Thonar

Heyho, I leave this here, but I think wraith solution might be the better one. You'll find it here:

Heyho, I just copy this here: Solution for the "Night-Flips": 24 Hour-Port-"Battles" (numbers below can be adjusted for balance) It is a rather simple system: Port-Battles are open for 24 hours-straight and for every kind of ship up to a max level (shallow, normal, deep) but never more than 25vs25 and a rejoining is possible but only once per battle hour (to help smaller nations). During this time-frame the attacking side must destroy the fort/ defense-towers to be able to capture the harbor. At the end of the 24 Hour period the attacking side must also have one of two BR-advantages over the defensive side to win the port. 1. Possibility: The Attacking side must have sheer number advantage of 5:1 of BR that had joined the battle over the Defensive side. (Victory by overwhelming) 2. Possibility: The Attacking side must have at least the same BR that joined the battle over time as the defensive side AND must have sunken 2:1 BR at the end of the battle. (Victory by Battle) IMPORTANT NOTE: Leaving the battle MUST be only possible when a ship leaves the battle area AND is not being hit for the same amount of time as in Open-World (so he has to leave the battle area and than the countdown starts). IMPORTANT NOTE 2: Land in Port-Battles MUST be implemented. Let me short explain these two notes: Now, the attacking side would attack an empty harbor and wants to secure the victory by overwhelming we just assume the maximum number of BR points the Attacking-Side can sent into the battle with a 25 Player 1st-Rate fleet over a 24h period: 900 BR (Santi/ Vic) x 25 (players) x 24 (hours) = 540.000 BR So if the defenders would only have 108.000 BR they would lose to an overwhelming force. This would mean a player fleet of 25 Belle-Poule/ Pirate-Frigates (108.000 BR over 24h) wouldn't be enough but with a single Trinco in their lines they would be able to achieve a victory over the 1st-Rate fleet by just joining the battle and leaving. To stop this, the defender must spawn between the enemy and the land, which forces the defender to fight his way out, when he wants to leave the battle (quite realistic actually). This way a nation would actually be able to "besiege" the defenders over 24 hours... when they can keep the blockade up. Of course these tactics aren't this simple since more than 25 players can actually join per hour (due to the fact that every player can join the battle as long as a place is empty and he hasn't joined the battle already during the current battle hour) and the battle lasting over 24 hours which means that an early aggression might allow the defender to just stop the overwhelming force by rejoining the battle when no attacker is there anymore. Another problem that you now might think off is: What if the Defender stacks BR over time? For this the defender must be in the battle and push out (escape) which allows the attacker to win via ships sunken. As a matter of fact: Such a system would be an rather easy solution since most mechanics for it are already within the game and a better system can be worked on.

I have the same feeling. While the Confederate start is pretty simple and a good start for beginner, the Union start is actually relatively hard, especially for a starter.

Heyho, I would just like to know the opinion of people here about the Campaign-Start. Playing the same mission on Union or Conferderate Side over and over again (and they are actually rather time-consuming) really bothers me. Is it planned to make them "Tutorial"-Missions being able to disable them? What do you think about them? Do you like them or would you prefer to start directly with the Corps-Creation?

I just used your quote.

This part is actually complete garbage based on prejudices. 1. Since 1740 (the beginning of the Silesian War) Prussia formed "Jäger zu Fuß"-Companies which were kind of Elite-Skirmishers with Rifles which did exactly what "Frederick was whining about". 2. Austrian punishments weren't any better or worse than Prussian-Punishments and the way the Prussian army recruited itself wasn't particular "special" compared to other armies in Europe. 3. True is only that Prussia never really adopted until late in the war skirmishing by units not trained nor equipped for it. To this the statement the "Austro-Prussian War" would have been the first "modern war" is IMO highly arguable. Depending on definition of a "modern war" it would either be the Crimean War, the German-French-War or the Russo-Japanese-War.

That's also my main concern with melee currently.

Heyho, I would just like to ask if you have the same experience and what you think about it: When a unit is fighting in melee it usually becomes impossible to regain control back over the unit before the melee has ended. That is fine to a certain amount as of the crazyness and brutalness of the melee in itself. But in some cases it ends up with a unit fleeing deep into enemy territory with a blinking white flag (no they haven't surrendered) without any chance to get back control over the unit to get it out of its misery of bad wayfinding. So Melee should be at least abortable (fall back) and units should always flee in the direction of the closest allied unit.

The Franco-Prussian (actually German) War would be awesome but probably already too advanced in technology. Why not the Crimean-Conflict in the 1840? Or the Spanish Succession Wars in the Netherlands? Otherwise I'm all for the first "World War": The 7-years war.

What has GER done?

I'm sorry but that is just far fetched from reality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_in_being The German surface fleet never was intended, neither during the first world war nor during the 2nd, to destroy the Royal Navy. The German admiralty knew quite well that it wasn't able to defeat it. Thus the "risk-theory" was evolved by Admiral Tirpitz saying pretty much that the German navy only needs to be so strong that every destruction of the German navy would cost the Royal navy so much that it would lose its sea-dominance to a 3rd sea-power and is thus a risk the Royal Navy cannot be willing to undertake. By pure diplomatics this prewar-theory was found wrong. Nevertheless: The German surface fleet was so strong in both world wars that German submarine warfare could act pretty much without any hinderance as it always had secure areas to fall back to (see Sea-Denial-theory in the Fleet-Being-Article). So your mere believe in "a fleet must be able to defeat another one to have an impact" is a bit of the believe of someone who always was the strongest . It would have been much more stupid for the Germans to just head-charge into the royal navy without much of an impact at all. PS: Jutland wasn't inconclusive. By losses the German navy had won the battle and by controlled area it was a draw same as in strategic impact.

Germany as in the terms of the "modern state" from 1871 onwards? Can't be really seen as "least successful naval power". As a matter of fact both U-Boat campaigns were pretty successful (especially the one during the first world-war) by pure numbers. The German surface-face fleet, despite being young and without much experience, proved to be a worthy opponent to the royal navy in both world-wars. In terms of naval power Germany is for sure not the "least successful naval power" when you see the damage inflicted upon the merchant shipping... so... Germany might even be the best pirate nation ^^ xD.

Certainly not good but Prussia had won several naval battles against the Hanse (supported by Danish/ Swedish ships)... thus certainly not really the least successful nation, but definitely not average either,

In German exists a shortcut for people like you "GröFaZ". SORRY achieved nothing worth mentioning so far and Pirates had the strongest playerbase by far during their high times, with the nations mostly fighting themselves instead of the Pirates at the same time. You are an arrogant fool, if you believe people have any interest in you. Pirates are just a playball until nations start real wars again beneath themselves.

Every war the same issue... the alliance of evil complains about port-timers.

Twig, thank you for your nice and kind words, even when I believe you overstate my skills in here. I hope you guys are doing fine. Nevertheless, whenever you guys need something like ressources for example, just write me and I will see what I can do. Best regards und immer eine handbreit Wasser unterm Kiel, Thonar

I never said I wanted a fair fight and never asked for one, neither during the battle with the Cerb, nor during the Counterattack nor here in the forums. I don't even complained about the counterattack, I expected it and fought it and had a great time doing so. So... where is your problem? Me attacking a "new player"? It is part of the game. I haven't mission-jumped him. I catched him in Open-World in front of your capital, with him having a fair chance to escape, so again, where is the problem?

Why? It was a fun fight. Well... heavily outnumbered against 9 players with Consti/ Trinco max. on your side with a lone raider Frigate on the other. 1. I knew what was happening, due to the way your Cerberus player acted, winning time and because it was directly in front of your capital. 2. I could have logged off in Battlescreen and get away easily, I didn't. 3. You guys didn't really scared me. What you showed was below average to be honest and without offense. It was fun and encouraged me to test a bit with layouts and keep on raiding in French waters. Thx for the good fight but "rekt" is the wrong word. Hope to fight you guys again.

That's the spirit. ????

Yes, I was and I was on behalf of KSKGE/ GER in the Swedish council for a short amount of time to represent the clan opinion at that time and mine in it, which seems was quite correct as Sweden achieved its wargoals as far as I can see.Nevertheless, as you can also see in the report: I was pretty much only online for 10 days last month... and with roughly only 2 engagments per day not even a long time per day. I decided to leave the organized gameplay as I do not have time for it as it would be needed and joined a nation where a player can play without a clan. But be aware: I have not forgotten the French betrayal. I have not forgotten the arrogance of the French nation during the war, I have not forgotten the arrogance of several French players on the field of battle and most of all I have not forgotten the French lies. Be aware France, when I'm online there won't be a No-PvP-Zone, only victory or death.

Off-Topic and partly political:

Would it be possible to get some insight into the proposal? Just for me, just for fun^^

So... you want Sweden to fight a war that is advantageous to Denmark? It would be quite stupid of the Swedish playerbase to do just that. Maybe the Swedish nation just outplays you guys on a different level, where you can't put your strength to bear... so instead of trying to adapt you come to the forum and complain. Who is the noskiller in this case? Ohh... correct, it's you.

Lord Vicious: You yourself state that the US-clans are unable to defeat you guys... nevertheless you remind everyone how glorious your victories against them are and keep staying in this area. How about trying to fight RUS for instance? The only clan on this server to defeat several different nations and even kept Britain during its prime-time at hold. SORRY, but you guys never achieved something along those lines. Count on your victories against inferior opponents, they are worthless, meaningless and every time you guys mention them it shows the true colors of cowardness and more and more respect for you and your clan is lost. Pride comes before a fall.