Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'discussion'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Naval Action
    • Naval Action Community and Support
    • Naval Action - National Wars and Piracy
    • Naval Action Gameplay Discussions
    • Naval Action - Other languages
    • Naval Action (Русский язык)
  • Age of Sail Historical Discussions
    • History
    • Shipyard
  • Ultimate General
    • Ultimate General: Civil War
    • Ultimate General: Gettysburg
    • Ultimate Admiral: Age of Sail
    • Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts
    • Forum troubleshooting
  • Sea Legends
    • General Discussions
  • This land is my land
    • General discussions
  • Game-Labs Forum
  • SealClubbingClub's Topics
  • Pyrates and rovers's Literature & Media
  • Pyrates and rovers's Gameplay / Roleplay
  • Pyrates and rovers's History - ships, events, personae
  • Clan [GWC] Nederlands talig {Aanmelding}'s Topics
  • Polska Flota Kaperska's Rekrutacja
  • Polska Flota Kaperska's Historia - Polska na morzach
  • Chernomoriya's Topics
  • Unsolved mysteries in plain sight's Mysteries
  • Unsolved mysteries in plain sight's The Book of Rules
  • Congress of Vienna's Global
  • Congress of Vienna's EU
  • Congress of Vienna's Historical
  • The Dutch Empire's The Dutch Empire
  • The Dutch Empire's The Dutch Empire
  • The Dutch Empire's Discord Server
  • ROVER - A treatise on proper raiding in NA developed by real events's The Rulebook
  • ROVER - A treatise on proper raiding in NA developed by real events's Tactics (methods)
  • Ship Auctions's Topics
  • Creative - Captains & Ships Logs's How to...
  • closed's Topics
  • Catalunya's Comença la llibertat !!
  • Port Battle History's Topics


There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.


  • Community Calendar
  • United States Continental Navy's Pearl Harbor Day

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 11 results

  1. While many mock pre-dreadnoughts and dreadnoughts for having torpedo tubes there is actually a very good reason as to why they had them. Often times the gun technology was not up to date with the protection during this period, if two pre-dreadnoughts were to find each other and engage in 1v1 combat, neither would really be able to do much damage due to the emphasis on secondary arms rather than the all big gun design dreadnoughts are known for, as well as the fact that the armor on both ships would usually be enough to deflect any shells that came their way. This is the reason why at the battle of Tsushima most of the capital ships of the 2nd pacific squad were lost due to fire and shrapnel rather than the penetrating catastrophic hits you would see in battles like the Battle Of The Denmark Straight. Guns simply did not have the penetrating power to get through hostile armor. The same issue was seen with ironclads, where an ironclad couldn't sink another ironclad, but anything other than an ironclad was pretty much dead if they ran into on 1v1. However the torpedo acted as an equaliser of sorts, now smaller ships would have a fighting chance against a capital ship if they played their cards right. But now we go back to the issue of an ironclad not being able to sink another ironclad, the torpedo was able to effectively ignore armor, so when you have an issue of your conventional weapons not being able to penetrate enemy armor and instead having to rely on crew casualties, and things that are more based around chance rather than skill such as fires, and ammo detonations. You can start to see why it would be very tempting to put torpedoes on capital ships. They already fought at close ranges, within torpedo distance due to lack of gun tech, the guns themselves were unable to actually do damage to the ship itself outside of fires, spalling, etc... and there was this new weapon that was going to change everything, now your capital ships wouldn't just be resigned to fighting smaller ships, now they could actually threaten each other. And while hindsight is 2020 about the usefulness of fixed underwater torpedo tubes on a battleship, it makes significantly more sense if you think about it from the eyes of the time period. EDIT: The reason why dreadnoughts continued to keep them was there was still leftovers from the mentality of "Capital ships will get in close and form a line of battle" for quite some time even after the launch of HMS Dreadnought. It is also part of why it took so long for many navies to dump the idea of casemates entirely and switch to the more practical less but more useful and with wider arcs of fire turret secondaries. Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
  2. I'm not trying to tell Devs what to do with this poll, but rather i want to see what the community thinks. What do you think about adding Multiplayer? For me personally, i would like multiplayer to be implemented because the option to play against someone else on the same terms is just too great compared to AI, especially with game like this, where you can apply your own naval doctrine and design your own ships.
  3. Open Forum Diplomacy needs to come back as part of RVR! Both RVR sides should communicate to each other about their gaols, what they intend, what is the impact etc etc in a declaration of war. And this is how it goes: Before or while attacking a region, someone on behalf of attacking clans do a formal war declaration here in forums. The info should include, what Clans and Nations will take part, and most important, what goals do the attacker have, for example: We take region A, B, C We demand you to stop reinforcing enemy screen fleet elsewhere We demand tribute We deman you to open/close certain ports Total anihilation: we will attack as long as we like ........ The attacker should mention what happens after the goals are achieved e.g. how long the RVR cease fire will be, etc. Someone on behalf of attacked clans responds immediately or later during the war: taking region C will threaten the population of our nation e.g. because of main crafting port area we will defend/not defend region A, B, C (avoiding empty port battles) we will use/not use the legal mechanic of changing timers we will take region A, B, C from the attacker we will demand reparations In the same Thread other clans could state, if they will help to any side. As it is of course hard to foresee how battles will impact on the participants, both sides, inform each other in the same thread about changes, ability to attack and defend. They can use their first Post, so it dont get lost because a lot of other people will comment with bullshit. I also will request elsewhere, that Thread creators should get the ability to open and close their threads, so a thread stays clear of trolling Why should someone do it anyway? if one side dont communicate, it leads to speculations Advantages for both sides: no unfounded "A want destroy B" accusations less empty portbattles and boredom statements of participiants don´t get lost in other forum threads less players leave game/nation to early or at all, because they think they are doomed bigger propability that a loosing nation can recover more clearity about who is with whom clarity about everything and less forum drama and bullshit Disadvantages: .... Please tell me, what should be added and i eventually will add stuff by marking it in another colour.
  4. The sever population is high, RVR is fun. But RVR can cut morale, fun and population of a nation, that lost couple of ports and battles. It is also not fun at all to fight empty Portbattles. My question is: How to make RVR fun for both sides? I write this, because british players threat in forums, that their nation will depopulate, when they being attacked further. In the end of the discussion i want to summarize the suggestions and write them in this post.
  5. I am just curious here, why was the decision made not to allow players to take economic missions from any port? It's incredibly irritating to make your run to an enemy port and then sail, basically empty, all the way back to a base. Why not let us chain missions together? Drop one off, pick up another in the direction I need to go? This would keep traders out to sea for longer and they would be able to make a bit more money in the process.
  6. Discuss... I just realized I should have made question 8 multiple choice. sorry
  7. I've seen differing opinions on whose navy was the strongest, and while the general consensus is Great Britain at the top, who comes after is usually hotly debated. I'm opening up a debate (not a flaming war for all you folks that lack restraint), as to who YOU think the 10 strongest navies were during Naval Action's timeline. Rules for posting your list are as follows: 1. Expand on your views as to why you chose the particular order you've listed. Don't just say "Well Subject A lost to Subject B, so Subject B is the best." 2. Provide at least one or two sources to supplement your position. Wikipedia is acceptable so long as supplementing sources are provided for the excerpts you pull from that site. 3. Feel free to debate with fellow naval enthusiasts over your differences of opinion, but please do not flame, and choose your words carefully. We're all mature adults here (I hope). I'll be requesting a moderator to remove posts if you guys can't follow the rules.
  8. Hello fellow captains I have been wanting to write this Topic for a while now but with the patch on the 26th I just had to ask about the future of Naval Action and the changes wich open up a whole new range of Possibilities for the game. since the recent change by the devs to go hard-core with the present NA new Possibilities are created for suggestions and content wich was first discarded as being to radical or hard. As first i would like to ask the devs to reconsider the orginal idea about regional conquest because since NA will be hard-core we should also need a hard-core conquest system, a more in-depth and longer lasting Regional conquest system would be needed. take a look at the link below about the original Idea of Regional conquest. A quick explanation about the Regional conquest system : - Smaller Regions with 3 ports Max. this would decrease the rapid expansion of nations and allow for a more controlled Front line/Border. - All ports in a region should be able to be attacked or raided. this is more realistic and fits in the picture of a hard-core game, PVP and RVR would also benefit from this for the sole reason that there are just more possibilities for PVP and RVR + all ports in the region are now important to the regions defense and not just one port (Regional Capital). - Capture of any ports can only be started after winning a Sea battle for supremacy over the regional water. this battle would be open to all ships and play out as a normal sea battle, also PVP now has a role in RVR and would make more people participate in RVR. this battle would most likely not be full most of the time and could be won by the attackers fairly easily due to the enemy not knowing that they where going to be attacked( dont worry! the defender still has plenty of time and opportunity to counter attack) - Capture of a regional capital can only be started after capturing the other ports in the region. this would make the attack on a enemy region more into a campaign then instead of just one battle resulting in longer regional attacks and better coordination of fleets due to the more time availible to both attackers and defenders. my second suggestion for the devs to reconsider would be about Port Battle compositions. long story made short a certain amount of ships from every Rate are allowed into Port battles ,see the link below. explaination of this idea : ( -Note- all amounts could ofcourse be changed ) i would propose for Deep water and Regional capital port battles : - 1 or 2 1st Rates ships - 2 or 3 2nd Rates ships - 3 or 4 3rd Rates ships - 4 or 5 4th Rates ships - 5 or 6 5th Rates ships 15 to 20 higher Rate ships can be used(1st Rates to 5th Rates) - no regulations on 6th Rates ships and lower for Shallow water port battles the same but starting with 6th Rates : - 10 to 15 6th Rates ships - 10 or 15 7th Rates ships a system like this (not this exact system) would make sure that 1st to 3rd rate ships wil become less important. i would also suggest changing the big fleets on the OW so that they would have less 1st to 3rd rates and more 4th to 6th rates. now there is ofcourse the argument that this system would only work for lobby based battles and that it is too hard to maintain, it requires some more thinking yes but i dont think that a system like this would be to much to handle and in the end the community will figure it out like they have always done. these where just two suggestions i would realy like to see realised but by writing this Topic i hope the devs will now change there stance on suggestions that have been discarded, i am sure there are many more old suggestions that could fit this situation and i hope the devs will reconsider them. thank you for reading. Kind Regarts : Rickard PS : if you have some other old suggestions that the devs should look at please post them in a reply.
  9. I have liked this game from the start very much, when the armies you had to handle were small. However it got worse and worse with every add on and I stopped playing it eventually. Here are some reasons why I start it only rarely now: - enemy has always better equipment - I noticed that it does not matter if I play union or confederate guys - while not observed your units behave like morons, not like veterans - your men usually start heroic chase after routed unit right into enemy fire instead of holding the line at least theoretically. Real class act. In the end I just ended up stopping units from doing something stupid - instead of masterminding briliant tactical maneuvers - focus gets stuck - order your men to hold ground and fire on enemy -> they rout the enemy unit, but the focus remains, so they sit on the line and let the rest of enemy units destroy themselves. Is it really reality like? - I just do not see much of the glorified AI. Most of the flanking maneuvers are done by the fact that on many maps enemy units just appear behind your lines. Enemy is charging against much stronger forces you have and on top of it, it is usually working for him. Seems to me that what this AI is all about is considerable boost on enemy forces stamina and morale - regularly, less experienced computer units are better than your veterans in one on one shootout / charge. The other way around your guys get slaughtered - and the last annoying thing - does not matter whether you win the whole time in a decisive way. It has no effect on the enemy. Basically one screwed up battle on your part and you'll never get your numbers back all on the top said, I enjoyed playing the game, it is really good, but these things really drove me off - total lack of balance between your and enemy units, this moron-like behavior while chasing the enemy and of course the last one. Where is the motivation, if you excel in one battle and you know that the enemy will be only stronger because of it in the next
  10. Wanted to discuss the strength and damage rate or town forts after last nights embarassing debacle. On Tuesday The Spanish and French (25 ships ,1st-3rd rates)came to Kingston for a late night fight.Unfortunately England was only able to muster a small defence ,of mostly 4th-5th rate ships and 1 Black Painted Santisma. Forming a line at the harbour mouth.The Spanish/French waited till the wind was due north then tagged a passing ai force.England rapidly fell back towards Kingstons Forts.... However,the forts were sadly ineffectual,providing limited damage,and coordination against the enemy fleet.It was disappointing,the forts provided irregular shots,and very low damage against the attackers.It Would also appear that the fort that lies to the left of the harbour dosent work,i didnt see it fire once even when ships were close.They need to improve the forts a.i and introduce targetted volleys.
  11. jodgi


    Since griefing popped up as a complaint regarding events I'm opening this up per admin's request. Griefing is griefing and needs specific responses. But there might be a challenge with the setup as it is. We lose a dura if we're on the losing team, well, unless we manage to run, and that's not a satisfactory situation for the winning team being held up by a runner. We've discussed ad nauseam how anal players get when it comes to their durabilities. I suspect the queue times for events are rather long because most players are hesitant of going all in with their durabilities in the hands of random teammates. It's the worst of both worlds. The shitty loss (but you all say important) part of OW combined with the shitty random teammates of arena games. I can pay a durability every now and then for some PVP xp, but most players seem to avoid it. It would be really cool, even now in testing, to have some PVP on demand in events, but it's usually a ghost town.
  • Create New...