N/A

[Kiosanda]

N/A

[Libertas Regionem]

If I'm not wrong, Max Barry addressed in the FAQ that he would not implement a War system.

[Veskesh]

Sounds like a good idea But that's up to the Mods/Admins to see if that's a good idea.

Edit: Never mind Max said he didn't want a war system in the game.

[Galway-Dublin]

NS is a government simulator, not a war simulator.

In any case, the amount of mechanics that would need to be added to the game to include war outweigh the fact that NS is firstly a government simulator.

[Enfaru]

There doesn't need to be a "war system", no one asked for that. Declaring War is a distinctly political act and should be included. Furthermore, it should have an effect on what issues a nation gets. Declaring war and declaring peace have distinct effects on a populace politically and as a "political" simulator (or so it likes to call itself), NS should emulate it.

There are some issues that do "declare war", perhaps these could be modified to include a random fellow region member instead. It wouldn't have an effect on the other nation, just on the nation that got the issue.

Further some "sign" that the nation is "at war" until such time a new issue comes up begging for peace would be more immersive.

[Gurori]

Political Simulator /=/ War Simulator

If you wanna do a war so badly, roleplay it in the International Incidents forum.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

People are missing the point here, I think. Nobody is asking for a war simulation. What is being sought is more tools to describe diplomatic stances.

I agree, it'd be nice to have options other than "endorse".

Maybe what would be cool would be to have something like four diplomatic states, of which you can only ever have one in place:

- Nothing. You don't care enough about that nation to have a stance.
- Endorsement. Region only, of course, same function as presently.
- Hostility. Anywhere in the world. Flag it up on the logs, but on the front screen under endorsements just say "X nations have declared themselves hostile to @@NAME@@". Only if you reciprocate hostility would you then get a front page insert saying "@@NAME@@ is at war with (other nation's name)". Some nuance could then later be added, for long running wars, for recently declared wars. The code could perhaps cap you out at just naming the three nations you have been at war with the longest. Maybe something like "@@NAME@@ is at war with many nations, most notably A, B and C."
Because war would only result from mutual hostility, you could control this to some extent.
To stop spamming of hostilities, you could allow just one declaration of hostility per update. That'd make it a significant thing.
- Interest. This is basically saying you're watching that nation with interest, but have no other diplomatic stance on. This wouldn't need to be anything other than ("X nations have expressed that they are watching @@NAME@@ with interest.") No game effect would be needed, it's basically just a measure of noteworthiness.

You could then link these things to sections in the dossier, so that you can click a dossier tab to list endorsed nations, nations you are at war with, nations who you are hostile with, vice versa, and so on.

The issue editor's dream would then be to be able to use a piece of code to insert real nation names into issues, like @@RANDOMWARENEMY@@ or @@RANDOMALLY@@. You could have an issue saying something like "During your nation's ongoing conflict with Candlewhisper Archive..."

How cool would that be?

Obviously these are just mad ideas, and the people behind the coding would have to decide whether they're worth implementing or not.

[The Intergalactic Universe Corporation]

People are missing the point here, I think. Nobody is asking for a war simulation. What is being sought is more tools to describe diplomatic stances.

I agree, it'd be nice to have options other than "endorse".

Maybe what would be cool would be to have something like four diplomatic states, of which you can only ever have one in place:

- Nothing. You don't care enough about that nation to have a stance.
- Endorsement. Region only, of course, same function as presently.
- Hostility. Anywhere in the world. Flag it up on the logs, but on the front screen under endorsements just say "X nations have declared themselves hostile to @@NAME@@". Only if you reciprocate hostility would you then get a front page insert saying "@@NAME@@ is at war with (other nation's name)". Some nuance could then later be added, for long running wars, for recently declared wars. The code could perhaps cap you out at just naming the three nations you have been at war with the longest. Maybe something like "@@NAME@@ is at war with many nations, most notably A, B and C."
Because war would only result from mutual hostility, you could control this to some extent.
To stop spamming of hostilities, you could allow just one declaration of hostility per update. That'd make it a significant thing.
- Interest. This is basically saying you're watching that nation with interest, but have no other diplomatic stance on. This wouldn't need to be anything other than ("X nations have expressed that they are watching @@NAME@@ with interest.") No game effect would be needed, it's basically just a measure of noteworthiness.

You could then link these things to sections in the dossier, so that you can click a dossier tab to list endorsed nations, nations you are at war with, nations who you are hostile with, vice versa, and so on.

The issue editor's dream would then be to be able to use a piece of code to insert real nation names into issues, like @@RANDOMWARENEMY@@ or @@RANDOMALLY@@. You could have an issue saying something like "During your nation's ongoing conflict with Candlewhisper Archive..."

How cool would that be?

Obviously these are just mad ideas, and the people behind the coding would have to decide whether they're worth implementing or not.

It sounds brilliant and I certainly hope that those behind the coding of the game decide to implement this in the next improvement of the game. The charts and expanded comparison charts were good, but this will make the game more immersive without needing a war function.

[Enfaru]

Candlewhisper Archive,

I'm fully onboard with that .

[The Blaatschapen]

People are missing the point here, I think. Nobody is asking for a war simulation. What is being sought is more tools to describe diplomatic stances.

I agree, it'd be nice to have options other than "endorse".

Maybe what would be cool would be to have something like four diplomatic states, of which you can only ever have one in place:

- Nothing. You don't care enough about that nation to have a stance.
- Endorsement. Region only, of course, same function as presently.
- Hostility. Anywhere in the world. Flag it up on the logs, but on the front screen under endorsements just say "X nations have declared themselves hostile to @@NAME@@". Only if you reciprocate hostility would you then get a front page insert saying "@@NAME@@ is at war with (other nation's name)". Some nuance could then later be added, for long running wars, for recently declared wars. The code could perhaps cap you out at just naming the three nations you have been at war with the longest. Maybe something like "@@NAME@@ is at war with many nations, most notably A, B and C."
Because war would only result from mutual hostility, you could control this to some extent.
To stop spamming of hostilities, you could allow just one declaration of hostility per update. That'd make it a significant thing.
- Interest. This is basically saying you're watching that nation with interest, but have no other diplomatic stance on. This wouldn't need to be anything other than ("X nations have expressed that they are watching @@NAME@@ with interest.") No game effect would be needed, it's basically just a measure of noteworthiness.

You could then link these things to sections in the dossier, so that you can click a dossier tab to list endorsed nations, nations you are at war with, nations who you are hostile with, vice versa, and so on.

The issue editor's dream would then be to be able to use a piece of code to insert real nation names into issues, like @@RANDOMWARENEMY@@ or @@RANDOMALLY@@. You could have an issue saying something like "During your nation's ongoing conflict with Candlewhisper Archive..."

How cool would that be?

Obviously these are just mad ideas, and the people behind the coding would have to decide whether they're worth implementing or not.

I can see the tonnes of people declaring hostility on the mods now

Maybe a limit in how many people can declare hostility on you? To avoid mass-cyberbullying?

[Flanderlion]

Fully expected another "war plz" thread and clicked to watch it get crushed. I was pleasantly surprised and I kind of like Candlewhispers idea (and more and more the more I think of it). How would it fit between WA and non WA nations with endorsing? Would non WA nations be able to endorse? How would it differentiate between WA endorsements for delegacy and non-WA ones? Would it force people to be in the WA for this?

So the interest bit would be like a bit of your dossier you choose to make public? Downsides I can see of this is possibly more people asking to make a winner of the hostilities, clutter with buttons, confusion (possibly, could be avoided depending on implementation) and the fact it'll require at least a moderate amount of code time, likely more.

[Thermodolia]

Idea is : If you press it, it'll send a notice to the nation and they can either also declare war back, deny it, ignore it, or try to make peace with the nation. (A treaty, perhaps)

No / thread.

[Japan and Pacific States]

I think that if something like this idea were to go through it should be a two party thing. As in you click the "declare war" button but it has to be agreed upon by the other nation.... Otherwise this website will just become like Bloc.com (Nationstates knock off that allows for warfare between nations and the stats make no sense what so ever) But anyway yes. if it were implemented it should be done like that otherwise there will just be a number of larger more advanced nations bullying smaller nations which only have pitchforks or muskets.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I can see the tonnes of people declaring hostility on the mods now

Maybe a limit in how many people can declare hostility on you? To avoid mass-cyberbullying?

Or on the Issue Editors for the hatchet jobs we do on their submissions?

Way I see it, if you can only declare Hostility once per update, you have to really mean it.

Plus, like a Raider nation getting a security council Condemnation, I'd likely wear my high hostility count as a badge of honour: to be hated by many is an achievement! Hell, give me a badge too for Top 10% Most Hated, I'll take it!

Imagine it now: Candlewhisper Archive has had open declarations of hostility from 12,225 nations.

To which I say "WOOT!"

Also, of course, unless you reciprocate hostility, they don't get a mention on your page. They just get to be part of the numerical count.

I don't think there's any more potential for cyberbullying here than in any other part of NS. It's just a button press, not an abusive telegram, or persistent calls for Condemnation, or anything like that. Besides, it's not me they're hostile to, it's my nation.

If we really wanted to be sure, we could make it so that you can only use these buttons if you're a WA member, and that way the easy way to opt our of the whole social prestige game is to leave the WA.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I think that if something like this idea were to go through it should be a two party thing. As in you click the "declare war" button but it has to be agreed upon by the other nation.... Otherwise this website will just become like Bloc.com (Nationstates knock off that allows for warfare between nations and the stats make no sense what so ever) But anyway yes. if it were implemented it should be done like that otherwise there will just be a number of larger more advanced nations bullying smaller nations which only have pitchforks or muskets.

Well, the whole point would be that there'd be no war simulation. Your relative strengths as nations don't matter, its just a declaration of diplomatic status.

[Maljaratas]

I also support Candlewhisper's idea. (Though should it have it own thread?)

[Trotterdam]

Doesn't someone usually chime in around this time with a comment of "That's what factbooks are for."?

Purely-declarative diplomatic statuses with no gameplay effect don't add much. The ability to reference other players' nations (instead of NPCs like Blackacre or Wezeltonia) in issues might be amusing, but it would cut off players who don't happen to violently hate anyone from receiving some issues (and so encourage some people to pick a random enemy just for the issues rather than really putting much roleplay thought into it), unless there are "default" enemies, allies, etc. as a fallback. It'd also make it harder to write issues to remain applicable to every nation, since, for example, I might have to dismiss an issue about naval warfare not only if I'm landlocked, but also if my enemy is landlocked. Or, say, what if my enemy doesn't actually have a military, or has a really weird military with soldiers who are stark naked except for their rocket boots, and ride Tricerotanks? Issue validities would have to look at the other nation's stats as well as my own in order to make sense, which goes against the "purely cosmetic diplomatic status, it's still a solo game" idea.

[Enfaru]

Doesn't someone usually chime in around this time with a comment of "That's what factbooks are for."?

Purely-declarative diplomatic statuses with no gameplay effect don't add much. The ability to reference other players' nations (instead of NPCs like Blackacre or Wezeltonia) in issues might be amusing, but it would cut off players who don't happen to violently hate anyone from receiving some issues (and so encourage some people to pick a random enemy just for the issues rather than really putting much roleplay thought into it), unless there are "default" enemies, allies, etc. as a fallback. It'd also make it harder to write issues to remain applicable to every nation, since, for example, I might have to dismiss an issue about naval warfare not only if I'm landlocked, but also if my enemy is landlocked. Or, say, what if my enemy doesn't actually have a military, or has a really weird military with soldiers who are stark naked except for their rocket boots, and ride Tricerotanks? Issue validities would have to look at the other nation's stats as well as my own in order to make sense, which goes against the "purely cosmetic diplomatic status, it's still a solo game" idea.

This suggestion actually adds fundamentally to the game in its immersion, provides extra avenues for issues to pursue, will aid the R&D game (Defenders and Raiders could literally announce they are at war with each other). It would also extend what the Security Council can do: Forcibly stop wars by forcing "cease fires" every so often. Basically much of its purpose is not about role-play but about politics.

Some issues are already cut off. For example, I'm not a monster raving nationalist republican therefore I'll never meet the requirements to be a psychotic dictator and therefore the number of issues to me are heavily restricted. In otherwords, I would currently have to do exactly what you're seeking to prevent already in order to experience the full game. Obviously, it's an argument that the staff have dismissed already.

While I get your point about Naval Warfare... naval warfare can take a variety of forms...such as inland waterways and if you're role-playing future tech, then possibly space. There will always be oddities and sometimes they'll need to be flagged up, but othertimes we can work around them creatively. However as per the suggestion, no looking at another nations stats are not necessary at all. It is not a war system, we are not and would not be looking to create a new "challenge" system. It would only affect the nations own stats and like every other issue (pretty much) the stats would have an inbuilt change.

Ultimately, I get behind ideas quite frequently, this is perhaps the best idea that I've come across on NS for a long time.

[Arkadacia]

This has been gone over repeatedly.

NS is not a real simulation of running a nation, it's more equivalent to faffing about and playing a mobile game with a forum attached to it. Warfare, trade, etc, will probably never be added.

[Excidium Planetis]

I like Candlewhisper Archive's idea immensely.

Doesn't someone usually chime in around this time with a comment of "That's what factbooks are for."?

1) There's a limit on factbooks.
2) Factbooks don't factor into stats or issues, so they don't really affect the gameside community as much as the roleplay community.

The ability to reference other players' nations (instead of NPCs like Blackacre or Wezeltonia) in issues might be amusing, but it would cut off players who don't happen to violently hate anyone from receiving some issues (and so encourage some people to pick a random enemy just for the issues rather than really putting much roleplay thought into it), unless there are "default" enemies, allies, etc. as a fallback. It'd also make it harder to write issues to remain applicable to every nation, since, for example, I might have to dismiss an issue about naval warfare not only if I'm landlocked, but also if my enemy is landlocked.

If you don't have any enemies, a default could be inserted, much like "Leader" for when you have no named Leader.

And Enfaru makes a great point: not all issues are applicable to all nations anyways. There are some issues I never get because I am usually at Anarchy or near it. And roleplaying as a space nation, with literally no land, I often come across issues that make no sense (like your example of Naval warfare with landlocked countries, except I encounter issues that give the option to expand cities underground or into the oceans, and I have neither underground nor oceans). So these concerns apply to ALL issues, even without a way to declare hostility.

This has been gone over repeatedly.

NS is not a real simulation of running a nation, it's more equivalent to faffing about and playing a mobile game with a forum attached to it. Warfare, trade, etc, will probably never be added.

Did you even read the thread?

[Troperia]

Troperia is watching Candlewhisper Archive's idea with keen interest. Yes! It would be cool to declare hostilities with nations I don't really like. Like the mods. (Honestly, I just fear them but that still counts) Hope it will get implemented sooner or later.

[Tyrnica]

I was pleasantly surprised when I came across this thread to find that it wasn't a naïve war simulation demand. I certainly support Candlewhisper's idea in its entirety – it would add quite a bit of immersion and depth to the gameside of the game, without putting unnecessary emphasis on R/D or regional politics.

Perhaps war statuses could tie in with statistics in some way. For example, if you don't declare hostility on another nation for a certain amount of time, your Pacifism statistic receives a boost, which could turn into a multiplier the longer you go without antagonising anyone.

Similarly, declaring hostility or war repeatedly could increase stats like Arms Manufacturing or Weaponisation to account for the war, and having Charmlessness and Tourism be affected in the same way; after all, who wants to visit a war-torn country without good reason?

Just a couple of ideas. It's certainly promising, and it's surprising that I've not seen it before.

[Excidium Planetis]

Perhaps war statuses could tie in with statistics in some way. For example, if you don't declare hostility on another nation for a certain amount of time, your Pacifism statistic receives a boost, which could turn into a multiplier the longer you go without antagonising anyone.

Similarly, declaring hostility or war repeatedly could increase stats like Arms Manufacturing or Weaponisation to account for the war, and having Charmlessness and Tourism be affected in the same way; after all, who wants to visit a war-torn country without good reason?

Very good ideas. As long as there is a limit on the number of hostilities/treaties you can declare per day, that would prevent people from using it to drastically alter stats too much, and would take a while to build up your stats via war declarations.

[Enfaru]

I'm against the idea of a multiplier. A modifier perhaps that adds +0.01 to the pacifism stat per day sure (provided login and provided a hostility has been lodged) but not a multiplier.

[Wallenburg]

I very much like Candlewhisperer's idea, although I'd rather the Hostility option generate a happening such as, "%NATION1% has publicly denounced %NATION2%, warning the world that they are not to be trusted!"