[Change #4] Annex

[Novare Res]

A thought about 'Annexation' of regions. This might be interesting to try:

How about "Voluntary" annexation in which a smaller region can by Delegate action be annexed to a larger region with Delegate approval of the larger region. Such 'Political Unions' would drag along other regions that have already been annexed by the smaller region (annex-ee, as it were).

Any region can can un-annex itself by Delegate action, or be expelled from the "Political Union" by the action of the that region's Delegate.

Regions who join a "Political Union" would for regional influence purposes, be treated as a single unit (with the largest region having that influence in WA votes) and sub-regions (those who have been "annexed" having an independent WA vote as an individual region with its own normal regional influence weighting.

Allow nations to move freely within all regions and take their national influence with them.

Some kind of provision for Forced Annexation (R/D take over a region and force it's annexation or 'occupation')

The purpose:

This would allow the creation of "Political Unions" between regions or "Empires" as it were and thus create more activity by forcing regions to engage in more 'foreign relations' in a way that either helps defend a region or encourages imperial expansion.

Any thoughts?

[Octuagesimo Octavo]

The founder of the region should have the power to choose if its annexed or not, even if they were banjected by a raider. Should the founder CTE, then it should be the WA delegate's job. If there is no WA delegate, the nation with the highest influence should have the power to decide.

[The Seafield Islands]

Founders shouldn't be costed influence.

[Cerian Quilor]

The founder of the region should have the power to choose if its annexed or not, even if they were banjected by a raider. Should the founder CTE, then it should be the WA delegate's job. If there is no WA delegate, the nation with the highest influence should have the power to decide.

If there is no founder or WAD, no one should have any power to decide this kind of thing.

[Kiwitaicho]

A thought about 'Annexation' of regions. This might be interesting to try:

How about "Voluntary" annexation in which a smaller region can by Delegate action be annexed to a larger region with Delegate approval of the larger region. Such 'Political Unions' would drag along other regions that have already been annexed by the smaller region (annex-ee, as it were).

Any region can can un-annex itself by Delegate action, or be expelled from the "Political Union" by the action of the that region's Delegate.

Regions who join a "Political Union" would for regional influence purposes, be treated as a single unit (with the largest region having that influence in WA votes) and sub-regions (those who have been "annexed" having an independent WA vote as an individual region with its own normal regional influence weighting.

Allow nations to move freely within all regions and take their national influence with them.

Some kind of provision for Forced Annexation (R/D take over a region and force it's annexation or 'occupation')

The purpose:

This would allow the creation of "Political Unions" between regions or "Empires" as it were and thus create more activity by forcing regions to engage in more 'foreign relations' in a way that either helps defend a region or encourages imperial expansion.

Any thoughts?

I really like this idea.

The influence suggestion becomes particularly less threatening given the changes in feeder influence (and if the mods stay to their word, the same changes game wide).
It's a great way to encourage players to join a given region. "If you join us - your influence can be used in all of these places!"

[King Topid]

So random question I had when I made my post a couple pages back...

If the governor type annex is chosen, where the annexer has some control over the annexed, won't many founderless regions use puppet-founded regions to gain a permanent control of their own region risk free?

That's one thing I think no one is taking into account, this won't just be used by invaders or raiders. The same could be said for the influence pools, it can be used to stop raids and take regions off the victim list. Not saying I think that is bad, just saying.

[Cerian Quilor]

I think that could be a good thing - I've always said regions that don't take protection measures easily available to themselves should deal with the consequences. This would be a nice way to allow them to try it.

[Astarial]

So random question I had when I made my post a couple pages back...

If the governor type annex is chosen, where the annexer has some control over the annexed, won't many founderless regions use puppet-founded regions to gain a permanent control of their own region risk free?

That's one thing I think no one is taking into account, this won't just be used by invaders or raiders. The same could be said for the influence pools, it can be used to stop raids and take regions off the victim list. Not saying I think that is bad, just saying.

Anybody using this method would gain some control over the annexed region, but not total control. A region could still be tagged, or even raided, it would just probably be a bit harder for raiders to wrest away - they'd have to take the delegacy, hold off would-be liberators, and (if the annexer-appointed Viceroy suggestion is implemented) overcome the colonial authority to break the annex and keep their prize.

[Topid]

I think that could be a good thing - I've always said regions that don't take protection measures easily available to themselves should deal with the consequences. This would be a nice way to allow them to try it.

Yes but those "methods" right now include draining the region, which is no problem if you can recruit new nations to replace the inactive ones that will never come back and adds the risk of a common troll ending up with the region just because he can or a password, which is death.

So random question I had when I made my post a couple pages back...

If the governor type annex is chosen, where the annexer has some control over the annexed, won't many founderless regions use puppet-founded regions to gain a permanent control of their own region risk free?

That's one thing I think no one is taking into account, this won't just be used by invaders or raiders. The same could be said for the influence pools, it can be used to stop raids and take regions off the victim list. Not saying I think that is bad, just saying.

Anybody using this method would gain some control over the annexed region, but not total control. A region could still be tagged, or even raided, it would just probably be a bit harder for raiders to wrest away - they'd have to take the delegacy, hold off would-be liberators, and (if the annexer-appointed Viceroy suggestion is implemented) overcome the colonial authority to break the annex and keep their prize.

Your suggestion, from what I can see, is that the annexing region's delegate gains the ability to eject or ban nations from the annexed. That can and will be used by defenders to take most big targets off the table. The viceroy option furthers that. Maybe that's good maybe that's bad. I think I like it, because I don't like real communities being raided. But the flip side of that is that if R/D can only happen in dead regions than the already hard case raiders have of making themselves seem to actually be a threat/bad-ass is going to be reduced.

I think there should be a further cost to this so that natives will have to give up a lot to have the near-undefeatable security of being annexed by 10kI or some other defender regions. Maybe their delegate doesn't get the bonus when voting. Maybe their flag is automatically the flag of the annexer. Small things that will make a founderless region hesitant to just remove itself from the game.

[Cerian Quilor]

Yes but those "methods" right now include draining the region, which is no problem if you can recruit new nations to replace the inactive ones that will never come back and adds the risk of a common troll ending up with the region just because he can or a password, which is death.

Which is why I support regions using annexations to protect their founderless regions.

Additionally, if Viceroys have expensive influence costs (which would fit with 'occupation' being a costly affair), then we have something going that's practicable.

If annexation doesn't really mean much in terms of exerting power over the annexed region, it won't get used that much, and Imperialists will still seek to use refounding as their primary means of assuming control of a region.

[Astarial]

Topid, that was merely a suggestion. I think it's probably more sensible to let the annexing region appoint a Viceroy in the annexed region who can then use regional controls (for, as CQ said, a high influence cost).

I do like the suggestion of inserting some tradeoffs for regions being annexed. Dunno if removing the WA voting bonus (or perhaps, giving the annexing region's delegate a bigger bonus based on the endocounts of their holdings) would be feasible, but giving the annexing region control over the annexed region's flag is an intriguing idea.

[Cerian Quilor]

Any of those offset ideas you mention would be interesting, and not particularly objectionable.

[Liberatia]

I cannot wait to see this change implemented. it seems very cool.

[Linn Westcott]

The more I read about items like this, the less likely I am to found a new region or move to any region that isn't well-protected (for instance by huge size and good organization) from raiders. I see taggers like the Black Riders laying waste to large areas in NS and doing nothing but making gameplay difficult for those of us who are not interested in power politics. I hope this is not implemented without severe restrictions.

[Astarial]

Annexation is quite unlikely to be a feature made use of in tags - at least how we've all been conceiving of it. Sure, they might hit the "annex" button just for kicks, but if the time it takes for one to establish is reasonable (say, a week?), then the annexations will only succeed if neither defenders nor anybody in the region bother to reverse it. And if nobody bothers to cancel an annexation request in that amount of time, then it deserves to succeed.

[Cerian Quilor]

The more I read about items like this, the less likely I am to found a new region or move to any region that isn't well-protected (for instance by huge size and good organization) from raiders. I see taggers like the Black Riders laying waste to large areas in NS and doing nothing but making gameplay difficult for those of us who are not interested in power politics. I hope this is not implemented without severe restrictions.

As long as your nation has a founder, you're completely safe from R/D.

Make sure you understand the basic fundament of R/D (regions with active, executive founders are literally immune to raids) before you start opining on it.

[The Cosmos]

The more I read about items like this, the less likely I am to found a new region or move to any region that isn't well-protected (for instance by huge size and good organization) from raiders. I see taggers like the Black Riders laying waste to large areas in NS and doing nothing but making gameplay difficult for those of us who are not interested in power politics. I hope this is not implemented without severe restrictions.

As long as your nation has a founder, you're completely safe from R/D.

Make sure you understand the basic fundament of R/D (regions with active, executive founders are literally immune to raids) before you start opining on it.

Not completely true; TBR has raided several foundered regions recently. You can't keep the region for long, but you can still invade and do considerable damage.

[Evil Wolf]

You would still need a hell of a lot of influence in order to do any amount of damage one might call "considerable".

[Sedgistan]

This thread is getting off-topic. Please stick to discussing Annex.

[Cerian Quilor]

As long as your nation has a founder, you're completely safe from R/D.

Make sure you understand the basic fundament of R/D (regions with active, executive founders are literally immune to raids) before you start opining on it.

Not completely true; TBR has raided several foundered regions recently. You can't keep the region for long, but you can still invade and do considerable damage.

Not as long as the Founder wakes up the next day, which happens like 90% of the time.

@Sedge: Its relevant because someone was trying to argue that the annex feature would make it harder to found a new region because your new, foundered region, could get annexed.

[Minoa]

As long as your nation has a founder, you're completely safe from R/D.

Make sure you understand the basic fundament of R/D (regions with active, executive founders are literally immune to raids) before you start opining on it.

Not completely true; TBR has raided several foundered regions recently. You can't keep the region for long, but you can still invade and do considerable damage.

That claim seems to relate to where WA controls are enabled.

On this topic, I would prefer clarification as to how this proposed feature would respect a region's right to opt out of raiding/defending, assuming that WA delegate access is already disabled.

[Cerian Quilor]

region's can't opt out. They can only protect themselves with PWs, walls of endorsments or founders.

Annexation would be a way to function similar to a Wall of Endos in terms of its defensive power (strong, but not unbeatable)

There is no 'opt out' and there never will be.

[Liberatia]

I have one question about this. What degree of administrative control will a region actually have over a region they have annexed?

[Cerian Quilor]

We're still debating that.

[Tribea]

An Annexation Liberation Resolution ? That has potential.

So a "free" proposal?

Titled:

Free Kantrias from Mazeria

Like that?

Defeats the purpose of an annexation. The annexations are always cancelled by the WA. Why not make it impossible to institute a password while annexing?