Tonnerre de Brest

u guys know where to find me when I'm not at sea...

This idea is similar to Rebel Witch's (http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/16483-player-convoy-pvp-option/) and I have seen other threads similar before. I hope some mechanism is implemented to do this at some point. Commuting back and forth one single trader gets old fast. Being able to have a fleet of loaded traders would really help. Also it would create nice juicy targets for PVPers as well.

Deleted duplicate information-disregard

Skully I understand what you're saying but just for the fact that "pirates" is part of the game, and we are allowed to play as pirates makes us follow some kind of rule of this game. If we want to have pirates in this game they need to be part of the game system in order for the game to be functional. If I barge in on a monopoly game and steal the pieces off the board, I'll be acting up as a real pirate (which might be satisfying to me), however because the game doesn't have parameters for that behavior it will essentially be a show stopper for everyone playing it. If the game has enough freedom of action on one end to allow pirates to act in the game somewhat like pirates and the rest of the players are at least aware of possible pirate behaviors, then the game can be functional, and nobody will complain that they were jumped by a pirate posing as a friend. We just need to list these possibilities and make them "legal" within the confine of what is expected of a pirate. For instance in my previous post, if a pirate join temporarily a national during an engagement, as soon as the battle is over, if won by the pirate and allies, a real pirate might turn against his allies now that danger is manageable. This behavior as disturbing as it might sound is not unlike what an actual pirate might have done in the days and could be easily implemented in the game as an option. Instead of the end of battle screen assuming the pirate allies won you could just give back the pirate his "neutral" status again. He then can exit the battle or might decide of another action like taking a shot at his former ally and turn his icon red. This could also be true for the ally who might want to get rid of the pirate after he got some of his help. When no shots are fired or both parties decide to click the exit button the battle is over. All I'm saying is that since "pirates" is part of the game, pirate behavior needs to be part of the game rules. Otherwise if we act like pirates outside the rules of the game, it becomes unplayable for the rest of the game community.

I would suggest the game developers an alternative to allow for real life situations that occurred on the seas, more specifically with pirates. It was not uncommon for pirates to either fly a false flag and switch at the last moment or not uncover their intention until it was too late to escape them. Yet the game needs to work for everyone. I would suggest a change to the mechanics as such and this for pirates only: 1) -If a pirate captain joins and ongoing battle between two parties and one of these parties has political ties with the pirate nation he must join the allied nation by default with the green icon showing for that nation. If he breaks that alliance and shoots the green icon he also breaks the game rules and is facing the dire consequences. 2) -If a pirate captain joins an ongoing battle between two nations who have NO political ties with the pirate nation, the pirate spawns in the battle in a neutral area with a neutral flag of some kind and at least no icon colour to be sided with (white?). Once he fires the first shot at one nation's boat his icon turns green for the other party. He is now bound to this new temporary alliance until the end of the engagement. If he breaks this temporary alliance during the engagement he also breaks the game rules and is facing the dire consequences. The pirate might delay his first shot till he's closer but at least all parties are warned that they're dealing with a pirate and he can play either side. Provisions might be needed for the case when the pirate is being shot at first rather than shoot first. My inclination would be that he stays neutral even if shot at until he has picked a side by shooting at the other. This would not affect the rest of the game but allow for this realistic event to take place as it did in history and without exploiting the game mechanism to create an unwelcome backstabbing trick.

Yes these mistake happen in all engagements but usually with it comes an apology or some kind of acknowledgement to your team mate that it was unintentional. In most instance this event is not repeated over and over until you sink. If it occurs, it's hard to justify an honest mistake. I have seen full broadside sent to a friendly by accident as the captain was disoriented and could not see the icon above the ship because he was too close. But it happened only once in the battle and came with loads of apologies.

At the risk of overstepping my rank I would advance that as large and organized as it is, the BLACK clan is only a clan and is not the whole pirate nation and, as far as I know, is not responsible for the security of the entire pirate nation. Knowing how independent of politics and government pirates players are, each clan or individual can decide of where and when to engage and if multiple ports are being attacked, I don't think it would be fair to put all the burden of responsibility on that one clan to split their own forces to defend the whole pirate map when it is challenged in diverse geographic areas. When multiple flags are taken, since there is no way to know the actual numbers in the attacking forces, the sensible approach for a clan would be to assess which port is the most important target strategically and go protect that port as one large force. Oh... and I'm sorry to butt in while we're still out of topic from the battle for Port Antonio.

I'm just trying to imagine securing even a very accurate rifle to the side of a moving sailboat and trying to hit a particular spot on another moving sailboat.. I think it would be just pure luck to hit anything at all. Since I never fired a real naval cannon, I can't really say much about it. However, The unpredictability of the wave patterns + wind + delays of the fuse, inaccuracy of the gun and shot + moving shooting platform + moving target, etc... Unless at point blank or at least a short range it seems that it would be pure coincidence to score a hit and nothing short of a miracle to hit the intended spot on the target ship. As they say quantity has a quality of its own so provided you shoot enough bullets you'll eventually hit something. However as a game I rather like the idea that you can use skills and not just rely on luck to score a hit. It is a lot more satisfying to know I made the shot rather than some random generator programmed in the software.

Same here, I've been reading about these events but can't participate due to work schedule.

If you sailed all the way to a port in a 3rd rate and find yourself stuck because the third rate quota is filled... you might have some very unhappy gamer there. This could work but I don't know what mechanic you'd have to setup to avoid pissed off stranded players who can't participate in port battles. The port system as it stands helps curb these excesses power to some degree. Would you also then limit how many Mercury ships can attend a shallow port battle? These are the top of the food chain for shallow ports. I think that if a group of captains feel up to the task of attacking a deep water port that allows a certain type of vessel then they'll do their best to get the best and most powerful tool for the job. If they don't have that capacity maybe they should attack (or defend) a more modest target. If anything is broken in the current system, it is how easy it is to attack a port that is not defended by players. There should at least be some kind of AI fleet guarding the port in the proportion of its size and importance. The lack of resistance makes it ridiculously easy to take ports. I have captured deep water ports alone in a Mortar Brig. I feel that it should not be possible in order to keep some balance in this "world". Capturing a port was a rare and major event in history that would involve large forces on both sides of the fence and it would be nice to have this reflected in the game as well. but I'm getting off topic here.... The idea or a lobby is ok but I think you'll have a hard time figuring out a mechanic for it.

The problem with larger kits is that you end up using only half a kit sometimes while still spending the gold for the whole thing. The smaller kits allow you to be more granular and it's not so bad if you waste the value of two or three crews. Also the larger kits aren't that available everywhere and I bet that most players would rather spend their crafting hours building ships or upgrades which will be usable over time instead of one time use kits.

I have the same issue with medkits after battle on a pavel or vic where one might loose 100+ in battle it can become rather tedious.

For a while I have been wondering why we have a telescope to see ships closer in open world. It doesn't seem that we see more or get more information by looking at the scope. In the regular view you can select a boat that is barely a dot in the horizon and get full information on it. Furthermore you don't see more in the haze whether you look with or without the scope. Bigger doesn't really make a big difference since we're all looking at screens. Suggestion: First make ship visually "sink" in the horizon to simulate curvature of the earth . A ship far away might show only the top of the mast depending on the size of the ship. If you want to see more switch to the telescope to simulate sending a lookout up the mast and you'll see more of the ship since you're higher (you are reducing the angle created by the curve of the earth). Second, to enhance the contrast between regular view and telescope view, make it so in the regular view ships can only be seen as they are and without any information and data; Then when you switch to telescope view, it lets you identify a ship in the horizon with all the data as we currently do. Third, remove some of the haze while in telescope view. Some ships may appear that you could not see while "naked eyes" or land features, flags etc... that you where too far to see are now clearer. As a whole this is more realistic than clicking from one spot to another regardless of how far they are. You identify one boat at a time with the glass. Also it simulates the ability to see past the curvature of the earth by climbing up the mast as well as collecting more light in the scope to cut through some of the haze or darkness of the night.

I must admit that I do have more than one account. I use one for trading and crafting only and one for battles etc... Especially with the officer system it is hard to make do with just one. One officer has crafting perks on one account and the other is a warrior blessed with battle enhancing perks. My kid has also an account in a different country than either of my characters and we sometime trade with each others and sometimes fight each other for fun (remember it's a game and things don't have to be so darn serious!!) The dual account doesn't explicitly make me a spy unless I was going to actually spy (which if I was, would actually be one more interesting twist in the game by the way since there were spies in the days of sailing ships as there are spies in our modern world). I'm not sure why this should be a problem for the developers if a person wishes to own several copies of the game (more money to them in fact). And while I'm playing devil's advocate right now, just like you, I bitch and moan when I find out my plans have been foiled by someone listening in on nation chat or else. However it is part of the game (and probably many other games as well, I can't imagine this is the only place where this behavior is actually witnessed). I think it is one of those issues that, if you find a way to enforce it by blackballing every player with a dual account will actually cripple more "honest" players than actual "spies". I'm personally more interested in naval battles and ships maneuvering but there's room for all kind of players, spies, pirates, honest and dishonest traders and crafters, now we're going to have also crooked politicians as well as honest ones, etc... Personally I believe "sandbox" games need that diversity in order to be that much richer and fun as an experience. By the way, one avenue to fight enemy intelligence is counter intelligence--More intrigue, hiding, etc... I'm sure more than one player out there in the mass of all in Naval Action has an interest in catching spies and it probably would be more fun to do as a player than having the software be the police for everyone to "behave".

I'm no big trader but I must say that the fleet ships aren't that useful for defense while on a trading run. Nobody want's to be caught alone in a trader and even with a fleet as defense the chances of making it are remote as the AI ships can't fight that well. This is one of the reasons folk use the shipping system in free towns instead of using a more realistic way--sailing merchant ships. I would rather be able to use a warship and be the security escort for my own loaded traders as a fleet. That way not only my traders stand a better chance to survive an attack but also it's more fun for everyone. It would give traders a good incentive to become good fighters as well since they have something to loose and now would have the means to defend it. Also if things go wrong you can't blame it on the AI ships but only on yourself. So in short I would suggest the developers to allow loaded traders as a fleet. That would resolve some of the issues and add to the fun for sure.

Sorry to come in late in this topic ( I have not played this game very long and trying to read everything in the forum...catching up) In general sounds are really awesome and it's great that they have been set to not be too discernible as far as voices. Otherwise constant repetition would become quickly annoying. I used to live on a sailboat some time ago and there two sounds that feel to me are missing in the game although trivial compared to cannons etc...They are adding to the mood you get aboard. 1/ The sound of the boat at anchor (there's no anchor but when it's not moving-therefore simulating being on the hook). Halyards banging softly against the mast along with the clapping of water against the hull. Especially if it's stormy or very windy they get pretty loud and if they are pulled too tight they'll start howling and whistling. 2/ The howling of halyards, sheets and all lines (ropes) in general when in very windy or stormy weather. It really is a haunting and rather loud sound when it starts piping above 30 knots of wind. This is already an awesome and unique game. Hard to believe it's only Alpha!

The fame of a pirate could be related to the price on his head

Just a few questions: With the addition of these new features in the game, will there still be room for players who do not want to be involved with politics and just want to pvp, craft, trade, etc...? -Will the transition to this system affect people who already have shipyards and/or mines, forest, etc..? -If so how will it affect them? >> All nations are at war with each other/ Unless you have signed an alliance Alliance gives the following options You can support each other in port battles You can enter each other battles You can enter each other ports You can build in each other ports >> -Will there still be on the map permanent "Free Towns" that will not be affected by the political system? >> If both nations have proposed and voted the peaceful change in the national relationship it is formally signed for 30 days (or longer?) and must be mutual >> -If one build an outpost in an allied port (allied for 30 days or more) what happens to their holdings when the alliance is not renewed? I'm not much into politics in general and rather like the sailing and fighting part of this game, yet these changes might possibly add some focus and direction as well as more strategic decisions and group efforts.

Most war games I have played would end up with a reset of some sort. There would be a goal to achieve announced by the host, then once the goal is met, the map resets and another goal is put forth. However in the context of a multi nation world, I'm not sure what that would look like. I have played french for a while and the stagnation derived from the annihilation of france pushed a lot of players to leave to other countries. A reset when there was only the capital left might have help them stay. France is slowly coming back to life but it took some of us to bargain for ports to be taken back and this was not without difficulty. I myself gave up recently and moved to another faction. Reward the winners just like in real life loosing countries have paid huge sums as tribute. In this case you could simulate that by giving out some upgrade or special flag, moneys or ship in redeemable area. Once celebration is over just reset the map.

To a testing/troubleshooting stand point having 2 servers gives 2 different outcomes on how the game can and could develop. I you have one instance only then you might be seeing the results of an exception or a fluke. With 2 instances (2 servers) you might start seeing behavior patterns. When PVP1 crashed the PVP2 server was able to absorb all the stranded players. IMO as an ALPHA game they should keep both servers going just to have redundancy and that's probably why they're still both there at this point in time. Two servers are an asset as well for testing different patches on one server and deploy on the next one when the first has demonstrated stability. I would think that if a merger should happen it would probably be at release and not before unless there are other issues (financial?support staff?).