[Alliances discussion + Poll]

On 5/4/2019 at 5:41 AM, Georg Fromm said:

Still I can not understand how, for example, the extinction of Poland will solve the problems of the game? If 0.97% of the players really spread to the fading nations, will everything be okay? Why destroy Russia?  Russia as well as Prussia has a high identification potential for Russian players. The same applies to Prussia. You want to take the powerful Russia out of the game, but leave the weak Netherlands in it. Why? Historical reasons in an ahistorical game?

Has anyone ever wondered why Spaniards play first and foremost in Spain and French (not Quebec Canadians) prefer to fight as Republicans or Royalists for France?

Now you want to take the identification of the two largest European player groups? And that should increase the number of players? Ever thought of when Russians and Prussia  go together in one of the remaining nations? Then your plan of balance has failed completely.

What's next? Are we getting rules that nations that are overpopulated should not get new people? Do Spaniards have to fight for GB then? That brings new players?

The solution, in my opinion, is not less but more nations. At the moment some people seem to be very strong for Portugal? Why then? Again historical reasons in an ahistorical game? By the way, Portugal played absolutely no role in the Caribbean. I guess just a few Portuguese behind, who even if the chances are not so good, just want to fight for their home country.

Yes indeed, why not Arab or Turkish players give their identification nation (Osmanic Empire or Barbaresken States as second pirate nation)? And if Chinese appear here, why should not the Chinese emperor send a fleet to the Caribbean?

This is rejected for historical reasons in an ahistorical game? Really?

Or do you reject it because you're afraid the player base could spread even more? Where is the problem? Should Poland be swept off the map after the release due to their lower number of players, then some Poles will join the larger and stronger nations and a few will remain loyal to Poland for identification, even if there is little chance for them.

A new player living in Istanbul is currently reading the description for NA on Steam. There he reads, he can fight in the Caribbean for the Ottoman Empire or he reads he can fight for Spain, France, GB, the USA or the pirates. What do you think, which NA will the player prefer?

These whole nations, like Prussia, Poland or Russia, could come into play as impossible nations. You give them other starting points than Shroud Cay and if they do not succeed in conquering anything, no problem, it's a "hard-to-play nation". But maybe this player from Istanbul, who has come into the game because of the Ottoman Empire, has found joy in the actual game and now chooses another nation.

Would not we and the DEVS have won all?

Again, we do not solve the problems by making everything fit for 400 players here. The solution must be to have a good game that attracts 2000+ players as in the early days.
The different nations offer a good identification to interest players of different nations for this game.

By the way, I wrote this post because I fanatically attached to the nation of Prussia. Think about this....

 

This is a really good point imo. Why stick so hard to the historical context? Right now Prussia owns half of Mexico.. Where is the history on that?

 

Besides that, as other people have pointed out, making alliances based on the population alone might be a bad idea. It could be a combination of factors, such as owned ports, combined total ship strength (in essence, all ships in ports), PVP points. Based on the total nation ranking, it could be possible to allow nations to join or create an alliance which does not exceed a threshold. No matter how many nations there are, 25 nations with a combined strength could band together to have the same strength as of Britain.

[Naval Action Launch information - June 2019]

Thanks for the hard work!

Looking forward for it!