Jump to content

War's Aftermath: Color Team Protection


Recommended Posts

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 long as there are alliances that raid on a color, you will have a difficult time getting some sort of YN5 going. I am not saying it is impossible, mind. Just that there are a lot of hurdles involved. If one color team is not allowing raids on their color, then folks will be most upset if people from that color are doing raids.

That red team had only one alliance on it, and that they did not tech raid, made the Revenge Doctrine relatively easy to enforce, and fair. The toothpaste won't go back in the tube; the most successful protection for indies has been destroyed. I see no immediate solution, no quick fix for what looks to be broken now.

I notice CTC being mentioned. Is the protection free? Or must you sell tech to the Citadel to benefit?

Edited by Kryievla
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 177
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The non-aligned are not complaining about being continually attacked merely for being independent. Many of them just quit and who loses because of that?

I do. There's no more Bawing on the public forums that I gauge my eyeballs out to.

Consider looking at the non-aligned on your color as resources. Why should you stand by and watch robbers attack those who can bring you so much economic benefit?

Because I'm not benefiting. If I was I'd defend them. And I have no problem with people telling me to back off their trade partners. Look out for what's yours, in essence.

If people who want to be independent would quit out of disgust from being attacked every month rather than join your alliance, "good riddance," you say?

That's just plain stupid.

Why? I see it as fodder for recruitment. Join so you don't get attacked. Stay for the community. Dare I say that alliances were formed for a reason?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They gain casualties, you cant buy them.

This is flat out wrong. You have to buy them. You can't get casualties without soldiers, and you can't get soldiers without money. Q.E.D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I notice CTC being mentioned. Is the protection free? Or must you sell tech to the Citadel to benefit?

While there is a full member agreement for merchants to agree to abide by, the rules are simple:

1) You fly the AA "Citadel Trading Company"

2) You agree to refrain from offensive wars, and from offensive posts on the CN forums.

3) You are willing and able to enter into tech and trade deals with Citadel and other CTC nations.

4) You agree to change your team color to Green, Black, or Orange within the next 7 days.

5) You are not member of any other alliance, nor are you on a blacklist of any alliance.

In return for these considerations you will be given Citadel protection from raiders, rogues and nefarious vagabonds.

Item 3 makes it look like they're required to sell tech to the Citadel and enter into trade circles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? I see it as fodder for recruitment. Join so you don't get attacked. Stay for the community. Dare I say that alliances were formed for a reason?

Fodder for recruitment? If, in my nation's youth, someone raided me and gave me that offer, I'd be more inclined to research their political enemies. ;) Recruiting by raiding is pretty low class, if you ask me. I'd say somewhere on par with recruiting in disbandment threads or from another alliance. Though, I suppose some here could argue, "I'm only raiding your alliance for members, so it's okay." :P

I'm in a bit of a silly mood tonight. Don't take me too seriously. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is flat out wrong. You have to buy them. You can't get casualties without soldiers, and you can't get soldiers without money. Q.E.D.

Are you really proud of that astute observation?

Hint: Find out what Q.E.D. means :P

PS: You don't have to buy them. One could hypothetically be aided troops (or the money to buy them) without having to buy them if you get to the nitty-gritty of the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While there is a full member agreement for merchants to agree to abide by, the rules are simple:

1) You fly the AA "Citadel Trading Company"

2) You agree to refrain from offensive wars, and from offensive posts on the CN forums.

3) You are willing and able to enter into tech and trade deals with Citadel and other CTC nations.

4) You agree to change your team color to Green, Black, or Orange within the next 7 days.

5) You are not member of any other alliance, nor are you on a blacklist of any alliance.

In return for these considerations you will be given Citadel protection from raiders, rogues and nefarious vagabonds.

Item 3 makes it look like they're required to sell tech to the Citadel and enter into trade circles.

Ah, thanks Haf. Was curious on that point, don't know a lot about CTC. Sounds fair enough anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you really proud of that astute observation?

Hint: Find out what Q.E.D. means :P

PS: You don't have to buy them. One could hypothetically be aided troops (or the money to buy them) without having to buy them if you get to the nitty-gritty of the subject.

Did I say I was proud of it? It doesn't take a genius to make it, but at the same time, note that the person I replied to didn't make said observation.

Someone buys the troops, though. They don't appear out of thin air when a nation is attacked. "You" can be a plural, too, referring to "you, the community of casualty owners." I could make a smartass comment about knowing basic pronouns, here, couldn't I? ;)

P.S.: I'm perfectly aware what Q.E.D. means. I made an argument, "the case that casualties can't be bought is incorrect," demonstrated why, and there you go. Just because my statements were arguably a bit hurried/sloppy, since I didn't spell things out painfully, in step by step "proof" form, doesn't somehow magically make the term non-applicable.

Edit: I'm going to let this go, though. Nitpicking's overrated. Just leave it at "someone has to buy soldiers, so casualties are, in fact, bought" and let's ignore the trivial side notes. Heck, that was a trivial side note, as is. Back to the discussion at hand. I was never here. *waves hand mysteriously*

Edited by Vhalen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I do like the idea of the independents having some sort of refuge; the obvious question is who is going to keep it.

The only other colour-protection scheme that I know of is through the Pink Warrior Network, which if memory serves is the three largest Pink alliances. I haven't heard of other colour protection schemes. And if I remember rightly, the idea was rather shouted down.

I have an observation, though: the Revenge Doctorine (and currently PWN) ended up offerring a choice to the unaligned: you can reside in a particular colour sphere and if you get attacked, you can go to the colour's courts for relief, or you can be on a colour without protection.

I think that'd work best, assuming of course that it can be enforced. This gives more freedom--freedom of choice for the unaligned.

Not that I plan on leaving my current alliance for indie status in a protected colour anytime soon. Or late.

And as far as no making worldwide rules..um, 'No making worldwide rules' or 'No making spherewide rules' IS a rule. A worldwide one, at that.

Edit: Pink ALLIANCES, not pink NATIONS.

Edited by Qaianna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If people who want to be independent would quit out of disgust from being attacked every month rather than join your alliance, "good riddance," you say?

That's just plain stupid.

This is why I’ve never been able to convince anyone I know to play CyberNations, everyone seems give up after being raided into the ground.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why I’ve never been able to convince anyone I know to play CyberNations, everyone seems give up after being raided into the ground.

It's not always actual tech raiders doing it, either. The abdication papers (ooc: 'Delete Nation' link) looked very tempting when someone declared on me for 'lulz', I think it was. I think I'd been in office for all of three or four days. Then again, in my case the ink did have time to dry on my alliance application (for the record, I joined on reccommendation of a trusted leader who was already a member), so getting the war ended was rather easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason a colour sphere protection has never worked on any colour other than red is the simple fact that most other spheres contain one or more large alliances that allow tech raiding, whether regulated or not.

Its a bit hypocritical for a colour sphere to protect its own, then have members of that sphere raid others

With NPO controlling red and not allowing tech raiding they were in a position to enforce this,

However post war it is expected that the Moldavi Doctrine will be a thing of the past and NPO will have to come to an accommodation with new alliances moving to red,

It may well be that CTC can be used as a model for red and any other sphere / block

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sparta tried that once. Ask them how well it worked.

Not so good, you'll deal with rogue none aligneds raiding people from the other sphere, you also got tech raiding alliances living with you on the same sphere, practically a mess. Doctrines such as Revenge Doctrine and Moldavi Doctrine work hand in hand to ensure that you are protected from both (we're talking about the positives here) as an unaligned nation. But then again, it won't be a free sphere anymore.

I have to mention the Moldavi Doctrine because I think this is one of reasons the NPO could enforce the Revenge Doctrine for a long time.

Well maybe if you have several large non raiding alliances protecting the sphere by putting a "No Raiding" sign on a sphere, ejects raiding alliances from such spheres, only accept other non raiding alliances in said sphere,... then maybe it'd be a compromise of both. The senate won't be so free (the "whites only club" membership, but you could still have shot on a senate seat on the account of being on the same ideology), but you still provides the protection of none aligneds to supply tech and trades.

But still there are problems with none aligned rogues raiding other none aligned nations from other spheres,... and that raided none is protected yet by another similar protection doctrine. Especially if there are members of both spheres who shares a pact. Internal chaos begins, hilarity ensues.

I don't know what will happen if the NPO were a benevolent alliance and stayed out of other people's dirty laundry,... maybe people won't make such a fuss about the Revenge and Moldavi doctrines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because you're bigger you can attack whoever you want?

Yes. That is correct. The world is a competitive place. The strong will attempt to exploit the weak. Without conflict in life, the taste of victory would be bland, indeed.

The negative experience of being attacked creates the stimulus towards growth. As the saying goes, Fortune Favors the Bold, the more one is willing to risk, the more they gain. Besides, with proper administration a nation can exist in a state of constant peace. That it will slowly stagnate due to citizens becoming apathetic and soft from their life of leisure demonstrates the principal that conflict is healthy for a state.

Is it unfortunate that some nations are driven from existence, but only as much as when the wolf eats the deer. Thus, one must either join others for protection or seek to become a wolf themselves. To lament that the environment for an unaligned nation is not always the safest place to be is to complain against the very essence of existence. If you wish to go around to every tech raider and force them to not raid, or encourage others to do the same, feel free, but remember, by doing so you are imposing your will over someone in the same manner that they are imposing their will over another.

Edited by Kzoppistan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, none of us have much of a problem with the Revenge Doctrine. Such is a choice of theirs, and perhaps the one benevolent thing Pacifica has done in recent memory.

What is frowned upon is the Moldavi Doctrine. That is the one we wish to see discarded. Whether or not Pacifica wishes to continue to enforce the Revenge Doctrine after that is (or, at least, should be) their decision alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If people don’t want to get raided there are ways to avoid it. Its not that hard to do really. Just sit in peace mode or join a protection bloc. Hell ask for one man protectorates from your dealers if you have to.

And the problem is the raiding aspect of the game. It all comes from tech high value. As long as tech is valued so high, dealers are in shorter supply than buyers, and the limit on tech per FA slot is 50, there will always be raiding as a way to get tech. Until those are changed raiding will always happen.

Back when there was less raiding you would see deals going 3/150 and there were tons of sellers. Once the game started to grow and a period of growth happened there were more buyers than sellers so people had to look for another place to get tech from.

Now with so many people getting whooped during this war I bet raiding will go down because the market will be flooded by new found tech sellers who were buyers just a week or two ago.

Newbie’s attacking newbie’s has always been part of the world and always will be. When people join the world they like to figure the game out. Part of the game is war. People will always be curious and will always try that aspect out when they first are born(ooc. join the game).

I personally don’t raid and don’t encourage people to raid. But if they want to it is their choice. They should have the same rights to do what they want as anyone else should. One group of people shouldn’t be given special protection just because they don’t want to join an alliance. They had their choices and there are options to stay safe, they made their choice now let the raiders make theirs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If people don’t want to get raided there are ways to avoid it. Its not that hard to do really. Just sit in peace mode or join a protection bloc. Hell ask for one man protectorates from your dealers if you have to.

Yea, that's going to be much more effective than the majority of the alliances on a certain color team declaring that all nations of the same color fall under their protection.

And the problem is the raiding aspect of the game. It all comes from tech high value. As long as tech is valued so high, dealers are in shorter supply than buyers, and the limit on tech per FA slot is 50, there will always be raiding as a way to get tech. Until those are changed raiding will always happen.

Another thing that is of high value is one's trading partners. If people who don't want to be in alliances are driven from the game because they are being mugged nearly constantly, that hurts others. We have to stop being so passive about being indirectly victimized by wimps who hide behind alliances while growing at someone else's expense. As it stands now, war has been declared upon the independents; they are being given an ultimatum to either join an alliance or be driven from the game. Independent nations are far more valuable to all of us than the parasites who target them on a regular basis.

When a nation disappears from the planet, it affects 4 or 5 other nations who have to stop whatever growth program they are doing and scramble to find a replacement trading partner. That can be especially difficult if your native resources are poor and/or the lost trading partner's resources are rare.

And tech is much more sensibly and inexpensively acquired by buying it from a willing seller. The combat experience gained while beating and robbing independent nations is of little or no value. Chronic tech-raiders are typically the first to fold under pressure in a real war. That is one reason our elite military group does not invite them to join us.

Back when there was less raiding you would see deals going 3/150 and there were tons of sellers. Once the game started to grow and a period of growth happened there were more buyers than sellers so people had to look for another place to get tech from.

You are reinforcing my point. Tech sellers and trading partners have been driven from the game for good, so those who caused it are picking the bones of an ever-dwindling carcass. The number of non-aligned is currently less than half of what it was 2 years ago.

One group of people shouldn’t be given special protection just because they don’t want to join an alliance. They had their choices and there are options to stay safe, they made their choice now let the raiders make theirs.

If sovereignty is expressed by people having the unfettered right to beat and rob others and in the process drive away our trading partners, other sovereign groups can choose to dig a moat around their resources and protect them.

What I am suggesting is that the alliances on a given color team should say to the world, "go ahead and try to steal from my trading partner and taste the bite of my spear."

And yes, that would mean that all of the alliances on that team would have to agree to swear off raiding also. Let us see in the competition amongst nations whether the color teams that have tech-raiding alliances fare better or worse than those that buy tech rather than steal it and protect all of their potential trading partners and tech sellers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But still there are problems with none aligned rogues raiding other none aligned nations from other spheres,... and that raided none is protected yet by another similar protection doctrine. Especially if there are members of both spheres who shares a pact. Internal chaos begins, hilarity ensues.

I think that's what makes this idea impossible to enforce, a "protected" colour will be a refuge for unaligned tech raiders, who will have the right to raid "as will" unaligned nations in any other colors, with no obligations, as they belong to no alliance and yet being protected from raids themselves...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By any chance are you related to Walford? :P

I would be willing to bet that those people that used to be unaligned have since joined alliances. The number of people in the world is down but most of those remaining are in alliances.

Sellers are down because there was such a long period of growth that many of the people that used to be sellers have gone on to be buyers. How many people in the world have increased their strength to a point that it is no longer feasible to be a seller but instead are buyers?

With this latest war the number of sellers is going to increase while buyers decrease. When people increase their strength they will eventually want to buy instead of sell. Now that people are losing their strength they will want to sell again to regain what they have lost. Once they have built back up they will once again become buyers.

It’s a cycle of growth and destruction this world had seen before, just not on such a wide scale.

People have as much a right to raid people as much as people have a right to be protected. If they want to not be raided there are options for that. If they want to raid people there are ways to do that as well. Raiding is as much a right as protection. Just because a person does not want to be raided doesn’t mean it won’t happen. You have to take steps to make yourself safer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with the whole "protect the unaligned" project. When you join the gain you have a choice to make, join an alliance and be protected or not and take your chances. In an alliance you are safe from relatively most threats, but you have duties and reponsiblities to meet. If unaligned you have no protection apart from what you can provide yourself with, but you have no responsibilities. If there is a middle ground why would anyone join an alliance? You get all the benefits of being in an alliance but you do nothing for them. No, if you choose to join an alliance you have made your own choice and must deal with the consiquences of your actions.

Edited by octovanyo4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright. While I'm a hard core raider, I do believe we should have one sphere for non aligned nations, I suggest a non populated sphere. Like pink or yellow and see if the baggiest alliances or ones with the most influence would protect those not in an alliance on that sphere

As for NPO and the red sphere, they are an alliance, they have no claim to the entire sphere, but should they wish to keep the doctrine they have, they could help protect those on another sphere with other alliance by their sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...