Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Bach

Ensign
  • Posts

    1,108
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by Bach

  1. 29 minutes ago, Khyron said:

    I'm not getting involved is a yelling match, or anything, but there were some of us, not in 1st rates outside of the PB, only thing we got to attack were some Brits that came up. had a good time, friendly chat in the battle. and when it was done, sailed away... now if the goal was to distract black into a PB so you can hunt smaller ships at Mort, good job, you win.

    It seems to have created several spin off pvp events in a few locations.  It's not that the goal was sinking ships in front of MT.  Had the Pirates not shown in a 25 ship near max fleet we would have just as happily went into the port battle. The tactic just gives us the option to react to the opposing teams choice,. BLACK seemed to have opted for Death Star fleet. So we reacted and went to the secondary target.

    i think there are many of us having fun and it was good to see the Brits getting into it.  We learned some new things as well.  One is that our tactic had one huge flaw in it that we were very greatful the Pirates fleet didn't figure out. If so they could have potentially had more fun than us. 😊

    • Like 2
  2. @admin

    I do see the potential but also see a few problems.

    #1 If the map resets and nation ports are frozen all conquest players would logically join Spain to be able to teleport around the map. Resulting in almost all war companies joining the Spanish nation.  USA, Dutch, Sweden, Pirates and Denmark would be very unattractive nations for war companies.  So war companies would be centered in Spain, GB and France.

    #2 Players using regular clan warehouses may be reluctant to switch into war companies if they can not maintain their original non-war clan at the same time. 

    #3 Econ is effected as a strong war clan can capture all the ports producing certain raw materials. For example the East India war company could own all White Oak producing ports and max the taxes on this commodity to all others.  The Hanseatic league could control a region of the map by gaining all OAK producing ports and raising taxes 25% thereby driving out all non-Hanseatic Econ players.

    #4 Taxes on trade goods can result in wealth hoarding by war companies. example Textile mills or Parisian furniture with a 25% tax become problematic commodities to anyone other than that war clan.

     

    Not all bad but something to consider.

  3. 13 minutes ago, Simon Cadete said:

    So what was Cap Francais all about? 

    You scheduled it, had a bunch of ships outside and when our fleet left Mort, you guys scattered and hid at La Tortue. 

    You could have engaged our fleet on the way to the port battle or later in the pb itself. 

    By your own definition you are all a bunch pvers

     

    Im sure some tactician on your nation can explain this better than a few lines of type.  It was about forcing the enemy to move out of position to expose weaker units.  If you don't move your main fleet we take the port. If you do move the fleet to defend we can attack the flank as long as we're more mobile. The result was multiple pirate kills by French players while the pirate fleet was otherwise occupied elsewhere.  I even got a nice screenie of our squadron parked in front of the fort at Mortimer Town. :)

    Closest real life thing I could relate it too is possible the pre D-Day assaults on the beaches of Upper Normandy that convinced the Germans that the allies wanted those beaches for a short run to Berlin. When in reality they wanted the lighter defended beaches of lower Normandy. The Germans moved the panzers to the upper area for defense and the allied attack was in the lower with success.

    • Like 2
  4. Couple of points:

    I like Hodo's take on WWII and Pearl Harbor.  I'm of the opinion the USA knew the attack was coming and purposely stalled the Japanese declaration.  It was awfully convenient that both the modern fleet and the bomber squadrons had all been ordered out of port. The Arizona was a WW1 era dreadnaught. It was never doing anything in the modern fleet.  In the case the similarity would be that NA France always expected Denmark to break the treaty. As such, everything valuable had already been moved out of the region.

    Port Battles shouldn't be called PVE. To some they are the height of game play. But the port doesn't choose when it is flipped.  During the first Franco-Dane trade war it was almost all pure off hour opponent flips.  They came in, they sunk NPCs and the next day that sat in a half empty port battle for an hour. Then we came and sunk NPCs and the next day sat in a half empty port battle for an hour. This went on for a month. We learned a few things. Like, to master off hour port battle ping pong you need to master PVE.  We also learned that when neither side is actually losing ships they port you ping pong are actually irrelevant, other than basing for the next pong, because you don't need the port to build ships.

  5. 4 hours ago, Jean Pual Vilvenue said:

    It is a problem for you, because your ports are being taken as a result of this broken agreement.

    Most ridiculous post patch statement yet.  What it will do is the exact same thing we're doing for the pirates right now. Its just going to remove the PVE players. Most of which already just joined the Danes.  There are no hard core pvp players living out of the French ports. If they were they would have been sailing 2hours a day to pvp off Mortimer Town.  I abandoned almost all my French ports over a month ago to free up slots for free ports.  I'm probably not alone.

    No one is actually going to get hurt by sustained night flips anymore. The Devs did a pretty good job in the way they adjusted the econ system.  The game is now more about pvp and less about owning dots like last year.

    • Like 2
  6. 57 minutes ago, Landomatic said:

    I completely agree with you. Which is weirdly ironic as your clan's position on this matter is one of hypocrisy and eroded integrity, regardless of how you word it or wiggle out of your blatant disregard for the peace that was made before Bork and Purge needed to make their own; while crying wolf about the Terre regions which I'm told were useless to all parties involved.

    Well, WO asking "HEY DONT SHOOT THESE GUYS" is a bit different from ICS saying "HEY WE'RE GIVING THOSE GUYS TWO COUNTIES THAT SOME OF YOU HAPPEN TO BE LIVING IN". 

    But I get your point.

  7. 11 minutes ago, Landomatic said:

    It's hypocritical .........<snip>

    Clearly Bork and ICS have some issues to work out. This will be a good chance for that.

    Purge never had any interest in controlling France or making ICS look bad. We didn't know you well enough one way or the other at the time. But Purge has never wanted to be in charge of France then or now.  So there were no secret plans to take over. That must be someone else's paranoia or disinformation campaign.

    RvR is something I think ICS valued for the most part.  Possibly more than most of the rest of France. I think it may, in a way, have been driving the wedge between.  From the beginning it seemed the desire to ally with the Danes, for what some considered a high cost, was RvR driven. That's not a bad thing. But I think it created some of the conflict.  In any event now is your chance for a RvR on your terms and I'm sure the rest of the French don't really mind the game play.  I really hope you guys have fun and have found a better place you like. It never really sat well with me that you were never really getting to do much. But you have to at least share some of the blame in that.

    • Like 1
  8. Im curious to figure out how the game social dynamic works better.

    In different instances Nations have tried to generate situations where we PvP our neighbors but don't RvR them. Mixed levels of success and I'm not really sure which actually worked better.

    Pirates moved into the USA and took Georgia. This then determined terms for PvP with a weaker nation where the Pirates simply chose not the take more ports. Is this more preferable to a treaty that stipulated PvP on the OW but restricted RvR?  Pirates essentially used this same method on GB.

    Denmark chose to protect Sweden in RvR by treaty that allowed for PvP.  But did this actually work well or not? It may have but there are so few Swedes it's hard to tell.

    France chose to not take Dutch ports but to just PvP with them on the sea. No treaty and no show of RvR force to determine terms. From forum posts it appears this method did not work. In fact it probably turned out to be the worst of the three as there was never any clear expectations set.

    to be honest I am leaning that the Pirates simple and direct method works best. Though it's arguable the Dane treaty helped the Swedes it's difficult for new players or even transferring clans to play with existing treaties pinning them down.  The pirate method doesn't pin anyone down. You simply break out of it when strong enough.  The treaty version has no flexible way to get out of it.

    If I had to do it again I honestly think the Dutch would have appreciated it more had the French just moved in and took a county like the Pirates had done.  How would you go about setting up a PvP with RvR restriction situation and what are your thoughts on them?

  9. 1 hour ago, Mike the Mongel said:

    France already giving up :(  all that talk on Global and its Rainbow Coalition (France, US, Brits) and the chest beating going on...and they already folding up ???? dam people you have the largest group of players between all 3 Nations hands down, and you giving up already...ouch, seriously.

    That's just Red Duke. He gets so few chances to wave the white flag.

    I'm pretty sure there is no "rainbow coalition".  Have you ever tried to coordinate anything with the Brits or USA?  This is just about Pirates needing a worthy opponent.  You backed the USA into a corner. Got the Brits so flustered a bunch of them left the nation. Made a post declaring your victory and the terms the Brits could live under. All that added together just speaks out that Pirates need more competition.  Well here we are. :)

    The new Dane, former AUSEZ, former Dutch, former French, Swedish coalition are just going to liven things up. It will be good for the game to get some conflict going and there are enough French in the backfield to play with them. The night flips will be annoying but it is what it is.  If we did this thing right we would all get together and divide up clans by PvP/RvR/PVE and time zone tendencies and balance it all out. Eventually the sand box will get there on its own.

  10. 20 minutes ago, Davos Seasworth said:

    Now i do see where you are coming from with the whole "honour" bit. The previous agreement was made by CCCP on the Danish side. Neither SCAR, HOST, or even DICS signed to such an agreement and no effort was made to include them. 

    It's an honorable thing to maintain a reasonable respect for your nation mates agreements with others. For example, when BLACK made agreement with WO. Technically it didn't include any other French clans. But it was still respected by the others.  Now it may be a loophole that SCAR, HOST and DICS are not in the agreement but you certainly can not say they were not aware of it. Also, I find it unlikely that SCAR, HOST and DICS were ever signatory to the original CCCP-BLACK agreement they claim to be honoring.  So it's a bit of the new clans coming in and then choosing which of the existing agreements they wish to honor and which not.  Nothing wrong with that. But the possibility to honor both agreements did exist in the 72hr break clause.  Not implementing it before CCCP ships participate in attacks on France falls squarely on CCCP captains shoulders.  Does any of the that matter in the grand scheme?  Perhaps not. But much of the drama around the first Dane v France conflict centered around honor of agreements made.  So in this particular instance it was a battle of whom could hold out NOT breaking the agreement longer. Turns out CCCP lost that contest. Though I personally think it was due to much external influences.

    • Like 1
  11. 1 hour ago, Fastidius said:

    OK firstly CCCP did not start the action. SCAR and DICS did.  2ndly you flipped a port of an ally and thus triggered a response.  I actually commend CCCP for actually honouring the alliance between themselves and the pirates.  I personally have had discussions with them regarding this prior to it happening and reality is Alliance was clearly stated in the nation status post for a while.  We have not actually taken the port /ports yet and you haven't taken the pirate port yet so perhaps you can think of this more as posturing than breaking the deal at this point.

    right now were are on the brink of breaking into a full conflict.  No one has been hurt yet....whats your play?

     

    as you can see in your screen caps there has been a discussion about Diplo and what people actually want to do. We also said that although chailang wants to break the deal we had to wait for you to break it.  so really all you are doing is highlighting that we wanted to move but were hand tied.  You then attacked an allied port which triggered a response.  If you also looked at nation chat today there was also me saying to chailang that the French attacked the pirates and that the alliance was there before the NAP and you're allowed to respond. You might want to think about how you look at diplomacy if you think you can isolate yourselves with NAPs.

    Again at this moment you have a decision to make as to whether you are a PVP nation who lives in freeports with a happy few ports at home Or you are an RvR nation with all the good and bad that holds.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    My play?  It's for all out conflict sweetheart and I'm the nice one of the bunch picking that.

    Are we a PvP nation living out of Free Ports or an RvR nation? We're a PvP nation that prepared to live out if free ports from the first day the Danes attacked us the first time.  Thinking we're going to bother with RvR ping pong or that it it will effect us will be your mistake.

  12. Hehe. No need for to much drama we all knew this was coming eventually.

    Well it may not be fair to blame Chialang. Seems Fasti was behind the Pearl Harbour move.  Sure we may have attacked pirates who were allied to the Danes. But that doesn't remove the 72hr notice clause in our NAP.  Honor would have dictated simply dropping the 72hr notice and then proceeding.  The Pearl Harbour style attack just makes CCCP look bad.

     

  13. 1 hour ago, Fastidius said:

     

    This may be global specific:-

    Population is too low for this size map by a long way.  unless your on at US primetime there is a lot of screensaver time going on.  Close the gulf from selam/barataria west  and increase open world sail speed by another 25% IMO to make it semi viable.

    PvP only works in a small area and the bulk of the map is screensaver.

    RvR is broken and although the idea of port battles is nice it has a detrimental affect to the game when you can flip ports to PB in such a short time and there is very limited ways to counteract it.   For instance if someone starts grinding hostility. unless it is less than an hours sail you may as well just prep for a PB.  Fleet resetting and OP fleeting created this problem and war supplies changes hurt defence as much as hindered attacks.  Make port battles 15 v 15 may help that for this population level also since it is unlikely that you will get 30% of the online population into one spot at any time of the day.

    the system needs to scale down.

    I think you are spot on of the nature of the problem. We really are not at "global" population server. its more a USA zone server.   Best thing we could do to try to remedy that is probably adjust for the Aussie/Asia players by concentrating them into the more dense packed area of the map. Essentially the center.  Somehow we need to get the players in these time zones closer together and on opposing teams so they can have some fun.  Currently that would be to get them near the center of the map. Probably divided up on the pirate/Brit teams. Or maybe even a USA contingent vs a pirate contingent.

  14. So far I have to say I like most all the new changes. Pvp is working well. RvR needs a few tweaks here and there but all in all I am finding this fun and challenging.

    One thing I wish wasn't happening is all the complaining by players who expected this to just be the continuation on last years PVP2.  It's just slowing us all down with useless emotional drama.

    I could get into a long list of differences between pre and post wipe but I won't.  I'm just going to say that every nation is viable and has a role to play. The easiest way to get some fun going is not to worry so much about winning port battles. Just go out there and make something happen win or lose. Try NOT to do exactly what you would have done on old pvp2.  Get creative and use the new rule set.  Short of Spain I can't think of one nation out there that doesn't have huge potential and that's just because Spain has no players.

    What would your strategy be if you were The King of your nation?

     

    • Like 5
  15. 8 minutes ago, Barbancourt (rownd) said:

     

    Even if that were true they'd have to be at the origin, sail to the destination, and then back to the origin, and then on to the next place etc, so they might as well go along the whole time.

     

    Typically I travel solo and arm my cargo ships. I've gotten jumped a few times and fought off/sunk the attackers. I don't believe in speed build merchants post patch. Your just not fast enough anyway so I just build them to fight.  But more to the point. Yes, a player should plan on how to go the route solo but that doesn't mean he can't call for an escort at critical locations as needed.  If national players are ready and willing to provide the escort/lookout things should generally work out in favor of the cargo hauler.

  16. 7 hours ago, Sir Lancelot Holland said:

    With respect Sir, you don't need mountains of time for escort duties. Escorts would only be required where merchants are most vulnerable. If the enemy had a fleet of CSS Hunley's, I-boats or U-boats I would be more inclined to agree on the time issue, but in open waters finding and sinking convoys in 18th/19th century surface ships is akin to finding needles in a haystack even when you have intelligence as to points of departure and arrival, sailing times et al, as it was, also, during the 20th century until the advent of surveillance satellites. 

    This is a good point. The actual escort rarely needs to be anywhere but at the end points of they travel route.

  17. 28 minutes ago, Hodo said:

    Oh like those ML guys last night in Lynxes who were tagging British players around Mortimer and then running with no intention of fighting.   They did this all the way down to Jeremie Haiti from Mortimer... yeah.. not at all the same thing.   Most of the screening attacks actually have the intention of attacking the few ships they drag in, in hopes of damaging or capping them before the battle.

    Now that you know what they are doing have you figured out how to counter it next time?

  18. 5 minutes ago, Archaos said:

    The issue is that people were screening by tagging without any intention to fight. I fully agree that screening is an important part of the game and I also believe that if a nation can field enough screeners to prevent the port battle happening then so be it, but at least let there be a battle and not just a chase to run down the time. Tagging and kiting the PB fleet to run down the clock is not PvP and if this is a valid mechanic then it reduces PvP because the screeners have no PvP and if they are sucessful it means there is not a port battle either.

    The screeners role should be to take out or weaken the PB fleet in a battle, not just waste time.

    I'm sorry but it's not an exploit it is a tactic. When you let go of that and figure out tactics to beat it you will be able to move forward again. 

    When Napoleon invaded Russia the Russian didn't fight but did a fighting withdrawal never intending to fight the French. They "kited" the French army all the way back to Moscow wasting time until the Russian winter arrived. Napoleon started with 500,000 men and lost almost all of them to that Prussian time waste. He got back to France with 9000 men. Now the Prussians following him fought and they won the war.

    Sam Houston used the Alamo sacrifice and a fighting withdrawal to waste the time and resources of Santa Anna's Mexican army. It got them off balance, over stretched and weak. When Sam Houston finally attacked he won the end battle in 5min and Texas beat Mexico for its independence.  

    Delays and fighting withdrawals are all tactics smaller forces have used in the past to deal with bigger stronger forces. It's not for the game masters to prevent all these tactics. It is for the players to counter them first and if it isn't possible to counter then it is time for the devs to step in. The tactics you described are not impossible for players to counter.

  19. 7 hours ago, Trouble said:

    Since you and I both agree that the developers seem to be allowing the Black clan to use exploits at every opportunity, maybe the developers have simply chosen to let this game die off, and do not expect it to succeed, since if the developers felt otherwise they would dole out appropriate punishments, for exploits and Alts etc...

    Yesterday the US nation had a new Pirate alt of "Stuck in Irons Badger" trolling the US nation chat on his new alt "Sir Salt" for hours, making US nation chat completely pointless, as he parked his basic cutter out front of Charleston and reported US player positions to the Pirate's as he trolled US Nation chat...

    Unless the developers can figure out a way to keep one persons Alt from disrupting an entire nations chat, this game will become completely untenable!

     

    I'm sorry but I like the fact that the devs have taken a mostly "hands off" approach to the sand box.  In the long run it will make for a better game.  Almost every in game problem can be solved by the players themselves if they try.

    Some alt spamming chat? Block him.

    Some alt in a cutter calling off ships leaving the capital? Work out a deal with a foreign friend to help deal with it.  Get you own pirate spy alr, log it in and deal with it.  Simply use a different port. Ignore him.  Many ways to deal with it but even the devs aren't going to stop players from being able to make alt spies.

    Savanna seems to be a huge point of the arguement.  Just flip it back.  Black really can't stop you from flipping it. They can only try to stop you from winning the subsequent battle.  If you think your going to sail over there in any old time frame, grind it to a flip and then win the port battle with x25 first rates then the first thing you have to understand is that you have chosen to play that style of combat they are most prepared for.

    • Like 1
  20. 3 hours ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

    Let me go ahead and correct you, everything that's wrong with the nations are a result of broken PB mechanics and the ability of a single nation to abuse those mechanics.

    Brits-falling apart after Savannah La Mar

    US-Falling apart after Savannah

    All the other nations-Small and lucky they didn't have to experience it

     

    Nation organization is a meme, all you need is a single clan to set and win PBs

     

    Vizzini isn't all wrong.

    How players approach a problem has more to do with things than RvR mechanics.  Getting Organized is a large part of that.

    Where he is wrong, or at least too specific, is in the approach to creating organization.  Organization does not need to be done at the mandatory whole Nation level.  The idea of the whole nation needing to pulling together as one is what is holding you back.  France didn't get paralyzed when one large clan disagreed with several smaller ones and we split goals.  They moved on in their own directions. France didn't fold when Danes "night flipped" French ports or when the AUZES "half night flipped" Haiti.  Neither events were all that earth shattering and the individual clans of France each found different ways of dealing with it at the clan levels because they were not expecting a "French Council" to guide them through it. 65% of the clans came back and started punching the Danes in the face. 35% cut deals with the Danes and did other things. The nation still didn't collapse because it was clan based and clan goal accepting. To this day France has only lost one small Clan that I can think of and that was following the initial Dane take over of Basse Terre.  The majority have argued and fought with each other in Nat chat often. Sometimes really nasty. But they haven't broken because the organization level that evolved was clan based and in the end accepting of different clan goals and attitudes. Nothing required a 100% vote for the others to go along with it. WO made a deal with BLACK. The rest of us didn't have that deal but we honored it  because a brother clan was working on a goal it had.  ICS made deals with the Danes. The rest of us didn't honor it but we also didn't try to stop ICS from playing they way they wanted too by hopping nations and shooting them.  Just reluctantly accepted that they had a different view. Part of that strength is that there is no "French Council" trying to control it all.

    Nation "councils" are incredibly slow reacting machines.  Trying to get 100% votes and unity on global fast developing events is nearly impossible in democratic systems.   So if you want a democratic system you should devise methods of looser requirements and above all figure out how to be more accepting of other clans goals, deals and such that you might not 100% agree.  But 60-80% of your nation working on the same non-specific goal may not be as powerful and 100% on a specific goal. But its more flexible, faster to react and less prone to becoming politically brittle enough to break easily.  So what if those guys over there think we MUST have 25 1st rates or we can't RvR!   Just continue your privateer life. Support them if and when they do get 25 1st rates in play but otherwise do your own thing while they do theirs.  If you are part of that single minded clan that is positive the nation has to have a 25 1st rate death star fleet then be a bit more open minded that others might not see it that way. Start building 1st rates and hand them out. Maybe they will come over to your way of thinking.  Maybe they will prove you wrong and start having successes in Connies in ways you hadn't thought of.  When you stop trying to force the rest of the nation to play one specific way more options start to appear anyway.

    • Like 1
  21. "Death of a Server" in any game almost always comes born out of boredom and stagnation.   Very few pvp players ever actually get pushed out of a game. They just switch teams. In EVE they just switch regions and rebuild.  True pvp players don't run off because they lost a series of fights or wars. But they often do hop ship.  Like the gentlemen posted above, the global server just had a lot of players "hopping teams".  Currently no fighting is going on hardly at all.  Just look at global contention when you log in. Hardly any teams doing much of anything. Some of that is the movement and relocation logistics of the players that switched teams.  Boredom and stagnation are the real problems.

    It almost always comes down to players making bad choices and ruining the game for themselves. Total "no shooting anything" Peace treaties in a war game are some of the dumber ideas ever held by players. But look at them all.  We find countless ways to stop hard core pvp and get warships off the seas. Then we complain when the die hard pvp players end up finding only noobs on the seas.  If a nation attacks your noobs or econ haulers sail over to their ports and punch them in the face.  Suddenly no one will be chasing noobs and cargo ships and a bunch of real pvp will erupt.

    • Like 3
  22. My answer to complaint thread #578,123,655

    I'm not aware of very many actual noobs in the game at all.  The few I do know of are NOT interested in any special protections. They just want to play the game.  Putting them in protected areas, shoving them into corners or otherwise making it so they don't need any help at all ISN'T ACTUALLY HELPING THEM.  It's a counter productive concept that new players need lasting protections till they level.  It just leads to exploitable mechanics, new players that lack the actual skills to survive in the real game and the rest of their nation ignoring them but not feeling bad about it because there is a mechanic that is supposed to protect them.

    If a new player speaks up in Nat chat about being clubbed or otherwise having trouble just talk to them, help them yourself and show them how to not get ganked.  If that doesn't work send them to the French team because we'll take them, we'll pay attention to them and put in the short time it takes to teach them to play.  Solving the problems of new players is seldom any great puzzle. Most of the time its just 10min of explaining to them what to look for or what they might be doing wrong.

    • Like 3
  23. 13 minutes ago, Davos Seasworth said:

    For a clan that comes in with reasonable force and hits trade ships yet does not flee with a ship comes to defend it of course you have my respect.

    We were intending for some actual pvp where the French did not back off because a trade ship was not involved. It was in our waters. No one invited the French and no one wants the French here. Frankly, we hardly care for the what goes on with GB but they have actually been nice to the Dutch so I guess screening for them if you want to call it that was a bonus. 

    The French declared war on us ignoring our stance of neutrality. Then sending a peace deal to us acting like you actually won something. A deal that would make the Dutch nation nothing but PVP cattle to the French. 

     

    We want to but because of the French just treating us like garbage and livestock we cannot. Dont have the numbers to be in two places.

    I'm just not understanding much of this conversation at all.  

    Only half of France is still made up of French players from the end of last years PvP2.  We didn't do anything to the Dutch last year.

    Im not aware of any Dutch-France peace treaty or why we would even need one.

    Who is the French who are oppressing you?

  24. 2 hours ago, Christendom said:

    PaP and Les Cayes were flipped at Aussie times because we were not fighting just 1 nation, but 2 when trying to grind those up.  Your ever so convenient deal with the pirates prevented us from doing that during primetime.  

    The gulf is a vital area for our traders to ferry down live oak, we'd prefer to not have the french up there attacking more noobs in our backyard without agreements.  We have a long way to move oak and if even part of the way can be done by solo players rather than having to convoy up it is just that much easier.  Again, it's inviting foxes into the hen house.  

    You want a staging point and some of our territory, well it's going to cost you.  Either win it by force or give up something so we're willing to accept.  You want a piece of our territory so you can attack other nations and OUR nation at the same time and you offer nothing in return.  Why would we do that?  The only real threat we see is from King of Crowns and his merry band of seal clubbers and the clubber-in-chief will never move on to more difficult targets (aka BLACK clan).  Why would we give him a base to operate out of without something in return.  Negotiating 101.  Prove you/your nation is actually willing to go fight the pirates and not sink British noobs and maybe we can talk.  Or just keep grinding up hostility in Santa Fe and losing ships.  

    It's easy to talk tough when your nation has deals with it's 2 neighbors right next door and another deal with the biggest threat on the server.  

    I understand where you are coming from and can see your concerns.  But there are a few facts you have out of order.  Not greatly but still not accurate.

    The reason we ever had an agreement with BLACK regarding Les Cayes and PaP is because WO actually WAS sinking BLACK ships on a regular basis right off Mort.  BLACK is generally a pretty well run operation. Instead of fighting us on their seas they made a deal that put us into GB seas by keeping us in Les Cayes as much as possible. That deal has since ended.

    Its no great difference whether France fights Brits or Pirates. Its just preference.  This week PURGE has sunk several Brit Indefats and other Frigs while sailing 6th rates. Last night they finally lost x2 Niagaras while sinking yet another Indefat with them.  So its not like Purge are losing ships in mass. To be honest, trading frigs for 6ths is not even losing.

    No one is talking tough because we have a NAP with Danes. We have no deals with the Swedes or the Dutch. It makes no sense to take Dutch ports. They offer PVP and are very good opponents. Talking their land would be detrimental and we don't need a treaty to see it.

    Lastly, no clan in France is actually trying to hurt the GB nation. You just happen to be there. Its a by product of having grabbed to much land before VSC joined the Brits.

     

     

×
×
  • Create New...