Video - USN Attacks France

[GrapeShot]

Yea, but who decides National policy? I know a lot if clan folks don't like this view, but it cannot be clans. Non-clan players should never be dragged into clan wars. Never.

Look at this thread, already we have some folks babbling about what can and can't be said because of future diplomatic efforts. Wtf? Do we really want that sort of silliness foisted upon regular players?

National politics needs to be a meta function of the game, not a clan function.

Edited February 8, 2016 by GrapeShot

[Baron Quertier]

Perhaps simply adding clan tags in open world will help, atleast then if clams are at war instead of nations there can be less unwanted attention

[Hethwill]

Perhaps simply adding clan tags in open world will help, atleast then if clams are at war instead of nations there can be less unwanted attention

 

I wish it would. But who holds authority ? A clan might well have its own agenda on their zone of influence and go rogue.

 

When a clan of a nation attacks countrymen over a mere brig ( not once, not twice,... ) you know the tag won't matter a single bit.

[akd]

Being a part of a nation is having who you can and cannot attack dictated to you.

Technically our nation has dictated to us that we are at war with all other nations and should attack them and expect to be attacked by them. Individuals / clans are attempting to subvert this (understandably, since the game provides no formal tools) through informal agreements that are too broad. I'm not saying I don't support the goals, or think they are not best for the nation, I am just saying that they are too far reaching (peace / war) to be fair or understandable to all players, which leads to some players getting pulled along or thrown under the bus in contravention of the dictates of the game itself, and to inevitable grief when players run into eachother on the OS and gameplay happens.

More limited agreements on not attacking particular ports accomplish the same goals (enabling national strategy and concentration of resources if you can coordinate clans) without confusion and potential for cycles of retaliation resulting from every random OS encounter.

[Matsje van Leeuwenhoek]

What needs to be grasped here is that ceasefires, and treaties of ANY sort are mainly over ports, not open world sailing. Trying to dictate a ceasefire over the whole open world of any nations "territorial waters" is not going to lead to anywhere good for anyone. Be it the clan sailing from pt A to pt B or which ever national clan is trying to say in national chat "let US, Brits, French, ect ect" free passage thru our waters.

 

1st off, those sailing through should never expect free passage by whoever wishes to tackle them, INCLUDING treatied clans. but to expect Joe Blow to not give it a shot is just silly. I see a flotilla in my area, I'm gonna give it a go and see what happens. Reinforcements may or may not come!! 

 

2nd off, for the clans trying to tell a nation, "hey, give these guys a free pass" is only going to create negative results towards xxx clan, and I think for the most part all of us here, enjoy the RvR aspect of the game, and in so doing, want, ney, need a friendly nation to draw people from to get involved in RvR and into clans. None of us benefit per say from randoms and solo people. As a whole we all benefit from clans, societies, alliances w/in our nations towards working towards what as a vast majority we may want for our national selection of nations.

 

Im 'somewhat' okay w/treaties. I kind of get it, I dont personally like it, but thats okay. I can play along.

 

Having said that, I think that treaties beyond ports is going to lead to alot of problems for everyone. Ports are never really seriously going to be in danger from the average unorganized population. So clan/nation X saying Port A is off limits is not an issue. However, if clan/nation X thinks sailing past my capitol under a "truce banner" is going to fly, thats a whole different animal. You want to go from Pt A to Pt B come expecting trouble. Dont walk thru South Chicago w/a white flag thinking "oh, I'm fine, I'm fine, they know I come in peace"

[Johny Reb]

Those of you that argue for clan/clan agreements and not nation/nation agreements fail to see the big picture and fail to see why clan/clan does not work, makes a nation week, and hurts the solo player.

 

First, in any large group, anywhere, leadership always arises. It is necessary and inevitable. It is not a bad thing. Assuming leadership does not equal arrogance or dictatorship in this game. No player has to obey anything that another group tells them to do. When a clan or group of clans step up and organize the nation for success then they take upon themselves the responsibility of convincing the nation to accept their leadership and decisions. Nobody is dictating to anybody. They are persuading.

 

Another way leadership clans do this is by inviting others into the fold. I can see if a nation gets upset over one clan assuming leadership and barking orders at everyone else as if they are lesser people. Their assumed leadership will be mute because no one will follow their direction when no one likes them. On the other hand leading clans that invite smaller clans and even individuals to participate and share their opinions help to not only solidify their leadership but gives the general population a way to have a voice and play a role.

 

We should talk about why certain clans have assumed leadership status in the various nations. First, its willingness. It take A LOT of effort and time to strategize and organize a war strategy. The behind the scenes diplomacy and decision making takes a lot of time. Not everyone is up for that kind of involvement even if they want to be. Second, its experience. All the major clans in this game have been here from the beginning. We all know the relative strengths and capabilities of the other nations. We know each others leadership and their temperament. We have a good sense of how far a group can be pushed before there is backlash but even more important is we have a detailed understanding of the stregnth of our own nation and our nations capabilities and therefore how far WE can push. The old clans carry a lot of wisdom and knowledge on how to wage war and peace in this game. They don't try to lead out of arrogance but experience.

 

This isn't Pirates of the burning Sea. There is no Map win. You don't win the map by capturing X amount of ports in NA. If you make the wrong decision and make to many enemies you could find yourself pushed back to ONE port, your capital.

 

Now lets look at some of the misunderstanding of some of the above comments.

Clan/Clan 

These are meaningless agreements in anything other than ship vs ship combat. When it comes to national borders their is no place for clan/clan agreements. Here is the simple reason why. TF, a US clan, makes an agreement with SGS, a British clan and one in whom we have been friends with from the old game. We agree to port boundaries that prevents the US from expanding into the Windward passage from the north and the British from expanding out of the Windward passage from the North. The very next day SLRN takes Monti Cristi, Islet, and Baracoa while TDA takes San Marcos, Jeremie, and Nippes. They take these ports because they had no agreement.

See, the agreement with SGS had no meaning, no weight behind it.

If you can't make a border agreement with a nation then there is really no reason to have an agreement with anyone.

 

Even a clan/clan open sea agreement has complications. If the US attacks a french port while they have a non aggression pact with SLMF, does that mean that SLMF can't go and defend their port? Does it mean that the US clan has to pull out of a port battle the second an SLMF member shows up to defend? These aren't insurmountable issues of course, but it highlights the problems that arise.

 

It hurts the solo player:

The solo player will never be privy to these clan/clan non-aggression pacts. Our clan would be duty bound to let a fleet of SLMF guys sail by and up our coast tagging every solo trader they run across and we could do nothing to stop it because of our NAP. How is that good for the solo player or the tiny clan? What will arise is anger from the trader that got no help from TF even though we were sitting right there watching it happen.

 

It makes a nation week:

The above reasons explain this statement. A non-unified nation will not be able to negotiate anything of importance with another nation. Being factioned off will allow the enemy to divide and conquer and a clan is less likely to find support from another clan if there is no relationship between them.

 

Yea, but who decides National policy? I know a lot if clan folks don't like this view, but it cannot be clans. Non-clan players should never be dragged into clan wars. Never.

Look at this thread, already we have some folks babbling about what can and can't be said because of future diplomatic efforts. Wtf? Do we really want that sort of silliness foisted upon regular players?

National politics needs to be a meta function of the game, not a clan function.

I can not disagree with you more and in just about every point Grape.

1. Who decides National policy - Whoever steps up, helps organize, and fights on the front lines. That generally is the clans but it doesn't have to be.

2. "non-clan players should never be dragged into clan wars" - Clans are every bit a part of the nation as individuals. Because the clans are on the front lines in force and have a lot of influence does not mean a war is a "clan war". It is a national war. Clans represent a population of players that have simply organized under a common goal. Solo players have chosen not to organize but that doesn't mean their goals are in conflict with the goals of the people within organized clans. Clans can be dragged into solo player wars just as solo players can be dragged into "clan wars".

3. "folks babbling about what can and can't be said because of future diplomatic efforts. Wtf?" - I'm not sure which post your referring to but I haven't seen anyone barking orders to anyone. But people shouldn't be stupid. Just like in Eve there is a greater game going on in NA that doesn't come through game code.

4. "Do we really want that sort of silliness foisted upon regular players?" - Why is it that when there is an attempt to have leadership in a group or faction it must mean that silliness is being forced on people? Such an unfounded statement Grape. No one has forced anything on anyone. Our nation is pretty united as it stands. That is because players have either agreed with direction the nation is being taken, trust those who are on the front lines, or simply don't care one way or another. When the "why" question has been asked most have understood the wisdom of the answer. Every night this week an invitation has been sent out to all players to get involved if they wanted to influence the nations direction. At least three of the past 5 nights I have attempted to discover all the new clans that are being formed and make contact in order to encourage involvement and brief them on the reasons behind our strategies.

5."National politics needs to be a meta function of the game, not a clan function." - But its not right now. We work with what we have.

[Marques]

The matter is... Spanish are weak, French are weak, .... Americains, Dutch, Ruskys-Danish, and Pirates are the strongest one....It seems to me this game is made with a special timetable for the americains people to win.

 

Or looks like the game start at 1820 when the caribbean sea is not the golden AGE of Sail. The Devs. should think about to better balance the game. Thinking more on they said:

" Naval action is..."Naval Action is an exciting, realistic, and beautifully detailed naval combat game immersing players into the experience of the most beautiful period of naval history - when sailing ships ruled the seas"  ( WHO was RULED... USA ??  funny thing)

Really ?? Sorry, but  I´m not agree with this add.  Spain, France and UK  should be strongest and the game start in 1650. Usa and others small factions can grew up in a longterm, and city ports battles should be almost eliminate.( that´s would be more logical).

 

It´s due to this lack of respect that many people are upset and changing to the pirates faction.

[Powderhorn]

I must admit, I never realized the skill of the developers to actually make the movement of the sun across the sky, and all the derivative measurements of time and zones thereof, favor the Americans.  That was a feature I hadn't anticipated.

[Powderhorn]

A couple added thoughts:  You refer to the height of Spanish power as the historical marker for this game - the 1650's.  This isn't that game (just look at the ships in the game).  Sure, you want all models scrapped and new ones made so you can live out your fantasy.  Not realistic.  Let's presume, instead, an alternate reality where Spain was at its height at 1800 and wasn't just another nation about to fall to Napoleon.

 

How would you make it so that this Spanish Empire was reflected in game?  Would you make it so Spanish ports were uncapturable?  Make it so Spanish players sailed around with their own 10 man AI fleets?   Maybe instead just double the health of any Spanish vessel, to balance out the disparity in numbers?

 

If you want your nation to be the empire it once was, you have the same tools that everyone else has.  At that point, you need only look to yourself, and your fellows in your faction.

[Francis Tabernac]

I must admit, I never realized the skill of the developers to actually make the movement of the sun across the sky, and all the derivative measurements of time and zones thereof, favor the Americans.  That was a feature I hadn't anticipated.

 

A feature so well-embedded that I hadn't even noticed. Well played, developers...

 

Come now, the game is not designed in such a way as to favour any faction. We all have the same access to the same ships and level up in the same way. There are many factors involved, and those that are aiding the US are primarily (imho):

1) Beginning this round of the game with several well-organised clans (due to the players, not the game);

2) Likely having more players on at a time than the Spanish, on average (again due to the players, not the game). This one may be debatable, and is arguably the least important;

3) Having fewer beginning ports, their initial territory is easier to defend while it's also strategically simpler to focus on expansion in a single direction. This will only aid them in the beginning, however. That advantage is shared by several factions, and it would be offset by the greater number of options available to more expansive nations if they had the players and organisation to take advantage of it. The fact that they don't does not make the game biased towards the US (or anyone else).

 

I have my complaints about the conduct of some players, particularly on these boards, but the game isn't biased and they're not 'cheating'. They're simply making better use of what they have than others. The timeline is wholly immaterial when so much of the in-game activity is entirely player-driven.

[marecek05]

A feature so well-embedded that I hadn't even noticed. Well played, developers...

 

Come now, the game is not designed in such a way as to favour any faction. We all have the same access to the same ships and level up in the same way. There are many factors involved, and those that are aiding the US are primarily (imho):

1) Beginning this round of the game with several well-organised clans (due to the players, not the game);

2) Likely having more players on at a time than the Spanish, on average (again due to the players, not the game). This one may be debatable, and is arguably the least important;

3) Having fewer beginning ports, their initial territory is easier to defend while it's also strategically simpler to focus on expansion in a single direction. This will only aid them in the beginning, however. That advantage is shared by several factions, and it would be offset by the greater number of options available to more expansive nations if they had the players and organisation to take advantage of it. The fact that they don't does not make the game biased towards the US (or anyone else).

 

I have my complaints about the conduct of some players, particularly on these boards, but the game isn't biased and they're not 'cheating'. They're simply making better use of what they have than others. The timeline is wholly immaterial when so much of the in-game activity is entirely player-driven.

 

I agree. But just to add the ability to set up original starting ports defense time would also hinder US advance. So right now a seeming advantage might become a disadvantage in the next iteration of the game.

 

But it is early access and this is our job. To focus on things like these that lead to unfun undefended port battles.

Edited February 8, 2016 by marecek05

[Powderhorn]

Many of us have advocated for being able to set initial port timers on starting ports.  However, particularly in the case of the latest acquisitions to the freed lands, we have responded within timers that both the French and Spanish set, well outside of our "primetime" hours (many of us had to set alarms and have coffee brewing for the early morning fights), and we were still taking undefended ports.  In these cases, it seems that the players had no intention to set timers for when they would defend, rather for the hope that the time itself would be so inconvenient that nobody would attack.

[Johny Reb]

The matter is... Spanish are weak, French are weak, .... Americains, Dutch, Ruskys-Danish, and Pirates are the strongest one....It seems to me this game is made with a special timetable for the americains people to win.

I think its interesting that you leave out the Brits which are the largest faction in the game and is quite strong and also one of your allies.

 

I can only reiterate that countries make peace and they make war. Your group chose war. RAE specifically chose war. Why don't you pressure your leadership for a change of tactic?

 

I actually feel for the Spanish. It sounds as if they are real life citizens of Spain and wish to role play their proud nation. They start out with the worst possible disadvantages and a shrinking of their territory at the beginning of the map is inevitable.

[Matsje van Leeuwenhoek]

To Marques

 

Look, I get it. Espana has lost a TONNE of ports. I sympathize. I do. Been there, done that. Its hard to keep a stiff jaw and continue to endure what most likely seems like a targetting by everyone NOT in a yellow and red flag, but, as others have mentioned, Espana started out w/everything everyone else started out with x3 or more.

 

Saying that one nation is favored by THIS specific dev team is comical when you look at the map and the territories Danes/Sweden were given. Dont get me wrong, I was a mouse click away from joining the Swedes, because it just looked wickedly fun being that small, and Ive made more than one mention about it here and elsewhere.

 

My advice is stop the woe-is-me banter. That only feeds into itself and creates conspiracy theories that weave around and around until they strangle those that it touches.

[TheAmerican]

Thinking off the top of my head... I wonder if the Devs could implement a 48-Hr faction poll on declaring War/Peace, whereby the voting would be open for say 48 hours. That way, it would be moderately skewed towards players who are on regularly (read: clans). This would also allow Clan ambassadors the time to state the case for war/peace via the Faction Chat. This still allows casual, non-clan players input, but suffieciently skews the results toward players with more at stake.

I was thinking about suggesting the same thing a while back. It would allow for people actually have some say in national decisions.

[Marques]

A couple added thoughts:  You refer to the height of Spanish power as the historical marker for this game - the 1650's.  This isn't that game (just look at the ships in the game).  Sure, you want all models scrapped and new ones made so you can live out your fantasy.  Not realistic.  Let's presume, instead, an alternate reality where Spain was at its height at 1800 and wasn't just another nation about to fall to Napoleon.

 

How would you make it so that this Spanish Empire was reflected in game?  Would you make it so Spanish ports were uncapturable?  Make it so Spanish players sailed around with their own 10 man AI fleets?   Maybe instead just double the health of any Spanish vessel, to balance out the disparity in numbers?

 

If you want your nation to be the empire it once was, you have the same tools that everyone else has.  At that point, you need only look to yourself, and your fellows in your faction.

Maybe you did not understand my point of view:

 

1st. I think the game is very good, but I think is not about napoleonic wars as you said, because the golden age of navigation began long before.

2nd. you have not looked at the age of some boats this game, some ships were manufactured around 1700. So for the game and the golden age of sailing ships can fit should start much earlier.( not in the USA independence war)

3rd. Spain was not an empire in 18Th century, but americain 13 colonies were even less. Probably England mastered those seas in the 18th century, but Spain defended very well their cities,  (Spanish ports were not lost so easily).

4th. If The Devs apply these game mechanics to a map of the eighteenth century in the Mediterranean Sea, probably dynamics of battles and conquered ports would be more ridiculous still. Russia would have perhaps 100 ships at the Battle of Trafalgar and the fleet of Venice would come easily to conquer the UK. It is easy to make fantasies, I think you like them more than me.

 

Mi opinion is about the history, and that don´t mean I want to have a historical accurate game. Repeat you...i like the game,.... but could be better in some points. 

[Powderhorn]

As many a historical reenactor before me has said, "You can always use stuff from the past in an event and be authentic, but you can never use things from the future."

If ships like the Constitution and Niagara are in the game, it must take place after they were built. Ships from the 1700s are appropriate. Ships from the 1900s can not be, because they are from the future in this game.

I am trying not to be hard on you, because at this point I think it must be a language barrier. Anything else would mean a fundamental misunderstanding of how time works.

As for your map, do you suggest all things remain static? Or merely that ports only ever change hands at the moment in history that they did, without interaction from the player? Surely not, for then you would be missing the distinction between game and documentary.

[Prater]

 

Maybe you did not understand my point of view:

 

1st. I think the game is very good, but I think is not about napoleonic wars as you said, because the golden age of navigation began long before.

2nd. you have not looked at the age of some boats this game, some ships were manufactured around 1700. So for the game and the golden age of sailing ships can fit should start much earlier.( not in the USA independence war)

3rd. Spain was not an empire in 18Th century, but americain 13 colonies were even less. Probably England mastered those seas in the 18th century, but Spain defended very well their cities,  (Spanish ports were not lost so easily).

4th. If The Devs apply these game mechanics to a map of the eighteenth century in the Mediterranean Sea, probably dynamics of battles and conquered ports would be more ridiculous still. Russia would have perhaps 100 ships at the Battle of Trafalgar and the fleet of Venice would come easily to conquer the UK. It is easy to make fantasies, I think you like them more than me.

 

Mi opinion is about the history, and that don´t mean I want to have a historical accurate game. Repeat you...i like the game,.... but could be better in some points. 

 

 

The date of the game is after 1800 but before 1803.  Why?  The French started with Louisiana.  France was given Louisiana back from the Spanish in 1800.  Spain has Florida, which means it is after the American Revolution.  But the US does not have Louisiana, so the date must be after October 1800 but before 1803 when the US purchased Louisiana.  Though, the French did have Biloxi, which was in Spanish hands at the time.  The problem with your argument is this:

 

Constitution (1797)

Lynx (1812), but similar vessels were around prior to the US War of 1812

Niagara (1813)

Rattlesnake (1780)

Leda Class Frigate (Trincomalee) first one 1805

[theprof739]

I agree with Prater's argument, though the game timeline is muddied somewhat, but the flags and factions in the game the US uses the 15 star flag which was used from 1795 to 1818, while the Verenigde Provinciën (Dutch Republic) was supplanted as the Batavian Republic (a Napoleonic client State) and then in 1806 Became the Kingdom of Holland (which was absorbed into the French Empire in 1810) and then became the United Kingdom of the Netherlands in 1815 after the defeat of Napoleon. Playing US I haven't paid a huge attention to the other national flags, but they can tell us something.

 

Firstly the existence of the United States as a faction, means that the game is post 1783.

Second the Spanish flag used appears to be the modern flag of Spain, which was adopted in 1785

Third the French use the Tricolor which was set in it's present arrangement in 1794 (and was not used from 1815 to 1830)

Lastly if the British flag used in this case (which I haven't seen up close) is the current "Union Jack" that would place the game in post 1801

 

All of this is rather shaky ground to base a timeline on to be sure, but clearly things won't line up 100% perfect, and it shouldn't, it's a game. But the fact is based on the Factions in game and their starting ports the Game definitely does start between 1783 and 1803.

Edited February 10, 2016 by theprof739

[Grim DeGrim]

Regardless of what the facts point too, I play as if it's a fantasy match up during 1760, at tail end of 7 year war.

Why? I like the time period with the King Louis' more. Being as nothing aligns exact, it's perfectly fine to believe my delusional thoughts.

If the Dev's have stated a specific date, let me know. Most of SLMFr call France a republic, in line with Neoplonic times...

[Siegfried]

The date of game doesn't matter. It's a fictional game.

 

You can't set the game year because the ships. Ships from 1820's, at least in the first stages of development, are here for other reasons IHMO, they have a real example and devs could take model from it. Constitution, Trincomalee, Linx, Niagara... You can't take this fact and put the year of game in a exact year.

 

I am pretty sure, if a real ship like Trincomalee would not exist in 2014, devs would choose make another ship or the first example Leda frigate (1800?) or even that class.

 

Constitution. Yes, she is from 1797, if she would not exist an real example today, she would be only a ship winning in polls voted for US players based in the fame one day she had.

 

Victory, ok the fame of Trafalgar and she needs an enemy... they modeled Santissima because the fame of Trafalgar again.

 

Sadly, Spain don't preserve any example actually.

 

The real reason for we have these ships in game is for please the US and british players because they are the biggest market in the world.

 

If I remember correctly, US didn't exist in the first week of OW. US was added later and one of reasons US players insist in it was because we had american ships in game, Why not US faction?

 

Anyway although I am Spanish, I don't need my country is represented in a unfinished video game. 

 

There is two ways, full historic or not. If this game would be full historic, we would need full historic year, map and ships. If not, all this discusion have not sense.

 

Discuss about ships models, paintings, property of this or that port and number of stars in the flag devs chosed for US is non sense bacause is not historic.

 

Also is non sense moaning for Spain loses of ports which spanish players can't defend only because it is paint yellow in the far side of the map.

 

The best approach to all this would be all cities grey except capitols and player base decide their destiny.

 

Disclaimer: I write only obvious things and facts or in some cases IHMO stuff. I don't hate US citizens or US players or from any other nation. I only trying speak practical and unbiased way.

[Grim DeGrim]

Siegfried, You are a scholar and a gentleman.