N/A

[Corindia]

This seems like an elegant way to handle war, I'd like this.

[Caracasus]

Perhaps a way to get round moderators being inundated with "I declare war on you" stuff would be to have an option to either turn it off completely (much in the same way that not being in the WA means you can't be endorsed) and/or an option that means if a nation decides to declare hostilities on you, you can choose to accept it or not.

I.E Evil goblin empire declares hostilities against you. Accept?

I... kinda like the idea as flavour. Perhaps with a limit on how many nations you can interact with. It doesn't just have to be limited to war either. You could select a "trade with" option and get a little breakdown of who your nation trades with, who they're hostile to etc...

If war ever was bought in, I could see these ideas working.

EDIT: Possibly even a gradient of hostilities. Right from "X nation is trading passive aggressive missives with you" up to "X nation is openly hostile to you"

[Maljaratas]

I very much like Candlewhisperer's idea, although I'd rather the Hostility option generate a happening such as, "%NATION1% has publicly denounced %NATION2%, warning the world that they are not to be trusted!"

How about some "Declarations of Friendship"

[Wallenburg]

I very much like Candlewhisperer's idea, although I'd rather the Hostility option generate a happening such as, "%NATION1% has publicly denounced %NATION2%, warning the world that they are not to be trusted!"

How about some "Declarations of Friendship"

To be honest, I've more frequently received messages that amount to, "I found your proposal to the World Assembly very troubling. Surely there is a better way to resolve our differences than petty politics."

[Excidium Planetis]

How about some "Declarations of Friendship"

To be honest, I've more frequently received messages that amount to, "I found your proposal to the World Assembly very troubling. Surely there is a better way to resolve our differences than petty politics."

Well, one nation just plain declared war on me through an illegal proposal, so I can totally see how being a resolution author would drastically increase the rate at which nations declare hostilities.

[Wallenburg]

Well, one nation just plain declared war on me through an illegal proposal, so I can totally see how being a resolution author would drastically increase the rate at which nations declare hostilities.

I can see that happening. During my last campaign, I received a response simply saying "I will nuke the fuck out of you." I imagine that a Declare War function would have settled their urge to nuke me far less vocally.

[Unibot III]

@Candlewhisper: Looking back at the old idea list to remind myself, I did suggest this back in the dying Jolt days and there was no administrative response at the time. Here's hoping you get one this time! It seems like the natural evolution of the 'regional embassies' feature.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I very much like Candlewhisperer's idea, although I'd rather the Hostility option generate a happening such as, "%NATION1% has publicly denounced %NATION2%, warning the world that they are not to be trusted!"

[Gregoryisgodistan]

People are missing the point here, I think. Nobody is asking for a war simulation. What is being sought is more tools to describe diplomatic stances.

I agree, it'd be nice to have options other than "endorse".

Maybe what would be cool would be to have something like four diplomatic states, of which you can only ever have one in place:

- Nothing. You don't care enough about that nation to have a stance.
- Endorsement. Region only, of course, same function as presently.
- Hostility. Anywhere in the world. Flag it up on the logs, but on the front screen under endorsements just say "X nations have declared themselves hostile to @@NAME@@". Only if you reciprocate hostility would you then get a front page insert saying "@@NAME@@ is at war with (other nation's name)". Some nuance could then later be added, for long running wars, for recently declared wars. The code could perhaps cap you out at just naming the three nations you have been at war with the longest. Maybe something like "@@NAME@@ is at war with many nations, most notably A, B and C."
Because war would only result from mutual hostility, you could control this to some extent.
To stop spamming of hostilities, you could allow just one declaration of hostility per update. That'd make it a significant thing.
- Interest. This is basically saying you're watching that nation with interest, but have no other diplomatic stance on. This wouldn't need to be anything other than ("X nations have expressed that they are watching @@NAME@@ with interest.") No game effect would be needed, it's basically just a measure of noteworthiness.

You could then link these things to sections in the dossier, so that you can click a dossier tab to list endorsed nations, nations you are at war with, nations who you are hostile with, vice versa, and so on.

The issue editor's dream would then be to be able to use a piece of code to insert real nation names into issues, like @@RANDOMWARENEMY@@ or @@RANDOMALLY@@. You could have an issue saying something like "During your nation's ongoing conflict with Candlewhisper Archive..."

How cool would that be?

Obviously these are just mad ideas, and the people behind the coding would have to decide whether they're worth implementing or not.

I can see the tonnes of people declaring hostility on the mods now

Maybe a limit in how many people can declare hostility on you? To avoid mass-cyberbullying?

But what if it's not bullying? What if you're a crazy psychotic dictatorship which has slaves and over 200 capital crimes including farting, sneezing, and eating or drinking anything other than prune juice and gruel?

Of course, it might be hard to extend this to non-WA nations while making sure WA endorsements are only WA. Perhaps have the game check if both nations are WA and only count those endorsements for WA purposes?

[Consigahria]

Bump.

Is that a thing?

I'm loving this. <-<

[Almonaster Nuevo]

I like this idea a lot.

It needs to be clear that this is only a diplomatic option - no actual war game.

I think the best approach might be to implement a "no consequences" variant initially. Simply a public declaration that you are at war (or allied with...) another nation.

The next step might be to enable use within issues - %RANDOMENEMY% and %RANDOMALLY%, both defaulting to "a neighbouring country" or somesuch.

Beyond that, there are many options, including those suggested above. I think a bit more debate would be needed before introducing any which impacted on gameplay. One I quite like is the idea that declared allies might share some degree of influence, and thus be harder to ban/eject. That gives a useful self-support option for natives who do not want to have a founder.

[Mirachromia]

Interesting idea! While I was reading this, I was initially against it, but as I kept going, I realized it would actually make a lot of sense to add. I hope this gets noticed!

[Arachnid Cheerios and the Kuba Queendom]

I really hope this gets added! While the issues and diplomacy through regions are wonderful, I would absolutely love to see formal declarations of aggression/interest!

[Bears Armed]

One I quite like is the idea that declared allies might share some degree of influence, and thus be harder to ban/eject. That gives a useful self-support option for natives who do not want to have a founder.

Although of course it would also be used by raiders, making expulsion of them harder...

[Almonaster Nuevo]

One I quite like is the idea that declared allies might share some degree of influence, and thus be harder to ban/eject. That gives a useful self-support option for natives who do not want to have a founder.

Although of course it would also be used by raiders, making expulsion of them harder...

Which why I said that this should initially be limited to the diplomatic aspects, and any gameplay effects only added after careful discussion.

As I had envisaged it, my feeling is that it would be of significantly more use to natives, but that can wait until such discussions are held.

[Corindia]

Although of course it would also be used by raiders, making expulsion of them harder...

Which why I said that this should initially be limited to the diplomatic aspects, and any gameplay effects only added after careful discussion.

As I had envisaged it, my feeling is that it would be of significantly more use to natives, but that can wait until such discussions are held.

Maybe just make the alliance need a month to reach full strength

[The Great Devourer of All]

Max Barry hath decreed that all wars are to be forum-based.

[Herulija]

Well, it'd be a cool idea in theory, but given what I've seen around here, it'd very quickly devolve into a petty playground riot...

"I declare war!! You suck!"
"Me too!-- Infantry, attack!"

"Nuh uhhhh. I have super-duper ultra-mega planet-killing space ships with kung-fu grips in orbit, and we just burned you all before you could get us. We win."
"That's not fair! FINE- I'm going underground to build mega-mega space ship burning fireball laser BB guns to fight back."
"You can't do that."
"Yes huhhhh! You're not the boss of me."
"MODS! He's cheating! I'm telling my mom on you."

Fuck that.

[Enfaru]

Well, it'd be a cool idea in theory, but given what I've seen around here, it'd very quickly devolve into a petty playground riot...

"I declare war!! You suck!"
"Me too!-- Infantry, attack!"

"Nuh uhhhh. I have super-duper ultra-mega planet-killing space ships with kung-fu grips in orbit, and we just burned you all before you could get us. We win."
"That's not fair! FINE- I'm going underground to build mega-mega space ship burning fireball laser BB guns to fight back."
"You can't do that."
"Yes huhhhh! You're not the boss of me."
"MODS! He's cheating! I'm telling my mom on you."

Fuck that.

That is the current situation. I don't see how this feature would change that? >.> If someone wants to god mod, they can, it's really their choice. However people tend to stop role-playing with you if this keeps happening.

This proposal does not mean any troops are moving or implement "war" in any way. This is simply "declaring". After that, people can take it to forums and role-play to their hearts desire, which to within reason...is left entirely alone by the mods.

[New Axiom]

People are missing the point here, I think. Nobody is asking for a war simulation. What is being sought is more tools to describe diplomatic stances.

I agree, it'd be nice to have options other than "endorse".

Maybe what would be cool would be to have something like four diplomatic states, of which you can only ever have one in place:

- Nothing. You don't care enough about that nation to have a stance.
- Endorsement. Region only, of course, same function as presently.
- Hostility. Anywhere in the world. Flag it up on the logs, but on the front screen under endorsements just say "X nations have declared themselves hostile to @@NAME@@". Only if you reciprocate hostility would you then get a front page insert saying "@@NAME@@ is at war with (other nation's name)". Some nuance could then later be added, for long running wars, for recently declared wars. The code could perhaps cap you out at just naming the three nations you have been at war with the longest. Maybe something like "@@NAME@@ is at war with many nations, most notably A, B and C."
Because war would only result from mutual hostility, you could control this to some extent.
To stop spamming of hostilities, you could allow just one declaration of hostility per update. That'd make it a significant thing.
- Interest. This is basically saying you're watching that nation with interest, but have no other diplomatic stance on. This wouldn't need to be anything other than ("X nations have expressed that they are watching @@NAME@@ with interest.") No game effect would be needed, it's basically just a measure of noteworthiness.

You could then link these things to sections in the dossier, so that you can click a dossier tab to list endorsed nations, nations you are at war with, nations who you are hostile with, vice versa, and so on.

The issue editor's dream would then be to be able to use a piece of code to insert real nation names into issues, like @@RANDOMWARENEMY@@ or @@RANDOMALLY@@. You could have an issue saying something like "During your nation's ongoing conflict with Candlewhisper Archive..."

How cool would that be?

Obviously these are just mad ideas, and the people behind the coding would have to decide whether they're worth implementing or not.

I like this idea. What If there was also a spy option, which would be like 'it is rumored that X nations are watching @@NAME@@ with unconfirmed spies.'

[Maljaratas]

I like this idea. What If there was also a spy option, which would be like 'it is rumored that X nations are watching @@NAME@@ with unconfirmed spies.'

They aren't very good spies if people know they're there.

[New Axiom]

I like this idea. What If there was also a spy option, which would be like 'it is rumored that X nations are watching @@NAME@@ with unconfirmed spies.'

They aren't very good spies if people know they're there.

That's why there's words like 'rumored' and 'unconfirmed.'

[Maljaratas]

They aren't very good spies if people know they're there.

That's why there's words like 'rumored' and 'unconfirmed.'

My point still stands. If people know that there is a spy somewhere in the government, that spy isn't doing their job well. (Unless it was because their home agency was hacked or something.)