[Change #4] Annex

[All Good People]

An Annexation Liberation Resolution ? That has potential.

[Leutria]

I can see it now, just about every time a native region is annexed the WA is stirred up against the evil raiders and removed the annexation.

Now, it you really wanted to involve the WA, perhaps it could be used to make liberating the region possible/easier? Creates a "declare independence" button if one doesn't already exist, and weakens/removes the powers the superior region has?

[Mallorea and Riva]

An Annexation Liberation Resolution ? That has potential.

Utterly defeats the purpose of annexation.

[Astarial]

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

Pretty sure I alluded to it, and by alluded, I mean gave a straight-up example:

infiltrate/pretend to support owning region, work your way into a position to remove the annex (regional officer, delegacy), surprise treason!

[Punk Reloaded]

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

Pretty sure I alluded to it, and by alluded, I mean gave a straight-up example:

infiltrate/pretend to support owning region, work your way into a position to remove the annex (regional officer, delegacy), surprise treason!

That would require politicking and I didn't think this was a political game...oh wait, it is.

[Sensorland]

An Annexation Liberation Resolution ? That has potential.

So a "free" proposal?

Titled:

Free REGIONNAMEHERE from REGIONNAMEHERE

Like that?

[Charles Cerebella]

I'm not sure if that way is a good way to go about things as you get questions about what if region A and B are both founded by the same person but a resolution is passed?

---

I think that the Annex proposal to reach it's full potential needs to be more than just an embssay+. It needs to have some measure of control that annexation implies.

What if the founder/delegate of the annexing region has the ability to edit the WFE, Flag etc of the annexed region for free, and has the ability to appoint a regional officer from amongst the nations of the annexed region. That officer would need to use influence gained in the annexed region itself. You want to hold a big empire of founderless regions? Then you'd have to ensure you use your resources to make sure that your RO's continue to gain influence. Could even have a 6 month cap on their influence like the GCR proposal.

EDIT:

This would further mean that decisions would have to be made about continuing deployment to bolster influence, or possibly collaboration amongst high influence native nations to free up resources.

[Mahaj]

I think the annexer absolutely should not hold the power to eject or ban from the annexed region.

I also think there needs to be some way for the annexed to free themselves.

[Astarial]

I also think there needs to be some way for the annexed to free themselves.

I've given you a way, Mahaj. Argue why it's not sufficient, not that it doesn't exist.

Cere, I very much like that idea. I think it accurately captures the delicate balance of power in empire building - a loyal delegate will pose the annexer no problems, but one who wishes to rebel and free their region would have to go toe to toe with the appointed officer in influence/endorsements/sneakiness, and it provides a less indirect method of cancelling an annexation from within.

For that to work at its best, the regional delegate would have to not be able to remove an officer appointed by the annexing region. Perhaps a different title would be appropriate, to distinguish? Something like viceroy?

[Mahaj]

I also think there needs to be some way for the annexed to free themselves.

I've given you a way, Mahaj. Argue why it's not sufficient, not that it doesn't exist.

It's not sufficient because it makes it near impossible and makes annexing too overpowered.

If a region doesn't let anyone else take the delegacy, or has delegate access turned off and no regional officers, then there's no way to free the annexed.

If the UK annexed the US back in the 1700s, the US could fight back in a revolution. They didn't have to rise through the ranks in the UK's government to free themselves.


Presumably you agree that the annexer should not be able to eject or ban from the annexed region?

[Charles Cerebella]

If delegate access is turned off then that implies there is a founder of the annexed region and the question of freeing the region is moot unless you are completely changing how founders work in NS. If they let no one else take the delegacy, then they'll have a dead region in lock down, as happens anyway these days. If they want to do that then they'll do that regardless of this annex proposal because there already exist means to do that.

Essentially your problem is that founders and passwords can lock down regions as they wish. These are issues with existing mechanics, not ones arising from the annex proposal, which offers new opportunities, new objectives and new levels of political interaction.

[Sedgistan]

We are very much open to suggestions on Annex, in particular on whether the annexing region gains any particular powers over the annexed region.

Please bear in mind, though, that an annexed region should still be able to free itself. It's not ideal to have a situation where the delegacy of an annexed region has been regained by the natives, but their delegate and the founder/delegate of the region that has annexed them are now fighting over the WFE, with each editing it every minute. It would be amusing the first time, but quickly become immensely frustrating for everyone involved.

A solution to that could be that annexes can be cancelled immediately, but I'm sure there are others.

[Charles Cerebella]

There could perhaps be a limit of the number of times the annexer could edit the WFE in a set time frame?

If this change has real powers and substance behind it then it could actually be used by defenders as well. When I made the protectorate proposal, I suggested that groups such as 10ki could actually use it to help defend regions provided there are sufficient costs for overextension. A kind of defender imperialism. With the name annexation though I doubt many would want to use it even if the benefits are there.

[Mahaj]

Perhaps restrict the total number of times an annexer can change the WFE, *and* restrict the time frame where those changes can be used as well.

Additionally, to let the annexed region free itself, we just need a simple rule: The annexer has no eject or ban powers over the annexed.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Perhaps restrict the total number of times an annexer can change the WFE, *and* restrict the time frame where those changes can be used as well.

Additionally, to let the annexed region free itself, we just need a simple rule: The annexer has no eject or ban powers over the annexed.

And therefore has no real power at all.

[Mahaj]

Otherwise it is impossible for the annexed region to free itself, and Sedge said they wanted that.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Otherwise it is impossible for the annexed region to free itself, and Sedge said they wanted that.

That is akin to saying that once a region is raided it is impossible to free since the delegate can eject/ban.

[Charles Cerebella]

Aye. What has been suggested is that the RO would use influence gained in the annexed region itself. In pure mechanics then you burn that away and you can free it. Political options, as lets not forget, this is actually a political game not just a technical one, will exist as well. If a region wants to put in all military resources to keep an annexed region in their control and in siege mode then you might not be able to free it. But then, they could do that now and hold a region and never let it be freed.

Mahaj, as I said earlier, your objections are that if a annexer puts a region in lockdown then it can't be freed. That is the case now, and this doesn't change that. If someone's empire is just one region then they will be able to hold it regardless of if it has a RO with actual power.

If you can grasp the concept, an RO with real powers means that regions won't be refounded, they won't be put in lockdown, they won't become dead regions. The existence of them will mean it is more likely to be able to free them because the annexers won't push it to end game to lock it and make it a trophy. Instead there are the means to make it a thriving, open region and an active colony. If an annexer wants to pile everything in to ensure they never lose a single given region then fair enough, you might not be able to free it, but then it couldn't be done now. This means though that things can be more dynamic.

No, with an RO it won't be easy to free it if it is held by someone competent. What would be needed is stealth, intrigue and political manoeuvring rather than brute force. Anti-colonialists would have to work with nations within annexed regions and if you want to destroy an empire you would need to work to build hostile sentiment to it in an empire and utilise high-influence nations within it. Heaven forbid that this change would make people have to use politics to achieve their aims in a political simulation game!

As King of Albion, I'm at the forefront of some of the major regions who would make use of this change. There are a few utterly inactive founderless regions out there that I would really love to turn into active and thriving communities because I think there is great potential there. Currently, the only way to do that is to invest a huge amount of resources to refound those regions and it is in no-one's interests, raider, defender, imperialist or native for that to happen. If this change comes in without any powers coming with it, then I will not be making use of it. If I wanted to create an active colony, then I would still need to refound to have any degree of security or control over a region. Without powers, annexing simply puts up a big target over regions that enemy regions can attack. It becomes nothing more than a glorified tag unless you use the existing mechanics and gameplay strategies to lock it down, meaning it definitely can't be freed.

This change has the potential to be a whole new aspect to military gameplay and politics. It has the potential to make inactive regions and communities active and relevant. But it needs to be a meaningful change not just a token one.

[Letoilenoir]

I realise that I am coming late to this conversation and I could be wrong here but aren't there regional statistics for the regions , ie power rankings?

If so could the annexing region and the annexed regions stats be linked so that it would be in the interests of the annexing region to develop the annexed region to improve both the homeland stats and the colony ones?

If the annexor only sought conquest then this mechanic would also mean that the Homeland is effectively drained if it overreaches itself and fails to develop its colonies. The colony could initially benefit from being tied to a strong homeland, gaining a portion of that regions ranking.

Stop thinking in terms of territorial and prestige gains and factor in some reciprocal mechanic like this and you might actually see the R/D game gain a wider significance than you build we smash down mentality that has pervaded since its inception

If you want a RL analogy consider the reunification of Germany, the initial drain on West Germany and the subsequent investment required in East Germany to realise a stronger united single nation

[Ballotonia]

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.

To clarify a bit more: the aim is to offer a (for invaders) desirable yet non-destructive outcome. So something less than total and permanent control that a re-founding would provide. Trying to argue that Annex should provide the same benefits as refounding means you've not understood the point of our intention.

So, say we'd allow the founder/delegate of the annexing region to automatically gain some influence in the annexed region, and give the ability to ban from that region. Something would have to be done to balance that a bit, like not allowing passwords on annexed regions. There could be a requirement that an annexation only persists for as long as the delegate of the annxing region has more endorsements than the delegate of the annexed region. Or... you can think of something else. Empires should be able to take over regions annexed by an enemy empire. Natives should be able to free themselves. This is supposed to be a dynamic mechanism, not a lock-down mechanism (we already have that: Founders).

Ballotonia

[Charles Cerebella]

I've not been trying to argue that it should have the same benefits as refounding, I've been trying to argue that it should have benefits to make it a viable alternative so that refounding is unnecessary.

I'd be content enough with no passwords and/or a requirement of more endorsements in returning for admin cp powers.

[Letoilenoir]

So, say we'd allow the founder/delegate of the annexing region to automatically gain some influence in the annexed region,

Delegate? And what happens when the delegate changes? Does s/he inherit this influence?

[Leutria]

I will also say no passwords seems fair to me. I do see having to have more endorsements on the delegate in the annexing region making it very hard to hold onto larger targets however.

As far as adding motivation to annex regions, what if there is a ranking of regions by regional power, and the regional power of annexed regions is added that of the region that annexed them? You would then have people wanting to annex regions to boost their regional power and move up in the ranks. It also has the added bonus of discouraging purges since that would lower the regional power of the region.

[Tlik]

It seems to me that Annexing should be the equivalent of destroying and refounding a region, but where there is initially a possibility that the region can be reclaimed. I'd argue there are two ways to enact this reclaiming. Firstly, the region can be reclaimed with a standard liberation before the annexation has begun. Essentially, what I'm trying to say is that an annexation should be hard for a group with little prior presence in the region to perform. It should take as long to implement an annexation as it takes a raiding group to add a password and eject all nations. Now that forced length of time can be done in two ways, it can be done via giving it a really high influence cost, or ensuring that it takes a good few weeks from the first press of the annexation button to the point where the annexing region finally gets control.

Personally, I'd argue that the influence cost method should be used. This is for multiple reasons. Firstly, I don't think an absolute timer should be put on this. Defenders should have to work out how long they have until their initial chances are gone. They should work for this, dammit. A timer just gives the whole thing a sense of forced edginess. I naturally feel... ugh. Secondly, a region that wishes to be annexed should not be forced to wait for days on end just to get what they want. If a founder or high-influence delegate willingly lets their region be annexed, that should happen in no less than a week. Immediately might be a bit much (as embassies have already set a precedent of a handful of days) but certainly it shouldn't be a dragging-on thing.

The second way to reclaim a region should come after an annexation. Essentially, a delegate of the annexed region should have the ability to remove the shackles of oppression, and remove the annexation. This removal should take a significant amount of time to complete, to allow the annexing power to come back and reassert control. I feel there should also be another measure in place to prevent the annexed delegate from just hammering the "fight back" button each time they're able to. Perhaps an influence limit, perhaps they're only allowed to do it once ever x-weeks or y-months. I don't know. I have another suggestion that might tie in to this, so let's come back to it.

This means defenders can now liberate trophy regions, in largely the same way that they liberate them now, except that they would have to become even more 'raider-ish'. I should first define a trophy region as a small, one/two-nation region controlled by a raider region solely for the sake of pride. Currently they are almost always refounded to give the raiders absolute control, in this way there is still room for last-ditch attempts. Defenders would seize the delegacy in one of these regions. The annexing power would have a RO in the region that would always be able to fight the defender delegate. However, they'd have to use up influence to do so. I'm not entirely sure about the details here, perhaps defenders are able to eject the RO to prevent them gaining influence (but not remove their RO-ship, in the same way that a founder doesn't lose their foundership when removed from a region)? There are a lot of different mechanisms and counter-mechanisms that can be devised at this point, but ultimately I'm always going to lean towards giving defenders the edge, and a raider will always lean towards giving raiders the edge, and [v] and the rest of the team will need to decide what the fair cut-off point is.

One thing I would like to say is that I believe that a trophy region should never be completely secure. There should always be the fear that maybe, just maybe, the original inhabitants will come back with a vengeance, or a Mussolini-esque new defender captain, desperate for spoils to prove their worth to their soldiers, will lead a sortie to the Abyssinia of... you get the picture. I don't know how raiders would feel about this, but it's something I've assumed throughout this. Eventually, a trophy region would probably be refounded and locked down, the same as it is now.

Alternatively, if the region is active, they can fight back themselves. I say this to promote Imperialist-style gameplay, which might not be something everyone agrees with, but I think is quite interesting. Imperialists should be encouraged to capture regions. The best thing about an annexation proposal is that it captures a region without needing to destroy it first. Capture a region, force it to submit, and then allow its denizens to continue their lives peacefully, except for paying whatever taxes might be required. However, to ensure that this works, an RO needs to have a significant amount of power.

I suggest that a foreign RO gains influence proportional to the influence gain of the delegate, in addition to their own influence gain (unless maybe the RO is the delegate?). This ensures the RO always has a significant amount of power, without necessarily needing to tie down pure WA numbers, and fill another region with puppets. What proportion this is is of course to be determined, but it should be a value that's high enough that the region is clearly under the foreign power, but low enough that the region is not unable to free itself, given perhaps some outside help, or a very large mass attempt at reclamation by the natives.

However, I'd argue that here the balance should lie with the invaders. If a region allows its attackers to exist alongside them relatively peacefully, eventually the attackers should have near absolute power. Certainly, in comparison to the ease of liberating a trophy region, liberating an active annexed region after a significant amount of time (by which I mean several montsh) should be orders of magnitude higher. Of course, a region my break out from their shackles at any time the controlling region chooses, which should allow for old regions to, after perhaps years have passed, diplomatically untangle themselves from the controllers. Or, indeed, if the annexee becomes stronger than the annexer, it might be possible to counter-invade, remove the original annexation, and perhaps even set up a new one in the other direction. Of course, these are strategies for a very long term, in the order of years.

Ultimately, a region that is not liberated successfully over an extended timeframe (three-four months, long enough that it gets forgotten about by the vast majority of GP) it should be near impossible to liberate by conventional (ie, anti-raid) means.

So the question is, what does this require in terms of game mechanics?

Well, an annexation should be a hefty procedure, probably in terms of influence, but maybe also in terms of science. Additionally, deannexation should definitely take a period of time to allow all parties to respond.

Annexation should allow for the annexing power to select at least one (and probably only one) Regional Officer from that region. That regional officer should have a similar amount of power to a delegate (ie, the need to use influence to control things) but with the ability of a founder to retain powers even after having updated outside a region. Regional Officers selected via annexation should also gain influence proportional to the delegate of that region.

Just some thoughts I've been having.

[Astarial]

So, say we'd allow the founder/delegate of the annexing region to automatically gain some influence in the annexed region, and give the ability to ban from that region. Something would have to be done to balance that a bit, like not allowing passwords on annexed regions. There could be a requirement that an annexation only persists for as long as the delegate of the annxing region has more endorsements than the delegate of the annexed region. Or... you can think of something else. Empires should be able to take over regions annexed by an enemy empire. Natives should be able to free themselves. This is supposed to be a dynamic mechanism, not a lock-down mechanism (we already have that: Founders).

I support annexed regions not being passwordable - this leaves them constantly vulnerable to being taken over by an opposing empire, or liberated by defenders, and requires would-be imperialists to maintain constant vigilance or risk losing their colonies.

I don't support the endorsement thing, though - it'd make GCRs nearly impossible to annex for all but like, TITO, and that should be possible if someone can manage to make it happen. Plus, it creates wonkiness in delegate transitions, where someone may take the delegacy at a far less endorsed rate than their predecessor and continue to tart up.

So, reasonable upsides to annexing that I see are:
- Delegate of annexing region gains influence in annexed region at a reduced rate
- Delegate of annexing region has access to regional controls in annexed region at increased influence cost (all of them? A limited number?)
- Delegate of annexing region may appoint a Viceroy. This must be a nation in the annexed region, who will act as a regional officer. Possibly an increased influence cost to act?

Balancing the upsides:
- Foundered regions may not be annexed/founder of an annexed regions may end the annex at any time
- Annexed regions may not be passworded
- Founders of annexing regions do not gain any powers over annexed regions - only delegates do. If the annexing region's delegacy is non-executive, no annexation powers may be used. This forces any region wishing to build an empire to make itself, and not just its colonies, vulnerable to counterattack.
- The delegate of the annexing region loses access to delegate controls when the annexation is in the process of being dissolved. No external warring over the RMB/banlist - if you want to protect your colony, you have to move in and do it with troops.

In terms of creation, I think something akin to embassies makes the most sense - perhaps annexations should take five days or a week to establish? This provides plenty of time for the annexation to be fought, and requires annexing regions to really commit to holding onto their colonies. De-annexation would similarly take a week, allowing time for the two (or more!) sides to duke it out.