Invasion Recalls

[Darth Bellum]

So, after four invasions were announced this month and all were either withdrawn from or forfeited, I thought it might be prudent to implement some sort of system that would more or less discourage making hasty and ill thought out announcements. I personally love invasions, they generate a lot of hype and activity on the board as well as enthusiasm for participating factions; I also loathe when they aren't seen through to the end or are cancelled long before they even start.

In some circumstances, I can understand wanting to back down - such as the Jen'ari who would have had to have dealt with 3 invasions on their end (Two Defending, One Attacking), but in scenarios like the NR against the CIC which was just a hasty and not well thought out announcement, there is little excuse for not thinking it through. While I'm in no position to say anything on behalf of the CIC or the NR, to me it just seemed that the NR jumped the gun without considering the mandates that both they and the CIC had in place then realized how much support the CIC was getting and that they would be receiving none, hence pulling out from the invasion.

My suggestion to discourage future invasion announcements being pulled back due to poor decision making is either a) Place the faction in question on a probationary period where they cannot declare an invasion (ie 60 days or however long is enough to discourage it from happening) and/or allowing the defending faction to receive a free hex near the originally intended invasion hex (This more or less discourages factions that decide to back down from giving free territory to the intended target). And this suggestion would be implemented from now going forward, and not affect the previous four invasions announced.

Edit - Stop giving me soft chubs, my war boner wants to fight.

 

[Kahlil Noble]

I completely agree with this idea.

 

[Samka Derith]

I'm not strongly opposed but my first response is asking why?

Is this a problem which is a detriment to the current Chaos environment? Does it justify further red tape and rules for staff volunteers to act upon?

I get some people may find it frustrating but nothing is truly lost by an invasion being withdrawn. I'm not a fan of more rules, conditions and punishments handed down for what seems a pretty trivial reason.

 

[Darth Bellum]

Well, there is (to my knowledge) already a system that punishes people forfeiting invasions - They lose their hex. This suggestion is more or less harmless to both sides from here going forward because neither side loses or gains anything. I see this as more of a stop sign; stop, check yourself to make sure you're good to go and then proceed once you're sure you can go. But as far as my suggestion goes, it cuts back not well-thought ideas and actually encourages factions to interact with each other to come up with something that writers from both sides can enjoy that is well thought out rather than an impulsive, "Oh look there's this tiny new faction on the board, let's go kark it" or "Let's pick a fight with the biggest, baddest motherkarker on the board".

To me it would remove some animosity that some factions feel towards one another as well (To an extent at least) and help to possibly develop a more cohesive long term story/rivalries between factions rather than one faction realizing "Oh poodoo, I don't think I actually ever want to mess/write with these guys ever again, because we're just gonna end up flaking out." to "Let's actually plan something with this faction that we see as a potential rival, plan for the long term, and boost both faction activity by just bouncing back off one another rather than have this flash in the pan lovetap for the sake of invasion."

[member="Samka Derith"]

 

[Kurayami Bloodborn]

While I can agree with the sentiment behind this, and the basic idea, when announcing an invasion one needs to realize it may end up not only bringing the wrath of the targeted faction, but also the possibility of counter invasion by other factions. Why should that be discouraged? If Faction A announces an invasion and gets hit with two counter invasions from the targeted faction and another unaffiliated faction it may be a signal that you somehow gained the ire of more than one major. However instead of trying to find a way to work out things OOC you simply decide to absorb the loss and lose two hexes.

Instead of taking the chance to defend your hexes, even through diplomatic means, you take a guaranteed loss. That comes down to pride and due to that I feel that it is more than fair that the defenders are penalized for refusing to try and find any sort of solution. If it ain't broke, don't fix it...and the system as it sits ain't broke.

2 cents from an outsider.

 

[Jsc]

I do alot of stupid stuff publicly. Other people do alot of stupid stuff publicly. Sure. But If we start making rules about every little thing that annoys us, we'll all die of stupidity.

I say nah. It's mostly a people thing anyway.

 

[Captain Jordan]

I actually like the idea of penalizing a faction for declaring an invasion and then canceling. Can you imagine a country declaring war on another and then refusing to attack?

But I don't think this should grant the defending faction an automatic bonus, to prevent anyone from milking the system. Rather, I think it should provide a single-use bonus to apply to a counter invasion on the cowardly attacker's faction declared within 7 days of the canceled invasion.

Perhaps doubling the amount of ally slots (or providing a standard 5 if the mandate is Defensive Stronghold)? This would represent the kind of mobilization that would happen to a faction ICly when facing the threat of invaders and the catalytic action that the war declaration would have on the faction's IC allies.

This bonus creates a not-insurmountable strategy to deter factions from impulsively declaring invasions and then canceling them (which creates OOC drama) and helps realistically represent the kind of military response a faction would have ICly to an enemy unwilling to follow through on their planned attack.

No changes would be made to defending factions forfeiting an invasion, the penalties are already steep enough there.

 

[sabrina]

[member="Kor Vexen"] I think they already pay a penalty for forfeiting an invasion, we laugh about it.
Which is far worse, than anything staff can do. (honest)

 

[Jaeson Starchaser]

Can you imagine a country declaring war on another and then refusing to attack?

The Phoney War? A lot of people (probably completely wrongly to be honest, but I've read this twice in the last handful of days) believe France could have ended the war in the first month or so after it declared war against Germany. Almost the entire German army was in Poland and when France initially marched into Germany it meant token or no resistance. But then they stopped. And sort of sat around for awhile. wee wee baguette. We all know how this ended.

There is a few more examples from WWI and earlier, especially weird colonial wars, but this is the most fun. Everyone likes WWII references and stories. But yeah this is actually pretty common for small nations in Africa or Asia declaring war on a colonial power only to sit there waiting for the other nation to attack. How does a landlocked nation attack England? Not really applicable on the board really as Factions are pretty much ye olde colonial powers.

 

[Captain Jordan]

Not really applicable on the board really as Factions are pretty much ye olde colonial powers.

Pretty much. I respect the reference, and I think that's very possible. It's why I'd much prefer there to be no automatic benefits to having an invasion canceled on your faction, but it has to be something that comes from responding to it.

In a board analogy, the Phoney War would be like our Skirmishes, which also can replicate border tensions and sovereignty violating raids that happen in the real world. And the little powers declaring war on the colonial power is not unlike our minor factions claiming war on a Major, only to sit there unable to fight (I'm sure many of us have witnessed at least one Chaos skirmish where the defenders never showed up).

As you've framed it here, a big colonial power declaring war on another colonial power and then doing nothing would be an exceptional circumstance. Even in Chaos history, it's still an exceptional circumstance, most invasions get a follow through and complete with a clear winner declared.

In those exceptional circumstances when there's both an aggressor who won't follow through and a defender who is willing to take the fight to their would-be aggressor, my bonus suggestion would provide both a fun mechanic and a useful consequence for factions who recklessly wave their sword around.

 

[Scherezade deWinter]

I agree with [member="sabrina"] here. Cancelling an invasion does bad things to your faction's reputation, even if it was bad to begin with, even if the reasons are 100000000000% legit. That alone is sufficient. No need to penalize the canceling faction, no need to give them perks.