Serk

They are probably refeering to the 80-90 guns ships from the bottom of this post: http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/7683-dutch-ship-collection-with-plans/?p=135252 I'd really like it if the game was more about 3rd and 2nd rate fleets with a few 1rst here and there. That would not place nations without 1rst rate at such a disadvantage.

You've been doing this in pure loss http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/16206-test-event-changes/?p=308210

This was the original set up (back in jan 2016?) and it did not prevent the Dutch to conquer the whole South American coast despite starting with 6 ports only.

I wouldn't want this game to become somekind of scuba diving simulator or shipwreck treasure hunter game. We already have the shipwrecks with the sealed bottles, leave em to that. Devs could develop this special event into a massive treasure fleet following a set itinerary between port A and port B. Player would have to attack or escort lone stragglers ( Indiaman+ escort) who lost their route after a storm. You would then have to sail the Indiaman back to safety with it is cargo. You could even make it so those treasure fleets carry special cargo normally unavailable to a nation, (especially once regional goods are introduced). You then need to escort them to your capital and prevent enemy privateers to interfere, etc. Possibilities are endless. My two cents

This statement is hilarious, coming from a member of the British nation, who conquered half the map with empty PB's

It appears there will be two types of regional capitals. Regulars and some specific to larger states (France, GB, Spain and UP). So far, this is the list I've found on the map: France: Fort royal as capital, nouvelle-Orleans and port au prince as French regional capital. Spain: habana as capital, Vera Cruz, Trujillo, santo Domingo, Santiago, sans Juan, Caracas and carthagena de India and San Augustine as Spanish regional capital. GB, Port royal as capital, saint johns, Bridgetown, Nassau, Belize and blue field as regionals. UP : willemstad as capital and oranstad as regional capital. I wonder what those special regional capitals will mean.

Any idea what those regional capital (FRC, SRC, BRC, UPRC) imply? Will players from those nation start with an outpost in each of those at game start? Will it be the posibility to chose your starting port in any of those? I' d rather start with an outpost in each, with the ability to teleport there in order to facilitate de defence of the large empires early in the game. You would still need to build or sail your ships there yourself since the tp will be removed.

It would be a matter of balance, as in everything. For example, It could be a system similar to Europa universalis. Each port or region taken in the peace deal would cost a war score %. If a nation has a war score of 100% and a full region is worth 33%, the winner could ask for no more than 3 regions from the loser, the rest would revert back to its original owner and a truce would automatically fire, allowing a losing side to recover and prepare for the rematch. The losing side would also have an incentive to negotiate early if they don't want the war score to tip too much in favour of the victor, but no matter had badly the war goes, you could not be wiped out of the map. A 100% war score would represent a clear victory, but could open the possibility to enforce peace. I would actually prefer this to the forced alliance with only the capital remaining, as proposed by the devs. I just don't know if this would be doable in a sandbox involving only 8 nations, as opposed to the hundreds in EU IV.

This thread may actually inspire the devs to develop a proper peace negotiation mechanic with a war score system and the possibility to enforce a truce between two nations once peace is signed. A nation with a high enough war score could impose it's terms on the losing side,including a 1 month truce, for example. I now they are suppose to enhance the diplomatic aspect in a future patch, but I wonder if they plan to go as far.

I really hope this will be the case. With the new hostility trigger, we might actually see two larges fleets cruising an area and pursuing each other to increase or decrease hostility, instead of scrambling to a port with a flag or to intercept it. Frigates and scouts will become more important to find and screen the enemy fleets. Gameplay will focus more on real fleet action instead of PB's. I also hope that it won't be possible to raise the hostility of a port overnight, even if uncontested. I don't like those massive port swap in short period. This new hostility mechanic is clearly a step in the right direction.

It appears the gun layout is inverted, which surely contribute to the "fatty"impression. If you look closely at the model posted by bungeelemming, you'll notice the lower gun deck starts more at the front then the middle deck, while it is the opposite for the in game model. Add the black paint and you get the impression it is "fat" IMO. Also, on the first ever screenshot of the stern shown on the Facebook page, I assumed the stripes would be more blueish instead of plain black. Can someone confirm if it is indeed the case? Edit: looking at different models, bungeelemming model has one more gun on the lower deck than most other depictions of the ship (17 vs 16), that would explain the different gunport layout. I wonder which one is right or when was a gun added or removed.

I'm not sure about Saint-Malo and Biloxi not being in the Louisiana region, with Nouvelles-Orléans. Biloxi was the capital of Lousiana before it moved to Nouvelles-Orléans. I understand that region might become too large but still.

Bach: Perfect for immersion during long sailing time https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JQm5aSjX6g

This is hilarious: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6k72AuvCX_s

1 vs 1 is not a gank. In fact, your testimony perfectly illustrate how the social perk has wreck the 1 on 1 OW PVP. You think it is normal that a player that had to get back to port to change ship can in turn enter a battle and tip it's balance? Personally, I won't bother with open world PVP unless I'm in a group large enough to face those reinforcement, or if I'm in a ship fast enough to break the engagement when they show up (like a lynx or rattlesnake)

Thanks, It was a very long and intense fight, with only 6 minutes left on the timer when it ended. I don't recall ever manoeuvring so much during a battle to take (and retake) the initiative and the weather gage. That was Naval Action at it's best and I'm sure all 3 of us enjoyed it

You mean like this?

Maybe it wasn't the least succesfull, but it was quite close The German imperial navy (wich was the second largest in the world thanks to the recent armed race) was blockaded most of the time and the only attemp to break out led to the inconclusive battle at Jutland. It then went back to port for the rest or the war. As for WWII, it was even worst (Bismarck's lone voyage, Tirpitz idling in Norway before being Dunkerque and that Aircraft carrier that never was.) Transfering the Scharnhorst/Gneisenau across the channel was considered a great feat. I consider them on the same level of the french imperial Navy. Both were unable to seriously challenge the dominance of the Royal Navy and spent most of the war inside their own ports. All they both managed to do was to raid shipping lanes with privateeers in one case, and submarines in another. As for the OP, the least succesfull navy must have been one that never tried, like Switzerland. Each naval power had moments of succes and defeats (even Great Britain). Heck, at one time in history, the Norwegian were the most dominant (and the only?) naval power.

As a french player living in North america, I personally do not complain about the port timer. To me, it only illustrate how much of an advantage a nation with an ''all around the world'' playerbase has over one that doesn't. Maybe this would not be an issue if the australian players would leave Great Britain and join France instead.

The swedish and dutch players can attest if this was the only tactic used by France in their previous war or not. Regarding the flags, the devs aknowledged this was an inintended use of a game mechanic and more options were considered to correct this, including a gentleman agreement not to use it, hopefully enforced by the Tribunal : http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/15067-no-tribunal-cheatersexploiters-players/?p=279448 Considering the polarizing effet the chosen solution had in the player base and it's poor reception in half of the community, it is obvious to me that it has failed. Maybe the gentlemen's agreement could have been worth a try. After all, it was easy to indentify the involved player with a simple screenshot.

And the cutter tagging exploit quickly got fixed.

France had a full fleet of 1rst rate and more in the Haiti area, ready to play the game as it is meant to be played. Too bad you guys prefered to dick around with the flag mechanic at Fort Antonio instead of playing the game. Almost everyone left at that moment and wait for the patch to correct this. Hopefully, they will return, or maybe not... But who knows, maybe Brits prefer empty PB's to the real game. At least, it seems to give them bragging rights on the forum.

What about Germany? Both World war's were not a time of naval brillance for them despite the investment.

I actually sank today in my privateer after being rolled over in a similar way by a trader snow. My ship was completly upside down (Keel up, not on the side) and it was instantly filled with water. That was hilarious.

This is the perfect moment to shut down PvP One and merge everyone on PvP Two!