Kiithnaras

Except it really isn't. Most of the data on the spreadsheet is used to calculate the minimum and maximum pen values as well as assign relative half-pen distances for each caliber. All of that data is exposed for the Devs to make use of and tweak and adjust on their own. In terms of gameplay, all it's doing is plugging in the distance of impact into the Pen vs Distance formula, much like happens now on the live servers, so there would be zero performance impact of adopting this model. Balance, however...well, that's the whole point of my arguments here : )

Magic moments include using a Mortar Brig to demast a Bucentaure and subsequently hammer it into submission (and sinking). Also getting 24 Leaks on a Trincomalee in a single broadside using a Constitution. That boat went straight to the bottom in about 15 seconds. Possibly the most hilarious moment was our fleet returning from a port battle, and ran into a single, lone Endymion. Seeing 20+ 4th-rates swarming that poor chap was terribly amusing, even though we offered our condolences to them afterward. Also just sailing on trade runs or hunting patrols through night-time thunderstorms. They are absolutely gorgeous. (Definitely suggest making day/night cycles a little more smooth, too)

I wish more game developers followed this methodology, particularly ones that open their games up to Early Access or the equivalent thereof. It is quite frustrating to see game devs announce they're now "In Beta" yet have a huge roadmap of features to add still. So, props to Gamelabs for being sensible on that front, and here's looking forward to an exciting, eventful, and populous patch day tomorrow! I know I'm pestering the heck out of my friends to come back : D

@Preble, though it's a bit old, details on the new crafting model were announced and discussed Here. I'm not sure if and how anything has changed since then. I should really zip over to Testbed once the changes are in and take a look-see. I would hope that the new crafting system works something like This with the ability to adjust multiple aspects of a ship, each with their own drawbacks (e.g. make a ship tougher but more heavy/slow/sluggish or weaker but lighter/faster/more nimble), but the details are pretty sparse so far. Because of the way modules and ships themselves are changing in a database structure sort of manner, all ships, modules, redeemables, and ship notes are being sent to the void. Your fancy constitution along with all of its upgrades will just up and vanish like a fart in the wind.

Here's the issue with comparing NA to other MMO's; Mechanics. In Eve - the only purely-PvP MMO that I can think of - a Spy has to be careful. If they're discovered, outed, or suspected, they can be kicked from the corporation, attacked and killed, podded back to empire, etc. There are consequences for being a bad spy. Good spies never let on that they're spying or doing anything shady. MMOs that aren't primarily PvP have limited need or use for spies and alts. The problem in NA is that it is primarily a PvP game (on the PvP servers), but we are forbidden from taking action against subversive elements. Green on Green is a bannable offense. We can't chat-block, we can't evict from nation, we can't even shoo away suspicious shadows with violence. Spies have all the agency in the world to act, while non-subversive players have none at all. We can't even toss out or shoot at someone who joins a Lineship battle in a Cerberus for the lulz.

Bloody hell, who is this, George Soros?

I am not opposed to 1-dura ships, but, with the announced changes, there needs to be a mass storage system for them. 5 dock spaces per outpost plus 5 fleet slots globally seems like a lot on the surface, but it's really not, especially if losses are heavy for an individual (though it might not be so bad with changes to the crafting system). This is especially true for clan crafters that churn out ships regularly for other members and have to hold on to them until said clanmates appear. In this case, I'd propose Mothballing. For a small fee, a ship (sans any upgrades, guns, or cargo) can be mothballed at Nation Capital or perhaps Clan Warehouse. This mothballing can be indefinite or for a finite time (say, mothball maintenance must be supplied every two weeks or the ship is scuttled). This would be a fine means of storing crafted ships, in my opinion.

@Raekur, if the responses to my other thread on giving players some agency to affect the ability of known spies and subversive elements to act with impunity is any indication, individuals that use alts for these acts are vehemently opposed to any reasonable means of countering them besides cowering in dark holes and giving in to their every demand. They don't want a challenge, they want complete and utter domination by any means necessary.

Well, no, they are modeled as being too thick. a 1st-rate's masts are listed around 119cm. In reality, the HMS Victory's masts are about 94cm in diameter. From a gameplay mechanics perspective, the masts should be reduced to this range (some ratio like 1 and some small fraction of an inch per foot of beam at the mast) and simply receive an HP buff to compensate, simulating off-angle shots. I think right now the masts are simple hitboxes without any physical form, meaning that a shot on a mast is treated as "dead on", as if you were shooting the hull of a ship directly perpendicular. The devs have indicated that they don't want to complicate ship models much more than they already are, though we should see ship Structure appearing in a patch sometime Soon™. While it would be nice to have rigging and shrouds more accurately modeled, doing so would really load down the game engine, and things get pretty chuggy with 50 ships in a battle already. AFAIK, only sails and masts are modeled, and taking out a mast section, even one of the upper mast sections, can really be painful in disabling a ship.

@Sir Texas Sir, I don't feel that it will be abused as much as you think, though. You're looking at hours, and I specified activity: OW kills/assists (highest impact, 20% more for War-declared nations, double for PvP kills/assists), PB participation (less impact than OW kills/assists), sending ships to the admiralty as prizes (small impact, iffy on this one), and completing delivery missions to the capital (small impact). The total number of hours is irrelevant compared to the duty contribution in my mind. No, it's not perfect, but I definitely do not want a voting system where one or two clans control a supermajority and, exactly as you put it, never show up in OW and bully other players around. Simply put, if your Dane alt is presenting more naval superiority by sinking and capturing more enemy ships than most other Danes, he'll probably earn a council seat on that nation as well. Again, these things are tabulated and decided every two weeks, so things rotate out - earning a council seat is not a guarantee that you'll be on the council forever. Once a Council is chosen, all "recently-earned" admiralty points are reset to zero and the process begins again. Someone that sits in port trading every day is not likely to acquire a council seat, and people that only show up to make hostility and participate in port battles are less likely to be on the council than someone who actively patrols in between and goes to Admiralty events and so on. I might also add that for very small nations with fewer than 12 active players, there simply would be no council - if there aren't at least 12 players with more than zero "recently-earned" points, the council simply doesn't form for that cycle.

Forum Tribunal rules do not cover anything I have mentioned here. Additionally, though Moderators and Admin are responsible for carrying out final judgement for Tribunals, it's all public info and anyone can throw their two cents in (which creates more of a headache for the moderating team), particularly a vocal minority in support of the abuser despite clear evidence provided of wrongdoing and rulebreaking. This system is not for rulebreaking at all, it is for weeding out obvious spies and traitors. As I've said multiple times, I would love a means to give players agency in the game. By leaving the decisions in the hands of uninvolved (but not necessarily impartial) mods and admins, agency is removed from the players, especially when the Tribunal overwhelmingly rules in favor of no significant action (Not that they don't give due diligence, it's simply a matter of distance from the issue and having to reach a certain threshold of certitude before carrying out any punitive action). Without agency, one becomes helpless. No one likes feeling helpless. Helplessness leads to declining player numbers. In this system, everything is secret - Council seats are assigned based on actitivity, but not publicly known, even to each other (unless they choose to broadcast their councilship). Judgements are only sent to the screen that Council members can see, and the only indication they have of other council members' activity are the votes that are recorded. Only once a Judgement reaches a substantive sentencing is the Subject (or Plaintiff) notified of the result. Judgements that result in no action, whether by guilt or sentencing (it's entirely plausible that the Council will vote strongly in favor of guilt, but decide on no action to watch the person in order to be certain - it would be another player that they're removing from their own nation, after all), would not notify the Plaintiff or Subject. When I asked for feedback, I was more interested in how others would do things differently in giving players agency against spies and traitors. It is, however, interesting and curious to see how many flat-out detractors there are here that are clearly in favor of maintaining the status quo of Spying with Impunity.

@Norfolk nChance, The reason I wanted to avoid a council/head/magistrate that was democratically-elected and instead selected by activity and national contribution is the Mob Mentality and Good Old Boys club factors, one of Rebel Witch's few valid arguments. By democratically selecting the justiciars, it turns into precisely that with the largest clans essentially running the show. I definitely don't want that, either. If this idea were to be implemented, it would indeed place the trust of judgement in the hands of the most active players on each nation; whether to believe some random person's random complaints that Unassuming Sailor is a spy without any further information to go on. In fact, tuning Judgements to cost a significant amount of admiralty points (which are non-transferrable) helps avoid knee-jerk reactions, since each Judgement will represent a sizable amount of gameplay investment. I would also be in favor of having Mods having the ability to overturn Judgements if it boils down to harassment, but the Execution option above is pretty final and irrevocable (maybe keep the character in limbo for 24 hours before final erasure for appeals?). It also isn't explicitly about Alts, but it will affect characters that are used as obvious spies. I did merely mention that players that use alts heavily have a lower likelihood of attaining a council seat when compared to another player with only one character purely due to the time investiture and effort required to maintain oneself in the top-12 national contributors. @Wraith, I wouldn't be opposed to this type of game at all. It sounds interesting and dynamic and pretty neat. It does have one issue, though, and it's the same issue that has caused many to complain about Alliances: Democracy. Democracy is great and all and has its place, but it can tend to form that "Haves and Have-Nots" sort of situation. This is why, in my OP, any serious and permanent punishment requires either a 3/4ths majority or outright unanimity. In your type of setting, I would say any clan/individual would be accepted with a contribution-based Magistrate or Council (Individuals that have gained the trust of the Admiralty through time and effort) presiding over the eviction of subversive or disruptive elements. But that's my take. : ) @Sir Texas Sir, I agree. Those are called Good Spies; spies that do their job and aren't caught. Spies that don't enter battles merely to fill slots and be ineffective or leave and give as little indication or evidence as to their subversive activities as possible. One can't do anything about ghosts. It's the ones that dance in front of you while flaunting their treasonous activities that need to be dealt with.

@van der Decken, That is my core point exactly. I think, personally, that there should be more severe repercussions for repeat offenders and obvious spy alts. Again, it's all about agency, the ability of a player to affect the world around them. If Sir NotASpy is caught giving information to enemy nations or, arguably worse, posting strategic information in Global, there should be some means for LoyalCitizen42 to put a stop to Sir NotASpy's actions. @Rebel Witch, You used loaded arguments like the following: You are correct in that there is a potential for abuse - but subversive elements already abuse every aspect of the game possible to gain an unfair advantage over others with no means of addressing such abuse for non-subversive players. I feel that the maintained activity requirement for councilship is sufficient to mitigate the Ruling Elitist club abuse situation, while having 12 voting Council seats is a favorable alternative to a Mob-Mentality Ruling Majority. Again: How would you do things differently to mitigate the efficacy of known spies and traitors?

@Rebel Witch, Ignoring the hilarious amount of drama you've placed into your response, how would you go about giving players the ability to mitigate the actions of spies? At present, the sole reliable means of dealing with Spies essentially boils down to avoiding communication in Nation chat - a strategy that severely hampers newer players that join the Nation in question. There is zero recourse to deal with traitors (folks who, especially but not solely through the use of Alts, abuse hostility to set up port battles at times where there is no reasonable chance of victory, fill battles and not contribute or straight-up leave, and so forth) at present. I feel that this concept, perhaps not exactly as presented but in theory, would give players some recourse in fighting back against known or suspected spies and traitors. It avoids the Good Old Boy and Tyrant factors by assigning the responsibility to active players that contribute to the betterment of the Nation and not using some majority vote mechanism to pick Council seats. It also means that Alt-heavy players would be at a disadvantage since they would be dividing their time amongst their various alts, and would have to sacrifice the use of said alts in order to spend the requisite time to gain/maintain a Council seat. As I've said, I enjoy having spies and traitors floating around. I want them in the game, they enrich it and keep things lively and engaging. What I don't want is no agency, no recourse against them. In fact, Green on Green is strictly forbidden and a bannable offense. The Forum Tribunals are more for abusive players that break the rules. This concept would give a nation recourse against subversive elements beside hiding down dark holes. The core reason that I would love to see this power out of the hands (though Devs and Mods could always over-rule a Council decision) is Time. The developers' time should really be spent on game development, not sifting through the Tribunal forum to listen to Player A bickering about Player B, and Players C through Triple Z throwing their two cents in that aren't even involved. A Council keeps its own counsel; they can discuss with the Plaintiff or Subject if they prefer, and can hold a public tribunal in Nation if desired.

I've been pondering how to best deal with spies and subversive elements over the past few weeks, and I've come to the conclusion that the Tribunal forum section is grossly ineffective and little more than a writhing cesspool of the vocal minority that results in no appropriate punitive action being taken. At the same time, I do genuinely enjoy the presence of spies and traitors, in a meta-game sense, in that it keeps things interesting and organic and helps prevent stuffy stagnation. The other side of this coin, however, is the frustrating lack of agency regarding said subversive individuals. I want to preface this with the stance that I do not want these people removed from the game or banned in any lasting or tangible sense, but having no recourse to put a stop to an individual spy's activities is immensely frustrating. What I have envisioned involves the introduction of Outlaws, national Admiralties, and a jury-like Admiralty Council. As always, I welcome feedback and constructive criticism. Creating the Admiralty Council During the course of play, certain activities that include sinking Enemies (see politics suggestion in signature), War opponents, or Pirates will generate Admiralty points. Completing Delivery missions to your nation's capital or sending prizes to the Admiralty will also generate points, but at a significantly reduced rate. The twelve players with the most admiralty points generated in the past two weeks would be selected to be on the Admiralty Council and given access to a new Admiralty tab in port. This represents an active trust and vested interest in the Nation that is recognized by the Admiralty. Active players must stay active to maintain their seat on the Council; Every two weeks, new council members are selected based upon the past two weeks' activities. Should a sitting Council member fall below another player, any pending Judgements will have removed members' votes removed as well and their timeframe extended to the full week. Laying Down Judgement These admiralty points would count toward normal admiralty store purchases, but one of these purchases would be a Traitor Judgement, taken out against a specific player. The cost for this Judgement should be significant to prevent spamming, approximately a week's worth of playtime or more for an active player. Once the Judgement is taken out and the valid, specified player name provided (the Subject), the Council is notified of the Judgement and votes twice on it; the first round of voting is to determine the validity of the claim on the individual, and the second round determines sentencing. Not only is the Council notified of the Subject of the Judgement, but each Judgement also lists the player responsible for initiating the Judgement (the Plaintiff). The options available for sentencing would wholly depend on the results of voting. The subject of the Judgement is -not- automatically notified when the Judgement is taken out against them. Multiple Judgements can not be taken against the same player at the same time. During voting, each member of the Council votes Yea or Nay against the individual with the Judgement. The vote is open for one week, but will close and resolve immediately upon the last vote being confirmed. Abstaining council members' votes are automatically counted as Nays. When a vote resolves, a new vote for sentencing is opened with options dependent upon the result of the Judgement: If there are at least 7 Yeas, the Council receives the option to vote on Censure for two weeks. Censure will severely hamper a player's ability to do business. Every purchase on the market and contracts will cost the player twice the listed gold amount. In addition, they will not be able to generate Hostility (or conduct/join Raids, see signature), collect Admiralty Points, or join Port Battles, and they will be forcibly evicted from Nation chat for the duration of their Censure. Their OW info box will specify that they are Censured. This option is intended for minor subversive elements that engage in economic espionage, joining battles only to leave or not contribute, and so on. An individual that receives a second Censure Judgement while Censured is simply refreshed to the full two weeks. If there are at least 9 Yeas and the subject has been Censured at least once in the past 30 days, the Council receives the option to Exile the subject. This decision is permanent. Outlaws are still technically members of their nation with a few interesting caveats. They are forcibly evicted from the National chat and treated like permanent smugglers; they cannot craft or open outposts in National ports, and players of that nation (as well as AIs) can actively engage Outlaws without penalty. Once a character has been labelled an Outlaw, that account is restricted from creating a new character in the same nation for 30 days. Outlaws cannot be the Subjects of further Judgements, nor can they take Judgements against other players. Similar to a Censured individual, they cannot join battles for their nation or take out Hostility missions (and will not generate hostility themselves). (might be open to options for redemption.) Outlaws are notified of their existing Outlaw status and see all of their parent nation's ships as hostile. If there are 12 Yeas and the subject has been Censured at least twice in the past 30 days or is currently an Outlaw, the Council receives the option to Execute the subject. This decision is, understandably, permanent. Once an Execution Judgement is resolved for a specified Subject, they are immediately labelled an Outlaw. If this player ever subsequently docks or logs in to a port owned by their parent nation, the character suffers summary deletion, and the account responsible is prohibited from creating a new character in the same nation for 30 days following deletion. This is a serious judgement and should only be rendered on individuals that are proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, to be subversive elements and traitors to the nation. Subjects that are slated for Execution are not notified of this condition. Instead, they are notified of their Outlaw status and, for all intents and purposes, treated like an Outlaw until they dock or log in at a port owned by their nation. If there are 3 or fewer Yeas (the Council is overwhelmingly opposed to the guilt of the Subject), they receive the option to Censure the Plaintiff, instead, for two weeks. This option is present to discourage false claims against loyal Subjects, encouraging Plaintiffs to be certain of the subversiveness of a Subject before purchasing a Judgement against them. If there are 0 Yeas (the Council is Unanimously opposed to the guilt of the Subject) and the Plaintiff has been Censured at least once in the past 30 days, the council receives the option to Exile the Plaintiff instead. This option exists to prevent repeated false claims on loyal Subjects and abuse of Judgements by subversive elements. Let me know what you think, gents, any feedback and changes to this suggestion are always appreciated.

@The Spud, We gave the devs a solid case; photographic evidence and first-hand witness accounts of Charles Hunter was provided doing exactly that (abusing hostility, deliberately joining and not contributing to fights, etc.), and "popular sentiment" was not in favor of a ban, therefore no direct punitive action was taken. @Simon Cadete, I would kindly ask you to keep baseless ad hominem attacks out of Suggestions and address the issue at hand. Your position appears to be that you are in favor of maintaining your disproportionately-high amount of alt accounts in order to field your 35+ first-rate groups faster than they can be captured from you or sank. Also, no one is forcing you to stay on PvP2.

Quite the opposite of the point. I have very little interest in running multiple characters and even less interest in spending the time involved in setting up a second steam account, let alone spending the money on another game account for myself. I would much rather people promote gifting copies of the game to friends over setting up additional accounts for themselves. 10 more players is far and away better compared to two players with eight additional accounts between them. My point is that if the developers are not inclined to openly allow every player easy access to multiple characters, then no player should have multiple characters. Am I perhaps willing to settle for prohibiting cross-nation alts only? Maybe. But when a nation of mostly single-character players has the same number sail up against another nation with roughly equal numbers but vastly superior and uniform ships, something isn't right in the mix there. As far as tracking and detecting alt usage, it's totally possible and quite easy. I'm certain the devs would like some tips and insight into this should they agree with my stance; such a situation is a slim hope, but I won't know till I try, eh?

No, it does not win battles directly, but it does afford the nation with more characters per player to field the best possible ships for the engagement and heavily weights the odds in their favor You misunderstand. If, for instance, Nation A increases hostility to 90% but fails to hit the mark before the battle-scheduling window closes, it makes it feasible for alts to work in concert with Nation A's enemy and raise it to 100% at a time that isn't feasible for Nation A to attend. This in particular is a point of contention since this sort of thing was explicitly stated as a bannable offense, "Using alts to abuse Hostility mechanics [or anything other than Spying and Economic Espionage]," by @admin, and to my knowledge not one alt that has been discovered and proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, to be responsible for this sort of behavior (Charles Hunter, of particular note) has received substantive punitive action. To clarify, this is not an attack on spying or economic treason. I am wholly in favor of these being a player's choice. Some people really love being spies and smugglers, I can dig it. That sort of person does enhance the gameplay experience and make it feel alive and interesting. All I am saying is that if someone chooses to be a spy, they should only be a spy and not playing four different sides on four different characters. On the flip side, if the developers are really okay with alts - open it up. Let us have multiple characters on one account. There are a host of other means of generating revenue besides buying separate accounts. Edit: Chief among these options, instead of buying another account for yourself, how about buying a copy for a friend or friend of friend? I would feel vastly more comfortable and engaged in the game having six people with one account each (even if I'm staring down their guns) rather than one person with six accounts.

@Duncan McFail, So you're in favor of Pay-to-Win is what you're saying. I've said time and again that I'd happily support the game financially in a host of other methods such as supporting in-game cosmetics, expanding the ship lineups, and other non-P2W means. While it is true that a second account can't do anything on its own, mechanically, that the first one can, it is the melding of using cross-nation accounts to do shady tactics like hiding in battles or setting up port battles that oppose the majority of that nation's normal player base. Even if one never uses cross-nation accounts and only uses their extra accounts for economy, you've handily admitted it: Multiple accounts allow one player, one physical body, to do the work of many without requiring cooperation. Since these extra accounts are not freely accessible by everyone, but require an additional purchase of the game (and another Steam account explicitly for that purpose), this therein is the very definition of Pay to Win.

As the title suggests, evidence is mounting that alts, alternate accounts owned and played by the same physical person, are causing more and more frustration with the general playerbase (i.e. non-alt-users). Even without shady things like preventative tagging, counter-aggression, and battle-filling, a person with more than one account has that many more crafting hours, outposts, production buildings, and market contracts. It is the very definition of pay-to-win. Individuals like @Anolytic, who have admitted to having no less than six accounts, are capable of easily belting out exceptional first-rates every single day. This is a major problem for the game at large. Usage of alts in the game, while it is nice for GameLabs, financially, for now, seriously hinders the health of the community and the longevity game. The very ships that the devs have indicated that should be rare and, explicitly, exceptional, are no big deal for people with multiple accounts. Shady tactics like using cross-nation alts to hide in battles, countering or abusing hostility, and entering large-ship battles in small ships, only to escape shortly after the battle begins, are all examples of game-breaking tactics that ruin the fun for the game. I propose that holders of alts at least be allowed to surrender their alt accounts for redeemables (paints and ship chests) for a short period of time. Following this grace period, any person found using an alt should be banned permanently.

Well, if that's the case, maybe after 15 minutes of battle, close the inner circle and force defenders to join from outside the outer circle, eh? *wiggles eyebrows*

On the flip side, I would rather the devs provide clear, concise details on the mechanics that they have envisioned/drafted for feedback before spending development time coding features that wind up being unpleasant and in need of rework. Personally, I hate feeling like my time was wasted because the result wasn't useful or appreciated and, more importantly, have to do it over. I will agree that some of the needless negativity is unwarranted, but proper, constructive criticism, positive or negative, should always be welcomed early and often.

I'm not wholly opposed to this concept. In fact, I came up with something similar (compare/comment, link in sig). Overall, I don't mind if there are NPC ships provided that those NPCs do not preclude players from joining. In other words, if a 25-player fleet shows up to raid a rather large town with 10 NPC defending ships, then those 10 defender NPCs should be in addition to 25 slots for the player defenders. Additionally, I feel like raids should be focused on invading the town directly and disabling the shore defenses rather than merely shooting at other ships. Edit: So, if I'm reading things right, defenders can only join if there are unoccupied NPC boats still available? If the attackers show up with 20-some ships and there's only 8 bots defending, then only 8 defenders can participate? Seems a little one-sided, if that's the case. It does make it nice in that it doesn't put the player's own ships at risk and force them to have ships available all over the place, though. Maybe additionally let players choose to take control of the forts/towers as well?

Updated the main post with the new Historical model. Take a look!

I may be a little behind the curve on this due to the time from the announcement of implementing raids and now, but I figured I'd share my two cents on the matter. Hopefully the community and developers like this concept enough to support and adopt it as future gameplay. Conquest: Taking Control of Counties. Conquest should happen by port battles as it does now, though how we get to port battles will be a little different - through raiding non-capital towns. A captain would be able to purchase a Raid token from the Admiralty (or Brethren Council). Once acquired, the captain would sail to the port they wish to raid and plant their Raid flag within ship-sight of the port docks. This functions much like the old assault flag system did with a few differences: 1) Purchasing a Raid Token does not send a notification to the entire server on which port it is intended for. In fact, Raid tokens are not assigned to a specific port at all*. Any non-capital can be raided at any time*. 2) Sailing through waters controlled by non-allied nations will highlight their territorial waters in red on the map if that port is able to be raided by the token the ship is carrying (see below). Doing so will send a chat notification to the nation that owns that particular port as well (e.g. "Admiralty Notification: Salina Point has spotted a Raid Fleet!"). 2a) Any town that is actively being raided or having a raid token planted will have its territory flash red (as contested ports do) on the map. 3) Raid tokens are differentiated between Shallow and Deep, with restrictions to prevent their being carried by under-rated fast ships. For instance Shallow raid tokens would only able to be held by 6th-rates, and Deep raid tokens could only be able to be held by 4th-rates and up. This fits with the theme of having a literal Flag Ship - the biggest and scariest ship in your fleet. Even if you intend on conducting a raid using, say, Privateers and Cutters, that Heavy Rattlesnake bringing up the rear should be the one with the flag. Raids tokens would also have enough weight that carrying one would preclude carrying more than one additional on board. 4) If a Raid is successful, the individual town in question will become Contested by the raiding nation for 48 hours. If the Raid fails, the port will instead be on High Alert and invulnerable to further raids for the next 72 hours. Upon exiting a Contested state, a town will enter a High Alert status for 24 hours, and Reconstruction for 48 hours during which its defenses will be lessened, but the Raid treasury will also be reduced. Reconstruction can be lessened by delivering War Supplies (or some other similar good) to the town in question to reduce its Reconstruction state by 6-8 hours. 4a) Once a Raid commences, all other non-capital towns enter High Alert for 6 hours and cannot be raided, whether the triggering Raid is successful or not. 5) If, at any point, the majority of non-capital towns (>50%, not =50%) are Contested by the same nation, a Port Battle is scheduled for the following day (or so) around the time that the last town became Contested. This could be done similar to the present means, 22 or 46 hours afterward, or a randomized time +/- 2-3 hours around the time the last port became Contested. 5a) Once a port battle is scheduled, as above, any non-capitals that are Contested will remain Contested until the port battle. If the aggressors in this conflict successfully raid the remaining uncontested ports (if any), the defenses of the capital will be reduced by a certain percentage for each town (minimum half normal strength). 6) If the attackers in a Port Battle are successful, all towns immediately become Contested and change to the victors following maintenance and follow the same pattern as Raided towns (High Alert for 24 hours, Reconstruction for 48). If the defenders of a Port Battle are successful, all towns in the county immediately enter High Alert for 72 hours. Raids: Sacking and Looting Once a Raid begins using the above flag-planting method, attackers will then have 90 minutes to sail in and take the town. Joining a Raid is similar to joining a Port Battle now - an inner Defender circle, and an outer Attacker circle. Attackers usually have the advantage in the element of surprise, but Raiding a town is a tough sell in any case; the objective in a Raid is to sail up to the town and defeat all of its Militia, either by bombarding with cannons or "boarding" the town - there are no capture circles or zones, though sailing too far from the port (5+ km?) will force an attacker to immediately exit (if they are otherwise normally able to) in order to prevent "holding the battle". If the Raid is successful, the town becomes Contested and all attacking participants are distributed a share of gold (and/or other rewards, including admiralty/council vouchers) from the town's coffers (Shallow towns as small as 2 million, perhaps - 80k each for a full 25-ship battle). This sounds easy, but it is complicated by the fact that the forts and towers are still present and will prioritize any ship closest to the town. The towns are also tough nuts to crack - Shallow ports could have up to 500 militia with up to 10% of those as Marines, while Lineship Capitals could have as many as 5000 milita, up to half of which are Marines. Bombing the town with mortars and ball are the most effective at killing defenders, but they also damage the town and will reduce the gold share from the coffers. Captains that engage in boarding will need to be careful with crew setups and boarding commands to avoid being taken by the town. Defenders will need to sink, capture, or drive off all attackers to be successful, but they will receive Admiralty awards if they are. A Raid, like a Port Battle, remains open indefinitely, but the defensive victory condition will engage after 15 minutes; if there's no live attacking ships after 15 minutes, the defenders win. Additionally, War Supplies will become a purely defensive tool; supplying a town, capital or otherwise, with War Supplies will increase the number of town militia, fort guns and militia, small increases to the range of the forts and towers, and potentially even additional Martello towers. At no point should the forts and towers cover the entirety of the combat zone, however. War Supplies: Reinforcing your Defenses Each War Supply will provide the supplied town with 1% Equipment, 2% Supplies, and 0.5% Defense Fleet. Each town starts with 0% Equipment (base values, existing fort defenses and guns with no bonuses), 0% Supplies (base values, existing fort/tower crews and town militia - 250/10%, 800/20%, and 2000/30% respectively), and 20% Defense Fleet (4 random typical ships, most likely 1 2nd rate and 3 3rd rates for a Lineship port). At 100% Equipment, the number of Martello towers is doubled and all fort guns and towers receive a size buff (up one or two weights), a 20% range bonus, a 20% reload bonus, and a 20% accuracy bonus. At 100% Supply, all fort/tower crews are doubled and have increased marines (doubled, up to 50%), and the town's militia and marine percentages are doubled (max 50% marines). At 100% Defense Fleet, the fleet will total 20 and be weighted such that about half of the ships are the best possible for the fight (Heavy Rattles, Aggies/Connies/Waffles, Vics/Oceans/Santis). Towns with high defenses need to keep them maintained, however. Equipment will decay at 2.5% per day when above 50%, Supplies will decay at 5% per day when above 25%, and Defense Fleet will decay at 2% per day when above 40%. This guarantees that not -all- War Supply contributions will be wasted, but maintaining the best possible values for defense will require continuous effort and Labor Hour usage. A single player could supply enough to keep a town's defenses high, but it'll heavily cut into their other crafting. If a Raid or PB are successful, then the defenses reset to base values. If the town is successfully defended, defenses instead reset to the maximum for non-decay. Port Battles: The End Goal Port Battles would be conducted rather similarly to how they are at present, with a few key exceptions: Instead of three circles, one large capture circle, 2.5-4 km in radius, centered on the port. The goal is to have one large combat zone that is approximately half-way covered by fort guns. Defenders would start in this zone and have the initial advantage. Victory Points would be accrued by the BR difference of ships in the combat zone as well as ship captures/sinks/escapes and fort/tower destruction. VPs would instead be accrued at a rate of 1 VP/second per 100/200/400 (6th/4th/1st rates) points of BR difference, capped at 10 VP/sec. Victory for either side would occur at 10,000 VP. Defenders could also win by driving off all opposing ships, while Attackers would have to destroy all land defenses as well as take control of the town (see Raids above). After 60 minutes of battle, the point rate will double every minute (2 VP/s for 60-61, 4 VP/s for 61-62, 8 VP/s for 62-63, and so on). This way, a fight that is dragging out with one side only having 4,000 VP, having had a steady, but slow advantage, will quickly start to wrap things up as the battle draws to a close, ensuring that a port battle will almost never end without one side being victorious. As with Raids, War Supplies will affect the defenses of the town in question similarly. It should be noted that the BR difference is truncated; with one side only having 350 BR greater for a Lineship battle, no VP would be accrued. If the difference is instead 700 BR, it's still only 1 VP/sec. BR of a ship should be dynamic and based on crew - That big L'Ocean with 1,100 crew that suffers a few solid rakes down to 400 crew will not have nearly as much BR to contribute. This victory method is known as the Show-of-Force victory and is useful if only a few opponents show up to contest the battle or attempt to harass and drag out the battle by skirmishing in and out of the combat zone. On the other side, an unopposed battle will only last under 17 minutes. Since the VP rate is also capped at a base of 10 VP per second, that means that having more than 1000/2000/4000 BR will have no additional effect beyond the maximum rate. The accelerating rate after an hour of fighting is multiplied off of this base amount. Let me know what you think, and as always: numbers presented are for the purpose of illustration - they are details that can be adjusted. The concepts are more important than specific numbers.