Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 02/23/2019 in all areas

  1. 9 points
    I keep hearing from players that have 1000hours or more that the game lacks content. This is very confusing to me becouse no matter what content is added it will still be a sailing game. All content can be is sail from A-B, kill ai ship at B or pvp somewhere. For me content is provided by you guys undocking. Community driven content is a hard thing to get in naval action since 90% of the community does not want to undock and fight. People only want to undock and get an easy win. Please give good examples of realistic content that could be implemented. Not content that a game like assassin's creed black flag has since naval action does not have a 150 million dollar Buget.
  2. 7 points
    Battle Royale Kappa JK My suggestion to add content are Open World events, similar to the last known fleet location thing we already have. For Example a Treasure Fleet. How does it work? First of all there will be a global message (like the last known fleet location) which says something like "Treasure Fleet sighted in Hispaniola" (Hispaniola is just an example). This is when the event starts. Now somewhere in Hispaniola an AI Indiaman with damn good loot sails around Hispaniola and has an escort as a fleet (maybe as strong epic events AI or reinforcement AI). When someone tags the Indiaman into battle, the battle wont close, its open for ever. Like the reinforcement zone there is one big join circle with 2 sides Attacker and Treasure Fleet. Green on Green is allowed in this battle. The Goal is simple, get the loot from the indiaman and escape. I could imagine an Event like this would be fun and not to hard to implement i believe. I think Open World Events in general would add much more content, since it manages to bring players to one specific place and will provide PvP content. One time i had one of all fish in the game at once . Maybe make something craftable which requires having all the different fishes. I would love to see "WTB Catfish" in Global chat
  3. 6 points
    pretty much this. @HachiRoku your content as you said is other folks being in the world for you to have an opportunity to fight them. Those other folks' content is what @Wraith suggests. They want "stuff" to do that isn't always 100% PvP battles. If those players get bored, they don't log in. If they don't log in you don't get your content and you then get bored. So the cycle continues. Real genuine "content" addition to this game will of course use what is already there. yeah, when you boil the game down to players going from point A to B it really seems dumb....but that's every god damn game when you try and bring it to the core of what it does. a story telling game like the Legend of Zelda has you start somewhere and there is always an ending, but the "content" in Breath of the Wild is everything inbetween and all the optional shit you can do. 1. Exploration - if admin thinks we have exploration by means of going to a port we've never gone to, to "see what resources are there." I'm sorry but that's a skeleton and shallow excuse. REAL EXPLORATION would have things in the sea and on remote parts of land. We have the foundation of possible exploration like Bottles and the trade fleet nonsense, and they are fine but we can expand on it so much for it to be an amazing player driven experience. You'd have all the folks out in the OW looking for rare resource caches near a blank shore, or a mission asking you to travel to a location to find lost treasure. 2. Player-Driven Economy - Needs work, plain and simple. a MMO "always" needs an economy back by an NPC basic introduction. Eve Online's economy is backed by the NPCs giving out blueprints, skill books, and basic "modules," the NPCs give the means for players to create the economy. I am not advocating for increased "Content" here, but we need some refinement. We have the means to create a player economy here, but the players don't really have ANYTHING to do with resources except for creating ships. Where's the option for players to support port expansion on trade and defenses? what about a merchant in a port that you can talk to and they tell you where some players are buying goods that you have to sell? Basic Trade information to get the ball rolling. 3. RvR - We've again, got a foundation for what RvR looks and feels like. But adding or enhancing RvR isn't less content or useless additions. players want to contribute to a Nation or Clan's conquest by more than just shooting cannonballs, you may not want to do that and that's 100% fine, but it shouldn't hurt to have more trade minded or PvE minded folks finding ways they can also join in. Things like lowering maintenance costs to ports based on holding regions, things like i mentioned earlier to contributing to a Port's defenses or it's difficult to destabilize (like a debuff to hostility). Finding ways for clans that own ports to steer trade goods towards their port. Imagine if you could invest in your port to force some of the rare resources from a nearby port to actually spawn in your port instead? In Europa Universalis you can make large empire investments in order to make all the trade goods go to you more than other nations, this drastically increases your trade income while your competition's income is lowered. I'd love to see something to that affect here. again, What you, Hachi, want is already in the game. But you rely on other people to be playing and when people stop playing you can't enjoy what you want. We need incentives for folks that rely on other game features to continue playing even AFTER you sink them. Eve Online is a hardcore full-loot PvP game, BUT EVEN CCP knows you can't have a game based solely on PvP - you need a PvE backbone, you need a system in place for players to thrive economically so that PvP only minded players can thrive by killing anyone they see.
  4. 5 points
    Basically content to me are objectives like such. Events that motivate people to go out and undock which in turn creates more content through traditional PvP. Bosses could be another like legendary ships that randomly spawn and attack players. Again content to me events that drive a player to go out to open world and interact. We have content now obviously but it tends to be fast burning.
  5. 5 points
    Content is things that you'd expect to be in the game but aren't. For example, there are no outlaw mechanics, no reputation system and pirates are still in a placeholder state. Raids although heavily harped on have not gotten an introduction, not even a simple version making RVR very stale and 1 dimentional, which has been a problem for a long time. Small arms fire, swivels, and other special cannon types still have an unclear place in the game, it seems these have been tested once and abandoned even though they're important additions that go hand in hand with the age of sail setting. There's a severe lack of information tracking and display especially on the map which leads to the perception that the world is empty with very little going on. The game does a poor job at displaying events, traffic, and areas of conflict. Entire port campaigns are resolved in a day, if you blink you miss it. No clan alliances, no clan warfare, no civil wars, lack of clan/nation content which solo play, patrol zones and pvp missions don't account for, they're just extrinsic solutions to an intrinsic problem which is that NA lacks any MEANINGFUL content, outside of RVR which has been wayy played out with no variation.
  6. 4 points
    For me, content is different ways to play the game and more immersive/detailed missions and roles. Right now you can play as a national member of a large, powerful clan, fighting RVR fleet battles, or you can play a solo raider with a heavily kitted out superfrigate ambushing people and killing them 1v1 or 1v2 before they can escape or get reinforcements. Thats it. You do one of those two for hours on end, or you derp around in a gunboat or something. You can also trade, but that really falls under the RVR umbrella as most materials trading (the interesting trading) happens with protection of clans in large fleets. All other playstyles are just not there. Want to be a pirate? No. Even if you limit yourself to realistic pirate ships and focus on raiding, you still can't do it because you are locked into nation based mechanics there is absolutely 0 framework for piracy or pirate playstyles, there is no smuggling to be done, and you are just playing as a normal solo player and artificially limiting yourself without any benefits you would expect from being a pirate (lack of rules, concealed hideouts, smuggling missions, etc.). The lack of unique playstyles and "content" in this regard shoe horns everyone into playing the same way, in the same ships, in the same places. For me, that just gets boring. The only content that this game has that is interesting enough to warrant doing it is RVR or dueling type pvp. All RVR boils down to the same thing, fleet vs fleet combat in lineships or frigates. (sometimes shallow water stuff two, then meta shifts to whatever is the most potent shallow ship, requins and hercs? Even port battles have nothing to do with a port, naval bombardment, or landing operation. It is fleet vs fleet lineship battles just like the ones in the OW, except with more precise BR limits. If you see a player you either attack them or run from them, there are no allied nations to help or alliances to foster, just kill kill kill sink sink sink in the same settings and with usually the same ships. All non RVR or solo dueling is only worth doing to prepare you for RVR and duelling. PVE grinding isn't fun enough to do on its own for sure, and trading isn't stimulating or interesting, its just rolling the die to see if there is a fleet waiting for you at your destination. I found it very boring for 99% of the open ocean voyage where I never encountered anyone, and then frustratingly out of my control when I arrived and departed because if I saw an enemy ship there was no possible escape for a merchant vessel, and nobody would ever attack without overwhelming odds. So basically you either just sail in uneventfully or get ganked. Incredibly rarely do you actually kill an attacker or fight them off, because if that was even a possibility of happening they wouldn't attack at all. I don't want to play the RVR MMO focused meta scrutinizing role that you must in naval action to get non repetitive (well, still pretty repetitive) content. This lack of diversity is also reflected in missions. Sail here, kill something. Sail around here, and kill several somethings. Deliver this to there.That is missions in naval action. I can think of so many possible missions that would actually be really fun to do in 10 seconds that it makes it so frustrating to have the absolute bare minimum in that regard. How about finding and destroying a pirate outpost? Sink the pirate ships, then shell the hideout and land troops. That would involve more interesting combat, relevant land to ship interaction, and much more challenging navigation/ship control to not beach oneself while approaching the shore and fighting among the shallow water and sandbanks where pirates would have a base. If there were missions like that (or if pirate players could make hideouts and they could be raided) then that would be the kind of content that would bring me back. How about a smuggling mission, telling you to sneak into enemy territory and deliver supplies to a waiting ship? How about running a blockade to relieve an embattled town? Bombarding a small fort before infantry assault it? Sail here, sink this. "ok, i've done that." Sail here, sink this. "ok sure, i'll do that again." Sail here, sink this. "ok commander, are you sure that there arent other matters to be attended to? ok fine." Sail here, sink this. "ok piss off mate." I absolutely don't agree! The age of sail consisted of SO MUCH more than just sailing from one spot to another with a fleet and shooting other fleets of identical ships to yours. Escorting things, smuggling things, raiding things, scouting things, suppressing piracy (via sinking pirates and attacking their safe havens), transporting troops and supporting ground campaigns and sieges, etc, etc. Of important distinction, is that these aren't just PVP/single player events. Piracy and suppression of piracy could be player driven, so could blockade running and smuggling, if the game just had a framework for it. Navigation, ship management*, and role specialization have been completely removed from the game, sure, but that doesn't mean these things couldn't be fun content. It just means that they aren't in Naval Action. Is it too late for NA to add these things back without starting over from scratch? Probably, but I'm not trying to change the game at this point, I'm just explaining why I rarely play it anymore. I don't fault the game developers for not making the game I want, I just think I didn't quite understand what NA is supposed to be when I started playing. I just want a different game than the devs and a lot of the community I guess. I just don't see the point of an open world if it exists solely as a frame work for creating pvp battles. You can get matchmakers to do the same thing faster and more fairly. *at sea not in port
  7. 4 points
    Content would mean that there would be numerous legitimate and meaningful roles for players to assume in the game. For example, let's say you like to just go out and wage open water warfare. You want a warship and you want foes/targets. You'll also need bases of operations and the supplies necessary to wage your war. You'll need ships at those bases; they'll need cannons and repairs. You don't want to farm or trade. We need a system that provides roles for players to meet your goals as those players meet their own, perhaps different, goals. With the exception of free ports, your national ports should have needs. Foods, luxury goods, etc should have to flow to them in order to keep those ports open, happy, and useful to you. Traders would have a role beyond just getting a fatter and fatter bank account. You'd have targets. Your nation would need to protect its traders if it wanted to prosper. If you want to defeat or hinder another nation, your efforts to interdict their trade should have more meaning than costing one Captain some money. Your economy would have to be developed enough to afford the national expense of a lineship fleet if you wanted to expand or protect your gains. You're limited on tows so someone could help transport ships for you. You're limited on time so a merchant captain or clan might be of help. Communication, deals, and contracts should be expanded and facilitated by the game. A God-like Gamelabs story runner could ultimately play a role. Famine strikes Puerto de Espana requires immediate provisions. Massive fire in Bridgetown requires 50,000 oak logs and 20,000 stone blocks to rebuild the town and restore resource production. Disease strikes La Navasse requiring medicines and extra labor. Some players want to flock to the most prosperous nations, but the best undeveloped opportunities for new resources are with emerging nations. It would be an intricate, long term, and complicated development project but IMO its the only way to attract and keep a critical mass of players.
  8. 3 points
    Man, that's a million individual answers question and I'll try to look it from a hobby perspective, which it is. Can't possibly cover them all. For some the chain of combat after combat is simply what is needed, without any ulterior motivation other than... that fight. One fight ends, another starts. Their expectations meet immediate and as fast as possible get into combat. These are the guys that play the games for the game, not the models. They go for what it works and what wins. IF NA would be a tabletop tournament they would be scouring for "winning army lists" and no matter what, that's what they take. They would love an Arena mode. For others is the string of events, what did result from winning or losing that particular combat. Like a branch campaign. They love writing lore for their captains, for the ships. They would love a Career based mode. For others can be simply a way to enjoy the models and how cool they move and the smoke and the sparkles. These are the guys that love the "fluff" above the "crutch", to put it in a tabletop sense. The game is great if it is backed up by a rich lore. They essentially can enjoy the open seas but don't see them trapped in an arena. Then you have the entire sect that wants nothing to do with "violent" encounters and simply wants to do "peaceful tasks" that at the same time have the same elegant feeling that the combat aficionados desire. A chain of trade, without any motivation other than each day a new route. Each trip a new small fortume. Completely uninterested by all the rest. Others wish to see their trade or crafting as a strong supporter of the ongoing campaign. Like they would be the ground crew in a flight simulator, the unseen guys that keep the aces flying. And to end, the guys that just dig the models and the sailing around.
  9. 3 points
    in short, no. in longer terms, I'd rather keep what we have and keep everyone on one server then needlessly split servers again with different mechanics. It would just make everyone upset again with lower pop and less interaction....which equals less everything.
  10. 2 points
    F11 report: NAB-87745 At the end of the Carriacou PB I was in boarding with an enemy Bucentaur. We were both down to zero structure and armour, he had zero morale in the boarding, and I had all but won the boarding. However both ships were under water and technically sunk, but for the boariding. It was just before the timer ran out on the battle, and as soon as the Battle Over-message appeared we both, I assume, pressed to leave the battle. After leaving battle I was told by remaining players that my ship was sunk. Meanwhile the Bucentaur escaped the battle and was able to sail back to port. Somehow the server registered his leaving before my leaving, but for all intents and purposes we must have left at the same time. It makes no sense that this server RNG or ping, should decide whose ship survive battle. Given that we both were technically dead, it would make sense both players loosing our ships, but alternatively, since both were still alive at Battle Over, we should both keep our ships. In either case, it should be the same outcome for both players. RNG/ping deciding this is just unfair and bad gameplay. So ether both or no one should lose a ship this way. I would like to have mine back. greetings
  11. 2 points
    Your in-game name at the time of the incident: [DAB]Knight Stalin - Prussian The person(s) you are reporting: [GU]Sharprunner - Dutch The time and date of the incident: 14:33 - 23/02/2019 What you are reporting them for: Team Damage The full story: They were chasing me outside the battle, I joined a dutchman to help him kill AI, when in the battle he chained my sails on multiple occassions during the initial stages of the battle Him in battle - https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/972119341031936979/29106C70BCBE16F7799A44F5FCD6DF37D7F8A3E5/
  12. 2 points
    You're 100% right. My point is that sooner or later you will get sick of it. If the devs change all the great ideas you pointed out tomorrow. You would most likely get burned out after another few hours again. Look a games like call of dudy. They release the same game every year and add no content. Compare the last release and call of duty 2. What is the major difference? Its that I am not playing anymore but newer players are. The most important thing for this game is for more players to come. They will leave sooner or later. RVR in its current state is a disaster. Everything in this game that forces players to deal with ai besides missions is terrible. Reinforcement zones included. People should not be asking for content but should ask for what they want. Do you ever see me asking for more content? How should the devs know what the hell I mean? I make a thread and ask for exactly what I mean. Personally I would rather this game to be lobby based and you are correct in saying this game from a technical standpoint has everything I personally want. I don't see the combat model as content however. For me content is a new addition to the game. The combat model, RVR and economy are ingame already. The state they are in has nothing to do with new content or not. This is why I am asking what content is. My very definition of what it is, is something totally different to what people that say #morecontent mean. Don't say we lack content. Say RVR sucks, I have a certain idea to improve it. Trust me. I am the biggest troll in this game but when its about combat mechanics I get serious. I try to find a balance between elite and casual. I personally want 100% hardcore but I know that 100% hardcore will not provide me with content(future casual players that will become hardcore sailors) The devs listen to ideas from certain players and I have been around long enough to know that if admin sees a post saying the game lacks content he will ignore the person. Nothing personal against you. I have not seen you making claims like this. Also, I am critical of the testbed combat mechanics too. I am not overreacting yet because I like the direction its taking. 4lbs more dps than 42 is retarded. Small caliber guns on upper decks being completely useless is also a hugh issue. The current combat model is flawed at its very core. How players do not see this is beyond me. What will most likly happen when testbeds model goes live is that we get some proper pvp tests. The devs will watch and listen to the people that complain. I hope they find a balance because there would never be any "balance" with the current one. Ever since the current combat model was added I called it trash. I was always very critical of it. I did not quit because the combat does still has some good elements its just way to forgiving and positioning is not as important as it once was and in real life. Still important but not decisive. I am open minded about the new one. Again its extreme but a few hotfixes could make it good. Why do you think I made this thread?? I really had no idea what everyone means by content.... The thread is a real question. I just gave my opinion about what I believe content is.
  13. 2 points
    Ahh the rattlesnake the once infamous chasing and stern camping ship and also a one time favourite vessel , now consigned the Cabal ship museum of past glorys. Sad times.
  14. 2 points
    This is why I brought up allowing raid like Port Battles. Have it so they can flip a port and own it, but have the map rest every couple of months. Than I got bitched at saying, "But we can't take missions in owned ports." Well than own the one next to it. It seems that some of them don't want change for the better. I'll be honest if we could flip and own ports and the map reset (not wipe of your goods, you keep those) I would maybe play over there, but right now it's just so boring, nothing to do. The only way a merge would work if they turned the Gulf of Mexico into a PvE zone like they mention before and than have the rest of the map a PvP zone.
  15. 2 points
    as soon as test bed closes - rewards will be allocated on live servers.
  16. 1 point
    It brings a larger pool of players together, which I think is something we all want, but we need to figure out how to handle those who do not want to play PvP and rather stick with PvE. My compromised solution is that in this new world, you have two options when logging on, by default, you are in PvP, but if you choose option 1) you are PvE for 60 mins, during which time, players can not attack you and you can't attack them. After the 60 min is up, you can not join any battles for 5 minutes, to avoid someone sitting out and waiting to jump into a fight. 2) You have an option of playing only PvE and can't switch back to PvP, thereby letting people play on PvE without worrying about timer. To resolve the issue of someone transporting goods without the worry of any PvP, all trade ships will always be PvP, if you want to run a trade route, fleet up or look for an escort, which may help bring some more "content" to the game.
  17. 1 point
    So, I experienced UG:G on my iPad, bought it on the Mac App Store. Loved it. Lurked on this forum and on the Steam forum. Knew about UG:CW and got it for my Mac in July 2017 as far as I can tell from Steam profile info. Might have even been playing it on Steam running on wine, initially. Can't remember. Started a BG Union play through but just didn't have the time to commit as life did its thing. Then had to migrate to a new computer. Lost my saves. Recently I've had some spare time, so I started again on Colonel level as Union with UI & AI 1.6 mod. (Re)Learning the ropes. Last night I fought Fredericksburg for the first time. O ... M ... F ... G!!!!! I got hammered, but I won. I only managed a kill:death ratio of 2:1 against the CSA. I was a little incautious, shall we say? But the scale of the thing was incredible!!! I could replay for a better result, but I'm not going to. On Colonel level I have plenty money and etc. I'll pay the price with cash. But it was an incredible experience. Can't wait to experience the rest of the game. I'll be going straight back in after I've finished this post. I'm a previous user of Darth Mods in RTW and M2TW. This game (and UG:G) are everything I could have hoped for from such a pedigree. Thank you Nick, and all at game labs for creating this and also pandakraut for the UI & AI mod. Cheers, gonzo99 [EDIT] I forgot to add that this beats TW for battle AI by a long shot IMVHO [/EDIT]
  18. 1 point
    When a battle starts the ships are frozen in open world for 15 seconds or so. The problem with this is that you cannot click on the swords to join the battle without clicking on one of the ships as well. This means you have both the ship and the battle details occupying the same space on the screen. Which means to cannot click the join button until the ships despawn which is plenty of time to be tagged by another group and then dragged into a separate battle to prevent you helping your nation. The solution is simple: Make the battle details screen always on the top layers OR move it over on the screen altogether
  19. 1 point
    I've watched years of discussion, suggestions, requests and nagging about "content". This content is advertised as something extremely crucial to recruiting and retaining players. Out of all these important things I've never seen any mention of anything I would enjoy. I've concluded I'm insane.
  20. 1 point
    Basically, content is complexity, depth, layers, variation, options, etc.
  21. 1 point
    I talk to casuals all the time. I get casuals started all the time. I supply them with the ships I dont need all the time. I also dont just give them random oak ships. I get them fully pimped ships to help them out. I remember when this game first was released. I remember the hours and hours we grinded. I remember exactly how people reacted on ts going from surprise to trinco to connie to 3rd rate to paval and holy hello kitty the santi. Not one of the people said OMG look how cool this trade route is. This game at its very core is combat. Its limited marketing focuses on combat and not trading. Shit, I was sold a lobby based game with no trading at all.
  22. 1 point
    Even when I am heated I don't mean to say I hate this game. You are not wrong when you say 'content is there but saying that we need more content is just a waste.' That is why in the past I have offered a number of suggestions that, to me, would be a more enjoyable experience for players in the game, but I clearly can be wrong sometimes and within those threads there have been people who disagree with me. I like too like the idea of bigger ships dealing more damage, I am just cautious and worried that the testbed numbers have swung to the other side. I'll wait to see how it plays out in bigger setting and in PvP but my initial thoughts from trying it out and asking others that I know, I do agree with them that fir/fir lineships will probably be oppressive. when I talk about "content" I basically mean additional features to existing game mechanics, or creating new functions that we don't have currently. examples included in my above posts.
  23. 1 point
    This is usually an issue even on the hardest difficulties. The Union units start small and don't scale much larger so it's pretty easy to just win on day 1. If you want to see the rest of the battle you can just not take the last victory point in the south east corner. The Union brings in more units for the later days so at least day 2 should be more interesting to play.
  24. 1 point
    That's great news. I played with this version of mod and unfortunately it is broken for AI. You can make whole enemy army surrender with very low casualties and takes away any form of challenge. The exception is legendary mode which with this surrender mechanic is even harder. So i will stick with rebalance mod or customization mod, from now on. It is a bit of dilema for me because I enjoy changes to melee, carrer points, stamina, artilery but hate weapon damage changes. It just look bizarre to see 1500 infantry brigade fire a volley at enemy in open field at kill 10 man.
  25. 1 point
    Some other questions:😅 1- How does "Condition" work? I mean is it like: a- if the unit has some condition ,despite of its percentage, then it will perform at max efficiency (max efficiency related to "condition" factor of course)? OR b- its percentage makes difference ,so a unit with 80% condition will perform better than a the same unit with 40% condition,? And if it's so, how much does it affect the unit's total performance? is it like that a unit with 50% condition will perform half effective to its performance if it was at 100% condition? 2- Does "morale" affect a unit's performance? how much? (if it's possible to give a percentage. If not, give me any clue on how big/small is its effect) 3- What is the exact (or approximate) bonus damage for attacking a unit in its flanks or rear? (is the bonus different for the flank and the rear?) Thank you
  26. 1 point
    Ah you misunderstood me here. I don't do full right flank, I do full centre rush (as in, my command advance through the right edge and the AI would advance through the left edge. It's a little difficult to show the maneuver on map as you don't fight around Hornet Nest but here it would look like the main avenue to approach the VP, with positions to screen the advance and block Union retreat shown.
  27. 1 point
    At Shiloh I will still only bring 2 artillery, meaning I would have a lot more infantry (8 brigades if I'm correct) than you at the start. I didn't have to "dance" with the Union skirmishers like you do, just advance in a 4-brigade abreast line and slowly push them back with superior range (it used to be that the Union skirmishers bring Whitworth and being a total PITA but now that's not the case). At the river line I would divide them up in to several groups and advance like this, with the "X" marking the "kill zones" where I would trap advancing Union troops or surrounding Union fixed positions. By having a brigade advancing up the woods next to the Union big camp, you can lure the Union camping on the right side to come to the flat ground to be flanked and sped up the advance a lot. On the right flank, interestingly I would do somewhat similar to you by avoiding to take the Spain Field early. But I only do that so that I have time to concentrate all units of the right flank very close to the edge of the map. When the Hornet's Nest phase happen I will make a mad dash to take the crescent wood on the left side of the Nest itself, then move my troops behind the wood (screened from the Union viewpoint) and arrive between the Nest and Harrison's Landing, blocking Union withdrawal from the Nest, then take my command and whatever brigade still unoccupied from the right to blitz straight toward the Landing and capture it. This strategy was born back in a version when the AI Confed troops are only 12k instead of 24k, and you can randomly get hit by unlucky roll in Legendary, making Union troops far outnumber you on the right flank. In this version I think it's debatable between yours and mine which one is better (mine preserve more troops, but yours rake in a ton of weapons from dead allies and enemies). But at least my plan is more aesthetically pleasing (seriously, Shiloh is still my most favorite battle of the game since I discover this strategy, as playing it make you feel like you're Alexander at Gaugamela or the Manstein at the Battle of France) and close to the original strategy from Johnston.
  28. 1 point
    For Newport News main difference is I would take 3 infantry brigades with 2 1k Mississippi ones and remaining Springfield. At Bull Run I would have bring 3 big infantry brigades to completely block all attempt from the right (the raw unit hold the centre, the experienced one provide flanking support), with a 3-Inch Ordnance battery to counter Union batteries. In the left flank I would arrange my defensive line like that to hold the Union for as long as possible while the right-wing continue to maul the Union, and only retreat when there is about 20 minutes left in the counter (enough for the artillery to retreat). I think the "retreat to Henry ASAP" strategy is helped by the fact that Jackson still come right at the beginning of the 2nd phase (which I didn't know would happen). If Jackson come later then that would invalidate the whole strategy
  29. 1 point
    So here is the tactics I would use for the early battle: Potomac Fort: I would set up Kemper/Sigrfried behind the Union reinforcement advance (avoid crossing the river) and then use Hexamer to draw the Union reinforcement towards them. If the Union was sufficiently broke, I'll then move Hexamer to the farm and block them from that position, freeing up infantry to join attack on the fort. If not, I'll set up a 2nd defensive battle at the river before attacking. The main attack on the fort will come from the right with 3 fresh brigades, while own units provide flanking from the south and cavalry attack the artillery. In the defend phase, I'll combine Kemper/Sigfried to hold the fort, using detached skirmishers to draw Union charges preliminary and keep their attention away from the fort. This one I think is 50/50, if it works it really works well, but not as consistent as rushing out to meet them as you do.
  30. 1 point
    spliting what little pop we have isn't going to make the game work. NA:L while was a good ideal, but bad timing. It should be done after the game was live and doing well as a side thing. Something like this would work if we had over flow of players and a large group of them wanted something like this, but I would bet it wouldn't have the pop turn out folks expect.
  31. 1 point
    No, it does not. Does anyone have the current caps?
  32. 1 point
    ArtilleryWeaponCurves EDITED.xlsx Thank you @pandakraut for your spreadsheets. I've made some editing to them. However, it seems that I've missed or misunderstood something. what I did is that I multiplied every art weapon base damage by its range degradation in different ranges. Finally made a chart for all the data. The problem is that I don't get the actual "damage range" for some weapons like the 3" ordnance. Can you please tell what have I missed... also is the shell type multiplier considered and calculated in the "Range Degradation"? and are there other multipliers that I should apply for my chart to be correct? InfantryWeaponCurves EDIT 2 fire rate.xlsx Also, this is another chart i made adding damage and fire rate factors of each weapon. Is it correct or does it need editing? thank you again
  33. 1 point
    I still like you, even though you're trash!
  34. 1 point
    I did not shout. I just told them they were trash. There is a difference. Turns out you don't make many friends telling people they are trash to their face. Maybe there was a good reason for me being exiled
  35. 1 point
    The issue will be fixed , please continue to report all such cases.
  36. 1 point
    Instead of merging PVE with PVP server, I would recommend more variety of missions and added quests / coop / story for pve server or as purposed many hundred times, low sec/high sec zones just like EVE and merging servers, which is unlikely.
  37. 1 point
    alienating a % of the playerbase would be a bad idea they have made a choice where they want to play Perhaps we should move you to the PVE server ?
  38. 1 point
    Only you EU Dutch who cry worse than a US liberal millennial after a "find yourself" vacation across Europe. Total respect for the Dutch clans that left and to the US players there simply because they know how to honour a deal, don't cry when things don't go their way, and have toughed through far more worse things than the EU Dutch have. @van der Decken my helmet off to you old comrade.
  39. 1 point
    Was based on votes. When you got allied you could not attack ANY player from that nation. The biggest issue was that all it did was create 2 blocks that fought against each other and anyone who didn't agree was basically told to shove it or go pirates. Pirates had no diplomacy. Simply, alliances as they were didn't work...BUT an alliance system could work through our friendly clan lists.
  40. 1 point
    What’s it gonna do against the “average schmo” who can only play “2 hours a day” in his sabicu Indefatigable though? What about the children?!? THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!
  41. 1 point
    Except with big ships the fight has to come to them. If I don't want to fight you I'll just go around you and your giant lugging piece of wood while you pudder around going 15knts on OW.
  42. 1 point
    Wrong. The main reason to not sail a 1st rate is that it’s boring as feck....
  43. 1 point
    I mean... the main reason to not sail a 1st rate should be the higher cost not that isn't the best ship. But on the other hand, it has been already shown by some players that it is still possible to sink 1st rates with smaller ships. Stern raking is much more effective at damaging internal structure in the new model. You probably won't be able to sink a 1st rate with a snow anymore but that was dumb anyway.
  44. 1 point
    @admin would two basic cutters be able to handle a brig or other 6th rates? Or even then would a 6th rate or two be able to handle a Hercules? Otherwise if not you just broke the shallows again. And right now @admin the economy is in horrible shape. You need to fix it quickly. It is too easy to make doubloons but a major struggle to get reals. Trade goods do not replenish quick enough in the current state of the game. Many peoples contracts are not being fulfilled in the slightest. Only way to make reals is by PvE and even then you are not make much in comparison of the time spent per battle. I hit an ai fleet of 12 5th rates with my 1st rate and after close to an hour I come out with only around 25k. Chump change.
  45. 1 point
    This sentence is making me ask for a change in testbed setup: If ugrades (and thus I assume skill slots, too) matter more in the new model, than the redeemable ships we get on testbed imo should not come 3/5 no trim , no slots unlocked. Right now 2 parameters are changed when switching to testbed: A: I get a ship of inferior quality and B: the surroundings (eg ai dmg model) are different. As a scientist I have learned: changing 2 variables can lead to 3 different influences: A, B and AB. It's impossible to tell in 1 test which of the 3 does make a difference (could even mean zero difference bec A and B balance each other) So strictly speaking: all my comments on testbed damage must be half educated guesswork, since I was forced to compare apples to oranges.... The clean solution: I get a copy of my life server ship on testbed. Or I can myself assemble the ship I use on testbed. In last testing phase this was less of a problem since crafting and looting was so easy, that I could sail a ship of top quality fast. This time however I had to compare PvE damage of a 3/5 no trim no skills Pavel and Victory to the 5/5 top geared Buccentaure and LO i normally do PvE with (Aka compare apples to oranges) One of the reasons why I a) used a admiralty Bellona on testbed mostly (more experience on life server in these) and b ) quit testbed right after fulfilling the kill/board requirements which was before the new dmg model was patched....
  46. 1 point
    Currently, it is extremely easy to recover from your sails getting shredded. With chain also being limited, sails ultimately stay fairly healthy. Will there be an upper limit on repairs in battle to help realize the idea above?
  47. 1 point
    Testing it every day. And no it's not going from bad to very bad. You finally see and feel the difference between ships which gives you the natural desire to upgrade the vessel and get better. Bigger ship = dangerous. Previous dogma that basic cutter can sink everything up mid level 5th rates now feels like a huge mistake.
  48. 1 point
    I liked when we had deliveries. I just wish that the delivery ships had a departure timer and would appear in OW as NPC and capturable by players. Imagine capping those fleet ships. That would seriously damage their econ.
  49. 1 point
    Just allow deliveries of your resources between your own outposts. We dont have time to just sail it everywhere, This is one of the biggest problems for crafters
  50. 1 point
    Great news about hubs, however I find this information quite insufficient as the question raised quite complex. 1. How many hubs are there planned to be and their locations? 2. Will their stores be linked with other trade hubs like it was proposed (you could buy sell in one hub while docked in the other (delivery still physical)? 3. Will players be able to create player made delivery missions for other players to take? 4. When you say "resources" are those just trade goods that have nothing to do with player consumption or are they resources that players consume, e.g. to craft ships? 5. If those resources that needed for crafting what are the plans to make them available to weaker nations (linked trade hubs would sort this issue out of course if you are going to make this happen)? Example: Spain is a strong nation and is able to snatch required crafting resources from all regions. Dutch is not so strong nation and is not able to sufficiently acquire resources to be competitive. What are the options Dutch will have? Dug out from 2 years ago (scratch anything that is NPC delivery related. It was proposed at the time to remove Free Port deliveries - no longer actual)
  • Newsletter

    Want to keep up to date with all our latest news and information?
    Sign Up
  • Create New...