Captain Underpants

The OP is clearly nuts but I kinda like him!

Well done to the OP for writing such a gracious post that managed to celebrate Spanish success whilst giving credit to everyone else. As a Brit, it has been a hard-fought, exhausting few days but I am proud of the way we have battled against so many enemys and won so many of the battled we have been able to prioritise. We have fought skilled and tough opponents and it has been great fun. I would say, however, that some of our captains do need some sleep now so if you could find it in your hearts to let us have a rest as some of them have been awake all week! Anyway, congratulations and thanks to all factions and can we please have more posts like this?! *Doffs Cap*

Perhaps the best thing we can do in light of what has happened in Belgium is to remember that Naval Action is only a game and, therefore, try to treat each other with a little more courtesy and kindness - especially here on the forums. I agree with the sentiments expressed earlier that by changing what we do, we give the terrorists some form of victory. Prayers and love to Belgium and all those affected.

As an active Brit in a major clan, I also have not been aware of any British talks with any Pirate groups or indeed the Drunken clan either. I suspect there is no truth in such allegations or we in Brit clans would know about it. That being said, of course British players will be particularly interested in and commenting on a thread like this as it has a very direct impact upon us. And of course we will be wanting to stand up for someone whose actions are benefiting us! The general consensus seems to be that pirate mechanics need to be changed to make them more 'pirate' like with raiding abilities rather than conquering ones etc. This clan do seem to be in tune with that and as pirates, they should be free to answer to no command but their own - unlike the rest of us!

So basically he will ally with anybody, or screw over anybody including his own faction to get what he wants? And he's egocentric too? Sounds like we have the definition of a bona fide pirate scumbag here...and I mean that as a genuine compliment.

Pull the other one...it's got bells on!

It was also good to have some successful engagements with a Spanish fleet who were screening for the French last night. I especially enjoyed tying up 6 Spanish ships including 2 thirds and a consti whilst fighting alone. After keeping them occupied for a good while, my Trinc made it's escape without a scratch!

Great play against honourable and brave French opponents last night. We won the two open sea battles I was in but the French edged the night overall. Well done!

I rather liked somebody's description of Spain being like the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail! Speaking as a British player and only for myself, certain things seem apparent at the moment. 1. Spain have lost the war against Britain and do not at this present moment have the power to defend themselves adequately if Britain truly decides to wipe their last ports out. Nor do Spain, at the moment pose any significant attacking threat. 2. Significant numbers of Spanish players have left to join other factions or have quit the game entirely. 3. What happens now may effect the long-term health of the Spanish faction, even beyond a map reset as players may not return and newer players find it too hard playing for Spain. 4. It is in everybody's interest for Naval Action to have a healthy and competitive Spain given their iconic status in particular. 5. Whatever reason there MIGHT have been for Britain to seek revenge against the Spanish; that revenge has surely been more than had. This is especially true given most of the Spanish players involved in the initial disputes no longer play for Spain. Britain is mainly now punishing innocent and newer Spanish players for the perceived sins of others. It is possible to be honourable or dishonourable in defeat or victory. I don't believe there is any honour to be had in continuing to attack a beaten/fallen foe, neither do I believe there is any honour in Britain continuing to attack Spain - only dishonor. I do not agree with the argument oft used on these forums, that where a peace is not in place and a weaker faction wishing to fight on, the dominant nation must continue attacking the enemy down to their last port. Whether Spain accepts a peace treaty or not, Britain does not HAVE to keep attacking Spanish ports - they can and should choose to be merciful instead. Regarding the initial causes for the conflict, I believe that a line needs to be drawn under past events. This is a game played by individuals; individual players and clans. As such, these individuals will behave unpredictably and, until we have a proper diplomacy system in place, misunderstandings, disagreements, confusion etc will be the norm. We must understand this and recognise that people of good will and honour may still fall foul of miscommunication and so on leading to scenarios such as this. Hence, healthy restraint is a wise and true virtue whilst still engaging in competitive play. Sorry for the long post but as a British player, I do not like seeing us utterly humiliate another nation (as we have seen before) and damage the future of this wonderful game. We are better than that... TLDR: Britain should be merciful and generous to the Spanish, and cease attacking their ports regardless of whether Spain agrees to a peace deal or not.

I was thinking about this alot last night (yeah, I'm that sad!) and think the new entry-to-mission rules are a big step backwards for the game (especially when combined with the apparent lack now of normal ai fleets/battles - I know I am struggling to find many). a. Naval Action is an MMO in which surely the whole point is to get large numbers of players, playing together. To actually prevent people from playing together seems to go against the basic ethos of the genre. I know I play MMO's primarily because of the other people I encounter and play with either co-operatively or competitively and don't want to see that diluted. b. It makes things much harder for newer players to get into the game. The best way for new players to pick up the basics is to jump into pre-existing battles where they are relatively safe and can ask for lots of advice etc - I know that's what I did. Missions can be difficult and overwhelming at first and new players are far less likely to have friends in the game or a clan to group up with and help them out. I think, in one stroke this may have made the initial learning-curve much steeper. c. It's not historically accurate or realistic at all. Imagine actually captaining a ship (I know I am imagining this!) and seeing ships of your nation locked in furious combat, yet not assisting in any way you can. Surely you would be duty-bound to enter the fray and if you were found not to have done, subject to strong discipline by your Admiralty. Knowing I am merrily sailing by these battles because they are simply closed or an arbitary 5 minute timer is up does significantly break the immersion for me (as well as upsetting my personal code/liking for helping my fellows out in times of need). d. It reduces exploration/free sailing in the world. As there are so few battles (that I can find at least) available to enter in the OW, it has reduced (my) gameplay to a simple procedure of 'get mission from port, do mission, return to port, rince-and-repeat.' It feels to me far more grindy and far less fun to be honest (though I still love NA!). The primary problem with fully-open battles seems to be that players are actually penalised for playing together; ie co-operating drastically reduces the amount of gold and exp a player gets. Surely we should be aiming to reward players for interacting and playing with each other, and if we could actually do this it would resolving this issue at one stroke. The first MMO I played that I remember doing this was Guild Wars 2 in which all players who contribute to a fight earn the same exp and chance of loot. As a version of this, could we consider fixed rewards for sinking/boarding enemy ships. The way this would/could work would be that the owner of the battle/mission would receive a fixed gold and exp reward for participating in the defeat of any enemy ships in the battle. All assisting players would receive a smaller, but still fixed reward for any ships they have helped to defeat. Reward would be for defeating individual ships rather than the whole battle and a player would simply have to participate (ie cause a minimum damage level) in the defeat of any ship to receive a reward. Of course, this means that reward would no longer be tied to damage amount caused in a battle. At the end of a battle any additional loot would be distributed randomly on a player-by player basis. In this scenario, every player benefits from additional allies in the battle and should be happy to see players joining. A secondary problem is griefing etc, for example where allied players sink a ship that the first player wants to capture. As a potential solution to this, enemy ships could often surrender/strike their colours rather than facing certain sinking if a battle is not going well for them. This could be more common in the case of trader ai than warship ai ships. All ships who surrender in this manner could be automatically allocated to the battle owner at the end of the battle and unsinkable in the meantime. Not only would this be fairer and stop a certain amount of griefing, it would also be more historically accurate as ships would usually strike their colours rather than face certain destruction. I have already wondered why enemy ships aren't simply surrendering when outgunned and with little/no armor left - it would make more sense if they did. The final problem the devs have raised is when players use existing battles as a 'safe harbour.' I haven't observed this happening myself, but it would seem that the logical action of any captain during the Age-Of-Sail who found themselves chased by a superior enemy, upon seeing allied ships (in battle or not) would be to head for them and relative safety. If battles had no timer at all this would allow enemies also to join these battles (potentially with greater numbers) and continue the chase. I am not sure players should be prevented from doing something that is obviously logical and would have been equally logical historically. In summary, I would like to see battles having no barriers to entry (timewise or not), but with joining of battles being beneficial to all, including the battle owner who receives help speedily dealing with enemies and no penalty to gold/exp. Anyway, I simply love the game and wish the devs all the best for the future of Naval Action.

Lol - I bet it was a funny sight though I was somewhat worried that I might lose my lovely Niagara (or should that be Viagra!) at the time, not wanting to be the only British captain to lose a ship (though it would have been a rather unfair sinking)! I wouldn't have minded if the incident had made little Niaglets but the ship is showing no signs of a bump on her belly I am afraid! As for the diapers - you couldn't be more right as my wife and I are expecting our first irl!

Twas a mighty fine battle for sure. That is, apart from the last desperate, fleeing pirate who after taking a long, good thrashing from my Niagara and thoroughly beaten by superior Royal Navy gunnery skills, proceeded to ram and attempt to capsize me in kamikaze fashion. Only the extraordinary skill of my crew foiled this coward (yes NTode from BIA, I am looking at you!) from achieving his goal and he subsequently slunk away with a ship in such desperate state he was surely already bound for the ocean floor.