Basics of Military Gameplay

[Sedgistan]

This is explained in the first page of this thread - try actually reading it.

[Cinistra]

We all know that it takes some influence to banject the banfodder. Let's say you're a Handshaker. Then you can obviously banject Minnows. Is there a (rough) formula that tells you how much influence you must have to banject nations of different value?
You: Handshaker:
Banning: 4 Minnows = 1 Handshaker or 4 Minnows= 2 Trucklers + 2 Minnows?
A similar formula for ejecting, but you'll use less influence in doing so.

[Galiantus]

I have done some looking into how influence works, and I am pretty sure you can eject and ban any combination of nations totaling twice your influence value. Now, the exact percentage of regional influence a nation has is kind of hard to figure out at those relatively lower levels, but the essential thing to remember is that "I may ban myself twice". I think this is part of the logic that when you hold the title of "Superower": if you hold a third of all the influence in a region, and you are the delegate, you can ban everyone else. At that point you can also place a password.

[Naivetry]

We all know that it takes some influence to banject the banfodder. Let's say you're a Handshaker. Then you can obviously banject Minnows. Is there a (rough) formula that tells you how much influence you must have to banject nations of different value?
You: Handshaker:
Banning: 4 Minnows = 1 Handshaker or 4 Minnows= 2 Trucklers + 2 Minnows?
A similar formula for ejecting, but you'll use less influence in doing so.

Not that I'm aware of. The problem is that each of those labels (Minnow, Handshaker, etc.) encompasses a large range of values. If we're correct in thinking that each represents a range of percentages of the total Influence of the region, then there's not actually a marked boundary between any of them. You could have (say) a Minnow with 4.9% of the total regional Influence, and a Vassal with 5.1%. That's why it's annoyingly (and deliberately) impossible to calculate anything based simply on a nation's Influence label.

And I'll confirm Galiantus's observation about having enough Influence to (theoretically) eject oneself twice. If you select your own nation to eject from the Regional Control page, it will tell you "Ejecting & banning Naivetry from the region would consume about half of your influence. Ejecting but not banning Naivetry would consume a significant amount of your influence." But that's not really all that useful in the long run.

As far as I know, no one has actually done work to quantify what a "significant" amount of Influence means. The equation would be complicated (since the Delegate that was ejecting nations would be spending Influence, thus changing the total to which 'significant' referred, with each ejection), but maybe not impossible, if you could control the other variables.

[Jungles of Klesh]

Military gameplay is completely unrelated to nation statistics and to the sort of role-playing which takes place in International Incidents. Role-playing is the collaborative creation of a story which has no effect on the way the game code represents nations or regions. Military gameplay is conflict between groups of players who are fighting for control over the World Assembly Delegacy of a region.

Klesh speaks!

How does a post with something as silly as the above get stickied?

I always get a kick out of nations with no military to speak of are the first to state that their nation in the game has no relation to the way they wish to role play. How convenient! Why even make a nation? Oh that's right, otherwise you would have to create your own forum and find a way to attract people to it when you have a ready made one right here. Just have to get around that inconvenient fact you can't make a strong nation. Presto!

That sort of statement is merely an opinion that flies in the face of many of the role play based on this game.

I'm going to hazard a guess the OP has a mighty military on the forum and acts disturbingly like his nation in every other respect on the forum.

It never ceases to amaze me this sort of stuff still flies around here.

Klesh has spoken!

[Topid]

Military gameplay is completely unrelated to nation statistics and to the sort of role-playing which takes place in International Incidents. Role-playing is the collaborative creation of a story which has no effect on the way the game code represents nations or regions. Military gameplay is conflict between groups of players who are fighting for control over the World Assembly Delegacy of a region.

Klesh speaks!

How does a post with something as silly as the above get stickied?

I always get a kick out of nations with no military to speak of are the first to state that their nation in the game has no relation to the way they wish to role play. How convenient! Why even make a nation? Oh that's right, otherwise you would have to create your own forum and find a way to attract people to it when you have a ready made one right here. Just have to get around that inconvenient fact you can't make a strong nation. Presto!

That sort of statement is merely an opinion that flies in the face of many of the role play based on this game.

I'm going to hazard a guess the OP has a mighty military on the forum and acts disturbingly like his nation in every other respect on the forum.

It never ceases to amaze me this sort of stuff still flies around here.

Klesh has spoken!

Military Gameplay v. Military Roleplay
You are referring to the latter, this thread is about the former. In Gameplay forum, we are not nations, we are players. The gameplay military is fought out by players using their WA member account to take/change/protect a region's delegacy for whatever reason. A delegate has control of their region.

Soooo... Yeah. Nai was very much on target.

[Klesh]

Klesh speaks!

My bad. I stand corrected.

Klesh has spoken!

[Royale Philippines]

Can I put some sections in my fact book to keep in mind of the topic?

[Naivetry]

Can I put some sections in my fact book to keep in mind of the topic?

I see you have! Hadn't thought of using a Factbook that way. Thanks for including a reference to the source.

[Frattastan II]

World Assembly applications are processed (at the end of update).

That bit can be removed, as now World Assembly applications are processed immediately.
In addition to that, there have been a few minor changes to the switching system, from two months ago. (Which you may or may not want to mention).

[Naivetry]

World Assembly applications are processed (at the end of update).

That bit can be removed, as now World Assembly applications are processed immediately.
In addition to that, there have been a few minor changes to the switching system, from two months ago. (Which you may or may not want to mention).

Yeah, saw those. Will be updating along with everything else when I have a chance. Just checking in to let everyone know I've not abandoned these stickies; it's just that dissertations take priority these days.

[Gibson tycoon]

Hope do I invade another region?

[Luziyca]

I got a question.

Is it permissible to use raider-style tactics on a region not tagged defender or raider?

[Sedgistan]

I got a question.

Is it permissible to use raider-style tactics on a region not tagged defender or raider?

Yes.

[Alyekra]

I got a question.

Is it permissible to use raider-style tactics on a region not tagged defender or raider?

It depends on who you ask.

You won't get banned for it, though.

[Luziyca]

I got a question.

Is it permissible to use raider-style tactics on a region not tagged defender or raider?

It depends on who you ask.

You won't get banned for it, though.

Sedge already answered my question, since a regionmate claimed it was against the rules to do so if it is not tagged defender or raider.

I got a question.

Is it permissible to use raider-style tactics on a region not tagged defender or raider?

Yes.

So, thanks!

[DWAsnia]

About influence: I've been under the assumption that banjection costs about half of the banjected nations influence. (So a minnow could banject a vassal) and only ejecting costs about a fourth. Though, if you really wanted to experiment, you could use this nifty extension that shows the influence levels to check. In Capitalist Paradise, I have 168 influence and just barely became a Vassal, yet in another region, I'm a Handshaker with 9.

[The North Polish Union]

About influence: I've been under the assumption that banjection costs about half of the banjected nations influence. (So a minnow could banject a vassal) and only ejecting costs about a fourth. Though, if you really wanted to experiment, you could use [url=http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=243404#p14680408]this nifty extension[/nation] that shows the influence levels to check. In Capitalist Paradise, I have 168 influence and just barely became a Vassal, yet in another region, I'm a Handshaker with 9.

The influence rank is not on a fixed chart. i.e. 1-10 influence=Minnow is not necessarily true, in some feeders there are nations with between 50 and 100 influence that are "minnows, while in 2 nations regions there are "dominators" with only, say, 15 influence.

Influence level is relative to the size of of the region you're in, and the lengths of time spent in the region, I believe (if you're not in the WA, if you are, endos get added into that too).

[DWAsnia]

About influence: I've been under the assumption that banjection costs about half of the banjected nations influence. (So a minnow could banject a vassal) and only ejecting costs about a fourth. Though, if you really wanted to experiment, you could use [url=http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=243404#p14680408]this nifty extension[/nation] that shows the influence levels to check. In Capitalist Paradise, I have 168 influence and just barely became a Vassal, yet in another region, I'm a Handshaker with 9.

The influence rank is not on a fixed chart. i.e. 1-10 influence=Minnow is not necessarily true, in some feeders there are nations with between 50 and 100 influence that are "minnows, while in 2 nations regions there are "dominators" with only, say, 15 influence.

Influence level is relative to the size of of the region you're in, and the lengths of time spent in the region, I believe (if you're not in the WA, if you are, endos get added into that too).

I forgot to add that. Yes, the last part was an example that the amount of influence doesn't necessarily equal influence rank. In CP, I got Vassal, the second lowest rank, at 165. Even our highest-level influence rank in the region is duckspeaker. The amount of endos does indeed affect the rate of influence. Since I got the extension (which I need to fix the link in my post. I'll do that right after) my main that's non-WA has stayed at the same influence number, while my WA nation is getting approximately 1 influence per day.

[Riasy]

I have a question about the Regional Influence. Is it true that Delegate’s Regional Influence will grow more rapidly if the nations that endorse Delegate will not endorse anyone else?

[Evil Wolf]

As far as I am aware, no.

[Inyourfaceistan]

I read through the basics on the first page, but I couldn't get a solid answer.

If a region had both an active founder and NO WA delegate, are they basically immune to raiders?
(or defenders who raid them for supporting a raider region)

[The Black Hat Guy]

I read through the basics on the first page, but I couldn't get a solid answer.

If a region had both an active founder and NO WA delegate, are they basically immune to raiders?
(or defenders who raid them for supporting a raider region)

Yes. If the region has a founder and has set their delegate to non-executive, there is nothing that raiders can do other than make a rather futile symbolic gesture of making their point a non-executive delegate, which would quickly be banned once the founder came back. There is no permanent damage raiders can do to such a region that the founder can't undo with about 3 mouse clicks.

[Evil Wolf]

I read through the basics on the first page, but I couldn't get a solid answer.

If a region had both an active founder and NO WA delegate, are they basically immune to raiders?
(or defenders who raid them for supporting a raider region)

Yes and no.

If the founder has regional controls for the Delegate off, then yes, they are completely immune to attack. However, if the delegate controls are on and an enemy has enough influence on their puppet and becomes delegate, damage can be done, possibly enough to even destroy a region. It hardly ever happens, to the point of it barely even being a threat, but it has happened before.

You want to be totally immune to all enemy attacks? Turn the delegate controls off.

[Inyourfaceistan]

I read through the basics on the first page, but I couldn't get a solid answer.

If a region had both an active founder and NO WA delegate, are they basically immune to raiders?
(or defenders who raid them for supporting a raider region)

Yes and no.

If the founder has regional controls for the Delegate off, then yes, they are completely immune to attack. However, if the delegate controls are on and an enemy has enough influence on their puppet and becomes delegate, damage can be done, possibly enough to even destroy a region. It hardly ever happens, to the point of it barely even being a threat, but it has happened before.

You want to be totally immune to all enemy attacks? Turn the delegate controls off.

And if they are off?