Charles Stuart Posted September 20, 2011 Report Share Posted September 20, 2011 [quote name='potato' timestamp='1316367546' post='2803049'] While it might be interesting to have people like RV, Gopher or hawk_11 in your ranks for a bit, what do you when you roll Legion? [/quote] Disbanding would be my advice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nippy Posted September 20, 2011 Report Share Posted September 20, 2011 [quote name='Caliph' timestamp='1316331478' post='2802919'] There have been members who had to join other alliances, Rebel Virginia going to GOONS comes to mind. Might want to get their perception on how well that worked out. [/quote] I'd say it went as well as we expected. RV enjoyed himself, and we enjoyed having him. I'd say NSO learned a lot about GOONS culture, and vice versa. NSO's embassy on our forums is still one of the most active embassies we have...and it's entertaining as hell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted September 20, 2011 Report Share Posted September 20, 2011 Im a git in my own alliance. Imagine how disruptive i'd be in an alliance that forced me to join. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kzoppistan Posted September 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 20, 2011 Thanks for the comments, folks. Some interesting responses, and a number of good ideas presented, as well. At the time of this post the nays have it at 61% percent of the vote, out of 96 people voting. While some of the difficulties of this idea have been well outlined, I will add just one more point and leave this thread to the wind: --- You can't really force anybody to do anything. Sure, you can make some pretty persuasive arguments using both carrot and stick, but nevertheless, the ultimate choice is left to the person. As such, an option to be annexed could only happen with the approval of said nation. If my alliance leaders told me that I was annexed as part of reparation terms (without my consent) and, should I refuse to go, that the alliance as a whole would be held accountable; resulting in that they would be forced to ZI me themselves to drum me out, I don't know who I would be more mad at. If, however, it was under my own consent, it would be a simple matter to join after securing a pact limiting their ability to exploit my nation (fight without aid, ect.), and return after my terms were up. (In fact, a whole culture could emerge for those Press-ganged Trench Dogs who brag while pointing at their casualty counts) Or stay and be an operative. Or simply compare the two alliances and decide who, in fact, were better friends and more accomplished at the game. ---- Those are my thoughts on it. Thanks for the replies, I hope I see other people putting their game changing ideas out there for debate and consideration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacingOutMan Posted September 20, 2011 Report Share Posted September 20, 2011 I mean, if you could separate the annexed nations from your more sensitive parts of the forums, I don't see why it couldn't be possible in theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaoshawk Posted September 20, 2011 Report Share Posted September 20, 2011 At the least you could greatly hinder an alliance's rebuilding capability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHAYD Posted September 21, 2011 Report Share Posted September 21, 2011 [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, [b]not for profit.[/b] [/quote] I disagree. Enforcing harsh reparations is an excellent way of preventing enemies from rising back into power to challenge yo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nippy Posted September 24, 2011 Report Share Posted September 24, 2011 [quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1316551311' post='2804644'] Im a git in my own alliance. Imagine how disruptive i'd be in an alliance that forced me to join. [/quote] I do believe we'd break you before you broke us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigrun Vapneir Posted September 24, 2011 Report Share Posted September 24, 2011 [quote name='Kzoppistan' timestamp='1316553390' post='2804663']Those are my thoughts on it. Thanks for the replies, I hope I see other people putting their game changing ideas out there for debate and consideration. [/quote] Ok, what I got from this thread is you wouldnt be particularly mad if I set you up and press-ganged you. Right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kowalski Posted September 24, 2011 Report Share Posted September 24, 2011 The only thing this would achieve is falsely inflating an alliance's stats, there's no way that you could force someone to be an active member of even fight for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted September 24, 2011 Report Share Posted September 24, 2011 [quote name='nippy' timestamp='1316859713' post='2807308'] I do believe we'd break you before you broke us. [/quote] You do know where BAPS came from, right? (Hint: Most of their old membership are from boards.ie, but their founder was also an SA poster.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nippy Posted September 24, 2011 Report Share Posted September 24, 2011 [quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1316903068' post='2807696'] You do know where BAPS came from, right? (Hint: Most of their old membership are from boards.ie, but their founder was also an SA poster.) [/quote] Yes, I do believe they were allied to Neutral Shoving once upon a time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted September 24, 2011 Report Share Posted September 24, 2011 They were founded as a GOONS1 protectorate, and fought for the Unjust Highway in that war so long ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarmatian Empire Posted September 24, 2011 Report Share Posted September 24, 2011 (edited) If admin allowed us to have multiple nations, but only if the keys to the nation were given to you by the current nation holder. That way you can annex a nation and actually control it with one of your own people. Whoever you take it from will just have to make a new nation Edit: Yes I know this would be abused, I was just throwing an idea out Edited September 24, 2011 by Sarmatian Empire Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kowalski Posted September 24, 2011 Report Share Posted September 24, 2011 I think any of the suggestions would be catastrophic for the already-sliding number of players. Alliances are the only interesting thing about CN, forcing someone to be in an alliance that they don't want or making them give up control of their nation is crazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergerberger II Posted September 25, 2011 Report Share Posted September 25, 2011 (edited) If you changed the way alliances worked in the game, this could definitely add an interesting dynamic to the game. But it would take a lot of restructuring in the game itself. Under the current structure, where nations can set their AA to whatever they want at their whim, this has no chance of working. If you make alliances a mandatory part of the game, or something to that effect, you could add this and it could create very interesting wars. Edited September 25, 2011 by Mergerberger II Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarmatian Empire Posted September 26, 2011 Report Share Posted September 26, 2011 A better way to do it would be to annex whole alliances instead of single players. Lets say that pony alliances beats the hell out of...umbrella. The pony people could force umbrella to drop all treaties and sign a MDAP with themselves. So in a sense they can call umbrella to fight for them whenever they want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WingEater Posted September 26, 2011 Report Share Posted September 26, 2011 I don't think I would ever be for such a measure, but for arguments sake how about as a surrender condition if the losing alliance had a member cap for some period of time. To make it more complicated how about limiting the number of members an alliance can have in various NS ranges for a period of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gn0xious Jr Posted September 27, 2011 Report Share Posted September 27, 2011 it could be a LOT of fun for the annexed. to hell with privacy! start to melt the enemy from within! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SynthFG Posted September 29, 2011 Report Share Posted September 29, 2011 Last person to discuss something like this with me was Ramerius, shortly before bi-polar, wasn't interested TBH a Borg like alliance could be fun so long as the founders could make it work, the issue comes with those who still want to be induhhviduals 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.