New Starting Choices for Nations

[Crimson Sunrise]

14 minutes ago, Crimson Sunrise said:

a better idea might be to reduce the number of nations to 5, 1 from each coalition and apply the flags to that coalition so instead of being a US player u would be a Western Coalition player with access to the flags of the nations that would make up that coalition or alliance, this way everyone gets what they want, we get 5 choices to start in, but still have access to the various nation flags for that coalition.  

Northern Coalition Flags - 

• Dutch
• Sweden
• Denmark
• Poland

Western Coalition Flags - 

• USA
• Spain
• France

Holy Alliance

• Prussia
• Russia

Britannia Flags -

• British Empire

Pirates  Flags - 

• Pirates
   

so each nation is represented but gives the player base less choices of nations to join and still satisfies the feeling of being part of a specific nation. by allowing each player to fly the flag of their preferred nation by being apart of these coalitions and alliances.

 

with current nation starting ports, under this idea would become permanent coalition/alliance ports and a specific port will be chosen by the devs for the primary starting port. this way the coalition/alliance flag would be used for discerning who owns what port but will encompass multiple nations in that coalition. so instead of USA owning this port the western coalition would own that port. cutting down on the clutter of nations and making it easier for newer players and returning players to choose where they stand. 

Edited May 6, 2019 by Crimson Sunrise

[o Barão]

Add Portuguese empire in the Britannia flags.

[Crimson Sunrise]

1 minute ago, no one said:

Add Portuguese empire in the Britannia flags.

portuguese nation isnt currently part of the 11 nations in NA atm

[Crimson Sunrise]

i would assume if this idea gets used more national flags can be added in without a whole lot of coding or fixing needed which would put less strain on the devs 

[Botq]

I would like to see Portugal in game. Give them ports on the down right corner, this part of map is "dead" anyway. I think 11 or 12 nations it doesnt matter ...

Edited May 6, 2019 by o7Captain

[o Barão]

1 hour ago, Crimson Sunrise said:

portuguese nation isnt currently part of the 11 nations in NA atm

 

1 hour ago, Crimson Sunrise said:

i would assume if this idea gets used more national flags can be added in without a whole lot of coding or fixing needed which would put less strain on the devs 

The moment you are defending the idea to use only 5 nations but with the possibility to add flags from other nations there is no real limit anymore. More nations flags could help with more players coming to NA.

So with this in mind:

-Portuguese empire

-Genoa

-Venice

-Ottoman empire

-Berbers pirate 

Edited May 6, 2019 by no one

[Crimson Sunrise]

that is true with just the 5 choices its no different then droping to 5 nations but with this u have more variety to the flags 

[Galt]

I would support this if it meant allowing for a more clan based PvP environment. If clans were able to "align" themselves to a specific nations inside that coalition but finally allow clans withing the same coalition to fight each other via clan diplomacy settings. This would simulate coups, puppet governments, espionage, and a more malleable diplomatic atmosphere. 

The major wars could be fought along the coalition level, but internal conflicts (which can't be interfered with unless you are in the same coalition) would mean that this isn't simply just reducing the number of nations and giving players access to more flags. 

[Tomasso il Fortunato]

More Nations , more Territory to control. Like Europe ? Or Sought America ? , Alaska (north America) ?  More styles of buildings and more outposts .

But we need players .

Edited May 6, 2019 by Tomasso il Fortunato

[Sir Texas Sir]

Prussia actually had Vieques for like 4 years in the 1600's so that would prob be the logical historic place to make there capital, but it's very close to the Danes capital.  I really don't know where they would put Polish or Russia.  I mean only polish was some troops stationed in Cuba and Russia wasn't even active in this area except maybe some trade ships if anything.

[Commodore Sixty Four]

3 hours ago, Tomasso il Fortunato said:

More styles of buildings...

I agree. I was going to add this in "Little things you'd like to see" but I think the architecture, layout and (possibly) prosperity of ports could be better represented, with more customisation based on national styles and using drawings and paintings of the period as a reference (e.g. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Picturesque_Tour_of_the_Island_of_Jamaica#28).  This could include a main road / track running down to the wharf and town and waterfronts that are spread out a bit more horizontally.  Perhaps also some variation in terrain, vegetation and rock types across the Carribbean based on historical geography so that different regions look and feel different too.  It would require research, art and development resource but result in a map and game that was more immersive and encouraged travel across the map for more than just resource collection.

[Raekur]

12 hours ago, Galt said:

I would support this if it meant allowing for a more clan based PvP environment. If clans were able to "align" themselves to a specific nations inside that coalition but finally allow clans withing the same coalition to fight each other via clan diplomacy settings. This would simulate coups, puppet governments, espionage, and a more malleable diplomatic atmosphere. 

The major wars could be fought along the coalition level, but internal conflicts (which can't be interfered with unless you are in the same coalition) would mean that this isn't simply just reducing the number of nations and giving players access to more flags. 

The only issue with this idea is that 2 coalition groups could in fact just keep going back and forth over a single port for the sole purpose of generating victory marks. With the settings you are asking for (no outside influence) there would be no way to prevent this from occurring on nearly a daily basis (using 3 ports instead of 1). It is exactly the same as someone using an alt account for generating combat marks. I think this is going to be the biggest hurdle to overcome with getting this idea to actually have a place. While the idea of a group being able to self regulate it's members it does come with a bit of a price in what method is best used to achieve the desired goal without that same mechanic being able to be used in ways it was never intended.

[Galt]

10 hours ago, Raekur said:

The only issue with this idea is that 2 coalition groups could in fact just keep going back and forth over a single port for the sole purpose of generating victory marks. With the settings you are asking for (no outside influence) there would be no way to prevent this from occurring on nearly a daily basis (using 3 ports instead of 1). It is exactly the same as someone using an alt account for generating combat marks. I think this is going to be the biggest hurdle to overcome with getting this idea to actually have a place. While the idea of a group being able to self regulate it's members it does come with a bit of a price in what method is best used to achieve the desired goal without that same mechanic being able to be used in ways it was never intended.

Unless I missed an update, I am pretty sure that wouldn't happen; are VM not generated every monday now? It would make more sense for everyone in the coalition to be a part of the initial pb to take the port but there wouldn't be a back and forth; unless they have changed VM to generate just whenever you fight a pb. If that is the case and there was a change, than this is would be an issue now just between allied nations. 

If there was no VM change, then this wouldn't happen at all. 

[Crimson Sunrise]

On 5/6/2019 at 11:59 PM, Raekur said:

The only issue with this idea is that 2 coalition groups could in fact just keep going back and forth over a single port for the sole purpose of generating victory marks. With the settings you are asking for (no outside influence) there would be no way to prevent this from occurring on nearly a daily basis (using 3 ports instead of 1). It is exactly the same as someone using an alt account for generating combat marks. I think this is going to be the biggest hurdle to overcome with getting this idea to actually have a place. While the idea of a group being able to self regulate it's members it does come with a bit of a price in what method is best used to achieve the desired goal without that same mechanic being able to be used in ways it was never intended.

the problem with your reasoning to the PB's is only for those that win a PB or those that successfully defend a pb. get credit for the VM, if the players that did take the pb arent the same ones that defended the pb the ones that took it the first time loose their VM on that pb because they didnt participate in its defense. 

 

[Angus MacDuff]

On ‎5‎/‎6‎/‎2019 at 8:26 PM, Sir Texas Sir said:

Prussia actually had Vieques for like 4 years in the 1600's so that would prob be the logical historic place to make there capital, but it's very close to the Danes capital.  I really don't know where they would put Polish or Russia.  I mean only polish was some troops stationed in Cuba and Russia wasn't even active in this area except maybe some trade ships if anything.

Just throw history out the window.  Good places for new capitols would be Panama, Yucatan and New Orleans.  This would spread out the map. Take away the ability to drop hostility from Free Ports and you have a working front line system. 

[Lancelot Teggin]

I agree with the point to add Portuguese flags for British Empire I support this 🤙

[Angus MacDuff]

3 minutes ago, Lancelot Teggin said:

I agree with the point to add Portuguese flags for British Empire I support this 🤙

Wellington commanded Portuguese troops in the peninsular war...no reason that Portuguese flags cant be flown in a British fleet.

[Hethwill]

28 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

Wellington commanded Portuguese troops in the peninsular war...no reason that Portuguese flags cant be flown in a British fleet.

de Nisa was vice admiral for Jervis. Served both in the Channel fleet and Mediterranean. So yeah.

[LeBoiteux]

22 hours ago, Angus MacDuff said:

Just throw history out the window.

38 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

Wellington commanded Portuguese troops in the peninsular war...no reason that Portuguese flags cant be flown in a British fleet.

I like it how everybody on this forum is able to both accept, reject and twist History (= use History) to get a feature implemented in this very game whose historicity has always been indeed very flexible. 😁

@AngusMacDuff : don't take it personally. I (certainly) did it too. 🙂 

We call it "flou artistique".

Edited May 9, 2019 by LeBoiteux

[Lancelot Teggin]

Im not very good with Napoleonic Era history but if im not wrong Napoleon Invaded Portugal and the Brits escorted the royal family away for Brazil so actually the portuguese navy sailed with brits too since the game is under napoleonic time i dont see a real problem to add portuguese flags on british faction..ppl will understand that

Edited May 9, 2019 by Lancelot Teggin

[Angus MacDuff]

6 minutes ago, LeBoiteux said:

I like it how everybody on this forum is able to both accept, reject and twist History (= use History) to get a feature implemented in this very game whose historicity has always been indeed very flexible. 😁

@AngusMacDuff : don't take it personally. I (certainly) did it too. 🙂 

We call it "flou artistique".

No offence taken!  That's the duality of this game where realism is tossed out and then demanded.  I have a certain moral flexibility also.  We are based very loosely on history here so that while it's a guideline...it's certainly not a rule.  Using history to keep out certain nations from the game would not be financially feasible for Devs, whereas it is completely appropriate to demand that a strong maritime nation with close ties to GB be included. 

[LeBoiteux]

8 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

No offence taken!  That's the duality of this game where realism is tossed out and then demanded.  I have a certain moral flexibility also.  We are based very loosely on history here so that while it's a guideline...it's certainly not a rule.  Using history to keep out certain nations from the game would not be financially feasible for Devs, whereas it is completely appropriate to demand that a strong maritime nation with close ties to GB be included. 

I understand your point of view.

I for one am always bothered by all forms of History revisionisms in movies, games, internet, etc. as it may lead to misconceptions and have serious effects on current mentalities around the world.

As for implementing Portugal, Italy or even China in this very game, up to the devs...

[Angus MacDuff]

1 minute ago, LeBoiteux said:

I understand your point of view.

I for one am always bothered by all forms of History revisionisms in movies, games, internet, etc. as it may lead to misconceptions and have serious effects on current mentalities around the world.

As for implementing Portugal, Italy or even China in this very game, up to the devs...

LOL, I never even thought of China...or Japan for that matter!  But why not.  We've already rewritten history for the game and if that would bring more sales...and more players, why not indeed.  (and I still can't have my Scottish flag!)