Page 1 of 1

[DRAFT] Title TBD, about assassination

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2021 10:55 pm
by Alcala-Cordel
Here's a very rought draft for an issue that I wrote. I don't think this has been done before, but it does overlap with issue #981 and issue #684. If that's a problem, I'll scrap it.


What had been a relatively mellow day for @@NATION@@ was slashed into pieces with the assassination of high-ranking general @@RANDOMANAME@@ on @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ soil. The United Federation has since taken responsibility for this attack, enraging @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ across the nation and raising the eyebrows of international lawyers.

1. [option] As you walk past the United Federation's embassy you notice someone emerge from a nearby house, hurl a stone through the embassy's window, and stop to talk to you. "How DARE they! The United Federation had NO RIGHT to fly their UAVs over @@NATION@@, much less MURDER one of our own on OUR land! We need to show them that @@NATION@@ is not to be messed with! We need to strike back, and assassinate one of them!"

[result] @@LEADER@@ notices the faint hum of a drone as @@DENONYMPLURAL@@ debate the sensibility of attacking United Federation officials.

2. [option] A tank that you did NOT call for rolls up to the embassy, and a hatch opens to reveal the notoriously militaristic General @@NAME@@. "THAT DOESN'T GO FAR ENOUGH, PREPARE FOR TOTAL WAR! DOWN WITH THE UNITED FEDERATION!" The hatch closes and the tank turns to face the embassy.

[result] The people of @@NATION@@ live in constant fear of bombardment by the United Federation.

3. [option] A second tank bearing the insignia of the United Federation pulls out from behind the embassy and fires a projectile into the rock-thrower's house. After your ears stop ringing, ambassador @@NAME@@ emerges. "Look, your general was a terrorist. There's no need to escalate things because of a service we provided, and we'd love it if you stopped interfering in our activities in the region.

[result] @@DENONYMPLURAL@@ are having a hard time finding oil these days.

4. [option] One of your advisors walks up to you, notices your shock, and offers a bottle of water. "While escalation is clearly not the answer, we could always place sanctions on them. We may have to nationalize some of our industry to compensate for it, but that's achievable."

[result] The United Federation is considering intervention in @@NATION@@.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2021 11:03 pm
by SherpDaWerp
Unfortunately, this currently reads nearly identically to #259.

[desc] Assassination (or attempt). What do?
[option] Assassinate back
[option] Total war
[option] De-escalate

The only difference is that you include a 4th option describing non-military retaliation, but apart from that...

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2021 11:06 pm
by Alcala-Cordel
SherpDaWerp wrote:Unfortunately, this currently reads nearly identically to #259.

[desc] Assassination (or attempt). What do?
[option] Assassinate back
[option] Total war
[option] De-escalate

The only difference is that you include a 4th option describing non-military retaliation, but apart from that...

Thank you. Do you think it's beyond salvation, or could it be edited?

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2021 11:23 pm
by SherpDaWerp
Alcala-Cordel wrote:
SherpDaWerp wrote:Unfortunately, this currently reads nearly identically to #259.

[desc] Assassination (or attempt). What do?
[option] Assassinate back
[option] Total war
[option] De-escalate

The only difference is that you include a 4th option describing non-military retaliation, but apart from that...

Thank you. Do you think it's beyond salvation, or could it be edited?

I did like the original framing - making it a drone strike, and having @@name@@ suffer the consequences that you inflicted on another nation in #386 - because presenting the other side of a dilemma like that is always interesting. The "assassination" angle is pretty much fully covered by #259 (and #684), but there might be something you could do about drone strikes happening in @@name@@ and how to respond to that.

The way I might look at it would be to say "drone strikes are happening as part of a long-standing war with Blackacre" and focus on how to deal with the drone strikes specifically in an international sense. Have options like "well, they've disregarded distinction, so we can do the same" and "no, we can't stoop to their level, take it to an international court".

My search didn't turn up anything for distinction-based issues (especially something like that happening to @@demonym@@ civilians) but it's a more difficult topic to search for than most, so be aware that overlap is certainly possible with the premise I've given.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:38 am
by Alcala-Cordel
SherpDaWerp wrote:
Alcala-Cordel wrote:Thank you. Do you think it's beyond salvation, or could it be edited?

I did like the original framing - making it a drone strike, and having @@name@@ suffer the consequences that you inflicted on another nation in #386 - because presenting the other side of a dilemma like that is always interesting. The "assassination" angle is pretty much fully covered by #259 (and #684), but there might be something you could do about drone strikes happening in @@name@@ and how to respond to that.

The way I might look at it would be to say "drone strikes are happening as part of a long-standing war with Blackacre" and focus on how to deal with the drone strikes specifically in an international sense. Have options like "well, they've disregarded distinction, so we can do the same" and "no, we can't stoop to their level, take it to an international court".

My search didn't turn up anything for distinction-based issues (especially something like that happening to @@demonym@@ civilians) but it's a more difficult topic to search for than most, so be aware that overlap is certainly possible with the premise I've given.

Well, it looks like I've got a premise then! Thank you for your help!

PostPosted: Fri Jan 29, 2021 7:41 pm
by Australian rePublic
If you focus it more on foreigners, rather than locals, you might be able to salvage it