Sedgistan wrote:Enn wrote:I was always under the impression that nations do in fact move regions - the game text itself talks about a fleet of helicopters. So I can't see any reason why that wouldn't be allowed.
Indeed, but as I said, I was just confused that this was not the justification given when I asked about it - instead, an RL reference to the EU was given. I'll just presume that I shouldn't have read so much into that, and that the assumption still is that resolutions should make sense to NS nations.
*yawn* The car's finished, the deadline's met, and I'm off to bed to catch up on the sleep I lost, but I'll post this before anything gets too set:
Sedge, I gave you the justification that works for me. Personally I see the "moving" of a nation to another region as a philosophical, metaphorical move, so the EU example would fit if
Ardchoille ever moved. The focus would just change to its interactions within the new region. If you play as a nomadic nation, well, you just up and went, whether you did it via black helicopters or astride your giant purple Phnarks (because the WA gnomes couldn't co-ordinate the helicopters, but you know what they're like, they'll say they did anyway).
If your nation moved geographically and geologically as well, into a region that has no mapped boundaries, lucky you, it keeps its shape and existing attributes -- moving via helicopters, teleportation, tractor beams, whatever. If you were in a region where your nation had a mapped shape, and you moved to one where the shape wouldn't fit, then I guess you'd have to RP that only the people and their goods moved (helicopters again? Mass hitchhiking? Dunkirk fleet?) One player I know of plays as a diaspora after a catastrophe, and has remnants of his people fleeing by undefined means to take refuge in a number of regions: the Region1 Remnant, the Region2 Remnant, and so on. The whole business is what you make of it.
But, sure, it
does move, and I'm not gonna be the Pope who says it doesn't. You can easily say "X moved to region Y after a major disagreement with Z"; just use the region or nation tags if you want to blur whether it was "player X" or "nation X".
Mention the black helicopters in a proposal? We-e-ell, if you
must. But in the example Ballotonia gave, I'd expect a non-RPer to go for something like "commending [nation ]Whosis[ /nation]'s logistical skill in co-ordinating the arrival of [ nation]Thing[/ nation], [nation ]Whatchamaycallit[/nation ] [link, link, link and link] only minutes before deadline", or some such phrase. Or give the actual time -- "only seconds before the accepted (agreed-on?) 03.00EST (or whatever it was) deadline". Mousebumples' wording looks good to me.
Since the nations are moving as part of a military operation, and since in this instance each individual nation is acting as a "soldier" (if that's how you play it) or a "military unit" or an "army" (if that's your schtick), you could salt your proposal throughout with (vaguely) military phrases: "co-ordinated the split-second timing of six nations
forces to liberate REGION from the grasp of [nation ]Interloper[ /nation] after a superb intelligence operation ...". (hmm, it's not all that military, really, I don't know the vocabulary).
I'm sorry if any of these are too much RP, or too little RP, or the wrong sort of RP, but it's not my proposal, and I can't know how each of you would write it. But you'd have to write it within the nation-sim scheme of things while trying to get the support of as many voters as you can, so you'd have to strive for something that's relatively accessible across player boundaries, while still giving the outline of what was commendable. That's diplomacy.
(Todd's gonna hate this, I bet: another "it depends ..." answer. If still confuzzled, please assume my answer is, "what Nerv said". Aaaand g'nite.)
EDIT: Strikethru "forces".