Feedback Invasion Points System & War Exhaustion Mechanics.

[Serina Calis]

Hey everyone, this is a post in response to the following thread but I felt like I wanted to separate it due to it maybe derailing that thread:

Feedback - Invasions & War | An Open Discussion

So we've had some historical issues with invasions and war on Chaos, and its been discussed a few times that invasions are high activity but not very good for long term growth of the site. Invasions get massive volume by comparison to other threads, but too many invasions causes burnout, and...

www.starwarsrp.net

A big thank you to Darth Empyrean for starting this conversation.

After spending some time reflecting on the current state of the map game and the role Invasions play within our broader Chaos ecosystem, I wanted to propose an idea that I believe could help reinforce long-term sustainability and positive engagement between factions—especially as we all begin to adapt to the new, expanded galactic map.

This suggestion comes from a place of genuine care for the site and our community. I'm relatively fresh off my return to Chaos in 2024, and have only participated in one invasion thread since then. But that experience, coupled with a bit of observation and some reflection on Chaos' long and storied war history, has left me thinking about how we might improve our approach to conflict on a systemic level.

Invasions are, without question, the most high-profile form of faction interaction on Chaos. They're thrilling, dramatic, emotionally charged, and often where some of the best writing on the board happens. But as many of us have experienced—either directly or through faction leadership—they can also be punishing in terms of time, energy, and morale.

Historically, the only tangible reward from an invasion has been a single hex gained by the victor and the eventual SSD. That makes perfect sense when the map is relatively small and hexes are tightly contested. However, with the recent expansion of the map, we now find ourselves with a galaxy that's sprawling—beautifully so, but far more spacious than before. This has a few subtle effects:

• The strategic value of a single hex has diminished.
• Travel and campaign times have increased.
• Factions are less likely to "meet" without concerted effort.
• Invasions feel like massive effort for minimal gain, even when winning.

And that's the real problem.

Right now, victory is the only outcome that feels rewarding. There is no mechanical or narrative recognition for factions that fight hard and lose honourably, nor for those who throw themselves into the meat grinder to keep stories alive. The only factions that progress are the ones that win. Everyone else walks away with nothing, despite often investing just as much (if not more) effort.

That's a big part of why invasions have historically been both our biggest activity spikes and our greatest burnout machines. Factions caught in multiple wars with no "win" to show for it slowly bleed out. Not because the writing was bad. Not because the stories weren't engaging. But because they were never given a meaningful reason to keep going.

What I'm suggesting is simple in concept, and intentionally light in initial structure so the community can help shape it.

Let's implement an Invasion Points System—a framework where factions are rewarded not only for winning invasions, but for participating in them meaningfully.

The idea is that factions would accrue points over time by engaging in invasions, regardless of outcome. Victory would still be the most efficient way to accumulate these points, but simply showing up, committing to the story, and reaching certain milestones (such as post count, participation minimums, etc.) would also provide value.

These points could then be exchanged for rewards that already exist within Chaos' ecosystem, like Super Star Destroyers, or potentially for new incentives that are created collaboratively over time. The system would not replace map hex gains—it would supplement them. Invasion victors would still gain a hex, but they would also move toward long-term faction growth in other ways. And those who lose? They would still walk away with something to show for their time and energy.

This accomplishes several things:

• It incentivizes healthy, sustained participation, even in the face of loss.
• It reduces the feeling of "we wasted our time" that can plague a losing faction.
• It encourages sportsmanship and storytelling over brute-force min-maxing.
• It gives newer or smaller factions a growth path, even if they can't win every fight.
• And it makes war more dynamic than a binary "win-or-die" model.

I already have an idea for how the IPS would theoretically work and the mechanics associated with it and may share it if this idea gets traction.

In addition to the Invasion Points System (IPS), I'd also like to propose a complementary mechanic: War Exhaustion. (Credit to Aether Verd for the idea)

This is something I believe could work hand-in-hand with the IPS to address one of the more difficult realities of Chaos' invasion culture—burnout. Whether you're winning or losing, the sheer weight of back-to-back invasions, OOC coordination, factional post expectations, and inter-faction politics can wear even the strongest communities down. And often, there's no activatable "off-ramp." No mechanic that can be chosen by a major faction for saying: we've done our part, we need time to regroup, rebuild, and refocus.

The War Exhaustion mechanic is designed to provide that exit ramp—a temporary peace period, earned through activity and effort, not simply requested.

Here's the basic idea:

Factions could spend a chunk of Invasion Points to trigger a War Exhaustion declaration. Once declared, that faction enters a cooldown period during which:

• They cannot be targeted for new invasions, and
• They cannot initiate invasions themselves.

They can still dominion, hold skirmishes, run faction stories, and participate in the rest of the map game—but are formally out of the war arena during this phase.

This could come with a soft IC justification—such as mass casualties, logistics collapse, political realignment, or simply war fatigue—which factions could turn into part of their lore.

It's not a shield against consequences. If you're actively in a invasion and lose, you still lose the hex. But if you've weathered several campaigns or just came off a major push, you can use the points you've earned to declare enough is enough—at least for a while.

This mechanic would accomplish several things:

• It provides a pressure release valve for factions who have fought hard and need time to catch their breath without being punished for taking a break.
• It gives factions a tactical option—spend points for peace, or stockpile for greater rewards.
• It gives time for winning factions to instead focus on an internal story rather than worrying about their new gains.
• It allows smaller or recovering factions to reset the board before they collapse entirely.
• And most importantly, it frames peace not as "giving up," but as a legitimate strategic decision that emerges from participation, not absence.

In short: fight hard, earn points, and then—if you need to—buy yourself time to rebuild.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this one as well. Would this mechanic help factions stay healthy longer-term? Would you want limitations or safeguards added? How might we integrate this into the broader Invasion Points framework without it being exploitable?

Looking foward to the discussion,
Serina Calis.

 

[Razmir Tezhyn]

It kind of sounds like a roided up version of the Self Destruct Mandate (Mandate no. 7), which accomplishes:

• the pressure release valve for factions who have fought hard an need time to catch their breath
• gives a tactical option to reconsider the state of the faction and plan ahead (with the new map it'll take much more time too)
• gives time for 'winning' factions to focus on internal story without worrying about new gains
• Provides time for smaller and recovering factions to reset the board before they collapse (two months at the very least, realistically even more)
• It frames peace as a legitimate strategic decision made through meaningful map game mechanics

I'm not trying to rain on the parade, but I'm asking, how is this meaningfully different from that mandate other than avoiding the risk it carries?

 

[Serina Calis]

It kind of sounds like a roided up version of the Self Destruct Mandate (Mandate no. 7), which accomplishes:

• the pressure release valve for factions who have fought hard an need time to catch their breath
• gives a tactical option to reconsider the state of the faction and plan ahead (with the new map it'll take much more time too)
• gives time for 'winning' factions to focus on internal story without worrying about new gains
• Provides time for smaller and recovering factions to reset the board before they collapse (two months at the very least, realistically even more)
• It frames peace as a legitimate strategic decision made through meaningful map game mechanics

I'm not trying to rain on the parade, but I'm asking, how is this meaningfully different from that mandate other than avoiding the risk it carries?

The Self Destruct Mandate is indeed one of the few existing tools on Chaos that attempts to address burnout, fatigue, and the need for narrative cooldowns in a mechanical way. It deserves credit for being one of the first ideas to formalize a way out of the invasion cycle. Thematically, it's poignant. Mechanically, it's high-stakes and dramatic.

But I'd argue that the Invasion Points-based War Exhaustion mechanic is a fundamentally better solution—for individual factions, for the health of the map, and for Chaos as a whole. Here are some points to consider:

Self Destruct is punitive. War Exhaustion is earned.
At its core, the Self Destruct Mandate is a tradeoff: immunity from invasions in exchange for inevitable territorial decay. It's a dramatic narrative tool—but not a strategic one. It says: you get peace, but only because you're giving up the game piece by piece.

In contrast, War Exhaustion says: you fought, you endured, you earned a reprieve. It doesn't require you to start dying just to rest. It's not a surrender clause; it's a reward for investment. It reinforces a gameplay loop that values participation. Factions that actually engage in invasions—win or lose—can buy time to recover, instead of bleeding out while holding the white flag.

Self Destruct penalizes activity. War Exhaustion encourages it.
The moment you activate Self Destruct, you're essentially putting your faction on a slow timer toward death unless you micromanage the fallout very carefully. You lose the ability to regain lost ground, you're locked into a degrading map state, and you can't even move your capital.

This discourages storytelling outside of implosion. You're told, "take your story internal," but the mechanics strip away your ability to support or expand that story meaningfully across the map. It's like giving a playwright a stage, then removing the audience.

War Exhaustion, on the other hand, rewards factions for showing up, fighting, and participating in the ecosystem. The faction earns their break through battle, through presence. They remain alive, vibrant, and mobile during that break. The story doesn't have to become a funeral march.

Self Destruct is a Mandate. War Exhaustion is a Decision.
This is an important distinction. Mandates are hard-coded. They define a faction's identity for 60 days at minimum, and they're visible and static. Once you choose the Self Destruct Mandate, you telegraph everything—your fragility, your movement limitations, your incoming collapse. There's little room to bluff, adapt, or surprise.

War Exhaustion is a strategic lever. You pull it when it's right. You spend points if you've earned them. You time it to support your narrative or buy back initiative. It can be hidden behind diplomatic posturing, or declared as a proud rallying cry. It doesn't change your entire faction identity—just your tactical approach for a moment.

And because it's point-based, it's not free. It's not exploitable. You can't just duck out of a war you never participated in. It's a mechanic that says: "You've fought hard—take a breath." Not: "You're dying—take your last words."

Self Destruct isolates. War Exhaustion integrates.
The Self Destruct Mandate encourages withdrawal. It locks your faction out of invasion politics, denies you map recovery, and telegraphs a downward spiral. You become a non-factor, unable to make meaningful moves beyond your shrinking footprint.

The War Exhaustion mechanic would instead encourage other factions to stay engaged with yours. They're not removed from galactic politics—they're simply off the battlefield temporarily.

War Exhaustion is scalable. Self Destruct is terminal.
This is crucial.

Self Destruct works best as a final act. A grand finale. A poetic dissolution. It's great once. Maybe twice. But it's not sustainable. You can't build a map economy or campaign loop around a mechanic that ends with a funeral every time.

War Exhaustion, however, is repeatable, scalable, and integrated into a reward system. It can be part of a faction's cycle of war and peace. It doesn't demand collapse. It encourages ebb and flow—like any healthy campaign or ecosystem.



This isn't about replacing Self Destruct. That mandate has its place—for nihilist cults, failing empires, dramatic exits. It's flavor, and flavor is good.

But War Exhaustion is strategy. It's structure. It's support. And it's an acknowledgment that the best writers and most committed players shouldn't have to break their faction to catch their breath.

In a Chaos where invasions take more effort, maps are larger, and campaigns run longer, we need mechanics that encourage endurance, reward participation, and give factions room to breathe without forcing them to bleed.

That's what War Exhaustion provides.

 

[Razmir Tezhyn]

Self Destruct is punitive. War Exhaustion is earned.
At its core, the Self Destruct Mandate is a tradeoff: immunity from invasions in exchange for inevitable territorial decay. It's a dramatic narrative tool—but not a strategic one. It says: you get peace, but only because you're giving up the game piece by piece.

In contrast, War Exhaustion says: you fought, you endured, you earned a reprieve. It doesn't require you to start dying just to rest. It's not a surrender clause; it's a reward for investment. It reinforces a gameplay loop that values participation. Factions that actually engage in invasions—win or lose—can buy time to recover, instead of bleeding out while holding the white flag.

The points require the losing side to participate in invasions to keep stalling, if I understand correctly. That forces engagement, and there's no way for a faction to, preemptively, pick the stalling option to buy themselves time. I can see the value in encouraging interaction, but it's my perception the issue might be elsewhere.

Self Destruct penalizes activity. War Exhaustion encourages it.
The moment you activate Self Destruct, you're essentially putting your faction on a slow timer toward death unless you micromanage the fallout very carefully. You lose the ability to regain lost ground, you're locked into a degrading map state, and you can't even move your capital.

This discourages storytelling outside of implosion. You're told, "take your story internal," but the mechanics strip away your ability to support or expand that story meaningfully across the map. It's like giving a playwright a stage, then removing the audience.

War Exhaustion, on the other hand, rewards factions for showing up, fighting, and participating in the ecosystem. The faction earns their break through battle, through presence. They remain alive, vibrant, and mobile during that break. The story doesn't have to become a funeral march.

My main concern is, I suppose, in a salt war scenario, what would the points be used for other than stalling for time? From the losing player's point of view, why would I choose anything other than stalling if that's what keeps me alive?

In either scenario, mandate or point-based stalling, you're not stopping the death of a faction without stepping up to the plate and writing some cool stories. But one is already implemented and the other requires the addition of a whole new system with its own balancing concerns and risks for abuse.

In addition, both penalize activity, but from different sides. Self Destruct penalizes the faction which chose it with the loss of hexes and ultimate shift to minor. War Exhaustion penalizes the active faction for engaging in the game by rewarding their opponents with a way to halt their activity. The focus on which faction is penalized is simply shifted from defender to attacker.

I have a lower incentive to launch an invasion when I know that doing so will award my opponent with points which will force me to stop playing. How would this be addressed?

Self Destruct isolates. War Exhaustion integrates.
The Self Destruct Mandate encourages withdrawal. It locks your faction out of invasion politics, denies you map recovery, and telegraphs a downward spiral. You become a non-factor, unable to make meaningful moves beyond your shrinking footprint.

The War Exhaustion mechanic would instead encourage other factions to stay engaged with yours. They're not removed from galactic politics—they're simply off the battlefield temporarily.

It's already in an attackers interest to continue engaging with the faction they're attacking. In fact it's the only way to accomplish the story they're going after. The defender would gain more tools to stall that effort through gaining points, while the attacker would be forced to continue giving them the very points that stall their efforts. It foregoes isolation, yes, but it introduces new problems that don't integrate as much as they shift the balance between attacker and defender.

What actually incentivizes the defender from engaging with the war other than the points they need to keep stalling? How does this improve the reality that a faction that's burned out and check out doesn't want to participate, self-destruct timer or imaginary points aside?

War Exhaustion is scalable. Self Destruct is terminal.
This is crucial.

Self Destruct works best as a final act. A grand finale. A poetic dissolution. It's great once. Maybe twice. But it's not sustainable. You can't build a map economy or campaign loop around a mechanic that ends with a funeral every time.

War Exhaustion, however, is repeatable, scalable, and integrated into a reward system. It can be part of a faction's cycle of war and peace. It doesn't demand collapse. It encourages ebb and flow—like any healthy campaign or ecosystem.

This idea hits the core of the changes I'd be down to support. More war, more peace, an ebb and flow for a healthy faction war ecosystem. I'm down with that.

But I've been involved in something like that built on the current rule set in the past with great results. I'm asking so many questions around this system because it's a whole new addition to a problem that, in my mind, is fixed with healthy communication, mutual respect, and negotiations based on a willingness to compromise. The entire Brotherhood of the Maw vs GA conflict was handled like this, with one of the highest invasion counts between factions, and it worked extremely well with no war exhaustion mechanics in place because the core part of it was the story. Burnout happened, yeah, but because it takes active effort to plan and organize great storylines across so many people, not because of OOC salt that's injected into the map game.

Mechanics are, mainly, a way to express actions in a game. My experience has been that a healthy ecosystem emerges when it's maintained by the players engaging with those mechanics. It's usually not a result of the mechanics.

The question I'm left with then is: more mechanics to play with are neat, but are they really necessary?

 

[Tefka]

If a mechanic cannot be explained succinctly and with brevity, it is not a good mechanic.

I would alter your strategy In marketing this idea.

 

[Tefka]

I can already smell the Charles Dickens paraposting to try to defend and attack this idea and I gotta say, its gonna put Staff to sleep and the participants won’t feel its worth it.

Brevity, guys. KISS always applies.

 

[Serina Calis]

Invasion Points System (IPS)

What is it?
A secondary progression system where factions earn points by participating in invasions, not just winning.

How it works:

• Factions get points for showing up, not just succeeding.
• Points are awarded for victory, loss , post count milestones, etc. etc.
• Points can be exchanged for rewards like:
  • Super Star Destroyers (existing),
  • Strategic map buffs (extra dominion range, defense boosts, etc.),
  • War Exhaustion.
  • And a bunch of other ideas to be discussed!
• This system supplements hex gains—it doesn't replace them.

Why it matters:
It encourages participation, reduces burnout, and gives factions a reason to keep fighting—even when losing.


War Exhaustion – Add-on Mechanic

What is it?
A way for factions to buy a temporary break from invasions using their earned points.

How it works:

• Factions spend points to activate War Exhaustion.
• For a set cooldown, they can't be invaded or launch invasions.
• They can still dominion, skirmish, and run stories—they're just off the battlefield.
• Due to needing points, it must be earned through participation—it's not granted by default.

Why it matters:
It gives factions a strategic "off-ramp" without needing to implode or surrender. Peace becomes a choice, not a punishment.


Bottom Line:
Factions that engage in war—win or lose—get tools to grow, recover, or plan ahead.
The IPS + War Exhaustion adds structure, sustainability, and story potential without increasing admin workload or replacing existing systems.

Let factions fight harder, last longer, and tell better stories.

EDIT: It would increase workload, its a new system. MB

 

[Diarch Rellik]

I myself personally like the idea as some one who enjoys 4x strategy games. In a sense that you are working for more than just the hex and I like it a lot for the losing side.

Pros: losing is having fun still. - rewards for participation are always exciting.

Cons: more systems = more confusion for new players. - reward system might need staff or judge approval but could be done through submissions as it already is.

 

[Tefka]

I think it has potential but like, we have so many complications already in a game that has very little effort right now.

Feels like we’re theorycrafting DLC for Risk but youve only got like 3 people that wanna play Risk lmao. Like the work to even discuss it doesn’t seem worth the payoff, especially since we’re hitting high summer rn in the States.

 

[Jend-Ro Quill]

Points are awarded for victory, loss , post count milestones, etc. etc.

So something like this? Don't mind me, I'm a little loopy/ under the weather and you've caught my imagination with this.

• Each participating faction gets one Invasion Point per 100 posts in the invasion.
• The winning faction gets two additional Invasion Points.
• Once every six months, a Major Faction that participates in an invasion can award one additional Invasion Point to an opponent.

 

[Tefka]

But im also sunburned to hell and beached out so maybe my brain is fried, ill probably come back to this in a few days when i have more brain cells

 

[Serina Calis]

So something like this? Don't mind me, I'm a little loopy/ under the weather and you've caught my imagination with this.

• Each participating faction gets one Invasion Point per 100 posts in the invasion.
• The winning faction gets two additional Invasion Points.
• Once every six months, a Major Faction that participates in an invasion can award one additional Invasion Point to an opponent.

Something like that, I didn't want to give hard numbers since they can always be decided later.

I think it has potential but like, we have so many complications already in a game that has very little effort right now.

Feels like we’re theorycrafting DLC for Risk but youve only got like 3 people that wanna play Risk lmao. Like the work to even discuss it doesn’t seem worth the payoff, especially since we’re hitting high summer rn in the States.

But im also sunburned to hell and beached out so maybe my brain is fried, ill probably come back to this in a few days when i have more brain cells

Totally fair. The effort-to-payoff ratio is definitely lopsided right now, especially with site activity slowing down. I just figured it was worth floating the idea while the map expansion's still fresh (and I am a damn Australian, so I am starting to hunker indoors for my winter), but yeah, no hard feelings if it's just not the time for it. Appreciate you havin' a look at the idea.

 

[Razmir Tezhyn]

In the spirit of succinctness:

Invasion Point System: I like this idea. It's more ways to incentivize people to do cool stuff and adds options to engage with existing mechanics, which is usually good. It sounds a bit like the current map game with extra steps, but if it's settled into the existing system or becomes an overhaul, then hey could be dope.

War Exhaustion: Attackers are penalized for doing their thing, defenders are forced to keep engaging to prolong stalling. It's made obsolete by the existence of the self-destruct mandate, which already allows the defender to regain hexes they lost while stalling the attacker out. I like more options, but this adds an aspect I'm not a fan of: namely more stalling power. If the goal is shorter conflicts, then other ways to resolve this might work better. As is I get the vibes of eternal stalemates and flipping the burnout game on the attacker.

 

[Serina Calis]

War Exhaustion: Attackers are penalized for doing their thing, defenders are forced to keep engaging to prolong stalling. It's made obsolete by the existence of the self-destruct mandate, which already allows the defender to regain hexes they lost while stalling the attacker out. I like more options, but this adds an aspect I'm not a fan of: namely more stalling power. If the goal is shorter conflicts, then other ways to resolve this might work better. As is I get the vibes of eternal stalemates and flipping the burnout game on the attacker.

It doesn't reward stalling—it's the opposite.
War Exhaustion requires active participation to unlock. A faction can't "stall" to get it—they have to fight and earn points through invasions, even losing ones. This discourages sitting idle and rewards engagement.

It doesn't replace the self-destruct mandate—it supplements it.
Self-destruct is a reactive, faction-killing mechanic. War Exhaustion is a proactive, earned cooldown. One is nuclear, the other is strategic.

It doesn't prolong conflict—it ends it deliberately.
By spending points, a faction can exit the war cleanly without collapsing or ghosting. It shortens burnout arcs, not lengthens them.

In short: it's not a stalling tool, it's a strategic, opt-in ceasefire earned through participation—encouraging more activity, not less.

 

[Tefka]

especially with site activity slowing down.

Site activity is fine its the damn faction activity you gotta worry about during this time of year.

My concerns are almost always feature bloat. New feature creativity isn’t a problem, we have a thousand ideas like this one - its maintaining an active system that people roleplay in thats the problem. Anyone can write new rules, but building an active community and map game like, requires constant effort that new features dont usually help.

I really strongly doubt we’re gonna set off an invasion season in the summertime for our biggest demographic with a “war exhaustion” mechanic.

 

[Serina Calis]

Site activity is fine its the damn faction activity you gotta worry about during this time of year.

My concerns are almost always feature bloat. New feature creativity isn’t a problem, we have a thousand ideas like this one - its maintaining an active system that people roleplay in thats the problem. Anyone can write new rules, but building an active community and map game like, requires constant effort that new features dont usually help.

I really strongly doubt we’re gonna set off an invasion season in the summertime for our biggest demographic with a “war exhaustion” mechanic.

Thanks for the correction!

On feature bloat, totally valid—feature bloat is a real risk, and I get that new mechanics don't fix core engagement issues. My hope with War Exhaustion wasn't to kick off a whole new season, but to offer a lightweight pressure valve considering I have heard numerous people talk about invasion burnout as a core issue in why they don't want more invasions, it was simply a personal observation and if it's a mirage then that's MB. If the timing's wrong or it adds noise, I'm happy to shelve it. Appreciate the clarity.

 

[Razmir Tezhyn]

Serina Calis

War Exhaustion, as I understand it, freezes the conflict without applying pressure on the defender. They get to keep going with their internal story lines, doing doms and gaining hexes, while the attacker has to sit and twiddle their thumbs on their story line until the timer's up. Effectively, defenders can take the L in some invasions, hit pause, dom back their losses elsewhere, then repeat.

Attackers are SOL in that scenario. You can build the system to be restrictive enough and avoid eternal stalling, but then it's slowing down a death spiral or artificially preventing a faction from going minor. And then we're back to the original issue of burnout except now it's on both ends.

I don't see a way that forces the defender out of a stalling loop other than running out of points they can earn back, a problem that self-destruct does not appear to have.

 

[Wedge Draav]

This is adding an immense amount of depth and complication. This feels more like a mechanic in an AOE or true strategy game. I had a hard time wrapping my head around this suggestion, I had to read it several times, between points, breaks, etc.

I don't think we need a mechanic to have people message each other over the internet to say "hey man I need a break, invasions are hard to keep up". I doubt there's many left of the old breed where it was super hardcore PvP, aggressive players who wanted to win more than they wanted a story. Dogpiling invasions was a thing, but I think, in my opinion, it's mostly gone.

But if you're unable to communicate with other people over the internet about what you want to do, or be earnest and honest with people about how you're feeling, what your faction is feeling, etc, I don't think a rule or mandate or update or whatever will help you.

 

[Serina Calis]

Serina Calis

War Exhaustion, as I understand it, freezes the conflict without applying pressure on the defender. They get to keep going with their internal story lines, doing doms and gaining hexes, while the attacker has to sit and twiddle their thumbs on their story line until the timer's up. Effectively, defenders can take the L in some invasions, hit pause, dom back their losses elsewhere, then repeat.

Attackers are SOL in that scenario. You can build the system to be restrictive enough and avoid eternal stalling, but then it's slowing down a death spiral or artificially preventing a faction from going minor. And then we're back to the original issue of burnout except now it's on both ends.

I don't see a way that forces the defender out of a stalling loop other than running out of points they can earn back, a problem that self-destruct does not appear to have.

That's a fair concern, and I agree—unchecked stalling is bad for everyone. But War Exhaustion isn't a free pause button. It costs Invasion Points, which can only be earned by actively participating in invasions. If a faction keeps losing and hiding behind War Exhaustion, they'll eventually run out of points—that's the natural limiter. And unlike Self Destruct, it doesn't force map decay or narrative collapse. It's a strategic resource, not a safety net. The moment a faction stops showing up, they lose access to the mechanic entirely.

Meanwhile, attackers aren't locked out of the game. They can prepare, pivot to another front, run dominions, or even reap their own IP by engaging in other conflicts. Campaign pacing is the goal here—not freezing one side, but giving wars actual arcs with highs, lows, and recovery phases. It's about making war sustainable, not endless.

This is adding an immense amount of depth and complication. This feels more like a mechanic in an AOE or true strategy game. I had a hard time wrapping my head around this suggestion, I had to read it several times, between points, breaks, etc.

I don't think we need a mechanic to have people message each other over the internet to say "hey man I need a break, invasions are hard to keep up". I doubt there's many left of the old breed where it was super hardcore PvP, aggressive players who wanted to win more than they wanted a story. Dogpiling invasions was a thing, but I think, in my opinion, it's mostly gone.

But if you're unable to communicate with other people over the internet about what you want to do, or be earnest and honest with people about how you're feeling, what your faction is feeling, etc, I don't think a rule or mandate or update or whatever will help you.

Totally fair take—and I agree that communication is always the best first option. But systems like this aren't meant to replace conversation; they're meant to support it when it breaks down, which inevitably happens. Not everyone plays the game the same way, and not every faction conflict is built on trust or mutual OOC understanding. The mechanic isn't for "hey man can I have a break" scenarios—it's for when that break isn't given.

Also, it's only as complex as the community wants it to be. The IPS/War Exhaustion combo adds structure to what already exists organically: fight, burn out, vanish, repeat. This just gives that loop pacing and consequence. If dogpiling is mostly gone, great—this might not be needed often. But when it is, it should be an option that doesn't require going minor or burning out.

 

[Valery Noble]

Personally not a fan of bloating things with more and more mechanics. We haven't had salt wars in a very long time, so any system to try and tackle that scenario seems completely pointless to me.

The only "issue" I could see being argued right now with the system is that invasions have less impact because the map is bigger. But I'm personally fine with that too.

The climate between factions hasn't been to genuinely fight each other off the map and I've been staff in factions for 4 years now. Tell good stories, think ahead more than one invasion with plots and leave some up to chance with wins/losses and it's fine with me.

I have zero interest in playing Risk in RP, but that might just be me.