DoW Notification

[King Solomon]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1329079262' post='2919139']
25 wars hitting a third of an alliance within 24 hours is not 'just a tech raid'. That's more than several 'real' alliance wars managed. Tech raids are wrong too, but that's not what we're talking about here. This was coordinated military action against another alliance.Was it 'all out war'? No, but that's a straw man, no-one's claiming it was. It was still a war.Yes, quite.
[/quote]

It's a tech raid. Tech raids can be coordinated.

Also, tech raids are wrong? Really? Grow a pair.

[Hero89]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1329073023' post='2919091']
OH WELL I'M GLAD WE CLEARED THAT UP

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/kBRP1.png[/IMG]
[/quote]

Do it, being that we are raiders I assure you we'll understand.

[WarriorConcept]

[quote name='Velocity111' timestamp='1329079581' post='2919145']
If the argument is "it's a war because you hit the declare war button AND hit an arbitrary % of the nations in their alliance" then every time we hit a couple members of a 1-5 man alliance, it's a war.
[/quote]

Yeah, essentially. Just because they're tiny alliances and you attack for a profit does not make it not a war.

[Velocity111]

[quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1329079737' post='2919148']
Yeah, essentially. Just because they're tiny alliances and you attack for a profit does not make it not a war.
[/quote]
Well I'm fine with that, as long as the people who hold that view act on that view consistently*. Now I'm waiting for someone to announce every time we've hit small 1-5 man alliances, and I'm awaiting all the new wars that can be added to the NG wiki.

*I don't hold this view, so I will not be doing what I have outlined in the next sentence

[Bob Janova]

Don't play stupid, you know full well there is a 'line' which defines what is a real alliance, and 30 is well outside it. This line is generally considered to be between 5 and 15, and while that's 4 to 14 too high for my liking, this war was on an alliance which was above the number needed to be considered an alliance by everyone, including yourselves.

[Vol Navy]

There are certain rules and protocols for existing as an alliance on PB. It appeared that AGW wasn't following them. NG made them go BOOM. Great fun was had. Good on NG.

(aka if you roll without treaties, expect your things to get broken)

[enderland]

[quote]If the argument is "it's a war because you hit the declare war button AND hit an arbitrary % of the nations in their alliance" then every time we hit a couple members of a 1-5 man alliance, it's a war. And if you're going to argue that hitting the "declare war button" implies a war, then you can't really argue that a person on an alliance affiliation that they own isn't a part of a "real" alliance unless you're willing to deal with that hypocritical double standard.[/quote]

Why doesn't Non-Grata coincidentally have several dozen wars/raids (whichever you prefer) against alliances like WTF, TDO, or GPA?

[SirWilliam]

[OOC][i]The button you click says WAR!~ THAT PROVES IT WASN'T A TECH-RAID.[/i] What a compelling argument. Idiot.[/OOC]

I'm not sure why but I expect better from some of you. Ultimately it's clear that NG did not conduct [i]alliance warfare[/i] here - no amount of spinning or ignoring of the facts makes this an organized effort to punish/incapacitate/neutralize an enemy. A tech-raid - an act carried out for the express purpose of profiting - is war, sure (duh), it's not alliance warfare though, and this is apparently the distinction that's being missed or ignored.

I suppose none of that really matters though. The people offended here are not the raidees or their after-the-fact protectors, but the usual anti-raiding moralists and the anti-establishment crowd.

[Velocity111]

[quote name='enderland' timestamp='1329080867' post='2919162']
Why doesn't Non-Grata coincidentally have several dozen wars/raids (whichever you prefer) against alliances like WTF, TDO, or GPA?
[/quote]
Why are you asking this?

[Rogal Dorn]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1329079262' post='2919139']
25 wars hitting a third of an alliance within 24 hours is not 'just a tech raid'. That's more than several 'real' alliance wars managed. Tech raids are wrong too, but that's not what we're talking about here. This was coordinated military action against another alliance.

Was it 'all out war'? No, but that's a straw man, no-one's claiming it was. It was still a war.
[/quote]

I agree it's a war, do i care? no. because AGWO should've played the diplomacy game and had allies. instead their only treaty an ODP went out the window and they were left with their pants down and NG was the ones who pants'd em.

if you guys are playing the "omg it's so wrong!" then do something about it don't just !@#$%* and nag

[enderland]

[quote name='SirWilliam' timestamp='1329081199' post='2919164']The people offended here are not the raidees or their after-the-fact protectors, but the usual anti-raiding moralists and the anti-establishment crowd.
[/quote]

This might be the first time I've ever been called anything remotely close to an "anti-raiding moralist."

[SirWilliam]

[quote name='enderland' timestamp='1329081566' post='2919168']
This might be the first time I've ever been called anything remotely close to an "anti-raiding moralist."
[/quote]

I couldn't encompass you all in only a couple descriptors, sorry. Those were the two predominant ones though.

Edited February 12, 2012 by SirWilliam

[enderland]

[quote name='Velocity111' timestamp='1329081418' post='2919166']
Why are you asking this?
[/quote]

This is elementary, my dear Velocity.

You had said:

[quote]If the argument is "it's a war because you hit the declare war button AND hit an arbitrary % of the nations in their alliance" then every time we hit a couple members of a 1-5 man alliance, it's a war. And if you're going to argue that hitting the "declare war button" implies a war, then you can't really argue that a person on an alliance affiliation that they own isn't a part of a "real" alliance unless you're willing to deal with that hypocritical double standard.
[/quote]

Does this mean that AA's with more than 5 are in fact alliances and therefore "off limits" to being raided? What makes 5 (or any arbitrary number, for that matter) so special? Why is 31 somehow less special than 174 nations in WTF?

[Velocity111]

[quote name='enderland' timestamp='1329081792' post='2919173']
This is elementary, my dear Velocity.

You had said:



Does this mean that AA's with more than 5 are in fact alliances and therefore "off limits" to being raided? What makes 5 (or any arbitrary number, for that matter) so special? Why is 31 somehow less special than 174 nations in WTF?
[/quote]
Excuse me, point out where I said that alliances cannot be raided?

[enderland]

[quote name='Velocity111' timestamp='1329081857' post='2919174']
Excuse me, point out where I said that alliances cannot be raided?
[/quote]

I'm simply curious what difference between WTF and AGW Overlords causes one to be raided by Non-Grata, and the other, to (so far?) not be.

[Velocity111]

[quote name='enderland' timestamp='1329081958' post='2919176']
I'm simply curious what difference between WTF and AGW Overlords causes one to be raided by Non-Grata, and the other, to (so far?) not be.
[/quote]
It's quite simple, really. The point of a raid is to profit. Which alliances will provide said profit is purely a judgement call on our parts.

[enderland]

[quote name='Velocity111' timestamp='1329082009' post='2919178']
It's quite simple, really. The point of a raid is to profit. Which alliances will provide said profit is purely a judgement call on our parts.
[/quote]

At least you are honest, I suppose.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Rogal Dorn' timestamp='1329081432' post='2919167']
I agree it's a war, do i care? no. because AGWO should've played the diplomacy game and had allies. instead their only treaty an ODP went out the window and they were left with their pants down and NG was the ones who pants'd em.

if you guys are playing the "omg it's so wrong!" then do something about it don't just !@#$%* and nag


[/quote]
You're right. We should gate off one color on which there shall be no raiding. It will take an alliance that does not raid, and a lot of political capital, but it can be done.

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='SirWilliam' timestamp='1329081199' post='2919164']I'm not sure why but I expect better from some of you. Ultimately it's clear that NG did not conduct [i]alliance warfare[/i] here - no amount of spinning or ignoring of the facts makes this an organized effort to punish/incapacitate/neutralize an enemy. A tech-raid - an act carried out for the express purpose of profiting - is war, sure (duh), it's not alliance warfare though, and this is apparently the distinction that's being missed or ignored.[/quote]

Being that GOONS are experts on the topic, please explain what about OGW Overlords makes the alliance a good raid target in terms of profit, especially in reference to all the other alliances that are smaller in size, nation strength and nukes than OWG Overlords and thus arguably should be concerned about Non Grata deciding to raid them for profit as well.

I mean, OGW Overlords right now (after the so called "raid") are rank 64 out of 134 alliances listed and have the following statistics:

31 nations
2,042,928 Nation Strength
361 nukes
http://www.cybernations.net/stats_alliance_stats_custom.asp?Alliance=AGW%20Overlords

There are many many alliances that have far less and as a result should be concerned about their own safety at this point.

Edited February 12, 2012 by White Chocolate

[SirWilliam]

[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1329084820' post='2919200']
please explain what about OGW Overlords makes the alliance a good raid target
[/quote]

Makes? You mean what [i]made[/i] them good raid targets? No protection (this obviously no longer being the case now that Sparta has stepped up as protector).

Other than that, as you may or may not be aware, there are very, very slim pickings for large nations when it comes to viable tech-raid targets. Which is why I'm sure NG members raided nations on the (at the time) unprotected AA despite their firepower.

[Artigo]

[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1329060155' post='2919006']
please explain what about OGW Overlords makes the alliance a good raid target
[/quote]

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.

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1329060336' post='2919008']
Apparently you can't tell the difference between a raid (not out to destroy the opponent) and a fullscale war (in which you are out to do maximum damage against your opponent. And don't tell me this is just NG's definition on raiding because this is shared by I'm guessing 90% of Planet Bob.
[/quote]

I admit I'm not an expert on the difference. I'm not a fan of "raids" - period. However, I think even I can see that an alliance with the following statistics (which AGW Overlords have) would not make the best profit and are NOT considered by 90% of Plant Bob to be a good raid target.

31 nations
2,042,928 Nation Strength
361 nukes

I'm NOT saying Non-Grata should or should not have attacked. I just don't accept the "oh, it's a raid for profit" argument. My guess is that's it's something else...boredom, to cause drama, to try to push the boundary of what's acceptable, etc.

[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]

So did you guess that they would not fight back or did you not care either way. I realize it's a small distinction, but if you didn't care then the "raid" really was not about profit as some want to claim.

Edited February 12, 2012 by White Chocolate

[kriekfreak]

You will be surprised what raided people put up with. If everyone would attack back, raiding would not be profitable. In this case it did (and it was), so we took the risk. It wasn't as profitable as when they hadn't attacked back but we don't really care. Our aim was to gain more land and tech, when they started to fight back, we didn't mind either because we are also in for the casualties.

[SirWilliam]

[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1329085996' post='2919213']
I admit I'm not an expert on the difference. I'm not a fan of "raids" - period. However, I think even I can see that an alliance with the following statistics (which AGW Overlords have) would not make the best profit and are NOT considered by 90% of Plant Bob to be a good raid target.

31 nations
2,042,928 Nation Strength
361 nukes

I'm NOT saying Non-Grata should or should not have attacked. I just don't accept the "oh, it's a raid for profit" argument. My guess is that's it's something else...boredom, to cause drama, to try to push the boundary of what's acceptable, etc.
[/quote]

Thing is though (regardless of the opposing viewpoint and of any made-up statistics), profit is profit, and NG nations can consider this profitable if their land and tech gains outweighed their losses from nukes (and as Stewie, at the very least, would attest to, it did). Was it as profitable as raiding an unaligned nation with no uranium and nukes would have been? No, probably not. But again, in those ranges they don't have viable targets come along often at all.

[Kzoppistan]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1329070415' post='2919077']
You might have been allowed to not lose your conflict with NSO and Tetris, but do not think you could even begin to approach actual power.[/quote]

Don't confuse the man for the alliance, Sardonic. I take my power with me and never leverage my own posturing with weight of what ever alliance I happen to be in. If I wanted "actual power", as you put it, I would simply join one of the strongest alliances and seize it for myself.

--

As to the ridiculous debate whether about raiding is war. Yes, raiding is war, whether governmentally organized or not, in which hit and run tactics are used to maximize profits. Making a declaration would ruin the element of surprise. DoW's are gentleman's agreements instituted amongst greater powers for clarity of communication and to avoid surprise attacks.

In NG's case, I suspect that they just want to attack a weaker opponent. It bolsters their rep and ensures the rest of the world that it knows they are dangerous. Plus, it's well known that there are a number of leaders who enjoy battle amongst their ranks. Any money or tech obtained is a bonus.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Kzoppistan