Suggestion Mandate: Insurrection Campaign

[Cassus Akovin]

I will first preface this by saying that I acknowledge and recognize that site staff is not currently interested in playing around with the mandates due to their relatively recent complete overhaul, however, I had an idea that I thought was worth entertaining anyway. So here it is:

Insurrection Campaign
"Insurrection is an art, and like all arts has its own laws." -Leon Trotsky
Strength: When this faction invades, in lieu of taking hexes it can choose to remove the defending factions mandate, and prevent it from choosing a new one for 60 days upon victory.

Imagine a faction that is all about the destabilization of other governments, or a faction with a specific enemy that they need to weaken from within first before they can reasonable invade. This is the general theme of the mandate, causing an enemy to lose sight of a part of its identity through funded insurrection. My inspiration for this stems directly from the Mandate Relentless Horde:

Relentless Horde
"If you had not committed such great sins, God would not have set a punishment like me upon you." -Genghis Khan
Strength: This Major Faction may invade two different Major Factions simultaneously.
Strength: This Major Faction may submit a completed Invasion thread as a Dominion to the Map Update thread to claim an unrelated hex.
Weakness: At any point while this Mandate is active, Major Factions on the map may not move or change their Capital Planets.

I will add the disclaimer that I have no personal grievances or stakes in The Brotherhood of the Maw, their choice in Mandates, GA, TSE, or anyone involved therein and adjacent. I will, however, be using them as an example due to their unique status of being the first to create the situation I find disagreeable under the new rule set.

To me, there isn't an answer to the Mandate at all, and not because of its strengths but because of its "weakness". Personally, I can't think of any reason why moving capitals could be prevented IC, and have come to begrudgingly accept that its just going to be a part of the game. As an outside observer, the power of the mandate is already readily apparent of how powerful it is before the Brotherhood of the Maw has even gotten a chance to invade anyone. Simply by adopting it they have completely changed the game across the map in an unprecedented manner, preventing TSE from moving their capital and putting them in serious threat of losing a majority of their territory due to their capitals current placement.

Spoiler: Map

Red = Currently being Judged invaded territory
Yellow = At risk territory in the event of TSE loss/GA victory

Perhaps without even really intending to.

Spoiler: Distance Between

Yellow= Indicates distance between factions affected

The only thing that can be done about this Mandate, is to either 1) not need to move your capital, like my own faction and several others, or 2) kindly ask them to not use it, and if they say no, tough cookies.

This seems like a grave imbalance, and while I don't think it should have been introduced, now that it has been I don't think it aught to be "nerfed". Instead, I think there needs to be a reasonable introduction of a game mechanic that addresses this perceived issue, that still requires work to accomplish. Ergo, the ability to unilaterally void Mandates via successful invasions presents the perfect opportunity to add a significant layer of strategy to the map game and bringing the Mandates back down to relatively equal-par, or at least ensure that no Mandate isn't without a complementary answer.

Thank you for the time reading this, I hope this sparks a useful discussion. Further suggestions welcomed.

 

[Jorik Valnora]

While I understand you concern, and there is validity with it, this is all part of the Map Game as a whole. I'd be lying to you if I said this wasn't brought up before when the mechanic was introduced in the overhaul, but I don't see it changing.

Part of the purpose of the overhaul of the mandates was to put more weight into what happens with the map. While this ability locks all capitals and factions in place, it makes it so that a faction cannot leap its capital elsewhere simply to avoid being hit. And losing large parts of your cloud are the risks you run with the way you build your cloud. You build long and narrow, you leave yourself more open to a large cloud break. You build evening and not so narrow, you can better defend yourself for a large break. It's the volatility of the map games and reinforces that nothing is guaranteed when it comes to this game.

If you want this sort of thing to stick better and have a better chance of being considered, my suggestion would be to flesh it out more. As it stands now, I don't see much application outside of a knee-jerk reaction to attempt and nullify, or cancel, the drawback of another Mandate.

I would also have a concern for a Faction if they're allowing a Mandate to drive their Faction and not the stories they create within it.

 

[Gerwald Lechner]

Cassus Akovin I happen to agree with you here that relentless horde is a horrible mandate, but I am going to come from a slightly different angle.

The weakness on relentless horde is not actually a weakness, but a third strength because it impacts EVERY major faction. It is an extremely OP mandate. The way to keep it and not nerf it entirely is a simple word change that would make it a true weakness to the Major faction which uses it.

Weakness: While this Mandate is active, that Major Faction may not move or change their Capital Planet.

That being said, in my opinion, mandates are not IC in anyway, and are part of the OOC meta of the game.

 

[AMCO]

I'll be honest, I'm not a huge fan of Relentless Horde's mechanics; I can see the logic of including some way or another to lock down Capital Planets to spice up that weird Map Game thing people feel so strongly about, I just don't enjoy this one's indiscriminate nature.​

I don't mean to denigrate the Brotherhood of the Maw's murderous prowess, mind you, I just find it odd that it applies to every other Major.​

This is where I would suggest them designating one or more other Majors to mess with, but that just seems like too much extra work for Staff.​

I suppose I should suggest an alternative, shouldn't I?​

While this is active, other Major Factions may try to move their Capital... but Major Factions with this Mandate may choose to Rebellion their desired Capital. The move is only completed if the mover wins the Rebellion, if it loses the Relentless Horde can turn hexes neutral as per usual.​

It's what Khorne would want, Blood for the Blood God. Also low-key an excuse to try to make Rebellions happen.​

(P.S. This would give Relentless Horde three Strengths and no Weaknesses, but no matter. It's not like it was much of a Strength, to begin with - the Major Faction with the Mandate is the only one who can choose to move their Capital by, well, switching out the Mandate.)​

 

[Cassus Akovin]

While I understand you concern, and there is validity with it, this is all part of the Map Game as a whole. I'd be lying to you if I said this wasn't brought up before when the mechanic was introduced in the overhaul, but I don't see it changing.

Part of the purpose of the overhaul of the mandates was to put more weight into what happens with the map. While this ability locks all capitals and factions in place, it makes it so that a faction cannot leap its capital elsewhere simply to avoid being hit. And losing large parts of your cloud are the risks you run with the way you build your cloud. You build long and narrow, you leave yourself more open to a large cloud break. You build evening and not so narrow, you can better defend yourself for a large break. It's the volatility of the map games and reinforces that nothing is guaranteed when it comes to this game.

If you want this sort of thing to stick better and have a better chance of being considered, my suggestion would be to flesh it out more. As it stands now, I don't see much application outside of a knee-jerk reaction to attempt and nullify, or cancel, the drawback of another Mandate.

I would also have a concern for a Faction if they're allowing a Mandate to drive their Faction and not the stories they create within it.

Though it's in reference to a different mandate, this is me on their first release: https://www.starwarsrp.net/threads/age-of-chaos-mandates.147123/post-1996397

I've hated this mandate the moment it was conceived and not a moment later, so this is not a knee jerk reaction. In fact, I've waited since December to see how it would all play out.

You've also neglected to see that the suggested Mandate has more uses than countering a single Mandate. Imagine someone wants to invade Darkwire, but feel put off that a significant percent of our territory is protected by Fortress Worlds. To mitigate that risk, you take this mandate, win the invasion, and bereft Darkwire of its most significant tactical advantage in the map game.

The trade off being that in order to do that, you elect to delay winning additional territory. It's a strategic decision, as much as, if not more than the location of any Capitals. Mandates are powerful, otherwise Factions wouldn't pick them for their unique benefits. Allowing them to be lost through hostile action is just as compelling a strategy as winning hexes, or breaking clouds.

I'd also like to remind you of the disclaimer I put up, I have absolutely zero concern about the example factions involved, they are merely being pointed out as the first example of exactly what I disliked from the mandate since the very beginning. My suggestion is inspired by my dislike for Relentless Horde, but that should not dissuade you from seeing the Mandate I've suggested as being its own separate entity. Nothing else can prevent a faction from taking a Mandate short of being eliminated from the map, so having some interplay in the game with this mechanic would be interesting for me to see.

Cassus Akovin I happen to agree with you here that relentless horde is a horrible mandate, but I am going to come from a slightly different angle.

The weakness on relentless horde is not actually a weakness, but a third strength because it impacts EVERY major faction. It is an extremely OP mandate. The way to keep it and not nerf it entirely is a simple word change that would make it a true weakness to the Major faction which uses it.



That being said, in my opinion, mandates are not IC in anyway, and are part of the OOC meta of the game.

To a large extent I agree with you, but I feel like Mandates are more like Theming, which is not strictly IC but definitely influences it. It makes sense for example, that in some factions worlds are more protected, or that some factions are hyperaggressive and expand more, or more interested in Diplomacy and thus engage in it more powerfully, etc.. Relentless Horde and it pseudo-weakness has no relevant theming in my opinion that matches with anything in IC, but that's just my opinion.

I'll be honest, I'm not a huge fan of Relentless Horde's mechanics; I can see the logic of including some way or another to lock down Capital Planets to spice up that weird Map Game thing people feel so strongly about, I just don't enjoy this one's indiscriminate nature.​

I don't mean to denigrate the Brotherhood of the Maw's murderous prowess, mind you, I just find it odd that it applies to every other Major.​

This is where I would suggest them designating one or more other Majors to mess with, but that just seems like too much extra work for Staff.​

I suppose I should suggest an alternative, shouldn't I?​

While this is active, other Major Factions may try to move their Capital... but Major Factions with this Mandate may choose to Rebellion their desired Capital. The move is only completed if the mover wins the Rebellion, if it loses the Relentless Horde can turn hexes neutral as per usual.​

It's what Khorne would want, Blood for the Blood God. Also low-key an excuse to try to make Rebellions happen.​

(P.S. This would give Relentless Horde three Strengths and no Weaknesses, but no matter. It's not like it was much of a Strength, to begin with - the Major Faction with the Mandate is the only one who can choose to move their Capital by, well, switching out the Mandate.)​

That could be interesting, getting around the "Capitals can't be targets of rebellions" except in this specific case would be an interesting change.

However, since I find it doubtful that Mandate will be changed, I think my solution allowing factions to opt-in for the chance to nullify an enemies tactical advantage is probably the easier one to incorporate into the game.

 

[Tefka]

Relentless Horde's weakness was the answer I provided to the question of "how do we stop Major Factions from dodging critical cloudbreak attempts by just moving their capitals?"

Moving a capital, in defense against a cloudbreak, is a VERY LOW ENERGY move. It literally just requires "I'd like to move my capital pls."

How much energy does a cloudbreak take? Uh. Go ask anyone around the community. It's monumental sometimes - and in recent history, it seemed almost impossible unless a Major was really overreaching. So, in my mind, an answer was needed. And in my mind, instead of bringing some new boring procedure to the table, I created a solution that provides it's own set of intrigue, faction politics, and problems.

The Relentless Horde mandate may be strategically in favor of some factions currently, but for how long? How long until it's used as a bartering tool against people who like it now? I personally enjoy the double edge of it. Seems like a strength today. Paints a target on your back tomorrow.

----------

During the conception of the Age of Chaos mandates, we had a "thief" Mandate where you could null a Major's mandate and take it for your own. Honestly seemed too toxic, too petty, too pushed and weaponized. I backed down off it pretty quickly.

 

[Tefka]

When crafting Mandates, you're crafting an ecosystem. You have to keep the bird's eye view - an explanation I've provided several time for defending certain Mandates that while they LOOK powerful, are not. Many people are intimidated by what they see on paper, but in practicality, it's nigh insane. For example, Relentless Horde being one of our topics:

Strength: This Major Faction may invade two different Major Factions simultaneously.
Strength: This Major Faction may submit a completed Invasion thread as a Dominion to the Map Update thread to claim an unrelated hex.

Have. you. ever. invaded. two. different. majors. simultaneously?

Lol.

When's the last time you even saw that happen? It's literally one of the weakest Strengths on the board of Mandates.

Subbing an Invasion thread as a Dominion? How many Invasions can you do in a month? They last two weeks, usually, so either you're sweeping up an inactive faction that forfeits for maximum advantage, or you're going balls to the wall and hoping your writers don't abandon you for putting them through hell just for three Dominions a month via Invasions.

Relentless Horde is weak as hell. It's only real strength is a weakness, a HUGE double-edged sword, and paints the picture that either they're crazy for putting such a big target on their back - or another player on the map owns their coinpurse.

 

[Adhira Chandra]

To me, there isn't an answer to the Mandate at all, and not because of its strengths but because of its "weakness". Personally, I can't think of any reason why moving capitals could be prevented IC, and have come to begrudgingly accept that its just going to be a part of the game. As an outside observer, the power of the mandate is already readily apparent of how powerful it is before the Brotherhood of the Maw has even gotten a chance to invade anyone. Simply by adopting it they have completely changed the game across the map in an unprecedented manner, preventing TSE from moving their capital and putting them in serious threat of losing a majority of their territory due to their capitals current placement.

Personally, I think this is like asking to put the guard rails on during a round of bowling. There isn't a point to a game with no stakes, particularly a "strategy game." This is kinda what happened to the AOC. They found a strategy that worked, well within the boundaries of the ruleset. Another faction actually had to work up a sweat fighting them and the guard rails got turned on.

The TSE has every took available to them right now necessary to prevent a cloud break: 1. Fight harder than the other team or 2. Negotiate. But I detest the idea of throwing factions game-changing lifelines every time someone gets a bit misty over a potential cloud break. And that goes for all factions, honestly.

TL;DR: The map game is stripped down enough. If you want to play Chaos on Adventure Mode, go minor.

 

[Ryv]

Personally, I think this is like asking to put the guard rails on during a round of bowling. There isn't a point to a game with no stakes, particularly a "strategy game." This is kinda what happened to the AOC. They found a strategy that worked, well within the boundaries of the ruleset. Another faction actually had to work up a sweat fighting them and the guard rails got turned on.

The TSE has every took available to them right now necessary to prevent a cloud break: 1. Fight harder than the other team or 2. Negotiate. But I detest the idea of throwing factions game changing lifelines every time someone gets a bit misty over a potential cloud break. And that goes for all factions, honestly.

TL;DR: The map game is stripped down enough. If you want to play Chaos on Adventure Mode, go minor.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Literally DESTROYED.

Every faction can take advantage of relentless. You don't like it? Nuke BotM off their invasion safety net. All these factions who take issue with NIO can also just invade them too, cut them in half. Nothing is stopping a faction from taking advantage of this mandate other than people's desire to not take part in invasions. As said above, and elsewhere every time anti-invasion rhetoric occurs:

You aren't required to be a major. You can tell stories without being a major, you can engage in all elements of this site except the map without being a major. If you don't like the consequences that come with the map game, you can sign off at any point.

 

[Definitely Not Tefka]

All these factions who take issue with NIO can also just invade them too

 

[Enlil]

If you know you know

 

[Cassus Akovin]

Tefka thanks for taking the time to respond and shed light on the design principle.

Personally, I don't perceive nullification as any more or less toxic than preventing the entire map from engaging in a well defined process such as moving their Capital. Or breaking clouds. Or invasions.

We talk constantly of the map game being about consequences, losing a Mandate is as valid a consequence as much as, if not more than, losing a handful of hexes.

The entire site is riddled with the concept of balance, weaknesses to temper strengths in character sheets, factory and codex submissions, and for a long time this was the case of Mandates too. This is a major departure, and as I've said many times far prior to this series of events, not a fan.

Trying to laugh down the strengths of a Mandate and to say that it's only strength is a weakness, does not bode well for my confidence in their design, but I digress, because while it is the inspiration for why I submitted this at all, the focus should be on the suggestion itself:

• Allow a Mandate to nullify another Mandate upon successful completion of an invasion.

 

[Tefka]

It’s not a departure, it’s an altered course. I didn’t see this suggestion pop up when the mandate was announced- only the day it was implemented

Why introduce cloud breaks if you can move the central point the cloud is tied to? It’s long been a problem for some, which had it’s own discussions. So instead of creating a new system, we introduce new jank.

Time, and the community, will tell if it’s a long lasting invention. I’m under no illusion everyone is happy with it, and that’s mostly the point. A mandate named Relentless Horde isn’t supposed to instill happy thoughts.

As for nullifying, I’ve already stated my thoughts on Mandate v Mandate interaction. It’s not our intention to go that route at this time.

 

[Zeradias Mant]

 

[Cassus Akovin]

Tefka I made it pretty clear since day one that I hated pretty much all of the mandates non-specifically, though I guess I can't fault you for not remembering or not caring about it since that isn't your job to. So I hope you can extend the same courtesy and not fault me when I can't control the times I come up with the ideas or what inspires them.

Would you like to know what advice you gave to the nay sayers then?

• "I bet ya'll can't do better"
• "An often overlooked angle here is, one of the biggest weaknesses each Mandate has is the other mandates."
• "When a challenger idea pops in your brain pan, here's a link for the lazy: https://www.starwarsrp.net/forums/ask-questions-submit-feedback.5/
  The only thing that shuts me up is a damn good idea."

So here I am, trying to follow that advice. To me, the fact it was even considered seems to me the idea has at least some merit to it, even if didn't make the final cut.

I acknowledge you aren't interested now, but I am still interested in the discussion.

 

[Tefka]

 

[Adhira Chandra]

 

[Lucien Dooku]

Tefka I made it pretty clear since day one that I hated pretty much all of the mandates non-specifically, though I guess I can't fault you for not remembering or not caring about it since that isn't your job to. So I hope you can extend the same courtesy and not fault me when I can't control the times I come up with the ideas or what inspires them.

Hmmm.

[x]

 

[Tefka]

So here I am, trying to follow that advice.

Real talk, this discussion doesn't interest me because even if an overwhelming of support walks in right now - I've already ran it through the motions, talked it over, went through 4 different week long votes and discussions on Mandates to get the Admins to agree to a set. I've got one Mandate we're already going to alter - but it's barely an alteration, more just a rewording to make people's lives easier. Right now we're tweaking, I like where the rulesets are at.

But if you keep at it, if you keep rain dancing, it will eventually rain. And I'll shut up and go "huh, neat."

 

[Cassus Akovin]

Hmmm.

[x]

Staff - Age of Chaos - Mandates

Rampant Frontier "One needs a vision of the promised land in order to have the strength to move." -War and Peace Strength: In the place of Dominion threads, this Major Faction may submit four quality unique Codex Location submissions by four unique writers completed that month to the Map Update...

www.starwarsrp.net

Hmmmm.

Real talk, this discussion doesn't interest me because even if an overwhelming of support walks in right now - I've already ran it through the motions, talked it over, went through 4 different week long votes and discussions on Mandates to get the Admins to agree to a set. I've got one Mandate we're already going to alter - but it's barely an alteration, more just a rewording to make people's lives easier. Right now we're tweaking, I like where the rulesets are at.

But if you keep at it, if you keep rain dancing, it will eventually rain. And I'll shut up and go "huh, neat."

I've acknowledged that, and you've made your position clear. I recognize that since it came up once, it's already been discussed to death. I still think it has merit, so I'll keep "rain dancing" if you don't mind. I'll be breaking away from discussing with you now to address the rest of the participants, however many remain, since you don't have an interest in the discussion any more.

Personally, I don't know what all the fuss is about. The Invasion happy folks should be excited over a new way to use an Invasion, instead they are perplexingly against it, so I can't really figure them out.

Maybe one of you can articulate why? I believe I've done more than enough of my own explanation of why it should be considered, but the majority of what I've seen from those against have been memes or snide remarks, and I can't argue with or work with that unfortunately.