Just Passing By
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 Mandate: Insurrection Campaign
- Thread starter Cassus Akovin
- Start date
Son of Triam
Hailyn
I'd like to first thank you for your responses, and adding your perspective. I found it useful. I also think you're onto something with your analysis about distant conflict, but I unfortunately don't have much to add to it right now.
Enlil
I appreciate your long form comment about the worthiness of continuing the discussion despite Tefka's present stance on the idea that's being posited. I believe it is worthwhile because we don't need someone's permission to discuss the merits of any idea and how it would hypothetically operate. You are welcome to stop discussing it if you don't feel it has any merit, but I will continue to discuss it with those who want to continue to discuss it for our own sake. I don't carry the discussion forward because I think it will change anything, I even opened up the entire post acknowledging the fact I was already presently aware it wasn't likely to sway site staff to make changes or additions. I still brought up the discussion anyway, because I think the idea has merits, and wanted it to be discussed or even workshopped. If it caught staff's attention, like it did, all the better; I was able to gleam a great deal of insight into the creative process that created the Mandates I disagree with. The long of the short of it is I had an idea, inspired by a series of events unrelated to me or my interests, and put the idea out to the public to be argue for or against. If in the future this is reviewed again and put into practice, great! However, this was never a real expectation.I absolutely acknowledge that big cloud breaks are definitely part of the game, and acknowledge the difficulty and effort that went into creating the circumstances to allow them, and I don't think my suggestion works against this idea. On the contrary, I think it has just as much utility in allowing them to happen as it does as potentially preventing them. Take for example a faction that is infamous for its ability to dom enough to shore up its weaknesses despite taking losses by using Grasp the Void or Rampant Frontier. If you wanted to curtail their growth to the standard three doms per month, you could take Insurrection Campaign before planning a cloud breaking invasion, or coordinated with another faction to time their invasions such that one of you nullifies while the other initiates the cloud-breaking invasion as soon as their mandate is removed (assuming victory), it would have a similar if not identical effect.
It's all about how the mandates are used, and when they are used. I just want to make sure no strategy isn't without an equal recourse. This suggestion is my idea for an equalizer.
I think my thoughts on relentless, cloud breaks, and capital changes echo earlier sentiments. I don't think, in your example of the NIO/TSE/GA situation, this would really be an answer tbh - relentless does have one, even if it's not one people want to embrace - but I do like the merit it has for interacting with other mandates, or situations similar to this going forward, despite my initial discontent. I think with tweaking, it could be a solid idea, and adds another layer of strategy to the map game. My suggestions would be one or more of the following, if you were to re-propose this at a later date:
- Remove the mandate for 30 days, not 60- With how stagnated things can get on the map, I think 60 is too long for this.
- Remove the defenders current mandate should they lose, but allow them to pick a different one - in your example of Darkwire and fortress worlds, it would make sense that stripped of that advantage, they could choose another, perhaps even intended to strike back against those that attacked them - thus possibly spurring the map game.
- Add a weakness. I'm not a fan of pointless weaknesses, but for the potential this has in regards to change the entire course of a factions plans, I like the idea of adding a risk. Something like "Should the attacker lose, their mandate is removed and a new one may not be selected for X days", or something along those lines, sounds a little better to me.
Cassus Akovin just two cents from a nerd who likes map mechanics
I can't thank you enough for your contribution. Genuinely love it.
To address your first concern, the reason why I "chose" 60 instead of a shorter time frame was due to the fact that changing mandates typically have a 60 day cool down. So it was less about me coming up with an arbitrary amount of time I thought was reasonable, and more so trying to keep as closely to the currently established precedent. I was also trying to get rid of any ambiguity, as if I simply phrased it "remove their mandate", a faction that has had the same mandate for a long period of time might argue that they could just reapply it after the invasion is concluded since they hadn't changed their mandate in X amount of time. It would also create less potential confusion for when they are allowed to alter their mandate again in accordance with the other Mandate rules. So when the invasion concludes, a factions Mandate becomes overridden to Neutral and can't change their mandate again based on the date that it was last changed.
On your second point, I really like this idea! It becomes a kind of risk-reward scenario, if you don't like an enemies Mandate and want it removed, what are the odds they choose something to replace it that might be directly harmful to your future invasion plans?
On your last point, I largely agree with you. I don't like the divergence from the basic design philosophy of the rest of the site myself, but following in this seasons set of Mandates I opted not to bother coming up with one until one was suggested. I'm not sure your suggestion is exactly conducive to its use, especially if the prior suggestion was taken into account. It could potentially be a catch-22, you change an enemy Mandates, they swap it with something you didn't expect that's worse, or you lose and are out of a Mandate. If it's one or the other, I think it could be a solid weakness.
For example it could read almost exactly the same, except your suggestions taken into account:
Or:
I'm open to other ideas though!
AMCO
Personally, I think your idea is pretty cool. Mandates should be exceptional, changing the base set of rules for their own set. Like the various mandates that change the number of doms that are allowed, how they are submitted, changes to the way a specific factions invasions work etc.. So a Mandate that allows a rebellion on a Capital planet is very interesting to me. At the same time, it shouldn't be taken lightly, and should be coupled with a concrete weakness, that isn't just implied.However, going along that route, is there a way you could see incorporating that idea into my proposed Mandate? It would certainly fit the theme of Insurrection, even if it doesn't exactly jive with my original intention.
Bo Nadea
though I agree with you, don't be deluded into thinking it hasn't happened before. Sometimes, unfortunately, that just seems to be the way of things. I don't agree with it personally, but there isn't much that can be done, or really aught to be done, to change that behavior. You opt in, you may not like the future consequences and accept the risk they may come to pass.Like I said, I don't agree with it, but I don't think anything should be done about it.
Though I am curious what your perspective on this proposed Mandate would be?
Last edited:
Tefka
L Admin
Apologies, it’s not my intent to shut down conversations. I do want us to keep realistic expectations, though - these things take weeks, possibly months of watching how things develop. My overall serious stance is, Chaos will either complain about things are getting stale - or we’ll complain about new features. I’d rather the latter, and meter the amount of complaints.
I’m just a simple meme farmer, trying to make his way in the Suggestion forum.
I’m just a simple meme farmer, trying to make his way in the Suggestion forum.
skin, bone, and arrogance
Matthew Locke
Character
Just Passing By
Cassus Akovin
I apologize! Was rude of me to just comment without saying somethin' on topic.
Overall I don't see the "weakness" of Relentless Horde as a weakness but rather a strong positive. In any case, I wouldn't want it altered except perhaps listing it as the strength it clearly is in its current wording. Onto your own suggested mandate I do like it and think it could be a complimentary addition. Having mirrored mandates is a nifty idea and I'd love to see more, especially when catering to defensive/offensive mindsets. Personally, I like this one:
But with this suggestion from Annasari:
And this stems from the madness that I believe all mandate changes should be 30 days instead of 60. People do complain about stagnation, and 60 days is quite a long time on the forum.
Son of Triam
Just Passing By
Cassus Akovin
Oh no! Well it says:
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.
Weakness: If this faction loses, they lose this mandate and are prevented from choosing a new one for 60 days.
The Inexhaustible
Alright, look fam I understand. But....I've been here longer than you. I've been witness to the OOC and IC (As Owner of a Major Faction too) workings of Invasions. In all honesty, I'm not a fan of certain elements of how Invasions work because I personally believe a Faction shouldn't be able to invade another that's no where near them. Btw, that doesn't include the NIO cuz they golden.
Anyways, if you actually look at it, it doesn't work IC'ly but it's fun OOC'ly until stuff like this happens. The campaigns of the NIO and GA eerily remind me of the One Sith's Republic one. While IC'ly I don't enjoy the optics if it, OOC'ly I rather enjoy the push. What Is hate, is the fact that there is no other option for Factions.
Sure, Tefka is probably extremely upset with out constant whining, but uh, I don't think the Map Game should be so strictly managed. The TSE could negotiate, but me and you both know, it'd be at sword point. (God, I loved the Alskaan Conflicts).
So I say yes on this, based upon the fact that the Relentless Horde Mandate needs to refined a bit.
Tear me to pieces, fam
Tefka
L Admin
No, it's pretty understandable a community this large will have polarizing and varying opinions. It's totally a natural response and expected - ya'll ain't gotta lead, ya'll ain't gotta be patient with others, so it's easy to walk into a conversation and fling words around with zero responsibility.
I miss the days, I'm sure it's fun for some.
Terminus Est
This flex has me in tears.
W A N D E R
This seems pretty unrelated, especially given tenure on the site has zero to do with experience.. and
Adhira Chandra
is a current major faction owner. I have the second most posts on the site, does that somehow make my views more valid than anyone elses? (Please don't answer that, it doesn't.)The only reason the distance is relevant here is because it opens up scenarios like a faction popping up in an empty section of the map, isolated for the most part, and throwing pot-shots at a faction surrounded on all sides with no way to regain lost territory except to attack another major faction, which means there's no stakes for the hypothetical attacker in this scenario. Losing for them means practically nil, and losing territory in the scenario of a theoretical retaliation (assuming this were to happen in a vacuum and it wasn't done through opportunism) means essentially nothing as they could just dominion back territory lost (which the landlocked faction in this hypothetical situation could not do.)
Invading at range isn't an issue until the range is so far that an entire strategy could be built around avoiding other major factions and only interacting through opportunity, essentially allowing a group to avoid the entire purpose of a major faction which is to socialize with other factions, while also stripping them of the potential for consequences proportionate to what they can do to another faction. Again, we saw this with the Agents of Chaos being able to essentially excise a major faction's entire cloud from its capital by invading a circle around said faction's capital from over 60 hexes away. I'm not saying we need to scrutinize any major factions that exist, and I don't think reacting to a singular major faction and inventing rules that fit a single major faction and eventually harm every faction on the board in some manner is a healthy approach either but, the logical, measured, step is to examine how far away is reasonable and enables a faction to at least have a realistic window of reaction to, say, an invasion.
Look at the distance between the Galactic Alliance and the current Mandalorian faction, that's a decent range but it's still a reasonable distance that could be bridged in a realistic window of time so that the Mandalorian faction (in this hypothetical, because I'm trying to use an example that can be visualized, nothing against either group, you guys just fit the example of a reasonable distance for this scenario) can still figure out a way to react without being whittled away before they can retaliate. If a faction much further away, like, uh, I guess the First Order (?) were put in the Galactic Alliance's place, then any retaliation available would be to solely invade back at range, which is largely meaningless when the Mandalorian group has no room to expand and the First Order is essentially free to move as they please across the map in their section of space. From the First Order POV they have very little to worry about, whereas the Mandalorians are at risk of losing capital hex immunity after just two theoretical lost invasions.
Chancellor Emerita / Advisor of State
I have two counter points to make because... at my core I cannot be made to care about this debate beyond what I already said and I think at this point I'm getting off topic.
Factions like the GA invading another faction they arent next to makes perfectly logical sense when you take onto account that near instantaneous space travel exists in this universe. Im sure you're referring to something like the GA invading TSE, but I would note we went through great pains to tell the story in a way that makes sense.
Eg: we only invaded at a logical exit point along a hyper lane and then, we used those planets and that strategic control of both ends of the hyperlane to launch our campaign against the Sith. It makes perfect sense... it doesnt have to because this is all just nonsense on a screen, but it Does.
And if you need a real life parallel, the US invades people who got nothing to do with them all the time. We will literally travel to the other side of the world, lose, and then never talk about it again.
Also, on the subject of TSE negotiating with us either IC or OOC or whatever to stop the campaign... they would be at sword point if they negotiated but (and I say this with no intent to be like "haha you lost") the nature of losing a war is that you dont get to be in a position of strength when you ask the other side to stop hitting you. So yes, by design, it would not be a very equitable conversation. Doesnt mean it couldn't happen.
Chancellor Emerita / Advisor of State
IDK why this posted twice. Clearly I did something wrong lol
Kaska Arden
black holes, solid ground
Adhira Chandra
Clearly you haven't been here long enough to learn to avoid the double post. Don't worry, that's a year two lesson. You'll get there eventually.
Tefka
L Admin
Only Founder tag holders possess the ability to completely avoid double posting, don’t hold your breath.
Son of Triam
I didn't initially respond to your first post as I didn't find it particularly relevant to the suggestion itself and focused more so on the context surrounding its inspiration (which I will take some blame for since it does take a significant portion of my opening post).
I am still finding myself rather perplexed by your opposition to the idea that I've presented, however, and I'm wondering if you wouldn't mind elaborating your views on the following:
- I've presented the idea of a Mandate that allows a faction to utilize an invasion to nullify another factions Mandate provided they are victorious, and in place of taking territory.
- In what way is this a "guard rail" when it requires a faction to exchange its Mandate for this one, and a victorious invasion (without territory gain) in order to take effect?
W A N D E R
Adhira Chandra
My suggestion would be to stop focusing on TSE and the GA. The suggestion was not made as a help us or stop them, and the posts that followed (besides I guess the one Thaelius made?) emphasizing the actual reason the suggestion was made, and the reasons for it, provided several examples, hypothetical scenarios, that wouldn't even need to have the sort of RP-related story backing and opportunity for reacting that you claim TSE had (whether it did or not is entirely irrelevant, because it isn't even on topic).
Arguing that a faction can do story related things (edit: while leaving out other options available to other hypothetical groups under different circumstances) like negotiate or diplomacy only tells me that the only argument here is that any defending faction that finds itself fixated by a strategy with no counter should simply accept whatever fate the invading faction desires for them. If that is the argument you want to frame, then just say it. At least then it'll be clear that the reason there is opposition to preventing a situation where a faction can proceed largely unhindered and with little consequence following invading is because the system where factions find themselves in such a scenario where a defender has all of the stakes and the invader has none, or close to it, is desired.
Last edited:
I switch characters but yes. I actually wasn't trying to insuate anything I just used the TSE as a rather obscure example, although it didn't quite pan out. But as stated above, the idea behind an Invasion is fun. First and foremost. I rather loathe the idea of OOC Toxic being present in Invasions due to the fact that it virtually creates a splashback effect and Invasions go from being fun (Remember this is a Game) to being tools of ill will.
But that isn't the topic of this thread. And should be an entirely different suggestion or rather, discussion thread.
But this is meant to be a counter to the Relentless Horde Mandate, which in essence is really unique and in adding this we really give in to the spirit of the AGE OF CHAOS. I don't really understand
Adhira Chandra
's stance to this, nor do I want to drag this out into a lengthy argument or case over the GA or NIO's Campaigns against the Site because it isn't relative to this thread.
Second, I think adding this Mandate adds on to the legacy of one of the most unique Major Factions of Chaos. So...my two cents.
But that isn't the topic of this thread. And should be an entirely different suggestion or rather, discussion thread.
But this is meant to be a counter to the Relentless Horde Mandate, which in essence is really unique and in adding this we really give in to the spirit of the AGE OF CHAOS. I don't really understand
Adhira Chandra
's stance to this, nor do I want to drag this out into a lengthy argument or case over the GA or NIO's Campaigns against the Site because it isn't relative to this thread. Second, I think adding this Mandate adds on to the legacy of one of the most unique Major Factions of Chaos. So...my two cents.