Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'ai'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Naval Action
    • Naval Action Community and Support
    • Naval Action - National Wars and Piracy
    • Naval Action Gameplay Discussions
    • Naval Action - Other languages
    • Naval Action (Русский язык)
  • Age of Sail Historical Discussions
    • History
    • Shipyard
  • Ultimate General
    • Ultimate General: Civil War
    • Ultimate General: Gettysburg
    • Forum troubleshooting
  • Naval Action Legends
    • General Discussions
    • Closed Beta Gameplay discussions
    • Legends Support Section
  • This land is my land
    • General discussions
  • Game-Labs Forum
    • Jobs
    • Future games & special projects
    • General discussions
  • Age of Steel historical discussions
    • General discussions
    • Blohm+Voss
  • Pyrates and rovers's Literature & Media
  • Pyrates and rovers's Gameplay / Roleplay
  • Clan [GWC] Nederlands talig {Aanmelding}'s Topics
  • Polska Flota Kaperska's Rekrutacja
  • Polska Flota Kaperska's Historia - Polska na morzach
  • Chernomoriya's Topics
  • Unsolved mysteries in plain sight's Mysteries
  • Unsolved mysteries in plain sight's The Book of Rules
  • Congress of Vienna's Global
  • Congress of Vienna's EU
  • Congress of Vienna's Historical
  • The Dutch Empire's The Dutch Empire
  • The Dutch Empire's The Dutch Empire
  • ROVER - A treatise on proper raiding in NA developed by real events's The Rulebook
  • ROVER - A treatise on proper raiding in NA developed by real events's Tactics (methods)
  • The Dutch Empire's Discord Server
  • SealClubbingClub's Topics


There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.


  • The Enclave's Files


  • Community Calendar
  • The Enclave's Pearl Harbor Day

Found 35 results

  1. Boarding Timer Malfunction

    So I went out for a quick mission in my Santisma today unknowing it would be my last. I was doing my normal 1st rate mission Santi vs Santi. Everything was going as planned and he boarded me. After three rounds winning against him, something went horribly wrong. My timer said there were 10 seconds left, then it immediately went to 2 seconds left. Thus, I could not properly coordinate my attack rounds and lost 150 of my crew. Then the next round came and it was even worse. If I remember correctly, it went from 10 seconds to 3 then back to 5. I was doing all I could to select the appropriate defense moves, but I could not work against the clock this time. While I could just very well be bad at boarding action, I know not to counter-attack into an attack, but nothing like this has happened to me before. I have no idea whether this will happen again or how to correct it, as the issue makes sailing too dangerous to try. Needless to say, this is a large loss to my fleet and I and others experiencing the issue find it hard to sail out of port again in fear of this issue happening again. Thank you for any ideas and help!
  2. AI Reporter

    Just a thought, if AI ships/fleets could report sightings of players to their respective Nations, in an "AI Reporter" a similar chat box to Combat News. So say a Spanish AI is sailing along and a French player is within its sight, the AI reports something like, "French ship 20 k's SE of Turneffe" to the Spanish Nation. This would open up a whole new way to play and add to content in my opinion. Thoughts?
  3. The AI is fully predictable in its behavior, hence having any on either friendly or enemy team forms a hazard and imbalance. You can for example kite them into sailing around the capture circle. Or push them outside of the battle circle. I think it is best to remove AI completely from any PvP scenarios. AI is best left for PvE scenarios.
  4. Ai activity

    Are there any plans to make ai on pve server more active or, at least less passive? I don't know another game with ai,enemy completely ignoring player.
  5. Why we get back ship capture from NPCs? It was one of the best changes of 10.0 beside removal of TP, tow and introduction of 1 dura. 10.0 was under the banner of promoting OW gameplay. What was and is in my opinion a great succes. Now we are going back to the singleplayer i dont have to care state?
  6. Missions Level

    So i ve been leveling my avatar with combat missions (as it is common) and i managed to get to 5th rates. I know basic and some advanced tactics in battle but when it comes to balance of the missions, AI gets a stupid amount of "help" in order to fight back the human. I had cases of me haveing a snow (6th rate) and a triple (3) armada of snows apear in battle as within the level of my mission guessed i could take em head on... well that was not the case. other time had my Cerberus (5th rate) and a frigate fully armed with carronades and stuff got my hull breached like a swiss cheese. Even with a pal i found to help me we totaly got owned (he had a cerberus too). i find this extremely hard for a new or even a somewhat experienced player to deal with such early firepower and hull to get through.. Dont get me wrong the first levels are easy but when i went to second and first lieutenent i had really bad spawns (i dont know if they are fixed or random spanws but thats what i had to fight) anyway hope you guys get what i mean, good luck and keep up the good work!
  7. AI Learning to reverse onto land

    The AI seems to have learned a new trick where it reverse onto the land then falls over so you can no longer shot its sides makes it really hard to kill
  8. Ok, so now it appears AI is shooting double ball and double charge. Not only that, they are shooting them through CARRONADES! I want that hack! I F11'd it but thought I'd post it here too. This was regular AI, from an OW fleet, not a player's AI. So...bug, or feature (read that as "AI's hacks")?
  9. Its not the first time I encountered that problem. When chasing a ship AI seems to get into a tunnel vision and starts to do stupid stuff. They start to sail zickzackways and cross other ships bow and they start turning to get a shot on target without looking for other ships. Even the other ships didnt changed course for a while. It seems to me AI is missing the ability to predict where a ship will be when its not an enemy. The following video is an example for such an AI behavior.
  10. Greetings, Closer to case - we have fast and heartless AI wich need 0 seconds to aim and 0 seconds to count the angle/speed/distance/waves/penetration. Moreover ai is incredibly overpowered on 200+ m distance. Even though AI is bad at a close range - it is good at shooting on a big one. Thread is not about sailing or tactics, cuz tactics against AI is always the same atm. Get as close as you can, dodge and shoot. We should make ai less accurate. Cuz 23 hits out of 23 on 200 m. are too many. Very good aim. Add some time to aim(bot aim is 0 secs atm) at least 2 secs or more. Good day there, <3 may the Northern seas bless you. Harsh Winter
  11. I know that cannon loadout, mods, and build quality (color) are not reflected in your AI fleet ships' combat capabilities but what about wood choice and regional trim?
  12. Is there any relation between what AI traders are carrying and the ports they are near? If not, @admin, there should be. AI traders seem to mainly be making short hauls. It would make sense if they were carrying goods consumed or produced at the nearby ports. I apologize if this is already in game and I just haven't noticed it.
  13. With all due respect to Darth for the amazing game, I must say that the AI's weapon scaling is implemented badly and ruins immersion. With a high enough recon stat, you can see that : All of the AI's infantry will share the same the same gun, all of the AI's artillery will share the same gun, all of the AI's skirmishers will share the same gun , and all of the AI's cavalry share the same gun. This is very unhistorical and unrealistic : units were issued different weapons throughout the war, on both sides--especially the Confederate side. Confederate units in the Army of Northern Virginia used everything from smoothbore muskets to stolen Springfields to imported Enfields. So, when playing as Union, facing an army of Confederate brigades equipped with M1855s and ONLY M1855s is extremely instantly breaks immersion. Likewise, when playing as Confederates, it is unsettling to face a Union army with 108,000 M1861s and not a single other type of rifle. Historically, Union brigades were outfitted with everything from Sharps rifles, to M1861s, to Enfields and Spencers) This is also very evident with artillery batteries : an AI army will only have ONE TYPE of cannon. So, when I played as Confederates at Chancellorsville, I had to face 311 10pd ordnance rifles from the Union. That's ridiculous from a historical standpoint : a Union army would have multiple rifles issued to its brigades and multiple types of cannons issued to its artillery. Proposed solution : I am not a game designer, so I do not know how difficult it would be to implement weapon variation, but here's my idea : Ideally, the weapons scaling system averages the "quality" of your army's rifles and then formulaically (taking into account unit "eliteness", historical availability and prevalence) generates/assigns guns to your opponents' army's brigades, keeping a lower/similar/higher average weapon "quality" depending on difficulty.
  14. I'd like to see attrition of the AI "player" somehow built into the game. I think it's a bit inaccurate for the AI "player" to come back healthy and well armed after suffering defeat after defeat. You (the human player) can only rebuild depleted units so much. Why not make this the case for the AI?
  15. AI Surrender mechanic

    Hi there, Would it be possible to create a mechanic by which AI ships (particularly traders) choose to surrender to a vastly overmatching foe rather than fight? Parameters could be how many times greater the enemy is in size/weight of broadside/crew, proximity, and speed. Merchant sailors weren't keen on getting slaughtered to no end in hopeless fights in the 18th century; creating an AI surrender mechanism would be vastly more realistic than having to force a small merchantman up into the wind to be boarded and its crew cut to pieces in a single round. Thanks--
  16. "Demast" command to AI fleet

    If you issue the Demast command to your AI fleet, is he chaining the sails or going in close trying to kill the mast with ball shot?
  17. well the thing is i see no use for is AI-driven Battleships in OW (there are already epic events) the cargo fleet can stay reason : *they are always to big to attack (and even do not attack you as an enemy) *they are in the way at PB (tagged in, and counted as well) *they are to big for a single ship to attack (ai 3000 br vs player 120br ) *they are everywhere they can be, for example: in the vicinity of a ow fort or tower what makes no sense (the fort is not attacking in ow) and the ai fleet is even not attacking other enemys it just makes no sense *because i HATE AI driven things ( @i love them in missions btw) *they have no use as a escorte ,they are to slow moving and also stear the other way ,so no use for that to. * if you see an enemy fleet it always looks like this : 6 victorys 6 pavel 6 bellona 6 santismo 6 nukes or whatever,, you get my point.!! REMOVE THEM PLEASE......... ps:...The cargo AI vessel can stay ... greetings.
  18. A couple days ago I set fire to an AI ship in two separate battles. In the first battle the AI ship blew up. This is the first time I've been able to blow up an AI ship with fire in probably 6 months. Usually they almost always put out the fire, even if I set it on fire multiple times. In the second battle the ship was on fire and sinking. As it was going down the fire spread up the masts to be burning at the top of the ship. I have never seen that before in 11 months playing. These two things lead me to believe the devs have changed the fire mechanics significantly in the last week or two in a patch. Does anyone else know if this is true, or have any similar recent experiences? Or did I miss a patch description or writeup about this?
  19. Fixes Needed

    I have followed Nick's work since Total War and have put a decent amount of time into UG:G. As soon as I saw UG:CW, I had to pick it up. Even in Early Access, it's a fantastic game, with tons of replay-ability. However, I have seen some issues that I thought warranted a post. 1) The auto-shifting and alignment of brigades. Sometimes the brigades just move, or charge or don't shoot. No explanation, no warning. I'll set my lines and shift to another part of the battlefield, only to come back with a unit routing because it charged into the open or decided to move laterally down the line. This was a problem and UG:G that I think needs to be fixed here. The same goes for how the brigades rotate. 2) RETREATING This one is so incredibly frustrating. My units retreat behind their lines or vice-versa. This becomes "game-breaking" in the larger battles when you're literally stretched paper thin on every front. You rout a brigade and it retreats to YOUR rear. Another problem from UG:G that needs to be readdressed. 3) "Mob Firing" I think the reason that point 1 happens is because of units not wanting to fire through their own or enemy units. Therefore, someone needs to move. However, sometimes I have units fire from behind other units and other times I do not. Sometimes they just charge instead of firing. The computer seems to have none of these problems though. At Antietam, thousands of Yanks occupied the same field and fired continuously, without shifting or charging or rotating awkwardly. 4) MELEE! Melee is fine for the most part. The frustrating part lies in what happens after they've won. Sometimes they fallback well, sometimes they get tangled and stay in melee perpetually, and sometimes they just follow the retreating units back until they are obliterated by it's friends. I want to end on a high note, so... Game-Labs, you have brought me a piece of my childhood back, and for that I will support your work always. The Sid Meiers and Sierra Games were favorites of mine, and you have made them so much more enjoyable 20 years later. Cheers!
  20. Hey all I think there's too many AI battle fleets.. The size of them are utterly unrealistic and the volume more or less prevents PvP - something that's being aggravated by the forts addition (which are cool btw - so just loose the AI fleets)..
  21. When you are in a battle with multiple ships, is there a way to prevent any of your AI fleet ships from taking off downwind with another AI enemy? Sometimes it takes forever to catch them after you can refocus on that other enemy, and since we can't seem to command our AI ships anymore I see no way of preventing it. Quite annoying, am I missing something?
  22. Suggestion: Player AI Traders

    Hey! At present, we have random AI traders and fleets sailing around, with no real purpose other than floating targets. I'd like to suggest that rather than having random fleets and traders, or perhaps in tandem with those, the fleets sailing around are actually carrying items for the nation- If a player collects from his/her resource buildings in a given location, but is unable/unwilling to sail that cargo to it's destination themselves, they could hire AI traders to make the sail for them; like deliveries to/from free ports currently; in the open world, able to be attacked by players of another nation. This would mean that attacking enemy traders on the open water would serve a real, tangible purpose, as it would be likely that those traders are carrying materials essential to the economy of your enemy. Perhaps if a player pays more for the contracted ship (or based on the value of the cargo?), the number of escort ships increases, meaning that taking a more valuable prize would take more coordination between the individuals making the attack. Thoughts?
  23. I just had quite a surprise. While i was playing with some friends i got boarded by an enemy AI Santissima. Leaving out the fact that it was an AI of my own team (Santi) that pushed that Santissima into my Vicotry before I could evade: I was almost in a T-position infront of the enemy Santi (with an angle of about 30-45°) and above 3.7 Kn speed when the message appeared that she was pulling me in. I was still above 3.5 Kn when less than a second later she acutally started boarding me. From previous experience I got the impression that you have to get a ship below 3.5 Kn speed to board it. That aside: My crew count was at about 790 and the enemy Santissima had almost exatly 100 crew more than me left. Up until now nothing out of the ordinary (even the stupid AI ramming you, pushing enemies into you and shooting at you..... I'm used to that by now). But here is where the outragesous startet: First off, she captured my ship (which I'm still mad about, because I worked hard for that Victory) but what really pisses me off is HOW she captured me! A ship with only about 100 crew more than myself captured me in 4 turns. That's right! 4 turns, no more! The enemy AI killed 480 of my own crew in those 4 turns and the really funny thing about all this? Besides the first round, the only thing I could do in the boarding was brace! 1 round where I could choose defend and the rest I could do nothing else than brace and after 3 more rounds the AI had already captured me. Now explain to me how the **** this is possible! How in the name of the mother of all un-balanced-ness can an enemy ship with only 100 crew more than yourself capture you in 4 turns (remember, we're speaking of 1st rates here..... so looots of crew to kill!) without you being able to do ANYTHING except in the first round?! I can understand this happening when you board a ship with being prepared for boarding and having a crew count (vs the enemy ship) of something like 4:1. But with a crew of almost 1:1 and the fact that that enemy Santi was just figithing with an AI ship from our fleet when she rammed and boarded me, it shouldn't even have BEEN in boarding preparation! Unless AI can switch to max boarding preparations in an instant (which if it IS the case, SHOULDN'T be possible also)! And the fact that the AI pulled me in and almost instantly started the boarding although I wasn't even parallel to the ship and still above 3.5 Kn? This is inconceivable and something is definitely wrong here! Something like this mustn't be possible to happen, however accurate & perfect the enemy AI is! And I don't even want to get started on how outright STUPID and brain-dead the team AI behaves. Whatever is wrong here, It needs to be fixed / balanced ASAP!
  24. In principal there is currently little wrong with the AI. Yes, it has a silly buy and sell policy, but still these are valid. Take the compass wood case for example. As long as stores are below 25000 the AI places a bid of $1500 for 1250 units. The UI and implementation however do not reflect this at all. And you subsequently see the lottery ticket system. (It also retains the $1 bid for some reason. Another bug.) Combine that with the bug that sell contracts do not interact with AI and you have a broken system. http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/15169-sell-contract-does-not-interact-with-port/ Another point where the AI is lacking/failing, it "cheats". It can bring goods to the market way below prices that are attainable by a player driven economy. It can outproduce and outconsume players. While we have a combat AI that is made to be "equal" to us, we have an economic AI that is not. So the goal should be to get a challenging economic AI that does not cheat. However there are also some roles of the AI to take into account: Bootstrap the economy. Provide a money faucet. Provide a money sink. One of the money sinks is grey ships. Here it also very apparent that the AI cheats. AI ships should be sold at a realistic price, so players can actually compete. This however will probably make grey ships too expensive. Maybe we can start with making AI build ships, 1 dura greys as opposed to 5? Or let players choose between 1 and 5. We should also make it so any dura ship can be put into a contract. Another one is the crew replacement. Is the price too high? No, as long as players can compete against the AI, the price can be anything. Both are probably insufficient to serve as the ultimate money sink, so there is likely more to come. I also want to keep money faucets/sinks as something to address later. As for the money faucet aspect, this is the consumption happening around the map. It should be tuned based on the amount of gold in the game, nothing else. It could however be tied to nations. But definetely not by players wanting a faucet. As a next step, I'll see if I can a clean calculation of a grey Constitution as to highlight the AI pricing and propose tweaks.
  25. So, people were discussing the NPC capture issue, with one side saying it created less demand for crafters and encouraged a suicidal playstyle, while the other side made the argument that capturing ships is what this game is all about for a lot of people, crafting wasn't impacted THAT much, cheaper ships means people would be willing to stay and fight more often, etc. What came into my head while reading this is that both sides have legitimate points, and that if AI capture was disallowed again, it would make the AI fleets like robots in a disney boat ride....pretty to look at but not something you wanna go up and interact with. So...how can we have the best of both worlds? How can we let people have the satisfaction of going out and capturing NPCs for a purpose OTHER than gold, while satisfying the #crafterslivesmatter crowd? (joke, I craft). Also, how do we make NPC fleets still relevant if NPC ships cannot be owned by players? Oh, and what about that admiralty thing? Thus the (somewhat poorly written) idea above. Let's expand and improve upon that. Feel free to expand upon, modify, disagree with, etc, anything here. As I delve into and combine several different topics and mechanics into one working idea, there wasn't a good place to put this and it was suggested I make it its own thread. Correct me if I am wrong. What is the Admiralty? The Admiralty is made up of and controlled by all of the Lord Protectors of a nation. (To see more about Lord Protectors, see the Developer's "Such is a lord" thread) Each Lord Protector can control AI fleets based out of his port, as described in the quote above. AI fleets are built out of the ships that players sell to the admiralty at that port. Player captured or crafted ships sold to the Admiralty retain their upgrades, quality, stats, etc. This would create another demand source for player crafted ships, and allow players who aren't Lord Protector's a way to support the people they agree with and reasons not to sell to the admiralty in ports ruled by people they disagree with. CAPTURED NPC SHIPS CAN NEVER BE KEPT BY A PLAYER, as was done historically, they are sold to the Admiralty for prize money at a port, or they are sunk for significantly less prize money at sea. Lord Protectors also have most of the control over port defenses, public buildings, port resources, etc, etc, while keeping his character's money and assets separate from the port's assets. Thus, I will sometimes refer to the Lord Protector of a port as the Admiralty as to distinguish between Player assets and Port assets. (I will almost exclusively be talking about Lord Protector controlled port assets throughout this discussion. If my nouns and proper nouns are ever unclear, please let me know so I can fix it) If there are more levels to the hierarchy, (Lords Protector of Shallow Ports, Deep Ports, Regional Capitals, and Capitals, as an example), then Lords Protector higher up in the chain could give instruction to Lords Protector below them. These would not be mandatory, but perhaps there could be incentives provided to encourage people to follow the instructions, perhaps in the way of more money for harbor defenses, fleets, trade, public building improvements, etc. These incentives could be automatic game rewards for following an order given by a Regional Lord, or perhaps the Regional Lord has control over an automatically generated source of desirable port improvements that he can distribute as he sees fit If a Lord Protector does not agree with what his chain of command is telling him to do with his AI fleets, he could simply not do it, which means he wouldn't get the incentives for doing it either. These incentives aren't personal to the Lord Protector, they are benefits to the port he rules. These incentives would be credited to the "Admiralty Account," "Admiralty Warehouse," or "Admiralty Docks" of the port, depending on what they are. This would provide interesting options in a Civil War scenario, as 2 different sides fight for control of a faction. Perhaps there could be an option for a Lord Protector to change allegiance to a different Regional Lord in his area, bringing all his assets with him to the other side (AI fleets, public buildings, strategic harbor defenses, etc) How are AI fleets generated? The main way AI fleets are constructed is through players capturing enemy NPCs and player ships, and selling them to the admiralty, as well as any ship that a player decides to sell to the admiralty/port. These ships would be added to the available ship pool in the port in which they were sold. The Lord Protector then assembles a fleet with the available ships in his pool. Fleets can be specialized for specific purposes by the Lord. The Lord selects the ships he wants, makes them a fleet, then chooses a role, an area of operations, and ensures the fleet is provisioned. Depending on fleet size and mission duration, fleets require provisions, repair materials, and crew. The Lord Protector would have to have available AI crew, repair materials, and enough provisions for that crew to last for the duration of the mission. These provisions and repair materials can be crafted, traded, and captured, and could be the exact same provisions players use. People would have an option to sell their provisions to the Admiralty, which means that if the Lord Protector wants to send out lots of fleets for really long periods of time, he needs to be able to afford all the provisions necessary to do so. The Lord Protector can buy ships for the Admiralty through the current Player ship market as well. Again, these ships would retain their upgrades and quality. The AI crew comes from player captured and AI captured AI or Player ships. When a player captures a ship, they assign a prize crew to sail it back, This prize crew historically also guarded prisoners on the trip back to port. The player can impress as many crew as he can, then sell the ship to the admiralty. The remaining prisoners that were not impressed would go with the ship to the admiralty. These prisoners would then be impressed by the Admiralty and put into the respective Lord Protector's available crew pool. The Admiralty can only get crew through this method, and cannot access the same crew hire pools as players can. Perhaps Lord Protectors can trade crew, moving crew on "Prisoner Transports" to newer ports on the front lines, as the cost of sending a fleet from Puerto de Espania to attack fleets near Pedro Cay would be prohibitive (provisions, maintenance requirements, crew readiness, etc) compared to a fleet sent from Tiburon or Jacmel. Boarding and capturing usually involves the loss of crew. Historically, the majority of crew loss was from incapacitating injury, rather than death, so, having a good amount of medical equipment, a good surgeon as an officer, crew recovery upgrades, etc, can be used to simulate the treatment of these wounds and enable the restoration of a large portion of the lost crew on both sides of the engagement. What can AI fleets be ordered to do? Basic options are Defense (stay in port, exit port to attack enemy fleet that sails past) and Patrol (Go from point A , to point B, to point C, D, then A, engage X type of target). They can be directed to attack/hunt NPCs, and, with certain restrictions, players. A fleet that hunts players will attack players on the open ocean, but only if their BR is comparable. The logic behind this is that the Lord built the fleet a certain size for a reason, and the AI commanders will not waste themselves attacking a player fleet that is too powerful or waste time attacking small fleets and single ships. This would prevent massive amounts of AI ganking a smaller group of players. Fleets can be directed to operate in certain areas at certain times to raise or lower hostility. (see updated port battle mechanics thread) For example, a nation that isn't online during the time an enemy is trying to raise hostility in an area can attempt to reduce the possibility of a port battle at that time by sending a fleet to do things to lower hostility. The attacker can respond by having their fleets go hunt the defender's fleets, or go hunt them themselves to sink them. Where does the Admiralty's money come from? Ports as they stand today already buy ships (in the form of players selling ships on the homepage), albeit at noncompetitive prices. These prices will remain unchanged and will not draw on the admiralty account directly. Similar NPC money dumps within the scope of the Admiralty will remain unchanged. One way the Admiralty account can make money is through commissions on buy/sell contracts. The Lord Protector can set the commission percentage required. This will provide interesting options for traders and will encourage players to explore other possibilities besides buying/selling everything at the nation's capital. Again, none of this money can be used for the Lord Protector's personal account, however, the Admiralty (controlled by Lord Protector) can buy and place buy contracts for the materials and resources it uses, and only those. The rules for buy/sell contracts remain unchanged, which means that the Lord Protector has to be competitive. Players will always have the option to sell to the Admiralty's contract if they want to, to support the Lord Protector's efforts. Allowing the Admiralty (Controlled by Lord Protector) to place sell contracts is something I am not so sure about. Another source of the Admiralty's money can be a from "European" sources, and based on the Lord Protector's management. If the Lord Protector does well, the Admiralty coffers receive a bonus. If he is doing poorly, the income is reduced. AI trade fleets to friendly, neutral, and allied ports would work as they do today, with a trade ship escorted by Warships or sailing alone. They would be filled with similar amounts of resources as the ones currently on the OW today. They would be assembled and supplied the same way as warship fleets are, with the same requirements scaled down appropriately to account for less crew. No resources are actually being taken or delivered to any port, these resources are randomly generated in the hold and only affect the economy if a player captures the ship and keeps the goods. If these trade ships reach their destination, the goods are "sold," and in order for the Lord Protector's admiralty coffers to receive money, the ships now have to successfully return to home port. Knowing that all those enemy trade ships are making money for enemy ports will encourage people to hunt them, and others to defend them. AI Trade Convoys to Europe is another option. These convoys would be constructed by the Lord Protector on the same principle as the other AI fleet, in that they would require provisions, repair materials, and crew sufficient for their trip across the Atlantic. They would be expensive to build, but if they successfully "reach Europe" the Admiralty account is richly rewarded well beyond what it cost to assemble the convoy. Convoys would be assembled from the trade ships sold to the Admiralty in the port. Once they leave port, a message would be broadcast to all players of its approximate location and route. These AI fleets would automatically be filled with full holds of each of the goods a port produces, and would not be attackable by the players of the same nation as the convoy, or the allies of the nation, unless a civil war exists. These convoys would generate lots of combat as players escort them and other players come to capture all those resources...an indiaman full of Silver, for example, would be hard to resist. If desired, instead of the Admiralty Coffers automatically receiving the money, in an appropriate span of in game days, Europe could send an escorted courier ship back with the money. The Lord Protector of the port would have an "estimate" of when the courier ship is showing up, so he can plan to have players escort it, and when it arrives, all players would be notified of its approximate location and destination to allow them the chance to intercept it and get all that cash for themselves. Questions? Important details I failed to explain? Bits that I missed? Suggestions? Comments? Please post them!