Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'politics'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • 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
  • Naval Action Legends
    • General Discussions
  • Game-Labs Forum
    • Jobs
    • Future games & special projects
    • General games discussions

Blogs

  • 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
  • Antonio_Pigafetta'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
  • Travel between Outposts
  • Blurring reality as artist’s 3D model tricks
  • Download Only file APK for Android
  • Testing stuff

Categories

There are no results to display.

Calendars

  • Community Calendar

Found 21 results

  1. In tradition I wish to bring this back for Global as for players who come on the forums and check out the situations on the servers, or new players wanting to see the lay of the land. I will keep this unbiased, and unless a player from that nation wants to update their clan or nation's diplomatic stance, it will remain unchanged from the beginning. I will make it clear, this is not a "Rumor says" political post. Post your Port Battle Screenshots here as well! We all love looking at triumphs and conflict together, as well as telling the story of some epic clashes between nations or clans. Format will be as follows: War -- All nations start off as at war by default OW Conflict -- OW conflict is strictly OW PvP, Ports aren't the primary purpose of the nations contention, rather sinking your opponents ships is all the clan/nation cares about. Neutral -- Trade agreements, NAPs, NIPs, Port Agreements, or other limited agreements will define this slot. Alliance -- If an official post is made between 2 or nations it will be officially updated - an Alliance is only made when the majority of clans within a nation are in agreement. Clans Agreements - If a Clan wishes to have agreements be made public, they may do so, otherwise nothing is official. If any information is incorrect, Please inform me, I wish to make this post as accurate as possible. I ask that we keep this thread clean :). I will attempt to update this Thread daily. Politics/Diplomacy United States of America Verenigde-Provincien : Neutral Espana: Neutral France: Neutral Great Britain: Neutral Denmark-Norge: Neutral Sverige: Neutral Pirates: War Verenigde-Provincien United States: Neutral Espana: Neutral France: OW Conflict Great Britain: Neutral Denmark-Norge: Neutral Sverige: War Pirates: Neutral Espana Verenigde-Provincien: Neutral United States: Neutral France: Neutral Great Britain: Neutral Denmark-Norge: Neutral Sverige: Neutral Pirates: Neutral France Verenigde-Provincien: OW Conflict Espana: Neutral United States: Neutral Great Britain: War Denmark-Norge: Neutral (NAP) Sverige: OW Conflict Pirates: OW Conflict Great Britain Verenigde-Provincien: Neutral (NAP) Espana: Neutral France: War United States: Neutral Denmark-Norge: Neutral (NAP) Sverige: Neutral (NAP) Pirates: War Denmark-Norge Verenigde-Provincien: Neutral Espana: Neutral France: Neutral (Ceasefire) Great Britain: Neutral (NAP) United States: Neutral Sverige: Alliance Pirates: Alliance Sverige Verenigde-Provincien: War Espana: Neutral France: OW Conflict Great Britain: Neutral Denmark-Norge: Alliance United States: War Pirates: Neutral Pirates Verenigde-Provincien : Neutral Espana: Neutral France: OW Conflict Great Britain: War Denmark-Norge: Alliance (only BLACK/CCCP as it's a clan thing) Sverige: Neutral United States: War
  2. [PVP EU] Political Situation

    There is currently no place for the EU server where people not involved in inner diplomatic circles can know the newest diplomatic developments, so I thought I just start this thread until something better will be set up. As you will see, its pratically a copy of the Global servers thread by Teutonic. I have no connections or information channels yet since Im pretty new to the game, so please inform me here or ingame about any wrong information or new developments. I will try to get more involved going forward, but if somebody already good connected wants to take over this thread, he or she is very welcome! Altough I know there are already agreements, I've set default War? until I get otherwise notified. If there are crucial specifications to the respective agreement, please inform me so that I can clarify the description. I will try to update this thread accordingly as regularly as I can. Also, please feel free discuss the feasability of the following format! As I said its just copy and pasted. Format will be as follows: War -- A significant proportion of clans (either per number or size) has officially declared war against the other nation, with a clear wargoal (f.e. to take certain ports). Hostile -- There hasn't been any official statements/declarations of war, but there are frequent attacks and conquests. Neutral -- There are neither (regular) hostilities, nor any additional agreements made. Agreements -- Trade agreements, NAPs, NIPs, Port Agreements, or other limited agreements will define this slot. Description will specify the agreements content. Alliance -- An Alliance is made when a significant proportion of clans (either per number or size) within a nation are in agreement. Greyed Out -- means there is additional confirmation needed. Clans Agreements: If a Clan wishes to have agreements be made public, they may do so, otherwise nothing is official. Ideally, each agreement-info-comment is described by the respective nations, clans and specifications involved. See the SAPA-post. I'll give a short description á la Format above and will then link your comment so anybody interested can look at the details of different involved parties, etc. Maybe this way we can pass by the problem, that diplomacy is essentially Clan-based. Politics/Diplomacy United States of America Verenigde-Provincien : Neutral Espana: SAPA[c] France: War? Great Britain: War? Denmark-Norge: Hostile Sverige: Neutral Pirates: SAPA[c] Verenigde-Provincien United States: Neutral Espana: Hostile France: Neutral Great Britain: Trade Denmark-Norge: Hostile Sverige: Neutral Pirates: Hostile Espana Verenigde-Provincien: Hostile United States: SAPA[c] France: Neutral Great Britain: Hostile Denmark-Norge: Hostile Sverige: Neutral Pirates: SAPA[c] France Verenigde-Provincien: Hostile Espana: Neutral United States: War? Great Britain: War? Denmark-Norge: Hostile Sverige: War Pirates: War? Great Britain Verenigde-Provincien: Trade Espana: Hostile France: War? United States: War? Denmark-Norge: Hostile Sverige: Hostile Pirates: War? Denmark-Norge Verenigde-Provincien: Hostile Espana: Hostile France: Hostile Great Britain: Hostile United States: Hostile Sverige: Hostile Pirates: Hostile Sverige Verenigde-Provincien: Neutral Espana: Neutral France: War Great Britain: Hostile Denmark-Norge: Hostile United States: Neutral Pirates: Neutral Pirates Verenigde-Provincien : Hostile Espana: SAPA[c] France: Hostile Great Britain: Hostile Denmark-Norge: Hostile Sverige: Hostile United States: SAPA[c] Regards! Merijn Van Roij
  3. Hi everyone! Since everyone here has presumably some interest in the Late Unpleasantness, I thought it might be fun to try and make a thread for fun, interesting, or thought provoking questions about the Civil War! So I'm thinking this thread could be that! If you've got a question about the war or its aftermath, post away! If you've got an answer to a question, give a post! All I ask is that any responses are respectful in two ways. 1) Respectful of the person who posted the answer and/or question. 2) Respectful of academia. This one is a bit tricky, but basically I think any answer posted here should strictly rely on primary sources and reliable, peer-reviewed academic secondary sources. Basically, if you're quoting pseudo-intellectuals like Thomas D. Lorenzo, or outright anti-intellectual works such as "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War" then you're in the wrong thread, Buster ! Think carefully about where you are getting your info! If this thread is a hit, then let's keep it smart! So, fire away! How did Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation really affect slavery? What was the difference between "anti-slavery" and "abolition?" When did the Civil War truly end? What kinds of rifles did men use in the war? Which battle was really the most important and why? Can we interpret Grand Strategy in the Civil War from the lens of Clausewitz? Was the Civil War a Modern War? Was it a Total War?Why did the "preservation of the Union" matter so much to Americans? What were the Confederates fighting for? Was Chamberlain's moustache really that sexy!? (it was) Was the Civil War really caused by the institution of slavery? (it was) So, if anyone is interested, pop a question!
  4. Political situation PVP 2 US (Inter Clan) Information is from players (Inter clan), updated weekly and daily if needed. This is the same sort of format as the EU political Situation thread. The Diplomacy part presents the attitude of the nation's major clans towards other nations. Verenigde Provinciën: Espana: Neutral France: War Great Britain: Alliance Verenigde-Provincien: Danmark-Norge: War Sverige: War United States: Alliance Major clans: DWIC1-6 - Dutch West Indische Compagnie NPV- Nederlandse Protectoraat Vloot SMS - Reichsflotte Danmark-Norge: Espana: Neutral France: Alliance Great Britain: War Verenigde-Provincien: War Danmark-Norge: Sverige: Alliance United States: War Major clans: CCCP - CN - SORT - Pirates: Espana: Neutral France: Neutral Great Britain: War Verenigde-Provincien: War Danmark-Norge: Neutral Sverige: Neutral United States: War Major clans: CBP - BLACK - Black Flag BLANC - French PvP1 players BLOOD - Blood of Black HYDRA - SOB - Sons of Black TFG - Great Britain: Espana: Neutral France: War Great Britain: Verenigde-Provincien: Alliance Danmark-Norge: War Sverige: War United States: Alliance Major Clans: AGW - CKA -Canadian Kicks Ass- Cordova BCS - British Commonwealth Sailors BRA - ELITE - ?- Norfolk nChance MINE - Sweden: Espana: Alliance France: Alliance Great Britain: War Verenigde-Provincien: War Danmark-Norge: Alliance Sverige: Neutral United States: War Major clans: RISE - ISN - SS - USA: Espana: Neutral France: War Great Britain: Alliance Verenigde-Provincien: Alliance Danmark-Norge: War Sverige: War United States: Major clans: ACDC - ASP - BSR - DD - Detroit Demolition IGG - NPG - No Pants Guys MARS - France: Espana: Alliance France: Great Britain: War Verenigde-Provincien: War Danmark-Norge: Alliance Sverige: Alliance United States: War Major clans: SD - SINK - Sink or Swim Spain: Espana: France: Alliance Great Britain: Neutral Verenigde-Provincien: Neutral Danmark-Norge: War Sverige: Alliance United States: War Major clans: note: If anything is wrong please reply or PM! Major clan= edit* no restrictions* *** Mods can we have this replace the current sticky post of the same topic. It's out dated and the old player that started it is no longer active so it's not getting updated. With that and I know Blackthorn/Decken had a clan one like this he was doing, if folks can post there clan info I'll go through this list and update the info. For clan info please send me a PM instead of posting it with your clan info that you want to post. Numbers can be optional but if you want to give current active numbers it might help with new players that want to join one clan over another. The main thing is to let folks know who the players and makers are for each nation.***
  5. National Government

    In light of @admin's latest patch notes: http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/20619-patch-101-changes-to-conquest/ I would like to propose an idea for a national government to be the base for the future political system. Your government will suggest regions to take and depending on which regions you take it will change relations. So players wouldn't be removed fully from the process but it would be much harder to control. There could also be random events that occur that we have no control over that would change relations. Thoughts?
  6. This post is an attempt to shed some light on what would happen if we were to attempt to mix up the alliances up using the current voting mechanics, and to show that it is essentially impossible to switch nations between the current alliance blocks. Spoiler alert: After 4 weeks of everybody working together to switch the Danes and the US between the alliances, both of those nations could be without any allies at all. First, some notes required to understand the tables: Read down the columns. I.e., the first column shows what GB would see in the politics tab. (This is the opposite to the in-game politics grid... sorry) A = alliance, W = War, E = Enemy (one way war vote), N=Neutral (no war votes in either direction) Votes expire after 3 weeks A: 20D = Alliance, expiring in 20 days Green cell = voting is active in that round The tables are shown for the day after the most recent vote Let's please keep the discussion about the mechanics, not National News style stories about betrayal, etc... Scenario 1: Keep the current alliances. Notes: Nothing unusual happens. It's a three stage cycle. 02/16/2017 (Real data) – Cycle 1 GB VP SPAIN DENMARK US SWEDEN FRANCE GB A: 20D W: 20D W: 20D A: 6D W: 20D W: 20D VP A: 20D W: 13D W: 6D A: 13D W: 13D W: 6D SPAIN W: 6D W: 13D A: 13D W: 6D A: 20D A: 6D DENMARK W: 13D W: 6D A: 13D W: 20D A: 6D A: 20D US A: 6D A: 13D W: 6D W: 13D W: 6D W: 13D SWEDEN E E A: 20D A: 6D E A: 13D FRANCE W: 20D W: 20D A: 6D A: 20D W: 13D A: 13D Alliance block 1: GB, VP, US . Alliance block 2: Spain, Denmark, Sweden, France 02/23/2017 (Projected) – Cycle 2 GB VP SPAIN DENMARK US SWEDEN FRANCE GB A: 13D W: 13D W: 13D A: 20D W: 13D W: 13D VP A: 13D W: 6D W: 20D A: 6D W: 6D W: 20D SPAIN W: 20D W: 6D A: 6D W: 20D A: 13D A: 20D DENMARK W: 6D W: 20D A: 6D W: 13D A: 20D A: 13D US A: 20D A: 6D W: 20D W: 6D W: 20D W: 6D SWEDEN E E A: 13D A: 20D E A: 6D FRANCE W: 13D W: 13D A: 20D A: 13D W: 6D A: 6D Alliance block 1: GB, VP, US . Alliance block 2: Spain, Denmark, Sweden, France 03/02/2017 (Projected) – Cycle 3 GB VP SPAIN DENMARK US SWEDEN FRANCE GB A: 6D W: 6D W: 6D A: 13D W: 6D W: 6D VP A: 6D W: 20D W: 13D A: 20D W: 20D W: 13D SPAIN W: 13D W: 20D A: 20D W: 13D A: 6D A: 13D DENMARK W: 20D W: 13D A: 20D W: 6D A: 13D A: 6D US A: 13D A: 20D W: 13D W: 20D W: 13D W: 20D SWEDEN E E A: 6D A: 13D E A: 20D FRANCE W: 6D W: 6D A: 13D A: 6D W: 20D A 20D Alliance block 1: GB, VP, US . Alliance block 2: Spain, Denmark, Sweden, France 03/09/2017 (Projected) – Cycle 4 (Same as Cycle 1 – CYCLE IS COMPLETE) GB VP SPAIN DENMARK US SWEDEN FRANCE GB A: 20D W: 20D W: 20D A: 6D W: 20D W: 20D VP A: 20D W: 13D W: 6D A: 13D W: 13D W: 6D SPAIN W: 6D W: 13D A: 13D W: 6D A: 20D A: 6D DENMARK W: 13D W: 6D A: 13D W: 20D A: 6D A: 20D US A: 6D A: 13D W: 6D W: 13D W: 6D W: 13D SWEDEN E E A: 20D A: 6D E A: 13D FRANCE W: 20D W: 20D A: 6D A: 20D W: 13D A: 13D Alliance block 1: GB, VP, US . Alliance block 2: Spain, Denmark, Sweden, France Scenario 2: Denmark and the US try to switch alliances EDIT: Cycle 2 may very well have an error, since it's really not clear which alliance VP would drop if the US voted for war with GB in cycle 1. Notes: These cycles assume that the Danes and the US try to switch alliances. It's extremely complicated. In the first round Spain can only vote about the US and France, both of whom they now want to ally. In these situations, I assume Spain will vote to keep the French allied, before voting to bring in the US. It's EVEN MORE complicated, because the cycle 1 alliance votes are blocked by being at war with the ally of your enemy... During cycle 3, the US is not allied with any nation. During cycle 4, both the Danes and the US are not allied with any nation. It takes more than a month to get the new alliance blocks, and they are probably not stable even after that. 02/16/2017 (Real data) – Cycle 1 GB VP SPAIN DENMARK US SWEDEN FRANCE GB A: 20D W: 20D W: 20D A: 6D W: 20D W: 20D VP A: 20D W: 13D W: 6D A: 13D W: 13D W: 6D SPAIN W: 6D W: 13D A: 13D W: 6D A: 20D A: 6D DENMARK W: 13D W: 6D A: 13D W: 20D A: 6D A: 20D US A: 6D A: 13D W: 6D W: 13D W: 6D W: 13D SWEDEN E E A: 20D A: 6D E A: 13D FRANCE W: 20D W: 20D A: 6D A: 20D W: 13D A: 13D Alliance block 1: GB, VP, US. Alliance block 2: Spain, Denmark, Sweden, France 02/23/2017 (Projected) – Cycle 2 GB VP SPAIN DENMARK US SWEDEN FRANCE GB A: 13D W: 13D W: 13D W: 20D W: 13D W: 13D VP A: 13D W: 6D N A: 6D W: 6D W: 20D SPAIN W: 20D W: 6D A: 6D E A: 13D A: 20D DENMARK W: 6D N A: 6D W: 13D W: 20D A: 13D US E A: 6D W: 20D W: 6D N W: 6D SWEDEN E W: 20D A: 13D W: 20D N A: 6D FRANCE W: 13D W: 13D A: 20D A: 13D W: 6D A: 6D Alliance block 1: GB, VP, US . Alliance block 2: Spain, Denmark, Sweden, France 03/02/2017 (Projected) – Cycle 3 GB VP SPAIN DENMARK US SWEDEN FRANCE GB A: 6D W: 6D W: 6D W: 13D W: 6D W: 6D VP A: 6D W: 20D N W: 20D W: 20D W: 13D SPAIN W: 13D W: 20D N E A: 6D A: 13D DENMARK E N N W: 6D W: 13D A: 6D US W: 20D E W: 13D W: 20D N W: 20D SWEDEN E W: 13D A: 6D W: 13D N A: 20D FRANCE W: 6D W: 6D A: 13D A: 6D E A: 20D Alliance block 1: GB, VP. Alliance block 2: Spain, Sweden, France, Denmark. ALONE: US 03/09/2017 (Projected) – Cycle 4 GB VP SPAIN DENMARK US SWEDEN FRANCE GB A: 20D W: 20D N W: 6D W: 20D W: 20D VP A: 20D W: 13D N W: 13D W: 13D W: 6D SPAIN W: 6D W: 13D W: 20D E A: 20D A: 6D DENMARK N N E W: 20D W: 6D N US W: 13D E W: 6D W: 13D N W: 13D SWEDEN W: 20D W: 6D A: 20D W: 6D N A: 13D FRANCE E W: 20D A: 6D N E A: 13D Alliance block 1: GB, VP. Alliance block 2: Spain, Sweden, France. ALONE: US. ALONE: Denmark In summary: After 4 weeks of trying to switch the US with the Danes the switch is still not complete, and both the US and Denmark could have no allies.
  7. Politics

    Greetings, I am merely wondering why you can first vote for a War with a Nation and then suddenly vote for a Alliance with the same nation. Either you want a War,Peace or a Alliance with a nation and not all 3 at once... That it silly and should not be allowed within the system. Furthermore.... I think its time to change the Politics to stop this 2 block system. Its a stalemate system atm forcing nations to either choose Block 1 or 2 or risk getting bullied by both both blocks and its boring. We need a more dynamic system that allows for changes in stances between nations to allow for more player driven diplomacy. To enable this we need to be able to have a Peace status, Hostile Status and a Neutral/Trade partner status with other nations. War and Alliances should be voted upon. The same for a Peace treaty with a Hostile/War nation. Neutral is any Nation which you have no Treaty with atm. A Peace treaty allows for a reset on hostilties between nations. A Trade agreement may be implemented to allow trade between nations without the use of Smuggling. Stances between Nations! War = Total War, Ships of this nations is tagged as Red on OW and should ofc be targeted to earn points to increase hostility levels and deny the enemy any resources/aid. Peace = Marked as Non Hostile(Blue colour?) on OW and cannot be attacked unless caught smuggling in hostile home waters. Can aid in battles vs Pirates/Privateers. Alliance = Total Friendship, Ships from this nation is marked as Green and can aid in hostile/friendly operations and battles. Cannot be targeted even if caught with smugglers flag in hostile waters. Neutral = Marked as Grey on OW, may be attacked in Hostile home waters and in friendly waters when caught smuggling. Repeted agressions towards a single neutral nation will raise hostility towards that nation and mark you as a privateer for players of that nation thus alerting to them that you are a danger / open target. Perhaps to be able to attack neutral nations you need to obtain a letter of marque from a nation that is hostile towards that nation. Now to restrict the formation of large power blocks we should limit the number of alliances to 1 per nation at any given time(unless we have a developer event that changes it for developer reasons) and peace restricted to 1 nations depending on Voting between nations and very limited extra 1 from a change of status from War/Hostile for a very limited time after hostilities ends and it will change to Neutral. This should lead to some interesting diplomacy talks and perhaps war/peace status to be more fluent then it is now. Ofc checks to stop the 2-3 biggest nation to ally and just stomp out the other nations 1 by 1 need to be implemented. Neutral is the stance towards most other nations, allowing trade access to neutral ports with a taxation unless you have smugglers flag enabled. Pirates should ofc be free to attack anyone they wish and if they obtain a letter of marque they should be able to aid the providing nation vs the nation(s) they have a letter from in OW operations but not in port battles, but be able to do organised raids vs the nation(s) they hold letters for with the aid from the providing nations (Limit the % of participation of non pirate players to stop potential abuse), also pirates with letters of marquee should be able to use certain ports from the nation provides the letters to stage attacks from and resupply. A Pirate with a letter of marquee should be marked as Blue vs players from the nation that provided the letter. Pirates should also be able to do raids vs any nation without any aid from Non pirate players. These are just a starting point to start a discussion on ways we can improve the game and the diplomatic system that is boring atm due to the 2 blocks... With regards Jason Niagara
  8. Political situation PVP 2 US (Inter Clan) Information is from players (Inter clan), updated weekly and daily if needed. This is the same sort of format as the EU political Situation thread. The Diplomacy part presents the atitude of the nation's major clans towards other nations. Verenigde Provinciën: Britain: France: Peace USA: Spain: Denmark-Norge: Sweden: Pirates: War Major clans: DHC - Nederlandsche Hispaniola Company - 50 OJ - Oranje Flotilla - 20 Danmark-Norge: Spain: British: Dutch: US: French: Peace Pirates: War Swedish: Major Clans: Pirates: Spain: Neutral British: War Dutch: War US: War French: War Danmark-Norge: War Swedish: Neutral Major clans: FC - Forsaken Corsairs - 30 AUSNZ - Southern Oceanic Ruffians - 30 SIN - Sinister Order - 50 GUN - Gunboat Diplomacy - 30 MQNS - Mannequins SSU - Salty Sailer Union - 11 Great Britain: Spain: French: Peace Swedish: US: Territorial Agreements in certain areas. Dutch: Danmark-Norge: Pirates: War Major Clans: SOB - Sons of Britain - 150 WIS - West Indies Squadron iRuin - Imminent Ruin - 30 20R - 50 BWA - Blackwing Armada - 50 TPM - The Powder Monkies - 22 BM? - British Muraders HOSP - Knights Hospitaller - 20 SOH - Sons of Hano - 30 KF - The Kraken Fleet - 23 members Sweden: Spain: Neutral British: War Dutch: Neutral US: Neutral French: Friendly Danmark-Norge: War Pirates: Neutral Major clans: SW - Nya Sverige - 40 BORK - 3rd Swedish Flotilla - 20+ USA: Britain: Territorial Agreements in certain areas. France: Neutral Dutch: Neutral Sweden: Neutral/Friendly Denmark-Norge: Neutral Pirates: War Spain: War Major clans: SOL - Sons of Liberty - 170+ USS - Continental Navy - 140 MOB - Man Overboard TSF - The Scarlet Fleet TPM - The Powder Monkeys - 20 VCO - Voodoo Shipping Co - 40 CMC - Continental Marine Corps - 23 USMC - United States Marine Corps - 40 PRTZN - Partisan Group - 20 France: Britain: Puerto Rico War / Hostile Spain: Neutral Swedish: Friendly US: Neutral Pirates: Hostile Danish: ??? Dutch: Friendly Major clans: 18E - 10 LMN - 20 PURGE - The Purge - 20 OMG - 20 Spain: Britain: France: Neutral USA: Strained Sweden: Dutch: Danish: Major clans: ARF - Armada Real de la Florida Legion Del Mar note: If anything is wrong please reply or PM! Major clan= edit* no restrictions*
  9. Port resets on a schedule?

    I suggested this in a different thread and section and it was recommended by some that I bring it here: A port reset should happen on a time schedule almost like a sports season. If the Devs implement an admiralty points system, all admiralty points earned by a nation during a "season" could then be totaled to determine the season's "winner". Everything a player does that is productive should earn at least some of those points. That way traders, crafters, port battlers, PVE-ers, and PVP-ers will all have some role to play in a nation's victory or defeat. Individual prizes could be awarded to stand out players. Infractions and national players who are convicted in tribunal could result in a loss of some admiralty points as well.
  10. Political Situation (PvP 1 EU)

    Political situation PVP 1 EU (Inter Clan) Information is from players (Inter clan), updated weekly and daily if needed. The Diplomacy part presents the atitude of the nation's major clans towards other nations. The forum rules are applied to this topic, light forum PVP is allowed but no personal insults, rules. Please try to keep the roleplay down a little, roleplay is okay as long as it doesn't disturb the political discussion. If anything is wrong or if you want your clan to be added please PM me. The post is updated every thursday/friday. Verenigde Provinciën: Diplomacy: Great Britain: Friendly France: Hostile United States: Allied (TF and TDA) España: War Danmark-Norge: Hostile Sverige: Friendly Pirates: Hostile (Kill on Sight) Major clans: PFK DAS DKK DKF VOC DSL LON KPM Source: Dutch nation TS (na.lynixgaming.com). Danmark-Norge: Diplomacy: Great Britain: Hostile France: Neutral United States: Friendly España: Hostile Sverige: Neutral Verenigde Provinciën: Allied (DAS) Pirates: Neutral/Hostile Major Clans: RUS / Russian Union Sailors (Russians) VIE / Vest-Indiske Escadre (Danish West Indies Squadron) (Multinational, English speaking) FLOT / Northern Fleet (Russians) Source: Balticsailor (Thank you very much) Pirates: The Pirates don't have a clear diplomatic relation with anyone because they are not a nation, but independent groups of pirates. Major clans: Pirate Coalition: KOTO (Also allied with REA) RUBLI BIA BLACK MoD LV DREAD BAN Independent: TGA FTS GAY (Gentlemen's Armed Yacht club) TSR Source: Forum posts (Please PM me if you have an active pirate clan so you can be mentioned here) Great Britain: Diplomacy: France: Formal Alliance with EDR United States: United States declared war on Great Britain. España: Formal Alliance with RAE Danmark-Norge: Ongoing War to halt Danish aggression against their ally, Spain. Sverige: Formal Alliance with HRE & IKEA Verenigde Provinciën: Neutral Pirates: One word, Pirates! Major Clans: SLRN - Multinational force, covering all international time zones. RGL AUSEZ BWITC ZEUS SINK TRR There are a number of smaller British Clans ingame Source: Charles Caldwell (Thank you very much) Sverige: Diplomacy: Great Britain: allied with the SLRN. France: allied with the EDR United States: neutral España: allied Danmark-Norge: Neutral Verenigde Provinciën: Neutral Pirates: neutral Major clans: HRE = Holy Roman Empire, german community, led by Fury, Graf von Sandel, Havelock and Taito Magatsu KF Source: Havelock and King Leonidas (Thank you very much) United States: Diplomacy: Great Britain: Allied France: Hostile España: War Danmark-Norge: Hostile Sverige: Friendly Verenigde Provinciën: Friendly, Allied with DAS Pirates: Generally aggressive politically. Generally kill on sight. Major clans: TDA TF SnD BSP AO CSY Source: Chustler (Thank you very much) France: Diplomacy: Great Britain: Formal alliance with SLRN United States: neutral España: Formal alliance with RAE Danmark-Norge: Neutral Sverige: Formal alliance with HRE and IKEA Verenigde Provinciën: Neutral Pirates: neutral Major clans: EDR SLMFr Source: Plerrick de Badas (Thank you very much) España: Diplomacy: Great Britain: friendly, alliance with SLRN France: friendly, alliance with EDR United States: war Danmark-Norge: hostile Sverige: neutral Verenigde Provinciën: hostile Major clans: RAE Coalition: CGH Compañia de la guardia Hispana PU Plus Ultra EI Escuadra de las Indias BSG Bastardos Sin Gloria KAOS KAOS SIR La Orquesta del Titanic MD Mano del Diablo RCCI Real Casa de la Contratacion de las indias FCE Federacion de Comercio Española Source: Commandante Antoñanzas and Protyp (Thank you very much) note: If anything is wrong please PM me! Major clan= 25 or more members.
  11. 800+ hours played over last 6 months and I do not understand the Politics function and effects of voting for War/Enemy/Alliance. Could someone walk me through how it works or provide a link to an explanation, please. For example: Couple days ago, US allied with GB and Netherlands. Saw hundreds of votes for continued Alliance with GB. Heard unofficial chatter that US/GB Alliance about to go down. This morning, woke up, Discovered GB and US now Enemies. Questions: Is this overnight flip triggered by anti-Alliance Player votes, or lack of Player votes to overcome some time limit on existing Alliances? Would some one explain how an Alliance can flip so quickly? What is the weight of each Player's 7 votes up or down? What percentage of total Players actually votes each round? You do know that many Players are completely unaware of the Politics button, and report never having looked at the Forums? And why there is no transition period of "Declining Relations" or "Repairing Relations" before the flip? Please help me understand this puzzle. ~ HK ~
  12. Dear sailors, I can imagine that a lot people seeing the Swedish alliance votes unfolding thinking - WTF are they doing? First of, in my role as the Swedish council chair man, I need to take responsibility for the lack of information prior doing the step we did. The patch was two weeks earlier than expected and we had to rush with our decision finding and did not have time to clarify our decision to our partners prior its execution. That timing was my responsibility and for that please do accept my sincere apologies. Before I start to explain why we decided like we did, let me reassure our current alliance partners and friends that we really enjoyed working with you. You earned a lot of friendship and respect, with all the help we got - we will never forget that. ----------------- The Swedish nation always seen themselves to be an underdog nation, or being in an underdog alliance. When we started our alliance with the Dutch, we felt like going that way. Now, everything is evolving, we made new friends, the Dutch made new alliance partners with the Brits. First, this was no issue, as we ought to repay the Brits for their grand help we got in the Antilles war. After a few weeks however, with Britain getting back to their former strength and by the addition of the US nation to the block, the situation tended into a hegemony in RvR regards. The Pirates and Spain were crippled, the French lost their footing on Hispaniola and the Danes pushed back behind Barahona. Swedish forces did start to have a real issue of finding targets worth warring for, our expectations that the situation would change by itself were low. At this point, the Swedish council started to think how we could improve both our situation and what would be a more healthy situation for the RvR on PVP 1. We discussed it up and down from the council down to the individual members and back up to the council. That was started a week ago, and took a week to be executed. The Danes, while being most of the NA history a sworn enemy of the Swedes, crystallized to be a well respected and geographical logical partner. Their alliance was in despair fighting the strong power-block of the Dutch, English and US nation. So also in the sense of joining the underdogs it made sense for us Swedes. On top of this, it is our believe, with that move that Sweden is doing, we can equalize and therefor improve the RvR playing field on this server for everyone. To execute our decision, by game mechanic, we have to choose a primary enemy before we can select our ally. We could not select the Spanish, as their alliance situation was unclear to us. We just refused to select the Dutch, that would have felt like - oh well, just outright bad. So to be able to vote Danes as alliance partners, we had to select the Brits as enemy. Please don't be mad with us about that dear Brits. Due to above mentioned timing hick-up, the Swedish nation was not sufficiently informed on what to vote, the voting was developing rather chaotic. Rest assured, this I am also addressing to my fellow Swedes, that we are trying to steer Sweden to a place we feel it should be. Our game is fight, not the win - because of the absence of fights after the win. To the former ally, the Dutch and our friends, the Brits and the Americans, we hope that we can have good and fun fights with you in the future. Our respect and friendship will stay for you. We will do everything to be as a respectable enemy to you as we hope we were as an ally to you. May the winds be with you at all times. The Swedes will continue to help their current ally and friends up to Monday, 22nd of August. After that we will start to act upon our decisions we made on the playing field. We are looking forward to banding together with the formidable forces of the Danish and the French nation. Yours respectfully, sveno In the name of the Swedish council.
  13. NATION INFLUENCE MECHANICS Balancing the Conquest Hi Devs, First of all I would like to congratulate you on the astonishing achievement you have done so far! We have dreamed of this game, open world, naval battles and the era… Thank you! Your game is truly amazing! Please forgive me for the comments below as I’m not telling you how to make your game. But we are your players. We are here, playing and testing the unfinished game because we care. We want to help you to shape it in the perfect game blockbuster on par with those titles out there that have millions of player base. Speaking from MMO experience Alliance-War is too linear for player driven politics. You also have nations that right now mean very little, and you have player clans that mean even less. Voting: Forcing people to do something (like voting) is generally a bad idea and sooner or later you will walk away from this model. When you announced the voting system we have already start working on how to exploit this to our advantage. Democracy or voting will not work on public level. Nation’s clans will start working together and forming alliances behind the vote system. Clan leadership will decide who they are going to be allied with and tell their players to give their votes where its needed. This is what going to happen and if some players will disagree they will be kicked from the clan. Why not give the tools to clan leadership anyway? My proposal is (if you going to keep this system) if player is in the clan, then he has no vote - clan leader decides on their behalf, if player is without the clan then he votes personally. If clan leader is being a douchebag, set vote against the will of the majority and players of the clan disapprove they will leave the clan and form new one. It will sort itself out. However I’m all against this system and here is why... Food for thought on current politics system: IMO, you are working on politics way too early. We need more reasons what to fight for. There is really only one reason so far - the territory, but it's flawed because of its simplicity and lack of tools. There is no other reason really to control territory other than to annoy your enemy. Also The Caribbean is a very small territory. With current game mechanics its easily covered by 150 people that are online and its already feels tight. What is it going to be like when you have 5k people population on the server? Free Ports will be camped and become bottlenecks of the game life. Also the War on Nation level should last for months not days. The alternative: What about Nation influenced territory and Clan controlled ports that are driven by clan’s actions and Nation influence. Clans can only control ports that have enough of their nation’s influence. The Influence: All clans contribute to their Nation’s influence through their gameplay (wealth, production, conquered territory, but also by reducing your enemy influence in the area will increase your nation's influence in the area). Each Nation have capital and 2 other key ports (3 in total) with Influence level 5 (max), which means it can’t be caped. Those ports have everything they need to survive, craft and produce, but in limited numbers as its overpopulated.. The further away the territory from the capital the less influence point it has of that nation and harder to control, but the richer the resources and faster production and other boogie woogie bonuses you might think of. The lowest is 0 influence. No ports can be set there by the nation if it has 0 influence there and all ports will be lost if influence drops to 0. The higher the influence of the nation the higher NPC defence. Distant territories require lots of work to increase influence to setup let alone hold territory. NPC defence tools: Higher influence allows to build higher level port strength, have more powerful cannons, have larger amount and ship size of NPC ships that patrol the area. The further away from the capital the harder it is to keep the influencer level, which means less defence tools available. Those ports will mainly be protected by the players themselves. Best resources and production bonuses should be in those distant territories. If you are an enemy NPC port patrol will try to chase you and sink when seeing you on the horizon. Nation and Clan politics: On Developer level (Game Master - GM) you need to be able to influence politics to be able to keep balance in the game. The nation's relationship needs to be controlled by GM. The Governors of the New World of the Caribbean's did not decide whether they are at war or in alliance with other nations. They were simply told by the rulers in Europe. Situation in Europe decided for them. GMs needs to be those “rulers in Europe”. So, GM must be in control of the politics on the nation level. This also give you the ability to bring deeper storyline to the gameplay through monthly or quarterly patches that brings news story, new nation relationships etc. Nation standings (set by GM through the storyline and 3-4 month updates): 1. Alliance (nation) - as per above your post, can enter ports , attacking give gruesome consequences, can assist in battles as long as the enemy is not an ally or at peace. Attacking an ally will flag you as crim for 24 hours and give some crim points. Sinking, caping, stealing cargo will increase those crim points. Ports that have high enough influence of your nation will have NPC patrol of your own nation chasing you while you are marked as a crim for 24 hours or when you get enough crim points and become a proper crim. Must pay fine or NPC patrols will keep sinking you until you lose equivalent in ship costs etc. Being a crim makes you a fair target to anyone. 2. Peace (nation) - can enter ports, can’t attack, can’t assist. Attacking another player that is in peace with your nation will also mark as a crim for 3 hours and give crim points, but not as much as when attacking an ally. Free-trade rules applied in relationship of trading. 3. Neutral (nation) - to enter ports must buy trade licence for each specific port to enter (expires weekly). Can’t assist. Attacking neutral player will not mark as crim, but give same amount of crim points as attacking player at peace. Accumulating enough crim points will flag as a crim permanently until fines are paid or you’ve been sunk enough. 4. Free Trade (nation) - same as Neutral, but no trade licence is needed and no ports fees paid. 5. De Facto or Pre-War (nation) - state that reflects relationship between the two states in practice, but not necessarily ordained by law. Can attack, Can’t assist. Can’t enter ports - has trade embargo on trade goods delivered from ports of Nation in Pre-war state unless flagged as contraband. Attacking will not flag as crim or give crim points. Taking cargo from Pre-War nation doesn’t flag it as stolen and can be traded without discounts to NPC. 6. War (nation) - can’t enter, can’t assist. Attacking and sinking gives glory points to player, reduce influence points of the enemy and gives influence points to your own state. Caped cargo traded normally as Pre-War. This system, controlled by GM will control player behavior in general and naturally influence gameplay balance where its needed through continues game progression and further relationships built or destroyed. Clan politics: Players must be in control of their clan diplomacy against other clans (not nations). Clan standings against each other are also driven by Nation’s Diplomatic standings, but in some cases can be overruled by clan’s standings. For example the fight between two clans from different allied nations over a territory is still possible if clans declare war. Declaring war is like buying a flag and lasts for 7 days making clans at war a fair target to each other. Example: France and England are allies, but French clan A declares war on English clan B and despite that two nations are allies in general these two clans can freely attack each other for 7 days and are treated as if they would have been at war on nation level. Clan standings are set by clan’s diplomats and used as a diplomacy tool only, while Nation standing still apply. Example: France and Holland are at war, however diplomats from French clan A and Dutch clan C decided not to attack each other despite that their nations are currently at war. They both have set their standings against each other’s clan as a Peace. This makes their clan members to see Peace flag on their ships when they meet out in sea. Attacking them will have normal consequences designed by politics mechanics and current political state between France and Holland (War), however this might bring a tension between the two clans or maybe even punishment from your own clan for attacking an ally. This system has multiple flows, which can easily be flowed by having enough alts in the opposite faction allowing significant influence on voting in favor of one faction and on GM level you can’t even control this. Pirates Because pirates are not a nation, a pirate character (born or made through gameplay) should have nationality. Pirates is a faction that has various pirate professions or types of activity. Profession is picked at any free port much like current smuggler tag and gives specific to this profession bonuses and has 24 hour cooldown before another profession can be picked. Filibusters - in service of no one they free roaming the sea. True to their name they hunt lone traders, trade caravans and even military fleets. You can become a pirate or born a pirate (same as now). Picking up this profession flags you as fair target to everyone. Filibuster gets bonuses in exploration, ship speed and maneuverability in the open and in battle. Corsair or privateer - in the service of a specific nation. Letter of Marque gives them license to kill a particular enemy nation. His black flag will be accompanied with the flag of nation he serves. For each player ship sunk corsair receives payment from the crown. Corsairs can also be hired by player clans to help them fight other clan. Corsair is treated as a member of the nation where he received the Letter of Marque until it’s expired. Note: This profession can also be picked by a member of any nation without becoming an actual pirate. Head hunter - if there is a bounty on someone’s head Headhunter can take the job and claim the prize. This does not apply when the prize is for another pirate’s head. Headhunter is able to track his target down, pinpointing his location on the map Raider - a pirate who is set to attack and plunder settlements. Receives extra rewards in successful capture. The are no Neutral ports. There are only Free Settlements that claimed freedom from the crown and answer to no other nation. Because of that they are a welcome refuge for any pirate. Because Pirates are not a nation, but a faction they cannot claim any ports. Instead they have access to any free port that cannot be captured. Pirates make leaving through combat in the open sea, capturing traders and raiding ports for plunder. They also have easier access to rare “treasures” such as Pearls, lost Crowns etc. All that allows them to buy necessary resources to cover their ship expenses. Using a network of smugglers they are able to secretly trade with all nations. Pirate faction also has their own influence just like the other nations. Higher level of influence allow them to enter more Free Settlements and have there better prices. The Map Right now travel is done in two phases. Long and annoying sail to a destination, then a “save” of location through creation of outpost and fast travel. Sooner or later we have a nation or a faction that covers the entire map and can zip around real fast. Massive sea space becomes very little as life is now based around those Free Ports. Access is everything. It determines the value of the ports. Those ports that are closest to the free ports are valued more than the others. With the proposed Influence System there will be a zones that are harder to conquer, but have better resources and productions. This will make larger points of interest that attracts players so you don’t have to roam around for hours to find targets or any other p2p activities. ---------------- Other little things that would make this game a real pearl. 1. F2P will always attract more player base, but we do understand that you need to make revenue. Game could sell things that don’t have impact on the combat efficiency, so players who spends lots real money won't be in advantage. Instead Naval Action Store (NAS) could sell customization items for the ship and your character. Needless to say that all customization needs to be within the spirit of time. You can sell for real money even ship customization slots for each ship. For example one slot can allow you to customize sails, another name of the ship. All customization is bound to a specific ship and gets destroyed when the ship losses last dura. 2. Identification in the open sea. Simply clicking on the target is easy… too easy. Would be nice to have a spyglass that gives you the information of the ship you are looking at. The information received and the maximum distance is determined by the quality of the spyglass. Besides you could sell in the NAS componentry for decent spyglass. Among the current information we get from selecting the target the good spyglass should tell the speed of the ship and the quality. While looking at the ship through spyglass the assessment bar is filling in. It could take some time for the bar to fill in completely and to “assess” the ship. Once done you should be able to see more details such as how many dura left, upgrades installed etc. At the end of the day those things would have been visible in RL. Maybe even create Assessment Perk that will allow you to assess ships faster. Lots of cool food for thought 3. NPC trade caravans as mission for Pirates. Takes cooperation and lots of pirates to take on fully protected caravan, but rewards are also great. 4. Port battles done vs actual forts on land 5. One of a must have customization is a ship name and various designs of the carving that can be applied to display given name 6. Nation flag on the ship in the open sea. It is much better to look through spyglass and try to recognise the flag of the ship that is chasing you instead of simply clicking on the ship and get the lazy info. 7. Trader’s Network (TN) aka auction house. If you really want to drive player economy this is a must have. Make it more interesting. In order to get the info player needs to buy and maintain pigeon post. TN does allow you to buy remotely and place delivery contract so other players can pick it up and deliver anywhere you required. This promotes player trading, smuggling, and of course piracy. I can probably think of another 2-3 dozen of things but you get my drift. ------------------ More than happy to discuss in private all of the above if you decide you want to use any of these ideas. Im off to hunt me some traders. Yarrr! [bLACK] Koltes
  14. Over the last few weeks its become apparent to me that the current diplomacy system is not managable. On 2 occasions I have seen our coalition forge alliances with coalitions in other nations only to have them undermined by a single clan that nobody can police or punish. 2 sides enact diplomacy and then any clan who refuses can strike out at the other nation from protected ports making them invulnerable to being attacked back but free to attack eventually disolving the entire alliance see RAE in the alliance of spain/britain. In my opinion the clans that go rogue and attempt to disrupt alliances by attacking ports while hiding in protected territory are not to be punished they are only doing what the game allows them to do. That being said the system makes no sense and creates heartache for hundreds of players because of as little as 25 who decide that's what they want to do. The following is my solution to the current problem, I believe it will encourage clans to cooperate and forge lasting alliances while at the same time allows internal clans and coalitions to rise up and go to war with each other within a nation creating more than the current diplomatic landscape of 7 Factions because it allows endless sub factions to fight each other within factions creating complex cross nation and internal nation politics. 1. Each nation should have somewhere between 5 and 12 uncapturable ports. These may or may not need to be in the same location but could even allow nations to branch out creating divisions in the nation map lines by for example spain might have a cluster of 4 uncapturable ports at la habana and 4 uncapturable ports at cartagena de indias giving them access to all their resources in both locations and allowing new players to those locations to never be oppressed and chased out of the game before they even get to see whats good about it. I would put some kind of industry negative production buff on those ports somewhere between 50-75% output so players are encouraged to setup buildings in capturable ports but worst case scenerio they at least have somewhere to fall back and create industry and can never have their individual fun or warfare capabilities reduced beyond a certain point. There would always be hope of turning a fight around knowing the flame of your nation cannot be completely extinguished beyond repair. 2. Clans should own any ports their members are Lord Protector for with control over who may dock. Docking access options would allow lord protectors or clans to set who may dock in their ports. Example if the port is British there would be a checkbox to allow all british players to dock at this port, to allow other specific other nations to dock at this port, to allow certain clans from any nation to dock at this port and of course to deny certain clans from any nation to dock at this port. It's more likely that this setup would be tedious and best managed by the clan leader rather then each lord protector but it could be good for a lord protector to have his own override control allowing him to create custom docking setup in the event a clan wants to establish a cooperative dock for members of another nation without giving them access to all the clans ports, this could be for war reasons or trade reasons but offers a more interesting political landscape as well as diplomatic options and cooperation. 3. Clans should be able to form physical alliances with clans from other nations that cannot be broken by individual members and must be disolved or withdrawn from by the head of clans. This allows certain clans to work together without being undermined by other clans from their nation or individuals within their own clans. It encourages advanced complex politics of clans in one nation working with other clans or mercenaries from other nations to help achieve their own personal agenda. 4. Clans should be able to go to war against clans or players within their own nation. By allowing clans to go to war against others in their own nation the larger nations like britain and usa can be more divided internally as they fight for power within their nation. The current politics are rather stagnant with huge 2 side wars drawing every nation into them simply because of lack of options there are only 7 factions and only so many combinations of diplomacy even less based on the player base of certain nations. 5. Add far more ports to the game With nations potentially fighting internally and having 2-3 sets of uncapturable port clusters allowing the 7 nations to have 14-21 stronghold locations there would be far more division around the map and more places for clans to find their own little corner of the world to control. In the event all servers are merged more ports will certainly keep it interesting. 6. Add more resource production and npc trade ships/convoys to freeports. I would like to see freeports producing every resource presumably via trade but allowing and even encouraging pirates to setup in freeports and migrate away from their 'pirate empire' to claim a small corner somewhere and make money striking fear into merchants and clans operating in the region while treating the freeport almost like a pirate cove. Freeports might even allow players to create any industry rather then restricting them however such buildings would have a far higher extraction cost and lower production making them possible but only in a dire situation or when you have no other ports nearby and not very effecient. 7. Do not allow level 3 shipyards in freeports. With rogue clans and pirates setting up in freeports i don't believe they should be able to build 3rd rates and above in such secure territory. I would see a game where pirates are encouraged to move into freeports and harrass areas but i do not believe they should be able to wage all out war from freeports like unloading massive rate fleets to screen nation wars for cash. 8. Add a set of building upgrades for the Lord Protector allowing him to collect a portion of trade/market taxes, improve garrison soldiers and fortifications. This just creates a benefit to controlling ports and encourages internal power struggles as well as clan cooperation to upgrade the defenses of important ports at huge expense. 9. Add custom clan icons inside the port circles and recolor the circle background to match the nation color, also make pirates and danes ports more distinguishable. To create a sense of expansion and ownership and to watch clans spread across a region it would be cool to see all the icons on the map inside the circles to watch clans expanding their borders. 10. Allow a lord protector to transfer his title to any other player in the game. Sometimes deals are struck or players no longer want to play. We currently have a player with 8 ports who quit and we can no longer touch those timers, allow a quick method to transfer the title of Lord Protector to another player remotely for the purpose of diplomacy as well as leaving players or those taking vacation. Some members simply don't want to manage their port timers these members should have the option to relinquish the title to another clan member who will. 11. Display port timers and dock access on the map including friendly port timers. I'm sick of making defensive and offensive photoshop maps of port timers and updating a port timer spreadsheet for our clans 40 ports it's a game not a job, why not give us that information on the map itself so i don't need to keep building them. 12. Allow a 25 player pb fleet and give them priority access to a port battle When fighting around populated areas we've have found clanless players in low level ships are jumping into port battles before experienced clan members in powerful ships can get in if the Port Battle fills it disrupts the entire attack. Allow for a 25 player 'raid' fleet or something that simply marks other fleet members visually and secures a place for each player in a flag carriers raid fleet for 3-4 minutes. Allowing them to get into a port battle before public players nearby can join. The same could also be done for members of a clan who own a port that are defending. 13. Flags may only be purchased in nation starting ports or your clans owned ports. Also flags may only be planted during 2 hour window and last until end of window. Currently the longest you can be forced to defend is 4.5 hours if your port window is 22-24 and the enemy buys a flag at 23.59 and holds it until 00.59 to plant you may then be stuck in a battle for another 90 minutes. Meaning that even though your defensive watch started at 10pm you could be forced to defend until almost 2.30 in the morning. I believe this could be reduced to 3.5 hours while allowing flags to be run further then they currently can. If the flag lasts for the duration of the 2 hour window buying it at the start of a window would give you 2 hours to attack allowing your fleet to travel further. While also enforcing that the enemy must plant the flag during the window means you wont be stuck up an extra hour if they choose to buy it at the last minute. This system could be tweaked even further if say the capture window was 2.5 or 3 hours long but the battle ended at the end of the capture window. Meaning their time inside the port was not a flat 90 minutes but based on how early they get into the port to start the battle, waiting too late could cost the fight. This also reduces the amount of time required to defend and makes it more accessible to casual gamers to participate and doesn't require players to stay up past reasonable hours. These changes are not designed to be historical but are suggested to improve the game and make it far more enjoyable for everyone to play the current system is burning players out and they are leaving we need a more interesting system where politics shift faster and more locally/internally from far more factions making the game more interesting and less frustrating with people in your own nations that you can't attack.
  15. Clans & National Politics

    While I am not presently member of a clan - I really would love to see this game develop a solid clan management system which would integrate into factional politics. Imagine what the game would be like if: Players could see the list of clans on a server (and corresponding nation) Clan member / allied / enemy color tags would appear in the open world Leaders of clans could set the policy of their clans versus other clans (embargo, trade, alliance, war...) Leaders could set the flag of their faction (eg: Napoleonic armies had many variants of the same blue, white, red flag for their corresponding battalions) Leaders could (either use the default or) set the title structure of their own members (eg: lieutenant, captain commodore, ect... versus buccaneer, salty dog, scallywag....) Leaders could designate target ports to coordinate attacks (map markers) Leaders could set a tax on their players to kick up funds to a global treasury which the leaders would then be able to use to fund port fortifications, the building of ships of the line, the funding of production facilities... Leaders had bulletin boards (log books) to convey orders / priorities to players that are in game at different times (miss the chat discussions) Leaders had a "parlay" chat screen to negotiate (chat) with other clan leaders Clans had a log of key events their members participated in (a history of key battles) Clans had a clan warehouse where players could contribute to the group resources (and be acknowledged for it). Clans had a clan dock in their home port where they might be able to hand ships to other players of the group Clan leaders could set their clan's home port
  16. I posted this earlier in another thread, but maybe this needs an own thread to bring it to the admin's attention and to make it possible to discuss. This is to solve some problems with how battle instances work, especially the abuse of game mechanics where a chased player joins an ongoing battle to escape. -- Maybe we should get rid of these "sides" in battles, and just go by flags. Would be a bit more complicated, since suddenly more than just two factions can be in one battle at the same time, but a bit more realistic. I know that it would be very hard for the system to detect who is the winner and who is the looser in a battle, and when the battle is over, but maybe we should get rid of that too. When all enemies are sunk you have that "leave" timer, and when noone is shooting anymore for however long they can leave. Since xp and money do not depend on winning or losing the battle (I think) it is not needed to set terms for win and lose. Or, implement a politics system, so that the system knows which sides are friendly to each other and which are at war. This politics system can also detect who fires at whom, and maybe show on a Nation's "billboard" which nations fired at them to enable players to make political decisions like declaring war, or sending a warning to another nation that is in peace with them and fired at them nevertheless.
  17. Hello! Since the other topic was nuked by several forum users (I admit, I was one of them), I might as well start another one that is actually useful and gets to the point, no offence SteelSandwich, your points were valid but it was simply nuked by other players and it became a no-man zone. Player-Controlled Nations Pros: 1. Dynamic Events 2. User-Generated Gameplay 3. Rich Content 4. Incentive Battles & More Battles 5. An Actual MMO & Sandbox; Working with other players & Freedom Cons: 1. Elite Population Control the game 2. Griefing if Elite use their power 3. Uncontrolled & Spiraling events I did my best to find the pro and cons so here they are, feel free to comment so I can add some more. Here is my statement from the previous thread; this entitles as to why I want a Player-Controlled Nations, thus Politics. "What's the benefit of a player-controlled politics? It creates a dynamic gameplay. That instead of the usual MMORPG where the system handles everything, like in UWO for example, we didn't get to pick who we get to go war with making some ESF really stale, so there's barely any combat nor politics within the game, it's simply dueling. That instead of the typical days where all you have to do is sink NPC/Players, you would actually have a reason to fight if it was based on player's action. Scenario: Great Britain completely destroys Sweden's elite fleet thus lowering their morale. New players are too scared to go out further to the sea so they have to go around their island just to gain exp. France looks at the situation and all the french guilds decides that enough is enough and declares war onto Great Britain. France uses diplomatic actions through player's connection to gain Spain and United States as an ally. Great Britain couldn't get any allies because of their actions to which players disagree thus getting no ally. Soon the war starts and GB is broken up, loses the war and loses some ports. France takes this on another level and starts insulting Great Britain and belittling them. Spain sees this as an insult of their assistance and secretly talk with GB's guilds and arranges a military alliance. France grows wary and halts their aggressive actions and further talk with United States. Soon, Great Britain regains their morale and declares war on France claiming to get back their ports, GB is assisted with Spain & the Dutch (Dutch claims its for economic purposes). France gains Denmark as an ally (Denmark guilds decides that GB's past bullying to a small nation, Sweden, is an act of aggression to Denmark since Denmark is small as well. Then the war begins: Great Britain, Dutch, Spain vs. France, United States, Sweden, & Norway The war soon begins and concludes on a stalemate, this is where the pirates take advantage of the situation and attacks the weak nation, exhausted from war. Look at this on a different perspective again, can this be achieved if developers takes control of politics? Nope This is only achieved because of player's opinion, dissent, respect, & glory. And if they gain control of politics, who knows what kind of events can transpire! I can think of more scenario that can be created because of player-controlled nation but you get the point, no?" Other Perspective I love Politics, that's all I can say. Well only ingame at the very least but I try to be open-mind so I always think about the other side as well. So from what I see is that, players fear of elites controlling their gameplay. Also another scenario is that solo players don't want to be bothered by the "Parliament-Nation" per se. Finally, another argument is that its not historic since most nations then are monarchy. I'll address all points above: First about elites controlling other players... That can only be done if the mechanics are weak as in they just made it and does not upgrade it further. This is 2015, we learn from the past games and I'm confident (not 100% anymore but still) with Game-Labs that they won't add such a simple feature where elites can take over. So cease your worry. Also another point I have to make is that, please look all around you. Do we all look like kids playing MMOs? No! We're mostly adults here because it's a B2P game and those "Elitists" can only be found in F2P games, trust me on this one. So if ever there's an elite controlling the game, then we'll kick them out, simple as that and the dev can rule of the justification of such. Solo Players About this, I'm very bias. If you don't want to participate in a nation's future interest then why bother joining it? If all you're gonna do is to sink NPC ships and explore and dislike social aspect of the game then join Neutral, simple as that. Another fix to that is to simply, make solo players (when they do identify themselves) temporarily a neutral if there's a war through player's actions. Like I said again, you're playing MMO, there's no excuse to not interact with other players, that's a simple cold hard truth. Historic Come on, we're here to enjoy the game, not to follow every procedure of historical aspects, there's always a balance to everything. Feel free to raise your arguments against this but please respect this and not spam, let's make this one a friendly thread with actual discussion and trying to persuade other people to follow and respect your plan. If you're here to simply say "I don't like this" and won't say any supporting statements, then please don't bother.
  18. Politics

    I have seen a rapid growing number of post that want to go into this so here it is. I feel that there should be politics in the game and I hope it will be a fun system.
  19. Just a couple of ideas about diplomacy and politics. Diplomacy and politics I was just thinking that any player could join any faction at any time, by removing the nations flag and raising a neutral flag, and going to the nations non capturable port. And then join the nation. When you join a nation you could make votings about war , peace, and alliances. If the majority of the player agrees to the votes it will go through and last maybe a couple of hours untill a new vote is agreed. If nations agrees too have peace and one of nation attacks the other even though they had peace they will instantly become at war, When nations are at war they ships cant visit the enermys ports without getting attack by players and AI. If the nation also have an alliances with another nations they will also become at war with the nation that attack but can just vote about removing the alliances and stay out of it. Trade Any nation have AI trade ships and players trade ships salling around to port and selling stuff, making money for themself and taxes for the nation. (the trades only sail to the ports they are not at war with) So the more capturable port nation have, the more trade ships the nation have, and the more taxes the nation will get, taxes will get spread out between the nations players. You can also stay neutral ( by neutral, i mean stand alone ship, not apart of any nation) and get all the stuff you sell for yourself without paying taxes to any nation, but of course wont be protected by factions Ship can also trade on mid ocean if one ship is going to Port royal where iron price is low but wine is high, and another is going to willemstad where iron is high in value. They can trade gods, so both ship make more money (maybe ship having a little map of gods prices for eitch port that keeps chaing depending on the demand and sales) Piracy When you have the neutral flag raise (you arnt a part of a nation) and can raise the pirat flag. when you raise the pirat flag you cant take it down for 20 minutters, to prevent player just lowing it when they see a ship that to big for them to raid. Of course you cant just wait till you close to a little ship then raise it, but the small ship can still be lucky and get help form a bigger ship. Any nations can attack pirats. and pirats cant go to nation ports, they can go to pirat ports or wait til they can raise the neutral flag, then go to nation ports again. For pirat to steal ships cargo, they can either ship them and pick up the loot form the water (much of the loot will go lost) or board them (where no of the loot will go lost) So the poor man whos getting robbed can choose either to stop and give them the cargo and keep his ship, or try to run away, risking losing his ship and cargo. I think these few things could make some space for some really interesting gameplay, that make being part of a nation feel like someting bigger, and working more with your nations members. using tactis as pirat, and much more I hope your like some of the ideas
  20. 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.
  21. 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
×