Arsilon

Again, anything that does not provide France long term viability or forces the nation to just go PvE quietly will be a non-starter. Agreeing to a ceasefire without any structure for longer term cooperation doesn't accomplish anything. Admittedly the end state agreement doesn't need to be in place before a cease-fire becomes a reasonable avenue but there should be at least a general framework that ongoing discussions can be held around. You will also need to figure out how you will get the various factions to toe the line. I can't imagine that the BSO and other clans you have in the south will be willing to give any quarter whatsoever given how much of a thorn we continue to be in their sides.

All trolling and propaganda aside (and several rats have already acknowledged the terms of the "offer" to be without anything meaningful for the French despite continued claims of propaganda) the Pirates had offered the French 2 options. Option 1: France to give up existing ports owned in the bay France given free reign to attempt to take the Deep Water ports held by Britain without Pirate interference Pirates take remaining neutral ports in the S.America area Pirates provide no commitments against and reserve all rights to take any remaining French held ports away at any time in the future Option 2: Pirates take existing ports owned by the French in the bay and anywhere else they chose to It should also be noted that there are still several factions within the Pirate nation that have their own separate interests and priorities. They were seemingly generally able to cooperate but it was clear that in the long run, nothing was likely to 'stick' in any way beneficial to the French. Also, at prime time the pirates outnumber the French easily 5:1 (note last night was perfect example where there were 4 overlapping port battles going on both with players in the battles as well as providing screening outside the battles). In addition the Pirates can captain much higher level ships than the French currently can. With a few exceptions the French are still in Cerbs/Surprise/Ren level ships for deep water port battles while the Pirates are well into 3rd Rates and Constitutions (admittedly some undercrewed but that is of little impact with current port battle mechanics). So given two options what would you expect the French to do? Pirates would say that the French are in no position to be making any demands and there is nothing that requires the Pirates to offer any considerations since they can pretty much do what they have been doing. Given lose lose options, the French will take the lose option that give us PvP fun along the way. Option 1: Roll over and then what? Perhaps we could take the British ports if they didn't show up. Great fun. PvTower. Then what after that? Likely still in the situation we are today but bored out of our minds. Option 2: Put up a fight kicking and scratching any way we can given our limited numbers and limited ship composition capabilities and have a butt load of PvP along the way. With wipes all but inevitable Option 2 really was the only choice. You can dramatize all you want about who said what and how they said it but in the end this is what it boils down to. Of course there are those that care when they look at the map and see fewer and fewer blue dots. But at least for the French that have chosen to fight to the bitter end in the south, we realize that the game is a whole lot more fun fighting than it is looking at the mission screen.

Captain Marell, I suggest we all take this to the post in the suggestion thread that Taralin posted. I don't think anyone here would argue too drastically with how it should work conceptually although as Vllad says there are domino effect issues to consider. The discussion on the if/how/why really belongs there and not here.

Well then I think Taralin Snow's suggestion might be the way you deal with it. However, since this post is in the tribunal section, I don't think anything that has happened has been against the rules and mechanics as they are currently defined. It will be good to get further clarification either way though so let's see how this one gets resolved.

I think the difference you are missing is that the highlighted section was all done w/o shooting you or ramming you or attempting to sink you in any way. Nor were any active boardings interrupted, ie ramming you to disrupt your boarding attempt. I believe efforts are made to avoid intentional green-on-green damage. It's a different story with respect to Missions where they will hit you, demast you etc. I think you are confusing the 2 scenarios.

I think you are misunderstanding the mission mechanic. It is impossible to join your side in a Mission. The only reason you have the ability to join the mission at all is to attempt to help the Neutral ship you are trying to kill and therefore shooting your sails to make that easier seems to be reasonable.

If you don't but the stern chasers on it warns you about both cannon slots. If you put stern chasers on, it warns you only about deck guns (so would be the same as the Lynx and Cutter too then).

[REMOVED WILL REPORT IN GAME] tl;dr Warning to equip cannons. Trader Brig can't equip deck cannons.

One more clarification might be worthwhile in case this it isn't totally clear the implications. Taking this further... Example 2: Last place nation takes a port and sets capture window 02-04 All other nations would see 02-04 Example 3: 3rd place nation takes a port and sets capture window 02-04 1st & 2nd place both see 02-04 as well but 4th, 5th through last would be adjusted based on the pop balance / underdog mechanic as described above.

Defeated? No. Being realistic that we likely will be facing 15 vs 50 every night for the foreseeable future and therefore needing to be creative in our plans? Yes.

Was thinking last night about other possible ways to help manage major population imbalances. I see a lot of comments about very large nations rolling over smaller ones with no real counter (short of a much more robust diplomacy/alliance system which I have see discussion threads on). I did a quick search here to see and didn't see anything so will post again (apologies if it had already been proposed and discussed before but I'm new to the game). What if you allowed for port attack windows to be extended dynamically based on either nation population, number of ports owned, etc? For example: USA is the largest nation and takes a port. They set the capture window at 02-04 as their ideal defense window. As victors it is of course their prerogative to decide when they want this window to be for any number of tactical/strategic reasons. But my thought was what if when other nations look at the conquest tab they may see a different window? #2 nation would see 02-04 #3 nation would see 01-05 #4 nation would see 00-06 . . . last place nation would see Anytime (adjust how much flex you have and what the spread is but you get the idea) Larger nations if measured in population should be able to field a port battle team in more hours of the day than smaller nations. If measured by or # of ports controlled this would be a counter to over extension. It would also give some gasp of opportunity for nations that have been beaten down to their capitals for a breakout somewhere else on the map.