Anolytic

It's pretty clear that they were in 3 trincs and captured the Bellona in the battle. Did neither of you look at the screenshot? 3 trincs vs Bellona & Wappen is on its own a pretty good result. It's no gank. Though screenshots tell lies these days with the 20 minute timer there's no way to say from them that this would not have been a great battle. At the very least a fairly unsuccessful trader escort... ..shit happens.

We reproduced the problem during our attack on Salamanca. A 3rd rate, player @Potemkin, who was in our main group, sailing in the middle of a fleet of 1st rates, was tagged by an enemy fleet of screeners, and ended up alone in battle against 9-10 British screeners, despite our whole fleet, 24 other players, being within his circle - and in the same battle group as him. He did F11 the issue at the time. This sort of thing seems to happen when a great number of players congregate in a limited area of the map. In the bay of Salamanca we had hundreds of players gathered that day, and in the minutes before when we were about to enter the PB we all experienced massive lags - in Open World. When we all clicked to enter the port battle on command, only less than half of our fleet actually ended up in the PB. On the command being given I clicked repeatedly on the join battle button for the port battle. Nothing happened for about 5 seconds, then I was spawned into an open world battle instead with a screening fleet. Others in our group reported the same.

Had the exact same problem whenever I used Teamviewer. Used to sometimes check my long range trade remotely back in 2016-17. It's always been the same way.

Ponce PB Disorganised battle, but very fun.

I like to use words with their right definition, but I see no reason to play dumb when there are so many actually stupid people. Pretty much, yes. We needed something to do, and Bluefields was the only area that was open within reach. How are we to know what ports are upgraded "as a nation" and what ports are not? Feel free to inform us which ports we may attack and which we may not. Sometimes I do wish you guys had some actual spies so that you wouldn't have to base solely on rumours. Now I know where (and when) you have your "information" from, but sadly you are way off. Just because something is proposed or joked about, doesn't make it actual plans. We've talked about much worse things than reminiscing over the good old days of the danish Panama Campaign, without actually planning to do them. Interesting. I would like to see that mail. Get your facts straight. The 30 minute PB-timer was introduced 6 months (May 2017) before Russia was added (October 2017) to the game. There was no logging off outside Belize. Hiding in battle, sure, but no alts. And keep in mind we were the first to ask for hiding in battle to be fixed, but it was made clear that this was allowed, even encouraged, gameplay. There is no dishonour in playing the game by the rules.

Fighting brits is like walking on eggshells. You can't go anywhere without knocking over somebody's crafting ports. Just don't build crafting outposts in Salamanca and you'll all be fine. Actually, it was the other way around (Philipsburg last), and they were only attacked to trigger a fight, successfully. Players tended not to show up to unimportant port-battles. It doesn't mean we intended to keep those ports. Read my past posts. I've always argued against what I call "RvR-importance". I'm all for "meaningful RvR" if defined as rewarding RvR (remember resource rewards for successful PBs?), but never win-or-quit-the-game RvR. That I've always argued against. I've NEVER argued for my playstyle to be the only one. Not even the main one. At least I tried to make suggestions for the game. Just because some of them were (partially) listened to doesn't mean I'm responsible for everything else that you think is wrong with the game. Most of the suggestions that I've written up are from listening to players who play differently than me and have different wishes for the game than me. I've suggested pirate-only mechanics even though I don't play pirate. I've made suggestions to ease the crafting economy substantially for "normal" players. And I've made countless other arguments and suggestions that go against my particular way of playing, but which I believed would be overall beneficial to most players. The truth isn't propaganda. Five players in frigates can flip a shallow port. Ask VCO, who owns Morgan's, if they felt threathened. I think you'll find that no agreement was ever actually made about the Gulf. You'll also find that the Prussian clans that left were mainly preparing long before Nouvelle Orleans was lost, and we were even approached by Prussian clans that requested our help in screwing over rival Prussian clans, requests we politely passed. I have no idea about Nouvelle Orleans, but in Salamanca it's not a hello kittying tactic. Get it through your head finally. It is only possible to get missions in one single location. We have literally no choice in the matter. Borrow Salamanca to us and you can try it yourself how it works. A. Multiflips don't mean an alliance, only common enemy. B. Multiflips weren't our idea. C. Multiflips didn't even have our approval (in the timeframe you refer to). The other nations got wind of when we planned an attack and made their own at the same time, which made it harder for us to get a decent fight. Brangmann's and Bluefields weren't multiflipped. They were flipped one after another (when we realised we couldn't make it to the first one), and there was more than enough time for the British fleet to sail from Brangmann's to Bluefields, except you got cold feet and turned back to harbour even though we ordered our screeners not to attack your PB fleet. REDS didn't steamroll Dutch. We took a couple of counties and let the rest of their territory be. Dutch abandoned the Maracaibo area after all of four battles, of which they won the first two and lost only the last two. Speaking for REDS, we were trying to make the point that a limited number of OP crafting ports are bad for the game. Apparently it didn't go through, maybe because everyone was whining about Russia this and Russia that instead of themselves suggesting better, more balanced mechanics?

Prussia is currently the 5th largest nation in terms of territory. It was ONE clan, not even a whole one, who got a OW fight. Shallow ports are so ridiculously easy to flip it could happen almost by accident. I'm sure pirates didn't really mind. No. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. San Marcos was flipped only at the request of some Spanish clans. Then we received more information about the internal dispute and realised we did not want to step into the internal Spanish politics, so we decided not to go. In the meantime the port was unfortunately dropped by the owners. The whole affair was a waste of our time, but as already mentioned, shallow ports are effortless to flip. Belive me, that wasn't the intent. We realised we wouldn't be able to get to the first one, so we set the second one to be able to get a fight. Prussia is still very much present on the map, and what goes for Brits they were never destroyed by Russia. If anything they destroyed themselves. When we were done with Brits they still had more territory than any other nation. REDS has always been concerned with server health. This is why in the past we have helped the weakest nations when they were under pressure. Spain against Brits and Pirates in the Gulf, Poland against Pirates in Hispaniola, France against Brits in Antilles, and when we started out, half the nations begged for our help against Sweden, which we did. REDS don't want Truxillo. We don't even want Bluefields, or Brangmann's, or even Belize ever since we realised that some clan was upgrading crafting there. Although we're starting to wonder if Brits are making crafting upgrades in every port just so that they can complain about us attacking their crafting hubs whichever port we attack. It's the only way it would make sense not to focus on like a couple of ports for crafting. It's a not-so-new port-battle defence move called "whining-till-the-enemy-goes-away", not to be confused with "winning". Also, are you dense? It's only possible to take missions in a single spot for Salamanca. It's actually a major pain since each player can then only bring one mission. And you have no counter hostility fleet. We wish. First time we went for Salamanca we waited around more than an hour for you to show up and give us a fight and counter us. None of this is actually true. WTF kind of stupid shit are you on about?

Tall Ships Races are in town (Fredrikstad) and among all the generic 19th and 20th century barques and brigantines etc. I found the replica of Peter the Great's Shtandart. Unfortunately the ship is closed to visitors right now so I've only been able to appreciate it from land. I tried boarding the ship, but was denied by a defensive move called "crew only".

REDS is recruiting. We have members from all over the world, including Norway, Denmark, Germany, Russia, Australia, New Zealand, USA, Canada, Poland, Britain, Turkey, Spain, China, Taiwan, Brazil, Switzerland, Belgium, France, Finland, Sweden, Ukraine, Netherlands and more. We are currently working on improving our cohesion as a fleet. Yesterday we were at Salamanca and here is the biggest one of several battles: Some of our screening fleet also joined in a fight with other Russian clans and had great fun:

On the patrol zone, you are totally right. It should be auto claimed at maintenance. On the weekly challenges the rationale for leaving it as it is, is the following: If auto-enabled the weekly challenges would only count towards your position in the weekly challenge your first 10 kills in each rate every week. But maybe on Monday you go out and kill 10 7th rates in your 3rd rate, and you'll place 367th on the weekly Lineship event that week. Instead of being able to choose on saturday, that today I am going to do the weekly Lineship event, and I'll take my 3rd rate out and spend all day killing 1st rates with it, hoping for 1st place on the leaderboard this week. So there is a reason for being able to choose when we want to start the weekly events.

Reverse showed you his, so I guess I'll show you mine: WTT for Jamaica! The fact is REDS had seven port-bonus ships in Les Cayes. I crafted 8 for the battle but one of our players had to switch to mortar brig last minute and another REDS went in an old (but gold) Ocean. 7 out of 8 ships I crafted were plain 3/5 btw. BF had 0 Port-bonus ships and NN had 1. Did Port Bonuses have anything to do with the outcome of the battle? Yes and no. All our fleet was set up for brawling, and as soon as the brawl started, things turned south fast for the brits. We would have won the brawl anyway, but without port bonuses 2-3 REDS, including me, would probably have been sunk, and another couple of Russian ships would have been unable to take cover from each other when damaged without those speedy ships. This might have been enough for brits to win on points before we could turn the game around. It is true that our tactics for the first 20 minutes of battle, which I commanded, was mostly a series of bad judgements - from joining position, to formation, to the timing of manoeuvers. But after the brawl started, I got boarded, and Reverse had to take over command, things turned to the better. Brits already lost a lot of momentum when their lines split just before the initial engagement and a quarter of their fleet headed downwind of us. I agree with you, and argue for the same. But I still adapt to whatever system is in the game at any time. Which is why I spent 4 hours yesterday sailing 28 Indiaman loaded with resources to craft ships. As for further discussion of the port-bonuses, let's move it out of this topic. I suggest here:

Please read my whole post. Especially this part: My point is that players should be able to survive and thrive on the War-server without ever earning a single Combat Medal.

Combat Medals in my mind, are supposed to be the PvP-currency/-reward. As in, the one reward in this game that can only be attained through PvP participation, and that should encourage players (on the War server) to try out and participate in PvP. Why else would we have so many currencies if not to serve unique purposes. Lately the age old concern about alt-/friend-farming has resurfaced regarding Combat Medals, as we had before with every attempt at a PvP currency. Yet it is ignored that, assuming the premise that Combat Medals are actually supposed to be a PvP-currency and reward players for getting into PvP, alt-farming and friend-farming are minor issues right now. The BIG issue is PvE-farming of Combat Medals. Anyone right now who tried to exploit by farming his alt for Combat Medals would be an idiot. It is a waste of the ship that is sunk, the cannons on it, and not least of time. It is much more efficient and rewarding to farm PvE Search and Destroy Missions for Combat Medals (I guess you could farm your alt to complete non-PvP Hunt-missions). In fact, actively doing legitimate PvP cannot even compare in profitability to doing a couple of hours of PvE per day. I know of players who have amassed more Combat Medals doing only PvE than any normal PvP-players in their nation. I approve of the decision to remove Combat Medal rewards directly for kills, and instead give combat medals only for missions. I have suggested this before - with some added modifications I would hope to see also. And the tracking of Steam IDs in counting kills should, depending on the parameters, efficiently prevent rewards for most exploit farming, as well as occasionally deny rewards for some legitimate PvP (this is probably a fair price). We have after all a limited number of active PvP-players on this server, and they tend to run into each other with some regularity. However, the best way I see to discourage farming, or reduce the consequences of it, is to change the rewards. What is the point of having so many currencies if they are all earned interchangeably? PvP-players are going to be happy with PvP-rewards that let them A. show off that they proficient PvP-players by displaying special flags, paints or other cosmetic items purchased only from PvP-currency, i.e Combat Medals, and B. gives access to some convenience features such as PvP-upgrades that are comparable in strength to PvE-upgrades only acquired through trading and PvE. Also some ship-notes for common ships, but without the need for crafting, including the ship-notes we can now get for DLC-ships. The reason people farm Combat Medals, whether through alts or now through PvE, is because they must. Combat Medals are used for «everything» and everything is very expensive. Several days are needed in the patrol zones, or doing PvE-missions to pay for a first-rate which an active RvR-environment we are hoping to have after release would require you to use it and risk it daily. The same with all the upgrades for it. Lineship permits need to again be purchased for Victory Marks, or we are going to have nothing to spend our Victory Marks on after we have upgraded all of our ports in a few weeks. It also would mean we had to be strategic about what to invest in first, ships or port upgrades. The Combat Medal economy needs to be deflated, so that we earn much less Combat Medals than now, but also all prices in Combat Medals are slashed significantly. Make Combat Medals a bonus, a reward for PvP, and a way for PvP-players to show off their proficiency. But take them out of the PvE and RvR-economy. Doubloons and Victory Marks are more than enough for ensuring that we need to grind to upgrade our port facilities. And please make assists count towards Combat Medal mission rewards. In a fleet-battle you could be the most important player in ensuring a good outcome, by tanking the most damage and finishing off damaged ships, as well as protecting friends. And yet if your own damage output was spread around to where it was most needed, you could be left with no rewards after.

For the owning nation it means they have to maintain their ports, keep their clans active and working together, and they should not hold more ports than they can actually use and visit with some regularity. I would prefer if it required some guesswork and/or intel so that it was actually a risky investment for pirates to probe a port. The profit should be great for capturing and holding a pirate infested port, but failed expeditions should also come at some expense so that they cannot probe all ports all times, or just take a traders lynx to find a sure target. I considered that as well. The only problem I would say then is the timing of the PB. Because unmaintained ports are unlikely to have a timer. It would be meaningless if the pirate clan doing the probing ended up with a PB at a time they could not be there. And I forgot to mention that the expeditions should take 24 hours (or even 48) before returning an answer, and only one expedition can be active per clan at a time. About defence. I obviously don't want this to be a PvE-feature, so yes, the nation can defend. But if the owning clan is inactive, then it could be a problem to get on their friendlist and join the PB. Another reason why hostility missions should be needed to prepare the attack. It allows some warning and some chance to push the pirates back.

...of unmaintained ports. Let’s face it. We’re not getting raids. Nor is black-on-black likely to come back as a RoE. But pirates should have some unique mechanic that distinguishes them from other nations without giving them an advantage or disrupting gameplay for the general populace. Here’s my on-the-spot idea for a pirate mechanic that I think would not be too much work to implement. I would welcome some input as to its viability or improvement. Pirate Infestation of Ports I’m going to try to explain my idea as simple and brief as I can. Essentially it’s this: Ports that are left unused, unvisited and unprotected by their national owners can become infested by pirates. To begin with this is just a stat, not an infestation of actual pirate players. If the pirate infestation reaches too high, a pirate clan can get the opportunity to attack that port, from Mortimer Town regardless of frontlines and regions and in any part of the map. If they win, they get a position behind enemy lines, to raid commerce and do other pirate activities. It gets an extra long cooldown before it is attackable again by other nations, but potentially it would not be possible to take hostility missions from pirate infested towns. On the other hand, the owning pirate clan gets a significantly boosted income from the pirate infested town, deriving from privateering and pirate activities like gambling, whoring and other debauchery in the port. What is addressed: Potentially, this mechanic would work to counter the cases of inactive clans holding ports behind frontlines because they never get attacked. Especially with regional conquest it is going to become a problem that dependent ports in a county will be held by clans that eventually disappear or go inactive, but nobody can take over the port. In the past this has also happened to important ports that were held for long times by clans that were not at all playing anymore. It would also mean that clans have to take care also of their less valuable ports and ports in the periphery, or risk loosing them to pirate infestations. How it would work: I am open to suggestions for how this mechanic could work, but I will give an outline of how I imagine it. Ports all have a stat of pirate infestation. From 0-100%. This stat can only be seen by the owning clan and clans allied to the owner. Pirate infestation increases with various factors, such as the port being unused. If it is free-for-all pirate infestation grows faster. If investments are active in the port infestation grows slower. When investments are made infestation goes down. Members of the owning clan trading to or from the port reduces infestation significantly. Generally infestations grow very slow, but if a port is not visited by the owning nation for a long time (weeks) it starts growing fast. If barely any members/officers log into the clan for a prolonged time, their ports all start growing infestations faster. If a port gets higher than 85% pirate infestation, then it can be attacked by a pirate clan and taken by them. But since only clans and their allies can see infestations in their own ports, pirate clans cannot know what ports have a high enough infestation level to be attackable unless they have a spy or a traitor in place to let them know. Instead pirate clans can, in Mortimer Town, pay for expeditions to be made to any port on the map. If the expedition they choose is for a port that has a low infestation level, then the money they invest is lost. If the expedition is for a port with a high infestation level - 85% or higher - then their expedition will infiltrate the city and increase the infestation rate to 100% and also send word back to the pirate clan that the port is ripe for attack and they will be able to take hostility missions for the port within the next 5 days.

REDS was well represented in the recent victory at Nassau:

Here is my recording from Nassau:

Nassau PB Thanks Brits, for your enthusiasm in grinding Nassau on day one. It saved us from doing this against AI.

The long and short of this idea is this: That Regional capitals are expanded ONLY through investment in the other ports of their Region. The problem to solve is that currently only County Capitals matter. All other non-capital ports are inconsequential. To change this, non-capital ports should matter in the conquest of a county, and they should matter in the development of a county. Only through expanding the infrastructure in surrounding ports can the capitals reach their full potential. This is not only prudent gameplay-mechanics, it is also historical. If you neglect the surrounding lands, the cities cannot fully develop their potential. There should be no distinction between 20k ports and 25k-ports in terms of development, except for possibly this: Some few ports could allow 100% development of shipbuilding bonuses, PLUS placing of Forts and other defences. While the other county capitals would still allow 100% development of shipbuilding bonuses, but you would have to ration your points if you also wanted to put defences in the port. That way any nation can make any county capital a shipbuilding port, but they would have to secure a frontline port as a buffer to their shipbuilding port, where they could develop defences instead of shipbuilding characteristics. The current model of having only some few 25k BR ports with full development potential creates gear disparity and is a great way to make people in the smaller nations quit the game in frustration and facilitate player-base warfare, where it is not about winning, but about destroying the enemy nation’s community. We tried this before. My preference however would be a system where shipbuilding upgrades in a port was a strategic choice, and you could only develop 2 traits to level 5, or alternatively all 5 trait options to level 1 and 2. And you would have to choose what traits to focus on. This would also encourage RvR expansion without it being crippling, as having more regional capitals would allow a nation to develop different combinations of traits in different shipbuilding ports. Successful RvR would allow more shipbuilding variety, but any nation with at least 1 county would be able to develop shipbuilding bonuses in that capital to the RvR-meta to give themselves a fair chance to expand their territory further. Back to the development of Regions as a whole, my idea is this: The county capital would have say 30 base development points if you owned only the county capital, or if the county capital was the only one being developed. Through the development of dependent ports, a further 30 points could be added to develop this county capital. By investing in a special infrastructure option in each of the dependent ports, the whole region would improve. If the region had only 2 other ports in it, each of those ports would be able to be developed for another 15 points each, available at the capital. All dependent ports in a county would not have to be equally important, so in a county with 4 different dependent ports, port A could be developed for a potential 15 extra points, while port B, C and D would each be developed for an additional 5 points. This system that I propose would have the benefits of encouraging collaboration within nations. If you want your county capital to be fully expandable, then you need to encourage the clans who own the dependent ports in the county to develop them. Most importantly, it would mean that capturing whole counties would be important, and loosing parts of a county would hurt the value of the capital.

Я был осведомлен о том, что произошло, и от имени REDS я оговариваю факты, представленные в суде, и приношу свои извинения. Я также организую незамедлительную замену потерянных кораблей и улучшений. Пожалуйста, дайте мне знать, что конкретно было потеряно. Что касается случая: хотя присоединение к сражениям с целью их закрытия не является чем-то, что ранее рассматривалось трибуналом, я согласен, что это должно быть определено как подвиг, и это так же хорошо, как и любая возможность для его решения. Поскольку это первое нарушение рассматриваемого игрока, приоритет заключается в том, что игрок должен получить предупреждение. Он также получил предупреждение от клана. Что касается других игроков в битве, они не знали об этом до тех пор, пока это не произошло. Нам стыдно за этот инцидент и искренне приносим извинения I have been made aware of what happened, and on behalf of REDS I do stipulate to the facts that are shown in the tribunal, and I offer our apologies. I will also arrange to replace the lost ships and upgrades forthwith. Please let me know what specifically was lost. As to the case: while joining battles in order to close them is not something that has been previously been addressed by the tribunal, I agree that it should be defined as an exploit and this is as good as any an opportunity to address it. As this is a first offence of the player in question, the precedence is for the player to be given a warning. He has also been given a warning by the clan. As for the other players in the battle, they were not aware until after the fact. We are ashamed of this incident and apologize sincerely.

Two major issues with the current way regions work in the Frontlines system is that: A. Big nations are able to go to every freeport and ports close to their starting territory and immediately capture the 3 closest Counties everywhere. Allowing just a few nations to grab an enormous amount of territory already on day 1, securing frontlines and laying the grounds for further occupation of territory. B. Besides the County Capital the other ports of a region are utterly unimportant and once you occupy a County Capital, you can take your leisurely time capturing the other ports - if you even bother to. Instead it is better to jump from one County Capital to the next, to secure control over another county before thinking of consolidating control over the ones you already have access to. On top of this, in the future once a nation looses the county capital of one of their Counties, they will have little incentive to defend the rest of the ports in the County, and we will see conquest focused only on County Capitals while other port battles will be undefended, abandoned or half-heartedly defended. Making most of RvR just about grinding rather than the battles. My suggestion is to involve whole regions in conquest, rather than just the capital. In my proposal, the next Region can only be attacked from the outer ports of a Region, and after capturing a County Capital, you need to progressively expand outwards in the region to control it before being able to capture the next one. Others I have discussed with, such as El Patron, would favour the inverse of my proposal, that in order to attack a County Capital you first have to capture all of the other ports in the region. Another option is to lessen the significance of regions and simply have conquest move from port to adjacent port, without the need to capture capitals first or last, but rather as you get to them. In this topic I will however use as premise the current model of capturing regions as a whole. Imagine that you seek to conquer Hispaniola, starting in this case from the freeport of La Mona. You would first have to attack the County Capital of Santo Domingo. After capturing it, you could not directly attack Les Cayes or Puerto Plata. If you wanted to attack Les Cayes, you would first have to take Bani, then Azua, then Barahona, before being able to attack Les Cayes County Capital. If you wanted to attack Puerto Plata, you would similarly have to make your way to the border port Higuey first. My proposal is illustrated below: I would pair this system with proposals I have made elsewhere to limit the number of Regions that can be simultaneously engaged to 2 per day (EU-time) and 2 per US-time day. And with a remapping of what constitutes adjacent regions. Ideally I would also move away from freeports as "jump-points" and to using captureable ports instead as jump-points between different parts of the map.

I suggest adding a 2nd type of Free-for-all port that the owner can select. This option would allow other nations to take Hostility Missions to adjacent ports from said port. This would be useful for a couple of reasons: Allowing a nation/clan that you are collaborating with to use the port to move through your territory and attack the territory of a common enemy. Inviting a foreign clan to attack a port owned by another clan in your nation. Either simply to sabotage this clan, or because you wish to engineer a takeover of the port in question. It is an option that only the Pirate nation would be able to utilise such ports, and that this way mercenary clans within Pirates could be hired to help impact disputes between clans within the same nation. This mechanic would only really be worth to consider presuming that some other changes (discussed in other topics) were first done to the current Frontlines and County Conquest system.

If we are going to stick with the idea of Frontline conquest, we have to find a better implementation. There are several problems with the current model, from the unimportance of non-capital ports. To the rate of expansion leading from nations jumping from Capital to Capital without filling in the rest of the region first. And the approach that was taken in implementing the Hostility Missions. I believe that given the current model we have for Frontlines, either most Counties are far too large (too many ports within each County/too many ports per county capital), or we should do away with Counties/regions completely in this context and jump from individual port to individual port like we did with flags. I am contemplating other ways of having Counties/Regions and having frontlines too, but in this topic I am taking as premise the currently implemented idea of Regions and Frontlines and only addressing the problem of how hostility mission distances are implemented. As I have written elsewhere, neither the model with ability to attack the 2 closest, nor the 3 closest Regional Capitals work in a satisfactory way. The first creates some odd results where adjacent regions are not connected, while the second in effect does away with the Frontlines concept. Below I put some effort into mapping out all of the regions and connecting them according to how I believe Regions should be interconnected in the current model conquest model. Note the distinction between one-way and two-way arrows, and that most freeports are only connected to a single region, and note that there are no frontlines in Bahamas. And sorry that I unfortunately did not have time to put more effort into drawing the arrows representing the connection between regions. P.S. In this map I have kept the Freeports as jump-points around the map, allowing nations with the capacity to do so, and especially "impossible" nations, easy (too easy in my opinion) access to jump to opposing ends of the map. I still maintain my opinion that conquerable ports would make better "jump-points" from Island to Island and to various parts of the map. Meaning that all movement of territory across the map has to be done by conquest, and these jump-points can be blocked by conquest as opposed to Free-towns that are always open.

Stop projecting. Just because you are so self-centred that you only think of how this game can be improved for you and your own group, doesn't mean the rest of us do. Most of my proposals go against my immediate self-interest. Because I want thousands of casual players to enjoy and play this game, not just 200 bitter old power-gamers. I first made this exact proposal long before the wipe happened. And seeing as all will be wiped on release, I could hardly care less about Nassau right now. I am actually pleased that if brits think it's so important to us, they might actually fight to defend instead of us doing more boring neutral PBs.

Wtf are you talking about? You previously complained that my OPs are too long and yet you accuse me of not contemplating my proposals enough. It seems like you try to imply that the current BRs we have are based on my suggestion, they are not. I have only advocated for removing the absolutely lowest BR limits we had before, because they made it possible for defenders to win by default by kiting, something which I stand by still. Overall, the increased BR limits we have now are a good thing. We cannot design this game for the current playerbase numbers. We have to assume that after release we will have a much higher population, and it should be designed for that, or we might as well declare it DOA right now. For a couple of years now we've had cute little PBs of 5-10 players each side. But after release most PBs should give room to accomodate 15-20 players each side, with a few PBs for smaller groups. In a 2500 player dream Naval Action world a small(tiny) RvR-clan will be the size of the largest RvR-clans we have right now, and the really large ones will reach the 250 player limit and have to create secondary clans like several British clans had to back in 2016.