NationStates Jolt Archive

I have been thinking over the past couple of days on how to hopefully reduce or eliminate subsquent Feline Catfish's and Call to Power's situations from happening again. I have come up with several good suggestions for rules on how to stop all this dogpiling nonsense.

1. Establish maximum limits of how many nations can join the open RP.

Set the limit to something like 4 allies max per each side. This means there will be no 10+ nation dogpiles aganist a single nation, while maintaining the possibility for open RP's.

The number can be flexible, and can be determined by the RP'er who started the thread. But a number within reason. The invader cannot announce "I establish the max # of allies to 10". He would choose from anywhere between 1 to 5 allies, no more.

2. Dogpiling is off-limits aganist nations under 500 million population.

Nations that dogpile unfairly aganist nations of 500 million or less should be put on a black-list. Then take action aganist the dogpilers accordingly. What can be constituted as dogpiling in this situation would be something like 3+ nations of 2+ billion going aganist a 500 million nation who has NO allies to help him / her.

However, far larger nations would be much more able to withstand a substantial dogpile than newbies and newcomers to NS. For example, a 4+ billion nation can withstand an dogpile of 5 - 10 invaders for an extended period of time. However, a 100 million nation won't be capable of such a feat, unless their enemies are all 5 - 10 million population nations.

3. If dogpiling does happen, then the RP'ers should reserve the right to IGNORE the dogpilers.

This would make the dogpilers learn their lesson, like some god-modders learn their lesson not to god-mod from being IGNORED or "criticized aganist". Thus, IGNORE's of dogpilers won't be considered bad form for RP, or poor RP etiquette.

4. Large nations of 1+ billion are not to completely invade or raze small nations of 100 million or less.

This means that small nations would last much longer, and have a far larger window of opporunity to learn how to RP properly without oblivion and utter acopalypse being rammed down their throats by bored or impatient "huge, old, wise" nations.

Small scale invasions can still happen, just no 100% destruction of the enemy. The most destruction should be at 40% - 50% tops. Then allow the "victim" reasonable chances to regain their lost territory.



If we follow these three simple guidelines, we can avoid more FC and CTP situations, and there would be far less whining. More newbies would be eager to join RP's and learn how to RP knowing that they won't be razed to the ground in a second (or so to speak). The newbies will be able to try new things, without fear of utter annilihation.

I back this one hundred percent. I will do my 100% best to follow these guidelines. Might I again point to RP Critics (http://rpcritics.proboards46.com/index.cgi), a forum I created to help anyone who so desires to, develop their RP skills in a safe, non-hostile environment.

Sounds good. However, concerning Rule Four-- If the 100 million or less nation say launches terrorist attacks on the 1+ Billion nation and/or just blatantly attacks people or the nation itself and proves to be a continuous threat, I do believe that the said 1+ Billion nation as the right to completely dismantle the enemy government and military. I do believe that occupation RPs should be agreed upon by both sides. So, the 1+ Billion may be the said "victim."

So, the real question is: What do you consider 100% destruction compared to 40-50% destruction?

I have to say, this sounds good.
Sadly, it falls under the catagory of 'Possible, but not probable', since the guys who dogpile are also the most influential ones and thus arent going to want to do this.

I also agree with this 100%. If everyone followed these guidelines we wouldn't have such situations with dogpiles and such and would instead of actual RP's that are interesting instead of RP's that end in under 30 posts because of dogpiling.

Sounds good. However, concerning Rule Four-- If the 100 million or less nation say launches terrorist attacks on the 1+ Billion nation and/or just blatantly attacks people or the nation itself and proves to be a continuous threat, I do believe that the said 1+ Billion nation as the right to completely dismantle the enemy government and military. I do believe that occupation RPs should be agreed upon by both sides. So, the 1+ Billion may be the said "victim."

So, the real question is: What do you consider 100% destruction compared to 40-50% destruction?

Thank you for your points, Risban.

If the smaller nation engages in nuclear and / or continuous terrorist attacks, then the gloves come off, and the "victim" nation, regardless of size should be permitted to defend itself aganist said threats.

100% destruction means every citizen, military, everything killed and razed to the ground. No more remaining cities, government, or infrastructure. Complete and utter destroying of a nation.

40% - 50% destruction means half the "victim" nation is occupied, subjugated, etc. thereby allowing the other 50% independence and a fighting ability to retake the occupied / subjugated territory. That would give far more incentive for new RP'ers and players to stay on NS, to try to re-claim their nation, instead of having their nation be destroyed / razed outright only a few days or weeks after its creation.

I agree to the idea behind these points, though echo what Risban said. A fine idea: Maybe we can get II back into tip-top shape.

May as well post some criticism seeing as I've got little else better to do.

1. Establish maximum limits of how many nations can join the open RP.

This would pretty much defeat the point of having a "open" roleplay, though I suppose that isn't really much of a concern seeing as many "open" character roleplay threads have a limit on how many characters can enter before the thread becomes closed... eitherway the thread stops being open the minute you put limitations on who can be in it (aside from those already ignored).

Of course, I personally would say that maximum limits already can exist as each roleplayer establishes their own guidelines in a sense on what they will and won't accept... it's not unreasonable for a thread author to limit the number of participants, nor is it unreasonable for the target of an attack to ask for the thread to be somewhat limited, however this is a two way system, limiting a thread too much can damage the overall situation depending on the circumstances.

Eitherway, I would concider this down to each and every player, not a single blanket rule against it. Some people really do like as many replies from as many people as possible.

2. Dogpiling is off-limits aganist nations under 500 million population.

I already concider it bad form to "dog-pile" a nation and I concider it reasonable for a nation to ignore "dog-piling" against them if that is the case... though you may note that in the latest case it seemed the nation was accepting it's fate... whether or not it was down to ignorance that it could ask for limitations is something to concider, personally I feel it's important that nations should know that they can ignore for damn near any reason and that they can reasonably ask for limitations to the aviod having to ignore.

Personally, I'm not going to start meta-gaming punishment IC to nations who "dog-pile" seeing as it's a OOC term... In Character it's not uncommon for many larger nations to bully smaller nations into submission, it's not fair but the world isn't a fair place. Iuthia's reaction to it would depend on our opinion of the nation it was happening to.

Eitherway, I'm not going to "ignore" someone who jumps in for some action, I may think less of them, but thats it...

3. If dogpiling does happen, then the RP'ers should reserve the right to IGNORE the dogpilers.

Thats up to each RPer, though what is and isn't bad form is relative to each poster... I think dog-piling is bad form, but I generally have a different opinion on what dog-piling is.

4. Large nations of 1+ billion are not to completely invade or raze small nations of 100 million or less.

You can't really destroy all of a nation, it's hard get everyone as the government could run away to hide in another nation (happens all the time) the people could flee to the hills, resistance fighters can perform guirrila warfare... there is a ton of stuff which could be RPed.

I don't feel that there should be a ban on large nations invading smaller nations... it comes down to circumstance. I generally think destroying a nation entirely is terrible form, especially if you didn't ask first as the RPer may not want to have his nation reduced to a shadow of it's former self... but then again, it's up to the individual to deal with it as they see fit, they can even ignore it if they really must.


The problem here is that many of these issues are really quite IC, and to deal with them you have to deal with them in character... I don't think we need rules on it and these guidelines are helpful at best, but hardly to be followed in every occasion.

I'll continue to judge each situation on a case by case basis... it's a freeform world and I feel it works better if I keep that in mind.

OOC: I'm sorry, but I can't agree to #4. If some country has the audacity to declare war on me either explicitly or implicitly, I reserve the right to go in and fight until that threat is *completely* eliminated.

I agree with Risban, basically.

Thank you for your points, Risban.

If the smaller nation engages in nuclear and / or continuous terrorist attacks, then the gloves come off, and the "victim" nation, regardless of size should be permitted to defend itself aganist said threats.

100% destruction means every citizen, military, everything killed and razed to the ground. No more remaining cities, government, or infrastructure. Complete and utter destroying of a nation.

40% - 50% destruction means half the "victim" nation is occupied, subjugated, etc. thereby allowing the other 50% independence and a fighting ability to retake the occupied / subjugated territory. That would give far more incentive for new RP'ers and players to stay on NS, to try to re-claim their nation, instead of having their nation be destroyed / razed outright only a few days or weeks after its creation.

So I can enslave 50% of the nation? Cool, I support this 100%

Placing a limit on the number of people who can join an RP thread lible to attract a large number of players only makes sense, otherwise it can easily become insane.

Other than that, IC character dictates IC action; you can not deny someone the ability to draw upon close allies in a war in which they are seriously threatened, just because of some magic number - if one side is composed of nations which are substantially smaller on average, or the first allies to come to their aid happen to be small, such rules would allow the smaller power block to defeat the larger by OOCly tying their hands.

Hangers-on, of course, can be readily told to buzz off if they don't have pre-existing IC connections or concerns that would draw them into the RP, if it's already saturated with players.

As for not completly destroying younger nations, well, if they're the agressor, they're leaving themselves open to it; if someone attacks me, I will respond however is ICly apropriate, as I would expect anyone else to.


And Ignore remains the players' perogative, as it always was.

You know CTP's situation wasnt the first case of extreme dogpiling. How about the shooban invasion? They are both outmanned and outclassed and were destroyed outright. But yes I say lets stop dogpiling on other nations.

Other than that, IC character dictates IC action; you can not deny someone the ability to draw upon close allies in a war in which they are seriously threatened...If the RP's closed, you have every right to shut out countries you don't want in a RP for whatever reason. I'm not suggesting that you get 20 countries to dogpile on someone and your enemy gets none, but if you've decided to have a closed RP between groups of three countries (as an example) and that means someone's close ally isn't involved, that's too bad.

If the RP's closed, you have every right to shut out countries you don't want in a RP for whatever reason. I'm not suggesting that you get 20 countries to dogpile on someone and your enemy gets none, but if you've decided to have a closed RP between groups of three countries (as an example) and that means someone's close ally isn't involved, that's too bad.

I was reffering to conflicts that arrise without prior planning; if your, for example, exploration RP turns into a full fledged war, you can't expect the other guy to grin and bear it alone because his allies weren't originally involved. That's just stupid.

I agree with risban, he has a point

Meh - I've maintained a policy of forming an OOC "Interest Thread" before any IC threads, which allows some control.

We agree about dogpiling small nations - utterly pointless - though we would "Invade to Raze" a nation which attacked us first, regardless of size. How punative we were would depend on the other nation.

On the other hand, if some "minor power" wants to claim water, they're welcome to it. If it doesn't affect our national interest, particularly.

Okay, a few responses to everybody who posed questions / debates for me.


Iuthia....

My idea for "limited" numbers of players means that in any "open" RP, the thread starter should state the maximum # of players per side, and any more past that should be ignored.

Meaning, if the limit is set at, say, 5 players per side in a particular open RP, it still is a open RP. 5 random people or friends can come in to RP per "side", which allows for new interaction and such. However, this also prevents 10+ players on 1 side and only 1 - 3 players on the other side. No more lopsided bullshit that leads to dogpile.



In regards for "punishment", it could be an counter-invasion, an embargo, or put on a black-list similiar to your IC "trading black-list" that you were using a few months ago. Then use IC and OOC pressure to make the player back off dogpiling.

If that doesn't work, simply ignore the player, thus he will not exist.



Sarzonia....

I put up rule #4 to protect newbies and potential great RP'ers who are new to NS. The newcomers need time to learn how to RP properly, and / or establish themselves in the NS world.

What's more, if the newbie nation DOES NOT have nukes, it is no threat to massive 2+ billion nations like yourself, Sarzonia. Just a few hundred warships can put a stop to a possible invasion. You only need to divert probably 1% - 5% of your total military to effectively stop a newbie invasion. Thats all.

The big problem I have is that when a small nation tries to invade another small nation of comparable size, the invaded nation cries for a 2+ billion nation ally. Then the 2+ billion nation ruins the RP by completely razing the small invader nation to the ground.

In a, say, 50 million nation VS 60 million nation war RP, that would give both newbies a great experience, and learn how to RP much better than if one nation gets 1 or more "big" allies that would ruin the RP and end it prematurely.


Now, back to the razing issue. I believe that all newbies and newcomers MUST deserve a chance to regain their land. If an invader takes over 50% of the nation, then the newbie has the other 50% to try to improve RP with and try to retake the occupied lands.

If you completely raze and murder and massacre everything and everybody in the newbie nation, that newbie probably won't come back to NS. He / she would consider NS a bunch of losers or something, and have no incentive to continue playing / RP'ing.




Guys, allow me to put rule #4 in perpsective...

You're an adult. You see a newcomer child wanting to play a sports game or something similiar.

Now you have a choice. You can allow the child to win at least a few times to encourage him to continue playing and improve his skills.

Or you beat up the child to a bloody pulp playing hockey or football, and refuse to let him / her win. The child would limp away with a lot of physical AND mental / emtional injury. The child will not want to play sports ever again because of your brutual smack-down.

A little extreme, but from what I've seen in NS, people do go to extremes like the dogpiles and nations like AMF and his fellow Arda / Golgoth nations completely razing everything with Sentinels or beyond-cruel soldiers.

Let me put a perspective on this, in real life the last time any country was totally destroyed was when Rome razed Carthage and then sowed the soil with salt so that the land could never be used again.

That was and still is considered extreme. Modern day examples, Afghanistan was attacked and over run by the United States in response to a terrorist attack, the government was ousted, and was replaced by a local government, and the terrorist leader is still at large. Here would be choices for continued RP, either the civilian government and rebuilding the country, or terrorist leader continuing to hide out while planning attacks at home and on enemy soil. The other example is Iraq, once again over run by a much larger country, but not destroyed, the RP could continue with the new government, with the old leader running and hiding (in RL he got caught, but in the game he might not) trying to get back in power, or the insurgent fighters who may or may not trying help the country.

Really, the invasion is just the start of the war, the fun stuff could be what comes after, but for the larger countries the stuff afterward is not as much fun. A successful invasion is a lot more fun than a successful occupation, and a lot harder to keep in control of.
So those who just declare that all your people are dead and I am the winner, you lose, are admitting that they are not good enough to RP the occupation, and have therefore given up, this to me is a form of Godmoding. It is almost impossible to kill everyone.

You mean you want to impose rules on freeform RP... well I dont really see how or why you would want to do that, but ok. And wont this just encourage n00bs to attack people (like Call to power attacked FC... for all he's being cast as a poor innocent n00b he was actually the aggressor) because there wont be any consequences? At the end of the day, real life isnt "fair" and unless people hate you for some unexplained OOC reason if you're mildly intelligent you wont get yourself into a situation where you're being "dogpiled". And how can an open RP have limits imposed upon it? By definition it wouldnt be an "Open RP" if you did that.

I put up rule #4 to protect newbies and potential great RP'ers who are new to NS. The newcomers need time to learn how to RP properly, and / or establish themselves in the NS world. I can understand that, and if a newb country and I work out a war situation, I'd have no problems RPing a limited war (I can come up with IC justifications like economic or political restrictions or somesuch). But I also reserve the right to put the smackdown on a country if it's necessary.

The big problem I have is that when a small nation tries to invade another small nation of comparable size, the invaded nation cries for a 2+ billion nation ally. Then the 2+ billion nation ruins the RP by completely razing the small invader nation to the ground.If I see the RP as something that looks like a lot of promise, I'll usually do something like offer discounts at my storefronts or send an "observation force" to dissuade the invading country from trying anything foolish. I don't like it when someone tries to prove his manhood or her power by bullying tiny countries. However, I'm not going to allow my hands to be tied behind my back if some tinpot dictator tries to bully me or attacks me. If that happens, the gloves come off.

Now, back to the razing issue. I believe that all newbies and newcomers MUST deserve a chance to regain their land. If an invader takes over 50% of the nation, then the newbie has the other 50% to try to improve RP with and try to retake the occupied lands.I have a problem with absolutes. If a newbie country can RP a realistic resistance movement and makes an effort to RP that out, I'm willing to go along and if the newb RPer does well enough, I'm even willing to pull out and give the newb his independence back. If the newb tries every Godmoding tactic in the book, I'm not going to be accomodating. Sorry, that's the way it goes.


You're an adult. You see a newcomer child wanting to play a sports game or something similiar.

Now you have a choice. You can allow the child to win at least a few times to encourage him to continue playing and improve his skills.

Or you beat up the child to a bloody pulp playing hockey or football, and refuse to let him / her win. The child would limp away with a lot of physical AND mental / emtional injury. The child will not want to play sports ever again because of your brutual smack-down.I have a major problem with your analogy. I don't believe in *letting* someone win. They've got to *earn* it. If they show potential, I'll do what I can to help him or her harness that potential and give constructive feedback, but I think "letting" someone win is doing them a disservice.

The RP who is being invaded should decide the numbers not us if a 10 million nation wants to fight 10+ nations then they can but they will always have the power to ignore

to be honest I wasn't to fussed about the dog pile! It was justified

You mean you want to impose rules on freeform RP... well I dont really see how or why you would want to do that, but ok. And wont this just encourage n00bs to attack people (like Call to power attacked FC... for all he's being cast as a poor innocent n00b he was actually the aggressor) because there wont be any consequences? At the end of the day, real life isnt "fair" and unless people hate you for some unexplained OOC reason if you're mildly intelligent you wont get yourself into a situation where you're being "dogpiled". And how can an open RP have limits imposed upon it? By definition it wouldnt be an "Open RP" if you did that.

I'm not trying to strangle the "Open RP" concept. What I'm trying to do here is to reduce the likeihood of big nation n00bs from ruining the ambition of newcomers. What if potential excellent RP'ers like new Lindlim's, AMF's, Schultaria Prime's, etc. are lost because of n00bish dogpiles and "Easy Victory"?

My limitations are flexible. The RP starter can determine how many nations can join in. This still retains the concept of open RP, as random nations can still come in, but there won't be 10+ "big, old, wise" nations going aganist 2 - 3 small newcomer nations.

Basically, its gonna be "X number" of random nations, "first come, first served" basis per side.



I can understand that, and if a newb country and I work out a war situation, I'd have no problems RPing a limited war (I can come up with IC justifications like economic or political restrictions or somesuch). But I also reserve the right to put the smackdown on a country if it's necessary.

I understand what you're saying, and I don't have a problem with your idea / principles. This can work as long as BOTH sides agree to work things out.

However, many times, it ends up a n00bish invasion, with nations like Hataria declaring war on small nations for the hell of it (like Welsh Sheep United who is trying to learn to RP). THOSE kinds of situations warrant IGNORES and the like, without recuperssions or "loss of respect" from the RP community.

I do fully support "worked out" RP's as those kind of RP's actually help out newcomers to NS. But sadly, many NS RP'ers don't take the time to chat with the newbie / newcomer and work things out for a good RP learning experience.

If I see the RP as something that looks like a lot of promise, I'll usually do something like offer discounts at my storefronts or send an "observation force" to dissuade the invading country from trying anything foolish. I don't like it when someone tries to prove his manhood or her power by bullying tiny countries. However, I'm not going to allow my hands to be tied behind my back if some tinpot dictator tries to bully me or attacks me. If that happens, the gloves come off.

I respect that. That kind of thing is what "big, old, wise" nation should be doing, helping out new nations via storefront discounts, observation forces, etc.

However, in cases of small nations fighting other small nations, I advocate that they work it out without massive 2+ billion nations stepping in and ruin the RP's by launching "OMG! 10 million man army invades small newbie nation". Suppose a 30 million nation is invaded by a 40 million nation. Both nations would have a good chance of a stalemate of sorts, as the defender almost always has an advantage aganist the invader.

In those cases, the "big, old, wise" nations should back off and only intervene in defense, or help the small nations in defense only, not attack / offense.

Summary: NO COUNTER-INVASIONS of small newbie nations by the "big, old, wise" nations.

I have a problem with absolutes. If a newbie country can RP a realistic resistance movement and makes an effort to RP that out, I'm willing to go along and if the newb RPer does well enough, I'm even willing to pull out and give the newb his independence back. If the newb tries every Godmoding tactic in the book, I'm not going to be accomodating. Sorry, that's the way it goes.

I do not have a problem with that. You're a reasonable RP'er, but sadly many NS RP'ers aren't as patient or understanding as you. Do you think RP'ers like Hataria or Roach-Busters would go to the lengths necessary to work out resistance and "regain territory" RP's.

They'd just IGNORE the resistance and/or terrorist attacks by the newbie who is trying to regain their territory.

I believe that god-modding results when the invader / occupier is unfair in RP'ing. If the invader / occupier is fair in RP'ing and gives the invaded nation a chance to resist / fight back, then there would certainly be less god-modding going around.

If a RP'er constantly god-mods, I will thus side with your "sorry, not accomdating" principle. I will then support your "not accomdating" actions / attitude. However, that attitude is not necessary if the newbie RP'er actually tries to improve RP or work things out.

I have a major problem with your analogy. I don't believe in *letting* someone win. They've got to *earn* it. If they show potential, I'll do what I can to help him or her harness that potential and give constructive feedback, but I think "letting" someone win is doing them a disservice.

First, this is a game, not real life.

Second, if we let the small nations win once in a while, it would help give them initative to RP better. What I meant by "win once in a while" is like regaining back their occupied land, win a battle or two, retake a major city, etc.

Those small "victories" would greatly help the newbie want to stay in the game, and continue RP'ing in NS, rather than quitting NS because nobody wants to compromise with him / her.

First, this is a game, not real life.
The fact that this is a game and that one has to earn their victory are quite irrelevant, as in many other games you simply don't "get" victory - you earn it, though in NS it can also include a "negotiated" victory as a result of RP pre-planning. In fact, can someone godmode and claim that they have a 1 gigaton battleship just because “this is a game"? Of course not, as it would be unfair to other players. Victory is the same thing, as it would be extremely unfair for someone just to claim it effortlessly without any thinking or development of strategies and tactics.

In fact, getting victories without any effort would only encourage these newbies to play for victory as opposed to fun, which then would result in undesirable consequences. Yes, they will most likely stay, but then you are not teaching them the value of coping with losses.

The fact that this is a game and that one has to earn their victory are quite irrelevant, as in many other games you simply don't "get" victory - you earn it, though in NS it can also include a "negotiated" victory as a result of RP pre-planning. In fact, can someone godmode and claim that they have a 1 gigaton battleship just because “this is a game"? Of course not, as it would be unfair to other players. Victory is the same thing, as it would be extremely unfair for someone just to claim it effortlessly without any thinking or development of strategies and tactics.

In fact, getting victories without any effort would only encourage these newbies to play for victory as opposed to fun, which then would result in undesirable consequences. Yes, they will most likely stay, but then you are not teaching them the value of coping with losses.

Yes, I am fully aware of this fact.

However, in NS, old players disappear, from either NS boredom, RL issues, loss of internet connection, etc.

Now where will the new excellent RP'ers come from to replace the disappearing old-timers? If we bash every newbie who tries his/her hand out at war or aggression (non-nukes, keep in mind) then our source of new good RP'ers will dry up.

Then NS would eventually die out from no more good RP'ers because they got dogpiled on for trying something different and/or a war (between comparatively sized nations). Then what? NS would decay, and go down the tubes even more.


Second.... What I meant by "win once in a while" is like regaining back their occupied land, win a battle or two, retake a major city, etc.

Small victories such like these would go a long way towards cementing the newcomer's interest in NS RP'ing. These victoires are small enough to allow for losses in other areas, like troops or other cities. These small victories will give the newbie newcomer HOPE, which is a much needed commodity for newcomers.

If we refuse to give the newbie any victory, even small ones, the newbie will quickly lose enthuaism for NS, and begin to despair that he/she will never be able to RP as his/her nation in NS again.

Giving a try at "war and aggression" does not mean that a 5 million nation can just go out there, declare war on x nation, and then expect to win. It's not that larger nations would give small nations no chance to succeed, but it is that if the small nation happens to upset and anger other large nations ICly, then it is the smaller nation's own actions that would consequently result in them being outright defeated. And this is why patience is important, as no one would be able to instantly build up an army or expect that there's definately going to be victory.

Onto the second point, though I do understand that winning and victory doesn't have to be instant, "win once in a while" is still subjected to interpretation, as one cannot expect to gain "victory" at all if they do not exert any effort or does any thinking.

Instead, implying that "victory results in hope" is flawed, as it automatically assumes that the only objective of the new player is to win, not to make a story and managing one's nations - and that's what NS is all about. My nation has been nuked within the first week in NS, and yet I also see many nations with many people but an "Imploded" economy. Does that mean that loss would automatically result in the loss of interest and enthusiasm? Not if they actually expect to RP for the story aspect of NS, instead of win-win-win.

I do like the proposal and it would help out the little nations but that would be contingent on all nations agreeing to it. Personally I think these are already implied rules because, for the most part, people do put limits on the amount of people but they do it at their discretion. Anyhow, it's not a bad idea to propose but certainly would be a bad idea to make involuntary.

I also back this 100%, i dont have a problem with any of the rules in here.

To be honest if a 1Billion + nation cant deal with a 100Mil Nation on its own then its fairly incompetant.

I do like the proposal and it would help out the little nations but that would be contingent on all nations agreeing to it. Personally I think these are already implied rules because, for the most part, people do put limits on the amount of people but they do it at their discretion. Anyhow, it's not a bad idea to propose but certainly would be a bad idea to make involuntary.
As for the proposal in general, I think it's generally a good idea, though there's still some problems along with it even if it is not involuntary (though probably making it involuntary is unnecessary anyways as us players is the ones who are defining NS). While a small nation may still be outright invaded and occupied (though this does not mean that resistance movements are impossible) if it chooses to warmonger carelessly and recklessly, dogpiling and invading for OOC reasons rather than IC reasons is still not only extremely unfair for the small nation, but is unfair in general as it implies that OOC reasons are legit for invasions.

And this is why I try to work things out beforehand with the people I invade (see Zackaroth) and why I prefer subtlety over outright aggression... that and I have not yet found a way (or perhaps had a situation conducive to desiring to) to write outright aggression in a manner I am content with.

Of note - one of my allies is being "invaded", and our sole response is logistical. Why? "Too small to worry us, call if you really need help".

Works for their RP - particulary as they added a "National Pride" issue to their side about NOT asking for help.

In short, it can be worked out.