Mahaj wrote:I think the new delegate shouldn't be able to remove officers immediately: This way they can serve as a defense mechanism for the region if they so choose.
As has already been said, that's tilting the field in defender's favour. You've already got an institutionalized advantage with Liberation Proposals, you don't really need anything else.
There should be a cost for removing officers, and appoint new officers at the standard cost for all delegates.
Eh... seems pretty fishy. Part of the fun of R/D was when raiders occupied regions (Japan, Coffee House, et al) and freeing them was a challenge. RO's have the potential to make it even more challenging, and even more fun. To essentially force a low influence delegate to not use them seems pretty fenda-leaning again, and sucks for native delegates of founderless regions.
In order to keep things balanced so you don't have the possibility of lots and lots of nations able to eject or ban nations to thwart liberations (which is unfair to the game and hurts gameplay), perhaps it should be made so that officers cannot eject or ban during update?
No, what you are suggesting here hurts Gameplay, by once again tilting things toward Defenderism. Raiders may be the "baddies" of R/D, but without them the subgame wouldn't exist. And for all the native rights spiel, nobody wants the subgame to die. Firmly opposed.
Another possibility to consider is that to limit the usage of officers ejecting and banning, the ejection cost drains from both the officer and the regional delegate.
This I sort of agree with, but not 100%. Instead of it effecting the delegate, why not cap RO influence gains at half of the delegate's? That way they can banject as normal, without it effecting the Delegate too much. Just my 2 cents.