Jump to content

Annexing Nations As Reparation Terms


Kzoppistan
 Share

  

149 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

[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 by Kzoppistan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by White Chocolate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[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 by Kzoppistan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[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 by Kzoppistan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[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? :gag: 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!" :P

Edited by White Chocolate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? :mellow:



[size=1][[b]Edit:[/b] end sentence with full stop mmk?][/size]

Edited by jerdge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[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 by Kzoppistan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...