[Your View] Forced Conquest: A New System

[WuHanXianShi14 0]

 

Many times what happens is that the attacking side wants the defender to swear a oath. Is that a conquest?

Er, yes, actually. Incorporating another nation into your nations sovereign territory by use of force is a conquest. Even if you don't destroy what was already there, or displace it's native inhabitants.

[AlmondTree 418]

This would probably cause more harm than good.

[Birdnerdy 1539]

This would probably cause more harm than good.

You know nothing, Jon Snow.

[Jistuma 1996]

Er, yes, actually. Incorporating another nation into your nations sovereign territory by use of force is a conquest. Even if you don't destroy what was already there, or displace it's native inhabitants.

Not unless you change the leadership. If you keep the same exact person leading, nothing was conquered, you just forced someone to sign a paper. You can do that without a warclaim. If the leader decided to "**** you" to the one that 'conquered' the land, another warclaim would have to happen because he still owns that plot of land.

[zaezae 1098]

I think that maybe we should worry about what makes the most RP sense first rather than OOC feelings. Also, Jistuma, how can the leader just ignore the army that now runs their town without just saying 'lol screw ur rp?'

 

If he doesn't sign the paper, he can just be sacked in replaced. That is the ENTIRE point of conquering. You replace the native government with your own, more sympathetic government, or force the current government to do what you want.

[Ragadorus 113]

-that stuff-

Well, if you're conquering land to incorporate it into your territory, but you leave the original leader in charge as your agent in control of the land, is it not still conquered?  As in, so long as it is no longer sovereign and a part of your territory, the leadership is irrelevant.

[mmat 7460]

Well, if you read Readicti's post,

You can conquest warclaim someone, but if they feel the reasoning behind it is not valid enough then the defender can appeal to the GMs

Depending on if the reason is valid enough or not, the GMs will decide if it will be a conquest warclaim or not.

"On the topic of conquest- it’ll remain a similar rule of they can be denied with the ability for an appeal to staff. The GM and admin teams (parties who are neutral in said conflict, of course)will then be able to look at the situation and decide if the conquest should be forced."

 

GM's being able to decide by default if forced conquest SHOULD be a thing is the problem. Forced conquest should be default without GMs being able to interfere and decide it isn't, until exceptional OOC circumstances are a thing, as mentioned in the proposal itself.

[Jistuma 1996]

I think that maybe we should worry about what makes the most RP sense first rather than OOC feelings. Also, Jistuma, how can the leader just ignore the army that now runs their town without just saying 'lol screw ur rp?'

 

If he doesn't sign the paper, he can just be sacked in replaced. That is the ENTIRE point of conquering. You replace the native government with your own, more sympathetic government, or force the current government to do what you want.

Exacly, you replace the government, you don't give it back to the same person. If you place a military in the town, and someone in charge of the military, and say "Do everything he says or the military kills you," that's placing someone else in charge. If you place a military there and place the same person that lead the town before now leading the military, you just gave someone a military force. If someone is above the leader of the town, like a military leader, he's the leader, and as such, it's a conquest. If you place the same person in charge of the town and just make him sign a contract, you'll still need to force him out if he decides to turn against the nation/kingdom. And force him out will be another warclaim.

 

 

Well, if you're conquering land to incorporate it into your territory, but you leave the original leader in charge as your agent in control of the land, is it not still conquered?  As in, so long as it is no longer sovereign and a part of your territory, the leadership is irrelevant.

What did you gain by "conquering" it? You say it's your new land, but you didn't gain control of it, you just made someone that leads it say you do. But he decides to go independent again, and you have to warclaim it, again. On the other hand, I could never imagine a leader refusing to surrender his land, be conquered, then just be given the land to lead... he would be removed one way or another. Either having someone replace him, or have someone else be above him owning the land.

 

 

Think Game of Thrones if you have seen it. War began, and what happened? All that land that belonged to the king... doesn't actually belong to him, it belongs to the people actually leading that land. The lords, the wardens. A land decides "We don't want to go to war" and they won't attack anyone nor join a side. A part of the land decides to join the rebelions, and they become enemies and if the king wants that land back, he's going to have to attack it.

 

That's why it's important for a nation to have leaders on towns and places that actually are in favor of the king. If you 'conquer' a land and place the same people there, you're not conquering anything, you're just taking the word of the person that he won't attack you. The land is still his, he just says that he works for the nation.

[zaezae 1098]

At work, no time. However, that's why I said occupation should remain for the new owner to continue controlling the plot. You can rest assured the previous leader is going to keep his word if your military is walking the streets. 

 

But yeah, just sack the old leader and install your new governor. That is what actually happens IRL. Invade town, kill governor and put your own in and continue on.

[Baconthief 682]

 To quote a well known Kenyan,

 

 

Ser Paul Ryan your support for the fascist anti-american-Christian, Atheist, secret Muslim known as Obama is disgusting. Your quotation of him shows your enamored support and I demand a public apology for us oppressed white Christians, whom you have just betrayed. #TedCruz4Prez #TeaPartyPlaya

 

And concerning the actual post. Yes forced conquest. It sucks to be conquested, I was a malinor prince, I know oit quite well. You can get over it, it's not that big a deal. If you are really opposed to your new master, you can always play a game. This is a game after-all. . . .right? 

[Supremacy 3361]

See new poll.

[mitto 2312]

Moved to The Great Library. It shall be sorted into the appropriate category shortly.

 

If you feel this is a mistake, please contact myself or any FM and we'll restore it.