 1744 Saudi Imamate (Saud) 1818 Asia Persia: 1501 Kingdom of Persia (Safavid 1736 Afsharid 1750 Zand 1794 Qajar 1925 Pahlavi) 1979 Pakistan: 1747 Durrani Empire (Durrani) 1826 India: 1526 Mughal Empire (Great Mughals 1707 Mughals) 1858 Western India: 1490 Deccan Sultanates 1636 (Mughal Empire) 1674 Maratha Empire (Bhosale 1749 Bhat 1769) 1818 Southern India: 1336 Vijayanagara Empire (... 1505 Tuluva) 1565 Kingdom of Mysore (Wodeyar) 1799 (Britain) 1947 Eastern India: 1518 Deccan Sultanates 1687 (Mughal Empire) 1724 Hyderabad State (Nizams) 1947 Burma: 1510 Empire of Burma (Toungoo 1757 Konbaung) 1885 Thailand: 1351 Ayutthaya Kingdom (... 1409 Suphannaphum 1569 Sukhotha 1629 Prasat Thong 1688 Ban Phlu Luang) 1767 Kingdom of Thonburi (Thonburi) 1782 Kingdom of Siam (Chakri) Cambodia: 1431 Kingdom of Cambodia (Khmers) 1867 Southern Vietnam: 7th Kingdom of Champa (Chams) 1832 Middle Vietnam: 1428 Dai Viet (Lê) 1527 northern Dai Viet (Mac 1545 Thrin Lords 1778 Nguyen) 1802 Empire of Vietnam (Nguygen) 1896 Northern Vietnam: 1428 Dai Viet (Lê) 1527 southern Dai Viet (Lê 1600 Nguyen Lords) 1802 Empire of Vietnam (Nguygen) 1896 Sumatra: 1520 Aceh Sultanate 1903 Java: 1526 Kingdom of Banten 1638 Banten Sultanate 1813 Borneo: 1363 Sultanate of Brunei 1846 Sulawesi: 1320 Kingdom of Gowa 1669 Philippines: 1457 Sultanate of Sulu 1917 China: 200 BC Chinese Empire (... 1368 Ming 1644 Qing) 1912 Korea: 919 Kingdom of Korea (... 1392 Joseon) 1897 Japan: 700 BC Empire of Japan (... Ashikaga Shoguns 1603 Tokugawa Shoguns 1868) Americas NB: too many tribes there although some were organized into confederations, and there were the pre-columbian empires