Ying Yang Mafia Posted February 13, 2012 Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 [quote name='Stewie' timestamp='1329147746' post='2919523'] Depends where you call lower levels. I have 3 nations in my range who are valid raid targets. All in PM. Rest of them are in alliances. [/quote] I just check your war screen for targets in my range. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted February 13, 2012 Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 [quote name='Ying Yang Mafia' timestamp='1329158373' post='2919592'] I just check your war screen for targets in my range. [/quote] YYM loves sloppy seconds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velocity111 Posted February 13, 2012 Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Lurunin' timestamp='1329155607' post='2919576'] i do believe there's a reason he's in PM [/quote] [quote name='Stewie' timestamp='1329153932' post='2919563'] Meteor is a peaceful nation. War is not an option since 2/13/2012 [/quote] Hi guys, I posted his link, and now he's in PM. Coincidence? I think not. Especially if you check the time at which he went into PM, as well as the forum post he just made in this topic. Besides Stewie, if I actually thought you were going to raid this guy, I would've sent you the link through other means. Obviously, your being in anarchy makes you unable to raid. And besides, as a raid target, he's not that great... not enough land The point was merely to demonstrate the ease with which one is able to find raids in their range is inversely proportional to their NS Edited February 13, 2012 by Velocity111 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kzoppistan Posted February 13, 2012 Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 (edited) [quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1329156581' post='2919582']snip[/quote] Well, sure, it's a lot less headache to mass raid an alliance than to declare war, for the latter requires a CB that won't ruffle the feathers of friends and allies and doesn't require a coordinated government response or tedious peace discussions. Raiding and warring are just two different acts of hostility that provide their own bonuses. It is very difficult to besmirch the reputation of an aggressor by saying that they are taking the "easy way" out of robbery when the aggressors say "ha ha, yep." If I were in a micro being raided and I couldn't get the aggressor to back off diplomatically, I'd either enjoy the fight and deal with it, or, if I were upset, throw the wrench into the works and post a DoW on the raiders. Which would bring the wrath of allies and full power of the aggressor down on the head, but it also entangles the entire situation and creates opportunities to damage their reputation while opening the door to the aggressors enemies by giving them a pretext to involve themselves. If anything, it would show that tangling with that particular micro wouldn't be worth it without the possibility of political capital being spent. Whether that is worth the price of the entire alliance, as being crushed would be most likely, depends on the opinion of the membership. Sometimes it's easier to just take your lumps and get better protection as quickly as possible. Edited February 13, 2012 by Kzoppistan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Caparo Posted February 13, 2012 Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 [quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1329084820' post='2919200'] There are many many alliances that have far less and as a result should be concerned about their own safety at this point. [/quote] We arent concerned, we got in first Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted February 13, 2012 Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 [quote]... or, if I were upset, throw the wrench into the works and post a [b]DoW[/b] on the raiders[/quote] That would be a pretty schoolboy error, surely a defensive DoH is the best way to make political hay of that situation. White Chocolate, yes, obviously they want to portray it as 'just a raid' because it's much easier to sell attacking an alliance as okay if it's considered a raid rather than a war. It's disappointing that so many people are buying this line when AGW were way over the line of what is a 'valid raid target' by CN convention. Do we really want a world where sizable alliances are valid targets for attack if they don't tie themselves into the web? Obviously the aggressive raiders currently in the main power structure want that, just as the Unjust Path did before them, but I wasn't expecting all the serious alliances to be happy for that to become the case. Artigo, you can't seriously claim they had 'no government' when their government [i]posted sigs on an announcement[/i]! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kzoppistan Posted February 13, 2012 Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 [quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1329176762' post='2919710'] That would be a pretty schoolboy error, surely a defensive DoH is the best way to make political hay of that situation.[/quote] Well, my first thought was a Recognition of a State of Hostility or some such, but decided not to split hairs in my post. Your wording would be more effective. As for the rest of your post, claiming that this is a slippery slope type of action that could possibly cast the world into a chaos of blatant aggression by stronger vs weaker is off the mark. Because that world is already here. It just takes more tugging on the trappings of decorum the larger alliance one wants to roll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 [quote name='Artigo' timestamp='1329085697' post='2919209'] High land, no casualties, etc. It's almost impossible to find raid targets at our size. We often find ourselves decomming nukes and most of our militaries to get a raid whenever there is an opportunity available, despite how strong the nation might be as we are always prepared to eat nukes. In this case I found what I believed to be a defunct alliance additionally we had 4-5 nations within range. [/quote] Is it even still profitable after taking nukes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artigo Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 [quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1329183465' post='2919749'] Is it even still profitable after taking nukes? [/quote] If you take on 2+ targets with sizeable land, yes. I came out ahead with +2,336 land and +63 tech. Assuming they don't win any GAs it's very profitable. Also assuming you're not dipping into your WC that much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoomzoomzoom Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1329183465' post='2919749'] Is it even still profitable after taking nukes? [/quote] The more opponents you fight the easier it is to maintain land gains. Edited February 14, 2012 by Zoomzoomzoom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 [quote name='Lord Caparo' timestamp='1329175252' post='2919705'] We arent concerned, we got in first [/quote] <3 you guys!! Casualties AND beat the crap out of one of our guys who finally learned how important a warchest is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Chocolate Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Kzoppistan' timestamp='1329173936' post='2919699'] Well, sure, it's a lot less headache to mass raid an alliance than to declare war, for the latter requires a CB that won't ruffle the feathers of friends and allies and doesn't require a coordinated government response or tedious peace discussions.[/quote] Yes - due to the POLITICAL difference that WE (as a society) assign to the words "raid" and "war." On a technical level (between individual nations) what it is to "raid" vs. "declare war" are exactly the same thing. However, as a result of history and good PR on the part of raiding alliances and by the simple fact that those targeted for raids are usually those that don't have much power (although people make a mistake now and then) so they can't do anything in this "might makes right" world - there is now a "common practice" difference. [quote name='Kzoppistan' timestamp='1329173936' post='2919699']Raiding and warring are just two different acts of hostility that provide their own bonuses.[/quote] Same act of hostility, different politics. There is nothing (other than politics) that stop one alliance from declaring war on another in order to get tech, land, cash, etc. just as one gets in a raid. In fact, in war alliances do it all the time, and sometimes take political heat as a result - aka: "bandwagon" [quote name='Kzoppistan' timestamp='1329173936' post='2919699']It is very difficult to besmirch the reputation of an aggressor by saying that they are taking the "easy way" out of robbery when the aggressors say "ha ha, yep."[/quote] You don't need to try when the aggressor admits he or she has no good reputation in the first place. [quote name='Kzoppistan' timestamp='1329173936' post='2919699']If I were in a micro being raided[/quote] But in THIS case, we're talking about an alliance that is rank 64 out of 134 listed alliances, has an overall alliance strength of 2,027,158, has 360 nukes and 31 nations. Does that fit your definition of a micro? If this is a new standard of a good group to "raid" instead of respecting enough to declare an actual war, starting from rank 65 on down, the rest of us should start making plans to merge. [quote name='Kzoppistan' timestamp='1329177536' post='2919715']As for the rest of your post, claiming that this is a slippery slope type of action that could possibly cast the world into a chaos of blatant aggression by stronger vs weaker is off the mark. Because that world is already here. It just takes more tugging on the trappings of decorum the larger alliance one wants to roll. [/quote] Really? How many alliances the size and strength and nuke count of AGW Overlords are currently being "raided."? Yes, we live in a might makes right world. However, it's been worse before and nothing says it can't be worse in the future. I'd rather have some basic decorum. Edited February 14, 2012 by White Chocolate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beefspari Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 [quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1329233764' post='2920311'] But in THIS case, we're talking about an alliance that is rank 64 out of 134 listed alliances, has an overall alliance strength of 2,027,158, has 360 nukes and 31 nations. Does that fit your definition of a micro? If this is a new standard of a good group to "raid" instead of respecting enough to declare an actual war, starting from rank 65 on down, the rest of us should start making plans to merge.[/quote] NG raiding an alliance doesn't "set the bar" on who can be raided. GOONs has a similar policy in that we have a numeric rule for alliance size but can throw that out the window if we want. Different alliances have different rules on what can be raided. If you don't like it then the good news is you don't have to follow NG's example. They could raid GPA if they wanted; it might not be a good idea, but it doesn't mean the entire world goes to chaos if they do. Trying to claim this is going to be the new standard is just nonsense. [img]http://meru.xfury.net/images/aeris/aerisdisL3.jpg[/img] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kzoppistan Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 (edited) [quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1329233764' post='2920311']But in THIS case, we're talking about an alliance that is rank 64 out of 134 listed alliances, has an overall alliance strength of 2,027,158, has 360 nukes and 31 nations. Does that fit your definition of a micro? If this is a new standard of a good group to "raid" instead of respecting enough to declare an actual war, starting from rank 65 on down, the rest of us should start making plans to merge.[/quote] To your first question, no, it does not, but I think the question is less "what size is the alliance" but rather "who are they connected to." Which leads to the next point, the reason smaller alliances don't need to merge is because they are better protected. Only when the protector themselves are unable to protect, probably by being in the political minority due to the collection of power around the strongest center, will we see more aggressive action. Are you suggesting that is the trend? [quote]Really? How many alliances the size and strength and nuke count of AGW Overlords are currently being "raided."? Yes, we live in a might makes right world. However, it's been worse before and nothing says it can't be worse in the future. I'd rather have some basic decorum.[/quote] And if this is a desire of yours, what are you doing to see it happen? Edited February 14, 2012 by Kzoppistan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted February 15, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 [quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1329245878' post='2920457'] NG raiding an alliance doesn't "set the bar" on who can be raided. GOONs has a similar policy in that we have a numeric rule for alliance size but can throw that out the window if we want. Different alliances have different rules on what can be raided. If you don't like it then the good news is you don't have to follow NG's example. They could raid GPA if they wanted; it might not be a good idea, but it doesn't mean the entire world goes to chaos if they do. Trying to claim this is going to be the new standard is just nonsense. [/quote] Who does set the bar? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurion Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1329183465' post='2919749'] Is it even still profitable after taking nukes? [/quote] If you consider piling up casualties a profit or are just in it for the laughs, yes. Edited February 15, 2012 by Aurion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nippy Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 (edited) [quote name='enderland' timestamp='1329271920' post='2920798'] Who does set the bar? [/quote] There is no [s]spoon[/s] bar. Edited February 15, 2012 by nippy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeTheFirst Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 [quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1329233764' post='2920311'] If this is a new standard of a good group to "raid" instead of respecting enough to declare an actual war, starting from rank 65 on down, the rest of us should start making plans to merge. [/quote] That would be a good idea regardless of this recent raid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olaf Styke Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 [quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1329245878' post='2920457'] NG raiding an alliance doesn't "set the bar" on who can be raided. GOONs has a similar policy in that we have a numeric rule for alliance size but can throw that out the window if we want. Different alliances have different rules on what can be raided. If you don't like it then the good news is you don't have to follow NG's example. They could raid GPA if they wanted; it might not be a good idea, but it doesn't mean the entire world goes to chaos if they do. Trying to claim this is going to be the new standard is just nonsense. [img]http://meru.xfury.net/images/aeris/aerisdisL3.jpg[/img] [/quote] The fact that it isn't new doesn't make it any less palatable. It's a !@#$ policy either way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beefspari Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 (edited) [quote name='enderland' timestamp='1329271920' post='2920798'] Who does set the bar? [/quote] Individual alliances set their own personal bars. There's nothing that the entirety of Bob agrees on universally. This isn't some arbitrary exception. We didn't agree on the definition of micro before, still don't, and never will. This changes nothing. [img]http://meru.xfury.net/images/aeris/aeris-_-L5.jpg[/img] [quote name='Olaf Styke' timestamp='1329310258' post='2921025'] The fact that it isn't new doesn't make it any less palatable. It's a !@#$ policy either way. [/quote] That's fair. There are plenty of policies I consider stupid. You're free to think this is stupid, I'm free to think protecting an entire sphere of unaligned is stupid, someone else is free to think that secret treaties are stupid. That's not the debate topic though. The discussion is about if this "changes" things or "sets the bar." It doesn't. [img]http://meru.xfury.net/images/aeris/aerisdisL11.jpg[/img] Edited February 15, 2012 by Beefspari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olaf Styke Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1329310270' post='2921026']That's fair. There are plenty of policies I consider stupid. You're free to think this is stupid, I'm free to think protecting an entire sphere of unaligned is stupid, someone else is free to think that secret treaties are stupid. That's not the debate topic though. The discussion is about if this "changes" things or "sets the bar." It doesn't. [img]http://meru.xfury.net/images/aeris/aerisdisL11.jpg[/img] [/quote] Since when is a member of an alliance of 2 million NS considered 'unaligned'? Edited February 15, 2012 by Olaf Styke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaarlaamp Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 [quote name='Olaf Styke' timestamp='1329311095' post='2921033'] Since when is a member of an alliance of 2 million NS considered 'unaligned'? [/quote] He didn't say that? I think he's referring to the NPO protection of the red sphere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 [quote name='Olaf Styke' timestamp='1329311095' post='2921033'] Since when is a member of an alliance of 2 million NS considered 'unaligned'? [/quote] Since that alliance had no OTPs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 [quote name='Stewie' timestamp='1329314390' post='2921038'] Since that alliance had no OTPs. [/quote] Since when does an alliance need treaties to be considered an alliance? That's a dumb way of determining it, do you consider GPA an alliance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirWilliam Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 [quote name='Aurion' timestamp='1329276737' post='2920846'] If you consider piling up casualties a profit or are just in it for the laughs, yes. [/quote] Or if you're a raider and you consider tech and land gains, yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.