Celtiberofrog

I think it's an additionnal option to escape trying to survive that is legitimate and logical. Ships are expensive.

You destroy wood structure to open wider each scuttle and just push off cannons into sea.

Ships are expensive (and life where very expensive too in ages of sail) so when being into an escaping action, when it can become a vital escaping, our ancestors commanders, when being hunted in an obvious inferiority to their hunter, could decide to drop anything from their vessels to gain speed, this action could include cannons. NA should allow to drop all hold material (repairs, goods, etc...) as well as cannons as a last chance/risk to take to hopefuly save our ship. Both in OW and in Battle.

On en a parlé et reparlé... en OW traverser une grosse mer devrait ou pourrait nous consommer nos rig repair ou dégrader les rig, voir même endommager le navire, qui impliquerait un risque et le choix d'éviter ce gros temps ou pas. en Bataille la houle forte devrait compliquer un combat mais bon vaut mieux oublier ces détails dans NA, ils l'ont rendu déjà trop compliqué au détriment de l'équilibre global du jeu.

Well, we got Ship large variety, woods large variety, slots number, perks and canons variety. With these first layer of features the game is already offering plenty of tactical/quality choices. NA could nicely work without any additional features, Now, all mods & upgrades are fine and increase game quality but they should not have current level of bonus or penalties. Fights are presently potentialy unbalanced because of so many extra effects impacting battles issue. Would their effects be lower, player skill will have stronger impact in fights and recognized as such. Choosing good upgrades & knowledge for our ships is not supposed to be improving any player skill but only ship skill. I prefere NA where player skill would be far more important than ship skill.

Point is, you do same testing but with average players only. My bet is the result will show: Side upgrades V no upgrades ==> 90% win for those who got upgrades. No upgrades both sides or same upgrades both sides ==> probably between 40 to 60% wins each sides. My point is just a question to minimize upgrades & knowledge effects, that's all, it would better promote player's skill, make fights funnier & more balanced.

Scenario n° 1: (today upgrades) - You leave port with a "prepared ship" - You come across an enemy player with same ship type - You logically engage him (you know him ! he's as exprecienced as you) - what will make the difference in that fight ? (He's got faster repair upgrades, higher accuracy shooting as well as higher penetration, you don't have same upgrades, you went for faster reload and faster turning with high hull level.) Do you sincerly think that your skill or his skill will mostly prevail ? do you believe that each player different ship settings will not help to make the difference ? - You lose that fight, damned, it must have been due to not having relevant upgrades compared to his, it's real bad luck... Scenario n° 2: (reduced upgrades effects) - You leave ports, your ship is prepared with several upgrades with "small" effects. - Same encounter with same type ship player. - You engage him. - The fight takes much longer to make the difference between both players. - A single mistake can make the difference, it will depend on player concentration and skill, with only slight uncertainty due to upgrades settings. - You lose the fight, almost sweating ! damned ! that was a very hard fight, but you made a mistake and sunk before him, GG... Which scenario do you prefer ?!! In gaming world, (I'm one of those who started playing strategy games with Commodore Amiga computer) all available tools will be thoroughly utilize by players to look for advantages, every details will be explored to find best fittings. Conclusion: ==> THE LESS TOOL EFFECTS THE MORE BALANCED WILL BE A FIGHT ! ==> THE MORE A FIGHT IS BALANCED THE GREATER IS THE FUN !! ==> SKILL PLAY SHOULD NOT BE SO DEVIATED BY TOOLS. Dev's please reconsider ALL stats of upgrades to lower, it is worth testing it imo.

Long ago we mostly had to evaluate ships value & performance only based on their wood combination & colour-slot. It was clean & simple for everybody. Today these evaluations are lost into a magic combination of so many upgrades. Peeps know that magic upgrades can really help for better efficiency, this affects PvP as being potentialy unbalanced. Unless upgrades effects are substentialy decreased, PvP as well as general game might remain unbalanced. Why spoiling challenges with magic effects ? Today, when loosing a ship in a fight, one gets more frustrated cause he can justify his opponant had better upgrades. Long ago defeats were less bitter, one could not hide behind upgrade excuses, NA was more balanced by that time and PvP was kind of natural.

By going so far in optimizing every game aspects separately (patch after patch) , the global NA harmony of the settings/mechanics seems to have gone away... To be honest, NA was so much simpler 2 years ago despite existing issues. But adding more & more "adjustments" or "conversions" has made NA to become a complex game for experts players. Unless a full re-conversion for simpler mechanics could pretend to reach a final release that would please most players. I am puzzled about the last 2 years development goals... Today, Economy = to be re-adjusted (still). Currencies & rewards = to be clarified and possibly changed. Trading = to be adjusted (still) RvR & timers = not finished yet Hostilities = to be adapted (still) PvP = to be optimized (still) PB's = to be adapted or possibly changed. Ship's BR = not finalized yet. ETC... Are we close to a final concept yet ? The main feature that has clearly changed as finalized is "Clan base" control, no diplomacy support, every nations are enemies. which is a poor choice to me despite most current players approval.

Es un atajo para aliviarse, lo entiendo y lo respeto. Pero la verdad es que los que nos han jodido (y siguen jodiendonos) son los Dev's principalmente...

Alternative suggestion: Hostilities effects are set on enemy region (main port + secondary ports) every week, reset of hostilities every mondays (or Fridays ?). As soon as hostilities % reach a certain level in one enemy region,(through PvP, PvE and missions), this region becomes publicly spoted & locked as being under attack, with effects till reset. (locked from any other hostility in that region). There defenders can as usual reduce hostilities by PvP & PvE, and why not with war supplies (only use for reducing hostilities). Any nation can deal with a maximum of 3 region defences per week cycle. (means 3 defending PB's per week for each nation) Same for attacking, each nation has a maximum of 3 region attacks per week cycle. (means 3 attacking PB's per week for each nation) Once hostilities have been 100% completed, the attacker has the choice of the port among that region to attack for the PB (capital or secondary port). In every region, timers cannot be set in same windows for each port. (no matter who owns ports from that region) When a region is shared by different nations, the region hostility applies either cause the regional capital owner is enemy, or, in case enemy only owns secondary ports, on the waters of these secondary ports. In term potential abuse from alt clans, the level of % hostility, to lock "under attack" condition, must be carefuly debated (50% ? 60% ?...) to make not so easy to reach. Friendly clans, although belonging to enemy nations, could happily try to share a region in friendly mods, but may be countered by other "disagreed" clans with war supplies for example.

Ya lo se, pero yo tenia esperanza respeto al supuesto proximo partche sobre el RvR, pero mi optimismo esta sufriendo mucho estos dias...

Sombrero muy bajo por el esfuerzo de la gente que hizo la PB de Keywest ! Pero estoy deacuerdo con el hecho que se boycotea estos asquerosos timers. Lo peor que he leido en este foro estos dias es que se felicitan que solo haya facciones enemigas como regla basica y suficiente. Ni si quiera les parece ridiculo que no haya un minimo de informacion en NA sobre las posiciones politicas de cada faccion... O sea este juego solo tiene un cuadro cosmetico historico, y el resto es anarchia entre clanes, vamos el siglo VI o VII respeto a geopolitica.

Well it's a great pity. This game relies on new players to join war server, how a new player, who's not inclined to communicate with other group of players, will understand what to do, where to go, etc... without knowing his nation political situation ? Are all new players forced to join "connected" clans to understand the RvR stream ? if it's so then the high tide will come very slow. Politic is part of the game immersion. I feel this lack of political background is grotesque.

I do not agree with that. Or at least there should be a support in NA to show the current political position of every nations. Otherwise this will remain a jungle. Why having a game designed in an historical theater, today it's like having multiple pirate groups with different flags & colors, a wild tribal conflict without any coherence.

very good statement so true. We need high tide !!

This topic seems to also point out that War & RvR, depending on how it is managed/utilized by main active clans, build reputations. Clans or nation's reputation can become quite sticky and certainly influence player community in terms of RvR reactions. This is kind of natural, that's why a NA political background is a necessary support, it will help everyone to integrate player behaviors within abvious political reasons. Today acts of war are meaningless and kind of anarchic, clan alliances or cooperations are far too foggy and generate critics to specific clans or players (justified or not). Nation's political positions toward others are necessary to my point of view, it would help to rationalize behaviors. Alliance system between nations is really needed though. Only Pirates political situation should remain foggy.

That may be the price to pay, like RW nations have to fight foreign intelligence actions. RvR needs a political background readable for the whole player community, including for players that do not communicate with other groups.

Players need diplomatic support, see example in 2016

The former diplomacy system was going in the right way, but we got more Nations now...

The NA RvR theater is kind of more complex with many nations today. Why have we got nations then ? is NA theater a wild tribal territory to fight in ? Players need global info about nation's positions (and its evolution) to allow them a better understanding of server battle's circumstances. Those permanent infos might be the most powerful support for RvR content.

Ok, but global political situation between nations should be accessible to any players in NA. A diplomatic system is needed to reflect relation changes, at least for the newcomers to understand which nation is hostile or not. Present clan based system does not give any info apart from conquest board which are ponctual info. A minimum of geopolitical data is required to federate clans/players towards common goals, it should help RvR.

I've made several campaign in Confederate side in order to reach the lowest losses step by step. When I reach Washington final battle the best I could reach was 80k confederate men Vs 140k union men... This battle has a second phase with a massive Union counter-attack on the captured forts, I never managed to win it so far. I would appreciate feedback from those who won the Washington battle at this level. I privileged 85% infantry units, (along campaign steps, with large units in 1 corps to achieve most battles, to finally reach 3 Corps), to face such a massive Union forces in Washington. Thx

The most reasonable solution would be to split the map in 2 zones. Logically West & East zone. Each zone has a single mandatory timer window for PB's. This will sadly split players activity regarding PB's but it won't be worse than now. At least we would get rid of these nasty timers. RvR would become affordable again, players in both zones may return and grow global server population. It's a temporary compromize that will bother players that are not in USA & Europe chosen single timer window. In future NA could be extended with another server with Indian Ocean theater map split in 2 zones as well.

Un enlace para ver el estilo de gestion incluida en "Ultimate general: civil war" https://steamcdn-a.akamaihd.net/steam/apps/502520/manuals/UGCW_Guide_v1.25.pdf?t=1516638561 Hay un monton de vid en youtube para ver ejemplos de batallas. Partiendo de esto un "UA: age of sail" va a ser la leche ! (single player)