War's Aftermath: Color Team Protection

[Miley Cyrax]

I am pretty sure we are arguing the same thing, my friend.

[Vilien]

Now I am completely confused. I believe you win this thread, sir.

[Bob Janova]

Andre, a fairly small proportion of unaligned are on Red (on a quick search, about 20%), and as I mentioned earlier that number has hardly changed since Revenge was adopted. I don't really see its dissolution as having any real effect on the unaligned population at all.

[Comrade Craig]

To use an in-game example: You don't want to be dragged into a meaningless war, or you feel no need to join an alliance for whatever reason. Why should you then be subject to attacks by others for no other reason than "I want your technology"? If you wouldn't support glorified tech raids of alliances by those more powerful than them, then you certainly should not be supporting the actual tech raid.

Well, I guess someone thinks tech-raiding is a good idea, because the "declare war" link is right there at the top of every nation's page. It's not tech-raiding that's ruining the game, it's people who want to impose an excessive amount of artificial rules on all the other nations on Planet Bob.

Alliances evolved as part of a natural/organic process to provide security from attack. That's why they exist. It makes no sense to somehow make the claim that people who don't want the burden of being in an alliance should still have all the benefits of belonging to one. Here is an (admittedly) terrible metaphor. The alliance is like an umbrella. It provides protection from the elements. People who don't want the inconvenience of carrying one around ought not complain when they get wet.

-Craig

Edited May 8, 2009 by Comrade Craig

[White Chocolate]

Getting raided is the normal cost of choosing not to be in an alliance. They are not being "punished" by anyone, they simply don't have the threat of an alliance retaliating to scare off raiders. NPO's protection of the sphere is something exceptional and not organically CN.

What is "organically CN" and what is exceptional is created by ourselves, as a collective community, and not by something outside of our control as the group at large. Although it is true that "getting raided is the normal cost of choosing not to be in [a medium size or protected] alliance" - that does not mean it has to be that way. I'm not arguing (right now) that it's fair or unfair, just that as the community of Planet Bob we have the power to make the rules about what is normal and what is not.

Admin does not say "thou shalt" or "thou shalt not" raid the unaligned. (Thank admin )

[Haflinger]

Andre, a fairly small proportion of unaligned are on Red (on a quick search, about 20%), and as I mentioned earlier that number has hardly changed since Revenge was adopted. I don't really see its dissolution as having any real effect on the unaligned population at all.

I think if you look again at the Red unaligned, you'll find that their average NS is quite a lot higher than the unaligned on other spheres.

And if you factor in all of the microalliances who've taken advantage of Revenge to grow, I think you'll see an interesting picture develop.

I do wonder if Blackwater would exist now if it wasn't for Revenge, for example.

[Col John S Mosby]

There are like 5 thousand unaligned.

Just prior to the Third Great War, there were 11,000 indies. There were large non-aligned nations that had been in existence for a year or so and saw little if any action.

There were also about 10,000 more nations on Planet Bob then and once the number plummeted, it never recovered. Many new nations have been created since then, but the amount of nations remains flat. Only admin knows, but likely there is a lot more turnover now than since before might-makes-right dominated our culture.

What is "organically CN" and what is exceptional is created by ourselves, as a collective community, and not by something outside of our control as the group at large. Although it is true that "getting raided is the normal cost of choosing not to be in [a medium size or protected] alliance" - that does not mean it has to be that way. I'm not arguing (right now) that it's fair or unfair, just that as the community of Planet Bob we have the power to make the rules about what is normal and what is not.

I don't know if it's so much about making rules. Those who steal from the weak simply because they can bring negative consequences to us all. The raiders should suffer some consequences also.

Or, there should be color spheres that are declared off-limits by a consortium of alliances that wish to protect their trading partners and encourage others to go there as well. And yes, part of this will necessarily be that all alliances on that color sphere will have to swear off tech raiding for this to have credibility.

Let the tech-raiding alliances eat their own and see how well the do in comparison.

[Stonewall14]

Well, I guess someone thinks tech-raiding is a good idea, because the "declare war" link is right there at the top of every nation's page. It's not tech-raiding that's ruining the game, it's people who want to impose an excessive amount of artificial rules on all the other nations on Planet Bob.

Alliances evolved as part of a natural/organic process to provide security from attack. That's why they exist. It makes no sense to somehow make the claim that people who don't want the burden of being in an alliance should still have all the benefits of belonging to one. Here is an (admittedly) terrible metaphor. The alliance is like an umbrella. It provides protection from the elements. People who don't want the inconvenience of carrying one around ought not complain when they get wet.

-Craig

Well it appears my hypocrisy knows no bounds and must say I agree with the commie Again!... Tech Raiding is a part of the game and Most unaligneds are not in alliances because they want to play the game as they see fit and don't want to live by other's rules...If they want protection they must join an alliance no different than in the real world... If they want to raid and war all the time with abandon then they stay unaligned or join an aggressive alliance,,,

Stone

[Comrade Craig]

Well it appears my hypocrisy knows no bounds and must say I agree with the commie Again!...

We commies are a wise and practical group of people.

-Craig

[Druid]

No.

[Andre27]

I think if you look again at the Red unaligned, you'll find that their average NS is quite a lot higher than the unaligned on other spheres.

And if you factor in all of the microalliances who've taken advantage of Revenge to grow, I think you'll see an interesting picture develop.

I do wonder if Blackwater would exist now if it wasn't for Revenge, for example.

Interesting argument. I had not even considered the emergence of micro alliances.

[Bob Janova]

Um, Blackwater are protected by the OBR ... I don't see how they are taking advantage of Revenge.

However, I don't really get your point anyway, because alliances are explicitly excluded from the protection of Revenge, plus they're not allowed to be officially Red anyway.

I was looking at unaligned over 10,000 NS, so that is already going to be biased towards Red; I'd expect that the lower you look the more the distribution leans towards completely even across colours.

What is also interesting is that it is largely the Hegemony alliances (particularly Valhalla and GGA, along with Bilrow) who shot down the Church of Maroon and attempted to do so with CTC. With them gone, things will be much safer for unaligned of all colours.

[Haflinger]

Um, Blackwater are protected by the OBR ... I don't see how they are taking advantage of Revenge.

Blackwater were largely formed from the VG Coalition, most of whose nations existed on Red Team. Also they're not "protected" by the OBR, they are part of its military apparatus.

However, I don't really get your point anyway, because alliances are explicitly excluded from the protection of Revenge, plus they're not allowed to be officially Red anyway.

Alliances above a certain size are excluded from the protection of Revenge. Revenge protects Red nations that are not in violation of the Moldavi doctrine.

Microalliances often do not count as alliances as per Moldavi. The VG Coalition has not been the only alliance to take advantage of this, they just happen to be the one I know best.

Speaking for myself, I would welcome efforts by the victors in this war to set up sphere protection arrangements, particularly if Revenge falls apart.

Sadly, I doubt this will happen.

[Bob Janova]

Henceforth, the New Pacific Order will extend its sphere of protection over any unaligned red team nation being tech raided by a foreign or domestic military

[Alfred von Tirpitz]

Why not let them all swim with the rest? Why do they need to be cossetted and mollycoddled? What have they done to be afforded special treatment? Either raiding in its entirety is disabled and scrapped, or everyone weak enough or disinclined enough to get protection gets raided.

I am not a raider, I dislike raiding as I do not wish to cause grief to a player. However if another player is a raider I would not take away his raid targets for the same reason, I would not wish to cause the raider any grief by usurping his Admin given right.

edit: spellfail

Edited May 8, 2009 by Alfred von Tirpitz

[Haflinger]

Henceforth, the New Pacific Order will extend its sphere of protection over any unaligned red team nation being tech raided by a foreign or domestic military

Yeah, and for the definition of unaligned see the Moldavi Doctrine, which the Revenge Doctrine cited in its initial promulgation.

There's a size limit in order for a grouping to be recognized as an alliance as per Moldavi.

Anyway if you don't believe me, go and talk to metal in Blackwater or feardaram in Kronos. They were both VG triumvirs.

[loannes]

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.

So basically we need to ban tech raids? Mosby, I know The Phalanx (or The Light Brigade, as it was when I was diplomat there) is anti-tech raiding, but to kill an entire practice isn't the answer.

Should an unaligned nation be prosecuted for not choosing an alliance? No, but it's possible to work through tech raids and gain strength from them. People can take individual measures to fight tech raiders. Raiders will generally use only ground attacks so as to gain as much tech as possible. The raided nation can send a full day of attacks at them (ground, navy, air, CM,) so they can return the damage.

Now, my question for you is this...

Should alliance wars start frequently over such a matter as tech raids? Is less than 50 tech worth going to war about?

If a nation wants, they can apply individually to an alliance for protection, for whatever terms the alliance wants. Entire color spheres should not be off limits.

[Haflinger]

Should an unaligned nation be prosecuted for not choosing an alliance? No, but it's possible to work through tech raids and gain strength from them. People can take individual measures to fight tech raiders. Raiders will generally use only ground attacks so as to gain as much tech as possible. The raided nation can send a full day of attacks at them (ground, navy, air, CM,) so they can return the damage.

That's called "escalation" and typically results in the destruction of the raided nation.

[Gatherum]

Gatherum chuckled, rolling his eyes.

In all honesty, Red is not the "Special Needs" Group that needs constant protection. While I am not necessarily advocating having them raided (nor am I not; Tech-Raiding relieves boredom), they can learn to face the consequences of choosing to be unaligned just like every other Color. If they do not want to do that, then they can join the Citadel Trading Company, the Realm of the Rose, an existing alliance, or an alliance of their own making. If they want security on Red, then they should bloody well contribute to Red by creating their own alliances on it now that the Moldavi Doctrine can no longer be reliably enforced. Grow the sphere, for bloody Odin.

[Col John S Mosby]

Why not let them all swim with the rest? Why do they need to be cossetted and mollycoddled? What have they done to be afforded special treatment? Either raiding in its entirety is disabled and scrapped, or everyone weak enough or disinclined enough to get protection gets raided.

I'm not even talking about the interests of the non-aligned on a certain color team. I'm talking about the alliances on that color team protecting their trading partners. If Planet Bob lies in a state of nature, let us see which color team is more successful; those that protect their own or those that eat their own.

I am not a raider, I dislike raiding as I do not wish to cause grief to a player. However if another player is a raider I would not take away his raid targets for the same reason, I would not wish to cause the raider any grief by usurping his Admin given right.

Why should some be allowed to drive away those who don't want to play the same way they do? Don't they have rights also? Why should anyone have to choose between peace and sovereignty? Why should we stand idly by and watch our non-aligned trading partners be picked off, then having to pause our growth programs while we scramble to replace lost trades?

What I am proposing is that the alliances serve as knights of their color teams and the non-aligned would be the civilians who produce needed resources. They would be offered protection, which would be denied them if it is found that they are under attack because they started the fight.

Simple.

Should an unaligned nation be prosecuted for not choosing an alliance? No, but it's possible to work through tech raids and gain strength from them. People can take individual measures to fight tech raiders. Raiders will generally use only ground attacks so as to gain as much tech as possible. The raided nation can send a full day of attacks at them (ground, navy, air, CM,) so they can return the damage.

That's called "escalation" and typically results in the destruction of the raided nation.

Non-aligned are not allowed to defend themselves. Any who dare to are hounded from the game for doing so. That is especially true if non-aligned friends help each other when being attacked.

Given that wimps who hide behind alliances dictate by force how others will play the game, there needs to be countervailing force. It is in our interest to encourage the independent-minded to remain on Planet Bob rather than sitting there doing nothing as our trading partners are driven off.

Now, my question for you is this...

Should alliance wars start frequently over such a matter as tech raids? Is less than 50 tech worth going to war about?

If a nation wants, they can apply individually to an alliance for protection, for whatever terms the alliance wants. Entire color spheres should not be off limits.

They wouldn't be off-limits, it would simply be stealing from and driving off trading partners would no longer be without risk. I think it would add an interesting dimension to the game. Imagine if all of the alliances on one of the larger color spheres agreed to collaborate in protecting each other and their non-aligned and made an open declaration of this fact.

Then let's see if those on the other color spheres would be willing to risk bleeding heavily to protect the 'right' to loot without consequence.

Perhaps instead they might decide that it's easier to rob unprotected color spheres, which in turn would make for an interesting competition as to which policy is in the best long-term interests of the alliances involved.

As I had said earlier, likely the color teams were created to foster a vested interest within the color teams. That dimension of the game should be explored.

[anenu]

Its called peace mode. If you need pointer see FAN.

[loannes]

What I am proposing is that the alliances serve as knights of their color teams and the non-aligned would be the civilians who produce needed resources. They would be offered protection, which would be denied them if it is found that they are under attack because they started the fight.

That's pretty much what I was saying it was. Any unaligned nation that bothers to stay in the game unaligned knows that it pays to have trades on the same sphere. Therefore, most or all nations will have trades with an alliance.

Also, tech raids do not harm the flow of resources to trading partners, in case all this time without war made you forget.

[ModusOperandi]

Gatherum chuckled, rolling his eyes.

In all honesty, Red is not the "Special Needs" Group that needs constant protection. While I am not necessarily advocating having them raided (nor am I not; Tech-Raiding relieves boredom), they can learn to face the consequences of choosing to be unaligned just like every other Color. If they do not want to do that, then they can join the Citadel Trading Company, the Realm of the Rose, an existing alliance, or an alliance of their own making. If they want security on Red, then they should bloody well contribute to Red by creating their own alliances on it now that the Moldavi Doctrine can no longer be reliably enforced. Grow the sphere, for bloody Odin.

This.

Well-put; I agree with everything you said.

[Andy Rooney]

That (protecting non-aligned nations on Red) was certainly was one of the better things the NPO did regardless of their motivation.

Whilst I was never a benficiary of NPO's munificence, I too applaud them for their creation of a haven for the non-aligned.

Perhaps preserving the Red Sphere as a non-aligned haven should be part of any peace proposal?

[Dochartaigh]

Tech-raiding is part of Planet Bob. seriously, if the Revenge Doctrine is not upheld anymore or actually revoked, so what. red will get raided and well, so what. honestly who cares. CNARF failed for a reason people as did Walford. if you actually want to make a dent in tech-raiding it would be more in your interest to teach young alliances not to tech-raid or gain allies and try to convince them not to tech-raid (if they allow it) versus coming here and preaching about how ebil it is. cuz that will get you nowhere fast.