Conquests - Revamped!

[LT-137]

Conquests were originally introduced -- but never utilized as a system that would allow two Major Factions to compete against one another over adjacent, neutral hexes. While this was an interesting concept, it was one never truly utilized by the member base, due to the lack of follow-through in the implementation process. The announced system was axed soon after, and we’ve been carrying on like we always have.

However, I’ve had a thought - I know, that’s a mixture of magical and dangerous at the same time. While there was a suggestion that was made earlier on this year that was intended to spice up the map game, there were a few things that were heavily biased towards the passive expansion of a Major Faction. That raised some concerning points, as the only way to stem that three-hex growth is through an Invasion, or a minor faction initiating a Rebellion - which can only stem a Major’s ability to claim hexes by a factor of one.

Sure, there’s a lot of space on the map, but to me, there has to be something that could be done to help further stem the tides of that inexhaustible Dominion train. Something that serves my selfish needs as a mercenary - where I can wage wars in a meaningful way, rather than through the skirmish system; which basically gets ignored or declared as non-canon by any Major Faction. While utterly biased in my favour, something like this soon-to-be mentioned idea would also work perfectly for other “larger” Minor Factions to make a difference in the map game.

Thus, my proposal is to bring back Conquests - but in a new form.

Could you imagine the stories and conflicts that would arise from a “large” Minor Faction waging war against their significantly larger kin in an effort to destabilize a Hex/Sector/Region? It could be that a large mercenary outfit was hired by another faction to destabilize another faction’s control on a vital sector, or a large influx of criminals/pirates start taking out your faction’s officials - leaving the region as a lawless haven. The same could be placed towards the various brotherhoods of militant Jedi, seeking to cleanse the galaxy of their evil kin - but lack the resources to consider themselves a major faction. The possibilities are positively endless!

However, there have to be some restrictions to this, as I know what it’s like to go through the successive cycle of back to back Rebellions. They’re draining when you encounter someone that wants to mess with your faction, simply because they can. With that being said, I think if these Conquests could occur every 60 days - much like the Mandates - it would allow for some great RP opportunities between a Minor Faction and a Major Faction that would have some interesting, if not lasting effects on the site’s Map.

So, this leads to the Hexes themselves. What ones should be open to these Conquests? Well, honestly speaking, I believe that the frontier ones would be best. While I’m sure that those Minor Factions would love to target the central systems or even the capital hex of a Major Faction, it wouldn’t really be feasible when you take the OOC ship limits and resources into account. The IC angle there could easily be that the Core Systems of a Faction are heavily defended, and would require a monumental amount of war material to embark on and accomplish - so the Minor Faction would be forced to assail the Major’s outermost reaches, where they’d ideally be lightly defended in comparison.

I’d hope to keep these Conquest(s) different from Rebellions by opening up what Hexes a Minor Faction can attack, rather than just leaving it to what Dominion’s were launched by a Major Faction in a Calendar month. It’d allow a Major Faction to utilize any Codex submissions they’ve made for those worlds that have gone unmolested by the ever-shifting struggles of Empire-building.

Now, as a further addition to the requirements, I believe that a Conquest should ideally have the same judging criteria as a Rebellion, including a population count for either side - as minor factions tend to have one or two people within their bounds, and those groups shouldn’t be able to launch Conquests. I’d say that a minimum of Five would be the best, as that would see to the thread garnering some steam, and allowing for both sides to play out their parts in the overarching story.

So, to recap for those that like to skim lengthy, and wordy posts ( )

Reworked Conquests:

• Minor Faction vs. Major Factions.
• One Hex is attacked every 60 days.
• (Attacked Hex can only be Border Hexes.)
• Same Judgement Requirements as a Rebellion.
• Minimum Member Requirement: Five (Must all post within 72 Hours, or risk forfeiting the hex or the thread to the opposite side. Same as Invasions.)
• One Major Faction may have One Conquest launched against them by One Minor faction at any time, other will have to wait until the 60 day cooldown resets.

Feel free to tear the idea apart, or support it at your leisure - I'm just throwing something at the wall and trying to see if it'll stick. Plus, I thought this would be an interesting addition to spur some meaningful, and impactful conflict on the boards.

Cheers!

~ Khonsu Amon.

 

[Asaraa Vaashe]

I'd welcome this idea as a way for Minor Factions to be able to influence the map game.

My only concern is that 5 people might be too few for the Minor. It would be far to easy for a Major to get accused of swamping the minor, because 5 people against the number of actives in most Majors wouldn't be a fair fight. I think you might have to step it up, maybe go to 7 or preferably 10 people in a Minor Faction, that has had to exist for a certain amount of time, say a month or two before they become eligible. There would be no worse feeling for a Major than loosing the Conquest because the Minor couldn't bring enough people and their writers were all fired up.

By forcing the larger numbers, it might force similarly minded minor factions to band together but it ensures a fairer fight, and then a better story for everyone.

 

[LT-137]

I get where you're coming from, but I'm also of the mind that if this system were ever implemented the attacking minor would have far more people than the current minimum to ensure that they weren't entirely swamped by their larger kin. I was using the minimum member count from Invasions, which hasn't been met by one or two major factions in the past - resulting in a default win for the other side - so I figured that five would be a healthy minimum for this as well.

Like, the deck is supposed to be stacked against the minor faction, and if they don't prepare for what's coming? Then they lose through sheer numbers. If, however, they win? That's a damn good underdog thread they could use to propel themselves to Major status when they submit their application.

We could, however, throw up the same restrictions when it comes to Invasions regarding members and having those 5 post within the first 72 hours - so that if anyone with a unique IP/character account bails before it all stars, then the thread's declared for the major faction, or for the minor faction as well; depending on the situation.

 

[Tathra Khaeus]

I support this idea.

As a fellow mercenary, I am all about waging war in different ways. There really isn't much you can do as a solo act, I feel like this could help towards solving that issue.

However, where do we stand on multiple minor factions launching multiple conquests on a single Major? Is this allowed? Something should be implemented regarding that.

 

[Asaraa Vaashe]

[member="Khonsu Amon"]

Yeah, I can see why you'd use 5 people, and it does make sense. As you say, it would make sense to use the same criteria we have now for Major on Major fights I can get behind hte underdog story too, so yeah. I support this idea ;D

 

[LT-137]

[member="Tathra Khaeus"] - I agree something should be implemented, and I'd wager that a fair balance would be One Conquest per Major faction every 60 days. So, even if there were multiple Minor factions that wanted to gang up on a single Major, they'd be unable too and would have to wait their turn (or enlist within said Minor to bolster their numbers through a temporary alliance, etc.)

 

[Captain Jordan]

I guess my question about having minimum member requirements is, if it's the same amount as a Major Faction, then what's the benefit to remaining minor here?

Rebellions, as the only other map game option for minors, do not have a member requirement. Instead they simply require the minor to have existed for 30 days. I'd favor this, not only to keep the rules consistent, but to forestall the question of "Well, if I have the requirements to go major, why wouldn't I do that instead?"

Honestly, if this isn't aimed at a way to uplift minor factions to major, I'm not seeing the difference between these conquests and just making changes to Rebllion rules which already exist for minors to disrupt major faction territory on the map.

 

[LT-137]

[member="Captain Jordan"] - The benefit to remaining minor is primarily not having to worry about the map game, leaving you and your friends free to carry on making stories and the like without the admins peering over your shoulders, wondering how active your merry band will be this month. In regards to Conquests themselves, however, there could be a faction whose central theme revolves around being the underdog, and would betray their faction identity if they became Major. Those minor factions may also have members that don’t want to deal with the various checks and balances that come from being a Major Faction; yet want to take part in the shape of our site’s galaxy map in some manner.

Yes, we have Rebellions - however the criteria there is that it’s a week or so of frantic posting that only comes about if a Major faction manages to complete three dominion’s in a calendar month. Of the Major faction’s we have presently? There’s a handful that can manage those numbers. Conquests aims to create a more slower paced thread, where both sides can craft an amazing conflict without having to sacrifice quality, for the sake of frantic quantity. This proposed system also includes the ability to strike at the whole of a Faction’s Border, rather than the newly dominion’ed territory; so there’s a chance that these threads can develop a symbiotic relationship between the attacking faction and the defending major - as those border worlds could be well-developed, with coresponding Codex and Factory submissions.

While it can, and could possibly be used as another thread to springboard a faction to Major status, that’s not the intent behind my proposal. If this system ever manages to make it past the conceptual stage, I’d love to see it be used by the plethora of Minor factions we have on the site to keep those pesky Major faction’s on their toes. Heck, other Major faction’s could even use this system by hiring Mercenaries like myself to attack their rivals - forcing them to retaliate while being able to claim plausible deniability, and justify their harsh response.

 

[Darth Athora]

I'm not seeing it here. Also, this just seems like rebellions with less restriction is some areas and more in others. Tell me if I'm wrong, please.

 

[Captain Jordan]

[member="Zahori Denko"] put it more succinctly, but my suggestion to tweak the rebellion rules was because that's basically what this is. It's a rebellion, a minor faction creating strife in the territory of a major power.

The original conquest rules were for control over territory, whereas this suggestion aims to disrupt control and remove it from a major faction. Or did I misunderstand your proposal.

If nothing else, it's poorly named. I'm not questioning the purpose behind it, but the requirements you've listed don't fit with what's out there at the moment. There are always rules for map game threads against mobbing due to a player imbalance on different sides, and PVP no longer directly impacts the outcome, so having a numerical requirement seems strange.

This would be better either as a tweak to Rebellion rules, or with a different name/requirements for the minor faction (like the 30 day req for Rebellions).

 

[LT-137]

[member="Zahori Denko"] - Well, by using the example that Google's provided; while Cortez was ultimately exonerated for his deeds in bringing about the downfall of the Aztec Empire - there was a time that he operated on his own, as the Governor of Cuba sought to arrest the man for pursing an illegal war with a foreign power. In many ways this is similar to the idea I'm proposing as a "Minor Faction" could wage war against a "Major Faction" to turn a hex neutral, and allow for another "Major Faction" to swoop in to claim it as their own.

It's not the best fit, but, I believe it gets the point across well enough. Just because you subjugate a place or people, doesn't mean it has to be long-term or permanent.

However, in regards to it being Rebellion-Lite, I can see where the similarities are drawn - but if you'd read the proposal - it's an alternative; much like how you could get a pretzel bun, or a brioche bun for your sandwich... ultimately both are buns and essentially serve the same purpose.

[member="Captain Jordan"] - If you believe it's poorly named, you're welcome to propose a suggestion of your own with what you believe to be a better name.

 

[Captain Jordan]

In many ways this is similar to the idea I'm proposing as a "Minor Faction" could wage war against a "Major Faction" to turn a hex neutral, and allow for another "Major Faction" to swoop in to claim it as their own.

Which is functionally what the rebellion mechanic does. So while you're using different historical examples to fuel this idea (and Cortez makes no sense, because he did subjugate the Aztecs and claimed their empire for Spain, ruling as governor until more permanent administration was established), the end result is the same.

So yeah, I think the efforts should be focused on opening up Rebellion mechanics instead. I think if they were restricted to border territories like you've used here, but allowed to happen outside of doms, it might convince the staff to consider the changes.

 

[LT-137]

[member="Captain Jordan"] - Then you're more than welcome to create your own suggestion thread.

 

[Darth Athora]

I just prefer the way conquests are now. Only reason it's barely seeing use now is because factions just aren't the way they used to be. I remember back in the day when two factions would rush dominions against one another to see who would get a planet/hex first. I'm assuming that's why conquests were made in the first place. Now, with people doing everything in their power to star far away from other factions, conquests are stagnant.

 

[LT-137]

[member="Zahori Denko"] - Conquests were recently axed, so they're not seeing any use whatsoever. lol

EDIT: Well, pretty well axed, as they were mentioned last by the Site Staff over a month ago - and we've got nothing from them since.

 

[Darth Athora]

Yeah they are pending. Not axed. Not gone yet, just in purgatory. Turning them into Rebellions 1.5 won't take them out of purgatory.

 

[LT-137]

This proposal's far from making Rebellions 1.5 - but I can see tunnel vision's taken it's toll.

 

[Gilamar Skirata]

Honestly I like where the idea is, but it does just sound like something that could be added to Rebellions. As it is right now Rebellions can only be done on the 3rd dom of any given month by one faction. Why not take your idea and add it on to the list of targets eligible for Rebellions.