[Change #4] Annex

[HYDRA-Russian Empire]

I personally think that this is a bad idea, as small regions with one or two nations will not be able to grow (have to keep password in place) in fear of being annexed by larger ones.
Annexation should only work between regions of equal power (size and influence), or if the annexing region is of less power than the annexed region.

[NOrTh pAcIfiC spY]

I personally think that this is a bad idea, as small regions with one or two nations will not be able to grow (have to keep password in place) in fear of being annexed by larger ones.
Annexation should only work between regions of equal power (size and influence), or if the annexing region is of less power than the annexed region.

The only real threat is to founderless regions. Foundered regions can easily prevent this from happening - either by cancelling the annexation, removing the WA's executive position, or by ejecting the WAD who is attempting to become governor through the annexation.

I do note you are from a founderless region, and your region is already passworded due to raids. Excluding the loss of your delegacy (or you could remain delegate, and voluntarily annex your region to another region for protection, such as a defending region.) and the associated effects, there would hopefully be no harm done to your region (then again, it depends on who takes it over, which is exactly the same as now). My annexation idea is more about conserving the region, while providing the potential harmer of the region an partial incentive and no major penalty to keep the region.

Cres - I'm heading to the land of the pillow, and I think your idea deserves a proper thought out reply for each aspect, so I'll leave it until the morning (well, proper morning). Sorry about the wall of Text, Mouse stated earlier I should do a ton more detail and structure (structure's a little lacking, but I wasn't too sure how to improve that) for the idea post, so I decided to go for it.

[Sedgistan]

The Annex idea is one I think is still worthwhile and something we should aim towards in the long-term. However, it hasn't progressed, because we never really clarified the concept - there were two competing visions for how Annex would work:

1. The first was really just a token "well done, you've annexed the region" visual recognition with no in-game effect but that people would hopefully consider worthwhile (like embassies, which have no actual effect, but people attach meaning to). It would record it on the region page (while in effect) and permanently in the regional history, but there were no powers associated with one region having annexed another.
2. The other was to have it be a real way of permanently(ish) conquering regions - with all the downsides about having a legitimate way of doing so, i.e. that it would make a lot of people very angry. That would only be palatable if there was some method of freeing the region, whether that be in-game or via the SC - but this would have to be tricky, or it'd invalidate the point of having Annex in the first place. How this might work has not been fleshed out much at all

What we need to decide is which of these two visions is the one worth pursuing. Would invaders attach sufficient weight to the first, or would it be meaningless and neglected? Is there a way of making the second a way of properly conquering a region, but that can realistically be overthrown with enough effort/support?

[HYDRA-Russian Empire]

The Annex idea is one I think is still worthwhile and something we should aim towards in the long-term. However, it hasn't progressed, because we never really clarified the concept - there were two competing visions for how Annex would work:

1. The first was really just a token "well done, you've annexed the region" visual recognition with no in-game effect but that people would hopefully consider worthwhile (like embassies, which have no actual effect, but people attach meaning to). It would record it on the region page (while in effect) and permanently in the regional history, but there were no powers associated with one region having annexed another.
2. The other was to have it be a real way of permanently(ish) conquering regions - with all the downsides about having a legitimate way of doing so, i.e. that it would make a lot of people very angry. That would only be palatable if there was some method of freeing the region, whether that be in-game or via the SC - but this would have to be tricky, or it'd invalidate the point of having Annex in the first place. How this might work has not been fleshed out much at all

What we need to decide is which of these two visions is the one worth pursuing. Would invaders attach sufficient weight to the first, or would it be meaningless and neglected? Is there a way of making the second a way of properly conquering a region, but that can realistically be overthrown with enough effort/support?

Well, I think that it would be best to pursue option 1, and if players are satisfied with it after a period of time (say, 1 month after the release), move on to option 2.
How does that sound?

However, I do not think raiders will attach sufficient weight to the first. Personally, If I was a raider (which I am not) I would prefer the second option, as it is more realistic (from a real life perspective) and is a better reward for a successful raid.

[Cresenthia]

The Annex idea is one I think is still worthwhile and something we should aim towards in the long-term. However, it hasn't progressed, because we never really clarified the concept - there were two competing visions for how Annex would work:

1. The first was really just a token "well done, you've annexed the region" visual recognition with no in-game effect but that people would hopefully consider worthwhile (like embassies, which have no actual effect, but people attach meaning to). It would record it on the region page (while in effect) and permanently in the regional history, but there were no powers associated with one region having annexed another.
2. The other was to have it be a real way of permanently(ish) conquering regions - with all the downsides about having a legitimate way of doing so, i.e. that it would make a lot of people very angry. That would only be palatable if there was some method of freeing the region, whether that be in-game or via the SC - but this would have to be tricky, or it'd invalidate the point of having Annex in the first place. How this might work has not been fleshed out much at all

What we need to decide is which of these two visions is the one worth pursuing. Would invaders attach sufficient weight to the first, or would it be meaningless and neglected? Is there a way of making the second a way of properly conquering a region, but that can realistically be overthrown with enough effort/support?

Well, I think that it would be best to pursue option 1, and if players are satisfied with it after a period of time (say, 1 month after the release), move on to option 2.
How does that sound?

However, I do not think raiders will attach sufficient weight to the first. Personally, If I was a raider (which I am not) I would prefer the second option, as it is more realistic (from a real life perspective) and is a better reward for a successful raid.

More people would be interested in Option #2, rather than a glorified embassy.

[Sedgistan]

If we had loads of admin and mod time, then sure, we could implement #1 and then consider #2 later - but we don't. It's an either-or case, which means we need to decide which is the better solution long-term.

[HYDRA-Russian Empire]

If we had loads of admin and mod time, then sure, we could implement #1 and then consider #2 later - but we don't. It's an either-or case, which means we need to decide which is the better solution long-term.

In that case, option 2 sounds better

[NOrTh pAcIfiC spY]

The Annex idea is one I think is still worthwhile and something we should aim towards in the long-term. However, it hasn't progressed, because we never really clarified the concept - there were two competing visions for how Annex would work:

1. The first was really just a token "well done, you've annexed the region" visual recognition with no in-game effect but that people would hopefully consider worthwhile (like embassies, which have no actual effect, but people attach meaning to). It would record it on the region page (while in effect) and permanently in the regional history, but there were no powers associated with one region having annexed another.
2. The other was to have it be a real way of permanently(ish) conquering regions - with all the downsides about having a legitimate way of doing so, i.e. that it would make a lot of people very angry. That would only be palatable if there was some method of freeing the region, whether that be in-game or via the SC - but this would have to be tricky, or it'd invalidate the point of having Annex in the first place. How this might work has not been fleshed out much at all

What we need to decide is which of these two visions is the one worth pursuing. Would invaders attach sufficient weight to the first, or would it be meaningless and neglected? Is there a way of making the second a way of properly conquering a region, but that can realistically be overthrown with enough effort/support?

As a raider, and judging by the earlier comments in the thread (admittedly at the time of the summit - which was a few years back) a glorified embassy (Option 1) would not change gameplay in a major way, and would likely not be worth the time or effort to code it. There would likely be little change in behaviour, and the only main effect would be to change the embassy display slightly, and make a simpler way (rather than a dispatch) to view a regions refounds.

Option 2 - I've fleshed out parts of it in my ideas essay, but all of it is open to discussion and editing. In my ideas post earlier, I wrote about a multitude of ways of freeing a region when it has been annexed. Either another nation takes WA position for a week, the founder of either region decides to gain independence from/free the other region, the executive delegate of the other region decides to free the region (all taking a week approx to seperate the regions - same length as conquering the region), or the SC (I barely touched on that - because I'm thinking that the ideas for that should be in part of the SC upgrades post, rather than this) can free the region. I don't know if I added this to the original ideas post, but I also think that if the Governor leaves the region for that period of time, the region should be decolonised - because why should a nation have control over a region that they don't even have the investment of having a nation in.

Personally, I'm for Option 2, and not interested in Option 1 at all, although there are likely many who disagree.

@Cres - after looking at your idea, I'm not too sure about it. I'm not impartial, but why would the nation governing the region be outside of the region? I quite like the posting on other RMBs within the Empire. I didn't think about embassies with my version, so I'll do a ninja edit now - I'm thinking that colonised regions should be able to make embassies with other regions, because I'm not really wanting the idea to disadvantage native regions that decide to allow their region to be annexed for protection.

With the RO - additional officers and all, what's to prevent the region who wants more RO's from annexing their own foundered region of 1 nation, so that they can gain additional RO's? I'm also not too sure about balance with RO's, but I'll wait until the final concept is finalised to make an informed opinion on how exactly they should interact etc.

[Nullarni]

I think option #2 is by far the best bet. Like Sedge said, we already have embassies. There really is no need to have super embassies. I think annexing ups the stakes a bit on the R/D game, and it allows imperialist regions to truly be imperialist. I think it can only do good things for the gameplay sector.

I also think it would be interesting to make an annexed region actually lose some of its sovereignty. That way it's not all butterflies and bubblegum. I mean, if we are going to introduce imperialism, let's make it a bitter-sweet proposition. Make it to where annexed regions lose the ability to control their region's flag to the annexing region, perhaps. Or have an even more significant penalty, like have the annexed region's delegate lose the extra votes they get from endorsements and lose the ability to approve WA proposals. Just a thought.

[Improving Wordiness]

I would like to see a cost for the region annexing simply because the big fish will eat the little fish. Small regions will get eaten up with no risk to the aggressor. This is a political game so introduce some political elements to it?
A declaration of annexation ( I do not think that is a word?) must be made by Region A in order to annex Region B. Timer starts a countdown that once it reaches 0 Region A takes the annex

Region B has the options of calling for reinforcements, negotiations, capitulation, declaration of war or calling it names and hoping it will go away. If it takes no action at all before the countdown is final it is annexed.

All of this ^is likely difficult to code but it makes annex something other than a 20 second activity and a trophy.

[Sedgistan]

There would definitely have to be a cost to annexation if we go for #2. At the minimum, this would be a significant influence cost, meaning a Delegate would have had to exert control for a long period of time or with particularly high support to be able to enact it. There would then have to be a countdown period where the world is alerted to the impending annexation and others have the chance to liberate.

A successful annexation for #2 would have to result in some meaningful control over the region - i.e. something like an Executive Governer position that the controlling region can appoint a nation to. How an annexation could be reversed is tricky - an Executive from either the controlling or controlled region could reverse it, which would start another countdown period. Potentially if this is the Founder of the annexed region, this countdown couldn't be interrupted. That still makes it unlikely that natives/defenders could regain control of a forcibly annexed region. The solution could be the SC - but I'd like to try to come up with an in-game way they could fight back, if at all possible.

[NOrTh pAcIfiC spY]

Null, I like the whole idea of making it not all roses and buttercups - I've been finding it hard to make substantial benefits for an annexation to make it preferable to a refound. Honestly, making a refound harder is probably the better way to do it rather than further adding benefits for the annexing region/losses to the annexed region. I wrote about the WA votes going to the delegate of the region that annexed them (the delegate proposal votes and WA delegate stacking votes) or vanish if the region that annexed them does not have a delegate.

Wordiness - I agree with that also. Influence, I'm not opposed to that idea, but I'm not particularly for that idea either. My idea/essay was to make annexing only possible when both parties (executive delegate and founder of both regions if applicable) consent, and the delegate/governor nation would have to remain in place every update of the one week time frame to annex the region. If they lost the region, for even one update, they would have to restart the annexation process. It shouldn't be an easy process, but it shouldn't be preferable to a refound, and the balance is pretty hard to achieve.

I think annexation is the end game for the R/D summit - difficult to code, but if done right, it could potentially outshine RO's in usefulness.

I wrote an ideas post earlier on it (sorry about the length): viewtopic.php?p=26310721#p26310721

Sedge, I didn't think about the world being alerted to the impending annexation - a seperate page perhaps? I'm not sure how to make an annexation visible to any Joe Nation that wishes to be informed without annoying those who don't want to be bothered by R/D things, or being un-user friendly. Perhaps part of the World page?

I was thinking less of a significant influence cost (we don't want it to be preferable to refound) and more of a significant time cost which you have to have the region open and vulnerable, and one mistake makes you restart.

I had the SC, the Governor losing the WA delegate position (they would find it much easier to hold - special tie rules etc.), or any party deciding to grant/gain independence.

[Sedgistan]

I was thinking less of a significant influence cost (we don't want it to be preferable to refound) and more of a significant time cost which you have to have the region open and vulnerable, and one mistake makes you restart.

Underlining is mine. I'd disagree with that. As said in the Custodian thread, refounds are undesirable - messy, risky, and they erase a region's history. For Annex to be worthwhile, it should be a mechanism that people would use instead of refounding when they wanted to conquer a region long-term.

[NOrTh pAcIfiC spY]

I was thinking less of a significant influence cost (we don't want it to be preferable to refound) and more of a significant time cost which you have to have the region open and vulnerable, and one mistake makes you restart.

Underlining is mine. I'd disagree with that. As said in the Custodian thread, refounds are undesirable - messy, risky, and they erase a region's history. For Annex to be worthwhile, it should be a mechanism that people would use instead of refounding when they wanted to conquer a region long-term.

I'm a little confused - I thought annexation was partially to reduce the destruction of communities with refounds? What sort of goals to you envision annexations for?

[Bears Armed]

Speaking as somebody who doesn't participate in, and actually dislikes the whole business of, 'raiding': I'd prefer option #1 at the most.

[HYDRA-Russian Empire]

Speaking as somebody who doesn't participate in, and actually dislikes the whole business of, 'raiding': I'd prefer option #1 at the most.

Indeed, but like someone already said, there would be no point, as it would just be a glorified super-embassy. The raiders would not attach significant meaning to it.

[NOrTh pAcIfiC spY]

Bears - I can see you don't like raiding, and I can easily understand it. Option 1 is maintaining status quo, which realistically isn't a suitable option for the amount of work involved. I'm curious as to what segment of Nationstates you identify with, and more importantly, why Option 2 was not your decision.

I agree with Hydra here - a glorified embassy isn't worth the work involved - and would have little to no change on R/D. I would have thought annexation, if may preferable to a refound, would allow communities to stay together, rather than being broken apart, while Option 1 still favours refounds, yet allows a new type of embassy to be formed.

[Bears Armed]

Bears - I can see you don't like raiding, and I can easily understand it. Option 1 is maintaining status quo, which realistically isn't a suitable option for the amount of work involved. I'm curious as to what segment of Nationstates you identify with, and more importantly, why Option 2 was not your decision.

I'm in NS for the GA, world-building, and RP (of peaceful kinds, in recent years mainly in the NS Sports forum), all of which work better if the nation involved isn't going to get kicked out of its home region for somebody else's kicks or see that region's basic nature suddenly changed.
And it looks as though #2 would encourage raiders, whereas I'd prefer to see changes that discourage them instead.

[Sedgistan]

Underlining is mine. I'd disagree with that. As said in the Custodian thread, refounds are undesirable - messy, risky, and they erase a region's history. For Annex to be worthwhile, it should be a mechanism that people would use instead of refounding when they wanted to conquer a region long-term.

I'm a little confused - I thought annexation was partially to reduce the destruction of communities with refounds? What sort of goals to you envision annexations for?

Right, annexations should reduce the destruction of communities via refounds. My understanding was that you were arguing against that with your earlier post saying "we don't want it to be preferable to refound". We do, otherwise invaders will just go for refounds instead. That means making an Annexation substantially easier than refounding (though not, by any means easy) to make up for the fact an Annexation may not be permanent.

[Mousebumples]

Question for the R/D regulars:

Is there any way in which Annexing could be used as a "protective measure" for vulnerable founderless communities? i.e. Various founderless RP regions could request annexation from either a defender group or from a larger, foundered RP region, to help with their protection.

Obviously, Annexing initially had a imperialistic flavor to it, but can it (or should it) be used as a defensive mechanism as well?

[HYDRA-Russian Empire]

Question for the R/D regulars:

Is there any way in which Annexing could be used as a "protective measure" for vulnerable founderless communities? i.e. Various founderless RP regions could request annexation from either a defender group or from a larger, foundered RP region, to help with their protection.

Obviously, Annexing initially had a imperialistic flavor to it, but can it (or should it) be used as a defensive mechanism as well?

Yes. If a region is annexed, it in a sense receives a founder (Founder of annexing region) and also receives protection (Like Russia protected Serbia in WWI). So if the defending region is powerful, a raider would find it harder to conquer the small annexed region.
That assumes that we are going with Option 2.

[Improving Wordiness]

I cannot help but think of Annex as anything other than a weapon. The intention is there I am sure for it to be used in a peaceful way however it seems built to conquer in either 1 or 2.
Region A (Founder) has embassy with Region B (founderless) and a joint decision is made for Region A to annex Region B to give it stability and security.

As weapon though
Invader region A takes delegate seat in Region B and camps out while Annex is put into place.

This feature will be used far more often as a weapon so you might as well build it as such and put in measures now to limit it.

[Sedgistan]

I think Mouse has a point there, actually. If I was a leading member of founderless Exampleregionia, and Annex came along, what I'd do is create another region with a puppet, have that Annex Exampleregionia (easy enough while the natives control the Delegacy of Exampleregionia), appoint myself (or another native) as Governer, and then we'd effectively have a permanent Executive nation to keep Exampleregionia safe.

That's not really what it's intended to be (Custodian is there to address that situation).

[Kazmr]

I think Mouse has a point there, actually. If I was a leading member of founderless Exampleregionia, and Annex came along, what I'd do is create another region with a puppet, have that Annex Exampleregionia (easy enough while the natives control the Delegacy of Exampleregionia), appoint myself (or another native) as Governer, and then we'd effectively have a permanent Executive nation to keep Exampleregionia safe.

That's not really what it's intended to be (Custodian is there to address that situation).

If Annexation goes that route, then, one would clearly become redundant, likely Custodian given that it would take much more effort to get a WA resolution passed than, say, for a longtime delegate to push an annexation through. Not that I necessarily have a problem with that

[Improving Wordiness]

Well no harm in a colonisation tool having a good side effect

Annex needs to be a pitched battle that rages on for weeks and allows for political manoeuvring. Engage the players.