The War of Maritime Supremacy

I was given the option to defend my land or no, I paid a much higher price for it than would be realistic for any naval engagement.

The price of the engagement is not the point, I was given two choices, I took one and stuck with it (granted on the assumption of a better outcome than the one given). The issue here was not with my sticking to one of the choices offered. Deliberately wanting to defend your territory doesn't constitute aggression, the invasion of it does. Not deliberately defending it after it was challenged is not an option either.

Alex, was responsible for initiating the issue, to which I was given no choice but either to engage or accept my territory being bypassed without permission. I stuck to it despite the offer of him not doing so (not initially offered as a choice). He then also accepted the engagement after it became clear I would follow one of the two choices offered (there was no offer of the fleet withdrawing initially - accepting it would show an unwillingness to defend my key asset).

Errr, no. I mean, the Anglo-Dutch fleet had essentially no sea room for more than perhaps 4 ships (including frigates) to bring their guns to bear. The remainder would have been under the guns of the fort the whole time, their own cannon being ineffective at that range, or bringing themselves onto the shallows.

I have studied this period of naval history in depth (as has Theo who can attest to the low losses) - lost ships were very rare, the victor rarely did anything but capture enemy ships. To put it into context, in the entire series of battles of the war of Spanish succession - the battle at Cabrita point,https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cabrita_Point was the bloodiest with the loss of 2 ships (bar Wager's action in unique circumstances where 3 galleons had to be sent to the depths, but 12 merchantmen survived).

Quite honestly, the circumstances of Alex's attack would have resulted in the destruction (but more likely capture) of most of his fleet.

In any case, the entire action was brought about by Alex's drive for battle, which I did not decline, even when it was offered. I agree with enjoying the game, but Denmark did not declare war on the Three Kingdoms. Indeed, the Three Kingdoms essentially initiated hostilities without a formal declaration of war.

The only folly in this was that the British chose to attack.

There are compelling arguments being put forward. I shall change the aggressor status, taking Sweden out of the war. I often have to process a lot of information at any given time, and sometimes have to rely on a general feel for what happened. In my mind the English willingness to withdraw and the Danish eagerness to not allow them to led me to feel Denmark was the more aggressive of the two.

With reference to the loss/capture of ships, from a simple balancing standpoint ship losses are more practical for this game. Otherwise, if an entire fleet was captured, in this case Denmark, would find their fleet doubled. This would also have dire effects for that country's income in the game as upkeep on a navy is remarkably large.

Frederick IV offers the following terms:
White peace - return to status quo

A tentative offer of a nominal share in the Hansa from Denmark's allotted portion when the Hansa Baltic Trading Company (when finalised).

Denmark has also offered to send it's forces South to help in the defence of Vienna in the event of a peace treaty being signed presently.

Frederick IV once again reiterates his desire to send a force south to assist the Austrians, however there must be no threat to the Danish shore.
The absence of Marlborough from Southern Germany from the siege of Munich means even the successful conclusion of this would not free up men for Vienna.
Frederick sees England's war with Denmark as a side show to the main event.