Jump to content

Preplanning Discussion


Kankou
 Share

Recommended Posts

With preplanning on life support for the time being, it is high time we attempt to reform preplanning before discussing its demise. Please be civil to try and discuss how to change the system. The first post shall contain the updated proposals.



Kankou Plan:

1. Eliminate GM waivers. GMs should be observers, not finders of rules, laws, or agreements, in the case of preplanning.
2. Parties have ten days from the arrival and notice of the preplanning by all initial parties to reach an agreement (unless extended due to RL reasons or by agreement). Should an agreement not be reached within that time, a three-day general poll for whether the war should be a limited open war (only participants to the preplanning session within the first five days of discussions can participate) can be started. A tie in this case shall mean the denial of limited open war.
3. After the start of the war, any new parties to that war cannot change the initial agreements without the consent of all the parties which were involved in the initial agreement.



Lynneth Plan:

Keep the basic system, but punish those who excessively abuse the preplanning system by booting them from it, making that single player, for a duration determined by GMs, completely free-game, no preplanning at all required.

Edited by Kankou
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Since the appearance of preplanning, we have had several times when the system was used with GM involvement. Those include the following:


Germanic War: Constant stacking of decks using GM to threaten war waiver

New York Conflict: Gave time to resolve peacefully

Georgia Conflict: Gave time to resolve peacefully

Irish War: Both sides were unreasonably stubborn, with participating GM making the general discussions more confusing despite best of intentions

Mara War: Constant stalling on part of Mara while general agreement had happened with the rest of the parties


Two out of five have been resolved rather adequately (except for warhawks), but the three which were problematic seems to show the deficiencies of the current preplanning system. We have given the GMs too much and too little power, too much in allowing them to grant waivers, too little in not clearly defining when such waivers should be given and thus leading to possible stalling tactics on part of one of the parties. Given this, I believe that in a new era of CNRP where the will of the people have been given the greatest power and responsibility, we need to move the power connected to preplanning to the people. This is the fundamental basis of my plan.

First, GM waivers shall be eliminated. GMs should be observers to preplanning sessions, not finders of rules, laws, or agreements. The granting of immense powers to the GMs in the realm of war originates from the moderation granted GM positions. With the power of election given to the people, it is the people who should decide the path of war.

Second, limit the time of preplanning. The indefinite standards concerning preplanning times has allowed individuals to potentially stall the war into exhaustion, with the current Northern Imperium war being the best example. By setting a firm deadline, we should be able to avoid this particular tactic.

Third: Form the concept of limited open war. One of the largest reasons for individuals trying to turn preplanning sessions into a hassle is the unnaturally coherent alliance system of CNRP, which is even more unrealistic and unstabilizing than the alliance system on the eve of World War One. One can argue about the realism of political theories, but no one can deny that sometimes that have been clearly movements which goes against basic political instincts of nations, with nations acting like individuals rather than nations, never mind outlandish support for formerly hostile countries. In order to cut down on this, we should develop a concept of limited open war where only the composition of participants is limited, with everything else being not grounded to any agreement. This should reduce the risk for players on the receiving side, while also cutting down on the blurry lines of nations and players.

Edited by Kankou
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, if we're going the route of in the people's hands, I think a modification of Lynneth's proposal is more in order...have the mods, upon being appealed to by the relevant parties, determine when/if they believe a person is abusing the system...but final decision of if they really are doing it be given to the people. And if it is determined they are, for how long if they are under 'open season' rules, to put it the way it truly is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or rather, perhaps IC diplomacy as it is right now is outlandish in its player-oriented rather than nation-oriented. How many times have we seen sudden alliances forming based on WHO is behind the nation, rather than the nation itself?

Furthermore, the concept of limited open war acts as a check against possible excess when the parties that want to war attempts to unreasonably stack the decks while piling on with a potentially one-sided lynching in the waiver votings. The existence of one single counterexample does hot completely invalidate the existence of the check itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1348060053' post='3031803']
Or rather, perhaps IC diplomacy as it is right now is outlandish in its player-oriented rather than nation-oriented. How many times have we seen sudden alliances forming based on WHO is behind the nation, rather than the nation itself?

Furthermore, the concept of limited open war acts as a check against possible excess when the parties that want to war attempts to unreasonably stack the decks while piling on with a potentially one-sided lynching in the waiver votings. The existence of one single counterexample does hot completely invalidate the existence of the check itself.
[/quote]

How is IC diplomacy outlandish? Name several treaties in the last 2-3 months that were based on the player and not the nation the player was playing. When was the last "stacking of the decks" against a nation with small territory and did not antagonize someone ICly?

Limited open war would serve as a way for a defender to cherry pick which allies the attacker would be allowed to have while attacking. For example: Cuba wanted to attack Priarie Nation. They are relatively equal nations if I remember correctly. The only way for him to attack his opponent is by going through my nation, an ally of his. Say his opponent doesn't want my involvement; it immediately prevents the war because now OOC is preventing a logical IC move of helping an ally by allowing them to go through territory I control. The concept simply doesn't make sense for a RPer that does go with IC-only in their dealings with people. It would prevent those nations from doing what they would logically do and create more OOC for wars than already exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1348038897' post='3031732']
Kankou Plan:

1. Eliminate GM waivers. GMs should be observers, not finders of rules, laws, or agreements, in the case of preplanning.
2. Parties have ten days from the arrival and notice of the preplanning by all initial parties to reach an agreement (unless extended due to RL reasons or by agreement). Should an agreement not be reached within that time, a three-day general poll for whether the war should be a limited open war (only participants to the preplanning session within the first five days of discussions can participate) can be started. A tie in this case shall mean the denial of limited open war.
3. After the start of the war, any new parties to that war cannot change the initial agreements without the consent of all the parties which were involved in the initial agreement.[/quote]

No.

[quote]
Lynneth Plan:

Keep the basic system, but punish those who excessively abuse the preplanning system by booting them from it, making that single player, for a duration determined by GMs, completely free-game, no preplanning at all required.
[/quote]

A lot of definition for excessive would even be needed here. What you're talking about here is extraordinarily subjective and subject to any moralist whims of whomever is the GM.

To be clear I am not conceding preplanning should not be abolished, but if its not immediately abolished, fundamentally decisions on waivers cannot be be based on what a GM views as the IC reasoning for people going to war or entering war, nor should GMs be in the business of dictating strategy and 'how big' people go in. There needs to be protections for people to be able to choose their IC actions free of OOC interference. If you think that someone's IC actions need to be restricted, the mechanisms for restricting those actions need to be IC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe there is some truth to Kankou's third argument, although I'm not a full believer in the justification. Voodoo is correct in that a defender should not be able to limit the number of people attacking them. However, thread creators should retain their rights to declare a thread closed/semi-closed. Naturally, an attacker should just never agree to terms that would limit their allies. However, if the original two parties agree to terms and an outcome, then those should be the end results.


I think we need to create a more formal war system. IG there is a well defined war system because that is the only way the game can function. We need to do the same thing. Here is my proposal for a more formal system. Feel free to pick it apart or modify it.

1. An attacker declares war by starting a war and releasing a declaration. Post can contain first strike info.
2. The defender's nation is on "pause" for the next 72 hours. They can make no IC mobilization efforts.
3. This 72 hours is for preplanning. It can occur via IRC, PM, publicly in forums. Either way there is a 72 hour restriction. No waivers or extensions. If the two parties cannot come to an agreement, and the GMs cannot mediate a negotiation, then there will be no defined outcome.* If you have limited activity for longer than 72 hours, then lock your nation.
4. The defender has another 24 hours after the conclusion of the preplanning discussion (or earlier) to make their reply post. If preplanning was not productive, then both players must also state their desired territory in accordance with *note.
5. Each side will have 48 hours to continue the war with reply posts. After 48 hours, the opposing side is free to auto-advance their attacks. If either player responds earlier, the opposing side is free to reply immediately.


*In the case where no outcome can be decided, all involved players will name one city that they currently control. At the conclusion of the war, the player will retain control (and map placement) over this city and everywhere within a 25 mile radius. This doesn't mean that the city is safe from attacks, it just means that the player will still control the territory. The attacker may dictate that a new government rule or some other IC consequence of the war. This rule is designed to protect the defender from an attacker that is unwilling to make any reasonable concessions.
**If preplanning has not been productive, GMs reserve the right to expel players from the preplanning system (Lynneth style). Players that are expelled will be open targets for war declarations for 72 hours. (Need to start a war during "open season," doesn't matter when it ends). Aforementioned time scales still apply to open season wars (48 hours to reply or auto-advance is authorized).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='J Andres' timestamp='1348093359' post='3031969']
*In the case where no outcome can be decided, all involved players will name one city that they currently control. At the conclusion of the war, the player will retain control (and map placement) over this city and everywhere within a 25 mile radius. This doesn't mean that the city is safe from attacks, it just means that the player will still control the territory. The attacker may dictate that a new government rule or some other IC consequence of the war. This rule is designed to protect the defender from an attacker that is unwilling to make any reasonable concessions.
[/quote]

If the goal is to wipe the nation off the map, then that solution doesn't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Voodoo Nova' timestamp='1348094085' post='3031973']
If the goal is to wipe the nation off the map, then that solution doesn't work.
[/quote]

Added to that it actually limits the current ability of people to keep an insurgency going in all of their territory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' timestamp='1348110095' post='3032066']
Except in extreme cases, (example: Isha) why should that be the goal, ever?
[/quote]

Because nations aren't permanently handicapped by military terms and often the effect you have by conquest especially if you have a leader whose still bitter towards you is that you'd just give yourself a second front to defend if you ever get into a war with someone else. If this was Hearts of Iron and I could knock out a bunch of your manpower and knock down your industrial capacity by half taking only half your country I wouldn't care if you were embittered. If you can rebuild your army, have the same [i]intentions[/i] as you did prewar, then I'm just basically guarenteeing the next war (at least one where the old adversaries strength) I get into becomes a two front war. Its basic strategy really subtle, it says go big or go home when your fighting serious opponents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1348111649' post='3032081']
Because nations aren't permanently handicapped by military terms and often the effect you have by conquest especially if you have a leader whose still bitter towards you is that you'd just give yourself a second front to defend if you ever get into a war with someone else. If this was Hearts of Iron and I could knock out a bunch of your manpower and knock down your industrial capacity by half taking only half your country I wouldn't care if you were embittered. If you can rebuild your army, have the same [i]intentions[/i] as you did prewar, then I'm just basically guarenteeing the next war (at least one where the old adversaries strength) I get into becomes a two front war. Its basic strategy really subtle, it says go big or go home when your fighting serious opponents.
[/quote]See, then we should push for someone's manpower to be limited then, at least by a fraction, if they have land and other resources taken away...make conquest actually worth something besides pixels on a map, there wouldn't be such a need for total war.

Hmm...

Edited by Subtleknifewielder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Voodoo Nova' timestamp='1348094085' post='3031973']
If the goal is to wipe the nation off the map, then that solution doesn't work.
[/quote]


IG, you can't wipe anyone off the map. You can ZI them. And a 25 mile radius is pretty small.

And you are correct, a nation who is reduced to the 25 mile radius should have defined stats such due to the limits of their IC nation as current rules would permit you to rebuild to your full IG stats on your small parcel of land.

And the rigid hour structure would restrict players who keep up a reasonable pace. It only hurts those who don't come in every other day, just as the IG war mechanics function does. Even if preplanning is eliminated, I do think that a more formal structure in terms of hours should be in place. It eliminated the grey area of "when is too soon" and sets expectations for both the defender and attacker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Make the pre-planning rule only apply to nations that wish it to. Make two separate types of nations, one where war is an option at all times without any warning, and one where war is an option at all times but only with a warning before hand. Something like a DoE saying in the description part of the thread or in an OOC note "War mode nation" or "Peace mode nation" or something to that effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Isaac MatthewII' timestamp='1348177641' post='3032431']
Make the pre-planning rule only apply to nations that wish it to. Make two separate types of nations, one where war is an option at all times without any warning, and one where war is an option at all times but only with a warning before hand. Something like a DoE saying in the description part of the thread or in an OOC note "War mode nation" or "Peace mode nation" or something to that effect.
[/quote]

And all the abusers will just go for peace mode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Isaac MatthewII' timestamp='1348178234' post='3032437']
Not if they want war, most "abusers" just want to go about their RPs, you are the antagonist in the situation. Don't play victim in that, you aren't. Though it would only make sense to incorporate Lyn's proposal about abusers. As that should be in any rule.
[/quote]

You tried hiding behind preplanning before to avoid getting a war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1348178352' post='3032438']
You tried hiding behind preplanning before to avoid getting a war.
[/quote]

Preplanning should be a set amount of time with no GM extensions. Then someone can't hide behind it. And when it comes down to the actual war, NS should serve as the biggest guideline. With NS as your guide their should be no true argument over the outcome, just discussions over details. And if they don't work out, then it's the same sort of open warfare that not having preplanning would allow for. Essentially, preplanning will amount to "give civility a chance" for a few days.

I think the biggest way to remove the element of "hiding" is just to set time limits without extensions. I could come on every day and spit some tale about how my life is busy. It doesn't save you IG, it shouldn't save you here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='J Andres' timestamp='1348178788' post='3032444']
Preplanning should be a set amount of time with no GM extensions. Then someone can't hide behind it. And when it comes down to the actual war, NS should serve as the biggest guideline. With NS as your guide their should be no true argument over the outcome, just discussions over details. And if they don't work out, then it's the same sort of open warfare that not having preplanning would allow for. Essentially, preplanning will amount to "give civility a chance" for a few days.

I think the biggest way to remove the element of "hiding" is just to set time limits without extensions. I could come on every day and spit some tale about how my life is busy. It doesn't save you IG, it shouldn't save you here.
[/quote]

NS is a joke when it comes to fighting wars, and I say that holding one of the highest NS in the RP so changing it to that would benefit me. They haven't ever solved the issue of the war being fought ooc either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1348178352' post='3032438']
You tried hiding behind preplanning before to avoid getting a war.
[/quote]
Oh please, you stopped that war to help your friend out. Deal with it, I have never prevented a war through pre-planning. The only war that was planned and never happened was mine with you because Triyun may have needed your help. You even told me that so don't go crying now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Isaac MatthewII' timestamp='1348179061' post='3032448']
Oh please, you stopped that war to help your friend out. Deal with it, I have never prevented a war through pre-planning. The only war that was planned and never happened was mine with you because Triyun may have needed your help. You even told me that so don't go crying now.
[/quote]

Oh sure it never went to war because things came up. But you had to be threatened with a gm waiver to even start talking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1348179155' post='3032449']
Oh sure it never went to war because things came up. But you had to be threatened with a gm waiver to even start talking.
[/quote]

This is pretty off topic but if you want to go there, I remember querying you at least 5 times and you not even querying back even when you were online. But I will mention you have your share of abuse of the system. I seem to remember "this way or I get a waiver" that is abuse of the system as much as Maras debacle is.

Edited by Isaac MatthewII
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...