James Cornelius

@admin Many of these proposed changes look very interesting and I look forward to seeing how it plays out. However....I'll withhold judgement on some things that I wonder about but specifically I am concerned about the removal of the ability to teleport or two ships and the transfer of resources between free ports. I agree that there should be limitations on this, but I think that it will make it extremely difficult for players who can't play for four to six hours a day to be successful in any way. They will either never be able to get decent ships, not be able to participate in the good PVP, be at the mercy of excessive costs to do so, or a combination of the three. I know that the "hard core" players are the most vocal, but I do not believe they make up a majority of the population - this is confirmed by the drastic decrease in server populations during this time while we wait for the wipe. I am a player who is somewhere in between - I have nearly 1000 hours logged in Naval Action, but do not consider myself hard core as while one day I might be able to sit at home and play for eight hours, the next week I am only able to play for 2-3 hours total. I think this patch might go too far to make it more difficult for people who are not able to devote a large amount of time to the game at all times. Not having this player base will not be healthy for the game and, despite many player's inability to see it, will make the experience of even the hard core players worse. I would urge you to make sure you really consider those potential issues.

I considered suggesting something like that, but the point I'm trying to make here is to keep it as simple as possible as well.

Hi all, I recently saw that once again someone has suggested the inclusion of division commander during battles, and the equally valid opposing view (that they are one more thing to manage when you are trying to coordinate a 60+ unit army) was raised as well. I would like to propose a means of inclusion that satisfies both viewpoints. In many ways, this game is a spiritual successor to Civil War General and CWG2. In that game, the corps commander was portrayed, like in UG:CW, as a standalone unit on the field with a radius of benefit (or malus, based upon the general's skill, but that's a discussion for another time). In contrast, division commanders were indicated by a gold star on one of the brigades of that division, indicating it was the brigade to which the division commander was attached. I propose a similar solution here, where in the camp screen you are able to select which brigade to attach each division commander to, where they might provide a very small additional bonus for their presence to the brigade they are with, and a minuscule bonus to units from their division in close proximity (to encourage keeping a division together). On the battlefield, the brigade in question would have an additional name along with its given name, to indicate the presence of the division commander, for example "Iron Brigade / Reynolds". This would apply to enemy units as well, as you would see where their division commanders were once you engaged that brigade. Likewise, the only way a division commander could be killed was if the unit he is with was engaged, so you at least can keep them "safe" by keeping that brigade out of combat should you wish. No micromanagement, yet the division leaders would be present on the battlefield.

So I was ultimately successful, and another reward is third career point (after winning I finished the combined battles with 3 instead of just the 2 from Chancellorsville). I think I noticed the reputation increase as well. What I did was run and get into the northern woods above Salem's Church. Some confederates still beat me there, and inflicted heavier casualties. However, I was gradually able to push them out and array my forces along the southern line of the trees so that the enemy troops were in the open below them. In time, the casualty ratio flipped in my favor. Once there was an opening, I swung my right flank (leftward troops looking at the screen) down - the farthest brigade remained in the salient of the trees facing SE to deal with the artillery, and the next two marched westward to both flank the enemy brigades and move into position to take the objective. Final casualties were about 4500 to 6700.

Thanks for the tips. What is the benefit for winning? The main battle states what rewards you get - do you get a bonus for winning Salem's Church?

Hi all, Finally had a chance to play through Chancellorsville in my union campaign. I like to play the historical battles first before I get there in the campaign to get a feel for the battle and experience it in an "unaltered" way. I play on brigadier general difficulty. Historically, I was able to vastly outperform Hooker (which of course is not terribly hard) by pushing hard (but retreating when I became outnumbered) in the first phase. In the second phase, I immediately had Howard's XI Corps run back to the rest of the army around Chancellor House - they might be exhausted getting there, but at least will be in one piece. I probed to the SW to the two objective points. In the third phase, with my army concentrated, I sat back and blew Jackson's attack to pieces and continued to send probing attacks to the SW. Since I was inflicting far more casualties than I was sustaining, I let each phase go until it forced me to finish: i.e. I did not click "finish" when the timer ran out and it said I could. As a result, by the time the final phase of the battle came where you could re-attempt the attack on the Orange Plank Roads, I still had nearly 50,000 troops and the Confederates were down to 9000. As you might imagine, the final phase was a bit anticlimactic. Final casualty rates were something like 11,000 for me and 40,000+ for the Confederates. Now, when I played the campaign battle it did not go as smoothly. For one, the numbers were a lot closer, and the scaling of the enemy brigade sizes with every one being a 3 star veteran definitely played a role. I ultimately had the same end result, but with casualty rates a lot closer: 22,000 for me, 33,000 for them. A victory is a victory, I guess... So then I get to the Battle of Salem's Church, in which I'm given command of Sedgewick's historical VI Corps and in order to achieve victory I must take Salem's Church and inflict 5% more casualties. Ok...except ultimately you end up outnumbered and trying to force the enemy from some pretty good ground. The best I have been able to get in this battle is a draw (inflict 10%casualties) by positioning the corps in the trees behind the little creek and waiting for Ewell's troops to come from the south. I get my kills this way, but as soon as I try to push towards the Church it starts to turn against me again. I can take the Church, but not without losing more men than the Confederates. Anyone have any tips?

I'm one of those folks. I have millions invested in stockpiles of all grades (mostly mid). If they do become unnecessary, I hope that there is a buyback program similar to the fine wood "cash for clunkers" operation.

Have crafting notes been addressed anywhere in here? Will they still be needed for ship construction or will they go the way of fine wood?

I think it would be a good function to show how many total players per nation, and how many have logged in over the past, say, week. The game data already has this in clan information, so it shouldn't be too much of a stretch.

Yes, and for those of us with assets on both PVP servers we might have more/better/different assets on each where we would want to consider which ones to keep.

Yeah this is terrible. I am one of many people who are in a small clan because we want to actually enjoy sailing and fighting and doing semi-historical things. As such, we are generally excluded from PBs (so don't get paints/ships/rewards) from that, and the admiralty events are generally flawed in that sort of thing anyway, as 20 people will get together in a doom fleet and chase everyone else away...very rare for people to do mixed fleets, etc though that's a gripe for another time. But the fact is here, this will put all but the largest clans and the usual suspects of PB players totally out of business. I have enjoyed this game since the beginning and convinced half a dozen friends to buy and play it. We are all adult professionals with limited time on our hands for this sort of thing but really enjoyed the direction that the game looked like it was going. So now, I truly am scratching my head at this. I disregarded probably thousands of critical comments about the developers as usual internet trolling or whining. After these last couple announcements, I really am beginning to wonder if the developers do have an end game plan in mind for this game, and if so, it seems to be one that is deliberately against a large portion of the player base.

This will destroy the ability of the casual players to maintain any semblance of self-sufficiency. All it will do is reward the core group who already always do these things of things.

@sruPL I do not understand why you are trying to turn this into a spitting match about this? I do not understand why you are defending this kind of behavior. His accusations and language are almost Tribunal-worthy. To follow him because you think there is no other alternative is a poor excuse. I should not need to rattle off names, though I have sailed with many captains in game who were cordial, polite, helpful, and did well directing a squadron. If, in your elite group of 25, no one else wants to do it then perhaps that is part of the problem? You are presenting a good example of the "echo chamber" phenomenon: you say no one else wants to do it because you only talk to the small group that doesn't want to, and that reinforces your preconceived notion. I am simply trying to challenge that viewpoint and suggest that there is, potentially, another. I do not know who else would command a port battle, but I am not content to sigh in resignation that there simply isn't one because I haven't spoken to them. I would respectfully ask you to be more open minded about it. @Jeheil The only dealing I have ever had with Lord Vicious is what I have witnessed here today. Until that point I had no opinion of him one way or the other. I am not asking you, or anyone else, to care whether I like him or not, but his insults, barely coherent ranting, and forum-censored cursing paints a vivid picture of his personality. So, I no longer care how good a fleet commander he may be or what his demeanor towards others has been. He savagely and unjustly attacked me, to say nothing of the player Amplify, for no other reason than that I disagreed with his treatment of another and his (unfounded) attack on a player who followed his lead and tried to win the battle for him. Therefore, I now have no desire to sail with him at any point. He will clearly say "good riddance" which is his right to do, but this belies the greatest Achilles heel of the game: the shrinking player base. It baffles me how some players are here rallying around a behavior which will, if left unchecked, drive people away from the game. The elite 25 who always seem to do the port battles will eventually find themselves cold and alone when the player base needed to screen, blockade, help run missions, etc recoils from this kind of behavior. I have not become very well known on the PVP1 server since I have had far less time to play in the last few months than I did when the game was released and I played on PVP2. It is too bad that many people I have seen in game and here on the forums would rather cast accusations about than sail with someone newer to the server, or see how good they actually are. The TOXIC clan certainly seems to be living up to its name at present.

I am very sorry to see that Castries was lost, and my thanks to the fellow British sailors who defended it. I am disheartened by the amount of finger pointing, particularly from the gentleman that it appears was in command of the battle? Most unfortunate. I do not know the player "Amplify", but considering the way it looks like the battle played out he did nothing more than attempt to quickly end the battle in one stroke to get sufficient points. Clearly, that did not work but was there another alternative? Finally, I think it is unfortunate that Amplify is singularly blamed by Lord Vicious (who does appear to live up to his name, at least by his statements here) for being in the port battle, as if his presence doomed Great Britain. That is not a welcoming attitude for any player, regardless of the situation. I asked in the Nation Chat in game earlier about the presence of the screening fleet, because in the past a screening fleet was able to prevent most enemy ships from getting through to the port battle. Your disdain towards screening forces might be indicative of why there were fewer ships today if indeed that was the case, as many people do not take kindly to constantly being relegated to "second class" duties, or excluded from port battles as you indicate Amplify should be.

Modern cable laying is not all that different.

What difficulty are you gentlemen using? Playing on Brigadier General, while I find those battles costly, they were by no means impossible. In Winchester I did exactly what has been described - get two or three brigades into the woods north and north west of the town while another brigade or two comes down around my left flank to get into the town and behind the union troops fighting my forces in the woods. At Cross Keys, (if I remember the battle right) I found very little pressure on my southern flank, with far more on the northern flank. Two well placed artillery batteries and better troops in the northern wooded area above the cross held, with a brigade further to the rear at my extreme northern flank available to move our and flank union troops that managed to push me back. When I have a chance later I'll check out my casualties for each battle.

Very weird.

Gibbon (US) and Jackson (CS)

Right, I understand all that. But I went Midshipman -> Ensign -> Midshipman That's what I don't understand.

That's what I thought. So I wonder why I went from Ensign to Midshipman at 200 posts.

Hi all, A question and only because I noticed something odd. I figured forum rank had some ratio between posts/likes per posts or something along those lines. However, I just noticed that my rank actually went down (I think when I hit 200 posts since I'm just over that now and didn't notice it before) from Ensign to Midshipman. Obviously doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, but I was curious what the basis of these things are. Also, since I bring it up, how does the reputation work? Does it do anything? I notice there is a "reputation activity" function in the profile page when I was rooting around through there. Thanks.

I agree with this. It does not create "more" upgrades. An upgrade has the same durability as whatever ship it is on at that time - if the ship is lost, so is the upgrade. If you have a 5 dur frigate with upgrades on it, your upgrades have 5 dur. If the frigate is captured, then it and the upgrades on it have 4 dur - and the one captured has 1 dur...same with the upgrades. My making them permanent to the captured ship, it prevents spawning "free" upgrades that would multiply. A compromise, of course, could be to make it just the upgrades that are already permanent, but as I said, I think the OP's suggestion is a good one.

You are welcome. And no, you were not unclear. I gathered that, in theory, anyone can create a war fleet. But while it should't be *easy*, it would clearly require a group effort. it would, even if not by intent, have an effect of disadvantaging people who play less often and are less well known (they won't get invited to the big groups) and will likely lack the resources and time to do it single-handedly or in small groups. My clan is about 11 people - we are quite good, but it's unusual for more than half to be online at one time. I don't see this as being possible to do with 5 or 6 people, and while in such instances it is again theoretically possible to have a war fleet of the "dispossessed" or casual players, I think it would be exceedingly difficult to put together. This is a situation where the organization of the hard core players definitely comes into play. However, I am not sure what the alternative would be at this time. I personally like the hostility generation mechanic for a couple reasons. First, it is a more organic way of attacking a port rather than "Mordred creates a war fleet". It is somewhat more historically realistic, as it does more to simulate the combined actions of an entire nation in an area, not the whims of one captain or admiral. An area that I think would add tremendous depth to the game is to further simulate the fact that, in this time period, the nations of the world (specifically the nations in the game) were at war with one another and ship captains or admirals commanding fleets did not act unilaterally to do whatever they wanted when it came to territory changing hands. Strategies were orchestrated at the respective admiralties and governments and the admirals and captains were given significant lee-way in determining the way to accomplish such objectives, but they rarely defined the objectives themselves. While that latter part would be a poor limiting factor on the actions we should be able to take as players, it should present a baseline of the kinds of things we are able to, encouraged to, or prohibited from, doing. I don't have a problem with territory changes being rare, but the battles themselves should not be. Raids should be common which could yield the same rewards that port battles do now. While PVP1 seems better off, on PVP2 we saw nations hunted to extermination and so territory changes (or lack thereof) should make it harder to do that. Finally, as an example of other types of missions, activities, etc I think should be focused on now I would suggest what @Yar Matey posted in the 1H 2017 thread. Focus should be put there, instead of reinventing the wheel with hostility.

I give you joy of that, sir, and sincerely wish more took your generous approach to the game.

I do not like the idea of Lord Protectors and choosing what time ports are open. Ports should be open ALL the time for attack. This is a global game - treat it as such. As far as the War Fleet idea, I like it in concept, but I think making it invite based will make the current debate about the rights of the individuals in game vs the "elite" clans even worse: things will become even more of a social clique and those of us who play more casually will be completely left out in the cold.