Bach

If you pre-plan ahead you can take the pain out of the 2hr sail to do Econ. While doing recon during the Dane war I came across some USA players trading with ICS players. They simply used the land masses and the protractor function to AFK the majority of the trip. Coming into Dane waters they just nose planted into the back of one of the out of the way islands. I imagine they did the same going to the USA. Just point the nose at the upper map edge USA port and goto bed. You can apply the same to your activities. At the end of the play day just hop in a basic cutter and point it at FR and goto bed. In the morning before work do your Econ clicks. Hop in basic cutter, point it at your operating area and goto work. If some sinks it while it's nose planted in the beach your just going to appear where you wanted to be anyway. With a little planning ahead it's not to hard to effectively live out of a Free Town port. You can harvest all the repairs you will need in low level missions. Every few days you just need to sail some replacement ships out to stockpile or just build them on site. If you discover the only thing you are sailing back for is Econ then maybe rethink how you have it set up to get more hands off days out of it.

Interesting turn of events in this thread. On the serious side, if pirates did go offensive right now they would likely run the map. So be glad they don't. They are giving the server a chance. @Christiandom - You do realize you and Slamz pretty much have the same goals? You just don't agree in methods. That said, you probably don't really want to force France into an alliance even if Tuetonic would give you one. You really just want to set up a situation that gets your enemies to fight each other. Why? Because of the polarization effect of alliances. If you ally with France specifically against pirates it will force the Danes and their new found AUSEZ into active opposite and things just balance. There would be no net gains for Britain if sides simply get drawn up. Without a clear alliance it becomes harder to predict the moves on the chessboard. Which always favors the weaker sides. Besides, as long as you don't ally you can always take the French stuff back when you want it. @Tuetonic - I don't understand why you thought Brits would give up Santa Marta. There is little value to that county other than staging against Brits and Dutch. They literally have no choice but to say NO. Even if some said ok it's got to be a hard sell to the rest and certainly the Dutch. Frankly, I don't understand this servers fascination and dependence on alliances. I think it's a hold over from those that played pvp2 last year under minimal population conditions. Perhaps there such alliances were vital. Here they are not. In fact, after the last RvR patch owning lands you can't defend are a detriment. All the needed resources are relatively close together anyway. So there is even less need for wide spread alliances. One situational allies should be all you want. Dividing up the map is counterproductive.

Suggestion, change the basic format of political ties as follows: Add the following clarifications to each treaty no matter which type. LOM= Letter of Mark exceptions, a simple list of clans or players not included in the treaty at this time. TE= Territorial exceptions, area or ports in the game exempted from the treaty at this time Treaty Types: War = all out war with possible territorial or Clan exceptions Allies = All out friendly with possible territorial or LOM exceptions NAP + Free Trade = No aggression including traders and smugglers. NAP+ National Trade = No aggression including traders but not including smugglers. Smugglers may be sunk. NAP+No Trade= No aggression but all foreign cargo ships in home waters may be sunk. Neutral = no RVR, any ship may be sunk anywhere but no RVR actions taken. Example- France - Dutch = Nuetral + LOM (player Bach, Pagan and Teutonic) France - Britain = War + TE (no fighting in starting zone counties) France - Denmark = NAP+Free Trade or FT France - Sweden = NAP+ National Trade or NT France - USA = Ally + LOM (Clans Purge, Bork, Rovers) France - Sweden = NAP + No Trade + TE (may RvR over Basse Terre county)

These categories need to be revised for post wipe game. War and Ally are are self explanatory and stay the same. But as Red Duke mentioned above, trading status is much different now as this rules set Econ has far more reaching game effects than it did last year. Smugglers are now a potential threat to a nations welfare. Letting them run around freely is not always a good thing. Trading done at Nuetral ports protects the nation as long as smugglers can be sunk freely. So we really need a review on Nuetral and NAP. Quite frankly, any nation that doesn't put restrictions on smuggling as part of its treaties are just being stupid. Also there needs to be a function for persona nongrata clans that are exempt from treaties. This whole system is to rigid and assumes all nations are homogenous hive minds or otherwise only have solo trouble makers. That is not the case. Treaties could specify letters of mark situations directly in them to take care of troublesome clans. Like it or not, this is a game of clans with national tendencies and not a game of nations with clans.

Sure but the issue never truly resolved. It just forced players to leave a nation after a long drawn out verbal series of arguments. Grudges are not a bad thing. Especially in a war game. But unresolvable grudges are more problematic. Currently two egos clash. This then drags their clans and potentially much of the rest of the nation into what has no option but to simply be a uncooperative verbal series of assaults back and forth. Eventually one group of players defect to another nation almost solely for the purpose of taking that same grudge into a shooting war. This then destroys or otherwise shift the game power balances drastically. What I propose is that players can take the ego clash into a shooting match before all the verbal strife in nation and eventual player defections. Now maybe the two clans whose ego war started it just fight it out. Perhaps one wins and they bury the hatchet and move on. Perhaps one side loses and decides to hold the same grudge they were going to do anyway. Maybe they fight and will never resolve but the issue runs through the paces faster to the eventual defection. In the end it's just provides another possibility for inner nation conflict resolution before the eventual defections. It's not a guarantee of anything and I think it will be less chaotic than you might think. Pirates can do this in the past and even now. It's not super chaotic. It's becomes an organizational tool that can deal with not only ego conflicts but clans made up of Alts abusing a nation. A high price tag in the admiralty shop will also help curb a lot of chaotic whimsy on the tools use.

Only BLACK participating and you only had 22 men? Is that a chink in the armor there? Or everyone just counting on the Brits not showing up?

Only problem GB has is morale. Solve the morale problem and they become a dangerous opponent to anyone. Practices, coordination, Econ etc.... It all comes second in importance to morale. It's the same for every single nation in the game. Smaller nations have an easier time with morale maintenance. It's their one advantage over large ones. If a USA or Brit leadership team emerges that understands morale maintenance none of us are stopping them. But we might have a lot of fun trying.

Players are toxic now in ways that never die down. There is simply no way to resolve such issues other than for one clan or the other leaving the nation. So everyone just stays angry and uncooperative. Had France had the same outlaw battle abilities as the Pirate team that whole ICN rebellion thing would have solved itself within the first week. Either the would be able to exert their will as the largest clan supporting Danes prime time or they wouldn't. But mutual respect would have been earned and nat chat likely less toxic.

Pirates have it now and they are less toxic than GB or USA. Order is only created when the gentlemen on the other side of the table is inclined to act like one. Being able to fight each other does not require the fighting. It requires the respect for the possibility. Ones mother or ideas are much less likely to be insulted when doing so can result in a punch in the nose. So mutual respect and harmony becomes more of a necessity and even if you don't like your teammates ideas it becomes more prudent to cooperate or meet in the middle. Especially with the bigger or more combat oriented clans.

It's a suggestion thread to allow nations to have rebellions or otherwise fight green on green after purchasing permissions from the admiralty. This would then allow players a way to strike at each other inside the nation when necessary. It would help in pecking order establishment as well as reduce toxicity in Nat chats. My thread was about how such tools could solve the Brit and USA tendencies to collapse internally. It's not perfect but it would help.

The only thing GB lacks is organization. Same as almost every other nation trying to run a war by committee. Just need clear leadership and a plan. Even a bad plan is better than no plan. The one thing this game needs is the tools for clans to fight each other for dominance of a nation. Something to break up all the stubborness and ego driven politics. GB is as good as any nation if they wanted to be.

Why would AUSEZ abandon the GB nation in times of real challenge just to join the one nation that could actually give them a good fight in there time zone? That's like a guaranteed formula for empty port battles, very little pvp and almost purely pve.

Many issues for large nations are simply due to the "nation council" concept. It's a war game. As much as Sun Tzu Art of War strategy is actually bad for MMOs so is Democracy. The concept of "committee rule" is more difficult the more players you have. The pirate nation has the ability to establish a pecking order more than most. Not that it is easy. But being under constant assault, Mortimer is a heavily hunted zone, and having the option of green on green conflict they have more tools to resolve internal pecking order. If the USA and Brit nations had tools to establish clan pecking orders they would truly become the more dangerous teams. The Devs needs to consider this. It is also part of what made the Nuetral Faction idea fail. It was irrelevant since clans with actual nuetral tendencies could just hide inside the supposedly warring nations without penalty. But if the largest Brit clan could force its will on smaller ones higher level of organization is more likely to form.

It is the nature of large teams with no clear leader to in fight following an unexpected loss Battle was 25v23 and each side was almost all Aggys. So the actual battle was pretty fair. What Britains are complaining about is not being able to employ their population advantage to create an unfair PB. It was a fair PB. Get over it. Next time Brit just needs to put its screeners on site >1hr to the PB and they can keep their population advantage in play. This time GB just got outplayed, this time, because the expected something that didn't happen and were not prepared for it.

Yarrrr! Two hooks up?

Another shameless plug for my REBELION mechanic in the suggestion thread. It would allow CCCP to get their nation under control legitimately or allow the small upstart clan some revenge. Either way stuff like this would work itself out really fast.

There certainly is always room for better changes. I doubt anyone is all that happy with the current mechanic. If large nations are time griefing smaller ones then they are truly wasting their time. The fun battle isn't in the port battle then anyway. They should just hit them at sea with the main fleet. You only need one boat in the PB to win it. perhaps it is the player nature to never lose anything or minimize risk. I always chuckle a bit when I hear players quote the Art of War. Those tactics are great for real life but they suck for competitive gaming. "To win without fighting is the ultimate goal".... Sure it is. Unless your goal is actually entertainment. Then "winning without fighting" just bores everyone to death.

Yes yes yes. I've heard that broken record from you before on big big big! Except here you are complaining about how small ships are messing with your big ones. So maybe you are only correct if you actually manage to get your big fleet into the port battle instance. PvP Global France....anytime sweetie.

It will create zero open world port battles. No one is tagging to shoot sails if they had the ability to fight the PB fleet on the OW in the first place. So BR restrictions would just eliminate any intercept attempt. The problem isn't that a smaller group tags the port battle fleet. The problem is the port battle fleet make up is ALL solid one style heavy boats. The conquest circles award points for number of ships. Not BR. If players would just let go of last years big big ONLY BIG ship mantras and start mixing it up ship make ups they would be just fine. Today's port battles aren't meant to be fought all the time everytime by x25 1st rates. The devs got closer to solving the puzzle but they didn't get there yet. if there were no caps everyone would all be sailing the exact same ship for the exact same role everytime like we did last year. This game has more min/maxers than most. If you toss out the caps you could remove half the ship models no one would ever use.

Sailing through there and just watching it all move makes me gittery. So many prizes and me flying a national flag. LOL

That's not what is happening. France isn't moving towards war from peace. This is mostly the soldiers that fought the war sounding off in this thread about not being real happy with the diplomats solution. That doesn't mean anyone is breaking the deal. Had that been the case we could have easily just hopped into the two port battles and started it right there. But no one did. Following the order doesn't have to equate to being happy about it. Now as to your point of view that this is between Sweden and Danes I do not agree. That was going to be 300 CMs, roughly, going to the soldiers that put in the effort to take those ports in the war. They are getting screwed or at least that is how some of them see it. Pissing off your soldiers, that actually fight, is a dicey proposition. Both on the part of France, Sweden and the Danes. It logical to assume that at some point in the future all three will probably need these same soldiers again for something. Had the Danes and Swedes wanted to make this right they would simply offer the lost marks to the soldiers. France and even BLACK should be demanding it for not being better lawyers in writing a peace deal that gets a little something for the guys that fought it. It's a matter of making the soldiers happier than they are which seems to be the one thing the diplomatic corps here don't seem to think is worth anything.

Actually not always. A newish player in a small nation like Sweden or Spain has almost no prayer of ever outbidding a trading good raider. Shooting or capturing the raider is about his only chance to compete. This may not be the ultimate solution to alts but to get it to where players can deal with it themselves they need the information first. In a solo world a raider might use the port manifests for stealing ships. That is actually a good thing. What do I care if its his alt or main that is now offering pvp. Now he is on the sea and able to offer someone pvp. General Peace treaties are bad as trade good raiding needs some risk. But for players to attempt to regulate trade in game they need the port info. It still works for role play. The harbormaster has the information and he knows which series of Indiamen just emptied out the Malabar Teak Warehouse. That info is available to the governor and perhaps to every naval captain enforcing the will of the crown. Its not unreasonable that player navy captains could obtain it in some way. Perhaps viewing the 24hour list should cost a combat mark or something? Players need a way to regulate trade goods now that they are a more important aspect of the game.

Most all the traders are taking advantage of the peace treaty. They are moving bulk goods from Fort Royal to Gustavia to Christiansted and back. All three nations including numerous alts are doing this. They are stripping ports to the level the traders aren't even armed with guns so they can squeeze the last bit of cargo space out of them. The Christiansted - Hat Island -Gustavia - Orangestad box is probably the highest concentration. In North American times its relatively safe since the war ended. There are x4 active Swedes, about x6 active Danes and the rest are moving cargo. Set up a hunting lodge at Hat and spend a week hunting. It will be fun.

But what if we, you and I, had the in game tools to coral the bunny when it gets greedy and tries to eat all our lettuce? Consider this: Using the Port Manifest, whether you pay for it or have it as a perk for being the port Lord, you find a French captain that pulls into you port with multiple runs of multiple Indiamen and destroys your trade econ for Dutch players. Now you happen to be allied to France so this guy is theoretically protected. But you now have proof of his transgression. You contact the French counsel and petition for a letter of marque. Since it is clear and isolated they granted and you are free to teach this guy a lesson. If you can catch him. It also helps avoid total all out war with France and creates an avenue for isolated policing conflicts. It opens up player created content and helps you and I resolve issues in game without having to flood the forums complaining that the Devs need to do something about alts. Now if the alt is smart he trims down how much market raiding he does to a level easier to hide. Dutch captains get more access to trade goods. It could be a win win win.

I think you have a good idea here. The contracts for trade goods should be removed.