Invasions: Risk vs Reward

[The Noble Scoundrel]

So, as I think back on all the previous Invasions I've witnessed, a certain inconsistency came to mind. Correct me if I'm wrong, but, as far as I can tell:

• If you win an invasion as the Invader, you win the territory.
• If you lose an invasion as the Invader, you've only lost time and sanity.
• If you win an invasion as the Defender, you keep your territory, but gain nothing.
• If you lose an invasion as the Defender, you lose your territory, time and your sanity.

However, I recall being told that a faction can, if their members are willing, just keep invading. So, as far as I can tell, you only ever want to be the Invader. That's unbalanced in and of itself. I believe there should be a risk to instigating an Invasion. If you summon a proper invasion force, which the formula traditionally states (in various fictional books I've read) as being 3 times the amount of the defender, then you should be depleting the defense capabilities of your own systems. It doesn't make sense IC to be able to OOC instigate Invasions as many times as you want.

Here's what I suggest. Turn Invasions into an equal risk situation. If the defender risks losing their territory which is the target of the Invasion, then the Invaders should put one of their own territories on the table. The territories up for risk can be negotiated by admins. If the Invader wins, they get the target territory. If the defenders win, they get to move into the territory left undefended (aka the pre-determined, agreed-upon territory that the Invaders put up on the table)

I believe this would make people more wary of starting an Invasion and it adds another element of logical strategy to the playing field.

 

[Tysk Willamina]

generally the defenders had a chance to counter invade once the initial invasion started and could divide the attacking forces or get different terms and make it but they haven't been used in awhile.

 

[Vrak Nashar]

Yeah if you invade people over and over again and keep losing your members will eventually get tired of doing that nonsense and you yourself will be invaded with tired and bored members.

There is already equal risk.

 

[The Noble Scoundrel]

[member="Tysk Willamina"]

So, your answer is to do more Invasions and hope you get to be the Invader this time? Any major faction has a chance to invade another major faction. That's not the point. The idea is to instigate a mechanic that makes people hesitant to try and constantly be the invader, since the invader role risks losing nothing and gaining something. I believe that implementing this would speed up the map game and give legitimate IC consequences for losing to both sides of the Invasion.



[member="Vrak Nashar"]

There's always an equal risk between both sides (OOC) in the form of toxicity, frustration and getting burnt out. That's always a given. What's not present is an equal IC map game risk or even a guaranteed personal IC consequence except for if the Defenders lose IC.

 

[Vrak Nashar]

[member="The Noble Scoundrel"]

That's kind of how war works.

It's like the USA invading Germany basically. There was never really any personal risk of the USA being invaded by the Germans during WW II, even though they took losses(Operation Market Garden and Operations in North Africa).

That just happens sometimes in war. The risk is in a counter attack(invasion). This has been displayed several times on Chaos. Like when the OS invaded the Republic and were counter invaded by two other factions.

 

[BE-183]

I cannot envision a large faction ICly leaving one planet undefended after failing to take over another. The First Order has garrisons and a Planetary Defence Force for example, that is separate from their expeditionary forces. I approve of the general idea, but failing an invasion likely wouldn't lead the invader to hand over one of their planets; this would be an unrelated, video-gamey tradeoff that doesn't hold up under the scrutiny of realism.

I can see that it may bring down the invader's overall strength for a period perhaps, depending on how much they threw at the battle prior to their defeat, and the frequency of their invasion attempts. Possibly a cooldown period after the failed invasion where they have to wait and replenish their assets, with required RP too if something specific / in short supply has been lost. This might complement the logical provocation of a counterattack, as well.

 

[Orion Darkstar]

@ Eveyone

Why not a counter invasion scenario?

What do I mean?

Well, as mentioned initially there doesn't seem to be a big risk attacking another faction. While stated by [member="Vrak Nashar"], yes, sometimes there is no chance of being invaded when it comes to war across distant reaches. However, if history has told us anything, if a capable nation or in this case, Faction is attacked, there is always a chance of retaliation. I believe firmly that for every action there is a reaction. Now, I'm not saying this must be implemented at all, the system that is currently on Chaos has obviously worked for longer than I've been around.

Basically, if a faction attacks another factions’ territory, the defense should have a beneficial gain as opposed to just keeping their land. Numbers in war would dwindle, things are normally destroyed, but here on chaos it so simple to say okay my fleet and ground forces are wiped off the board. Come back a few weeks later and have the same amount of numbers or more. So, having an entire fleet and forces on ground being decimated in defeat seems, to me anyway, lack luster.

What I propose, (since I got off track) is a counter invasion if the defense is successful. What this means is if an attacking faction loses, they should be prone to a retaliation. Of course, this would be discussed between admins and the lot. The successful defense would instead of defending, essentially have an option to counter attack, for your territory. Starting a whole new invasion, this would make it not only time consuming for both sides, but actually more viable for an equal loss and gain. If the idea of having a planet that was just under fire and having their forces show up on the attacking factions doorstep, then maybe admins could agree upon something during the retaliation being destroyed. So, if you were invaded, and they lost, admins would discuss terms and maybe the invasion faction would agree to losing a defense garrison on their planet from the counter-attack. Preventing ground forces in their next invasion, almost forcing them to be careful and not rapidly expand like Ghengis Khan's western expansion.

Just a few thoughts, obviously, it's a rough basis of how things could work, but hey, having little downside as the invading force is a bit slanted. I'm not someone who is well known so take what you want from it, but i do think implementing something where the invading faction actually has risk would be nice.

Side Note: I could be wrong about the whole fleeting and ground forces number game, if so I didn't mean to come off as rude or uneducated in the matter, I just assumed it's easier to amass such things when you have a healthy faction.

Cheers!

[member="BE-183"] | [member="The Noble Scoundrel"] | [member="Tysk Willamina"]

 

[Cyrus Tregessar]

[member="The Noble Scoundrel"]

That's kind of how war works.

It's like the USA invading Germany basically. There was never really any personal risk of the USA being invaded by the Germans during WW II, even though they took losses(Operation Market Garden and Operations in North Africa).

That just happens sometimes in war. The risk is in a counter attack(invasion). This has been displayed several times on Chaos. Like when the OS invaded the Republic and were counter invaded by two other factions.

But the US not getting invaded was, and remains, entirely a question of logistics.

Conversly there are numerous examples from WW2 where a failed offensive had dramatic consequences for the attacker. Stalingrad, Kursk, El Alamein, the Ardennes, even the entirety of the Japanese Campaign against the pacific can be viewed as a failed invasion.

I think OP is spot on that there's a lack of IC consequences for the attacker.

 

[Vrak Nashar]

[member="Cyrus Tregessar"]

The battles you listed all had consequences in the sense that they depleted resources for the attacker. Stalingrad Germany lost an entire Army, Kurk practically the same thing, etc.

In the sense of SWRP Chaos the 'losing an army' aspect comes when your members get burned out because you're invading too much.

I understand where you guys are coming from, but in my opinion you're basically out to complicate a system where invasions are already rare, this would only make them rarer.

 

[The Noble Scoundrel]

[member="Vrak Nashar"]

That example makes sense...on a planetary scale. It's not quite applicable to factions in control of entire swaths of galaxy.

If I remember correctly, the GR once complained about losing 13 invasions in a row. Unless he was lying, it only seems like Invasions are only as rare as people want them to be.

 

[Jsc]

Here's what I suggest. Turn Invasions into an equal risk situation.

Nah.

Why: don't fix what ain't broken. Invasions work fine.

Also: suggestions go in the ask questions and submit feedback sub-forum.

 

[John Ash]

[member="Vrak Nashar"] [member="Cyrus Tregessar"]

What you mentioned about the OS ties into what Cyrus said. It is entirely up to logistics on if a counter-invasion is likely to happen to you or not. Take the FO as an example. Say they invade the GA. Well they risk nothing doing this and only really have everything to gain. There is no other major faction close enough to them to take advantage of them invading the GA. They are free to invade as much as they want and only have to worry about the GA deciding to invade them back.

Now lets flip that around. The GA invades the FO, but suddenly they have the Mandalorian Clans and the TKO invading them while this is going on. They are now being punished for their invasion by other invasions. The reason for this is that the GA is so large that they have other major factions within invasion distance of them. They are there for in danger because of the logistics when the FO is not in danger. They have more to lose while the FO has nothing to lose.

The whole burnt out members thing is true of any thread for a faction, not just invasions. If people get bored or tired of how threads are going they will leave. This is just a general fact and really adds no more pressure to a faction than it would in any situation. It could be an invasion or a skirmish and either one is equally able to impact the faction's players regardless of the risks of the threads themselves.

 

[The Noble Scoundrel]

[member="Jay Scott Clark"]

If someone could reposition the thread, then that'd be great. I don't have admin powers to do so. I just figured it was a discussion that pertained to anyone interested.

My Samsung Brightside wasn't broken, but I still got the new Samsung 7 smart phone because it was better. I'm not saying my idea is, by default, better. The idea is that, if enough people felt the same way, new ideas could be born and maybe implemented.

 

[Jsc]

I just figured it was a discussion that pertained to anyone interested.

You're golden. Suggestions always get a dozen replies anyway. It's fine.

Give em' hell Noble.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

Thread has been moved to RP discussions which is a better place for it.

As far as risk/reward, it's something staff has discussed many, many times. However, finding a fair and equable way to do it is the problem.

Ultimately we've decided that for now Invasions work as they are.

However, specific suggestions or ideas are welcome as they can later be looked into and addressed the next time the discussion comes up.

 

[Catherine Soja]

I find the issue with counter invasions is theres nothing in rules that prevent the invasion members from being in the defense too at once. Perhaps if you joined aid invasion failed or not you cannot be in the next immediate one to defend or attack another place.

 

[Ellie Mors]

I think OP is spot on that there's a lack of IC consequences for the attacker.

Get an ally faction and have them invade the invading faction while you defend yourself, then invade that invading faction (whether you win or lose).

Unless that invading faction is something like the One Sith from nearly two years ago, the chances of them ever trying to invade you again - or succeed at all - are slim.

 

[Darth Abyss]

My two cents:

My problem with all this is that a invasion shouldn't happen out of a risk-reward equation. I know people want to do the best for their faction, and a lost invasion can be pretty bad. But hear me out here for a second:

Are we roleplaying here or are we playing some stupid map and number game? A won invasion is one that is played fair, one that the invading and defending faction members enjoy equally, without caring who wins and who loses in the end. Most people are here to craft stories and invading planets has always been part of a good star wars story, as is losing a battle in some epic way. The problem in my opinion isn't that invasions work the wrong way, but that we look at them from the wrong perspective. We should just look at them as an opportunity to have fun, write something cool and interact with characters that we normally wouldn't.

Obviously this is just my opinion and I totally get why some people view it differently.

 

[Shuduc Macar]

[member="Darth Abyss"] As O said in my other account it was jsut my pointing to an issue. On the basic sense of things I agree with you. But similar petty arguments get made over duels so people can do quick kills. So the issue perhaps is the community has members who have lost sight of it. Maybe not but I do very much think if we go the story route great it could be really fun and really awesome. But trouble is some don't view it as such and do it as a big FPS shooter almost. Maybe thats something as a community we all need to help in myself included.

 

[Vitha Na'iv]

Why not just disallow the invading force to get outside reinforcements if invaded. You are then defending with whatever forces you have on the planet or in orbit which will make it hard to defend. This applies for about a week after the initial invasion is declared lost and makes for a minor yet important consequence.