Anolytic

What would be required to change your mind? I miss the updates already. I believe people might not have been paying attention because of summer and the EC. Also some might overlook this topic because it's a sticky and not check back as frequently.

This town has been sold all the compass wood it can produce. The reason why it says you can buy 402 compass wood for 1499 is not because the town is selling at that price and has 402 in stock, but somebody has put up a sell contract which has 402 compass wood left in it. That the town buys for 1 gold indicates that it's consumption has filled up.

Regarding smaller nations: they have a tendency in this game to take on bigger nations. This should still be an option. Smaller nations should be forced to rely on bigger and more numerous allies. There should be a path for small nations to choose sovereignty rather than dependency. Regarding the other stuff. I like your suggestions to help alleviate potential problems with lord protectors, though I still think your system risks putting too much responsibility on individual players. It's not just about good or bad Lord Protectors, nor about abuse, but about not making this game work instead of play (the meta-game already does this to quite some extent, but that is slightly different-yet we've seen many players leave the game because the meta-game became too much of a hassle). Players should be able to go on holiday for a month without losing their position and assets, or being a burden on their chosen faction for that time. Maybe the Lord Protector could have a deputy, but I still think giving so much responsibility to individual players would make gameplay unstable long term. Nations could be destroyed and abandoned caused by coincidence or a single player making a bad call or leaving the game.

I think your idea leaves too much in the hands of Lord Protectors, which would make nations too dependent on specific players, causing strategic and content problems. I also fear that the NPC fleet mechanics would yet again unfairly advantage bigger nations against smaller ones. Other than these objections I really liked a lot of what you propose. Bringing some meaning to NPC captures and a also shift from the giant robot fleets sailing around would be very welcome.

1. This was just a statement of fact. It is not blackmail. We stated clearly that we would not take flags against any ports beyond those three ports that were taken from us with the help of Dutch screening forces while we were still supposed to be allies. 2. That's simply not true. Denmark-Norway stated that we would not interfere with the Dutch north of Tiburon. 3&4 The PvP-zone was not specific to Dutch. The declaration was however, which was unfortunate and not approved by a diplomat. Yet it was after this that that the alliance still being in effect was confirmed. Exactly, at your insistence we spent days talking about something that could have been easily sorted, blocking our players from actually playing in the meantime.

Naturally Denmark-Norway responds aggressively when betrayed and attacked. And as promised we did take all of Sweden's ports several times. Denmark-Norway overlooked several aggressive actions by Sweden, trying to avoid war, but after our ports Marigot and Fort Baai was assaulted war was inevitable. And there was no blackmail, only expressed disappointment that our allies the Dutch would work with our enemies against us to steal our ports, to then block and harm our community, by calling upon the alliance. Considering your actions towards the Danish community while you were our allies, your self-righteous claim to be the defenders of communities and "server balance" is laughable. And never mind our hostility, at least Denmark-Norway keeps to our treaties.

Denmark-Norway only responded to being attacked and our territory occupied. Just a couple of days before you declared war on us, Dutch and Danes confirmed that we were still allied. Which is why we were surprised when you declared war on us.

France should be happy no longer to be allied with an untrustworthy nation that declares war on their allies. Denmark-Norway certainly is.

This sounds very interesting. I look forward to testing it out. However I still fear that smaller nations will be at a disadvantage. Especially if it is possible to engineer the system so Port Battles are set up when a smaller nation has no players active, or the RvR-players of a nation has to frequently schedule playtime for defensive battles in the middle of the night to be able to defend territory. I do think that if you added a Regional conquest system on top of what has already been proposed here, it would allow for even more strategic gameplay, more diverse battles and bigger fights.

Danmark-Norge Council agrees.

This has been addressed in more topics than I can count. There are good reasons why the opportunity to stay in battle-screen has not been removed. While it is unfortunately exploited by some for ganking and so on, it is necessary to allow players to take a break after an exhausting 90 minute battle. To deny this would make this game virtually unplayable.

Volunteers for His Majesty’s Royal Danish-Norwegian Navy Ahoy Captains! To all who consider setting sail under the flag of Denmark-Norway. Our Royal Danish-Norwegian Navy requests you sign up with us. [RDNN] - The Royal Danish-Norwegian Navy, a company of brave sailors flying the white cross, is recruiting. We want all able captains and friendly sea creatures to join our ranks. When you join you will find we are a social group and you will find brothers in arms as well as good friends. Our clan is very Port Battle and PvP-oriented, and we arrange Port Battles and PvP events every single day. With tactics, communication and good spirits we always bring a good fight to any opponent. Having fought continuously in wars since the beginning of Early Access our players have deep knowledge of the combat mechanics. Our experience comes from never resting behind friendly lines, always seeking combat and glory. We always help our friends out and our captains are expected not to leave anyone behind. RDNN is always to be found at the front lines, always looking for good PvP and to help protect our nation’s borders. We have a cooperative playstyle and work closely with other clans playing for Denmark-Norway, spanning multiple nationalities and languages. Where others struggle with language barriers, we succeed. Our cooperative spirit ensures that together with our allies we form one of the most accomplished fleets in these Caribbean waters. If you think RDNN might be a group that fits your playstyle, don’t hesitate to contact myself or one of our other recruitment officers in-game or here on the forum. You can come on our TeamSpeak to learn more about us and sail with us to make up your mind. If you come from another nation, we will help you out with the transfer of ships and goods. We also do clan mergers. We are an international clan with members from all over the world and English is our primary language for communication. Members of RDNN are required to use TeamSpeak when participating in group events where orders and coordination are necessary components. We respect that players are different in their desire to communicate, and we do not strictly require that you talk a lot, so long as you are able to listen when instructions are given. Players seeking to join the ranks of RDNN are expected to be team-players, good-spirited and able to listen to orders when needed. You are expected to be gallant in victory as well as in defeat. We have a ship building system to provide all our members with ships and outfitting for Port Battles, and every member is expected to contribute with materials and labour hours. We have multiple level 50 crafters in our clan, holding every blueprint, so our members have opportunity to have built every ship they wish to set sail in. To join RDNN as a full member it is necessary to be of rank Kaptain (250 crew) or above. Special considerations can be made for players who prove their dedication or show particular aptitude. All sailors of all ranks are welcomed to join our TeamSpeak and play together with us until they are accepted into our clan. We will help you with learning the game mechanics, increasing your rank, finding fights and acquiring a fitting vessel. Applicants should come to our Teamspeak and contact an RDNN officer: ts3server://na.danmarknorge.org Written requests can be submitted in our forum: danmarknorge.org/forum/ We look forward to sailing by your side. May the winds blow in your favour. On behalf of His Majesty King Christian VII

I found this under "Recent topics" and it took me 5 minutes before I realized it was not about Naval Action...

There is a lot of skill involved in combat currently. Boarding is easy to avoid if you are on the lookout. Winning combat with even ships is all about manoeuvring the ship to be at an angle when the opponent shoots, while you shoot back when the enemy is not properly angled. Btw, I've been in hundreds of Port Battles, and I've never had a golden mod drop.

Absolutely. Morale should continuously suffer slightly with fatigue from being in a tiring fight, and more when you are fighting at a disadvantage. Ships should get morale boosts for inflicting shocks (reload, crew, rigging shocks), and likewise loose morale for being afflicted by shocks. This would open up the great need for officers that boost morale, or reduces morale loss in the crew from either fatigue or shocks.

I think this is a necessary change. With ships that don't have chasers you have to turn your ship to keep someone tagged, making it difficult to catch up, even if you would have easily caught up if you just sailed straight towards them.

Everyone would set impossible timers to make economic warfare on their enemies, and there would be even less PvP. At least now players in some nations chose to set timers to a time they know they can get good PvP out of.

Then again you are fighting for Pirates against Britain, the two most populous factions in-game. Again: I am pretty sure that 40-70% of port battles are undefended. And with the number of flags that are launched every day, compared to the number of players online in the game, conquest is moving way too fast, and leaving players for smaller nations that cannot cover all timezones burnt out and tired of the game. A dominant tactic in wars now seems to be to try and deny the players of the other faction fun and get them to stop playing the game so their ports can be easily captured. As long as factions in-game are based on historical nations, Great Britain will always be the most popular and therefore populous nation. Small nations like Denmark-Norway and Sweden will always be at a huge disadvantage unless something is done about conquest. A 7 day cool-down as has been proposed will not alone solve this problem, but rather make it worse as long as other measures are not implemented alongside it. We think that our idea will help with this. For RvR-interested players battles will be announced 24 hours in advance, and if a nation has to pay for instance a few million up front for supplies to a campaign when launching a flag, then these Trafalgar Battles will be guaranteed and not fake. And after a battle for sea superiority is won, the defender will know during what timers they must expect to defend over the next 7 days, and the aggressive nation has to try and take every port in a region in those 7 days, so defenders are sure to get action. Combining our system with other previous suggestions, it would support possibilities for more historical conquest without forcing it. Flags for a region does not have to be limited by the 1 hour sail distance, so a nation like Spain which was historically spread out across the map of the Caribbean could potentially assault regions on the other side of the map from their main territory. Supplies for such an expedition would naturally be more expensive and require more preparation, but it would also enable nations that with the current system never meet in conquest due to geographical distance would be able to fight each other. Like Dutch and Americans. Moreover you could have the capital of a nation be the capital of a nation's home region, and it would be possible to assault the capital region of a nation if it had lost all other regions. Loosing sea superiority in your nation's capital region would be a severe blow to the nation and possibly force the nation to admit surrender, but the actual capital of a nation, while possible to assault in a port battle would be for all intents and purposes impossible to actually conquer if at all defended due to fortifications and the natural fortifications of land in battles. This would also mean that a nation could not, for all practical purposes, loose access to and control of the 3-5 ports in their home waters belonging to the region of their capital for more than the 7 days in a row while the foreign conquest of that region was going on. Without making some easy mode with home ports uncaptureable or safe, this should also help to appease those players who insist that every nation should have 4 ports around their capital be unconquerable by enemies. Almost all resources necessary for shipbuilding should be available in the ports in the home region, except for some resources that would have to be traded with other nations.

No problem. Sometime soon I expect I will have an outpost in Port Morant once again, and you will have to move yours.

You have an empty permit right there at the bottom. You have to be in a port without an outpost to be able to put up an outpost. It will only cost you 10k. Just sail to any other port where you don't have an outpost and you will see the option to put one up for 10k. The next permit will always cost 500k, but you can always free up a permit slot by deleting one. i move my outposts around all the time with our front line.

I agree that there should be some sort of bonus or reward for winning a fight where you are at a big disadvantage from the beginning.

There are lots of things that can be done to differentiate nations, but I don't like the idea of making ships nation exclusive. It would be yet another huge advantage to the populous nations, mainly Great Britain.

Hey Developers and Community, We have been thinking the last weeks about the current PB system and the proposed 7 Day cooldown on captured ports. This post is rather long and elaborate, but please hear us out. Historically Naval Powers first needed to "win" a seazone. This works to our knowledge by an attack-fleet with supplies and ground forces stationed in a strategic port with infrastructure. Frigates, Brigs and even Sloops are the communication and scouting ships. Also they tried to break and harass enemy trading and supplies routes. When hostile forces were discovered invading and interfering in an area, usually major battles on open sea would follow to establish naval superiority over that area, or sea region/zone. If the invading navy won these battles and established a military advantage, this would open up the land installations, ports and territories in that area for invasion and conquest, often by the establishing of blockades of big harbours. Currently in Naval Action, ports change hands in a rapid pace. Nations can attack one day on one front, and then leave it undefended - or defended only by an impossible timer - the next day while they concentrate on another flank. This way lots of ports change hands uncontested one day, and then back the next day. It is a race not of winning PvP battles, but about who is able to bring flags and organise the capture of the most undefended ports. So, who is the fastest nations at defeating AI defences? Only when invading another nation’s immediate home waters, next to their capital, can you expect some PvP over those ports. Though even then it is much easier for the invaded nation to let the invader capture a lot of ports, and then take multiple flags from the capital the next days and because of the short distance capture the ports before the enemy even has time to sail there and defend. Moreover it leads to forces sitting and waiting to defend in a geographically important port, for an attack that never happens, often by a fake flag, while the enemy captures all surrounding ports without defence. This is not the way to good PvP and big battles in Naval Action. Even if this game grew to player numbers where nations beside Great Britain and Pirates could field enough forces to defend multiple ports simultaneously, it would only mean half or more of the forces would be waiting in futility for a battle that never happened. Players eventually tire of this. PvP and big (or small) battles between combat ships should be the goal of this game, a lot more than real time strategy and the clamour for holding the most ports. Yet if the strategy element is implemented correctly, it would facilitate PvP. The timers that were implemented do not alone work to ensure defended port battles. Probably 70% of ports which change hands every day in this game are undefended. So we wish to offer a suggestion for how to ensure more PvP and more meaningful port captures in this game. Based on the historical idea of maps divided into strategical regions to be controlled by a nation seeking naval superiority and to support conquest: The idea behind our suggestion comes from looking at a German U-boat coordinating system for the Atlantic. Working from the coordinate map as an example, we can think of the navigation zones as map regions to control: As you can see the map is divided into square regions named with letters (CC, CD, CE etc.), and each region is divided into 9 smaller squares. If you think of this in terms of conquest rather than navigation, to control the region you have to control the 9 zones. So what if we copied this idea onto the Naval Action map? -Some sort of grid system like the German one could be added onto the Naval Action map. -The size of each region should be carefully considered, and it could possibly vary from region to region. Let’s say somewhere between 3 and 7 ports in each region. Each region should have one regional capital - because it makes sense and to have somewhere for the controlling nation to store ships of the line in preparation to defend. This is just an example to illustrate: -Say a nation wants to conquer a region. They first need to establish naval superiority in this region. This is done by a show of force between the fleets of the nations contesting the area. Sort of a Trafalgar battle in open sea. The invading nation buys a flag, or in some other manner announces 24 hours ahead that they intend to invade. To add another layer to this, the opportunity to buy this flag could be only achieved by accomplishing certain missions in advance, like raiding trade routes, scouting, and fighting open world PvP in the area in question in advance. Once these prerequisites has been fulfilled, the invader can buy a flag, which announces to the current possessor, and the entire server, that they are moving into that area. 24 hours later, both sides can have their fleets ready, and somewhere in the middle of the contested region there is a generated event (with crossed swords above the sea) that both forces need to enter within the timeframe to initiate the battle. Say these crosses appear and are open for 2 hours, and in those 2 hours the forces have to enter. By the end of those 2 hours, or at an assigned time, the battle starts. The fact that the battle happens in the middle of the region held by the defender gives the invading forces a disadvantage, as they can be picked off and intercepted on their way to the battle. -In this open water Trafalgar style epic battle, where both nations have had the time to organise 25 players for the battle, every size of ship is allowed (except if some regions are made entirely shallow water, i.e in the cays, in the Bahamas, etc), including 1st rates. -If the defending nation wins this big battle for superiority, then the invader has to withdraw their forces for a while. The defender has established their naval superiority and the region cannot be invaded by the same enemy nation for a set number of days. Say 7 days. After this period, the enemy may again start doing missions in the area, which if successful opens up the opportunity to buy a flag for the region. -If the attacker wins, they have established naval superiority in the area and destroyed the enemy fleet. But they have not yet conquered the entire region in question. The ports in this region are now open for the invader to raid, assault, blockade and/or conquer. This opportunity is held for as long as the naval superiority is held by the invader. This could also be set to 7 days. So over the next 7 days the invading nation has to attempt to conquer all of the ports in that region. These ports would be shallow ports and deep ports like now, with 6th rates and 4th rates maximum in the Port Battles respectively. By capturing these ports the supply lines to the regional capital is cut off and it is weakened sufficiently to be assaulted. In the fight for the regional capital all ship sizes would again be allowed. -While the conquest goes on, the ports in the region are marked as contested from when they are captured by the invader. This still gives the nation holding them some time to evacuate their assets from those ports before warships and production is locked down. If the attacker captures all ports within the region after establishing naval superiority, including the regional capital as the last one, the region switches ownership to the new nation. Possibly there would be a mechanic that for 7 days after being captured it cannot be assaulted again, either by the nation that lost it nor any other nation. -If the attacker does not manage to capture all ports within 7 days, their conquest has failed, the region and any contested ports are reset to the defending nation, and the offensive nation has to establish again a new invasion from scratch. This would be realistic and historical, as the supply lines of the nation on the offensive would be stretched, and supplies would not last long enough for a nation to keep the conquest going if they were denied a decisive victory for long enough. Further details to consider implementing with this system are: That the attacker, when the “Trafalgar-battle” is done and naval superiority is established, can set the attack timer for the ports in the region. Meaning there are defence timers like today except they are set by the attacker, letting the defending nation know in which timeframe their ports in the contested region will be under assault. That when a nation has successfully conquered a region, all players of that nation gets an active bonus for some days, like increased XP gain by some percentage, better prices from production building/NPCs/etc in the conquered region, very cheap prices on a resource produced in that region, simply a visual bonus like a flag on their ship, or something else. It could also be considered that a nation fighting to defend a region could have some very slight bonus to the morale of their men due to being closer to their supply lines and so on. Tl;dr -Divide map into regions/sea zones -Trafalgar style epic battle to initiate conquest of a region -Capture all other ports in a region to allow assault on regional capital -If regional capital isn’t captured within 7 days from start of conquest, defender keeps the region. Thank you for reading, and thank for this fantastic game! PVP1, Danish Kontreadmirals Bartas11 [VIE] Anolytic [RDNN]

The morale of a ship should not just matter inside of a boarding. It should be a trait that has effect on a ship's performance in battle, and it should be possible, though hard, to destroy a ship's morale and make it surrender without boarding it. As has been mentioned an endless number of times, ships did not usually sink historically. They struck their colors or were demasted and boarded. As an example, I was smuggling mid grade notes out of Gustavia yesterday in my Le Grosse Ventre when I was attacked by an Ingermanland. I promptly boarded him and killed almost all his crew and his morale. I was surprised that after attacking v brace when he had 12 morale left, he still had 4 morale, and attacking v brace again when he had 4 morale he still had 1 morale left and was able to disengage. Honestly I made several huge gaffes in this battle - allowing him to eventually demast me and flee the battle with only 70 crew left - and should have been easily able to capture him, but in my opinion a ship realistically should be severely reduced when its crew has only 1 morale left. And me stern-raking it 20 times after he had only 1 morale left should have realistically made his crew give up and the ship surrender.

I've had this same thing happen quite a few times. My barricades usually reduces the consequences, but it is still a bit frustrating.