Treacherous Danes - the French Cold War Goes Hot

[Sir Texas Sir]

3 hours ago, Slamz said:

I heard pirates are allied with CCCP. I don't see why. Pirates should pick allies who can actually fight and not just night cap and hide under forts

Long standing agreement and having common enemy's.  That and look who have regions back to back with each other.  Some of us are smart enough to not have multi front wars.  That and they have been the only nation that has keep there word with us.  Over 9 months alliances between the two clans. And the agreement is simple.  We just don't attack each other is all.  

 

What exactly is NIGHT CAP?  This is GLOBAL SERVER.  It's my morning.  If you don't have enough SEA players than maybe you should recruit.  Remember when you attack them it's there off time too so being a global server there is  no such thing as night flips.

Edited June 25, 2017 by Sir Texas Sir

[Juan Alfonso]

Seems like history repeats itself. Have fun etc.

[Slamz]

3 hours ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

Some of us are smart enough to not have multi front wars.

/eyeroll

Lord forbid anyone have to really fight in this game.

This is the most fun I've had since the French-Pirate wars of last year. How the hell people sit around farming for 1st rates and then bending over backwards to obtain excuses to never use them, I just don't understand.

 

[Vllad]

22 hours ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

  Some of us are smart enough to not have multi front wars

Sheesh,

Those that make deals make the game boring. Only the smart players kick everyone in the face so the PVP is at the front door not a 45 min sail somewhere else. The more enemies you have the more fun this game becomes. 

Trying to apply Sun Tzu to computer games is like applying number theory to describe sex. Dull and completely out of context. 

 

 

 

 

[Hodo]

20 minutes ago, Vllad said:

Sheesh,

Those that make deals make the game boring. Only the smart players kick everyone in the face so the PVP is at the front door not a 45 min sail somewhere else. The more enemies you have the more fun this game becomes. 

Trying to apply Sun Tzu to computer games is like applying number theory to describe sex. Dull and completely out of context. 

Actually applying Sun Tzu's art of war doctrine to a game does make sense.  It may not to you, but it does.  It makes more sense than applying it to business practices but yet the 1% has been doing it for years.

I personally use Dicta Boelcke.

[Slamz]

16 minutes ago, Hodo said:

Actually applying Sun Tzu's art of war doctrine to a game does make sense.

Does it? I believe that thinking is what made 90% of the playerbase quit last year: everyone was more interested in "winning" than in fighting and the game gave you too many ways to win without fighting. It was boring and stupid and everyone quit.

e.g., false flag caps or "screening fleets" meant to drag people into a battle with no intention of really sinking them, just to keep them out of port battles. Night caps so they can't show up. 4 port battles at once, knowing they can only possibly show up at 1 or 2. Various things that made it super easy to hide and gank.

Ideally a game forces you to think like Sun Tzu AND fight. You use strategy to direct the fighting but there is lots of fighting. Naval Action still doesn't quite have this aspect (though patch 10 is much better than what we had last year).

If your strategy is making you win the game but is also making the game boring then you might as well be shopping that summer Steam sale right now because in 3 weeks you're going to be somewhere else anyway.

[Hodo]

13 minutes ago, Slamz said:

Does it? I believe that thinking is what made 90% of the playerbase quit last year: everyone was more interested in "winning" than in fighting and the game gave you too many ways to win without fighting. It was boring and stupid and everyone quit.

e.g., false flag caps or "screening fleets" meant to drag people into a battle with no intention of really sinking them, just to keep them out of port battles. Night caps so they can't show up. 4 port battles at once, knowing they can only possibly show up at 1 or 2. Various things that made it super easy to hide and gank.

Ideally a game forces you to think like Sun Tzu AND fight. You use strategy to direct the fighting but there is lots of fighting. Naval Action still doesn't quite have this aspect (though patch 10 is much better than what we had last year).

If your strategy is making you win the game but is also making the game boring then you might as well be shopping that summer Steam sale right now because in 3 weeks you're going to be somewhere else anyway.

Well I picked up this game last year around the summer sail.. so I can say if I havent gone yet I will still be here after 3 weeks.  

And it comes down to everyone's individual play style.  I am not going to tell you, that you are playing the game wrong because you play during your play time and not during mine.  What do I look like, someone from the EU server?

[Slamz]

27 minutes ago, Hodo said:

Well I picked up this game last year around the summer sail.. so I can say if I havent gone yet I will still be here after 3 weeks.  

You are also an open sea PvPer, from what I understand, as am I (and Vllad). That keeps the game lots of fun for us. We're basically the killers, always at war.

I just think that "strategic thinking" (especially avoiding wars) is a big factor in other people thinking this game is boring. It CAN be tons of fun but if you let the desire to "win the RvR game" drive your game style, it can become a very boring game.

A great example is how there are 3 teams on our server that I know have good Oceanic time zone numbers. All 3 have a non-aggression pact with each other. All three engage in port flips against the teams that don't have an Oceanic time zone contingent that can fight them.

They're "winning" but literally not fighting each other. Sun Tzu says yes, Slamz Tzu says that's a pretty stupid way to play a video game if you don't want your guild members to slowly vanish to find more fun somewhere else.

[Hodo]

8 minutes ago, Slamz said:

You are also an open sea PvPer, from what I understand, as am I (and Vllad). That keeps the game lots of fun for us. We're basically the killers, always at war.

I just think that "strategic thinking" (especially avoiding wars) is a big factor in other people thinking this game is boring. It CAN be tons of fun but if you let the desire to "win the RvR game" drive your game style, it can become a very boring game.

A great example is how there are 3 teams on our server that I know have good Oceanic time zone numbers. All 3 have a non-aggression pact with each other. All three engage in port flips against the teams that don't have an Oceanic time zone contingent that can fight them.

They're "winning" but literally not fighting each other. Sun Tzu says yes, Slamz Tzu says that's a pretty stupid way to play a video game if you don't want your guild members to slowly vanish to find more fun somewhere else.

Not disagreeing with you, that avoiding fights is a bit "cowardly" but unfortunately people are afraid of losing pixels.  

Some people think sailing afk for hours to amass millions of pixel gold coins makes them good.. well that is something.  

This is why I am opposed to the massive US-GB alliance, or really any alliance currently in game.  I also think any form of teleportation outside of jumping between your outposts should be gone.   And if you want something you need to sail and get it or hire someone to get it.

[Bach]

2 hours ago, Hodo said:

Actually applying Sun Tzu's art of war doctrine to a game does make sense.  It may not to you, but it does.  It makes more sense than applying it to business practices but yet the 1% has been doing it for years.

I personally use Dicta Boelcke.

Obviously you can apply the Art f Wars concepts to a game.  The problem is that from the very first chapter it states that the height of the teachings on war is to win without fighting the opponent.  This is the base mantra of the teachings. From the first chapter is goals are in minimizing risk and battle expenditures whenever possible. Its good for real war but not so good for a game where the goal is actually the fight and not the win.  Its in this aspect the book becomes problematic to recreational or fantasy wars.  It still works for the win but it can definitely suck for the game value of the contest if taken too far.

Edited June 26, 2017 by Bach

[Barbancourt]

Dear courageous Viking neighbors: It is good that we were able to avoid unnecessary bloodshed and loss of beautiful sailing ships today.  Perhaps our relationship is turning a corner torwards a more positive future! 

Edited June 27, 2017 by Barbancourt (rownd)

[squedage]

just waiting over here with my popcorn for when the danes 1 port the french

[Barbancourt]

28 minutes ago, squedage said:

just waiting over here with my popcorn for when the danes 1 port the french

Hasn't the supply of fine Parisian Furnitures, Languedoc Violins and Cognac to Gustavia and Christiansted been interrupted enough?  Lets think of how cultured living is suffering from this needless tiff.  Our ambassadors eagerly wait to receive their Danish-Norwegian counterparts in the salons of Fort-Royal to begin a new peaceful chapter in the relationship between our great nations!  The tea-cakes are warming right now! 

 

Edited June 27, 2017 by Barbancourt (rownd)

[Slamz]

3 hours ago, squedage said:

just waiting over here with my popcorn for when the danes 1 port the french

I'm curious what you think will happen then.

It's already easy to obtain materials via alts. The only thing you REALLY lose is the ability to easily teleport. With smuggler flags you don't even lose access to trade goods. In a way I kind of wonder if this is something we need to think about: being one ported really doesn't hurt an organized guild at all. Should it? If so, how?

[Bach]

5 hours ago, squedage said:

just waiting over here with my popcorn for when the danes 1 port the french

1 porting a nation in 2017 is nothing like 2016.

First in 2017, all the home ports are nearly self sufficient.  What you don't have are accessible from smugglers.  No OW ships require CMs. Ships skills make market purchased ships playable. The current game system stocks battle consumable at free ports. Every port battle can be attended by almost all ships.  The only thing one porting restricts is teleportation style movement.

Second in 2017, most all players have redeemable forged papers. Once players get one ported they have all their stuff in one spot and all around them are the ports they are used to using but under a different flag. I suspect a common occurrence is a mass of players just switching to the conquering nation but with no loyalty to it.  This mass of players will likely destabilize old nation leadership and treaties as they essentially change it from within.  One porting a nation could just doom the conquering nation. Making less extreme wars a better play in the game for maintaining control of your own nation.

Third in 2017, there is a prevalence of Alts in the game already and the game just went on sale again. It's entirely possible that there are so many Alts or just the potential to make them that one porting has very few in game effects anymore. As the game Devs have already proven, even an SOL can be built out of free ports. If you have the Alts to get the CMs for you then there really isn't much holding an organized clan back.

The old style concept of one porting may have been killed off successfully by the Devs. All in all this may be a good thing as the old play to crush tendencies had been one of the things that probably killed the previous 2016 beta.

Edited June 27, 2017 by Bach

[Vllad]

Threatening to single port a nation when it will just give that nation what it wants anyway isn't much of a threat. Oh no, more PVP, whatever will we do?