Licinio Chiavari

Proper ONLY thinking to United Kingdom and Royal Navy. That's not the Bible nor NA world. Try again. About traders... I liked raiding in Indiaman. And LGVR has been always a raider. Are you sure newbies will get a better life? Try again... switchin' the brain on could help. If you're referring to "defenCe", you're right. Still UK is not anymore the Empire. Try again.

RL Brits are GB-centric.

We joined in 2 minutes window. Otherwise the Battle being same BR would close. No few shot exchange. Try again. You're supposing. Still in Battle after 40 mins post-DC? Try again. You had lower structure and sails than me and not a very fast Surp (LO/WO, right?). I would catch in anycase. Then the point. Why in the hell should he surrend a full ship to a sinking "enemy"? TRY AGAIN. Note: why did you say previously (at topic start) you were crippled but not sinking but now you were practically sunk? Mirror free climbing is a difficult discipline. Cpt.Miracle did the same insta-surrender deliveroo ship to Sneaky. Sneaky didnt "kill" me. I dropped sails and stop playing. He boarded me and I didnt do anything (auto-brace) as clearly stated. Try again. Are you sure a low crew Herc or Surp with no books vs a decent low damaged Renomee? Try again. How your 145 crew (you boarded me and even with full prep and marines you were unable to capture me) sinking surp would board a brand new Surp coming from upwind? Not to say: why a the RESO Surp (top rank) should allow you to board while sinking... While he's not firing a single shot? Try again a lot. I repped sails (again) I was not heavily chained in that moment. Try again. Me died? How? Facing 1v1 at worst Herc (Sneaky) without books on a good shape Renomee close to rep again? Are you kidding? Trolling? Try again harder. PS: why did you feel the need to stay in battle quite a lot to re-get your ship then rep her a second time, then demasting and sinking a prussian Surp you got? For screen? Needing them to feel "good"?

did you start playing yesterday? Swedes were next to Prussians: you were running the Swedes with sails up, not the Prussians with sails down. PS: your Surp was unable to run everywhere before Prussian intervention. Try again. You're insulting yourself. I thought you're a good player a bit lame. Now I know you're a person unworthy any respect. Edit: second auto-insult is making all thinking there're not means of contact among players aside the ingame chat and PM. Try again.

Surrendering happened when they could leave the battle: circle was shrinking and nobody tagged them. WHY SURRENDERING? Why, especially, surrendering NEXT to (one sinking) enemy ship aside to give him A NEW SHIP? Honestly if even this is not punishable - well... it means this is a game of exploit. Dont think Italians in Sweden have not the numbers to do the same crap in PZ as elsewhere. Simply it's not MY game.

they stayed sails down for approximately FORTY MINUTES. As they dropped sails at start I supposed they dont want to fight on the "ganking" side. And it is fine - EVEN IF NOT COMMENDABLE: it's a PZ and anyone can join the "weak side". As long as you have advantage you fight taking this into account so aiming to kill as fast as possible even getting damaged BEFORE someone could join the weak side. In such situation is VERY unsport for your "side mates" to not fight: you can end seeing the mates damaged to sink fast the weak side... then 3 enemy ships joining in group in the middle of them... killing fastly them and THEN killing you 3v2. Not intervening in a battle with full commitment is simply stupid and could be ending to be really un-sport. It's douable and fine if the "stronger" side are all together in a group and they TOGETHER choose to let a gank be a duel - as happened (and we paid that dearly because in that chance we got counter-ganked by duelist nation). As I repeatly pointed the central question is: WHY IN THE HELL THE TWO PRUSSIANS SURRENDERED NEXT TO THE "ENEMY"? And about Greg's suppose sportmanship, it's nothing. I clearly declared I stopped fighting and I dropped sails - also writing I'd report this misuse of game mechanics... and they kept fighting.

I should not even speak with you. The lowness of this dirty action speak for itself. STILL you are simply lying. This screen is prepared AFTER the end of the battle. You'd note that you got a Surprise as your fleet 0 CAPTURED - BY WHOM? granted we stopped playing? you simply destroyed it after battle. AND YOUR SURPRISE WAS AT ZERO STRUCTURE when you got the new surprise. May be you was repping BUT I remember well seeing you at ZERO structure so probably you were repping and this saved your ship... still NOT RELEVANT having next to you an almost full Renomee - BUT you got the Prussian one... you didnt capture IT. HE SURRENDERED as in the same screenshot. I was so surprised of the outcome that Devs could check the chat log of the battle: when Prussians sailed (IN PLACE OF SIMPLY LEAVING THANKING GOD THEY DIDNT DC-ED IN AN ACTUAL 2v2) I joked they were getting the loot (and I could open fire on them for loot stealing - as per procedure approved by devs). MOREOVER as soon as the "prussian" fired on my side I shouted "GREEN ON GREEN?" - again in chat log... thinking he was still PRUSSIAN... BECAUSE IT WAS SIMPLY IMPOSSIBLE for you to WIN a boarding even if he was so silly to get boarded: you already fought a lenghtly boarding vs me: you were down to 145 crew and the Prussian was full. AND INDEED the screen CONFIRMS HE SURRENDERED. Can you explain WHY a player with a full ship SHOULD EVER SURRENDER NEXT TO A SINKING "ENEMY" - and WHY BOTH PRUSSIANS DID NEXT TO BOTH SNOW ships? That said I think Devs can check the battle log files and reconstruct what happened and what doesnt. Any conversation with you is closed aside commenting any lie you'd dare to write again. PS (edit): This screen is clearly did WELL after the Battle ended because NO Surp lost its masts during battle. Make this better.

For simpler log finding: Battle started approx 21.30 GMT. Battle ended 22.15 GMT. Location Nassau PZ. d My mates found a 2v1 soon became a 2v2. We joined Prussian side making this 5v2. Players involved Gregory Rainsborough + Sneakypanda vs RESOs Hermann Wilhelm + Captain Miracle. Prussians DIDNT act till almost the battle end. Sneakypanda boarded Grigio and get his Hercules. Gregory was sinking. THEN the 2 RESOs sailed up (I was thinking as in chat that they wished to sneak the loot) AND THEN each one let the 2 SNOWs boarding them and surrendering giving them 2 new full ships. I ordered my mate to stop any action as I did immediately. I advised that I will report this behaviour. They kept fighting killing my mate and boarding (me on auto brace) mine. Sincerely I consider this the worst abuse of game mechanics I ever witnessed in years and indeed I (not remembering any case) NEVER reported anyone to Tribunal (even if I saw plenty of censurable actions). But this is really outside anything acceptable in my opinion. I hope @admin, @Ink and other moderators and devs, after looking at battle log and having proof of that was what happened would consider a proper punishment because such a behaviour should be considered the most player base (any less known / new player) killing action: facing such a low action is pure game mechanics abuse thanks to older players reciprocal "friendship".

May be that the point "Truxillo was GB and was to be alt flipped to become swedish under GB alt control, and Maracaibo was and is and was espected to remain Dutch" should be a bit more underlined.

It's a long discussion. The easiness of stern raking is son of unreal turning and sailing profiles... Still "needed" to make the game enjoyable (real 1800 naval fight was quite dull). Still the sterncamping to death is less easy than depicted even if on a Snow: even vs. a mid level adversary on a much bigger ship a Snow has just 1-2 error allowance before dying or at least risking a lot. The first strong hit on masts or on sails or hull (that's means receiving a single good broadside) lead to the decision to keep fighting or breaking off. If the snow keeps fighting, he will die to the second error for the next 10 minutes. The killing capacity of Snows (and similar ships sterncamping) is based on the low level of experience, even of a good share of veterans, on small ships - because all rush the big boys. It's same rule with LRQ even when far stronger with super elite pirate rig and Redoutable muskets one year ago: if you really know her, you know how to fight and kill her. At that time I used a Privateer to hunt LRQs, to say. The same with a pesty sterncamping snow.

I was referring more to the knowledge about his masts, not enemy's one.

Reasonable point. And true. But I was saying that no ship hits her top speed at beam or close haul. So the reworking of sailing profiles would mean that schooners and xebec hitting their (reworked a bit lower) top speed at broad reach (more to beam) as any ship simply maintaning a good share of speed at beam (a bit better than square rigged - in game, not in truth) and still a decent one at close haul... With schooners performing better than xebec at close haul (as it is already). The final effect would be that fast fore-aft ships would be able to still chase downwind but unable to easily run upwind if heavily damaged... While now we have the unreal situation for these ships to be unable to chase downwind even a slow ship and on the same time they are able to run upwind even if badly crippled. So making them less annoying (easier to kill) but more effective as hunter (being able to chase other ships). In the end the balacing issue that is son - again - of totally weird sailing profiles for not square rigged ships.

Shut up kit. You're clueless.

Where did I speak about mega buff? 🤔 Look like loathe is even more blind.

On that I always agree. And the real problem stands on sailing profile: no ship hits her top speed at close haul. Reworking sailing profiles and adding other light stuff and may be a xebec-frigate would solve balancing issues.