[Change #4] Annex

[Ballotonia]

Then we'll refound.

Reminder:

The intention of this change is to:

• Give an outcome to an invasion that raiders can aim for.
• Give in-game recognition to the control that some regions exert over others.

So, what you're telling me that if we add Annex, it is not something invaders would be willing to aim for? Do others feel the same way?

Ballotonia

[Cerian Quilor]

Not if annex doesn't give some kind of power over the annexed region. I know most Imperialists, wouldn't, at the very least.

[Ballotonia]

Not if annex doesn't give some kind of power over the annexed region. I know most Imperialists, wouldn't, at the very least.

Then feel free to make suggestions.

Ballotonia

[Frisbeeteria]

Just to toss out an idea for enhancing this option: Would there be any value in removing the influence decay for Annexed regions?

Normally when you change regions, your influence in the old region decays while your influence in the new region grows. That way, if you're visiting a 'colony', you don't lose any of your original region's influence. Also, 'colonials' visiting the controlling region can go back and forth without risking their influence in either region. You'd still only gain influence in one region at a time, that being determined by where you're residing at update.

Ballotonia tells me this is technically possible, but none of us really know if it adds any value. I'm just trying to think of things that make this more valuable than a glorified Embassy. Thoughts?

[Tlik]

Just to toss out an idea for enhancing this option: Would there be any value in removing the influence decay for Annexed regions?

Normally when you change regions, your influence in the old region decays while your influence in the new region grows. That way, if you're visiting a 'colony', you don't lose any of your original region's influence. Also, 'colonials' visiting the controlling region can go back and forth without risking their influence in either region. You'd still only gain influence in one region at a time, that being determined by where you're residing at update.

Ballotonia tells me this is technically possible, but none of us really know if it adds any value. I'm just trying to think of things that make this more valuable than a glorified Embassy. Thoughts?

I think the best suggestions were Astarial's governorship-type suggestions, where the annexing power has some sort of control over their colony. If that were the case, annexing would be much harder to do, almost as hard as a password.

[Cerian Quilor]

Just to toss out an idea for enhancing this option: Would there be any value in removing the influence decay for Annexed regions?

Normally when you change regions, your influence in the old region decays while your influence in the new region grows. That way, if you're visiting a 'colony', you don't lose any of your original region's influence. Also, 'colonials' visiting the controlling region can go back and forth without risking their influence in either region. You'd still only gain influence in one region at a time, that being determined by where you're residing at update.

Ballotonia tells me this is technically possible, but none of us really know if it adds any value. I'm just trying to think of things that make this more valuable than a glorified Embassy. Thoughts?

I think the best suggestions were Astarial's governorship-type suggestions, where the annexing power has some sort of control over their colony. If that were the case, annexing would be much harder to do, almost as hard as a password.

This, I think is the best solution, as has been tossed out here and elsewhere.

[Frisbeeteria]

This, I think is the best solution, as has been tossed out here and elsewhere.

Maybe instead of saying "this or that", you could look at "this AND that" ideas. Giving the invader Delegate the power to appoint officers grants powers to one player. An influence adjustment could affect multiple players. If you don't think the influence decay idea has merit, toss out other ideas. Don't shut down the discussion with the first idea that comes along.

[Cerian Quilor]

The governor idea wasn't the first. This is not teh first time this discussion has been had.

[Mahaj]

I think the best suggestions were Astarial's governorship-type suggestions, where the annexing power has some sort of control over their colony. If that were the case, annexing would be much harder to do, almost as hard as a password.

This, I think is the best solution, as has been tossed out here and elsewhere.

If one can get control over the region from Annexing (meaning they don't have to be in the region to keep control, meaning its a major change in the game as we know it), then Annexing should be a *lot* harder than a password.

One ought to need hermit-level influence.

[All Good People]

The intention of this change is to:
•Give an outcome to an invasion that raiders can aim for.
•Give in-game recognition to the control that some regions exert over others.

This can already be done with Embassies. IMO, the addition of Annexation needs to have a greater intention than what can already be accomplished with Embassies or it serves no purpose. And if it is going to cost Influence, why bother ? I was expecting alot more from Annexation from all the talk about it over the years.

But then, this is being approached from the POV of something for raiders to do, when I see it as another level of relationship between regions outisde of invasions.

Guess I really don't see the point of just adding yet another link to the region's page if it does nothing else.

Would there be any value in removing the influence decay for Annexed regions?

Yes, that would at least be something, but I don't think that has much to do with the intent regarding invasions. Annexation implies control. If it costs Influence, takes time, and grants the annexing region access to regional control of the annexed region, then you have something of value for your efforts.

Don't shut down the discussion with the first idea that comes along.

I didn't read it that way.

One ought to need hermit-level influence

Annexing should not be harder than setting a password when many annexations will be friendly. There is more than r/d involved in the use of this feature.

[The Blaatschapen]

Btw, would multi-level annexes be possible?

Basically A annexes B, B annexes C, C annexes D, etc.

Also, what about circle annexes? A annexes B, B annexes C, C annexes A. This should not be possible I think.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Btw, would multi-level annexes be possible?

Basically A annexes B, B annexes C, C annexes D, etc.

Also, what about circle annexes? A annexes B, B annexes C, C annexes A. This should not be possible I think.

I would argue that any annexed region would forfeit its own annexations to the region which annexed it.

[The Blaatschapen]

Btw, would multi-level annexes be possible?

Basically A annexes B, B annexes C, C annexes D, etc.

Also, what about circle annexes? A annexes B, B annexes C, C annexes A. This should not be possible I think.

I would argue that any annexed region would forfeit its own annexations to the region which annexed it.

Seems reasonable.

[Mahaj]

Annexing should not be harder than setting a password when many annexations will be friendly. There is more than r/d involved in the use of this feature.

If the annexation is just an embassy+, then yes, it shouldn't be terribly hard.

If annexation gives the annexer regional control over the annexed? Then it ought to be so hard the annexer practically owns the region.

[Topid]

Just to toss out an idea for enhancing this option: Would there be any value in removing the influence decay for Annexed regions?

Normally when you change regions, your influence in the old region decays while your influence in the new region grows. That way, if you're visiting a 'colony', you don't lose any of your original region's influence. Also, 'colonials' visiting the controlling region can go back and forth without risking their influence in either region. You'd still only gain influence in one region at a time, that being determined by where you're residing at update.

Ballotonia tells me this is technically possible, but none of us really know if it adds any value. I'm just trying to think of things that make this more valuable than a glorified Embassy. Thoughts?

Or, if we are seeking an end that raiders/imperialists can aim for.. What if not only does influence in RegionB not drain when annexed by RegionA, but there is no difference at all in influence gained in B or A. Influence gained in the home region can be used in the colony, and visa versa. That way, once a region was annexed, if a liberation was ever attempted high influence nations from the home region could move in and slow the liberators down significantly/bring and end to the liberation.

Seems like this would make it very useful to have big regions as friends (if you are founderless, your 'home region' is a trusted protector), which is sorely lacking in NS gameplay.

If this type of annexation were used, it would need to be very expensive, because it would be a very permanent change to a region.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Then we'll refound.

Reminder:

The intention of this change is to:

• Give an outcome to an invasion that raiders can aim for.
• Give in-game recognition to the control that some regions exert over others.

So, what you're telling me that if we add Annex, it is not something invaders would be willing to aim for? Do others feel the same way?

Ballotonia

If I can't access the controls of a region, and I cannot keep it locked down, then I personally would not see much of a use for the Annex feature. Then again, I would not presume to speak for other players.

[Todd McCloud]

Annexing should not be harder than setting a password when many annexations will be friendly. There is more than r/d involved in the use of this feature.

If the annexation is just an embassy+, then yes, it shouldn't be terribly hard.

If annexation gives the annexer regional control over the annexed? Then it ought to be so hard the annexer practically owns the region.

Why not make it a non-influence thing and instead one on longevity? Like, a delegate needs to be a delegate for, say, five days before the annex thing becomes available (regardless of influence)?

[Milograd]

If the annexation is just an embassy+, then yes, it shouldn't be terribly hard.

If annexation gives the annexer regional control over the annexed? Then it ought to be so hard the annexer practically owns the region.

Why not make it a non-influence thing and instead one on longevity? Like, a delegate needs to be a delegate for, say, five days before the annex thing becomes available (regardless of influence)?

I must agree. This makes a lot more sense and influence is already being spread thinly enough.

[Cerian Quilor]

Reminder:

The intention of this change is to:

• Give an outcome to an invasion that raiders can aim for.
• Give in-game recognition to the control that some regions exert over others.

So, what you're telling me that if we add Annex, it is not something invaders would be willing to aim for? Do others feel the same way?

Ballotonia

If I can't access the controls of a region, and I cannot keep it locked down, then I personally would not see much of a use for the Annex feature. Then again, I would not presume to speak for other players.

Agreed.

@Topid: Better than nothing, and better than the no influence decay.

[Liberatia]

Personally, I think that there should be a way for a region to be annexed without raiding, like for example, if the governments give consent. like for example, there could be a button on a [foreign] region's page that says "cede region" which will send a request to that region to accept the cession, and annex the region. this way, the region can be annexed. this would also be good for wars, because then a region could simply click the button to cede a region under their control, if they surrender/make a peace treaty that defines that they are to transfer over a region that is under their control. and if a raid happens, raiders can then use this to annex it.

[Klaus Devestatorie]

Will it be possible to "Annex" a region you have refounded? Because if not, it will likely not compete long term against the charm of having ultimate authority over the region (founder).

[The Blaatschapen]

Just to toss out an idea for enhancing this option: Would there be any value in removing the influence decay for Annexed regions?

Normally when you change regions, your influence in the old region decays while your influence in the new region grows. That way, if you're visiting a 'colony', you don't lose any of your original region's influence. Also, 'colonials' visiting the controlling region can go back and forth without risking their influence in either region. You'd still only gain influence in one region at a time, that being determined by where you're residing at update.

Ballotonia tells me this is technically possible, but none of us really know if it adds any value. I'm just trying to think of things that make this more valuable than a glorified Embassy. Thoughts?

Or, if we are seeking an end that raiders/imperialists can aim for.. What if not only does influence in RegionB not drain when annexed by RegionA, but there is no difference at all in influence gained in B or A. Influence gained in the home region can be used in the colony, and visa versa. That way, once a region was annexed, if a liberation was ever attempted high influence nations from the home region could move in and slow the liberators down significantly/bring and end to the liberation.

Seems like this would make it very useful to have big regions as friends (if you are founderless, your 'home region' is a trusted protector), which is sorely lacking in NS gameplay.

If this type of annexation were used, it would need to be very expensive, because it would be a very permanent change to a region.

This would make it hard, or even impossible to free an annexed region from its overlord.

Also, how would this work when a GCR is annexed/overlording with a PCR (player created region) and there is an influence cap in GCRs(one of the other proposals)?

Edit: Even worse, think of the following scenario: 10KI invades and annexes Belgium. A hypothetical, but work with me here

Normally, if 10KI plans to refound Belgium, it would have to beat quite some odds. First, it would have to invade. Easy. Then it would have to wait out until the invader delegate has enough influence to slowly kick out all natives. This would take a lot of time, patience and effort. As it is meant to be hard to grief a decent sized region.

However, rather than slowly ejecting everyone. It simply annexes Belgium. Then moves in, say, Ananke II, makes her delegate of Belgium and with her 600+ influence from 10KI she clears the region of natives. 10KI then just waits for a nice moment, refounds, voila.

So if influence from region A becomes available in region B then Annexes have to become very hard.

[Astarial]

This, I think is the best solution, as has been tossed out here and elsewhere.

Maybe instead of saying "this or that", you could look at "this AND that" ideas. Giving the invader Delegate the power to appoint officers grants powers to one player. An influence adjustment could affect multiple players. If you don't think the influence decay idea has merit, toss out other ideas. Don't shut down the discussion with the first idea that comes along.

I included a lack of influence decay within an empire in my proposals.

In response to the point that annexed regions must be able to free themselves: Why? Foundered regions can't easily free themselves from the whims and excesses of their founder. It's possible, but difficult - and un-annexation could be too (infiltrate/pretend to support owning region, work your way into a position to remove the annex (regional officer, delegacy), surprise treason!).

Now, that question is from a theoretical perspective (that is, why should it be the case that annexed regions be able to free themselves from within alone?). It may be that the existing answer to that is on a factual level ("Because we have decided that this is how it will work"), and if so, then obviously I would need to successfully convince you to reconsider that fact before making any headway there.

[Mahaj]

So then, Asta, how would an annexed region be able to free itself?

[Klaus Devestatorie]

How about a WASC resolution that cancels an annexation and bars the region from being annexed for a certain period of time?