Star Wars Roleplay: Chaos

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Suggestion Limit Capital Planet Changes

Presently, there are no rules that limit how often a Major Faction can change their Capital Planet. Theoretically, there is a huge loop hole to abuse this, and Majors can have their capital changed every week or every month if they so pleased.

However, changing one's capital isn't really a simple thing to do; consider the logistics, the paperwork, the movement of forces. It's not really something that any nation can simply do with a snap of their fingers, and it should be considered a huge thing.

My proposal is that we limit these changes.

In the event that a Major Faction does not lose their capital due to an invasion or a nomad move, changing capital planets should only be optional once every 6 months.

This will also go hand in hand with the existing rule regarding changing a Major Faction's name, which is currently limited to once every 6 months.
 
Theoretically, IRL nations can and have for centuries changed capitals in relatively short spans of time. It's not entirely inconceivable that they might be able to do it in Chaos either, particularly larger nations with greater resources, larger ships/fleets, militaries, etc. Changing a capital is not a move they should make lightly, as often when a capital has been so for some time, there's a great number of subs associated with it, e.g. planetary defenses, space stations, location subs, lore subs, et al. None of those will travel to the 'new' capital, and thus there's a built-in cost for making these sorts of changes. One that can require many hours to make and submit the necessary submissions to recreate those 'entrenchments' if you will. So a capital shift can be a risky move, as the new capital may be less defended, less 'built up' than the previous one, and caution and care should be taken when choosing to make such a move and where exactly such a move should be made to.

As Ra Vizsla Ra Vizsla points out also, OOC, permission is needed from the site staff to make these changes each time, and this does make the process much less automatic and laissez-faire. Taken together - the inherent risks/costs of moving IC and the OOC permissions required - moving a capital is then neither instant nor is it casual. Just looking at it through the eyes of a Factory/Codex Judge, the sheer costs of having to replace or recreate submissions (often many of them) to regain what is sacrificed in such a move ought to be enough to cause any reasonable faction to at least pause before undertaking such an action. It shouldn't be done lightly, and there are risks and penalties inherent IC as well as OOC permissions which be given for such a move to happen.

Just my $0.02..... crawls back in my cave with my scotch
 
Well-Known Member
I don't have much of an opinion here, but I would like to point out that a loop hole in this suggestion doesn't account for Galactic Nomads, which can literally jump ship, capital and all, every month if they wanted to.

You could say this is unique to the mandate, since they allow you to break the rules a little bit, and that'd be fair.

Also tbh, Capitals aren't actually that important. They are hard nuts to crack but if lost, functionally don't do anything to a faction other than losing a hex (so losing a typical invasion).
 
Fatty Fatty I specified that this is for cases in which it's not a nomad move :)

Losing capitals has changed - it's no longer like a normal hex.

 
Well-Known Member
I read it, I still posit it doesn't do anything to the one losing their capital. It's just a fancy nut to crack (as in it is more difficult than a typical hex).

Although upon re-reading it I find it peculiar that the victor in defending their capital can take any non-adjacent hex. This seems like nonsense, it should be any adjacent hex to simulate the defenders pushing back against the aggressors.

I'll be making my own suggestion here shortly.
 
Changing capital hexes often seems like something that wouldn't really benefit a faction though? I mean, I guess a 14 day limit or something similar (twice a month? Once a month?) would be fair if there's something I'm not aware of.

Changing it every 6 months though is rather extreme, I don't agree with the rule for changing faction names even existing, much less for it being that long of a period, but that has no mechanical effect on a faction beyond what it calls itself out-of-character. 6 months is like 2 years in chaos time, it takes a real, democratic, country less than that time to get capital cities changed, and many factions on chaos are totalitarian or authoritarian to the extent of not needing to wait for a senate to vote on such a proposal like the US would.
 
I see no harm in a limit, though I would advise on something smaller than 6 months-- it removes the narrative option of a government in turmoil. There are consequences, both IC and OOC to moving your capitol, so really only those that need it for narrative purposes will be the ones to bite the bullet. 6 months just hurts the narrative.

Sure someone can not care about the consequences, but that has the same damaging effect as, say, ignoring an invasion. OOC, you make stuff worse for you. In that sense, we're pretty self policing here.

This seems like a precautionary measure for future problems. Neither bad nor good, just an observation.

Just my two cents on how to keep creative opportunities open.

Love dem stories that break the mold. <3
 
Last edited:
Scherezade deWinter Scherezade deWinter

I don't agree. Why?

Well, most planets on Chaos have been fleshed out by like a lot, which makes it easier for Major Factions to move around.

Take Korriban and Bastion for example. Korriban has already been devolved here enough that the Sith Empire considers it another capital. So if the TSE wanted to move Korriban, logically it would be easy.

I'm just saying if a Major Faction is going to move it's capital, thier ownership (and almost always staff) should choose a logical choice with expanded history and landmarks and etc.
 
Major Faction

Ryv

Paragon of Sacrifice
I'm more interested seeing rules put in place that stops a major from moving capitals due to losing invasions that'll see it taken.

A cool down seems reasonable. Maybe only once a month? Twice a month means a faction on the run can potentially kite through their territory as much as they like. The system should support factions being eradicated by one another.
 
I'm more interested seeing rules put in place that stops a major from moving capitals due to losing invasions that'll see it taken.

A cool down seems reasonable. Maybe only once a month? Twice a month means a faction on the run can potentially kite through their territory as much as they like. The system should support factions being eradicated by one another.
The rules as they stand explicitly force a major faction to change its capital in the case of losing their then-current capital hex. There's no incentive for a major faction to just hopscotch around their cloud.
 
The rules as they stand explicitly force a major faction to change its capital in the case of losing their then-current capital hex. There's no incentive for a major faction to just hopscotch around their cloud.

I believe he's talking about a faction preemptively moving their capital hex before an invasion judgment is rendered where the defending faction may lose, and potentially lose connection with portions of their influence cloud. So, there's plenty of incentive for a major faction to play hopscotch in that regard, as they get to remain a major faction for a while longer.

While I'd hope these situations would be taken as a case by case basis, I'd personally like to see something written in stone so no one cries foul or points fingers at exploited loopholes. A cooldown of every 30 or 60 days seems sensible to me. If it takes a major faction 60 days to be able to re-apply for a major status, moving capital's hexes should fall into the same timeframe. Yes, it's pretty clear that there's a plethora of methods in which to ICly have Governments move their capitals all-willy-nilly, but I'm more concerned about the OOC balancing act to make sure everyone's playing by the same rules, and having fun.

EDIT: That aforementioned potential would be if another major faction was able to win a string of invasions surrounding the capital hex of the defenders. A visual example of what I'm trying to convey would be where the CIS' old capital was, before it moved to Naboo, as two more Invasion loses would separated the entire cloud from the Capital hex - turning everything that wasn't Geonosis neutral.
 
Last edited:
Well-Known Member
I believe he's talking about a faction preemptively moving their capital hex before an invasion judgment is rendered where the defending faction may lose, and potentially lose connection with portions of their influence clouds. So, there's plenty of incentive for a major faction to play hopscotch in that regard, as they get to remain a major faction for a while longer.

While I'd hope these situations would be taken as a case by case basis, I'd personally like to see something written in stone so no one cries foul or points fingers at exploited loopholes. A cooldown of every 30 or 60 days seems sensible to me. If it takes a major faction 60 days to be able to re-apply for a major status, moving capital's hexes should fall into the same timeframe. Yes, it's pretty clear that there's a plethora of methods in which to ICly have Governments move their capitals all-willy-nilly, but I'm more concerned about the OOC balancing act to make sure everyone's playing by the same rules, and having fun.

Emphasis mine.

Losing a capital does not constitute a faction dying, only in the case where it is their only hex. There is little incentive to move pre-emptively, as the advantages of it being a Capital Hex means the balance of risk is very much in their favor (if the invaders lose, they not only lose the invasion but one of their hexes as a consequence). If they do move it, you might lose a tiny bit of story potential for sacking a nation's capital, but in actuality, they are just making the invader's job easier by leveling the playing field (as far as risk/reward is concerned).

Capital's are highly defendable Hexes in the game, and taking one gives the invader nothing but bragging rights for doing it despite the risk of losing it. If a faction chooses to move it around, it is still up to the OOC consideration of site staff. If the site staff think it's too recent a move, they will either delay it until they deem it sensible or tell them to ask again at another time.

Nothing needs to be written in stone that which can already be accomplished by the powers that be, in our present system.
 
I do realize that Capital hexes have become quite different with the new rule changes, and that it amps up the whole risk or reward factor. It's a subtle way of incorporating an "all or nothing" assault that could spell disaster for the invaders if they fail, which may or may not galvanize them to push themselves all the harder - both IC and OOCly.

However, in that same vein - there should be something to somewhat balance the scales in everyone's favour. Something that'd ideally discourage a major faction from moving their capital hex around the map to save what territory they can. I get that it's up to the admin's discretion to approve or deny the change, but - personally - I'd like to have something with a little more backing than an unwritten rule, or a nebulous clause.

I also realize that not every scenario where a capital hex is invaded will make or break a faction. It'll likely be something that's situational and happen every now and again. I'm just trying to approach this from what I've seen, and the potential that may arise again in the future - as history has a bad habit of repeating itself. lol
 
Well-Known Member
EDIT: That aforementioned potential would be if another major faction was able to win a string of invasions surrounding the capital hex of the defenders. A visual example of what I'm trying to convey would be where the CIS' old capital was, before it moved to Naboo, as two more Invasion loses would separated the entire cloud from the Capital hex - turning everything that wasn't Geonosis neutral.

I didn't see this before posting.

Playing devils advocate here and countering with this:

If you were an intergalactic government, and you've lost enough invasions to an enemy, and you saw the writing on the wall that there was a potential risk of losing control of your outer systems by being cut off in a future conflict: would you not move your decision-makers and policy writers to a more secure location away from the frontlines?

It's a move of self-preservation, and a believable one. I see it as possible, and something similar to these circumstances happened in the Republic vs One Sith War if I am not mistaken. It wasn't received very well then either, but that whole thing was a huge salt mine anyway so a drop in the bucket...

But maybe there is something to be said about a cooldown. Regardless, however, the CIS move would have been a legal and sensible thing to do anyway, as Geonosis was their capital for a long time. No such cooldown would have prevented them from making such a move, realistically.
 
I'd wager it depends on the intergalactic government that you're roleplaying as. If by some miracle of miracles, the Thyrsian Hierarchy somehow managed to make it into the "Big Leagues" and Thyrsus was threatened by a foreign power? The narrative we'd work towards would be one of do or die - there'd be no retreat for us, no matter how big our Stellar Empire / Influence Cloud would be.

So, it's very situational in that regard.

Now, I do recognize and see the motive for self-preservation. I'm not knocking that in any way. For me - it's the possibility of it happening multiple times within a relatively short period. Say a major faction keeps changing their capital every two weeks, and the staff approves the change every time for whatever reason. It'd be tiresome as an invading faction to constantly be bashing your head into a brick wall, as the quarry keeps escaping for OOC reasons - rather than for meaningful IC reasons.

If everything was dealt with and handled ICly - we'd be golden, and unlikely to have discussing these rules or any additions to them. But, this is Chaos. It's literally in the name. lol
 
Chancellor Emerita / Advisor of State
I am glad the staff has already indicated they will discuss this. From a story-based perspective, the idea that a faction with a government as massive as the GA's for example could just up and move several times in the span of 6 months is a little unbelievable. I do understand the OOC strategic advantages of moving a capital when a cloud break is imminent because realistically an IC faction would have time to take notice and execute an evacuation as CIS did recently. But that would ideally exhaust a faction's resources for such a massive move unless their member planets were all equipped to handle a rotating capital planet such as the New Republic's member worlds were. This would also increase the impetus on Factions strategically planning their capital location to reduce the potential for further issues.

Just my thoughts :)
 

Kairi Leidias

Guest
K
EDIT: That aforementioned potential would be if another major faction was able to win a string of invasions surrounding the capital hex of the defenders. A visual example of what I'm trying to convey would be where the CIS' old capital was, before it moved to Naboo, as two more Invasion loses would separated the entire cloud from the Capital hex - turning everything that wasn't Geonosis neutral.

Hey now, we Naboo are a peaceful people. We didn’t do nothing.

Nah, but a cooldown of sorts would be fine but not to that length. I mean, realistically-ish, this is Star Wars. Moving capitals within a sphere of influence should and would not be that difficult. I mean the New Republic from the EU did it multiple times during the Dark Empire.

Just my thoughts. I have minimal stake in this but yeah.

I think, based off all these posts recently, everyone needs to relax. Step back and remember this is a game, a place to tell stories and make friends who share a common interest.

Maybe some LOA for a few days should be in order but do you and what you think you can handle. And no, I am speaking to no one in particular just broad stroking it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom