[Change #4] Annex

[NOrTh pAcIfiC spY]

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.

Sorry - I won't edit the post, because that is my mistake, and I should own it. I think I was meaning that we don't want the people to find it preferable to refound the region. I completely misworded that, my bad - just reread it.

As well as making annexations easier, what about making refounds harder in the same stroke? Annexations should be good choices, and an obvious choice over a refound, but if we're just working on it from the 'make annexation better side' we're neglecting the 'make refounds less attractive' side.

My annexing idea isn't giving a founder - it's more allowing a WA nation to hold the region without joining the WA, and allowing the nation to become unkickable for a week afterwards, in the hope of regaining the region. When the Governor isn't in the delegate position, they can be endorsed still, and they cannot be kicked, but apart from that they are no different from any other nation.

Wordiness - somewhere in my wall of text I wrote about the region being unable to be passworded (not sure if it was passwords in general, or invisible passwords) and after being annexed the region is unable to make an invisible password - or if they do, it is visible to all WA's in a region. Annexing isn't permanent. Annexation - I think a week is a better option, because anything greater than a week seems to be far too long for the region to be extremely vulnerable, and we do want it to be preferable to a refound. On the other hand, less than a week makes an annexation too easy to be achieved. I'm open to switching the time interval - what sort of timeframe do you think would suit?

[Improving Wordiness]

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?

I believe option 2 to be most viable so am going to proceed to butcher it in order to engage players and hope it is code friendly.


Conquering a Region (Annex) is permanent but can be overturned under listed circumstance.
Conquering region is referred to as Aggressor & Region under Siege I will refer to as Paul ( Dont know cant think of a good name for it *shrug) for clarity.

1. Action to commence Annexing Paul must be initiated through an embassy (this makes embassies important as well as keeping good relations with other embassies)

2. In order for the Aggressor to Annex Paul once a declaration is made all embassies are frozen. They cannot be removed or initiated in both Paul & Aggressor.

3. Once Annexation commences in order for Aggressor to be successful World Assembly Nations must be committed and placed into a Siege state. This does not effect World Assembly nations other than they must be present in Aggressor during the entire annexation.If they leave the region they no longer count towards total. Once these Nations are in Siege State they cannot be utilised for any other Annex endeavours.

4. Aggressor must hold the superior WA total for 3 consecutive days for Annex to be granted.

5. Paul, during siege state can call upon other regions it has an embassy with at any time during the Annex period. Embassied regions can commit World Assembly nations to Paul during the siege. These nations must be present in their home region for the duration of the siege in order to be contributors / counted.

6. Paul has the option to capitulate however one week must pass for Annex to be completed. During this time should the region be placed under new administrative power (New Delegate) The capitulation can be overturned and a new siege state can be entered. Should no administration be present in the region an embassied region can enter siege on behalf of Paul

7. Should a third party enter (lets call this region Ringo)
Ringo holds embassy in Aggressor and takes action to Annex Aggressor.
Aggressor cannot commit World Assembly Nations to defend against Ringo unless first resigning from Annex attempt in Paul.

I would suggest that in the case of a successful Annex a badge is placed on both regions.
Paul = Under Annex badge
Aggressor = Annex of Paul badge

Aggressor having conquered Paul can now commit any World Assembly nations residing in Paul to any Annex attempts it should make as well as possibly some administrative rights in Paul? Not sure about that one.

8. Paul can launch an uprising should there be World Assembly Nations present. Conditions would be the same as Annex with Paul announcing uprising and all of the above coming in to play once again.

Okay that was a bit of a wall of text but you can see where I am going. Go ahead and shoot it down now

[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?

I believe option 2 to be most viable so am going to proceed to butcher it in order to engage players and hope it is code friendly.


Conquering a Region (Annex) is permanent but can be overturned under listed circumstance.
Conquering region is referred to as Aggressor & Region under Siege I will refer to as Paul ( Dont know cant think of a good name for it *shrug) for clarity.

1. Action to commence Annexing Paul must be initiated through an embassy (this makes embassies important as well as keeping good relations with other embassies)

2. In order for the Aggressor to Annex Paul once a declaration is made all embassies are frozen. They cannot be removed or initiated in both Paul & Aggressor.

3. Once Annexation commences in order for Aggressor to be successful World Assembly Nations must be committed and placed into a Siege state. This does not effect World Assembly nations other than they must be present in Aggressor during the entire annexation.If they leave the region they no longer count towards total. Once these Nations are in Siege State they cannot be utilised for any other Annex endeavours.

4. Aggressor must hold the superior WA total for 3 consecutive days for Annex to be granted.

5. Paul, during siege state can call upon other regions it has an embassy with at any time during the Annex period. Embassied regions can commit World Assembly nations to Paul during the siege. These nations must be present in their home region for the duration of the siege in order to be contributors / counted.

6. Paul has the option to capitulate however one week must pass for Annex to be completed. During this time should the region be placed under new administrative power (New Delegate) The capitulation can be overturned and a new siege state can be entered. Should no administration be present in the region an embassied region can enter siege on behalf of Paul

7. Should a third party enter (lets call this region Ringo)
Ringo holds embassy in Aggressor and takes action to Annex Aggressor.
Aggressor cannot commit World Assembly Nations to defend against Ringo unless first resigning from Annex attempt in Paul.

I would suggest that in the case of a successful Annex a badge is placed on both regions.
Paul = Under Annex badge
Aggressor = Annex of Paul badge

Aggressor having conquered Paul can now commit any World Assembly nations residing in Paul to any Annex attempts it should make as well as possibly some administrative rights in Paul? Not sure about that one.

8. Paul can launch an uprising should there be World Assembly Nations present. Conditions would be the same as Annex with Paul announcing uprising and all of the above coming in to play once again.

Okay that was a bit of a wall of text but you can see where I am going. Go ahead and shoot it down now

Had a quick read of that, reread it a couple of times, still not 100% sure on what the idea is, but I think I get the gist.

Firstly, Option 2 - good start. Also, I quite like the idea of naming the regions, I've just used a variety of confusing names, while you stayed constant.

So your idea is mainly about embassies, which encourage regions to open embassies with any and all regions, quantity, over quality. I'm not too sure about that, but that could work. I'm not yet convinced though.

So how would a region, or would it be on a nation level, decide whether to support Paul's sovereignty, or disagree with it, and support the annexation?

I notice you are from TITO, meaning this would make any region who had embassies with your region unannexable, unless there were multiple occupations at the same time with your embassy partners. This would definitely favour those defending rather than those attacking, because defender regions have far more passive WA endorsements than raiders can gather. TITO has over 3% of the worlds total WA nations, with TNP, who has been historically defender leaning, being the only region with more WA nations. Raiders on the other hand, have no where near that sort of number. This would encourage any region to open embassies with TITO, and making their region effectively unannexable to the average region, which would make a refound preferable. I'm not too sure that is what we want to achieve here.

Also, with the 3 days WA superiority, why not the entire annexation period? A region should be able to control 'Paul' for an entire week if they are annexing the region, otherwise they are not worthy of annexing the region.

I like some aspects of what you are saying, but I'm not convinced on your option. My option on the other hand... (viewtopic.php?p=26310721#p26310721)

Seriously though, your option is far too tilted in the defenders favour (at least for regions that TITO etc. wish to keep), and regions which haven't yet made it onto the embassy list, can easily be overwhelmed by a friendly region to Paul, who possesses embassies, being piled by random nations.

[Improving Wordiness]

Hmm in regard to embassies it is quality over quantity. Embassies open the door to annex. The more embassies the more chance of assistance but also the more risk as regions can turn on you.

Keeping in mind each region can only enter one battlefront / siege then avoiding WA heavy regions such as 10K could be achieved by some out manoeuvring.


I would say supporting Paul's sovereignty would be a regional decision. There is no risk to the WA's or the region supporting Paul although should the support fail they would want to remove their embassy whilst Paul is under Annex.

As to 3 consecutive days of superiority I was imaging that Aggressor enters siege with Paul. Aggressor clearly has superior WA numbers so the first day is in the bag. By the second day Ringo has made a decision to support Paul. Now the odds are in Paul's favour as the total WA in Paul and Ringo is superior to Aggressor. Now Paul and Ringo need to keep superior numbers for 3 consecutive days.
Now aggressor is a sneaky devil. He already made a back room deal with Yoko (who also happens to have an embassy with Ringo)
Yoko moves to annex Ringo....forcing Ringo to withdraw support of Paul in order to protect his own sovereignty.
Aggressor once again has WA superiority and the three day count down begins again.
It could be extended to last the entire annexation period but I imagine some siege could last quite a long time even with the 3 day window.

If I wanted to tilt in defenders favour I would be supportive on Option 1 that gives a badge and nothing more

[NOrTh pAcIfiC spY]

You're not too likely to open an embassy with DEN though if you are a native, or open one with another raiding region, but you are likely to open one with TITO, or TNP (depending on how defender they are in the future). Embassy wise, the odd region might accidentally open one with a raiding region, but likely a raiding region would have taken delegacy already, then has to go through the time of opening embassies with their home region, and closing embassies with other regions, then goes through the annexation process.

The embassy thing puts a time limit on how long it would take to start the annexation process, but in a refound, the time would be used exactly the same, securing the region, closing embassies, and opening embassies with your home region.

The avoiding the titans of the endorsement world would be possible with manoeuvring, but there are at least 3 GCR's and TITO who would be pretty much an instant loss against, and are heavily defender leaning, while there is only one GCR who may attempt to balance the scales, but that is not likely. Ex-Raider does not make a Pharaoh a current raider.

I completely agree with the third semi-paragraph, makes sense. Would it be an Executive decision, Foreign RO and Executive decision, Border Control, or a new category? (this is in relation to RO's)

So if the aggressor does not have superior numbers at an update, the annexation can still continue if they have them on other updates?
Why do 'Now Paul and Ringo need to keep superior numbers for 3 consecutive days.'? I got slightly confused with that.

The outmanoeuvring seems like a crafty plan, and that seems something that is actually quite a good idea. (I'm going to sneakily think about trying to steal that bit, not sure how it will fit in, but I'll make it work). I'm not too convinced about the time period, I'd prefer a longer time period, that isn't a two stage system (there will already be a first stage of withdrawing embassies) so that there is no influence cost.

Good point for the final sentence, although I'm not sure if it would tilt in the defenders favour - that's the neutral, do lots of work for almost nothing approach, which won't change anything for defenders or raiders.

[Improving Wordiness]

Not at all likely to open an embassy with DEN *wrinkles nose*.
Regions may be likely to have an embassy with Paul though and during Annex embassies would be frozen. Should Annex of Paul be successful any regions with an embassy will begin to withdraw embassies from Paul as a safety measure. (once embassy is thawed if you will) There is a 3 day? window while the embassy closure is processed so I am imaging that Aggressor would continue on the Annex campaign and move to Annex the next region before the embassy is fully closed. They would at this point have the power of both Aggressor and Paul WA nations.

I imagine that the decision to support a region under Annex / Siege would be mechanically an Executive decision. As in any nation with executive rights. That's pretty well up for debate on what works best.

Feel free to steal any parts that work, I am just trying to come up with ways that engage players / regions without doing lasting damage.

[NOrTh pAcIfiC spY]

Not at all likely to open an embassy with DEN *wrinkles nose*.
Regions may be likely to have an embassy with Paul though and during Annex embassies would be frozen. Should Annex of Paul be successful any regions with an embassy will begin to withdraw embassies from Paul as a safety measure. (once embassy is thawed if you will) There is a 3 day? window while the embassy closure is processed so I am imaging that Aggressor would continue on the Annex campaign and move to Annex the next region before the embassy is fully closed. They would at this point have the power of both Aggressor and Paul WA nations.

I imagine that the decision to support a region under Annex / Siege would be mechanically an Executive decision. As in any nation with executive rights. That's pretty well up for debate on what works best.

Feel free to steal any parts that work, I am just trying to come up with ways that engage players / regions without doing lasting damage.

You'd be surprised with the embassy thing. A lot of regions voluntarily request embassies with DEN, I thought the whole 'We're going to destroy your region' thing would put them off. But yeah, there are over 10k regions, and I would say less than 1k would voluntarily open embassies with us if they knew what region we were.

How would the aggressor avoid over extension, if they're planning a leap frog manoeuvre? And what benefits would your idea have over refounding? Embassies - you were pretty close, they always say 3 days and blah for me, so I believe they take 4 days to process.

I'm not too sure about leap frogging - on one hand, I'm thinking annexing a region should be a big deal, while if you annex a large number in quick succession they lose meaning, while on the other hand, it's a great decision a region has to make, do they want to try to save their ally, or remove themselves from risk.

How do WA nations in already annexed regions fit into the aggressors annexation power - if they are not in rebellion, are they counted in the aggressors count?

I agree with the whole lasting damage thing - refounds are probably the most damaging imho, an annexations are a way to mitigate them. We don't want taking a region to be so difficult that it is preferable to refound instead, but we also don't want it to be too easy, because taking a region, like any other occupation, should be a challenge. I've had the whole - if people you annex don't like you, your empire is vulnerable thing, which opens up diversionary attacks. E.g. DEN - when we had a choice between TBR and Japan, guess what we chose - despite Japan being the only one contested, TBR was threatened.

[Improving Wordiness]

WA nations in the Annexed region if not in revolt then are counted in aggressors count. Effectively increasing Aggressors count. I doubt Aggressor would want to stall much before attempting to annex another region as time will allow two things to happen. 1. Embassies will close and the opportunity will be lost and 2. The Annexed region will have had some time to gain assistance and may enter revolt state. The more regions annexed the more pressure will build...continue on to conquer / annex gaining superior power along the way or pause and risk losing it all.

Leapfrog would be an important part of Annex as (I made not have made this clear earlier...because it was in my head and not on virtual paper) A successful Annex of a region gives access to all embassies of the Annexed region. Thus a conqueror can follow an annex chain.

Frankly I do not see Annex mitigating Refounds. Perhaps in a small region that has no WA nations however even with a Delegate regions still get invaded. I would not attempt to address Refounds with Annex at all. Hopefully the refound issue will be solved by Custodian Process in the other thread.
Refounds are damaging yes....history of the region is lost as well as the community disrupted sometimes beyond repair. Also very risky should the region be hawked at the last second. What drives regions into taking that risk or being willing to sacrifice historic regional happenings is something that can be addressed by Annex. It offers a less damaging way to take and hold regions.

Mind you I believe regions will always be invaded however Annex could offer a very interesting alternative. I imagine somewhat like chess you would have to have planned moves well in advance.

[NOrTh pAcIfiC spY]

WA nations in the Annexed region if not in revolt then are counted in aggressors count. Effectively increasing Aggressors count. I doubt Aggressor would want to stall much before attempting to annex another region as time will allow two things to happen. 1. Embassies will close and the opportunity will be lost and 2. The Annexed region will have had some time to gain assistance and may enter revolt state. The more regions annexed the more pressure will build...continue on to conquer / annex gaining superior power along the way or pause and risk losing it all.

Leapfrog would be an important part of Annex as (I made not have made this clear earlier...because it was in my head and not on virtual paper) A successful Annex of a region gives access to all embassies of the Annexed region. Thus a conqueror can follow an annex chain.

Frankly I do not see Annex mitigating Refounds. Perhaps in a small region that has no WA nations however even with a Delegate regions still get invaded. I would not attempt to address Refounds with Annex at all. Hopefully the refound issue will be solved by Custodian Process in the other thread.
Refounds are damaging yes....history of the region is lost as well as the community disrupted sometimes beyond repair. Also very risky should the region be hawked at the last second. What drives regions into taking that risk or being willing to sacrifice historic regional happenings is something that can be addressed by Annex. It offers a less damaging way to take and hold regions.

Mind you I believe regions will always be invaded however Annex could offer a very interesting alternative. I imagine somewhat like chess you would have to have planned moves well in advance.

I'll quickly comment on the leap frog part, the mitigating refounds is a massive conversation which I'll have to write about later, but we'll hold it for now due to time pressure.

Wait, so if Region A annexes Paul, and Paul has an embassy with Region B previously, that was not closed before the freeze, Region A and Region B at the end of the annexation period will have embassies with one another, without either approving it? Crafty.

I'm still against the idea in favour of my own, but this does have some incredibly interesting concepts in your idea. Can you flesh out your revolt idea for me a little? As in how it will work etc. - also, would the region be able to be attacked by other regions, or does an deannexation have to be an internal thing.

Capturing regions like The Embassy would be an incredibly lucrative idea then. If a region decides to close embassies just before the annexing embassy freeze takes place, does the timer restart at the end of the freeze, or continue on with it for the other region.

Entering siege state - does the aggressor have to had held the WA delegate position in Paul before starting the annexation, or can this mitigate passwords?

[Sedgistan]

I'm not sure if I've mentioned it before, but an important consideration with changes is simplicity - we want to have a system that can be understood by casual players.

[Bears Armed]

Not at all likely to open an embassy with DEN *wrinkles nose*.
Regions may be likely to have an embassy with Paul though and during Annex embassies would be frozen. Should Annex of Paul be successful any regions with an embassy will begin to withdraw embassies from Paul as a safety measure. (once embassy is thawed if you will) There is a 3 day? window while the embassy closure is processed so I am imaging that Aggressor would continue on the Annex campaign and move to Annex the next region before the embassy is fully closed. They would at this point have the power of both Aggressor and Paul WA nations.

Maybeso a successful annexation, because conceptually it involves a loss of self-government, should automatically close all embassies that the annexed region had? That seems logical enough to me, if we must have annexations at all...

[HYDRA-Russian Empire]

I'm not sure if I've mentioned it before, but an important consideration with changes is simplicity - we want to have a system that can be understood by casual players.

Well, if my son can understand it, I am sure anyone can.

[Improving Wordiness]

I'll quickly comment on the leap frog part, the mitigating refounds is a massive conversation which I'll have to write about later, but we'll hold it for now due to time pressure.

Wait, so if Region A annexes Paul, and Paul has an embassy with Region B previously, that was not closed before the freeze, Region A and Region B at the end of the annexation period will have embassies with one another, without either approving it? Crafty.

I'm still against the idea in favour of my own, but this does have some incredibly interesting concepts in your idea. Can you flesh out your revolt idea for me a little? As in how it will work etc. - also, would the region be able to be attacked by other regions, or does an deannexation have to be an internal thing.

Capturing regions like The Embassy would be an incredibly lucrative idea then. If a region decides to close embassies just before the annexing embassy freeze takes place, does the timer restart at the end of the freeze, or continue on with it for the other region.

Entering siege state - does the aggressor have to had held the WA delegate position in Paul before starting the annexation, or can this mitigate passwords?

Revolt State : I imagine that Paul (Annexed) wishing to be free of the annex can make a declaration. Timer of 3 days of superior WA would need to be met in order to revoke the Annex. Paul does not need superior WA strength to make the declaration. Embassies enter a freeze state during a revolt. Embassied regions can pledge support of Paul or Aggressor at this point. WA nations can enter and leave as they wish so another factor that could contribute is entry or exit of WA Nations.
Should one region (Aggressor) hold multiple Annexes then it could be the case that more than one of those Annexes can declare a Revolt. Aggressor could be out- manoeuvred in this way as you can only hold siege / revolt with one region at a time. Aggressor moves to commit his WA count against Paul....another Annexed region (Ringo) also declares a Revolt. Aggressor cannot stop both but can make a choice of where to commit WA resources.

I would suggest after a freeze state that the timer restart for embassies to close / open. Negotiable on that but I believe it would be simpler and allow for more tactical planning.

Entering siege state does not Aggressor to have held WA Delegate position. It also can mitigate a password as mechanically it works through the embassy. I imagine though if planning on annexing a region some may want to take delegate position to prevent opposition and declare capitulation.

[NOrTh pAcIfiC spY]

@Sedge - Simplicity wise - my idea, is the basic concepts 'hold delegacy for a week to gain region' - 'lose delegacy for a week to lose region' and 'Non-WA delegate and WA benefits passed on' simple enough concepts? (viewtopic.php?f=32&t=258996&start=175#p26310721) I tried to fill out the ideas post a ton, because Mouse said my first ideas were a little lacking in content - so excuse the length.

@Wordy - Who would make the declaration in Paul? Delegate?

Essentially - Empire wise, multiple regions would be unholdable if they decided to revolt simultaneously? Unless you can split your annexed regions and home region.

I think I agree with the whole timer reset thing - if a region is too late, they are too late.

@Bears - that would remove the leapfrog approach - which is a pretty critical part imo of his idea.

How would a foundered region prevent this from occurring, if the embassies freeze, and they can't password to protect it.

[Improving Wordiness]

A foundered region would be in the same position as a founderless region. No one is safe

I imagine the nation with executive rights would be able to Declare....so Founder / Delegate / or if in place Custodian. Perhaps Regional Officer if there is no Delegate / Founder.

At the end of the day I think my version is getting a bit complicated however in the worse case a badge is placed on the region. Being annexed would not destroy, or overly disrupt communities. No administrative rights are gained and the Delegate position does not need to be taken. It gives embassies another purpose and it avoids a super region sphere happening.

EDIT: Fixed Words in all the wrong places

[Cresenthia]

Perhaps there could be a method of forcing assimilation, i.e., with a high cost of influence, the natives of a annex could be forcibly moved to elsewhere in the empire.

[The Blaatschapen]

Perhaps there could be a method of forcing assimilation, i.e., with a high cost of influence, the natives of a annex could be forcibly moved to elsewhere in the empire.

Considering that one can always leave a region (not taking into account class regions), I don't think a high cost of influence is the way to go. Nations that don't want to, will simply move out to a new region. Seems unfair to spend lots of influence on that.

Also, high cost where? In the region where the nation comes from or where it goes to? (or both)

I can, however, imagine a 'move to annexer region' button prominent on the regional page, if the annexer region wants that.

[Cresenthia]

This brings up another point: Will nations in one region in the greater empire have influence in other regions in the empire?

[NOrTh pAcIfiC spY]

@Wordy - I'm not really sure if I want annexation to become more of a glorified badge and functionality for embassies. Also, I'm pretty sure Founders should be able to stop anything they don't want happening to their region - they're meant to be a semi god there.

@Cres - I quite like the idea of being able to move nations to a separate region than the Rejected Realms. When you are refounding a region, you want the entire community to move over to the new foundered temporary region in the mean time instead of ejecting them to the Rejected Realms. Possibly not a forced ejection to another region, but definitely more prominent than a big WFE entry, which doesn't seem to work as well.

I thought the goals for an annexation was to give a win condition for R/D which isn't as damaging to a community as a refound. I understand the Custodian Proposal exists, but I expect, given they are SC resolutions, they shall only be used for a small number of historically significant regions, such as Belgium.

[Whovian Tardisia]

WA nations in the Annexed region if not in revolt then are counted in aggressors count.

I like Wordy's system so far, but this seems a bit unfair. Perhaps two buttons that become available when a WA nation is in a region being annexed: Revolt or Support. In Revolt mode, the nation would count towards Paul's revolt, and in Support mode, would count toward Aggressor's annexation. By default, players that don't choose either don't effect the score, to prevent inactive players from accidentally swaying an annexation.

(Apologies if this is considered a gravedig.)

[Wordy]

I do not think anything in the summit ideas would be considered a grave dig as it is a long slow process anyway.
The more people that post / contribute the better for these ideas as it helps to evolve them into something hopefully workable and fun.

[The Democratic Nation of Unovia]

I am pro annexation change, mainly because I hold claim to an old Region (The Confederacy of Allied States) and I would enjoy making it part of New World Union, allow it to be part of the new CAS, or dual annex.
Could two Regions share annexation rights to a Region they both hold claim to?

[Whovian Tardisia]

I am pro annexation change, mainly because I hold claim to an old Region (The Confederacy of Allied States) and I would enjoy making it part of New World Union, allow it to be part of the new CAS, or dual annex.
Could two Regions share annexation rights to a Region they both hold claim to?

That would be interesting, but likely very hard to code. I think if a region tries to take over a region that someone else has annexed, it will be like another annexation. The parent region's WA members and the annexed regions would count to repel invasions, should they choose. As a side note, I was thinking that a particular way to start the annex would be a request via the WA Delegate, similar to an embassy request (to save some coding), which means a raid is still required to annex a region.

[NOrTh pAcIfiC spY]

I am pro annexation change, mainly because I hold claim to an old Region (The Confederacy of Allied States) and I would enjoy making it part of New World Union, allow it to be part of the new CAS, or dual annex.
Could two Regions share annexation rights to a Region they both hold claim to?

Dual Annexation? I'm not too sure about that - because if we allowed dual, then we should allow triple, and then where would the line be drawn? Although that would be a good way of showing alliances between partners - as opposed to an empty region with region names on a WFE, and embassies with the participating regions.

@Wordy - would it be more advantageous to have two separate empires with half the WA's - because you can hit multiple regions, or would it be more advantageous to have one empire with all your WA's, but sacrificing hitting power.

Mandatory plug for my version: viewtopic.php?f=32&t=258996&start=175#p26310721

[Wordy]

I would be sneaky and have multiple small ones just so at first it would not seem a threat.