HardyKnox
-
Posts
193 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by HardyKnox
-
-
Fasti's proposal makes a great deal of sense as a relatively simple skeleton for the game. I think of a large stadium athletic contest. Around the perimeter lie the surrounding commercial venues and concessions, making, buying and selling. Relatively safe, but exercise care on the highway or train coming in and out, and keep your kids and wallets close. In the clearly marked center, the uniformed, armored athletes battering each other for glory and valuable prizes, from time to time sending a battered team back to the sidelines for a patch up or a "happy dance."
~ HK ~
-
A 2011 Economist story about the East India Company describes its mark on the world of trade, commerce and warfare. One theory is that the Modern World began, not with the discovery of America, not with the invention of the printing press, but:
"... there is a strong case to be made for a less conventional answer: the modern world began on a freezing New Year's Eve, in 1600, when Elizabeth I granted a company of 218 merchants a monopoly of trade to the east of the Cape of Good Hope."
"The East India Company controlled a standing army of some 200,000 men, more than most European states. ... The British government did not own shares in the Company (though prominent courtiers and politicians certainly did)."
"The Company" essentially ran Bengal and kept it pacified for the English Empire, until an economic collapse and famine required a government bailout. More at: http://www.economist.com/node/21541753
Of course, the true Indiamen sailed by The Company were not immune from attack by pirates, hostile nations (and their own licensed trading companies, such as he Dutch East India Company) and even the ships, men and spies of rival trading companies.
In the Second Anglo-Dutch War(1665-1667),
QuoteAfter the English Restoration in 1660, Charles II tried through diplomatic means to make his nephew, Prince William III of Orange, stadtholder of the Republic. At the same time, Charles promoted a series of anti-Dutch mercantilist policies, which led to a surge of jingoism in England, the country being, as Samuel Pepys put it, "mad for war".
English merchants and chartered companies — such as the East India Company, the Royal Adventurers Trading into Africa, and the Levant Company — calculated that global economic primacy could now be wrestled from the Dutch. They reckoned that a combination of naval battles and irregular privateering missions would cripple the Dutch Republic and force the States General to agree to a favourable peace.[2] The plan was for English ships to be replenished, and sailors paid, with booty seized from captured Dutch merchant vessels returning from overseas.
In 1665 many Dutch ships were captured, and Dutch trade and industry was hurt. The war saw several English victories in battle, such as the taking of the Dutch colony of New Netherland (present day New York) by Charles' brother, the future James II; but there were also Dutch victories, such as the capture of the English flagship Prince Royal during the Four Days Battle — the subject of a famous painting by Willem van de Velde.
So, yes, there are historical foundations for rivalry, even outright naval and land battles between nationally chartered trading companies or their proxies.
-
4
-
-
@admin We have 24 pages of back-and-forth about a set of proposals that have been completely changed, making the majority of those 24 pages obsolete, as well as too long for any reasonable person to read with comprehension.
Would it be helpful to restart a new thread with a SUBSTITUTE proposal that includes ONLY the current version with all overnight edits merged in?
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, Vernon Merrill said:
As someone who has never played EVE, does anyone care to give their feelings on how these possible changes compare to that game? And do you feel that game is enjoyable?
Also, EVE, which had full release several years ago, presently has over 2,000 average players, but falling atm. http://steamcharts.com/app/8500
Alpha (Pre-Release) status Naval Action has recent average under 700. http://steamcharts.com/app/311310#1y
So, EVE must be doing something right.
-
The proposals are confusing and complicated, but they seem to have echoes of the actual Chartered Trading Companies of the 17th and 18th century. They had their own private armies, navies, and bought and paid for government officials, even in nominally democratic republics like England. They fought not over national pride, or nominal ownership of ports, but over something far more important to them. "Who controls the trade and the gold?" After all, that is the basis of The Golden Rule, "He who controls the Gold, Rules." See, e.g. https://www.britannica.com/topic/East-India-Company and also https://www.britannica.com/topic/Dutch-East-India-Company(edited)
-
1
-
-
I don't understand about the Epic Events. Some objective (not editorial) help, please?
- What can I expect if I enter one?
- How important is it to take a group of allies with me?
- Do the positions of the entry points move around randomly?
~ HK ~
-
1
-
On 11/30/2016 at 7:48 AM, Archaos said:
Why create a Q&A section on the forums and not use it to answer questions raised. I refer in particular to the question regarding voting and alliances where someone asked a question and received different answers from other players, yet no one could confirm which was the correct one.
It seems a wasted opportunity.
This is a young feature, and if I understand it, it is a way to encourage "Peer to Peer" answers to Peer questions. If it is not being used by many, it may be that many Players do not attend to the Forums, being busy sailing. There is also the confusion in some minds between "answer" and "opinion" and "B.S."
It may also be that no one attending has an actual answer and so does not reply.
~ HK ~
-
The new fix to 9.97 is very controversial, and I get it. However the detailed explanation in the Patch Notes has been buried in editorial comments, and I can't find factual Q&A in the noise of 209 replies and counting.
Could we focus in this thread on the actuality (good or bad) of the latest Hot Fix to Patch 9.97?
Let me start with a simple question to which I'd appreciate a explanation, without any editorials on whether the function is good or bad. Perhaps others have similar needs and we can focus on Q&A rather than opinion.
Here's my first factual question: In the new Port Battle set up, the introductory thread says that "Entry to Port Battles" will depend on position, with "two large circles around the port." It goes on to say that Defenders enter in the small circle, Attackers enter anywhere in the large circle. However, the image accompanying the post shows THREE, not two circles, each of the same size, one near the port, the two others separate, looking like a Mickey Mouse hat.
- Is the image one of the three "Capture Zones" rather than the Entry Circles?
- If the former, will the Entry Circles be concentric circles, centered on the "Enter (Port Name) space? Perhaps a Dev could post an image of the aerial view of the two Battle Entry Circles.
- If two concentric circles with the same focus, may Defenders emerge from Port within "Enter Battle" range of the focus of the concentric circles, while Attackers emerging from inside the Port must sail a bit to reach the "Enter Battle" spot?
- If Attackers sail to the Battle Port from Open World, will they encounter the Attacker Entry Circle first, before reaching the "Defenders Enter Battle" , and be able to enter before reaching the center of the concentric circles?
- If Defenders are showing up late (bad captain) and travelling to Battle Port in OW, must they fight their way through Screeners to reach the "Defender Enter Battle" point?
- Will the two Entry Circles be visible to all in OW until the battle closes for whatever reason?
Thanks in advance for sticking to factual responses rather than editorials on the wisdom of the current reality. Let's play the hand we've been dealt before debating the rules of the game.
~ HK ~
-
For excellent insight into both sides of the military and political situation in America's Civil War (or "The War Between the States" or "The War of Northern Aggression" as called in the South) read the historical novel "The Killer Angels" which focuses on the perspective of four generals in the Battle of Gettysburg : Lee, Longstreet, Buford (cavalry) and Chamberlain. Also featured is Jackson and Stuart (cavalry). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Killer_Angels
Also a major motion picture based on the novel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettysburg_(1993_film)
I have gamed the Battle of Gettysburg since I was about 15 ... 50 years ago.
Real War Colleges study and game it to this day.
Presently playing Naval Action.
~ HK ~
-
1
-
-
Keep in mind that the Clan must also choose YOU.
- Sail around, see what common nationals are sailing/trading/fighting in your time frame.
- Ask questions, say "thank you" when the questions are answered.
- Avoid arrogance ... don't immediately claim to know what needs to be done.
- Defer to others in battle. Let them "steal your kill" if it builds good relations.
Thereby you build a reputation and a few others who can say "Yeah, saw him/her around ... seems OK, not an ***hole."
~ HK ~
-
2
-
On 5/28/2016 at 7:35 AM, mikawa said:
This is definitely not my fault, sorry. How can you say that? You get a REWARD for your effort which is LOST -- This is very poor game design and should not appear at all. Additional room is very expensive so you can't always afford adding space. Sorry, this should have a HIGH priority or should appear as a warning in game BEFORE crafting.
Lots of priorities in line ahead of this one.
-
Are there any uses now for Fine Woods? They have vanished from the Blue Prints I have ... but only have up to Renommee.
~ HK ~
-
Not banned yet.
Saw Happy9768 in game sailing an LGV near Charleston and in US Nation's Chat within the last 2 hours. I posted there a link to this thread.
-
Happy9768 "US Nation" Suspect Spy
"Happy9768" has been reported for bad conduct in PB or Screens earler. Ramming friendly ships, triggering battles prematurely. New Eyewitness Report: Dec 2, about 9 AM US Eastern, about than 250 Players online. Hardy Knox tried to leave Beaufort in Surprise + Rattler. Inside port were two substantial (>1000 BR each) Dane AI fleets, a US Lieutenant in a warship and => Happy 9768 <= in an LGV. Battle triggered. Dropped into port before my immunity lapsed.
Spoke after to the US Lieutenant who said Happy 9768 triggered battle, and that he/she had forced him into battle 2 times in five minutes.
Perhaps it is time other US players kept a close eye on "Happy9768" . He/she reports being Chinese, so not understanding Chat directions or orders. Language does not explain why Happy9768 repeatedly triggers unwinnable battles that endanger fellow nationals.
Other mentions of Happy9768 in GameLabs Forums involving reports of similar behavior:
http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/profile/24703-bsfixer/-
2
-
-
"Happy9768" has been reported for bad conduct in PB or Screens earlier. Ramming friendly ships, triggering battles prematurely.
New Eyewitness Report: Dec 2, about 9 AM US Eastern, about 250 Players online. Hardy Knox tried to leave Beaufort in Surprise + Rattler. Inside port were two substantial (>1000 BR each) Dane AI fleets, a US Lieutenant in a warship and => Happy 9768 <= in an LGV. Battle triggered. Hardy Knox dropped into port before my immunity lapsed.
Spoke after to the US Lieutenant who said Happy 9768 triggered battle, and that he/she had forced him into battle 2 times in five minutes.
Perhaps it is time other US players kept a close eye on "Happy9768" . In a Nations Chat conversation after a PB about 10 days ago, he/she was asked why was ramming friendlies and not following Battle Leader's guidance, he/she reported being Chinese, with poor English so not understanding Chat directions or orders.
Poor English does not explain a Player triggering unwinnable battles with enemy fleets with other National Players in range.
Other mentions of Happy9768 in GameLabs Forums involving reports of similar behavior:
http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/profile/24703-bsfixer/ -
1 hour ago, Archaos said:
The way I understand it is that you cannot create an alliance with someone that you are already in alliance with no matter how many votes you put towards it, hence at the end of each alliance period there is a period where you are enemies before you can create alliance again.
It is a system that is flawed because there is a possibility I think for it to get messed up. For example the current situation on PvP1 is that the USA, Britain and Dutch are in an alliance, while in that alliance (21 days) it is pointless to vote alliance with each other as it has no effect. But say for example some British people decided to vote for an alliance with Spain and by some chance Spain voted alliance with Britain, then at the next vote count if there were sufficient votes Spain would become allied with Britain possibly at the same time as the alliance with USA expired. This would mean that Britain would not be able to vote USA back into alliance at the next round because as I understand it you can have at max 2 allies.
At least that's how I think it works, please someone correct me if I am wrong.
Imagine if the NATO treaty expired every six months and could not be rebuilt, regardless of the votes of the member nations, for six months.
Bizarre. Like alien life forms were toying with an "ant farm" filled with humans instead of ants, by shaking it up every morning, just to watch the death and confusion.
~ HK ~
-
1
-
-
On 11/9/2016 at 9:55 AM, Jean Ribault said:
Wish I could help you HK, I don't understand it either. I just click buttons every now and then when they're available, based on what the other members of the faction would like to see.
Jean, thank you.
I'm glad I am not the only one who sees this process as opaque.
~ HK ~
-
2
-
-
800+ hours played over last 6 months and I do not understand the Politics function and effects of voting for War/Enemy/Alliance. Could someone walk me through how it works or provide a link to an explanation, please.
For example:
Couple days ago, US allied with GB and Netherlands. Saw hundreds of votes for continued Alliance with GB.
Heard unofficial chatter that US/GB Alliance about to go down.
This morning, woke up, Discovered GB and US now Enemies.
Questions:
- Is this overnight flip triggered by anti-Alliance Player votes, or lack of Player votes to overcome some time limit on existing Alliances?
- Would some one explain how an Alliance can flip so quickly?
- What is the weight of each Player's 7 votes up or down?
- What percentage of total Players actually votes each round?
- You do know that many Players are completely unaware of the Politics button, and report never having looked at the Forums?
- And why there is no transition period of "Declining Relations" or "Repairing Relations" before the flip?
Please help me understand this puzzle.
~ HK ~
-
The name "Hostility" confused me at first.
Perhaps a better name would be "Threat Level" ...
"Our Navy and Coast Guard sank X enemy ships in our waters,
reducing the local Threat Level from 85% to 50% in missions over the last 24 hours.
Admiralty sources indicate that the defenses will remain strong and vigilant.
Our Coast Guard is turning the raids of the Opposition Forces,
our Merchant Marine landed loads of War Supplies to bolster our forces both at home and abroad,
On the offensive, our Navy is taking the fight to the OpFor's home ports to divert them from increasing our local Threat Levels.
Video at Eleven.
Next, news about a new game on TwitFace!
But first, a word from our sponsor, Hardy Knox Med Kits ... don't leave port without them."
~ HK ~
-
3
-
-
I noticed that you said there will be a final wipe, how much will we lose?
Off topic.
Correct your helm, sailor.
Crafting XP and character level will stay as is. Final wipe will be a Asset wipe. Gold, ships, modules, warehouses, resources and such.
Please do not repeat rumors.
Please stay on topic: crafting changes.
-
1
-
-
Never mind.
-
This would go a long way towards having allies actually be helpful when doing joint efforts in a region. Only issue I see that would need to be fleshed out is the "who should be the leader." Should the mission "creator" be who determines which nation gains the hostility? Should the original player creating the tag against an enemy be the nation who gains or loses hostility?
Ahhhh ... the human engineering challenge emerges.
There is an age-old mechanic for this ... "Diplomacy, Negotiation, Compromise and Reciprocation"
~ HK ~.
-
1
-
-
First want to state I don't even know if this is possible with coding.
We can put a purchase order up for basically anything craft able in game except upgrades.
I would love to see a system for purchase orders for ships.
This system exists in game today and is a common advantage for those who have friends or clans.
It is done with "social engineering":
- Identify and ask a known experienced (high Craft XP) ship builder to build a specified ship.
- If you do not know and trust the Ship Builder, get a reference from a Trusted Third Party (e.g. a Clan)
- Ship builder tells you what mats or gold to bring to his/her port X
- In Port X, you Trade those mats to the Ship Builder, who will build you the specified ship.
- He/she delivers the new ship.
- You sail away in your new ship.
- If you are in a clan with the ship builder, he will often work "for cost" ... Notes in the value of the Labor Hours he/she must use.
- If not, negotiate a price in advance, often "Mats + X number of Notes or Y Gold.
~ HK ~
-
This will result in a small cluster of suddenly rich "block heads" spending money like drunken sailors.
Until the bubble bursts and the hangover comes.
Testbed - Unity 5 testing next week (15-21 Aug)
in News Announcements & Important discussions
Posted
There was an update when the Server came up this morning. Any word on what is in it?