Advertisement
by Novare Res » Thu Oct 03, 2013 4:36 pm
by Octuagesimo Octavo » Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:25 pm
by Cerian Quilor » Mon Oct 07, 2013 8:15 am
Octuagesimo Octavo wrote:The founder of the region should have the power to choose if its annexed or not, even if they were banjected by a raider. Should the founder CTE, then it should be the WA delegate's job. If there is no WA delegate, the nation with the highest influence should have the power to decide.
by Kiwitaicho » Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:49 pm
Novare Res wrote:A thought about 'Annexation' of regions. This might be interesting to try:
How about "Voluntary" annexation in which a smaller region can by Delegate action be annexed to a larger region with Delegate approval of the larger region. Such 'Political Unions' would drag along other regions that have already been annexed by the smaller region (annex-ee, as it were).
Any region can can un-annex itself by Delegate action, or be expelled from the "Political Union" by the action of the that region's Delegate.
Regions who join a "Political Union" would for regional influence purposes, be treated as a single unit (with the largest region having that influence in WA votes) and sub-regions (those who have been "annexed" having an independent WA vote as an individual region with its own normal regional influence weighting.
Allow nations to move freely within all regions and take their national influence with them.
Some kind of provision for Forced Annexation (R/D take over a region and force it's annexation or 'occupation')
The purpose:
This would allow the creation of "Political Unions" between regions or "Empires" as it were and thus create more activity by forcing regions to engage in more 'foreign relations' in a way that either helps defend a region or encourages imperial expansion.
Any thoughts?
by King Topid » Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:06 pm
by Cerian Quilor » Wed Oct 16, 2013 12:07 pm
by Astarial » Wed Oct 16, 2013 1:52 pm
King Topid wrote:So random question I had when I made my post a couple pages back...
If the governor type annex is chosen, where the annexer has some control over the annexed, won't many founderless regions use puppet-founded regions to gain a permanent control of their own region risk free?
That's one thing I think no one is taking into account, this won't just be used by invaders or raiders. The same could be said for the influence pools, it can be used to stop raids and take regions off the victim list. Not saying I think that is bad, just saying.
by Topid » Wed Oct 16, 2013 2:48 pm
Cerian Quilor wrote:I think that could be a good thing - I've always said regions that don't take protection measures easily available to themselves should deal with the consequences. This would be a nice way to allow them to try it.
Your suggestion, from what I can see, is that the annexing region's delegate gains the ability to eject or ban nations from the annexed. That can and will be used by defenders to take most big targets off the table. The viceroy option furthers that. Maybe that's good maybe that's bad. I think I like it, because I don't like real communities being raided. But the flip side of that is that if R/D can only happen in dead regions than the already hard case raiders have of making themselves seem to actually be a threat/bad-ass is going to be reduced.Astarial wrote:King Topid wrote:So random question I had when I made my post a couple pages back...
If the governor type annex is chosen, where the annexer has some control over the annexed, won't many founderless regions use puppet-founded regions to gain a permanent control of their own region risk free?
That's one thing I think no one is taking into account, this won't just be used by invaders or raiders. The same could be said for the influence pools, it can be used to stop raids and take regions off the victim list. Not saying I think that is bad, just saying.
Anybody using this method would gain some control over the annexed region, but not total control. A region could still be tagged, or even raided, it would just probably be a bit harder for raiders to wrest away - they'd have to take the delegacy, hold off would-be liberators, and (if the annexer-appointed Viceroy suggestion is implemented) overcome the colonial authority to break the annex and keep their prize.
by Cerian Quilor » Wed Oct 16, 2013 2:56 pm
Yes but those "methods" right now include draining the region, which is no problem if you can recruit new nations to replace the inactive ones that will never come back and adds the risk of a common troll ending up with the region just because he can or a password, which is death.
by Astarial » Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:16 am
by Cerian Quilor » Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:25 am
by Linn Westcott » Sun Nov 24, 2013 6:25 pm
by Astarial » Wed Nov 27, 2013 8:11 pm
by Cerian Quilor » Mon Dec 02, 2013 7:22 pm
Linn Westcott wrote:The more I read about items like this, the less likely I am to found a new region or move to any region that isn't well-protected (for instance by huge size and good organization) from raiders. I see taggers like the Black Riders laying waste to large areas in NS and doing nothing but making gameplay difficult for those of us who are not interested in power politics. I hope this is not implemented without severe restrictions.
by The Cosmos » Mon Dec 02, 2013 7:29 pm
Cerian Quilor wrote:Linn Westcott wrote:The more I read about items like this, the less likely I am to found a new region or move to any region that isn't well-protected (for instance by huge size and good organization) from raiders. I see taggers like the Black Riders laying waste to large areas in NS and doing nothing but making gameplay difficult for those of us who are not interested in power politics. I hope this is not implemented without severe restrictions.
As long as your nation has a founder, you're completely safe from R/D.
Make sure you understand the basic fundament of R/D (regions with active, executive founders are literally immune to raids) before you start opining on it.
Olthar wrote:Awesome. From now on, I'll wear only thin leather straps covering my nipples and undercarriage.
New Maldorainia wrote:Alcohol, tobacco and firearms should be a store, not a government agency.
Thafoo wrote:Merconitonitopia wrote:~First world problems - waking up.
~Third world problems - not waking up.
Uieurnthlaal wrote:Oh, I see, he's asexual but likes riding bisexuals. I meant bicycles.
by Evil Wolf » Tue Dec 03, 2013 7:31 pm
Kryozerkia wrote:In the good old days raiding was illegal
Crazy Girl wrote:Invading was never illegal
[violet] wrote:There is supposed to be an invasion game.
by Cerian Quilor » Fri Dec 06, 2013 3:34 pm
The Cosmos wrote:Cerian Quilor wrote:As long as your nation has a founder, you're completely safe from R/D.
Make sure you understand the basic fundament of R/D (regions with active, executive founders are literally immune to raids) before you start opining on it.
Not completely true; TBR has raided several foundered regions recently. You can't keep the region for long, but you can still invade and do considerable damage.
by Minoa » Tue Dec 10, 2013 2:00 pm
The Cosmos wrote:Cerian Quilor wrote:As long as your nation has a founder, you're completely safe from R/D.
Make sure you understand the basic fundament of R/D (regions with active, executive founders are literally immune to raids) before you start opining on it.
Not completely true; TBR has raided several foundered regions recently. You can't keep the region for long, but you can still invade and do considerable damage.
by Cerian Quilor » Tue Dec 10, 2013 9:53 pm
by Cerian Quilor » Fri Dec 20, 2013 9:51 am
by Tribea » Mon Jan 20, 2014 3:05 am
Sediczja wrote:Sediczjan infantryman drops fro the ceiling, entrenching tool in hand. Extremist shits pants, followed by death. Great success.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Nanocyberia, Primorn Ted
Advertisement