War's Aftermath: Color Team Protection

[Col John S Mosby]

As an admin on the Tech Deal forums, non-aligned nations on the Red Team are expressing concern about how the possible end of NPO's protection of Red will affect them.

Some nation leaders on Planet Bob are never going to want to be in alliances. Plain and simple. From a moral point of view, people who are independent-minded should not be continually punished for that. From a practical point of view, to make it easier to get and keep trades, we need to encourage current and potential trading partners to stick around without being forced to choose between attacked for their independence, surrendering sovereignty in exchange for peace or quitting.

As a Tech Deal facilitator, I can also say that there is always a shortage of reliable tech sellers, particularly for 3 x 3 deals. They tend to be newer nations. We would have a lot more potential sellers available if there was an expanded group of non-aligned who can safely sell tech w/o being attacked.

NPO allowed these people a haven at least on one color team. Alliances on other color teams tried this to varying degrees of success. Non-aligned even tried to organize mutual protection amongst themselves and punished severely for this, most of whom have been driven from the game for good. The only reason the Revenge Doctrine worked while the others failed was because NPO has had no credible challenger for quite some time. There is a chance that this might not be the case in the current war's aftermath.

So what should be tried next for protecting our indies? I think that this topic is worth discussing and invite others to come up with some ideas.

IMO, most if not all of the alliances should protect the non-aligned on their respective color teams. There are several ways to accomplish this. One is for non-aligned trading partners be given the option of putting in their bios the name of the alliance that is protecting them. That would be simple enough, but would be hard to enforce. It would put tech-raiding alliances at odds with the protecting alliance.

Another option is to have a group of alliances in a given color sphere negotiate amongst themselves to draft a declaration that all nations on their color team will be protected by this group of alliances. That is much better than having one alliance claiming and protecting one color.

A benefit of this is that color teams that are neglected by their alliances would find their non-aligned trading partners fleeing for color teams that are protected. This would create a competitive advantage for protected color teams. For this to work, there would have to be a consensus in the Alliance community that such declarations are to be respected, because an expanded sphere of protected non-aligned trading partners make solid trading partners.

And finally, I don't think that the subject of further curbing the tech-raiding of non-aligned should ever be dropped. It hurts us all in so many ways. Whatever benefits tech-raiding offers with respect to growing at someone else's expense and gaining nearly useless combat experience is far outweighed by the fact that it contributes to trade turnover as the independent-minded are driven from the game.

Edited May 4, 2009 by Col John S Mosby

[Blacky]

They can join the Citadel Trading Company or The Realm of the Rose.

They will be offered protection from tech raiders and find ample opportunities to sell tech and find trading partners without having to rely on formally joining an "alliance". What's more considering both these organisations are lead by groups held in high esteem by the community that nobody would seek to tamper with them.

Edited May 4, 2009 by Blacky

[Authur]

That certainly was one of the better things the NPO did regardless of their motivation.

I like your suggestion of having alliances protect unaligned nations on their color sphere. The bigger the sphere the better it is for all alliances who reside there.

One possibility is to include this into color based bloc's. OUT for example has done a fine job of insuring Orange stability. With some work it could be altered to allow unaligned nations on Orange to seek protection.

[Shimmer]

Well, TDO and GPA accepts applications. I feel no reason they cannot join a neutral alliance and get the same benefits. They made the choose not to be involved in politics and thus have been left with this issue. I wish them the best as I expect red team will be raid heaven.

[Wu Tang Clan]

Nope. I like tech raiding.

Join an alliance or one of the respected groups.

[Col John S Mosby]

That certainly was one of the better things the NPO did regardless of their motivation.

I like your suggestion of having alliances protect unaligned nations on their color sphere. The bigger the sphere the better it is for all alliances who reside there.

One possibility is to include this into color based bloc's. OUT for example has done a fine job of insuring Orange stability. With some work it could be altered to allow unaligned nations on Orange to seek protection.

That sounds great. We need that on all of the colors. The more nations that feel that they can have independence and peace on your color sphere [and sell tech in safety], the better it is for the others on that color. Depending upon how this war shakes out, I am hoping to propose something like this to our brother alliances on Blue.

Well, TDO and GPA accepts applications. I feel no reason they cannot join a neutral alliance and get the same benefits. They made the choose not to be involved in politics and thus have been left with this issue. I wish them the best as I expect red team will be raid heaven.

GPA was once the largest alliance and was decimated, was it not? A neutral alliance is safe so long as it doesn't grow too large. But then, being small will make it attractive to momentarily relieve boredom for bigger fish. And being big makes people nervous or envious.

Nope. I like tech raiding.

Join an alliance or one of the respected groups.

And if you don't want that, expect to be beaten and robbed by wimps who hide behind alliances until you get sick of it and leave the game for good. Screw their trading partners and potential tech buyers, right?

Edited May 4, 2009 by Col John S Mosby

[Alterego]

There are 2 options. Align with an alliance and be protected or you are on your own and have no protection.

[Col John S Mosby]

I am fully aware of how it is. I'm talking about trying something different that will benefit us all. The way things are now isn't working.

[Alterego]

I am fully aware of how it is. I'm talking about trying something different that will benefit us all. The way things are now isn't working.

Good luck enforcing it because you will need to use force to stop it.

[Vilien]

I see no reason to cancel the Revenge Doctrine.

[Alterego]

I see no reason to cancel the Revenge Doctrine.

By the looks of it they wont be able to enforce it after they have been beaten down far enough and isolated politically.

[bzelger]

I support places for the unaligned to stay at peace. I hope that the Revenge Doctrine is not removed if Pacifica surrenders, although I don't want to deal with the logistics of helping them enforce it as they recover or reconciling it with other red team alliances.

I don't think the problem will be solved by community consensus though, as obviously many in the community disagree that it's a problem. It can only be accomplished by sufficiently strong individuals or groups with an interest in the matter, such as Citadel with their trading company or the NPO with their sphere.

[janax]

Citadel Trading Company is what you are looking for.

You have your choice of Orange, Black or Aqua.

[Bob Janova]

Revenge only worked because the NPO was (yes that's the past tense) so strong no-one dared challenge it. Similar ideas have been tried in the past (notably YN5 and the Maroon Church) and have failed because of the attentions of aggressive alliances. I don't see it being particularly successful just now either.

The CTC is very close to unaligned, you don't have responsiblities or expectations like in an alliance – just to trade a certain amount of tech, which these people are doing already.

[Vilien]

By the looks of it they wont be able to enforce it after they have been beaten down far enough and isolated politically.

I would certainly hope that someone would take their place in protecting the unaligned should someone attempt to override the doctrine.

[Gork]

Instead of separate alliances committing themselves to protect nations in their color sphere, why don't they move against tech raiding in general? All this protection wouldn't be necessary, then.

[der_ko]

I see no reason to cancel the Revenge Doctrine.

I see no reason to allow the NPO to decide my alliance policies.

[Vilien]

I see no reason to allow the NPO to decide my alliance policies.

I see no reason to leave nations who decide not be part of an alliance to the greed of raiders.

[Bob Janova]

Feel free to have Avalanche protect the unaligned then ... I'll pray for you.

[Vilien]

Feel free to have Avalanche protect the unaligned then ... I'll pray for you.

I doubt Avalanche would take up the mantle, though I will try my best as an individual to argue for the rights of the unaligned, and protect them if I ever gain the power to do so.

EDIT: For clarity.

Edited May 4, 2009 by Vilien

[Alterego]

I see no reason to leave nations who decide not be part of an alliance to the greed of raiders.

I see no reason to let you tell me or my alliance what they can and cant do. There is a war going on because alliances didn't like having (in part) an alliance control their actions.

[Vilien]

I see no reason to let you tell me or my alliance what they can and cant do. There is a war going on because alliances didn't like having (in part) an alliance control their actions.

It's interesting that you're saying that as an ally of the NPO. Of course, it's perfectly fine when they tell your alliance what you can and can't do.

[Alterego]

It's interesting that you're saying that as an ally of the NPO. Of course, it's perfectly fine when they tell your alliance what you can and can't do.

We have never been an ally of NPO.

[Vilien]

We have never been an ally of NPO.

Excuse me. You've consistently been on Pacifica's "side", and only have raised the issue of preventing raiding now, to my understanding.

[Wu Tang Clan]

I am fully aware of how it is. I'm talking about trying something different that will benefit us all. The way things are now isn't working.

Says who? It's working fine for me. It's working fine for a lot of people. Not my fault if they don't want to participate in an alliance. And you don't even have to do that. CTC protects anyone willing to put that tag on. I don't think that's asking too much.