Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

'Sharpe

Ensign
  • Content Count

    244
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

'Sharpe last won the day on December 31 2015

'Sharpe had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

429 Excellent

About 'Sharpe

  • Rank
    Midshipman

Recent Profile Visitors

682 profile views
  1. Oh, I totally agree! I'm not requesting an instant-turn that is inaccurate to sailing physics, just that rudder controls be separated from sail controls. If a ship has no current movement, forwards or backwards, then changing course via rudder should have no effect. The situation I'm trying to avoid is: start at full sails with speed, and I set my sails to depower to a lower setting. My ship has a certain momentum that will decrease slowly, and during that time I need to steer my ship. Or another instance, I'd like to stay at battle sails throughout the entirety of a fight. Right now, mak
  2. Hi dev team, I'm having a lot of fun in the backer's build and am very much looking forward to this superb game. There's really only one disappointment I can find in the early gameplay, it's the fact that the right-click functionality for ship movement seems to be the only way to control rudder. The problem is that right-clicking controls not only the rudder, but also the sails. The game interprets a right-click as "go towards", so if my sails are purposefully at 25% and I'm looking to merely change course or angle for a better shot while maintaining the same sail setting, a right-cl
  3. I love the new "fixed enemy strength" option! Thanks for listening to community feedback on this one. But can we get this option for Medium difficulty as well? I don't want to have the other bonuses associated with Easy difficulty, but I also do want Fixed Enemy Strength so my victories feel like they matter in the larger campaign.
  4. Don't know why the devs can't just make port battles all day affairs where victory points can be racked up whenever - OR, an even better idea that has been proposed, have three separate battles spread throughout the day, you need to win 2 of 3 to win the port. Seems completely straightforward and yet this is never discussed; one can hope this is the plan Ink says is being worked on.
  5. Will Raids be announced when they are formed so that the defending nation has time for its players to get in position to intervene? I strongly recommend this - otherwise you're going to get sneak attack raids, and no defenders who happen to be passing by and see the instance will want to jump into a battle solo against 20 enemy players. But, if you announce that a raid will be happening at X port in 45 minutes, then you will see more PvP.
  6. I'm new to this forum so maybe this is a well-known answer, but the larger question is why historical battles are needed within the campaign in the first place? I understand the concern about runaway easiness if there is no scaling, but that's only if you are trying to enforce the order of battles and locations playing out exactly as it did. That's fun for single-mission players but it makes little sense in the context of a campaign where your force size and equipment stays consistent - but the enemy's does not. Why not provide two campaign options - one that sticks to the chain of battle
  7. I am on Antietam now and just noticed this as well. When my army was around 40k, it said I would be up against 68k Union troops. I raised my army to around 60k after the prelim battles and now I'm up against 81k Union troops. This is the wrong way to structure the game IMO. Here is why: -I invested in the reconnaissance trait so that I could see the enemy army size and know approximately what I need before each battle. If this piece of data is scalable and changes magically to enforce some type of historical "accuracy," what is the point of spending career points on reconnaissance? What g
  8. Literally, shut the F up and don't bring real life politics into a sailing video game. You don't understand the frustration and anger many of us feel at having a popular vote-losing fascist elected as the global representative of our country, and I truly hope you never will. Please don't assume that everyone who plays U.S. is in favor of the current American political agenda, because that is not true. Back to Naval Action, this is a "sandbox game." The admin has stated so many times. In the sandbox, sometimes things ebb, and sometimes things flow. There have been at least two occasions si
  9. Hiyo! But why is the rum gone???!
  10. I'm not sure what is going on here. Pirates have made a choice. They chose to side with Johnny Depp, Hollywood, and whatever else rotten that you can pull from American entertainment exports. This is their ethos, this is what they identify with. When the game fails to provide a true Pirate faction, those who want to land grab under the "cool" Pirate flag are nothing more than sycophants. As proud Dutch, why would you offer these players a fair deal and expect anything in return? I know for me personally, if I had a chance to fight any faction, including the perfidious Danish Russians
  11. Great post Elric, spot on. How many players are deterred from the U.S. faction because it is "Very Easy." I certainly was when I first joined the game, I went Spanish. Once I realized the U.S. were undermanned and by no means were any "easier" than the other nations, I went to the nation I wanted to join in the first place. These are all classifications based on some long gone antiquated notion of what the game has become. They are also inconsistent with the idea of a sandbox - in a sandbox game, how can a static menu that hasn't changed in 2+ years accurately depict which nation is more
  12. Предложение для портовых сражений: - "Порт битвы" на самом деле 3 отдельные сражения в течение того же дня. Нация, которая выигрывает 2 из 3 боев, побед порта. -Первый Бой запускается так же, как и сейчас. Это позволяет агрессоры, по крайней мере контролировать время одной из битв. -7 Часов после первого боя, начинается вторая битва. 7 часов после того, как второй бой, начинается третий бой. -Это Будет охватывать все часовые пояса. Обладатель порта является тот, кто может выиграть свой собственный часовой пояс, плюс, по крайней мере, один из других. Или потерять во время вашего собс
  13. The good: -Raids -True Pirate mode The awful: -Eliminating hostility, you "buy" a port battle? How does this create gameplay? How does this create immersion? -Return of Lord Protector just about ruins this game for anyone not in Euro time zone. At least players around GMT have the ability to wake up in the middle of the night if they want to PB for an American time zone port. People in American time zones do not have the same option to simply take off work in the middle of the day to PB on European time. The idea that all timezones are equal for a Lord Protector
  14. "Night flips" implies that the U.S. nation is secretly scheming, conspiring to take ports at a time that is inconvenient for both sides. In fact, your night time is our prime time. The earth is round and doesn't epicentre upon GMT (+3). In fact, this game places a strange restriction so that most of the U.S. primetime is off limits for port battles. It's actually incredibly fortunate that enough U.S. players stick with RvR in this game, knowing that we have only an hour or two (if you happen in an eastern U.S. time zone) to even participate. All of players west of Texas are locked out of
  15. Just because the generation of hostility needs improvement (I agree it's too easy for the attackers now) doesn't mean we need to bring back port timers. You're vacillating between extremes. In no type of combat game should the defender choose when the attack happens. There are ways to tweak the ruleset to encourage PvP while hostility is being driven...this should be the goal, not denying some playerbases the opportunity to play the full game.
×
×
  • Create New...