NationStates

TITLE: Ah Ships, here we go again

DESC.After your intelligence department showed the existence of a heavily-used trade route between the nearby nation of Blackacre and the Holy Empire of Dàguó, the military made the controversial descision to stop a cargo ship along the route. A look in the hold revealed many nuclear missiles of Dàguónese origin, many with the capability to hit @@NAME@@. Worse, Blackacre has a history of hostility towards your country. It grants them a frightening amount of power, and who knows what they might do next...

CHOICE 1: "It's a serious threat to national security!" thunders your furious Defence minister. "We'll send our best ships to their little fleet and demand they turn back-or we'll show them with our OWN weapons!"
EFFECT: Legend has it that there used to be a nation called Daguo, somewhere on the map.

CHOICE 2: "Yeah, all well and good, just... that's a bit too extreme, isn't it? Can't we just put out a blockade and stop any ships from reaching the
target?" asks @@RANDOMNAMEMALE@@. "That does the job, without an excessive loss of life."
EFFECT: The cargo ships stay outside the blockade as nations criticize the jailing of an entire country.

CHOICE 3: "The thing is, we don't know if they're going to use it against us or just keep it there to intimidate." remarks Kennedy Roberts, who happens to be your brother. "Maybe I can settle this diplomatically with Daguo's ambassador in @@CAPITAL@@, and ask for their government to be more transparent about this. Who knows, it might be a genuine threat to our country, and I don't want that."
EFFECT: Negotiations are as clear as mud.

CHOICE 4: "Or put international pressure on them." says @@RANDOMNAME@@. "We can always call on our allies in @@REGION@@ to threaten them. Heck, maybe we can do that without putting any blame on ourselves!"
EFFECT: Daguo's leader is famous for his heavy purchases of earplugs.

Why should @@NAME@@ care about whether or not these ships carry weapons?

Australian rePublic wrote:Why should @@NAME@@ care about whether or not these ships carry weapons?

because if they're shipping them to the nearby nation, the nation can use them to attack @@NAME@@

It is assumed that the ships are heading towards a nearby country with a shipment of weapons. Worse, the country has a history of hostility to @@NAME@@.

And because we hate each-others guts, and have for a long time, we won't refer to them by name! To us, they're simply that country!

Anyway, I think the situation is presented a bit strangely. The fact that a neutral, yet adversarial nation, is trading with a long-time hostile neighbor is juicy. However, it's a bit odd that Daguo would sail their ships so close to @@NAME@@, and in a way so conspicuous, that they and their cargo could be identified with any degree of certainty. It's just a bit odd from a verisimilitude standpoint.

Wouldn't it be more plausible for intelligence services to have uncovered the fact that such trade has been occurring, rather than @@NAME@@ literally spotting them on the horizon? Just thoughts.

Oh, I get it, the nation they're shipping to is hostile against @@NAME@@. Now that makes sense. You need to make that clearer

did it, Candensia. edited

My brother's name is not "Kenny Rogers"

Avoid using abbreviations in text where possible, because it simply doesn't look good. "Intelligence Department" looks more formal than "Intelligence Dept."

I'd avoid using "intelligence department" because it seems too specific. I'd go with "intelligence" or "security agency" because it's less exact.

However, if you're going to use "Intelligence Department", it should be lowercase because it might not specifically be the Intelligence Department.

IIRC, issues editors prefer avoiding forcing acronyms on issues.

DESC.After fishing trawlers reported smoke on the distant horizon, your Intelligence Dept. confirmed that large-scale trade has been occuring between the nearby nation of Kazha and Daguo. After a controversial stopping of one such ship, the main goods are suspected to be destructive weapons of Daguonese origin. Worse, Kazha has a history of hostility to @@NAME@@. Your Security Council has assembled to discuss this matter.

This opening description doesn't work very well for multiple reasons.

- Trawlers reporting unexpected smoke on the distant horizon would likely ask someone to investigate it. That person would not be Intelligence.

- There's no context for these trawlers, such as where they are or why the smoke is noteworthy. In fact, it's not even mentioned that the smoke IS noteworthy.

- Smoke on the horizon going to large scale trade occurring between two nations is a narrative non-sequitur. Are we meant to infer some sort of link between these two events?

- You've introduced two nation names without context. How is a player meant to make a judgement if he knows nothing of the character or context of Daguo or Kazha?

- What is a "destructive weapon" supposed to mean? As opposed to what? A non-destructive weapon?

- The last sentence is a redundancy. You normally don't need to tell us who has assembled to discuss an issue. That's what the options are for.

I don't think you should introfuce a new country that noone's heard of. Maybe try Blackacre

To add to what Aussie said, even if you do use a nation that has previously turned up in another issue, you should always be aware that issues are not presented sequentially, so any given issue could be a player's first encounter with that nation.

That means that any time you use an NPC nation, it should be written in such a way that you could be encountering it for the first or hundredth time.

The whole series of complaints could be overturned of course by being a bit less Call of Duty Modern Warfare on that description. Say, like this:



Cleans up the description, but still keeps the issue squarely ship based.

nyaah i like call of duty somewhat

Greater Azekistan wrote:DESC.After your intelligence department showed the existence of a heavily-used trade route between the nearby nation of Blackacre and the Holy Empire of Dàguó, the military made the controversial descision to stop a cargo ship along the route. A look in the hold revealed many nuclear missiles of Dàguónese origin, many with the capability to hit @@NAME@@. Worse, Blackacre has a history of hostility towards your country. It grants them a frightening amount of power, and who knows what they might do next...

Wait, what? You're telling me my military took hostile action against a non-belligerent nation in neutral waters, without approval or authority? What is this, a coup? This would be a major violation of player autonomy, not to mention believability, in many (probably most) nations. The military does not just get to make that decision. This would make far more sense if it's an intel report and you're choosing how to respond to it, rather than a fait accompli that you're probably getting in a shooting war over. If you're super insistent that you totally 100% have to somehow be on board and have found missiles, maybe your coast guard responded to a distress call from one of the trade ships and found them, or a neutral third party did so and reported it to you. Definitely don't have my military undertaking an unauthorized act of war as the premise.

CHOICE 1: "It's a serious threat to national security!" thunders your furious Defence minister. "We'll send our best ships to their little fleet and demand they turn back-or we'll show them with our OWN weapons!"
EFFECT: Legend has it that there used to be a nation called Daguo, somewhere on the map.

Am I to understand this as being the ordering of a nuclear strike against a major NPC nation? We already have one of those... it's an issue chain that has 19 linked issues leading up to such a massive and weighty decision. The effect text here seems to be based on "we nuked them" as opposed to "we set up a blockade." Think more Cuba Missile Crisis, less Dr. Strangelove. Also, Daguo is in a bunch of other issues - it doesn't make sense that it's going to be "rumored that it used to be somewhere on the map" when it's a major player in stuff that will come up later. You could set this up as threatening them, certainly, but don't make actually attacking them part of the result. As an extra note, effect text should not be written as a sentence - no capitalization, no period, and it's probably best to avoid punctuation being needed.

CHOICE 2: "Yeah, all well and good, just... that's a bit too extreme, isn't it? Can't we just put out a blockade and stop any ships from reaching the
target?" asks @@RANDOMNAMEMALE@@. "That does the job, without an excessive loss of life."
EFFECT: The cargo ships stay outside the blockade as nations criticize the jailing of an entire country.

Option 1 already is a blockade. Sending your fleet to demand the trade ships turn back (Option 1) is exactly what a blockade is. The effect text is a little specific... you want the text to make sense to a reader who has no idea what the situation is that triggered it, as it will appear as part of the public description of receiving nations after they make a choice. "The cargo ships" and "the blockade" are meaningless to a person who didn't just read the issue. Consider something more general, like "the @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE navy is despised for its knee-jerk blockades" or something like that.

CHOICE 3: "The thing is, we don't know if they're going to use it against us or just keep it there to intimidate." remarks Kennedy Roberts, who happens to be your brother. "Maybe I can settle this diplomatically with Daguo's ambassador in @@CAPITAL@@, and ask for their government to be more transparent about this. Who knows, it might be a genuine threat to our country, and I don't want that."
EFFECT: Negotiations are as clear as mud.

What is "it"? That's a singular, and we're talking about a "many" of missiles. Also, it would be considered bad form to name my brother in hard code, even if it is a reference. Who says my brother is named Kennedy, much less that my family name is Roberts? An unnamed brother is a frequent recurring character, who is usually presented as an irresponsible, brash, not-at-all trustworthy sort. He might not be the best person to have pitching reasonable options. I think it would be fair to say that any nukes in a nearby hostile nation are a genuine threat, and certainly the only aspect of such a thing that has value to intimidate is the threat of actual use, so drawing a distinction between using them and threatening to use them seems futile. I'm not sure I understand the effect line in this context - it doesn't follow, and as with my comments on the previous effect line, "what negotiations?" for those folks who didn't just read the issue. Something more like "the nation prefers missives to missiles" would make more sense.

CHOICE 4: "Or put international pressure on them." says @@RANDOMNAME@@. "We can always call on our allies in @@REGION@@ to threaten them. Heck, maybe we can do that without putting any blame on ourselves!"
EFFECT: Daguo's leader is famous for his heavy purchases of earplugs.

I think this needs a bit more meat in it. What are they being threatened with? How is it different from threatening them yourself? What are you worried about being blamed for - they're the ones smuggling nukes. Also, the effect text isn't really about the nation, so doesn't fit the bill. The effect text should be something that describes you or your country, not somebody else. Maybe consider an idea related to "@@LEADER@@ is known for ganging up on neighbors."

Exactly what VH said. You can't inflict a decision like that on a player's nation as backstory.