InfiniteAmount

NATIONAL NAVAL REGISTER Naval Action and Occurrences in the Caribbean, Gulf and West Atlantic All new National Naval Registers will be posted in this thread, in order to cut down on thread spamming. New Format, allows for a better layout but it has some compression issues. Will work on that for the next one. Back Issues 1st March 20th Feb 19th Feb 18th Feb 15th Feb 5th Feb 2nd Feb 31st Jan 26th Jan 24th Jan 21st Jan

I got to see first hand the "bravery" of your raiding group, Lobogris. I was far from impressed.

If French captains spent half as much time on their gunnery and seamanship as they do trying to convince themselves they are not the ones at fault for their own losses, perhaps they would've actually been potential allies we'd regret losing. If we've learned anything about how the French treat cease-fires, I'd wager that being at war with the French is almost as dangerous as being at peace with them.

Hire? I think you misunderstand. The United States, unlike the Spanish, French and British, are just that: united. Petty intrafactional squabbling is something of a purely European invention. It is my understanding that such inability of the French nation to internally agree to something as simple as a short term ceasefire was what doomed the French operation in Louisiana.

It was une grande bataille, with quite the spirited defense. I applaud the French for engaging us with order and coordination, truly much greater than the woefully low standard set by some of the other enemies of the United States. I myself was eliminated early, having screened our rear squadron from French guns, both naval and land based, and paying dearly for it.

Actually, Spain started it. You attacked our players, we tried to negotiated a peace understanding between the US and Spain, and you told us to piss off.

This newspaper only reports important events. It does not have the space to report every mosquito bite when there are body blows to record.

Also as an addendum, a political cartoon:

Maybe, but I guarantee that I will edit and twist it so that it makes you sound like a villain. Probably counter-productive from you're point of view.

^I agree with the different names for different factions. "Lord-Protector" is a title that would never have been issued by the US (or the Pirates). For example, Lord Protector for the British, Governor for the US, Comte for France, Viceroy for Spain, and something else for the other factions as I'm not as familiar with them

To answer the above in order; Firstly, the letter issued by the Contr-Amiral and Comte De Biloxi Nakorbc with regards to the situation in Louisiana containing a formal declaration of the French commencement of hosilities, http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/8715-political-situation/?p=174024, a followup statement by the same Ambassador stating the support of said war declaration by the joined agreement and blessing of the EDR, the MRF, and the FL, http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/8715-political-situation/?p=174039, and the action of invading San Marcos in violation of the terms of the forty-eight hour ceasefire and against the direct warnings of US leadership that such action would be considered an act of war are all French initiated aggressions that indicate to the United States that France considers our two countries to be at war. Secondly, I have, in fact read both statements made by the respective diplomats and have came to the same conclusion with which Johnny_Reb came to: that there is no evidence, either in word of forum or in action of game to indicate that SLRN and its subsidiary SLMFr are anyway independent. The two organizations share a name, common history, and website (I have also been lead to believe that they share a Teamspeak server as well, but I don't necessarily consider that to be true. I mention it only to receive clarification on the rumor). In addition, the SLRN considers the SLMFr as an ally in their Anglo-Spanish-French axis. Thirdly, The treachery which has been done against the nation of the United States of America is as described above, and quite well in those statements that you yourself beckoned me to read. An ambassador of the SLMFr approached leadership of both TDA and TF under false pretenses to the aid of the Spanish in their war against the United States, assisting both RAE and the parent organization of the SLMFr, SLRN, against the United States. Fourthly and finally, addressing your request to not derail the above discussion about Jamaica, it was your fellow French officer who insulted the honor of the United States, which was doubly egregious to me as his insult also implied that the United States Navy had not been fighting the British everyday through their proxies, the RAE (and now the SLMFr), and I was duty-bound to protect it. If you wish to not have this issue spill onto other parts of this subforum, I would suggest keeping your officers in line, not asking the victims of their insults to silently bear it.

Sweet words coming from a member of that same French/British clan which declared war upon the US. But, all the world now knows the treachery of the "French."

Perhaps nations that only have cerberus and small 20 man Navies shouldn't declare war on the US?

Aye, perhaps my statement should have been better phrased as that description accurately describes ninety percent of American-initiated US-French interaction.

It happens.

I call them as I see them. However, I have retracted my lapdog comment (though only in this thread, not in the Newspaper). Having been part of the fleeting groups a handful of times, this describes most of the US v French pvp interaction in Louisiana.

Officers who bought their commissions instead of earned them, perhaps?

Well, that's certainly a creative interpretation of events. To the average US player, the chain of events goes a little differently. American players were trading throughout the neutral ports of the Gulf before a few (perhaps as little as one very vocal player) got jumped by a squadron of French players. United States leadership let that issue drop (ganking happens) but recognized that a hostile force in French Louisiana was a serious issue. A separate group of US players were hunting AI fleets in the Gulf nearby as enemy AI fleets don't spawn near friendly waters. This group did not engage in any PvP activity. They did, at times, accidentally drag French players into combat, but promptly left such battles without seriously attacking players, some times even letting French players take potshots at them for their trouble. (Some individual players, as I understand it, were there to PvP, but any organized groups were just fleeting for exp.) During this time, the US engaged with port battles and OW PvP battles with Spain, with whom we were legitimately at war. Last week, US leadership was contacted by SLMFr about negotiating some sort of agreement regarding French Louisiana. I was not privy to those negotiations, so I cannot and will not comment on their contents. But I know that as a sibling organization of SLRN (which declared war on the United States on the very first day of Early Access), TF leaders were extremely hesitant to trust SLMFr. TDA leaders may not have shared that same distrust, but as far as I know they did not voice it to TF leadership. In addition, US leadership had already been lied to by a large Spanish organization in an extremely similar way (which in turn led to war with Spain). In order to facilitate discussion, a forty-eight hour truce was established between the US and France. It was the American understanding that the truce could and would be extended as long as talks continued. It was also the American understanding that the truce was between France and the United States, and had no bearing on the continuing war begin waged against the US by Spain. Just prior to the end of the truce, the French attacked San Marcos (a Spanish port)--while the Conquest Flag was in transit, US leadership contacted the Flag bearer stating that the US and France were in peace talks, and that the US considered a French assault on San Marcos as unacceptable interference with the continuing Spanish-American War in violation of the truce, and that continuing such conquest would mean the end of peace talks. The French attacking the port in-eloquently refused. Then, almost simultaneously as the attack on San Marcos, you post a letter detailing multiple falsehoods, and insulting rhetoric against the United States which, in its self I have no problem with (I do it all the time!), but you explicitly stated that the United States leadership was not negotiating in good faith, and in combination with the aforementioned events it seems highly perfidious. We all try to keep it all in good fun but understand how it can be misinterpreted. I personally like to keep most of my role playing in the form of my newspapers (which I try to make sure that they're understood to be not to be taken as exact descriptions of events) and have most of my forum posts apart from my RP persona except in certain RP-centric threads.

(I changed the background because I thought the old one was hard to read. Also, I tried cropping the image, but I kind of botched it. I'll figure out a better way to crop it for my next one.)

As perfidious as the British you are lapdogs to. Showing again the SLMFr are just SLRN with a different name.

EDIT: Changed for better chronological flow of articles/

That is incredibly good.

Double issue (due to delayed release of the second issue). Not a whole lot going on to report in the American Faction.

I remember that battle, and it was neither even nor a rout. It was a screening action against the port battle with cutters led by a core group of brigs.