NationStates Jolt Archive

Playing the conqueror is more complex than many RPers think. Just imagine the invading army fighting through a city. It won’t occupy industrial, commercial and residential zones in equal measure as it advances. What if the conquering army advances through the residential areas first? Peoples’ homes will be on one side of the line, while their work is on the other. This will mean on one side of their line there are people without work, and on the other side business/government organisations without employees. Hostile civilians are going to be a much greater problem when they don’t have any work to keep them busy. The desperation caused by no income will only make things worse. Of course these problems aren’t just for attackers, but also for defenders who may lose access to the staff who run vital war industries, or lose the industries but keep the residencies of the staff.

This however is simply a side issue of ongoing military conquest. This rant goes into what happens after forceful acquirement: annexation. What territory should you annex? And what is involved in annexation and administration of new territory?

When I was forced to administer the Province of Trinity after I annexed it, suddenly I became aware of a whole raft of issues I’d never bothered to consider. Things to consider vary from the exciting (preventing rebellion) to the vital but mundane (different filing systems).

(NB: You can hold territory without annexing it, by treating it as occupied military territory. Also there is the option of indirect administration, through puppet states. Other options also exist. However today’s discussion is limited to annexation.)


What to annex?
I often suggest to people, when looking at a problem, start at the end. Look where you want to be and then think about what needs to be done to get there. Annexation of territory can be done for a number of reasons. The territory may be treated as a trophy, it gain/deprive access to strategic territory, to gain/deprive access to economic resources, for political gain, to unite people of similar culture, etcetera. Asking why you want the territory is vital. Looking at the end has a second implication. You have to imagine your administration of the new territory, which makes the first and second part of this discussion hard to separate.

Another consideration is the defensibility and accessibility of your annexed territory. Annexed territory is an equal part of your nation and thus should not be inaccessible or indefensible, in the context of your nation as a whole. Good transportation links between the annexed area and the rest of the nation will help integrate the new area into the new nation. This is one reason border territory is often annexed; it’s easy to access and easy to add to the nation’s defence and transport networks. Nations annexing territory simply to gain more defensible borders (woodlands, high ground and water obstacles) obviously fall into this category.

Your nation should be a well oiled machine consisting of a series of intricately interlocking parts. By annexing territory you are adding new parts to a carefully balanced machine. A piece that does not fit should not be added. A piece that does not fit, knows it doesn’t fit and will resent this. As a cat resents being left at the dog kennel; people who are made citizens of your nation by force of arms will resent being the third wheel, being treated as prizes rather than valued citizens. This requires the previous paragraph to hold, the new territory has equal place in the nation’s transport and defence infrastructure. However it should also have a role in your vision of your nation as a whole. Did you acquire a large number of steel mills? Now you can turn that iron ore you’ve been mining and sending overseas, into steel by putting it on the north-south rail line and sending it south to the newest part of your nation.

Don’t be greedy! Don’t take it all. Don’t even take the majority. Take a nice bite sized portion. Later I will discuss the complications involved in governing new territory. These problems get bigger when you annex greater amounts of territory. Plus your new citizens won’t be entirely impressed about their new citizenship, so the more territory you acquire at once, the greater trouble you will face. You want troublemakers to be a small portion of the population and the best way to do this is to minimise the number of foreigners who become citizens overnight.

Try and annex territory by administrative regions (e.g. states, provinces, baronies). This has multiple advantages. First and foremost, by annexing a whole administrative region, the administrative machinery is already in place. If you conquer a small portion of a state then you have to add it to one of your own existing regions if you have a federal/feudal system. If you are going to conquer most of an existing ‘state’ you might as well conquer all of it. Your enemy maintaining tiny portions of a state that is essentially in your hand, will allow them to keep appointing/electing representatives for that state. These people are inclined to be incredibly hostile and stir up sentiment against you in a nation you thought you had dealt with. The state will essentially have two governments and although this sounds fun, it can only end in a nasty mess.

Moving back away from the political, it is best to annex territory your nation has seized by force. I realise your new citizens should be treated with love and equality, but this will not stop some of them hating you. If they have seen your troops marching through their city, expelling their defenders by force, they may not love you but they will have a fearful respect of you. Law and order will be vital for governing your new territories and you cannot do that without respect.

Please note that the above items may in some circumstances be contradictory. That’s life. As a ruler it’s your duty to make a value judgement about which rules to follow and which rules to break. I suggest however, the most important rule is to remember exactly what you are trying to accomplish and use that as a starting point. Too often, in too many things, people have a vision, but then excessively dilute their strategy of getting there by placing too much importance on secondary considerations. In cases like this, people need more tunnel vision.


How do you annex territory?
Well this depends partly on your own (and the losing side’s) constitutional arrangements. Most players leave the power with a legislative chamber. Thus, in most cases it is simply a matter of the legislature endorsing a treaty that transfers rule from one nation to the next. This however is without style and gives the strongest feel of annexation of force. Style. That’s what a good annexation requires.

What follows is about is the one I used in the annexation of Trinity. Please do not treat it as a cookbook to annexation. Use your creativity.
+First, conquer the territory intended for annexation.
+Then establish a collaborationist regime to rule the newly conquered territory. +Collaborators are easy enough to find, there are always people who have grudges against previous rulers or want the money/power you will bestow on them. That said don’t grab anyone with a grudge or a greedy side. You want people of influence and statesmanship. Even when the regime is an obvious puppet, the occupied will still prefer to be ruled by their people than by a military authority or a distant bureaucracy.
+Once it is clear that the territory won’t be lost, the collaborationist regime (on secret instructions from the conqueror) petitions the conquering government for permission to join the conquering nation. After long consideration, the conquering government graciously accedes. Therefore rather than ‘annexation by force’, there is ‘membership by consent’. Obviously most people will see through the farce, but it will be more official and slightly easier to accept.
+Have a big party. Have an official public ceremony to conduct the official annexation. The collaborators and the conquering government sign an official looking document to formally annex the document once all the necessary legislation is out the way. Give the people a good time. Make it flashy. Brave, proud sounding speeches with lots of talk about ‘bright, united futures’ but without much substance.
+Start imposing your laws. Handle troublemakers firmly. The locals might be citizens now, but this isn’t a free pass to rebel against the rule of law.
+Win the war. The losing side is forced to recognise this Province/State as a legitimate part of the winning nation as a condition of the treaty. The losing side’s recognition of the ‘rightful’ division of territory is the final step, not the first.

NB: attempting an annexation then losing the war will be humiliating. Be sure you can enforce your decisions, rather than getting egg on your face.


What is involved in administering new territory?
So now you’ve annexed some poor fools. This means they must obey your national legislation. This is a nightmare. The annexed territory will have completely different legislation in all sorts of field that will create a practical nightmare.

Medical/educational/engineering/(just about anything) training standards will vary across borders. All the schools/hospitals in your new territory may have teachers/nurses that will not be acceptably qualified to continue working in the newly acquired facilities. This is potentially true for private businesses whose staff will may also no longer meet national training requirements. Imagine businesses, schools or hospitals shutting down on mass due to staff-skilling crisis in your new territory. The concentrated mass disruption will not help your new citizens imagine themselves as equals when they are the only region plagued with crisis. Do you change national legislation to prevent mass disruption in the new province? This could lead to a dilution of standards nationwide. Do you ship professionals from all across the nation to fill the positions and retrain existing staff? This will put a massive strain on the rest of the nation. The people, who helped you win the war, will now have a feeling of ‘hollow victory’ as their resources are drained to prop up the new territory.

Not only is it about people’s qualifications, but standards across all sectors. Education is a simple example. The national curriculum will need to be imposed. Are the current teachers qualified to teach your new curriculum? What about children half way through school on the old curriculum, can you just switch education frameworks without disruption or will they miss something vital and be left behind? The history curriculum will be the most divisive. An entirely different nation’s history will be taught. Again there is the question of teacher qualifications. Also, your new history curriculum will upset your new citizens as it will likely be too soft on your nation and too harsh on the defeated nation from their point of view. The existing teachers, upset about annexation, may well try to teach the history in a way less sympathetic way to your nation and your government. What do you do? Abandon the national curriculum in this one area and let them do things their way? How can you make your new citizens equals if you give them privileges?

Another example is building regulations. What building safety standards? What if the new territory is full of buildings not up to safety standards? Do you evict people and businesses en mass? Or do you deliberately flout your own laws to avoid a revolt?

Things your new citizens used to do might now be illegal. For example, walking the dog naked is banned in your country. How do you treat naked dog walkers? They might not realise that nakedness while walking the dog is illegal in your country. They might resent your law full stop. Do you give people in the conquered to the law immunity? You will be moving away from the goal of equal citizens. Equal citizens are equally subject to the law. It might stir up hostilities from other sectors of the community that begrudge the new citizens extra rights (especially if they also desire to walk their dog naked). Do you give them a warning for the first offence? Do you launch a publicity campaign in your new territory about the dangers of walking the dog naked?

You might have worked out by now a federal system makes annexation easier. The more of their own affairs the regions run, the less you have to worry about the nightmare of bringing your new territory in line with rest of the nation. However, in more centralised societies, I suggest the creation of transitional arrangements and clear timeframes. Allow the old administrative arrangements to exist in the short-term bring the annex territory in line with national requirements in a manner that is quick, but not so quick as to cause chaos. For example, establish a scheme that all new teachers in the annex territory are trained in the national curriculum, and twenty percent of existing teachers in the annexed territory are retrained each year. Obviously real transitional plans are more complex than one sentence.


Ensuring Your Laws Prevail
This is just the administrative side of your problems. The other side is preventing your new rule collapsing. Conquering a territory in war is fairly pointless if you cannot rule it in peace. You might try and implement your national laws, but the locals may not be so receptive. Responses that the nation you defeated will RP to your new rule will vary from reluctance, but peaceful acceptance, to civil disobedience campaigns, through to the extreme (and the most common and unrealistic case, especially amongst RPers who are sore losers) of open revolt against your rule.

What do you do? Do you beat down even mild dissent with an iron fist or do you open your arms while your new citizens take pot-shots at you? There are many thoughts on this matter, but this is my thread so you’ll hear mine (which come partly from Machiavelli). To speak generally, my style is softer than many RPers. I am not however a leftwing peacenik. To people I have made citizens, I am ruthless and firm, but not what I consider brutal.

Rule 1: Have Strength at Hand and Be Prepared to Use It
The strong hand should not only be military, but civilian intelligence agencies, national police and collaborationist organisations. The aim is to break the cycle of violence before it begins. Showing a strong and willing hand gives rebellious types little room to move and places significant fear in the hearts of your enemies. Strength is not only a short-term cure to violence, but more importantly it is preventative. Use all the organisations available to you to strangle the resistance in the cradle.

Rule 2: Peace Requires Law and Order
The law applies equally across all your territory. What would you do if someone blew up a few soldiers in the capital? Farmina would execute the bastard for murder. In annexed territory the law would apply equally. The rebel would get a short drop and a quick stop. The rebel would probably get a second one for treason. That is equal application of the law, short and brutal. Once the treaty is signed, there are no longer ‘Prisoners of War’, or even saboteurs. In peace there are traitors and murderer and terrorists. Treat them as such. It’s brutal but it’s also has an incredibly sense of equitability. NB: If you have incredibly lenient murder/treason legislation it may be worth toughening it up.

Rule 3: Your Citizens are Equal and Valued
This point has already been discussed. The conquered must have a role to try and develop a sense of belonging. They must be equals and not second class citizens. Nor should they be patronised in a flimsy attempt to buy their love with cheap gimmicks. They should not be given special privileges as these are unsustainable. When you remove the extra benefit, you will earn contempt beyond what you gain. Annexed territory should not be treated as colonies. New territory should have the same access to infrastructure and be closely tied to other parts of the nations. Equality is not just about some form of appeasement. Equality is an absolute concept. Equality is as much about political rights, as a person's right to a cigarette and a blindfold when they step out of line (a.ka. the firing squad).

Rule 4: Be Decisive
When there is resistance to your rule, crush it. There are no two ways about it. You cannot buy love, but you can buy fear. Your new citizens do not want to end up on the receiving end of a firing squad. Make sure that they know if they step out of line that there will be a firing squad in reserve, just for them. The bringing of order must be decisive. Dealing lightly with rebels will not bring their threat to an end. Each half measure will annoy them further, with out removing the cancer. Instead the half measures will increase hatred as people lose their brothers, sons and fathers, but will allow the survival of organisations that allow the mourners to express their grief violently. The conqueror must be unquestionably ruthless in these matters, without being unnecessarily brutal. Intelligence organisations should infiltrate these organisations and map their structures. The police should then seize all involved, and on the findings of guilt, execute or incarcerate their members from the lowest rung to the highest.

Rule 5: Open the Borders
When the occupied territory becomes an equal part of your nation, free movement of civilians into and out of the new region should be allowed. This again feeds back into proper integration of transport infrastructure, but it goes further. By allowing people to pour out of the rest of the country into your new territory, it allows the local populous to be diluted. It allows new citizens to mingle and be influenced by the old ones. It allows your long time citizens to keep a close eye on the new ones. Immigrants to the annexed territory will help bring your culture to bear on the conquered in a way they cannot be avoided. On the downside, ‘colonists’ provide a soft target for militant resistance, in a way military targets do not.

Rule 6: The Nation Has Changed, Don’t Let Them Forget It
Federal systems might allow new territories to have some independence, but when you annex a territory, you must stamp your authority on it. Old institutions should be remoulded in the appearance of the new order. Heads of the bureaucracy should be replaced with more sympathetic faces. The education curriculum should let you sell your version of events. The people won’t change of their own volition. You need to manipulate the institutions to change them. Please note: forcing a prescriptive law on people to behave in a certain way, is not the same as manipulating your new citizens to fit into your new mould.


Please supply your comments and spelling/grammar/factual corrections. Comments encouraged. Changes may be made over time.

I'll take a more complete look later, but From what I read, this is really well thought up. I wonder if it has anything to do with my nation and your jackboot. :p

I second that. I've only skimmed, but at first sight this looks brilliant. Will read more thoroughly later. You do however have way too much time on your hands. You should do some of my work for me ;).

We go a step farther and utterly destroy or assimilate the native culture of the conquered regions, replacing them with our citizens and our institutions. Raw economic warfare combined with raw demographic shifting is our primary goal, Vetalianizing a new territory in no more than a decade or two, all things equal. The foreign population will eventually be so diluted that it cannot possibly raise any objections to our rule.

However, it's also true that these regions are fairly small, making this far easier than if we were to annex a sizable chunk of a nation.

I'll add some thoughts to this thread

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland#Postwar_Communist_Poland

From what I remember from History, the Soviets were initially lauded as the liberators (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8c/Lodz_liberation3.jpg) rather than invaders when they drove off the nazis and turned Poland into a satellite socialist State. So in the end this might be a much more interesting path to take than simply invading straight a nation, specially when the other nation that occupied them is one of your enemies. And speaking about it, a nation which proclaims itself as a bastion of a specific ideology calling all its followers worldwide rather than focusing on jingoism can have other advantages should an occupation follow in a territory with significant quantities of followers of the ideology it endorses exist.

The popularity of the previous government also makes a significant role on the level of resistance to be expected. However, even if it was a gruesome and generally hated tyranny, should your military treat the civilians worser than their previous government, don't expect to be well received.

Finally, culture is the main bastion of a nation and its strength also influences the strength of any resistance force. Trying to force a foreign culture or beliefs against an occupied territory will increase the civil unrest drastically than allowing them to have their beliefs and slowly through many years introduce elements of the invading nation culture. If possible, trying to adapt the laws of your nation to the culture of an occupied territory than trying to adapt the occupied territory culture, beliefs and values to your nation laws will initially bring better results.

What about dealing with the International Community? Other than that, excellent work.

Vetalia, although you sound mildly more aggressive in your assimilation tactics than me, I agree with your idea of bringing in your own citizens. This is what I did in Trinity. Make your new citizens neighbours with your old citizens. Let them work together. Make them realise how similar they are. It will create sympathy. In some cases they may even fall in love. It will dilute and ease the hate.

TSS, on setting up puppet states, this is really a separate issue. Been there done that. Same war as the annexation of Trinity saw me set up the Republic of Scirenia in Western MES. I was thinking of writing something about that.

GWO, the best way to deal with the international community is not to be excessively greedy in your claims and brutal in your enforcement. Annexation needn't be tyrannical. Also flashy annexation procedures probably help. For the most part, I haven't seen that many vehement objects to annexation of small parcels of territory, so I don't think there is a large problem here.

This is good. It shall be in the new new sticky.

Added a little on colonisation (see rule 5). A few minor changes. I want to hear ideas.

Farmina is back online. And the post has been mildly editted. Its still probably full of grammar mistakes...

I far prefer saboteur/unrest/terror by agents/fomented civil war. then simply tell them to stop as the army rolls over the borders and be hailed for bringing peace.

Simplistic description since I'm not up to writing a whole whitepaper manual, but with attention to detail, workable.

right, I have more time this time around, Being an Island nation, and fairly insular, Calarca has no real desire to annex anywhere, but I have thought over the methodology. I tend to be a somewhat dodgy guy who would rather sneak things through than charge head on into something. As such my nation tends to do the same, keeping a considerable presence of undeclared agents in other countries, including allies.

Say that instead of being an island nation, Calarca was a mainland nation, and short of several important raw ores and materials, on one border is a country of similiar size, military prowess and technology level. Call it Klodic, Klodic is a federation of several states with a federal government based in a capital territory, much like Australia with NSW, Queensland, WA, etc, and the ACT. Lets call the states Norf Klodic, Aest Klodic, Sarf Klodic, and Vaest Klodic (north, east, south, west... geddit now?) with the capital Klodicville situated in an autonomous captial territory rather than being part of a state. The states have their national guards under state electoral house/governor control, but the regular army is under federal control.

If I, as Calarca wanted to take over Aest Klodic, the region on my border, I wouldn't just roll my tanks over the border one foggy morning... it would have the whole of the Klodic army come down on my forces and bog things down in a stalemate like the Iran-Iraq war of the 80's.

I'd be more sneaky, launder funds into various banks in countries unfriendly to Klodic, and use those to fund civil unrest within Klodic. Unions, Separatist groups, Indignous minority action movements, student unions, newspapers opposing the government of Klodic...

Next would be carefully orchestrated sabotage. Call Klodic a democracy, one of the vocal groups that does nothing is a communist agitprop organisation, funded up by the laundered funds run through the country unfriendly with Klodic. Using Calarcas intelligence agencies, the hunt will be on to find a known terrorist with communist links. once found Calarcan agents can "retire" him to an unmarked grave somewhere... After being harvested of various hairs, blood drawn and stored, etc... this will be the scapegoat for some of the terror attacks. Calarcan agents are introduced into Klodic, these agents are picked on the basis of their looking unlike the chosen scapegoat, but close enough that a little makeup makes them almost undistinguishable from him.

over a period of time, terror attacks happen, poison in city aquifiers, timer triggered aerosol mist cans of nerve gas set off in city squares, bombs on rail tracks detonate as the train reaches them, causing derailments... statements are made following each one claiming them to be the work of the communist group and calling for the overthrow of the government. Enough witnesses and evidence are gathered to link the terror attacks to a known communisit terrorist (remember the scapegoat?)

the same thing is happening throughout Klodic with several different groups, Anarchists, nazis, whatever is available, or can be made to be available. the aim is widespread civil unrest.

Important officials of the governments (state and federal) should be seen to abscond with large amounts of taxpayers cash... done by having them disposed of by assassin or snatch teams and the bodies removed, actors are seen to cross the border or board private planes that fly off the radar, while agents hack computers to transfer tax money out. everyone will blame them and lose faith in the govt.

Unions should be induced to strike, and rioting in the streets... by the time it all comes to a climax and your armies roll across the border, the civil populace should be cheering you on with your declarations that you will smash goverment corruption and bring order to the unrest.


it's long and expesnsive and hard to keep your agents uncovered, but so much more stimulating than an all-out war of attrition.

One of the ways I was considering that some might do it is through a military campaign that sews chaos and confusion among the public they are taking over. The right mixture of the unexpected, the bizarre, and the standard can leave the nation being invaded in such utter chaos that it cannot put up an effective defense in the cities being attacked. If done well enough, the entire nation will be completely under your control before a real attempt to resist can get started.

Pulling it off requires a rapid strike, and if done right it is incredibly flashy. And, afterwards, the restoration of order can allow you to weed out who will be converted to your nation and who won't. You may even get lucky and capture a lot of the military.

it would be so much simpler to create the chaos before rather than during a campaign...

don't bite off more than your nation can chew :P

The problem with your thoughts Calarca is that it ignores a couple of major facts. It all stems from the fact that nationalism tends to dominate political issues. This isn't to say chaos is a bad thing; its just not the solution to everything.

First, people might hate their corrupt/incompetent government; this doesn't mean they want a foreign power invading their home. That said, a government perceived as corrupt/incompetent/evil would make things easier I agree (this was certainly the case in the Farmina-MES war). But easier ain't easy. Messians were still Messians, no matter how much they hated their government.

Secondly, even if the locals were happy for you to topple their hated government, the annexation of their homeland they will not be happy about. They would expect you to leave an independent, local, honest and representative government in its place, rather than assuming power for yourself. Annexation in this case would be something of a betrayal of trust, earning hatred and contempt, and worse will cost respect. These will end in resistance to your rule.

Thirdly, what stops all those troublemakers you've just created, creating trouble for you?

(gives standing ovation)

Well done, I enjoyed reading this Food for Thought!

I'm always glad to recieve a standing ovation.

Farmina, excellent work.

With regards to what Calarca is saying, how would you handle it? I rather like his ideas. I think that instead of making the issue one of nationalism, it would be much easier to turn it into an ideological debate, if possible. Or really, anything your two groups have in common. And as for annexing them after you overthrow their government, you ought to start phasing out their government to be more like yours through your puppet. Generally, though, I think that's a better idea, perhaps naming the puppet a "protectorate," and putting pressure on them to change so that when they finally do have to join your country, it's not such a major thing, because they've already made those changes.

I think that would really reduce the shock of it all, make it a smaller pill to swallow.

As much as I like puppet nations, I'm not that convinced of their value as an interim phase in annexation. There is a risk that when you create a new nation, you create a new nationalism to create trouble. I tend to feel an interim collaborationist regime is better; where you formally continue to recognise the capture territory as part of its home nation so you can try and temporarily dodge the nationalism issue, while using the collaborators to push forward your agenda.

In terms of making the debate ideological/political, I really don’t see how it is a bullet-proof approach. As soon as you start trying to stir up trouble on the basis of any issue; the government on the receiving end has an automatic response of ‘remember how Messian/Farminan/etc you are’. As soon as the defending government uses a line that brings up nationality, it is very hard to stop nationality and nationalism being the issue. Once that happens, ideology/politics is a lot less important.

If I was to use an ideological/political issue, I’d pick one very divisive issue and run with it full length. For example, in the Farminan-Messian war, Farmina played the issue of political structure and leadership against the Messians, using rising distrust of the Messian military aristocracy, and in particular its leader, Jason Snyder. And it hurt the Messians badly. But this didn’t stop Farmina having to crush the Messian army at great cost to both sides (especially the Messians). And it certainly didn’t make it significantly easier to annex Trinity; even Messians desiring the defeat of the Messian regime, did not tend to support Farmina’s annexation of Messian Trinity.

I hope that answers your questions.

Well essentially my definition of puppet regime is the same as your collaborationist. I think it is better to make an anti-nationalist party that entirely supports making their culture and government system more like yours.

Well essentially my definition of puppet regime is the same as your collaborationist. I think it is better to make an anti-nationalist party that entirely supports making their culture and government system more like yours.

I agree to the extent that it can be done. I especially believe that you should play hardball, concentrate on the a few most powerful issues. But I return to my underlying point. Nationalism will always be part of the game; all you can do is try and hide it with the largest doily you can. But it will always be there.

I crave your opinions...perhaps I should give a piece of my mind on something else...