Annex

[[violet]]

Another proposal for your comments!

Annex: A method for declaring a region to be part of a greater empire.

How it might work:

• Regional Control permits a Delegate or Founder to nominate another region to be annexed
• Regional Control of the nominated region permits its Delegate or Founder to dismiss or accept the annexation request
• If accepted:
  
  • The main page of the nominated region states that it has been annexed, and by which region
  • The main page of the annexing region displays a list of the other region(s) it has currently annexed
• At any time, the Delegate or Founder of either region may dismiss the annex, at which point:
  
  • The main pages of the two relevant regions no longer display any annex information
  • The main page of the annexing region retains a historical listing that it had once annexed the other region during that period

Possible rules:

• A region cannot be annexed by more than one region at a time
• A region may annex an unlimited number of other regions
• A region may not annex an "ancestor" region, meaning a region that has annexed it, or a region that has been annexed by a region that has annexed it, etc.

[Zwangzug]

Would this have any affect on regional control? (Could the founder of an annexer eject nations from an annexed region?) Why/how do you envision this being used--for IC/RP reasons or what?

[The Sedge]

Its a good, relatively simple idea, which would be a a nice addition to the game. Could I also possibly suggest an equivalent mechanism for declaring regions as allies? One could even go as far as adding the ability for regions to agree to be at war with each other (which would help defenders know which conflicts to keep out of), though this may result in a rather cluttered region display page.

[Neasmyrna]

Interesting... as zwan was getting at... would there be any technical game-play repercussions or just title/naming stuff?

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

This sounds rather interesting. I'm wondering to what extent you'd be willing to accomodate (ab)using this for purposes other than conquest-- to represent membership in a multiregional organization, for instance.

In that spirit, I would like to ask if you could remove the artificial limitation whereby a region may only be annexed by one region: I would love it if regions could show their affiliation with multiple such entities. Additionally, I'm very interested in the semantics of how this might be represented: I would prefer that the display be consistent with such "alliance" (ab)use. Perhaps, one could make slightly more general system where a region can propose one of "Annex, Vassal, Ally" (or other such terms) or even an arbitrary name for relationship if we're feeling brave to another. I would approve of an interface that looked like:



I do not wish to see Annexation add access to a regions Regional Control to the annexor, however.

[[violet]]

As proposed it would do exactly as stated and nothing more; e.g. no effect on ability to eject nations or anything else.

[Naivetry]

It sounds good for raiders (I would assume...)

One question about this part:

A region may not annex an "ancestor" region, meaning a region that has annexed it, or a region that has been annexed by a region that has annexed it, etc.

Would this apply only to current, not historical, annexations?

[[violet]]

Correct.

[Ballotonia]

A region may not annex an "ancestor" region, meaning a region that has annexed it, or a region that has been annexed by a region that has annexed it, etc.

A more simple algorithm would be: A region which is annexed may not annex any other region. Upon being annexed, it loses all existing annexations. Same effect, and it avoids the rather odd construction of annexed regions somehow still continuing to annex other regions... that just sounds illogical.

Beyond that... I can see it being used for colony regions (example: region "Nederland" would have colony regions "The Netherlands", "Netherlands", and "Holland". They're owned by the same player since new nations could use any of those names to find a Dutch region, so in this case the annexation item is just visible to refer new nations to the 'main' region) or for Imperial invader types (like Macedon) who want to list their conquests. Note that this just encourages more bad behavior with regions becoming annexed forever. On the other hand, the history (separate page? could become quite lengthy...) does also reward the 'touch and go' type of invasions.

Suggestion: when a region ceases to exist, so should its mention as having been annexed. Do you want folks to create region after region after region, only to have them being listed as annexed in some 'mother region' ? You said the list would be 'unlimited', so I can see some people using that to its full ability (one could write a story in the annexed list by using cleverly chosen region names... so regions would end up having a regional history page after all )

Ballotonia

[Bears Armed]

A region may not annex an "ancestor" region, meaning a region that has annexed it, or a region that has been annexed by a region that has annexed it, etc.

A more simple algorithm would be: A region which is annexed may not annex any other region. Upon being annexed, it loses all existing annexations. Same effect, and it avoids the rather odd construction of annexed regions somehow still continuing to annex other regions... that just sounds illogical.

Never heard of Feudalism?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Would a new leadership in the "annexed" region be able to reject the relationship, or a new leadership in the annexing region to diavow it, or would this last until one or the other region ceased to exist?

______________________________________________________________________________________

EDIT: After thinking about the idea for a bit longer...
But wouldn't this encourage the sort of 'empire-building' that Macedon does, which even some other raiders have decried, even MORE than it would encourage any resurgence in the more 'socially responsible' style of invading that the other invaders who've been posting lately have been tending to claim is "an essential part of the game"?

[Erastide]

It would definitely give the empire builders the ability to show their holdings a lot better than they do currently.

[Naivetry]

Would a new leadership in the "annexed" region be able to reject the relationship, or a new leadership in the annexing region to diavow it, or would this last until one or the other region ceased to exist?

It would be attached to Regional Controls rather than to a particular nation, so I believe yes, it could be disavowed...

At any time, the Delegate or Founder of either region may dismiss the annex,

---

EDIT: After thinking about the idea for a bit longer...
But wouldn't this encourage the sort of 'empire-building' that Macedon does, which even some other raiders have decried, even MORE than it would encourage any resurgence in the more 'socially responsible' style of invading that the other invaders who've been posting lately have been tending to claim is "an essential part of the game"?

I think it would help ordinary raiders out more in the long run, if we get a Liberation category, etc. first. Holding on to a region permanently the way Macedon does would then require you either to refound or to maintain enough WA nations to hold the delegacy, if password protection is no longer a game-ending safeguard for region destroyers.

Ordinary raiders, on the other hand, would get something to brag about, and an authoritative source for claims about who was the best or most feared or whatever. So you could think of it as rewarding raiders for playing nice by giving them a permanent record of their accomplishments that does not depend on locking down a region and spraypainting it.

[Martyrdoom]

My natual instinct as an 'empire-builder' would be to embrace this feature immediately. But reading through the mechanics of it as I see it, it seems like a potentially subtle prelude to the undermining of empire-building as it currently stands.

The 'empire-building' relayed above by [violet] would essentially be by consent rather than 'power-play' so to speak. Imperialist region nominates another for annexation; nominated region can choose whether to accept or decline. What if this nation declines, can the imperialist region still make efforts to annex it using current mechanics?

[Bears Armed]

Would a new leadership in the "annexed" region be able to reject the relationship, or a new leadership in the annexing region to diavow it, or would this last until one or the other region ceased to exist?

It would be attached to Regional Controls rather than to a particular nation, so I believe yes, it could be disavowed...

At any time, the Delegate or Founder of either region may dismiss the annex,

Oops! Don't know how I missed that...

EDIT: After thinking about the idea for a bit longer...
But wouldn't this encourage the sort of 'empire-building' that Macedon does, which even some other raiders have decried, even MORE than it would encourage any resurgence in the more 'socially responsible' style of invading that the other invaders who've been posting lately have been tending to claim is "an essential part of the game"?

I think it would help ordinary raiders out more in the long run, if we get a Liberation category, etc. first. Holding on to a region permanently the way Macedon does would then require you either to refound or to maintain enough WA nations to hold the delegacy, if password protection is no longer a game-ending safeguard for region destroyers.

Ordinary raiders, on the other hand, would get something to brag about, and an authoritative source for claims about who was the best or most feared or whatever. So you could think of it as rewarding raiders for playing nice by giving them a permanent record of their accomplishments that does not depend on locking down a region and spraypainting it.

But if it could be dismissed by the new/restored government when the raiders had left then the part of it in the annexed region wouldn't be "permanent", and a Macedon-style lockdown would seeem to me to be the only way of guaranteeing its non-removal from the annexed region...

My natual instinct as an 'empire-builder' would be to embrace this feature immediately. But reading through the mechanics of it as I see it, it seems like a potentially subtle prelude to the undermining of empire-building as it currently stands.

The 'empire-building' relayed above by [violet] would essentially be by consent rather than 'power-play' so to speak. Imperialist region nominates another for annexation; nominated region can choose whether to accept or decline. What if this nation declines, can the imperialist region still make efforts to annex it using current mechanics?

Surely it's intended mainly for use after you've carried out the annexation via current mechanics, by agreement between your home region's government & the puppet government that you've just installed in your conquest, as a game-sanctioned way of boasting about the take-over...

[Zwangzug]

Surely it's intended mainly for use after you've carried out the annexation via current mechanics, by agreement between your home region's government & the puppet government that you've just installed in your conquest, as a game-sanctioned way of boasting about the take-over...

Upon further consideration, that's what I figured. If this works, it could be a nice incentive against region destruction...but will legitimizing these bragging rights make them less appealing? (See: warzones.)

[West-Flanders]

Another proposal for your comments!

Annex: A method for declaring a region to be part of a greater empire.

<snip>

Sorry, but I don't really see the use of coding this into the system? If a region is part of a greater Alliance, or it is a Colony of another region, or Allied to some other regions.. they can put a text into their WFB already anyway: "Part of the Macedonian Empire", "Colony of Nederland", "Part of the Whashamacallit Pact", "Member of the Evil Regions Alliance", "Allied to regions X, Y and Z"..

[West-Flanders]

Surely it's intended mainly for use after you've carried out the annexation via current mechanics, by agreement between your home region's government & the puppet government that you've just installed in your conquest, as a game-sanctioned way of boasting about the take-over...

Upon further consideration, that's what I figured. If this works, it could be a nice incentive against region destruction...but will legitimizing these bragging rights make them less appealing? (See: warzones.)

It could be a nice addition for normal invaders, but I don't see how this would be an incentive against region destruction, nothing changes for them, they'll still grief regions, kick everyone out so they can refound it for themselves. Owning a region is more important for them than the prize of 'tagging' a regions' WFB.

[Juken]

Well, I think this should be a good idea. but would limit the power to annex to delegates. This would add a new dimension to the game, as raiders could finally take on founded regions, whyilst two founded regions could actually go to war. It would also encourage traditional raiding, as Empire building can't be done in founded regions, and it would return to a more prestige ting. As for the problem of griefers in founderless regions, maybe the secuirity council could, in the event of 'region destruction' Macedonian style conquest, get the mods to unannexe the place. Good ideas?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Hey that is a good idea. Hope to see it in place soon with the alliance, vassalise and annex options as suggested by Zemnaya Svoboda.

[Todd McCloud]

I for one love this idea.

[West-Flanders]

Well, I think this should be a good idea. but would limit the power to annex to delegates. This would add a new dimension to the game, as raiders could finally take on founded regions, whyilst two founded regions could actually go to war. It would also encourage traditional raiding, as Empire building can't be done in founded regions, and it would return to a more prestige ting. As for the problem of griefers in founderless regions, maybe the secuirity council could, in the event of 'region destruction' Macedonian style conquest, get the mods to unannexe the place. Good ideas?

Hmm, not a bad idea at first sight.

[Martyrdoom]

I'm not being funny but what exactly is 'region destruction'?

Is it like 'France', passworded with a solitary puppet left behind? Or is it 'invasion-griefing' whereby all the original inhabitants have been banjected and the region has been refounded by and for imperialists?

Taken in conjunction with all the other proposals ('liberation') and with the preceeding posts in this thread, it increasingly seems to me that this is not some cosmetic proposal whereby it helpfully allows empire-builders to attain 'prestige' through 'legitimising bragging rights' (that can be done on the WFE of the 'home' region) but it is a underhand tactic to modify and direct their behaviour and MO, in the very name of empire-building, into what is a more acceptable form for some - plain 'raiding'.

[Buffett and Colbert]

I don't see the point, really. I think raiding is cooler.

[Daynor]

I don't see the point, really. I think raiding is cooler.

Just an easier way for raiding regions to show their holdings.

[Buffett and Colbert]

I don't see the point, really. I think raiding is cooler.

Just an easier way for raiding regions to show their holdings.

Which is why I don't get the point. Better for the raiders to do it the old fashion way, right?