Border changes, secession & annexations

[Autokrator]

As we discussed on discord we are no longer bound by the limitations of classic, this includes the current borders of nations and the existance of nations themselves or secessions from nations creating new ones. I think we should be more open to this and allow this within the rules. 

Naturally we should be carefull not to do this all the time, but changing some borders to make them feel more natrual or decrease nations, or border changes, secessions or annexations through good RP can make this geofictional game more flavourfull. Think of a union or unification of the Canrille states in Seleya or making the Rildanorian island a real nation, finalising the annexation of Rapa Rile (or whatever the province of Vascania is called) to Vascania. Greater Hutori? Anatonese Empire? The great Empires of Majatra. All is possible now and nothing is permanent. 

Its great for RP. But as we discussed on discord the checks and ballances and work load needs to be addressed. I'm personally infavour of the idea of trying it out and seeking some limitations except good RP. We must not let every nation conquer the entire region willy nilly. But we shouldnt keep this option of the table any longer either. Its a reality of geofiction.

[Autokrator]

Personally I find that the annexation of Rapa Rile or whatever its called is a clear example of such an RP. :38Its been fully RP'ed we all OOCLY accept it, though we make a big fuss about it IC, which adds to the fun. Why not make the map reflect this?

[Doc]

Obviously all are familiar with Kalistan's arguments for border change. I don't need to rehash them.

I will say border changes should be allowed specifically in one of two instances
1. If there is agreed upon RP between players with Mod Oversight and approval, or
2. In the case of an empty nation, when agreement is not possible because that nation has been empty and has no Primary, with community input and Mod Oversight and approval.

We have a precedent for changing borders already set in Classic where changing borders in the non hard coded Dovani was possible. I point to Vascania which used to be three countries but is now one country (including the widely accepted annexation of Rapa Pile.) Since that was apparently worked out in forum based RP, we already have a method of doing it in place that we have used.

Static borders was largely a feature of the fact that we couldn't change the borders in classic. Which has led us to have the same exact borders for 3500 years, a feature which is completely unrealistic in real world equivalent. That restriction is no longer a limiting factor.

Having Mod oversight and community input over empty countries would allow expansion to not be capricious, and if there is established history there that people know of, it can be taken into account as well. Also, there can be opportunity for international RP around an annexation.

Similarly with independence movements to shear off parts of states. If one player wants to do an independence movement and acts as a secondary, and the primary were to agree to it, it would be an opportunity for a secession RP.

That's my two cents. I think its a great proposal to allow for border changes, is one that is a long time in coming, and I think it can be easily regulated to make sure it is rare but possible, ensures adequate player input and moderator oversight to ensure that its not done willy nilly.

[Mbites]

I've been critical of this idea in the past but I've recently softened to the idea, personally I agree with the notions shared here; as long as the principles of player-consensuality and Mod approval/oversight are ensured I have no particular arguments against these potential changes.

[Auditorii]

I think on caveat of it should be that should the nation that occupies or controls said land/area become inactive (meaning a player disappears from the nation over a period of time) then the it is accepted that the land/area returns to the primary nation.

I also think that Moderation as a whole needs to ensure that taking over new land/areas isn't easy and provide Moderation-provided events to show that occupying these lands/areas without significant RP investment, isn't easy.

[Autokrator]

I think on caveat of it should be that should the nation that occupies or controls said land/area become inactive (meaning a player disappears from the nation over a period of time) then the it is accepted that the land/area returns to the primary nation.

I also think that Moderation as a whole needs to ensure that taking over new land/areas isn't easy and provide Moderation-provided events to show that occupying these lands/areas without significant RP investment, isn't easy.

I agree that this should be an option but not always the default. We have some border changes or conquest which we can make semi-perminant unless someone RP’s a well thought out secession or reconquest RP. For instance should the Canrille states in Seleya really split if they are empty?

[Doc]

I would say that Empires where the primary Imperial Power should be assumed to collapse if nobody in their constituent states is actively maintaining them.

[GreekIdiot]

Just adding a few notes on the technical aspect. There are 2 ways borders work:

1) Think supranational: i.e. 3rd Point Federation's borders are N&D, Pontesi, Selucia and Amudim.

2) Particracy Classic had a fixed map of borders for nations. Legacy does not - it's all design at the moment. Once the mechanic is added, Zanz won't have to draw borders. We will be able to draw borders on the map itself, not the design image of the map.

-

The difference on 2 that's a bit conflicting with most points here is that, once borders are redrawn, the controller is different: i.e. right now I'm allowing Mbites to roleplay Himmelshtern, but Himmelshtern is still part of Amudim. If we were to utilise the feature and actually make the border change, it would go to Mbites as a controller.

Similarly, we will be able to draw border disputes since nothing's stopping us from drawing both Kalistan's and Baltusia's borders over Athosia. But I assume that would require some game rule changes since a disputed region would technically fall under both controllers.

[MrFacts]

not that i have much of an opinion on this as ill follow everyones decision on this. just in case if its needed, i do support this conversation on the pro side.

[Doc]

I believe no matter what, this will require a rule change.

Nor do I think we should be shy about rule changes. I think the mods are perfectly capable of proposing new/altered rules and leaving them for public comment before ratifying them, modifying them or nullifying them according to community input.

I'm not holding my breath that a change in the rules regarding straight up annexations will be soon, and I certainly do not expect it to come without significant community input, but I am hopeful that we are having this discussion because previously it would have been a hard no. And now we can think about what it would look like if it were allowed.