Search the Community

What we got now - We can add a clan in our friend list. We don't know if this clan add us in return on his own frienlist. The ones i put on friendlist can enter the portbattle the clan lead in defense or offense Why it's a problem - We don't see if the clan we add add us on friendlist leading to strange situation where you are ready to help a clan that forget to add you. - We are unable to add clan from different nations in the friendlist. Sometimes, as the map is huge, all the clan from a nation are not playing on the same area. A geographic alliances would be far more interesting than a nation alliances. Why adding different nation's clan in friendlist - It will allow all the nations to field PB with 25 player if necessary - It will be alliance lead between people who like eachothers. It may change with the population of the clan chaning leading more flexibility that the alliances we got before - It can be just for a few times to help this or this nation to capture this or this port. It will create anew kind of gameplay that we can named "Mercenary". 1) Port battle The map is huge, player are not so many. Most are cluster on different port. If your nation is tiny, everyone is on the same place. More your territory is big, more you get a risk to cluster the nation and not be able to field PB with 25 players. allowing the clans on border on the frontier to make friends with others nation on border of their frontier will help the population to reach the golden number of 25 to be able to play the game entirely. 2) Flexibility The alliances we got with the vote were really heavy and almost impossible to change once forged. Into this clan friendlist, you just have to add a different clan in the list or to remove him. It may be great for owner on the clan and diplomat to recieven an email to warn them but it's really easy to do and undo giving flexibility into the pact. Your clan is on the center on his own alliance. If you are in clan A and you put clan B in frien list, you are not allie with clan C. You have to add clan C in friend list and clan C has to accept. It will not be a domino alliances like before freezing everything. My alliance is MY alliances, not the ones my allies or my nations but the one my clan personnaly want to build. It will not be 1 2 or 3 alliances but as many allainces as there is clan. 3)Mercenary With mercenary, any clan can play RvR whichone is their number. Atm, if you are in a wrong nation, your clan of 5 veteran is useless. llow them to be hired for their services and they will have fun every day PvPing and rvring with thoses who pay them. Paying them will belance the things allowings the ones who need them more to hire them to capture ports or territory How it works, the nation, the pirate? A) Port Battle 1) Problem that may occure Clan A from nation 1 is friend with clan B from nation 2. B attack port a from nation 1 owned by C Clan. If clan A join, what is happening? Clan A from nation 1 is attacking clan C from nation 1? 2) Solutions The nation is upper the clan on port battle. It's the main difference with pirates. A clan whatever his alliance has to be unable to join a PB against his own nation. In the other hand, the clan has tu be unable to defend his allies against an attack from his own nation. In not any case, a player from Nation A can attack port of Nation A. If not any case a player of nation A is able to defend a port from nation B attack by nation A. Pirates are not limited in this gameplay. Pirates can help nationals forces to attack pirates ports or they can defend against pirates. B ) Open sea To make it simple, the easier thing would be to reserve battle group to people of your clan friend list whatever are their nation. The player keep their own flag but as mark as : "in command from Nation A". A player like that can be attack by nation A (to not let alt group alt and make them invincible) but all the frist battle group may be oppose to second battle group meaning in Open sea, Clan alliance is upper nation C) Changing nation, pirates gameplay and forged paper The pirates as said as to get this opportunity to seel themself to join PB whoever is in whoever is group in front of them, national or pirates. It's the perfect nation to join for small group of hardcoreplayer wanted to pvp every day or for group of player that are tired of their nation. As said in PB your nation is stronger than your alliances so you can't play against your nation in RvR. Pirates can. When aplayer want to change nation, he switch to pirates. On the pirate admiralty, Forged paper can be bought (1000CM each?). It's a playerlink article that can't be sold or moved. It will allow player to change nation if they want it by switching to pirates first and then second nation. it's far more RP than what we got now with player switching from nation to nation. They will have to prepare it before or to play as pirates for a times allowing them to meet new people and maybe finnaly change their mind or their gameplay. Everyone will be able to play pirates and to leave pirates nation with this forged paper byable in pirate admiralty. No clan will be able to switch withouth thiking about it. Player will have to decide for themself about the opportunity or not to switch and they will have to farm a bit for that. Example: You are french, you sunk a french ship making you a pirate. You then have to show your future nation you are ready to become a loyal national so you sunk ships (and french onesà to collect CM allowing you to buy a "letre de marques" making you a true national. This system of forged paper is more RP, will lead maybe less player to change nation when a nation is falling, will make everyone able to switch if they want it and give pirate something special, the ability to be the key for the balance. You may buy them for your nation for a certain time if you pay them in CM to cover the cost of CM and they may return back to piracy after their mission. Their choice, your wallet.

It seems that with the new speed limit Endymion is worse than ever. Its sailing profile couldn't be much worse and the high base speed that is supposed to make up for it is somewhat useless when i can just stack speed mods on the constitution. Is there still anything that makes Endymion worth sailing? I have really been meaning to build myself one lately for its awesome looks alone but i feel like i should get the constitution instead...

English version below. Вкратце: - Формулы риска и вознаграждения в игре все поломаны. Вознаграждение за бои почти не существует, а Боевые Капитаны в огромном невыгодном положении по сравнению с Трейдерами - Запускать Экономику без начальных вливаний это не-реалистично и глупо - ГДЕ ИСТОРИЧЕСКИЕ СТАРТАП ИНВЕСТИЦИИ? - Торговое меню смехотворно плохо разработано с игрой, не играемой без сетевых инструментов. Нет способа сортировки как по производству и по расстояниям (simultaneously). - Экономика, движимая игроками, чрезвычайно раздроблена в зависимости от кланов и регионов, а некоторые регионы имеют огромное преимущество перед другими - Опыт нового игрока ужасен, а "бесплатные корабли" оскорбительно бесполезны без экипировки. Опыт нового игрока, простая арифметика: Загнивание в Базовой Лодке - скучной одиночнои мачте. Первые 12 до 9001 миссий не имеют риска, потому что вы получаете все оборудование бесплатно, а награда - 6000 + 1500 золота за миссию. Ремонтные работы также бесплатны, поэтому вы можете выполнять 3 миссии за один выход ~22К без каких-либо дополнительных затрат. Тогда вы должны получить достаточно денег на 6-й Реит, который обойдется вам в 23К корабля и ~ 70К пушек и ~10К+ за ремонты корпуса. Ваш доход за миссию увеличивается всего до ~ 9000 + 2500 (minus repairs!), а ваш РИСК поднимается до ВСЕГО ПРОГРЕССА, который вы делали раньше. Если вы попали на абордаж или в миссии против двух кораблей, или вы проиграли битву, все ваше ~ ~90K+ золота, корабль и снаряжения потеряно, и вам нужно снова начать с нуля. Зачем рисковать всем когда можно гнобит себя в Базовой Лодке еще 9001 сражений? Вы не можете захватить корабли NPC - весь корабль, мачты которого вы тщательно отстреляли, тщательно взяли на абордаж, часто дает ноль дополнительной прибыли, так как все ее супер дорогие пушки волшебным образом исчезают, а весь корабль оказывается мнимым. Я понимаю причины - чтобы не надувать экономику миссиями. Почему не давать захватывать корабли NPC Fleet в открытом мире, по крайней мере, 6-го уровня или ниже? Почему награда за боевые успехи настолько низкая по сравнению с риском? По сравнению с AFK торговлей? Кто придумал что заставить всех Боевиков подчиниться донату клана или Базовой Лодке - хорошая идея для роста населения открытого мира? English - In brief: - The Risk versus Reward formulas in the game are all messed up. The reward for doing well in battle is near non-existant, with Fighting captains at a huge disadvantage compared to Traders - Starting up a player driven economy without startup capital is ridiculous. Where is the HISTORICAL VENTURE CAPITAL INVESTMENT? - The trading menu is ridiculously poorly designed with game unplayable without offline tools. There is no way to sort by both Production and Lowest-Distance, for example. There is no easy comparison of prices or profit potential. - The player driven economy is extremely broken depending on clans and regions, with some regions at a huge early advantage compared to others - The New Player or Returning Player experience is Horrible and the Redeemable Ships are insultingly useless without cannons Returning player experience: You start out stuck rotting in the Basic Cutter. The first 10-12 missions have No Risk because you get all the equipment for free, and the reward is ~ 6000 + 1500 gold per mission. Repairs are also free, so you can do 3 missions per trip with no extra cost. Then you should get enough money for a 6th rate which costs you ~23K for the ship and ~70K for Cannons and 10K in hull repairs. Your income per mission rises to ONLY ~9000+2500 per mission (minus repairs!), and your RISK rises to the ENTIRE PROGRESS you made before. If you get boarded or unluckily raked in a mission against two ships, or you lose a close fight, your entire ~90K of ship and equipment are lost and you need to start in the Basic Cutter again. You cannot capture NPC ships - the entire ship you carefully de-masted, carefully raked and boarded, can easily provide 0 extra profit, since all her super expensive cannons magically disappear, and the entire ship proves imaginary. I understand the reasons - to avoid inflating the economy - but whey aren't the Open World NPC's capturable, at least the ones of 6th rate or below? Why are the rewards for Combat so low in comparison to the risk? Who thought that forcing all Fighting Captains into Clan donations or Basic Cutter servitude is a good idea to grow the Open World population? This type of "Hunger Game" will lead to the bottom percentile of players constantly burning out and leaving until there is no foundation and no prey for the top percentile to hunt. The result will be starvation for everyone, and a gradual decline. The game needs a growth in player base, not a starvation diet. Learn from EVE and figure this out fast.

This game is getting better and better with every patch but i do find a few things really annoying. The first being the time limit and the required 20 minutes holding of an objective to have it captured. I just rage quited the battle of Cold Harbour when i playing as the Confedarates lost the entire battle because i didn't cap the objetive in time i.e. the timer ended LITERALLY A SINGLE MINUTE before i "captured" the little forest on the top of the map during the left flank phase, and this was caused by a 2800 strong Union brigade that charged my ranks and i was unable to rout them before they managed to occupy the point again (i did have 2 brigades defending it but i was outnumbered). There should always be a option to prolong a battle for an extra 30 minutes because i don't think that in real life there was a single instance where generals would retreat their forces at exactly 14:00 or 15:00 if there was a chance for a huge breakthrough or victory. Reputation is a feature i really do like, it rewards you for winning battles by increasing your troops morale and giving you extra manpower or guns if they are urgently needed but i don't see why it is caped at all. The "logic" behind this implies that you can win every single minor and major engagment of the Civil War killing hundreds of thousand of enemies and destroying hundreds of guns but if you loose 2 battles like Chicamauga and Cold Harbour you lost the entire war. There shouldn't be a reputation cap but the morale bonus can stay at +15 so that it doesn't get overpowered. Double standards i also find really annoying, but i dont know how prominent they are because i only noticed it once. Because i play two campaings the main one being with the Confederates and my "side" one with the Union, i play the battle of Chicamauga as the Confedarates first and managed to control all objective 1h before the timer ran out, and the game normally proceded to the next phase. So when i replayed the battle with the Union i didn't want to waste my elite 1 Division of the First Corps defending the two river passages on the left of the first phase. Resulting in the Confederates capturing them and i instantly lost that battle. There shouldn't be any double standards because it gives the AI an unfair advantage.

Have anyone else seen the A.I. have 1863 Springfield's while it's still 1861? (Hard Difficultly/Legendary)

After the massive nerf to shock cavalry in the previous patch, skirmishers have lost their natural predator and now being just straight up a pain in the *ss to deal with. The most frustrating thing is that they run almost as fast as cavalry ALL THE TIME, ON ALL TERRAIN without using any condition. Even catching them on open field with shock cavalry only deal a minor amount of damage until they got to the nearest wood and then the table turn. Like seriously, can those people who always scream "history" out of their throat all the time explain to me how is that possible, huh?

When new players join the game for the first time, they are presented with the choice of nations to select from. At this point they are informed some nations are harder than others, and there are hints about who is fighting who. This information is inaccurate and very misleading - and really needs to change to reflect what is going on with each server. It is also a prime chance to help balance nations going forward with incentives for players to join nations needing new recruits. Back when I first joined, I selected the Pirates as I expected it to be hard - only to find the Pirates ruled most of the map - and I rerolled within a few weeks to France.

I believe that the biggest balance issue, and part of the reason for the gank fleets, if not the whole reason, is simply player numbers in said nation, and or pirate "nation." To balance this issue i would suggest some sort of player limiting factor per nation that could be implemented by percentile. Depending on others opinions on how that percentile could work every nation should have a +- 0-5% of an even percent of the total players on the server that have logged on in the past X amount of time, allowing for an active nation. OR it could be a somewhat uneven balance more historical to the nations historical presence in the area, i.e. spain with a bunch of population followed by britian, america, dutch, swedes/danes, and pirates. This would limit the pirates, and make them also behave like pirates more than what they do now. However this is a game and that might not be very popular, or it could be very popular. Opinions, more implementation ideas, etc. all welcome.

Hi there, One thing that I've noticed since the update is that the map is now crawling with NPC 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Rates (I sail primarily on the American coast in PvE, so that's my frame of reference). It's certainly good to see these as primarily in smaller squadrons rather than the gigantic Trafalgar fleets as was the case previously, but it seems there are considerably fewer NPC merchantmen and smaller warships in the new update. Since capital ships were relatively few even in the largest navies (Britain at the height of her power after Trafalgar had only 100 ships of the line of varying sizes in the entire world) and because the emphasis in Naval Action seems to be more on independent cruising and trading, perhaps it would be possible to have more prowling frigates and cruisers with plenty of ripe merchies for the taking, rather than so many heavy line-of-battle ships? Thanks-- PS--any chance the next update could include the tweaks to USS Constitution as outlined in the topic "USS Constitution spritsail?"

Welcome to S.P.C.B.T, the Seven Points Combat Balance Treatise. Here we go: I. Make waves smaller for small ships battles - small ships sail mostly on shoreline where the waters are usually calm; maybe bring back storm maps (for all ship types) or make waves depend on shallow or deep water but make big waves the execption. II. In admiralty orders make clear, against what ship types I have to fight; this is only fair, because the admiralty would surely have requested to intercept a known target. III. Balance single missions too; when a players knows to engage a snow and a mercury and he decides to go in his brig, put an AI snow on his side to balace BR like we have it in fleet missions. IV. Adjust the gold reward for missions; it's unlikely that the admiralty would reward the interception of a snow equal to the interception of a pavel; so why do we have always 5000 gold? V. Make instant PVP more interesting; remove small and great battles and allow duels in different ships; why not have a trinco fight against a rattlesnake? It could be much fun and ship loss is disabled anyway. And when possible, let others join, like we had it in small missions, but do not fill up with AI ships. VI. Instead of small and great battles make more interesting instant PVP missions, like capture the flag, sneak missions, convoy missions and trafalgar missions. VII. Implement player reputations, so that everyone can see the lifeline of a player, including his wins and losses and runaways; players who always run away from PVP to be blamed. Please discuss.

First, I just want to clarify that I don't want balance. I like to play the underdog factions - "to do things because they are hard, not because they are easy." That said, here are some suggestions that I think would help the PvP game - which at the present tends to reward the Zerg herd rather than skill or strategy: The price of conquest flags should be based on the distance of a port from the starting faction capital. The number of ports a clan should be able to capture within a 24h period should be limited. The availability of reinforcements should not just be based on the proximity of a national port, but also on the proximity of a national AI fleet and the proximity to an allied port. So, if a fight starts next to a national convoy - then than same nation player should have the chance to call upon the convoy for support. If a fight starts next to the port of a nation, a given clan member has an alliance with, then that player should be able to call in some reinforcements. Implement a diplomatic system where a clan leader can: Dispose of a diplomacy screen where they can see the names and national affiliation of other clans Chat with other clan leaders Set enemy / friendly tags against the other clans Set OW color codes for Friends/Foes Agree on an alliance chat channel (ie: a chat channel much like the clan channel, where members of clans in the alliance can chat together to coordinate actions) Draw / write on the map - in order to better communicate orders / sightings / targets between the clan members Reset their clan's home port instead of the capital. A clan member's map should be updated with the list of clan/alliance pvp engagements. Often players/leave join and are not up to date on current actions - and miss out as a result. Institute a bonus (gold/exp) multiplier kicker/reward for nations that have low populations. Institute a clan fund mechanism where members can kick-up funds to a global pool to then serve in the deployment of low tier ships and production facilities. Limit the number of low tier ships that can be deployed in battle based on the overall clan's funds and/or the number of online clan players - example: This could be done in the following: each 4th rate that joins a battle costs W, 3rd rate that joins a battle costs X, each 2nd rate that joins a battle costs Y, each 1st rate that joins a battle costs Z from the clan's pool). This could also be done by having a proportional limit such as no more that 5% can field a 1st rate, no more than 10% can field a second rate, etc....

The lethality of each ship can vary greatly dependent on Rate, Type, Quality, Number of upgrades, Quality of upgrades and Rank of commander (Crew on board) Observation. A basic fir 74Bellona with 1 common upgrade slot and Flag Captain with 69% crew is NOT the same BR as an Exceptional Live oak 74Bellona with 5 upgrade slots all exceptional and a Commodore with full crew. Will the end game allow for such variations in deciding the BR of each ship or will all ships continue with the set single BR rating.

I think that we should have a "long term repair" option that does not have a limit, but is very slow. The inspiration for this was a very frustrating Trafalgar battle in the surprise, I got heavily damaged, my sails pretty torn up and slowly taking on water. I managed to break from the action to recover, but realized I was out of repair kits. I had to spend the rest of the battle half full (and slowly filling) with water and on low sails, unable to catch up to the action and do anything. It just felt silly that I was out of the battle, not being fired at, but still could not repair my hull by probably 10% that was necessary to stop the little bit of flooding, or that my sails were now totally irreparable and even the entire crew working together could not fix them at all. I would like there to be a way to repair once out of the action and not being fired upon that does not have limited uses, but is much slower than a standard repair. It would slowly repair whatever you told it to (sails, hull (hull could be broken down into exactly what quadrant you want to repair.)Rudder, pump,) Slowly repairing them over a few minutes. The idea is to let players who have escaped the battle but are damaged and cannot catch up/move repair enough to be able to get back to the battle and be of some use there. Some limitations I think would be useful are: (1. It may only be used at least 45 seconds after last being shot or taking any damage. (2. It cannot be used in close proximity with enemies. and (3. It cannot repair absolutely massive damage, (masts destroyed etc) (4. And it will only bring the health of hull armor up to 50% of the original, undamaged, maximum. (It will be able to repair as much as it needs until reaching 50% of the original strength) This last limitation is because I don't want to encourage people to immediately drop out of battle and repair once they take the slightest bit of damage. When it comes to sails I don't think it matters as much, let it repair to 100% I think it would probably be good to also include some kind of penalty while using it, for instance much slower reloads and sail management. (again this is for repairing while not in combat, not for extending the life of your ship while fighting.) Thoughts?

I'm trying to play as CSA against a Balanced, unboosted Union AI and I have yet to find any good way to kill union artillery. Charging doesn't really work, since a couple canister shots will break a brigade. Rifle fire doesn't seem to do much, either, and focusing multiple artillery batteries on a single union battery takes a really long time. I've found that I can do reasonably well by not directly targeting union artillery and that the AI will feel compelled to withdraw if it's threatened by several nearby brigades, but this is definitely a sub-optimal solution. Any tips? PS I've read that rifle fire may do more against artillery in an upcoming patch. But I'm also not clear about whether this patch has been released yet.

The Rebels are still hugely overpowered in the game. I've had whole divisions overrun on high ground with cover and artillery support. Its almost as if all the Rebels have to do to win is charge. The only thing that seems to stop them is canister. I think giving the Rebels a charging bonus is drastically unfair. It makes defending as the Union impossible.

SO yesterday I finished another two campaigns against the Rebels, one on "Offensive" the other on "Cunning." Both resulted in decisive victories with casualties of 3:1 in my favour. I decided to play a new campaign today and suddenly the Rebels were unstoppable. I watched as Archer and Davis took 40% casualties and literally did not waver. Meanwhile, my supposedly Veteran Brigade under Cutler broke under a few volleys from what should have been an exhausted Davis. It took at least two brigades of equal strength to defeat one of their's, and that was only if mine was in cover. I finally lost my patience when I watched the Iron Brigade, on high ground, flanking Archer, with heavy cover, pour enfilade fire into Archer. Archer took 30% casualties and only then began to waver. Then, for no reason, the Iron Brigade broke, despite taking almost no fire or casualties. At another point, the Rebels somehow captured Seminary Ridge while all of their forces were on McPherson's Ridge and my men were deployed on Seminary Ridge. I have since then tried some scenarios as tests. I found that other scenarios played as I would expect them to for the most part. This issue seems to be most prevalent on the first day. Has anyone else noticed anything?