NATION

PASSWORD

What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Bug reports, general help, ideas for improvements, and questions about how things are meant to work.
User avatar
Marcuslandia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1082
Founded: Aug 26, 2008
Ex-Nation

What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Marcuslandia » Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:38 am

It seems that a number of threads are getting hung up on this one item. Inactive Founders, Eliminating passwords, Opting Out, etc. all seem to come back to: "How do you tell the difference between an invasion and a legitimate internal regime change?"

[Now I'm going to go see about having some useful posts dragged over to here.]
"If you don't know what is worth dying for, your life isn't worth living."

"Choose wisely."

User avatar
Marcuslandia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1082
Founded: Aug 26, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Marcuslandia » Mon Jun 22, 2009 1:03 pm

I was hoping the other posts would be here by now....Oh, well.

A recurring observation has been that there is so much going on, the invasion identification process ends up being a judgment call. That is, "The Mods would have to decide."

HOWEVER, I notice that in WA-land there's this thing called a Security Council that seems to be suffering great angst because it doesn't know what to do with itself. Besides Commendations & Condemnations that is. That got me thinking. (Always a scary thing to have happen.)

The first people that may suspect that an invasion has started are the regional residents. (The actual natives; not the infiltrators. The infiltrators already _know_; no suspicions necessary.) If this happens to be in an opt-out region, then what if a resident goes to the SC and starts ranting, "We're under attack!" Gives the SC something to do. They investigate the action, compare notes, discuss the matter. "Is this an actual invasion, or is it just an internal dispute with the loser trying to paint his opponents as "invaders"? The SC discusses the matter to its satisfaction. If the conclusion is, "Yes, we believe this an actual invasion," THEN the Mods get flagged (because _they_ have the real authority). If the Mods concur, a whole bunch of nations will be disintegrating.

The advantage of this approach is that
1) It minimizes the Mods' involvement.
2) it allows for a thorough analysis rather than an automated checklist that involves a bunch of "gray" areas.
3) it allows both sides of the dispute to be heard (more or less) impartially.
4) it gives the SC something to do; something with some serious teeth to the consequences.
5) It does NOT go to the entire WA where the result is more likely to be "how much do you like or dislike invaders?"
6) Knowing that their illegal invasion WILL be reviewed, and the chances good that the conclusion would be "Guilty", and knowing the consequences, it makes it that much less likely that an opt-out region's status will be violated.
"If you don't know what is worth dying for, your life isn't worth living."

"Choose wisely."

User avatar
Tanaara
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1179
Founded: Feb 27, 2005
Ex-Nation

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Tanaara » Mon Jun 22, 2009 1:14 pm

I had an idea. Let each nation have a secret registry. They have to choose one of the options - but their choice is viewable ONLY by themselves and the Game Mods.

Invader
Defender
Neither

That way if nation X choses invader and moves into a region and is later part of an invasion force and takes over the delegateship and starts booting people - well, it's flat out easy for the Game Mods to determine if it griefing, or legitimate intra-regional workings.( versus inter- regional )

That way puppet #9 can sit in Region X being mister-long-time-sleeper agent/ spy/mole - but there is no question if he is a native / what his 'intent' was - he had to announce it to the referees...

Also if some one labeled as Neither, then participated in an invasion, then their work is recogniseable as griefing...
The mathematical probability of a common cat doing exactly as it pleases is the one scientific absolute in the world. -Lynn M. Osband

"We're not so blase, not so willing to accept that we're safe and we can let someone do our security for us. We're not going to sit there and wait for somebody else to do it because if you wait, it might be too late." Jennifer Allen re: Northwest Airlines Flight 253 - quoted for the Win!

User avatar
Unibot
Senator
 
Posts: 4292
Founded: May 25, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Unibot » Mon Jun 22, 2009 2:55 pm

I had an idea. Let each nation have a secret registry. They have to choose one of the options - but their choice is viewable ONLY by themselves and the Game Mods.

Invader
Defender
Neither

That way if nation X choses invader and moves into a region and is later part of an invasion force and takes over the delegateship and starts booting people - well, it's flat out easy for the Game Mods to determine if it griefing, or legitimate intra-regional workings.( versus inter- regional )

That way puppet #9 can sit in Region X being mister-long-time-sleeper agent/ spy/mole - but there is no question if he is a native / what his 'intent' was - he had to announce it to the referees...

Also if some one labeled as Neither, then participated in an invasion, then their work is recogniseable as griefing...


I like it, in fact I came up with something similar for regions.

But couldn't the people, just err... lie?

User avatar
Marcuslandia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1082
Founded: Aug 26, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Marcuslandia » Mon Jun 22, 2009 3:53 pm

Unibot wrote:
I had an idea. Let each nation have a secret registry. They have to choose one of the options - but their choice is viewable ONLY by themselves and the Game Mods.

Invader
Defender
Neither

That way if nation X choses invader and moves into a region and is later part of an invasion force and takes over the delegateship and starts booting people - well, it's flat out easy for the Game Mods to determine if it griefing, or legitimate intra-regional workings.( versus inter- regional )

That way puppet #9 can sit in Region X being mister-long-time-sleeper agent/ spy/mole - but there is no question if he is a native / what his 'intent' was - he had to announce it to the referees...

Also if some one labeled as Neither, then participated in an invasion, then their work is recogniseable as griefing...


I like it, in fact I came up with something similar for regions.

But couldn't the people, just err... lie?

What he (Unibot) said.

If I as an invader am going to invest in a long-term puppet strictly to build up residency, knowing that someday my group would come invading, I'd simply say "neither". And it would be true. It would be like having your very own Tory organization in the region, waiting to be "liberated" by the Royal Expeditionary Force. Then after the region is secured, _that_ nation stays on as the caretaker.

"I was born and raised here, and I'll most likely die here. I'm a native through and through. Just you go ahead and try to prove otherwise."
"If you don't know what is worth dying for, your life isn't worth living."

"Choose wisely."

User avatar
Marcuslandia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1082
Founded: Aug 26, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Marcuslandia » Mon Jun 22, 2009 4:16 pm

Just had a peculiar thought; it's still trying to crystalize. This is what I've got so far.

What does a non-WA nation _do_? In what instances does a puppet's "voice" get heard and influence decisions that affect the region or the world?

As far as I can see, players that don't want to do the WA shtick have a puppet as their RP identity, or be someplace where they can experiment with issues and government styles.

The REAL place where a puppet has impact is as an invasion infiltrator. Slip into region and just build up Influence there. Come the invasion, _then_ the puppet gets its WA and becomes the invaders' choice for Delegate. The whole arrangement costs the player next to nothing to do. Just log into that puppet once every couple of weeks and do an issue.

Now, note that _only_ Invaders and Defenders with WA status count as "soldiers" in the conflict. And the "ammunition" those soldiers expend is Influence.

So, how about this consideration, recognizing that invasions are all about Influence and how it gets used: No nation can build Influence unless it has WA membership.

I'm going to go hunker down behind some furniture now. :lol:
"If you don't know what is worth dying for, your life isn't worth living."

"Choose wisely."


User avatar
Martyrdoom
Diplomat
 
Posts: 504
Founded: Apr 14, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Martyrdoom » Mon Jun 22, 2009 4:26 pm

Due to 'nativity' and influence there are no 'invasions', so there's no definition. No offense to anyone but maybe we should just skip this pretense, and ask whether 'griefing' as it is now expressed and understood ("Harassing a nation or region because of what they did or said") is absolutely and unequivocally compatible and complimentary with the previous 'invasion-griefing' rule?
Smelled a Spring on the Salford wind

User avatar
Whamabama
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 368
Founded: Feb 04, 2008
Left-Leaning College State

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Whamabama » Mon Jun 22, 2009 4:29 pm

I don't think we need a MOD to tell anyone that an invasion is in process. Invasions are pretty self explanatory. Especially those of us who play the military game. It is also why identifying ourselves to the MODS is kinda silly as well. They know what an invasion is as well.

I don't see a need to discuss the definition of something that has been defined since the beginning of the game. Especially since Naivetry also was kind enough to explain all this stuff here.

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=375

"The sovereignty of one's self over one's self is called 'liberty'."
Founder of Equilism
E-Army Officer
Former Delegate of The Rejected Realms
Equilism's Forum http://www.equilism.org/forum/index.php?act=idx

User avatar
Marcuslandia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1082
Founded: Aug 26, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Marcuslandia » Mon Jun 22, 2009 4:37 pm

"I've seen alot of people saying that raiders should only be able to change the WFE, it comes up in several topics.
That would end the raider-defender game and personally I think that would seriously harm the game.Just want to say that."

I don't see how that clarifies the subject.
"If you don't know what is worth dying for, your life isn't worth living."

"Choose wisely."

User avatar
Marcuslandia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1082
Founded: Aug 26, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Marcuslandia » Mon Jun 22, 2009 4:44 pm

Martyrdoom wrote:Due to 'nativity' and influence there are no 'invasions', so there's no definition. No offense to anyone but maybe we should just skip this pretense, and ask whether 'griefing' as it is now expressed and understood ("Harassing a nation or region because of what they did or said") is absolutely and unequivocally compatible and complimentary with the previous 'invasion-griefing' rule?


"Because there are no invasions, we don't need to define what an invasion is"? Is this an instance of, "If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your BS"?

Nonetheless, I am intrigued. Could you lay out your data that demonstrates clearly that there are no invasions? You see, I've always been of the concept that if you have a group in one location, and another group pushes into that space and throws out those that had been there before, that that constituted an invasion. As in, "Group B invaded Group A's space." I suppose it would be germane to mention that Group A had no desire to relocate until Group B helped to show them the door.
"If you don't know what is worth dying for, your life isn't worth living."

"Choose wisely."

User avatar
Whamabama
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 368
Founded: Feb 04, 2008
Left-Leaning College State

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Whamabama » Mon Jun 22, 2009 5:27 pm

Martyrdoom wrote:Due to 'nativity' and influence there are no 'invasions', so there's no definition. No offense to anyone but maybe we should just skip this pretense, and ask whether 'griefing' as it is now expressed and understood ("Harassing a nation or region because of what they did or said") is absolutely and unequivocally compatible and complimentary with the previous 'invasion-griefing' rule?


Just because something is legal doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Invasions happen.

"The sovereignty of one's self over one's self is called 'liberty'."
Founder of Equilism
E-Army Officer
Former Delegate of The Rejected Realms
Equilism's Forum http://www.equilism.org/forum/index.php?act=idx

User avatar
[violet]
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15581
Founded: Antiquity

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby [violet] » Mon Jun 22, 2009 7:48 pm

Marcuslandia wrote:then what if a resident goes to the SC and starts ranting, "We're under attack!" Gives the SC something to do. They investigate the action, compare notes, discuss the matter. "Is this an actual invasion, or is it just an internal dispute with the loser trying to paint his opponents as "invaders"? The SC discusses the matter to its satisfaction. If the conclusion is, "Yes, we believe this an actual invasion,"

This sounds a lot like Naivetry's Griefing Investigation Committee, discussed in her
Gameplay Mechanics Primer thread.

User avatar
Naivetry
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1285
Founded: Aug 02, 2006
Left-wing Utopia

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Naivetry » Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:37 pm

The original suggestion came up here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p ... stcount=47 (link is to [violet]'s rebuttal, the exchange goes for one or two more posts following that)

And Martyrdoom - invasions exist, of course. It is "griefing," as defined by the pre-Influence rules, which does not.The (simplified) definition I gave is the one most people use: nations moving into a region in order to control the WA Delegacy.

Note that this applies both to raiders and to defenders, because code cannot measure motive.

User avatar
[violet]
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15581
Founded: Antiquity

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby [violet] » Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:50 pm

Naivetry wrote:link is to [violet]'s rebuttal

I'm not ardently opposed to it any more, after recent discussion. But I think it would be difficult to get right.

User avatar
Marcuslandia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1082
Founded: Aug 26, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Marcuslandia » Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:33 am

So Nai and [violet], what are your thoughts about the suggestion of having the Security Council act as Nai's proposed Griefing Investigation Authority?

[BTW, how does one get to be _on_ the SC anyway? I've never seen the criteria.]
"If you don't know what is worth dying for, your life isn't worth living."

"Choose wisely."

User avatar
Tanaara
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1179
Founded: Feb 27, 2005
Ex-Nation

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Tanaara » Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:40 am

To those wondering about nations just lieing

I think you missed this:

Also if some one labeled as Neither, then participated in an invasion, then their work is recogniseable as griefing...


IF some one lies it will be easy to see - they participate in the invasion ( under influence it oonly makes sense to have the long term mole become the delegate, given influence costs ) and their lies - false flags so to speak - shows in their actions.
The mathematical probability of a common cat doing exactly as it pleases is the one scientific absolute in the world. -Lynn M. Osband

"We're not so blase, not so willing to accept that we're safe and we can let someone do our security for us. We're not going to sit there and wait for somebody else to do it because if you wait, it might be too late." Jennifer Allen re: Northwest Airlines Flight 253 - quoted for the Win!

User avatar
Erastide
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 1299
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Erastide » Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:48 am

So a nation is a long time resident of the region but begins to feel that the region is going in the wrong direction or that the region needs a change of leadership to make it better. He calls in a few friends from outside the region to come support him since he's probably already got internal support and boom, he's delegate. Now, he kicks the people that he thinks were bad for the region and they cry foul.
I would call that an acceptable situation and not something that should be interfered with.

But the situation could also be run where its an invader plant who had been in the region for a long time but only joined the WA a few days/week before the friends come in so he can get a few legit endos from natives to boost him up even more. He kicks a few "natives" and they cry foul. But he doesn't gloat on the RMB, he just declares there's a new forum and a new system of government since the old one wasn't working.
How could you tell the difference between these two scenarios? How would you judge it?

User avatar
Marcuslandia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1082
Founded: Aug 26, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Marcuslandia » Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:14 pm

Erastide wrote:So a nation is a long time resident of the region but begins to feel that the region is going in the wrong direction or that the region needs a change of leadership to make it better. He calls in a few friends from outside the region to come support him since he's probably already got internal support and boom, he's delegate. Now, he kicks the people that he thinks were bad for the region and they cry foul.
I would call that an acceptable situation and not something that should be interfered with.

But the situation could also be run where its an invader plant who had been in the region for a long time but only joined the WA a few days/week before the friends come in so he can get a few legit endos from natives to boost him up even more. He kicks a few "natives" and they cry foul. But he doesn't gloat on the RMB, he just declares there's a new forum and a new system of government since the old one wasn't working.
How could you tell the difference between these two scenarios? How would you judge it?


I quite agree with your analysis.

It seems to me that natives perceive an "invasion" as "a bunch of outsiders came here and stole our region!" If an infiltrator is a puppet that more or less just laid around building up Influence until it got a WA a couple days before D-Day, it's obvious it was never _really_ a native of the region.

But what if you have a nation, complete with WA, resident for a LONG time? Then a gang of nations pop in and endorse that nation and you have instant regime change. "Invasion" or a coup d^etat using mercenaries? If after the ensuing pogrom and blood-letting, the mercenaries leave but original nation (now Delegate) remains, would that constitute an "invasion"?

I have a hard time with that last one because the bulk of the force that causes the regime change were pointedly NOT from that region. But I'm still stuck on that honest-to-goodness native that orchestrated the affair. Definitely not a nice thing to do, but most Banana Republic coups aren't nice affairs.

So, what I see as being the telling difference between "invader" and "native" is the Influence attached to a WA. So let's look at the Influence: just what is it good for? If you removed every aspect that is related to the I/D game, what is left? Furthermore, who, other than a WA nation uses it? (Leaving out the Influence that a puppet has that must be eroded before it can be ejected from a region.)

The most objectionable thing that a puppet does with Influence is that it sits in a region and pretty much does nothing UNTIL the invasion starts. Then all of a sudden it becomes a WA and it becomes Delegate (or helps a similar puppet to become Delegate). From shut-in to Dictator overnight.

The tactic of using a puppet this way changes drastically if change just one aspect: the Influence it accumulates just sitting there. So what about this idea: Since the only use of Influence seems to relate to the I/D game, and you can only really use that Influence _actively_ (i.e., spend), how about making it that a nation doesn't accumulate Influence unless it is also a WA?

All of sudden the complexion changes when invaders have to infiltrate a region with a live soldier instead of a zombie awaiting a brain transplant. If raiders want to infiltrate a region, they'll have to commit a player's one and only WA to do so. That would deprive them of the practice of planting puppets in 10-12 regions and just letting them sit there, taking up space until the Magic Moment. That should offset the Defender disadvantage because _they_ haven't similarly planted puppets in those same regions.
"If you don't know what is worth dying for, your life isn't worth living."

"Choose wisely."

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 20737
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Bears Armed » Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:28 pm

Erastide wrote:So a nation is a long time resident of the region but begins to feel that the region is going in the wrong direction or that the region needs a change of leadership to make it better. He calls in a few friends from outside the region to come support him since he's probably already got internal support and boom, he's delegate. Now, he kicks the people that he thinks were bad for the region and they cry foul.
I would call that an acceptable situation and not something that should be interfered with.

But the situation could also be run where its an invader plant who had been in the region for a long time but only joined the WA a few days/week before the friends come in so he can get a few legit endos from natives to boost him up even more. He kicks a few "natives" and they cry foul. But he doesn't gloat on the RMB, he just declares there's a new forum and a new system of government since the old one wasn't working.
How could you tell the difference between these two scenarios? How would you judge it?

Has the invader plant actually been active in the region much (if at all) during that "long time", in the RMB and/or (if there is one) the offsite forum? I know regions where activity like that is what makes one a "native" rather than just a visitor...
The Confrederated Clans (and other Confrederated Bodys) of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Population = just under 20 million. Economy = only Thriving. Average Life expectancy = c.60 years. If the nation is classified as 'Anarchy' there still is a [strictly limited] national government... and those aren't "biker gangs", they're traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies', generally respected rather than feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152, 1474.

User avatar
Erastide
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 1299
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Erastide » Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:30 pm

Marcuslandia wrote:The tactic of using a puppet this way changes drastically if change just one aspect: the Influence it accumulates just sitting there. So what about this idea: Since the only use of Influence seems to relate to the I/D game, and you can only really use that Influence _actively_ (i.e., spend), how about making it that a nation doesn't accumulate Influence unless it is also a WA?

All of sudden the complexion changes when invaders have to infiltrate a region with a live soldier instead of a zombie awaiting a brain transplant. If raiders want to infiltrate a region, they'll have to commit a player's one and only WA to do so. That would deprive them of the practice of planting puppets in 10-12 regions and just letting them sit there, taking up space until the Magic Moment. That should offset the Defender disadvantage because _they_ haven't similarly planted puppets in those same regions.

And what about innocent people that haven't joined the WA and are just sitting there and then their region gets invaded? That makes it insanely easy to kick them out.

User avatar
Marcuslandia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1082
Founded: Aug 26, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Marcuslandia » Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:57 pm

Erastide wrote:And what about innocent people that haven't joined the WA and are just sitting there and then their region gets invaded? That makes it insanely easy to kick them out.


I didn't say it wouldn't be a MAJOR change. So major, in fact, that pretty much everybody would get the word that it would be a really, really, really good idea to get a WA membership, even if you never use it.

A couple of the counter-arguments that raiders toss out when people complain that they don't want to be invaded is that A) they should Found their own region, or B) Re-Found the region so it will once again have a Founder. Compared to those "solutions", this idea is a piece of cake: Go to the WA and click on the "apply for WA membership" button. Next day you get an email. Click on the embedded link and boom, you've got WA membership. Never have to do another thing with it. Unless you want to.

The only players that would be negatively impacted by this rule would be those using a puppet nation for whatever. It makes them decide which _one_ nation matters the most. On the very BIG plus side, it practically halts the invader practice of planting a puppet in a region strictly to injure that region in the future.
"If you don't know what is worth dying for, your life isn't worth living."

"Choose wisely."

User avatar
Erastide
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 1299
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Erastide » Tue Jun 23, 2009 1:17 pm

People play more than one nation and keep them in more than one region and play both of them equally and with as much effort. But they can only have 1 WA. So one region's nation will be slightly less protected as it stands. Giving them no protection seems way too harsh. Also, RPers and other people don't join the WA because they disagree with its policies. You'd be penalizing them in the event of an invasion.

User avatar
Whamabama
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 368
Founded: Feb 04, 2008
Left-Leaning College State

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Whamabama » Tue Jun 23, 2009 1:21 pm

Marcuslandia, when it comes down to it, here is the thing. The game already provides you with the tools to get what you want. However you are unwilling to use them. You see them as too much effort.

I also believe that really isn't your motive anyway. I believe now that your true motive is to ensure that there can be no raiding, no military game at all. Which would ruin alot of people's enjoyment of the game. The whole inter-regional politics of the game would be gone.

"The sovereignty of one's self over one's self is called 'liberty'."
Founder of Equilism
E-Army Officer
Former Delegate of The Rejected Realms
Equilism's Forum http://www.equilism.org/forum/index.php?act=idx

User avatar
Marcuslandia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1082
Founded: Aug 26, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Marcuslandia » Tue Jun 23, 2009 1:26 pm

Erastide wrote:People play more than one nation and keep them in more than one region and play both of them equally and with as much effort. But they can only have 1 WA. So one region's nation will be slightly less protected as it stands. Giving them no protection seems way too harsh. Also, RPers and other people don't join the WA because they disagree with its policies. You'd be penalizing them in the event of an invasion.


I discount the RP concern because simply having WA membership in no way requires their participation. That is, being a WA member does NOT hurt them in any way. But it _does_ give them the opportunity to help build up the Influence levels of the WA members in their region. I see lots of plus and very little minus. Anyone still dead-set against it is just being bull-headed.

The "mutual level of activity" scenario is of more concern to me. I would have to inquire, "How many of those puppets reside in vulnerable regions?" It still comes back to, which nation does the player feel most committed to?
"If you don't know what is worth dying for, your life isn't worth living."

"Choose wisely."

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Technical

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Nordatica

Advertisement

Remove ads