My esteemed colleague Hudson Bay has raised an excellent question in another forum.

I think that is worth putting before everyone for discussion here.

What is our vision of a defence force and what uses should it be put to, if any?

I'm glad you also feel that this is important issue to clear up. I was hoping to wait until the dust had settled from the current election before running a new poll, but that's okay...

For me it would help if you provided some explanations with each of the choices. For example defending an ally could also include a counter-invasion. (depends on how much control they still have in the region in question).

Maybe another way to look at this is under what conditions would Canada actually send nations to another region? Other than cases of sending a single neutral nation. My vote would be to limit it to cases where we are helping an ally keep the delegate position. Or another way of saying it is peacekeeping. When multiple groups counter-invade things can get messy. We could easily end up supporting the wrong party in a senario like this and not know it until later.

Cool - I will put a little explanation in. I should also point out that this is designed to get some sense of what people think is acceptable. The definitions are flexible to an extent.

1) Regional Defense only - DoW forces will only be used in Counter Invasions of our enemies who have aggressively attacked our region. This is the most pacifistic of the options, and would see canada take no part in any defence of any other region.

2) Defense of Allies and Canada - DoW forces will only be used in Counter Invasions of our enemies who have aggressively attacked our region. DoW forces would take part in defence of allied regions on the basis of treaties signed by the Foriegn Affairs Office.

3) All above and Counter Invasion of our Enemies - DoW forces will only be used in Counter Invasions of our enemies who have aggressively attacked our region. DoW forces would take part in defence of allied regions on the basis of treaties signed by the Foriegn Affairs Office. DoW forces would also participate in the tactical counter invasion of Regions that had invaded allied regions.

4) Aggressive Region Invasion - I was kinda joking when I put this in...... ;) however... DoW perform proactive defensive measures by seeking to invade openly unfriendly regions and go on to perform a Jihad like crusade through nation states.

Hope that helps. Of course if you don't think that the DoW should be resurrected then please null your vote.

Well I messed up. I clicked view the vote and it counted my vote as a null vote. I swear in another forum I was able to view the vote and still vote later. So I messed up.

If I may, I would like to post my vote here. Which is just as well because I want to qualify it anyway. My vote is in between 1 and 2. I can vote for 2 IF the defense of an ally can only include a counter-invasion if the ally is a feeder reagion. A feeder region (ex. The South Pacific) can not have a founder so they have no other way to improve their security other that forming military alliances.

So count my vote as a 2 if you can, otherwise please make it one more vote for 1. Thanks...

Just to clarify, cos I want to be sure I know what your saying.

Are you saying that you would support counter invasion of a region that was invading our allies? Or are you saying that you would only support a counter invasion into a region being invaded?

I think that its more likely the latter, but I wanted to make sure. Answering yes to the former would be to vote for the third option.

It's the later but ONLY when that region is a feeder region (one of the pacific regions). I can control that some what by not signing alliances with non-feeder regions that don't have founders. It would help however if Defence would never counter-invade regions that could have founders.

Before I vote, let me check my interpretation of the selections:

For our Regional Defence only
Self defence of our region, DoW would only act to remove invader delegate and restore our own.


 For Defense of Allies and Canada
Again, would only act to remove invader delegate and restore native delegate to power however, would also act on request in allied regions.

 For All above and Counter Invasion of our Enemies
Would add punitive invasions of those who have invaded us and our allies. You invade us, we get our region back and then return the favour.

 For Aggressive Region Invasion
Just be bad ass and eventually PO the wrong people. Ending up on the receiving end of option 3.

Thats pretty much it BT. Couldn't have said it better myself - especially option 4 :lol:

Number 1 for instance is useless unless you consider that DoW forces would have to be used to counter invade the region invading us.

As HB has also pointed out there is some room for maneuver on how we might use our forces, IE that we make a distinction in aiding the birth/feeder regions.

HB - I am still not sure where to place you on this one. :unsure: If I count you as an option one I am not really representing the fact that you would favour defending our allies. If I put you down for option two I am overstating your support for the use of force.

I think i will count you as voting for option 2, but the conversation we have had here is on record and therefore your reservations about the defending allies other than feeder regions are noted. B) Is that OK?

Boardz I think that 2 is fine. As you said the details are on record.

OK, I'm with option 2 as even some regions with founders may have problems (founder away, no longer active, etc.)

I can also see situations where I would even go to option 3.

Personally, I'm not represented in the poll as posted. I see Canada's defence as the aggressive and proactive defence of democracy throughout NS.

[edit]I guess I'll vote for option 4.... :huh: [/edit]

woah man - :o

Thats bold. Your opinion on the subject is noted.

In a way I agree the only way to be relevant to the game is to be agressive in some instances.

I am closing this poll.

Thanks for voting. ;)