Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Éric

Ensign
  • Content Count

    30
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

57 Excellent

About Éric

  • Rank
    Landsmen

Recent Profile Visitors

319 profile views
  1. Perso j'ai stoppé ma participation à l'organisation justement pour que les clans trouvent un terrain d'entente de manière moins artificielle. Les occasions de construction il y en a eu beaucoup, basées soit sur le leadership EdR (premiers mois), soit sur des discussions et compromis (CSNF), soit sur des décisions centralisées (conseil de guerre), soit sur une fédération des clans (entraide ponctuelle). Aucune n'a porté de fruits sur le long terme. Avoir quelqu'un qui arrondit les angles ça demande aussi (et surtout) que les clans prennent sur eux. Quelqu'un qui passe du temps à discuter a
  2. I said this patch I wouldn't get involved in any organization and would just follow the moves. I told the clans that the patch would snowball hard and went straight for Haïti solo. I cared about your concerns but wouldn't have tried to persuade the Haïti clans to go back to FR, not only because I usually support any fresh initiative, but because the FR clans should have been able to defend from the Swedes if they would have organized themselves. The first meeting, after having fed the Swedes for 5 days, was already too late to get back on conquest. The Haïti clans helped to flip Dominica and t
  3. I'd say both should be given the right spot. Conquering far from borders should be possible but require a special organization (planning, maybe logistics and help from allies) Capturing all ports (or raiding them) would expand the conquest gameplay. But capturing a regional capital has some added epicness. When all ports could be captured, many players left because the conquest was too intensive. With only regions, the conquest lacks dynamism (but that also depends on other factors such as combat balance and PB victory mechanisms).
  4. No flip was funny too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV1uCRt8LHQ&list=PLLMXPAq3a7KCYxD-atAf1nu3KTUiLvqOp&index=62
  5. Lots of magicz ) One of the first super fleet large scale battles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RviTteur-nA&t=3s&index=64&list=PLLMXPAq3a7KCYxD-atAf1nu3KTUiLvqOp The Cutter tourney (when tracking shot was found to be OP): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjUh1My-kBM&index=54&list=PLLMXPAq3a7KCYxD-atAf1nu3KTUiLvqOp Sea Trials in a light storm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuZot1zW2cs&index=6&list=PLLMXPAq3a7KAUseicD-Td288-HOLPSAD1 Pop of the OW, planning the third try to reach Old Providence:
  6. Propaganda on ? On the first monday we bought 4 flags and placed 3 one after the other. The Dutch bought 4 and sent 2 together which were sunk on the open sea. We have no problem with that btw. It gives some small scale actions for scouts, screens and new players.
  7. Who paid the first half ?
  8. Yes it was maybe one ship, but the one after all the others, after we thought everything was eventually settled. But tbh those DRUNK events in the nation chat just gathered some of the French player base against Sweden. I mentioned them to explain the reasons of the deteriorated relationships, but those didn't trigger the war by themselves. But they contributed. I never heard about changing the name of DRUNK, personally I don't mind, but I'd guess Kierrip asked because he thought that might have improved our nations relationships by removing the DRUNK = anger warning in the mind of many ma
  9. No, the DRUNKs ganked first and that triggered our rogue players on Basse-Terre and Saint George's. French players told us they had been ganked, but they had no screenshot, so we thought we had none (no screenshot = didn't happen rule). However, we checked the date of the screenshot we had: http://prnt.sc/b6j5hk. This one happened on the 5th of May, i.e. after the DRUNKs joined the Swedish Council before our rogue players retook the ports There's also the video with the date and the respawn at Grand Anse showing how south the DRUNKs had sailed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tuc3eICCspQ&
  10. Twig, - The CSNF said it wouldn't stay neutral if Sweden would declare war to the pirate coalition. Sweden didn't declare war to the pirate coalition, the CSNF didn't declare war to Sweden. - My spoken declaration is official because I'm an official diplomat. - The agreement happened before you attacked the Danish port, and not on thursday. - I deleted the screenshots but gave them to the diplomats. All the French clans were very happy when we heard that the DRUNK would stop their attacks - at least the first times. I hope this cleared some of the fog, and will stick to the initial
  11. Twig, - The war declaration was done without posting on any forum, I told it directly and officially to the diplomats and to some other Swedish players, as we used to do when we were allies. - The agreement (sunday) was: we let you one more day, but don't defend the ports. The Danish declaration happened on monday, after you attacked their port. - Our rogue players attacked the ports after DRUNK ganked again. It's true we didn't have all the screenshots however. Since we didn't want to base things on screenshots, we gave you back the ports.
  12. Twig, as a diplomat I'm the voice of the CSNF. - We declared war before attacking - If you talk about the agreement letting the Swedes one more day before we took back the ports, that was before Sweden attacked a Danish port. - We know there were attacks from both nations, that's why we didn't mind so much some attacks and chose to let time pass. However, after DRUNK joined the Swedish council and we were told they wouldn't attack anymore (for good), after Sweden settled in Cuba having been given ports from the British, DRUNK attacked again. We gave screenshots. That's why some rogue pla
  13. Open world PvP was restricted in home waters, especially ganking lone players near the port we had given. The Danes proposed to fix the situation, Sweden refused. Still the issue could have been settled without attacking a Danish port afterwards. We Frenchies showed friendliness and got acts contradicting the declarations.
×
×
  • Create New...