Kzoppistan Posted September 17, 2011 Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 (edited) [center][u]Annexing Nations As Reparation Terms[/u][/center] One of the major critiques leveled at our current war system is that waging it doesn't have enough profit to offset the costs. In monetary terms, paying off the damage done can takes many months, if it can even be done in any reasonable amount of time for high powered nations. This as one of the causes of stagnation is something I think we can all agree upon. Land is capture-able, but the only thing I've ever noticed it was good for was a few extra citizens, a slight increase to land attacks, and drastically raising my nation's range towards those with less land and more tech and infra, a decidedly dangerous prospect. Personally, I would like to see land have more benefit, but since that is a programming mechanic, we shouldn't expect a change in that. If, however, you consider nations more like counties and alliances like countries, as is the emerged model with alliance charters, ect., then it would make sense to demand some of those county/nations be turned over to the victor of a war. Some may argue that demanding a player to relocate AAs and forums is unfair, but I propose that it is no more nor less fair then being forced by threat of raiders to join an alliance to begin with. Or more or less fair then having to pay reps by fault of losing a war. You always have a choice, you can say no, but the consequences can be pretty persuasive. This exchange could be done with volunteers from certain NS ranges. Furthermore, I think that this opens up a more interesting and realistic dynamic in alliance/player interactions. Anyone who has played games like Europa Universalis understand the difficulties in retaining a captured nation within their fold. You have a potential agitator, a rogue army, a spy, in your ranks and it is your job to convert them to your cause in their soul. Like any country that over-expands, if there are more resentful conquered nations than core members, you risk a complete revolt, coup, or splinter, causing a great empire to fracture. Those who can master those difficulties though, someone who has true leadership abilities rather than just being a capable administrator, can be a powerful factor in advancing the cause of the alliance and integrate these new players into their ranks. To agree to such innovation requires a bit of play acting and willingness to go along with "how things are done", but aren't we all doing that anyway? When we give our leaders titles like "King", "Triumvirate", "Lord Commander", ect., When announce our defeat in the surrender thread. When we go rogue with no real hope of winning but rather just to make a political statement. With diplomatic protocols, and so on. We're all just agreeing to play cowboys and indians anyway. It also gives players an opportunity to take an honorable leave of an alliance to see what another is like without all the hate that comes from those painful "good-bye" threads. If you've got a curious nature to see the inside of other alliances, you can volunteer to be annexed. I think an idea like this would bring an interesting shift in the electronic world we inhabit by increasing the benefits of war along with a greater challenge human-to-human interactions and leadership abilities. This also gives a greater edge to those who can craft a style and image of their alliance in retaining gained nations. Those cardboard cutout alliances (I'm sure you have a few in mind) that clutter up the treaty web would be given extra incentive to re-craft their image into something more interesting. Annexation might just be the cure to such a cluttered treaty web. As the real resources we all fight over are not money, tech, infra or trades, but rather warm bodies, isn't putting the only real resource on the negotiation table a reasonable course? Is this something you think would be workable? Yea or Nay Discuss! Edited September 17, 2011 by Kzoppistan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Frontier Posted September 17, 2011 Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 I don't want refugees in my alliance, reading my private forums and being a general pain in the ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Stukov II Posted September 17, 2011 Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 Would never work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted September 17, 2011 Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 The theory behind this is ... interesting, but it's based on a faulty premise. Most alliances are not primarily a simple military grouping of nations for collective protection against raiders and rogues, but rather are cultural entities. People join (most) alliances because they like their culture, which is why you see alliances lose wars and not break up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Chocolate Posted September 17, 2011 Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 (edited) Points for creativity. However, any alliance government that is interested in doing this, I wouldn't volunteer or otherwise WANT to join. Talk about it being obvious that ones "nation" is nothing more than a statistic! [quote name='Kzoppistan' timestamp='1316287848' post='2802457']Anyone who has played games like Europa Universalis understand the difficulties in retaining a captured nation within their fold. You have a potential agitator, a rogue army, a spy, in your ranks and it is your job to convert them to your cause in their soul. Like any country that over-expands, if there are more resentful conquered nations than core members, you risk a complete revolt, coup, or splinter, causing a great empire to fracture.[/quote] One doesn't even have to play a game like Europa Universalis to think of this. It's the FIRST thing I thought of, if some alliance actually demanded it of us. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If a government really wants to do this, what I would suggest is instead of making it a part of peace terms between alliances, make it a part of individual peace terms. In other words, instead of having an individual AA for POW's - just tell anyone who wants to surrender that the cost to do so is to join your group. It doesn't totally root out possible spies, etc. but the type that's actually willing to surrender and become a POW 1) would annoy their alliance anyway and might not be let back, so they might as well join your group and 2) isn't all that loyal to their first group anyway. Edited September 17, 2011 by White Chocolate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted September 17, 2011 Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 Don't really have any sort of moral objection, but I really doubt you could ever integrate the new members into your alliance, which would be among other things a security risk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ty345 Posted September 17, 2011 Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 It's not a bad idea, but the details would be incredibly complicated. Would you have a subsection of your alliance just for them, or would they be regular members? The political repercussions would be amazingly fun though (splinter cells, spying against everyone, sabotage, etc). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kzoppistan Posted September 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 Interesting replies, so far. [quote name='ty345' timestamp='1316290886' post='2802508'] It's not a bad idea, but the details would be incredibly complicated. Would you have a subsection of your alliance just for them, or would they be regular members? The political repercussions would be amazingly fun though (splinter cells, spying against everyone, sabotage, etc). [/quote] First the nation would have to agree to a term limit of time (like a two months or so...?) or face zi for desertion. I would see it as tiered security access, much like it is in a lot of alliances. Prove your loyalty and you get higher access. I know that if you work your way up for any length of time, even if you weren't there under, ahem, honorable intentions, you get attached to the alliance. Call it Stockholm syndrome, I suppose. The strength of the internal cohesion and camaraderie is the deciding factor behind keeping nations anyway. Most of the more successful alliances already have a great internal culture and smooth operating procedure. This ramps up the demands for such if an alliance wishes to keep the members. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted September 17, 2011 Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 Being forced to annex nations as surrender terms makes more sense. After winning a war, send all your deserters and moochers over to the enemy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biohazard Posted September 17, 2011 Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 I like the idea. A lot, actually. I can see some problems with it, but I kind of want to see how it would play out if people actually did it (not just theoretical parts of what would happen) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franz Ferdinand Posted September 17, 2011 Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 I must say it's a good idea. If you can find a way to make it practical to the current political climate, then I can't wait to see it introduced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baron Flynt Posted September 17, 2011 Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 [quote name='Kzoppistan' timestamp='1316287848' post='2802457'] [center][u]Annexing Nations As Reparation Terms[/u][/center] One of the major critiques leveled at our current war system is that waging it doesn't have enough profit to offset the costs. [/quote] Whoever makes this critique might as well go to a neutral alliance. War is to settle disputes, not for profit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopherbashi Posted September 17, 2011 Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 This reminds me of the time that Sam tried to sell me for 30k tech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kzoppistan Posted September 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Baron Flynt' timestamp='1316296715' post='2802567'] Whoever makes this critique might as well go to a neutral alliance. War is to settle disputes, not for profit. [/quote] Traditionally, people war for many reasons, best not to box it into one category. The prohibitive cost of warring here takes it off the table as dispute resolution tools for all but the most one-sided of battles. The diffusion of power via treatying makes it almost impossible to get that out-numbered battle people want, so we wait and wait and wait for one alliance to screw up enough for that to happen. In real life, war happens when the the gain: monetary, status, strategic maneuvering, ect., is greater than the cost. The goal is to ensure that victory has gains acceptable to the cost. That way, when one alliance spits in your face, you can actually go to war if you want. [quote name='Gopherbashi' timestamp='1316297276' post='2802582'] This reminds me of the time that Sam tried to sell me for 30k tech.[/quote] I'll take two. Edited September 17, 2011 by Kzoppistan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Whimsical Posted September 17, 2011 Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 This has interesting implications. Would the winning alliance be able to annex whatever nations they wanted? Would the refugees no longer masked as members at the old alliance. People could simply seize all the active/government and watch the alliance fall apart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kzoppistan Posted September 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Emperor Whimsical' timestamp='1316297879' post='2802589'] This has interesting implications. Would the winning alliance be able to annex whatever nations they wanted? Would the refugees no longer masked as members at the old alliance. People could simply seize all the active/government and watch the alliance fall apart. [/quote] I'd say it'd be like season player picks. Alliance1: Ok, we'll take that 3k nation and Emperor Whimsical. Alliance2: No way, Emperor Whimsical stays with us but you can have the 3k nation and Locke for a reduction of 5 million of the reps terms. That's just a suggestion of how that might work, I'd say that the implementation of this idea would take different forms. Kind of like that dodge ball game where if you tag the other team member they have to join your side. Edited September 17, 2011 by Kzoppistan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melancholy Culkin Posted September 17, 2011 Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 [quote name='New Frontier' timestamp='1316289945' post='2802489'] I don't want refugees in my alliance, reading my private forums and being a general pain in the ass. [/quote] To be fair, they would come out more jaded than ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaoshawk Posted September 17, 2011 Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 Thanks for the idea. Time to annex Orange. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Chocolate Posted September 17, 2011 Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Kzoppistan' timestamp='1316298106' post='2802593'] I'd say it'd be like season player picks. Alliance1: Ok, we'll take that 3k nation and Emperor Whimsical. Alliance2: No way, Emperor Whimsical stays with us but you can have the 3k nation and Locke for a reduction of 5 million of the reps terms. That's just a suggestion of how that might work, I'd say that the implementation of this idea would take different forms. Kind of like that dodge ball game where if you tag the other team member they have to join your side. [/quote] Aren't peace negotiations annoying enough already? Why anyone would agree to be "annexed" is beyond me. I'm not even sure how I would approach any particular nation if I were government on this issue. "Hey White Chocolate, you're moving over to alliance Y, they wanted Fedora but we think Fedora is far cooler than you so we offered you instead and they actually fell for it. Good thing for us they only look at statistics!" Edited September 18, 2011 by White Chocolate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerdge Posted September 17, 2011 Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 (edited) This already happened ([url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=100273"]Rebel Virginia to GOONS[/url]). I would anyway [i]support[/i] this, but only if I was the one being annexed. I know I'd find the result hilarious. [quote name='Gopherbashi' timestamp='1316297276' post='2802582']This reminds me of the time that Sam tried to sell me for 30k tech.[/quote] Season discounts? [size=1][[b]Edit:[/b] end sentence with full stop mmk?][/size] Edited September 18, 2011 by jerdge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopherbashi Posted September 18, 2011 Report Share Posted September 18, 2011 [quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1316303884' post='2802667'] Season discounts? [/quote] I never found out how permanent that was supposed to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted September 18, 2011 Report Share Posted September 18, 2011 The biggest problem is that the alliance demanding nations doesn't gain anything from having those nations. Even if you force them to stay, wars are a year apart from each other, and that would be assuming they wouldn't just desert while the alliance can't do anything to stop them (which is silly). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kzoppistan Posted September 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 18, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1316306082' post='2802687'] The biggest problem is that the alliance demanding nations doesn't gain anything from having those nations. Even if you force them to stay, wars are a year apart from each other, and that would be assuming they wouldn't just desert while the alliance can't do anything to stop them (which is silly). [/quote] That is sort of the point, wars would occur more frequently, and be possibly less damaging to the nations, if the nations themselves became a sort of barter chip. If a nation deserts or is an obstruction or caught spying, and there isn't means to pulverize them, then the alliance doesn't have any business demanding annexation anyways and then suffers for their foolishness. A community that effectively looks after and builds bonds with their new "recruits" have a higher chance of intergrating that member into their core group than those whose communities lacking those abilities. Now you've increased your army and hopefully have a convert that will stay with you and be a part of the community. This would also be a good incentive to generate forum activity for the home alliance. Edited September 18, 2011 by Kzoppistan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted September 18, 2011 Report Share Posted September 18, 2011 Sounds like a good way to get yourself spied on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigrun Vapneir Posted September 18, 2011 Report Share Posted September 18, 2011 Your proposal is creative and daring, which is just the sort of thing CN needs a lot more of. That said, I dont think it would work, and I dont think forced recruitment in any form should ever be tolerated here frankly. But I still gotta hail you for getting out of the box, and I will be eagerly waiting to hear you next idea! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.