First of all ONLY votes that are actually posted by cnrp'ers will be counted. The poll serves just as an estimate on how it will end.

Now the issue.

Over the last months people have suggested planned wars many times before therefore I wish to propose a final plan that will appease both sides, namely the following.

A player once he joins gets the option to chose from 2 modes, planned war mode where the player recognizes only wars he agreed to in advance but also has to discuss all war plans first should (s)he decide to attack and open war mode where the player is forced to recognize attacks made against him/her but can also attack any other open war mode nation. This allows people who desperately want to remain open for surprises to do so while allowing others who want to rp laid down the same right.

To prevent abuse there will be a time limit before you can change of X months where X will be decided when the poll closes in favor of this proposal.

The polls will remain open for 5 days at the time of posting.

Again post your vote in this topic or it will NOT be counted

I of course voted yes

...Or we can just wing it whenever a war comes around and see how that goes. Because there are many that like planned wars and always seem to only get into them (any gentleman should PM them of the invasion anyway), while those that like unplanned wars always seem to only get into unplanned wars.

I don't think a vote was neccessary. (go for null vote!)

People should be civilized enough to decide between them what their approach to a war would be. I therefore vote against this proposal, because it takes the freedom away to decide for yourself if you want to plan a war or not, and with whom.
If Lübeck and I want to RP a war, and hes in planned mode, and I'm not, and we don't plan the war, people are gonna scream that we are misusing this rule. Also, I don't like too much rules, it takes the freedom and fun out of a game.

If Lübeck and you want to rp a war the war is planned already as both agree.

Yes, please, to the proposal.
And planned can mean "just agreeing to doing it", or carefully planning every step. There's a wide range of 'planned things'.

As a note, arguably the most and best roleplayed out war was an unplanned war; it reached a total of 53 pages! Located here.

EDIT: Although it was around a time when everyone wanted to stomp someone, at least they didn't back out and continued roleplaying until they lost. Unfortunatly, they left.
There is such a thing called "rebuilding" and another thing called "rerolling". Because they can still roleplay a blockade and military buildingup and other harmful things; nothing you can do about that.

...
Wait, what? Wasn't that one of the first cluster-$%&@-wars where half of the Amazonas got burned down in nuclear fire and then retconned?
I'd hardly call that a well-done war.

It was never retconned.

I consider it a good war for several reasons. One, they never backed down and fought to the end. Two, nations planned out where to land forces, where to attack, etc.

I have never seen a war since that had both sides fight for quite a long while, with the possible exception of Greater Nordland.

EDIT: Although there was a lot of OOC, now that I realise it. Ok, it isn't neccessarly the best one out there.

I still vote "null" as I feel that a rule like this should not be forced upon us.

I vote ''Nay''.

Voted Yes.

I voted yes because if you dont have planned wars, then anyone who wanted a particular piece of land could jump the tiny, under developed nation that owned it and drive them right out without consent. I was never keen on the whole "If you dont recognize the war, its an auto win for the other guy."

Heh. I see a large OOC war coming; it always comes when someone declares war then the declared upon doen't recognize it.

And what happens when you consider treaties? There are manditory ones that you are required to furfill, but what if you don't want to for OOC reasons? What happens then?


Often numerous nations go and help the smaller nation. Which I will be doing with my new nation Diberia, and if my plans work then it won't be attacked due to overwhelming force.

Yes all the way. It should help cut down on OOC whining.

Doing so carries the risk that the attacker in turns gets rolled by a coalition of nations. They THEY would be the one that would have to recognize the war.


No, it'll really only create a new set of OOC problems.

My vote is no.

I'm sorry but no. This is a freaking roleplay in international politics. You don't get to decide if/when your nation gets declared on. Now should you at least have the courtesy of backing off if the RPer doesn't want to war? Sure.

I voted no. This is just like everyone getting mad when the Italian Guy refused to acknowledge the blockade. If you get invaded, you deal with it.

Voted Yes.

I am yet to see a war with a realistic reason. I do not wish to have my nation destroyed for bad roleplay.

A planned out war Might not be the best of RP's but it cut all the OOC bickering and was awesome fun.

I also vote yes.

I change my null vote to a no.

Voting no. This doesn't need to be set in stone as a guideline, people just need to decide whether or not your war will be planned between both sides or a "surprise". Since some may want a planned war one day and a "surprise" the next, this isn't a great idea.

I voted nay.

EDIT: I dont think it is necessary.

Nulled my vote cause I don't have a country, lol, but I think this is a bad idea for all its worth. However something that I think might be an improvement. Perhaps, the wars could be planned and still be a surprise. For instance, say Cent wanted to invade The Stig, he would call his generals together, classified of course and begin planning the attack, call his alliance, much like Rebel Virginia did when he was part of the invasion of Greater Nordland in December. I thought that was a very well planned, I could be wrong, but it wasn't as bad as OOC wars we've had recently.

So while The Stig couldn't really get ready for the war, except for normal peacetime movements, otherwise it would be metagaming, he'd no the war would be coming and could possibly talk to Cent about it later or not and make it completely non-planned, what the problem is is a respect thing, we're all guilty of it and we all need to try to build back up the respect to ourselves in the forum. I think that would be a push in the right direction.

Alright, I put my vote in for "No" a while ago, but here's my logic:

Forcing the preplanned wars would open a whole field for metagaming, and would take a lot of spontaneity out of RP. If everything is planned ahead of time, it gets rid of the bit of realism out, as, in reality, world leaders won't always know what's coming, and hence, make a lot of decisions on the fly, like you end up doing when being caught by surprise. Now, I don't think every war should be completely unplanned though. If someone planned on invading me, I would rather be able to work out some basics with them before the war to cut out a bit of the OOC, but too much takes some fun out of the RP.

I would much rather see some sort of rule making people have to RP everything about their defenses though, as so many people pop up and say "I has border fortification" right when they get invaded with no prior RP, and I think i that fun bunch of godmod got cut out a lot of the OOC bickering

That's my two cents at least.

I voted yes, because when I read this it sounded to me like people have a choice. Nobody is going to force you one way or the other. Therefore I'm pro choice.

Voted Yes.

I am totally for a planned-war rule... Planned wars ultimately come out better in the end IMVHO...

Two thumbs up! And a vote

Changed to a No

Depends on how much planning it'd need for a war to be validated. IMO, basic planning should be compulsory such as the clarification of the pace of the war (e.g. how many RL days for a RP war day), sizes of brigades/divisions, technology being used and terrain conditions. Setting the table, pretty much, but not necessarily determining how the war would go beforehand.

So, I vote yes for there to be some sort of planning, but not the whole of the war.

EDIT: Just so to clarify my point, if person X DoWs Y. then the war WILL happen, but it is highly encouraged they agree on the aforementioned terms to avoid confusion and OOC.

Null Voted, Dont care either way

Voted no. Why? Because I can.

No; RP while it is a story, is also a game. People shouldn't be able to opt out of risky aspects of the game, and essentially play no-risk. Moreover having such a system destroys any measure of internal regulation.

How about no.

Voted no. It just lets people do what they want and then not recognize a war when it comes time to fight.

Nation A attacks Nation B. Nation B is smaller, but thinks it'd be fun and recognizes the war
Nation A wins and annexes 75% of B.
Nation A declares war on Nation C. Nation C thinks the same way as B and recognizes
Nation A wins and expands.
Nations D, E, F, and G decide they're tired of it and want to attack Nation A
Nation A refuses to recognize the war.

This is just a way for the bullies to kill the fun-loving weaker nations while saving their $@! from the big guys. I'm fine if the war is unplanned, but the two sides meet and say "So do we agree not to use nukes, bio weapons, etc.", but this idea is a big $%&@ NO.

No matter how this poll turns our I still plan on sticking to my decision. I'm tired of the Lulz wars, and I expect other players to respect my choice.

Bugger it. Change my vote to a no.

And if I cant Oh well

Nein. I reserve the right to fight whoever I want. If you are willing to plan it out with me, great. If you're going to be a whiny !@#$%* and complain about it...well then I'll just save the fighting and nuke you.

Quoted for truth and emphasis.

If they don't rp the war what makes you think they're rp you nuking them? El Oh El. Hello! Anybody home? Think McFly!

By this proposal the only thing you need to do to have it validated is get a yes from the target the rest is up to you.




Actually to prevent that we put in the X months rule where if you chose for open war you have to stick with it for a long time.




Same.

How would the X month rule prevent that scenario?

I don't think it would--it would just delay the problem.

It would make people unable of quickly changing into a planned war mode immediately after attacking. Making sure that if you decide to engage in random wars you will have the risk of being attacked back for a certain period.

How about this scenario? A nation is in open war mode...but the time is nearing when they can switch. They attack another nation, win, and annex the land, then as soon as that war is over, switch to the other mode.

For that we can put another safety in that once you attack the period gets extended again.

In the scenario given the player could easily have been in planned war mode through the entire situation. What is to stop someone from seeking out smaller nations that will agree to losing a war while at the same time refusing wars that would put them on a losing side?

If a smaller nation agrees to lose a war it is a planned conflict.

Exactly the point. If I am in planned war mode I can continuously seek out nations to agree to let me fight and defeat them while at the same time rejecting any proposed war that would have me on a losing side.

Thats the freedom of the players involved if the small nations have fun in losing the war it is their right. Now, lets take another situation. A small nation does not want to get attacked but gets bullied by several other larger ones he has no choice to ignore it or he would lose his land and he cant win. What is better? Nations get attacked with their consent or nations get attacked without.

Then the small nation shouldn't of gotten the larger nation to attack them, however they angered the bigger. If they are attacking for fun and (most likely) for a stupid reason often the attacking nation gets attacked themselves by a larger number of nations.

Again, what will happen to treaties if your plan is adopted? Remember the four main types in your responce.

The issue here is not the small nations who are getting attacked by choice it is the shield that is put up around a nation who can choose to only ever fight winning wars and who can not be held accountable for their IC actions through IC means.

To answer your question at this point after reading both sides of the argument I feel that nations getting attacked without consent is a better situation than allowing nations to be able to prevent war by simply saying no even if there is complete IC justification for a war against them.

So I will ask you which is better, a nation being able to do whatever they want IC without having to worry about IC consequences or an RP where people are actually able to react to a situation the way their character would even if it is not what someone else likes?