Annex

[Dysian]

If an invaded region has such a tag line, it just encourages the natives to refound their region to get rid of that tag. Such a stain continuously in its display is likely too much to live with.

Well make the tag impossible to remove even by refound. Natives will hate it, sure, but it will make most raiders give up from kicking all natives & refounding their region. Which they would hate even more.

[Romanar]

I could see raiders going after founded regions. Even if the Founder kicked their tails to TRR right after, it would still be listed as annexed. OTOH, it would give the raiders a chance to leave their mark WITHOUT destroying regions, which is a good thing.

[Erastide]

I don't think a region that has been annexed (forcibly) should have to keep the tag beyond active occupation. Or at least there needs to be a way to get rid of that tag. Whether it's by having the new delegate spend influence to get rid of it once they cut the annexation or just a time based decay. But I'm really not in favor of allowing raiders to essentially spam regions that don't want it just to get their tag everywhere.

[Ballotonia]

Well make the tag impossible to remove even by refound. Natives will hate it, sure, but it will make most raiders give up from kicking all natives & refounding their region. Which they would hate even more.

Let's not confuse matters here. This newly proposed feature doesn't prevent invaders from being maximally annoying by kicking out natives. It just provides an alternative of something those invaders can do AS WELL.

The idea that invaders will suddenly be well-behaved if only they're rewarded sufficiently already has been proven wrong. It used to be illegal to kick out natives, and now it's legal but time-consuming. End result: invaders kick out natives, just because they can. Giving invaders more powers over their victims (in this case: added stuff to occupied regions which cannot ever be removed again) only makes those invaders more annoying to their hapless victims than they already are.

Ballotonia

[Bears Armed]

Making it unremovable would mean that any delegate who fell out with their neighbours but who had another region's delegate willing to help them could use their last hours in office to place an indelible mark on the region, even if it hadn't actually been successfully "raided" by any currently understood meaning of that term... Opposed.

[Ballotonia]

Making it unremovable would mean that any delegate who fell out with their neighbours but who had another region's delegate willing to help them could use their last hours in office to place an indelible mark on the region, even if it hadn't actually been successfully "raided" by any currently understood meaning of that term... Opposed.

Hmmm. Good point. Frankly, one could also intentionally add lots and lots and lots of other tags, just to 'swamp out' the one tag one doesn't like. How about creating an entire index of all other regions in ones own region?

Ballotonia

[Ficlidan]

My idea had the message placed in the raider's region but not the raidee's region, and the raider's region (or, more likely, a liberator invading the raider) could remove it. Into speculation, there was an idea as to removing the password (if the raider did both).

[Sirocco]

I think this deserves a revisit since the idea was so popular, and even if the raiders completely ignored it, I think it would still be a neat addition to the game.

To summarise some of the ideas I liked best using the examples of 'The Pacific' and 'Lazarus'.

A delegate or founder of one region can nominate another region to annexe. Let's say the delegate of The Pacific nominates Lazarus for an annexation. The delegate of Lazarus then has an option to accept the annexation. If they do so, then their region is added to The Pacific's empire. The Pacific can, as the highest region in the annexation hierarchy, name this empire. The Pacific names this empire 'Pacifica'.

On Lazarus's page, a line is visible informing observers that Lazarus was annexed by The Pacific and is now part of the Pacifica empire.

On The Pacific's page, a line is visible showing a list (with links) of regions it has annexed (possibly with a drop down menu?).

At any time, the delegate or founder of either region may dismiss the annexation. Let's say Lazarus decides it doesn't want to be part of Pacifica anymore. If this happens, all information about the annexe disappears except for a listing in a historical section of the main page telling what regions/empires have annexed Lazarus in the past.

The Pacific, meanwhile, would have a historical record of having once annexed Lazarus.

These historical records could possibly show when, and for how long, the annexation lasted.

Also:

A region cannot be annexed by more than one region at a time.
A region may annex an unlimited number of other regions.

An annexed region may annexe other regions with a few exceptions - let's use Lazarus, The Pacific, and Pacifica again.

Lazarus is annexed by The Pacific/Pacifica. They want to annexe The Rejected Realms. They may only annexe The Rejected Realms if it is not already part of Pacifica. Once they've annexed The Rejected Realms, a line will appear on the Rejected Realms' page telling observers that it was annexed by Lazarus, a member (note: not 'owner') of Pacifica. Lazarus may not name its own empire while it is annexed.

To put it simply: you may not annexe any region that is in the same empire as you.

If an empire owner is annexed, say Gatesville of The Gates Empire annexes The Pacific, then Pacifica becomes 'The Gates Empire' in all its annexed regions. In The Pacific's historical section, it would note that The Pacific was previously the master of the now extinct Pacifica.

Someone suggested 'alliances' too. This could be done much the same way, except no changes in empires would occur.

Thoughts:

Empires could have their own flags! Maybe.
We could have lists of the most powerful empires, and most populous empires, most allies, most annexations, etc.

[Surote]

I don't like it. It's to Freedom destroying.

[Ballotonia]

For reasons already mentioned before, I'm opposed to having any permanent mark.

You can count on me leaving utterly meaningless 'permanent' marks everywhere just to drown out any possible meaningful ones. Heck, one could easily create regions and hand them back and forth between empires just to make sure that by the time an invader gets to adding a mark the list will already so huge that it's pointless and has no value for them anymore. Regions at risk of being invaded do well to keep the value of them being raided as low as possible.

I fail to see why invaders would be offered even more toys to play with than the destructive BS they're already allowed to get away with.

Ballotonia

[[violet]]

One thing I'm thinking of adding is a permanent "Regional History" (or perhaps "Political History") that will list significant events in a region's life. This would include Delegate reigns, and the establishment/removal of Annexes or Regional Embassies if/when we get those. I'm thinking that this would be a short line on the region page, showing just the most recent political event, with the region's complete history one click away.

Now originally I thought Annexings should not leave a permanent mark on the Annexed region, because in many cases regions will not be happy about being Annexed; they'd consider any permanent reminder of that to be a defacement. But Annexings would be a political event worthy of recording. So options would be: (1) Don't record Annexings in the Annexed regions. (2) Do record them. (3) Record them but let the Founder/Delegate delete those lines from the history.

Thoughts?

[The Sedge]

If the history is on a separate page from the main region page, then I'd support having a permanent record of annexations there, which can't be cleared by the delegate/founder. I just wouldn't want there to be a permanent mark on the main page of the region.

[Havensky]

Could regional alliances be included in Region History? Our region isn't too much into empire-building considering our history of defending regions from tyranny.

[Todd McCloud]

Explanation snip

I... I think I love you... I would love, LOVE to see this in the game. Please be sure to work this in!

[Todd McCloud]

One thing I'm thinking of adding is a permanent "Regional History" (or perhaps "Political History") that will list significant events in a region's life. This would include Delegate reigns, and the establishment/removal of Annexes or Regional Embassies if/when we get those. I'm thinking that this would be a short line on the region page, showing just the most recent political event, with the region's complete history one click away.

Now originally I thought Annexings should not leave a permanent mark on the Annexed region, because in many cases regions will not be happy about being Annexed; they'd consider any permanent reminder of that to be a defacement. But Annexings would be a political event worthy of recording. So options would be: (1) Don't record Annexings in the Annexed regions. (2) Do record them. (3) Record them but let the Founder/Delegate delete those lines from the history.

Thoughts?

I'd choose option (2). I also like this delegate history.

Would the delegate be able to add things to this history? I'd love to be able to add events in there.

[Itinerate Tree Dweller]

I think it would be better to make it so regions can be allied, that way the relationship is mutual. The members of the regions could get to vote on the alliance or the founder could set the alliance status.

[Unibot]

Regional Alliances?

I like....

Could these alliances maybe act as bigger voting blocs for the WA, to double as WA Political Parties... ?

Like the founder of a Regional Alliance can vote with all the WA members in his alliance counting towards his vote.

[Todd McCloud]

I think it would be better to make it so regions can be allied, that way the relationship is mutual. The members of the regions could get to vote on the alliance or the founder could set the alliance status.

This would *also* be a good thing. Big alliances mean one thing... soon they will clash!

[Drakonian Imperium]

This idea occurred to me after having read Sirocco's post, and as I honestly haven't read this whole thread as I should, I don't know if anyone else has pitched it already, but I thought I would just go ahead and suggest it anyway.

What I am suggesting is this, is rather then meta-regional empires a new category, much like Nations or Regions, but instead of those it is Organizations. These would display like Regions, Name, Type, World Factbook Entry, Recent (or Major Event, as was suggested in [violet]'s post) History, and even a Regional (or Organizational rather) Message Board. Like Nations, these would have different options to describe themselves, one of which would be the proposed Empire, others could be Alliance, Pact, and even Treaty or Community. They could invite (or annex) member regions (or even singular nations), or regions/nations could join together and jointly form such Organizations. These International Organizations could even mirror their real world counterparts (like NATO, and the Organizations Which Cannot Be Named). And I think the idea lends itself well to the NSUN/WA, as it is very much an outgrowth of that feature.

Furthermore, a feature like this would allow much more flexibility, in my mind, than Annexure which seems more oriented toward the Invader/Defender side of the game. The ability to classify and present an Organization as an Alliance or an Empire seems to me to give it more accessibility to Role Players.

[Caprecia]

This sounds good however a member in a prior post made a good point... whats the use when we can just add this information in the WFE?

Though on a positive note this will save WFE space... and I think the official recognition of alliances and annexations could boost activity in a region as well as activity interregionally. I think also if there are to be options between alliances and dependencies and empires NS staff should consider the "neighbours" option. In Caprecia we dont hold any alliances as we are neutral, but we do consider some regions "neighbours" as we have regional activity passing between forums. "Neighbours" could merely be regions you have held diplomatic exchanges with for some time. "Neighbours" may give a good thing in establishing divisions in the NS world.

Caprecia (Dominion)

[Zwangzug]

(3) Record them but let the Founder/Delegate delete those lines from the history.

What if the founder, but not the delegate, could delete them? (Or maybe delegates could delete them, at an influence cost?) To me, that would put it on a par with the raiding game as we know it--founders have absolute power, non-founded regions have troubles.

Or maybe we could do something different, and it would only work the other way around (delegates but not founders can delete lines), thus requiring organized, multiplayer action to remove...eh, just thinking out loud. Or whatever the typing equivalent is.

[Fit battion]

You know who this would be perfectly great for? The Commonwealth, it would allow them to clearly show which regions are definately part of it. Currently they post it but it's not always updated by the founders.

[Spredronia]

[*]A region may not annex an "ancestor" region, meaning a region that has annexed it, or a region that has been annexed by a region that has annexed it, etc.[/list]

That's about as confusing as a double reverse quadruple agent.

[Havensky]

Regional Alliances?

I like....

Could these alliances maybe act as bigger voting blocs for the WA, to double as WA Political Parties... ?

Like the founder of a Regional Alliance can vote with all the WA members in his alliance counting towards his vote.

The regional alliances for us involve mostly off-site stuff. We each have embassies on each other forums and have ambassadors living in each others region. And in the unlikely event that one of us falls under attack, naturally we'd be the first to assist. But we make alliances more on friendship than a mutual defense pact or voting bloc.

We recently started an event called "Texas Two-Step Tuesdays" where we visit our allies and throw a party and send gifts. (And for those that don't know - we Texans like to eat!)

[Unibot]

The regional alliances for us involve mostly off-site stuff. We each have embassies on each other forums and have ambassadors living in each others region. And in the unlikely event that one of us falls under attack, naturally we'd be the first to assist. But we make alliances more on friendship than a mutual defense pact or voting bloc.

We recently started an event called "Texas Two-Step Tuesdays" where we visit our allies and throw a party and send gifts. (And for those that don't know - we Texans like to eat!)

Oh, yeah, I'm sure there are a lot of these kind of things already in existence with large, community driven regions. But if it was implemented into the code, region-wide, that would rejuvenate everyone's community, including smaller regions (with lots of fresh players). Do you know what I mean?