Tathra Khaeus
I can definitely see where you're coming with this. I've participated in plenty of invasions, and a lot of the time there is a noticeable difference in numbers on one side, which quite often puts one side at an advantage as they do indeed have more individual stories and conflicts going on. Like you said, numbers
do matter, as having more people allows for more creative stories to expand upon and grow throughout the conflict.
Let's think for a moment on how the current rules affect members and their ability to write and post to invasions, and how your suggestion might change these aspects. I'll mainly be looking at this from a storytelling point of view, and not a map game type thing.
Let's first think of the current rules:
Firstly, having anybody join is definitely a con It's a con in the sense that, like you and many of the other people here said, it can make it to where one side has a significant advantage in terms of numbers, and we know that numbers matter for multiple matters, and that anybody can join in is just completely bizarre.
Plus, having so many people can make it difficult for people new to the site who are participating in the invasion, as people just joining into major factions and the map game would be completely overwhelmed by both the amount of people and the overwhelming influx of stories, writers, and the intensity that some people write with, as many people here like to write well-detailed, specific responses and posts, which can discourage new writers from participating in major factions.
However, having many people in an invasion
could have good affects, too. People would be able to interact with other writers they don't normally interact with. Also, they can be used for character development, and definitely development of a faction as a whole. This kind of story telling is what the map game is all about, to have stories that develop and affect your character and the characters around you. Having a lot of people might be daunting, yes, but that kind of pressure can drive people to write absolutely amazing stories and posts. Some of my best work was made in invasions, as having that pressure made me strive to become better, to reach a new level of writing, and to make me a better writer in general. That conflict, the strife, the struggle, and the specific emotions you get from invasions is what it's all about: to make amazing stories with people you've probably never even interacted with, and now you get to interact with them, write stories with them, and share a conflict together. No matter how good you are at writing, no matter how long you've been on the site, no matter how powerful your army is, it does indeed come down to one thing, and that's the writers and their powerful and emotional storytelling, and the bonds we create when we do invasions.
Now, let us think of how your suggestion would affect both writers and the map game:
I can see how enforcing a set amount of writers in an invasion would have both pros and cons. First off, pros are that it would allow for more intimate, personal roleplaying. Invasions are usually so big that it's hard to create a personal connection and experience with any few people, as there are people everywhere. It would allow for better and more personal and thought out storytelling, as instead of trying to connect with 20 writers on two separate, you're just trying to connect with 5 or ten writers, which allows for a more intimate and connected storytelling than if just anybody could join. This could create some really powerful and personal stories, allowing these writers to grow closer together, no matter which side they're on.
I do like the idea of not just one, large invasion but multiple smaller invasions and skirmishes, a sort of "war on all fronts" type of thing. So that even if one invasion gets won by one side, a different invasion might be won by the other, making it more strategic in term of the map game.
Of course, cons would be that it, like how
Mig Gred
said it, it would be seriously unfair to newer writers, as those chosen would be the ones known to be great invasion writers, or the most powerful and popular would only be able to join, excluding newcomers who want a chance to improve their writing abilities and to develop their stories through conflict and strife.
And then there's what
Jacen Voidstalker
talked about, where limiting invasions to the size of the smaller faction. This is, as many have said, completely unfair. Let's think about this though. If a large, powerful, wealthy, and populous nation with a large army went against a smaller nation with an army that isn't as large as the first nation's, who would win? Rationally, you think the larger nation would win, right? Mostly, yes. But if the smaller nation tactically out thinks the first, and uses tactics that both use their smaller size to their advantage and is very effective against the larger nation, such as guerrilla warfare, there is a chance that they could win. This means that the smaller faction's writers would have to work harder for their goal, making it that if they win, it makes all the much sweeter. Also, it allows them to develop their writing style and improve so that they can win, allowing them to be satisfied in their own work, too. Your suggestion eliminates this, making it so that they are forced to be on a level playing field, or at least it would come down to their NPC army, which isn't what invasions are about.
All in all: this idea is good
in concept. You have a good concept, but it needs improvement before it can become a serious idea. Perhaps some improvements could be that instead of limiting the invasion participants and allies based on the amount of participants from the smaller faction, perhaps allies need to have a reason to be there. Like: perhaps to be an ally you need either a thread showing before the invasion on how and why they are going to assist that one faction, or they could explain it in depth in the invasion, and not just, "They called for help so we answered and their enemies are our enemies" and more like, "An important government official was on the planet and got caught in the middle of the fighting so we're here to rescue them". Or they could be treated like reinforcements, like allies could only come in if the side they're allied with is losing.
But I do like your idea of strategy with multiple, smaller invasions on multiple fronts. Think about it like this: An invasion could be divided up into multiple separate "sub-invasions", in multiple different threads. One thread could be for the fight for the capital city, another other could ground forces assaulting an enemy fortress on the other side of the planet, another could be for the fight between capital ships and bombers and fighters far above the atmosphere, another could be for fighters in the low atmosphere close to the ground engaged in dogfights, and so on and so forth. This could allow for multiple fronts, meaning that each part is important as the next. Like, let's say Faction A gets crushed in the capital ships fight, this could mean that in the other threads and fights they have less reinforcements, and less support, and the enemy has more reinforcements, but if the ground forces win the fight for the enemy base, that means that in the other threads they can call for help and summon their allies, and to even use the enemy weaponry against them. This would allow for a much more intense fight, and that your actions in one fight can have an effect on the other fights.
For now: Most people will say no. But if you made improvements, I can definitely see this being seriously considered.
If you're still reading this, thanks for listening to my ramblings. Just needed to get that off my chest.
Thanks.