[Change #4] Annex

[Letoilenoir]

[ 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.

That is a very desireable caveat JMHO

[Tlik]

- 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.

I think that annexing founders should have at least the same powers over annexed regions as delegates, although I think it would be better for an annexing RO to be the only person to have powers in the annexed region. This deals with influence issues quite nicely, as there's no worrying about who gets influence where, and at what rate. However, the second idea, that an annexing power must have a non-executive delegacy, is really quite neat, I like it. I think it's a bit risky, and I'd like to see some imperialist viewpoints on it, but it might be the best way to solve the problem of founders being so OP, yet so necessary if you don't want to take part in GP.

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.

I would still prefer an influence cost. It would still of course take a significant amount of time to build up that influence cost, and it would allow the opposing side to attempt to slow down the process, but it would also mean that regions that wish to be annexed don't have to bear the time cost as much. I think annexation as we're talking about now (allowing the annexing region to have significant powers) would suggest that using embassies as a model may not be the greatest idea, as these have traditionally been very flimsy, getting put up in one update, and removed in the next. Rather annexation should be a much slower process.

Of course a combination of the two might be a better compromise. I agree with your views on de-annexation.

[Ballotonia]

[ 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.

That is a very desireable caveat JMHO

Wouldn't that lead to a quick sequence of actions like:
1. enable executive powers
2. do stuff in annexed region
3. disable executive powers

Ballotonia

[Astarial]

That is a very desireable caveat JMHO

Wouldn't that lead to a quick sequence of actions like:
1. enable executive powers
2. do stuff in annexed region
3. disable executive powers

Ballotonia

Influence gain in the annexed region should also be tied to this - if the delegacy is non-executive, the delegate will not gain any influence in order to be able to take actions.

You could still get some weird side cases, where a nation with pre-existing influence in one region becomes delegate somewhere else and annexes their original region, and can then exploit the lack of influence decay within an empire (which I didn't include but I think would still be an awesome inclusion) to turn regional control on and off as needed... but seeing as most imperialist regions have things like elections and internal communities and wouldn't give their delegacy to just anyone right off the bat, I do think it would be an anomaly and not a frequent concern.

[Charles Cerebella]

Assuming that only the RO/Viceroy can ban and so on, using influence they gain in the annexed region itself, I'm not sure why it needs to be tied to the annexers delegate. I don't see any real reason why the Founder of the annexed region shouldn't be able to change the WFE of the annexed one, especially if there are limits on how much it can be done as has been suggested earlier.

I agree with the lack of passwords, founders able to end annexations at any time and time margins but I don't think the delegate of the annexer needs to come into it. Limited access to the founder of the annexed region controls and full access with possibly slightly higher cost to the RO seems reasonable enough to me.

I'm unsure about an RO losing access to region controls while it is being deannexed. I'd instead suggest that if the deannexation process is begun then they retain access but actions have an even higher cost.

[Tlik]

That is a very desireable caveat JMHO

Wouldn't that lead to a quick sequence of actions like:
1. enable executive powers
2. do stuff in annexed region
3. disable executive powers

Ballotonia

I assumed that if a region removed executive powers, they would lose all their annexations instantly.

It's a bit weird, completely different from anything we have now, but it might stop founders from having near-godlike powers, without preventing their importance in protecting non-GP regions.

Or it might just not be used at all. What do the Imperialists think about this?

[Punk Reloaded]

Currently, it's just a slightly bigger embassy, with somewhat more prominence, that might last a few days longer. If the annexer can exert some measure of power over the annexxed region, that'll provide a new gameplay dynamic, and perhaps promote a different, slower style of play. Otherwise, it's just a little badge, and we've already got those.

Couldn’t agree more with this.

When it comes to annex, I think of it in terms of the opening of embassies process. It would take about a week to go into effect. The reason for this would be two-fold. If this is just to region tag, then I don’t know if it makes sense for it to take any length of time. But how I see annexing is that there would be powers associated with the annexation.

In regions without founders, I think delegates should have the power to ‘annex’ the region to any other region. It would show up on the RMB as “This region has been annexed by Region X. The annexation will be complete in X number of days”. Or something to that effect.

I like something between 7-14 days. This means there isn’t an influence cost to annex, but that delegate would need to remain in the chair for the full duration of the annexation for the annexation to go through. If the delegate is toppled by liberation forces, booted by the founder, or however loses the delegacy, the annexation order dies with the delegate. If the founder issues the annexation order, that won’t be revocable by anyone else but the founder and will still take the same length of time.

Sticking with delegate issued annexations, I feel these could be some of the powers for the region that has annexed the other region (many of these are similar to what Astarial suggested):
• Delegate or Founder (D/F) of the region annexing would have the ability to suppress RMB posts of the annexed region
• D/F can update the WFE of annexed region
• D/F can eject/ban nations of the annexed region
• Any action taken that has influence cost would be double that of the D/F of the annexed region
• When the delegate of the region that has annexed the other region votes in the WA, the delegate’s own votes and all of the votes of the annexed delegate are counted as one. So, Region A annexed Region B. Region A, 10 delegate votes, Region B 5 delegate votes. When Region A votes in the WA, it will be counted as 15 votes.

I’m inclined to agree with Astarial that Founders shouldn’t have these powers, would make annexing way too powerful, imo.

I also agree that no passwording of annexed regions should be allowed.

I’d also like to offer something that I haven’t seen yet. During the creation of the annex relationship, I believe delegate controls should be turned off entirely and their ability to ban be frozen. This means that during those 7-14 days, the annexing region will need to fight for the right to party…I mean to establish their annexed region. It gives liberators time to liberate the region. And again, I’m suggesting that the annexation ceases if the delegate who started the process is not the delegate at any time during the process. Once a region has been annexed, if the delegate changes the annexation would remain unless the next delegate canceled the annexation (the annexing region should be able to cancel as well). De-annexation should take less time, say 5 days.

Just my 2 dimes.

[Letoilenoir]

Just thinking out loud here

Regional Controls

Home Region	On	Annexed Region	On
Annexation Initiated	20/09/13	Annexation effective	27/09/13

Regional Controls

Home Region	Off	Annexed Region	On
Annexation Initiated	20/09/13	Annexation effective	Suspended

This would effectively mean that if a region wanted to annex another it would itself have to be vulnerable for the duration of annexation process - if it switched off its regional controls the process would be suspended but the elected delegate would still be able to operate under "normal" (current rule set) conditions

This could prompt to the leadership of the Home Region to weigh up whether they go for a refound (which may involve a longer timescale) or gamble on being confident enough to maintain control over the new Colony as well as retain mastery in the Home Region for the duration of the process.

Once the annexation has completed then "secondary" influence factors would come into play(eg influence cost in the Annexed region for the Home region D/F), which would remain in effect until such time as the annexation was reversed.

The Home region would be able to lock down its own regional controls after the Annexation completed, but not those of the Annexed region

Viable?

[Astarial]

I’d also like to offer something that I haven’t seen yet. During the creation of the annex relationship, I believe delegate controls should be turned off entirely and their ability to ban be frozen. This means that during those 7-14 days, the annexing region will need to fight for the right to party…I mean to establish their annexed region. It gives liberators time to liberate the region. And again, I’m suggesting that the annexation ceases if the delegate who started the process is not the delegate at any time during the process. Once a region has been annexed, if the delegate changes the annexation would remain unless the next delegate canceled the annexation (the annexing region should be able to cancel as well). De-annexation should take less time, say 5 days.

I think this takes it a bit too far. Defenders and defender-sympathizers vastly outnumber raiders and raider-sympathizers - that's one of the major components of the Delegate Elect discussion, and there seems to be general consensus that DE status on one person for longer than 12 hours would simply be untenable.

A forced DE status for 7-14 days? No annexation would ever be completed, on either side.

@Cere: I wasn't suggesting ROs wouldn't have access to regional controls, but rather that the annexing region's delegate no longer would.

[Punk Reloaded]

I think this takes it a bit too far. Defenders and defender-sympathizers vastly outnumber raiders and raider-sympathizers - that's one of the major components of the Delegate Elect discussion, and there seems to be general consensus that DE status on one person for longer than 12 hours would simply be untenable.

A forced DE status for 7-14 days? No annexation would ever be completed, on either side.

Perhaps this would be the case in today's R/D paradigm. But I see that evolvement of the R/D game with this. I actually don't see alot of today's raider organizations using an annex system that is beyond tagging, because some raiders just want to tag and move on. Imperialists, on the other hand, would definitely use this. And the first time the UIAF brings in 40+ WA nations to a region, the defenders will wake up, but I also believe there will be counters as well. In other words, I see this particular suggestion resulting in more people on both sides of the R/D paradigm as defenders seek to stop the imperialists and imperialists seek to expand their empire.

[Liberatia]

perhaps another change that could be done is for recruitment telegrams, the telegram could include a link all annexed regions.

[Charles Cerebella]

I think this takes it a bit too far. Defenders and defender-sympathizers vastly outnumber raiders and raider-sympathizers - that's one of the major components of the Delegate Elect discussion, and there seems to be general consensus that DE status on one person for longer than 12 hours would simply be untenable.

A forced DE status for 7-14 days? No annexation would ever be completed, on either side.

Perhaps this would be the case in today's R/D paradigm. But I see that evolvement of the R/D game with this. I actually don't see alot of today's raider organizations using an annex system that is beyond tagging, because some raiders just want to tag and move on. Imperialists, on the other hand, would definitely use this. And the first time the UIAF brings in 40+ WA nations to a region, the defenders will wake up, but I also believe there will be counters as well. In other words, I see this particular suggestion resulting in more people on both sides of the R/D paradigm as defenders seek to stop the imperialists and imperialists seek to expand their empire.

So instead of an evolvement of the R/D game, you in fact see a petrification of it. Without ban powers there is no way even the 40ish WAs of the UIAF could hold a region . It would utterly eliminate the possibility of any newer region being able to annex anything. Instead of annexations leading to a more dynamic R/D game, it would make this useless. There is no way I would sanction the start of an annexation process if admin-powers were lost for 7-14 days because there was no way it could be won. If you think there is the potential for imperialists to match the manpower of defenders I'd love to talk to you about it, From my position, we have much much higher numbers then ever in the history of imperialism but the potential to raise that further is limited, especially in the new recruitment situation with stamps where dedication and commitment to a community can no longer be translated into high recruitment and high population counts.

[Mahaj]

Perhaps this would be the case in today's R/D paradigm. But I see that evolvement of the R/D game with this. I actually don't see alot of today's raider organizations using an annex system that is beyond tagging, because some raiders just want to tag and move on. Imperialists, on the other hand, would definitely use this. And the first time the UIAF brings in 40+ WA nations to a region, the defenders will wake up, but I also believe there will be counters as well. In other words, I see this particular suggestion resulting in more people on both sides of the R/D paradigm as defenders seek to stop the imperialists and imperialists seek to expand their empire.

So instead of an evolvement of the R/D game, you in fact see a petrification of it. Without ban powers there is no way even the 40ish WAs of the UIAF could hold a region . It would utterly eliminate the possibility of any newer region being able to annex anything. Instead of annexations leading to a more dynamic R/D game, it would make this useless. There is no way I would sanction the start of an annexation process if admin-powers were lost for 7-14 days because there was no way it could be won. If you think there is the potential for imperialists to match the manpower of defenders I'd love to talk to you about it, From my position, we have much much higher numbers then ever in the history of imperialism but the potential to raise that further is limited, especially in the new recruitment situation with stamps where dedication and commitment to a community can no longer be translated into high recruitment and high population counts.

Erm... have you looked at the current gameplay paradigm?

Imperialists have an incredibly high amount of manpower compared to defenders.

[Tlik]

So instead of an evolvement of the R/D game, you in fact see a petrification of it. Without ban powers there is no way even the 40ish WAs of the UIAF could hold a region . It would utterly eliminate the possibility of any newer region being able to annex anything. Instead of annexations leading to a more dynamic R/D game, it would make this useless. There is no way I would sanction the start of an annexation process if admin-powers were lost for 7-14 days because there was no way it could be won. If you think there is the potential for imperialists to match the manpower of defenders I'd love to talk to you about it, From my position, we have much much higher numbers then ever in the history of imperialism but the potential to raise that further is limited, especially in the new recruitment situation with stamps where dedication and commitment to a community can no longer be translated into high recruitment and high population counts.

Erm... have you looked at the current gameplay paradigm?

Imperialists have an incredibly high amount of manpower compared to defenders.

Imperialists have a large number of very inexperienced players who are happy to pile temporarily, but definitely aren't full-time R/D'ers. Compare fairly.

[Charles Cerebella]

We have high manpower from a ridiculous amount of work in developing the cultural and political depth we have into military numbers and by developing a military structure that can allow people to thrive and enjoy the military. What we've achieved in that regard has been done in spite of prejudices we've had to work against. But defenders have much greater manpower reserves and have a much greater natural sympathy for them. I don't think anyone can seriously argue that defenders would lose in a pure manpower race over a period as long a week. I'm still sceptical about even 12 hours.

Is it wise to make technical changes based solely on what the UIAF is capable of at this point of time? For one, as it is made of UCRs, and political ones at that, and there is no guarantee that the status quo now will be the case in 6 months time especially with the recruitment changes making their impact. But say it is, if we take that as the base mark then no smaller region or group, even if they have reasonable numbers, would be able to achieve anything on their own. This is not necessarily a bad thing for the UIAF as it makes the UIAF central to success or not but I can hardly think that is a good situation for military gameplay in general.

The success of the UIAF has been achieved not by beneficial technical changes, but by political work in constructing successful regions, diplomatic work in building strong alliance networks and just a lot of hard graft in training troops. There is nothing to stop defender groups doing the same thing, and that might be better use of time and energy than complaining at the success of others and looking for changes to cancel that out without having to put in similar efforts.

[Punk Reloaded]

Charles - what if the timeframe was 1-2 days? I was trying to find a balance between the raiders and defenders but you would know better than I if what I am recommending goes too far. If Mahaj doesn't see a problem with it, it probably does.

[Charles Cerebella]

I've not been following it properly, but from what I have read in the RO thread I believe the consensus was that anything more than 12 hours would be too tilted towards defenders.

Personally, I think a more reasonable compromise would be to have things costing more influence over the course of an annexation. That would allow a greater extent of battling. It would be necessary for defenders to get in at updates to cause influence costs, and mean that the annexers have to keep on their toes to eject before update and prioritise influence actions. That would mean this would be a bit more of a skill game than just pure numbers.

EDIT:

Or perhaps instead of a higher influence cost, a freeze in influence gain over the course of it. Both would have the same effect essentially.

[Mahaj]

Erm... have you looked at the current gameplay paradigm?

Imperialists have an incredibly high amount of manpower compared to defenders.

Imperialists have a large number of very inexperienced players who are happy to pile temporarily, but definitely aren't full-time R/D'ers. Compare fairly.

But it doesn't matter, they use those people to pile in, and defenders cannot pile back to counter because of gameplay mechanics.

This is at once an argument for a stronger delegate elect conditions and an argument for the annexation feature to not put the region into lockdown and make it into a game over situation.

[Mahaj]

The success of the UIAF has been achieved not by beneficial technical changes, but by political work in constructing successful regions, diplomatic work in building strong alliance networks and just a lot of hard graft in training troops. There is nothing to stop defender groups doing the same thing, and that might be better use of time and energy than complaining at the success of others and looking for changes to cancel that out without having to put in similar efforts.

Defender groups are not sitting around merely "complaining" while not working, but you're ignoring the ability of raiders to just pile in people.

I think for an annexation admin powers ought to be lost for a few days (maybe not a week), especially if we're making it so powerful.



There also ought to be some way in the SC to remove an annexation.

[Charles Cerebella]

The success of the UIAF has been achieved not by beneficial technical changes, but by political work in constructing successful regions, diplomatic work in building strong alliance networks and just a lot of hard graft in training troops. There is nothing to stop defender groups doing the same thing, and that might be better use of time and energy than complaining at the success of others and looking for changes to cancel that out without having to put in similar efforts.

Defender groups are not sitting around merely "complaining" while not working, but you're ignoring the ability of raiders to just pile in people.

I think for an annexation admin powers ought to be lost for a few days (maybe not a week), especially if we're making it so powerful.



There also ought to be some way in the SC to remove an annexation.

I'm not ignoring it at all. But look at it this way. The total, max numbers the UIAF can deploy are around 40, on a good day. Of them, around three quarters are at best irregular updaters. Defenders in the past have been able to get up to 30 updaters. I'd assume you have the potential to bring in much higher non-updater numbers even if not quite to the ratio of 3:1. On paper, certainly, the UDL is the largest military in the game. 10ki is by far the largest UCR. Over even two days I think defenders could easily get numbers around 80-100.

As I've said before, if it comes down to a pure numbers game then there will only be one winner, because defenders will swiftly find that they are by far the better pilers and without the ability to ban then raiders will not stand a chance and it would be lunacy to risk certain defeat in such circumstances.

I'd be open to having an SC way to remove annexation, but it should only be allowed a number of months after the annexation happened. If it turns out an annexation is nothing more than a trophy acquisition then fair enough there should be a diplomatic way to remove it. But it might be that the annexer actually wants to develop the region into a thriving colony and they should be given a reasonable chance and sufficient time to do this before the SC becomes an option. Mere aggression in taking the region should not be sufficient reason to end an annexation which will be the justification if they are allowed as soon as it happens.

[Sedgistan]

Just a note on this - Annex may require the most discussion of any of the changes on how it will work, as it's something that would be hard to amend once implemented.

[Letoilenoir]

Most of this discussion seems to revolve about the power wielded by the Annexing Region, but what about the powers of the Annexed Regions delegate?

Once annexed would the Annexed Regions Delegate Influence be transferable/retained should they move to the home region?

And if such influence barriers were lowered, would they also transferable to other annexed regions in the "Empire"?

Maybe not the full Influence quota, but perhap a proportional segment?

[Cerian Quilor]

Why should the local delegate get benefits in the home region? They're advantage is their appointment as annexation.

[Topid]

Just chiming in with something that was on my mind. I continue to think shared influence pool + very high cost (from the soon-to-be colonies' delegate) is the right way to go from an R/D perspective, allowing for an eventual 'win' situation raiders can aim for. Also I like the idea of not being able to annex a passworded region, to discourage the use of passwords to block liberations.

Anyway, what I thought I'd chime in about, was an idea I've wished for before IIRC, that would be cool to tack on here. One of the problems that always occurs when a region tries to have colonies is you take one active region with X number of active members and either split some of their activity to a second region, hurting the home region, or the colony is inactive and pretty much useless.

What if annexed regions had the option (in regional control) to merge RMB posts from their annexer into their RMB. And the annexer could have the same option, merging post from each annexed region to their RMB. If the admins make the add/rejecting/sending annex requests section of the RC the same as embassy requests, the way to control it could be a check-box in the table with region name/duration/withdraw button. This way the regions would have totally independent administration and policies as far as control aspects are concerned, but a united community/culture in terms of RMB discussions. It would also allow the colony to have activity without drawing away from the host region.

[South Pacific Belschaft]

Perhaps we could simply have a standard DE situation triggered when an Annexation is begun? That provides a new small window of opportunity for the opposing forces to move in, and guarantees an influence cost to remove their nations. Coupled with an increased influence cost for actions in a Annexed region that should provide a significant hurdle to overcome.