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 Major Faction: Capital Planets

Totally A New Member
Moderator
MAJOR FACTION CAPITALS

Faction Capital Hexes are represented as planet icons on the Galaxy Map.

1. Each faction, upon creation, will name one planet / hex as it's "Major Faction's Capital".

2. Factions may not invade a Major Faction Capital containing the capital planet unless they have occupied a neighboring hex or the Major Faction has only its capital hex remaining.

3. Major Faction Capitals may only be gained by another Faction by being declared the target of an Invasion.

4. If a Major Faction successfully defends their Capital they may take any non-capital adjacent hex from the attacker. Alternatively, they may render any non-capital hex from the attacker as neutral as though they had successfully invaded it.


5. Major Faction Capitals may be requested to be changed only once per IRL year via the Map Update Request thread.

6. When a Major Faction Capital is invaded, the defending Major Faction loses it's current Mandate and may not request a new one until the end of the Invasion thread.

4. The Major Faction Capital Hex may not be the target of Rebellions.

5. If a faction with more than one hex loses its capital due to an invasion it must choose a replacement capital from the hexes it currently controls. That hex then becomes the faction's capital.

6. In the event a one hex Major Faction loses an invasion targeting their Capital, that Major Faction will automatically be reduced to Minor Faction status. This faction must then wait a minimum of 60 days before they can resubmit an application for Major Faction status.


7. In the event a Major Faction Capital is lost, the losing Major Faction may not initiate Invasions until the Faction has won an Invasion, Rebellion, or completed three Dominions.
 
I see no reason why a capital change should be limited to 1 year, while everything else (Mandates) can be changed on a sixty day basis. Why not make these numbers identical?

I would also agree with Scher, I fail to see the purpose behind stripping a Mandate for a capital invasion. I could understand if it was meant to be the final stand of a faction, but given that there are some factions (TSE, UCM) that have dealt with capital invasions while still having a very strong influence cloud, it makes no sense to be forced to remove their mandate for the duration of the invasion, unless it were to change to a specific Capital Invasion mandate. (Currently no input on what such a Mandate would look like).

Also, assuming that winning a Capital Hex Invasion removes a faction from the map entirely, what's the expectation on how the faction re-joins the map game?
 
I think there's great stuff here, but 5 and 6 make me squint.

5. Major Faction Capitals may be requested to be changed only once per IRL year via the Map Update Request thread.

6. When a Major Faction Capital is invaded, the defending Major Faction loses it's current
Mandate
and may not request a new one until the end of the Invasion thread.


You're taking the legs out from under a faction that's already compromised, while requiring they live longer to do anything about it?


Nah that undermines a lot and favors those that want to destroy over those that want to preserver.

Zed OP, rito balance pls.

Everything else tho, 100%
 
Well-Known Member
You know, I was hesitant on this suggestion at first blush due to the mandate thing, but after reviewing the Mandates I don't see the Mandates as being a huge problem. If you've lost your capital there are few things else that are significant enough to lose other than more hexes.

With the current rules in place, invading a capital is 100% risk for the offensive faction (if they lose, they lose hex(s), if they win it's just a normal invasion), and the only malus the defending faction receives is losing a hex and needing to relocate the capital hex.

Losing the Mandate would be a good cost for losing something so important (look at it as losing the proper administration on the capital to continue a factions previous policies). Winning an invasion/rebellion or three doms then indicates a recovery after a massive loss.

Also take into consideration a Mandate like Galactic Nomads. If they lose their capital, they could potentially just jump away despite suffering what should be a very bad loss. Preventing Mandate shenanigans like that is in my eyes a good thing. It's hard enough to hit a faction that can move wherever. Now something tricky comes along with a Mandate like Fortress Worlds since they have, in essence, three Capitals. Does this mean if they lose any of their Fortress Worlds they now lose the Mandate? Or does only their "true" Capital count in this case?

It's also interesting to note that if a faction chooses Vagrant Fleet, short of being destroyed, they can never lose their Mandate by virtue of not having a Capital to begin with.

I think it's a good idea to limit capital changes to once a year, since that's pretty much how often it happens anyway. Since at current, there seems to be no stipulation on how often that can change. Given how important a Capital is, I think the length at which it can change should be greater than the changes for Mandates.
 
Fatty Fatty Yeah! great points for the strength of each. like for sure 5 and 6 on their own are hella cool and add something worth noting,

but i think they are working against each other together

like are we trying to shake up the map and have things be fast pace and easy to take down?

Or are we trying to elongate situations by having them sit on a year cool down? People can want a change for more than just invasions! Why lock THEM into a corner?

Note its the year cool down thats odd here. We could have more success with this by simply making capitol changes REALLY undesirable if done in a shorter time frame. Then you hit the people using it to escape invasions, not the others just working off a narrative of their own.

Punish that shit-- take stuff away THEN. Then we can still have that theme of fast pace and heavy consequences while not dragging things out for a year for everyone else.

Independently they both achieve neat stuff, but together ... they aren't singing the same tune imo!

And that's my two cents, cheers!
 
I just want to make it super clear that TSE is not facing a capital hex invasion.

I was asked by our opposition to move our capital hex, it wasn't changed to avoid an invasion. There is no point in using the moving of capital hexes to avoid invasions, the drawbacks for losing an offensive invasion on a capital hex are punishing enough.
 
Totally A New Member
Moderator
Hailyn Hailyn

It's not my understanding that TSE used their recent capital change defensively, no.

Edit: I don't think you're correct in your statement about there being no point in using the movement of capital hexes to avoid cloud breaks, though. I think it's either the biggest reason, or the second biggest reason, to move your capital.
 
Definitely Not Tefka Definitely Not Tefka
If the defending faction has absolutely no hope in successfully defending, sure. But the only times I can recall major factions moving capital hexes to avoid invasions was during the invasions of the One Sith v Galactic Republic post-Netherworld event. I've never seen it be an issue beyond that, if you even want to call that an issue.

If moving capitals is going to get a cooldown then you shouldn't be able to remotely target hexes you aren't adjacent to for invasions to neutralize cloud around a major faction's capital to strangle them.
 
From a story perspective, ask yourself- what happened when the Empire lost the Death Star, or the Republic Coruscant in the Old Republic? It was a devastating blow to their faction, their government, and their morale. And it also, provided a lot of story-board ideas, and major themes that lasted through several EU works.

From my perspective, the map game has plagued the writing community for a while. And this- this is a serious repercussion of losing a war.

Star Wars.

It's even in the name. War is brutal, hellish, and costs people their lives, their livelihoods, just about everything that a person can have, war can take. If we introduce the threat of losing much more than just a name on a planet, with serious consequences to losing, then we introduce threats back into Invasions.

I am however, disliking the actual out-of-character year timeframe. I think a few months, is more realistic, as Major Factions change hands. For example, look at the Mandalorians a year ago, to the Mandalorians now- a year OOC would practically put a cap on shifting their posture.

Which I suppose, is the point, isn't it?

My half cent.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom