Jump to content

How to address raiding


Recommended Posts

Lamuella has requested that I do not discuss my post in his thread. I didn't want to make a separate thread (as I dislike starting threads in general), but others have seen fit to respond. So, to avoid being responsible for derailing lets discuss the long term methods to preventing tech raiding.

My OP: In reference to this topic.

How Not To Get Raided Ever Again, An Alternative

A helpful guide to in-game politics and survival from the grouchy old man of The New Polar Order.

This is a document written to expand upon the OP of this thread. It is intended for anyone who may be bored and/or tired of tech raiding. This applies to those who are subject to the threat of tech raiding, those who aren't but wish to "do something about it", or those with too much time on their hands and aren't sure of how to productively use it.

I should note that the guide in the OP is fairly accurate and I do not actually disagree with anything in it. However I feel it does not present all of the options available to the modern day crusader, and so this post should be considered an addendum to the OP, not a rejection of it.

1. Public Opinion

Public opinion is what decides which alliances stick around and which ones get bailed on by their allies and left in a ditch somewhere. In terms of tech raiding, public opinion has changed drastically over the years. Currently it is fairly unpopular but an accepted minority. There was a period of time in which tech raiding was considerably more popular than it is today. It was an activity that people boasted about partaking in it. Simply put, it was accepted. Many victims of tech raiding often found themselves hounded well beyond simply harvesting tech. As all things are a cycle, eventually the glory days of tech raiding came to a close. Public opinion changed and suddenly the biggest and loudest tech raiders found themselves fighting in real wars. Said alliances either disbanded or scaled back their public embracing of tech raiding. This change in opinion came from repeated exposure to the problem. No problem is solved without the populace knowing a problem exists. Do not allow supporters of tech raiding to use straw man arguments and diversion tactics to change the issue. The issue is, these alliances believe it is okay to attack innocent players, steal their tech/land/income, and force them to grovel for peace. They will try and change the argument to be one of alliance sovereignty. They will claim that they are the arbiter of who is an alliance and who isn't, and therefore classify an alliance as invalid. Attacking people for no reason and forcing them to follow arbitrary rules is bullying plain and simple. Stick to the core argument, as it is far more difficult to defend against.

Only join alliances that disallow tech raiding. Advise your FA leadership that you do not want to ally with those who practice tech raiding. Work your way up the chain of command in your alliance and set policies that are unfriendly to tech raiders. Combined with section 2 below, eventually public opinion can change and tech raiding will become reduced once more.

2. "Do something about it"/Might Makes Right

The most common justification of tech raiding is, if a party doesn't want to be attacked they should have been in a position where it would be too costly to attack them. When this is challenged, oftentimes pro-tech raiders will invite any external parties to attempt to aid the raiding victim. This is an exercise in sarcasm as usually no one will step forward. This is just one facet of the concept of Might Makes Right, the idea that he who has the power is inherently enabled to do whatever he wants. Another issue encountered when resisting tech raiding is the "Do something about it" defense. Which is simply a reminder that actions speak louder than words. While the advise in section 1 above is sound, doing something about it is even more successful. If tech raiding is a cause you feel strongly about opposing, the best option is to work your way into a leadership position in your alliance. Once you have influence you can spend such influence to change events within the game. Influence is the currency with which wars are purchased. Enough influence and enough power and you too can enjoy Might Makes Right. One could even go so far as to pressure their allies into dropping support for aggressive tech raiders in order to weaken their support base. Aggressive alliances without a support base will quickly find themselves biting off more than they can chew. In short, when dealing with individuals who only understand power, gaining more power than them and using it to tear their alliance into shreds is a powerful tool. Personal note: It's also a lot of fun.

This was most notably seen during the Unjust War. A collection of alliances, known as the Unjust path, took great pride in their ability to harass, bully, and generally do whatever they want under the concept of Might Makes Right. They challenged others to "do something about it". Eventually folks did do something about it leading several of them to disband and others to give up their more outrageous bullying.

3. Thermonuclear Warfare

Make it hurt. Many tech raiders will target unaligned/small alliances because they know they can jump in, steal tech, and get out with minimal damage to themselves. It is to the raiders advantage to not do undue amounts of damage to their targets as that impacts their ability to harvest tech. If raiders believe there is little risk to raiding, they will raid. To combat this, set a personal and alliance wide policy that raids will be met with full scale retaliation. If you hold nukes and are tech raided, let them rip. Especially if your attacker is foolish enough to not have them. Many tech raiders will use their position of power to punish those who would dare resist their attacks. However sometimes short term sacrifices need to be made in order to set a larger precedent. Once raiding is unprofitable, it will lessen. As long as nations are attacked and follow their attackers advise of not retaliating, tech raiding will prosper.

As a final note, this is obviously my opinion and I have crafted it so as to be both a discussion and to poke fun a the tech raiding thing a bit. It's clearly an old issue but one I still feel strongly about. That said, I am retired so leave the conspiracies at the door. I've already had my time in the sun, so don't believe for one moment this is official Polar anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 230
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1. Public Opinion

Basically advocating making threads about them being raided. This sort of thing is known to work for one guy, that PPF guy for some reason; in the main the individual is a 1-post-wonder who gets ridiculed by most, defended by one or two people, and then gets messed up even more. This is bad advice.

So you admit that it works. Cool. If it works for one it can work for others.

2. "Do something about it"/Might Makes Right

I was there for the UjW, too. I remember that one side used tactics leading up to the war which to even speak about here is now a bannable offense. Yeah, emulate that side. And to think, we of the opposition labeled ourselves Unjust.

As to the rest of this part, what you suggest does not a lick of good for the short-term, to the person who is now being raided.

I don't even know what that first part means. I assume it means nothing at all. Also Lamuella addresses the short term quite nicely already. There is nothing I could add.

3. Thermonuclear Warfare

This is far and away THE worst bit of advice that any vehement anti-raider could possibly spout. This advices regurgitated in every thread about raiding that is posted and it invariably leads some poor nation into ZI; because that is precisely where a raided party goes once he uses nuclear weapons. This advice usually, for some reason, comes from people in Polaris... a rather large alliance with members who, were I to hazard a guess, did not regularly deal with raiding in any form (besides their vehement denunciations of the act every so often).

So you are saying that my alliance has made it clear that raiding will be met with maximum retaliation, and that we don't have to deal with many raiding issues. Sounds like it is sound advice to me. I did state that in the short term this will lead to some individual hurting. This step is to create a situation in which is is known to be dangerous to raid. Short term sacrifices are made to ensure long term safety.

Try this, Random, if you would:

Next time Polar goes to war and it's 3v1 not in your favor, and purely conventional, you light off a nuclear weapon on your attackers and see what happens to you. Feel free to change your mind on your advice after that.

It is always to the benefit of the smaller party to use nukes. Nukes even the field. Basic war mechanics. Polar would never be in a purely conventional war in which we were losing, as we understand war mechanics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I don't have to at least pretend to be IC I'm going to be pretty straightforward; Those who like raiding will keep raiding. The change you urge in your post won't come around, ever, without either a sudden personality change by the masses to be all alike with your views regarding tech raiding or a show of force, the likes of which Walford thought he had with CNARF. Until either one of those happen, people will raid. If Admin can have the war system isolate what's stolen or destroyed in game all wars are essentially tech raids. Reparations are also essentially tech raids, just in a more gentleman-like manner; You wage war on an alliance and then demand that they pay you for losing. I'd like to see someone try to say that isn't tech raiding.

And with that, I'm afraid I've opened a floodgate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Raiding may well become less mainstream (as it already has) the more that smaller alliances and individuals let fly with nukes, but this policy will never end the phenomenon altogether. You underestimate how many people raid simply to familiarize themselves with war mechanics and get some practice. While it is true that raiding only provides a small amount of war-time experience, it is still far superior to none at all especially if you are raiding in an alliance with raiding guides and other war guides. It at least lets you familiarize yourself with the options and procedures involved. More importantly though, raiding dispels that irrational fear that most newbs have of suffering damage. Once you get nuked during a botched raid for the first time, you realize how not scary losing a few pixels is, and your confidence improves by leaps and bounds. At least I have seen this to be the case many times.

If I were a lone wolf or a small alliance, I would follow your rules as a matter of principle. However, I don't think it will stop the phenomenon of raiding and I hope my alliance will never stop raiding. As you allude to yourself, there are other means of making raiding unprofitable (public opinion), and those small alliances and individuals with the eloquence and intelligence to express their plight intelligbly will no doubt find many allies in such a case.

Raiding makes this game interesting and is one of the many things that excites tension and makes the political and military dimensions of this game valuable. The wholesale cessation of tech-raiding is nothing more than another step towards Sim City for this game which I am loathe to take.

My final advice to small nations and individuals will echo yours if for different reasons: arm yourself and make tech-raiding a lot more interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Since I don't have to at least pretend to be IC I'm going to be pretty straightforward; Those who like raiding will keep raiding. The change you urge in your post won't come around, ever, without either a sudden personality change by the masses to be all alike with your views regarding tech raiding or a show of force, the likes of which Walford thought he had with CNARF. Until either one of those happen, people will raid. If Admin can have the war system isolate what's stolen or destroyed in game all wars are essentially tech raids. Reparations are also essentially tech raids, just in a more gentleman-like manner; You wage war on an alliance and then demand that they pay you for losing. I'd like to see someone try to say that isn't tech raiding.

And with that, I'm afraid I've opened a floodgate.

Reparations may be a form of tech raiding, sure. Some have been referring to the GPA war as a tech raid for some time. However all I have tried to address is the individual level.

You're basically rephrasing the NONE mission statement.

Lol.

The difference is NONE was a joke that failed. The advise I have written actually works.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The difference is NONE was a joke that failed. The advise I have written actually works.

Not to be the stuck in the mud (yeah right), but NONE did fail due to popular support. Likewise, this idea will fail due to popular support.

As long as there are raiding alliances, raiding will exist. Nothing will change that.

NONE did everything you wrote there (except for the nuke part, although they came comparably close in damage with their skills and tactics). How are a bunch of people, only less organized and using the same tactics, going to accomplish what NONE failed at?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem with "nuclear retaliation policy", for small alliances, is that when it is known, it becomes a "lure and bait" for people who enjoy curbstomps rather than tech raids.

In many cases, nowadays, tech raiders are in it mostly for the fun of warring and not precisely for profit. In more trigger-happy alliances, it keeps the membership satisfied. If they can attack a small alliance and they know it will escalate in a full scale war (where you'll be, say, 150 vs 10), they will do it.

Edited by Yevgeni Luchenkov
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I respect your thoughts on tech raiding, this in no way shape or form changes my opinion on it. I still support tech raiding (of 1 man alliances or none) and will continue to do so. Granted I also believe that if you raid and someone fights you back then you should receive zero support. If you raid and the target gets friends to hit you, you should still have no support from your alliance. Know the cost of raiding as well as the benefit and deal with the consequences. My alliance doesn't raid but I still support those who want to raid doing so. I do believe there are shady ways of raiding i.e. raid and doing CM/Air/Nooks against a target or raiding and calling in support if you get slapped back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As this was inspired by Lamuella's post, and was intended as an addendum to it, I would have liked to see this a little less coloured by bias. You not only present suggestions for people who wish to curb tech raiding, but you also try to convince your audience that tech raiding is bad. For those just starting the game, I think the last thing they need in an informative guide is to have politics cloud something that is intended to help them make an informed decision (especially in an OOC context).

I would also like to echo the statements regarding the efficacy of these policies and the lack thereof. Public backlash and conflict are the exact things that some raiding alliances want. Some raid simply to cause strife, and these policies will only strengthen their resolve (and ranks, most likely).

Edit: I don't want to turn this into a discussion on whether or not tech raiding is "bad" or "wrong". Whether it is or not, I simply wanted to state my opinion on including bias in something put forth as a "guide".

Edited by ktarthan
Link to post
Share on other sites
As this was inspired by Lamuella's post, and was intended as an addendum to it, I would have liked to see this a little less coloured by bias. You not only present suggestions for people who wish to curb tech raiding, but you also try to convince your audience that tech raiding is bad. For those just starting the game, I think the last thing they need in an informative guide is to have politics cloud something that is intended to help them make an informed decision (especially in an OOC context).

This is a very valid point. A guide should not promote an agenda, besides that which the guide is designed to teach. Having an economic guide designed to promote how silly of a sphere is green or brown, while also teaching economics, makes as much sense as this.

I would also like to echo the statements regarding the efficacy of these policies and the lack thereof. Public backlash and conflict are the exact things that some raiding alliances want. Some raid simply to cause strife, and these policies will only strengthen their resolve (and ranks, most likely).

Also a valid point, and one the guide does not address. How should an alliance handle a raid by the GOONS, who enjoy hearing people whine about their actions and who are also protected by Polaris?

Link to post
Share on other sites
As a final note, this is obviously my opinion and I have crafted it so as to be both a discussion and to poke fun a the tech raiding thing a bit. It's clearly an old issue but one I still feel strongly about. That said, I am retired so leave the conspiracies at the door. I've already had my time in the sun, so don't believe for one moment this is official Polar anything.

I can appreciate where you are coming from. But I can't imagine a Planet Bob without raiding. There would be 25,ooo people waiting around for the top 20 guys and/or gals to tell us who we should fight.

Oh WOW....NPO had an Election!!! Let's read about that!!! Wohoo!!

Sorry man, just my 2 cents.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Problem with "nuclear retaliation policy", for small alliances, is that when it is known, it becomes a "lure and bait" for people who enjoy curbstomps rather than tech raids.

In many cases, nowadays, tech raiders are in it mostly for the fun of warring and not precisely for profit. In more trigger-happy alliances, it keeps the membership satisfied. If they can attack a small alliance and they know it will escalate in a full scale war (where you'll be, say, 150 vs 10), they will do it.

The problem is, I didn't intend this post to be a whole self-sufficient thing. It was really just a throwaway thing that I split off to prevent the other topic from being de-railed. I usually don't do topics for exactly this reason. There are multiple levels to everything. Were I to write a full guide to teach a small alliance how to have zero-tolerance policies with spines of steel, having a good support system would be rule #1. So, I sort of assumed it would be implied. This was meant more on the topic of general raiding. So, I agree basically.

Well I respect your thoughts on tech raiding, this in no way shape or form changes my opinion on it. I still support tech raiding (of 1 man alliances or none) and will continue to do so. Granted I also believe that if you raid and someone fights you back then you should receive zero support. If you raid and the target gets friends to hit you, you should still have no support from your alliance. Know the cost of raiding as well as the benefit and deal with the consequences. My alliance doesn't raid but I still support those who want to raid doing so. I do believe there are shady ways of raiding i.e. raid and doing CM/Air/Nooks against a target or raiding and calling in support if you get slapped back.

The problem is when tech raiders do not follow that sort of support guideline. My friends in the STA, for example, have a tech raiding policy that is decent. I (obviously) dislike tech raiding in general, but their implementation is as you said. They do not provide support for tech raids gone "bad" (which would be a tech raid gone right, from my perspective). However some alliances flaunt their support of their members and blur the lines quite a bit. It's just one member tech raiding, but we will defend him if a couple of people decide to jump in and help the defender.

As this was inspired by Lamuella's post, and was intended as an addendum to it, I would have liked to see this a little less coloured by bias. You not only present suggestions for people who wish to curb tech raiding, but you also try to convince your audience that tech raiding is bad. For those just starting the game, I think the last thing they need in an informative guide is to have politics cloud something that is intended to help them make an informed decision (especially in an OOC context).

I would also like to echo the statements regarding the efficacy of these policies and the lack thereof. Public backlash and conflict are the exact things that some raiding alliances want. Some raid simply to cause strife, and these policies will only strengthen their resolve (and ranks, most likely).

Edit: I don't want to turn this into a discussion on whether or not tech raiding is "bad" or "wrong". Whether it is or not, I simply wanted to state my opinion on including bias in something put forth as a "guide".

Are you saying that my guide on how to stop tech raiding has a bias against tech raiding? :psyduck: My entire point is that tech raiding should be opposed and here are some tips to make life suck for tech raiders. Of course there is a slant. I agreed that it was un-neutral and hence moved it to a new topic. If this were to convince a new player that tech raiding was wrong, then I would consider that a good thing.

This is a very valid point. A guide should not promote an agenda, besides that which the guide is designed to teach. Having an economic guide designed to promote how silly of a sphere is green or brown, while also teaching economics, makes as much sense as this.

Also a valid point, and one the guide does not address. How should an alliance handle a raid by the GOONS, who enjoy hearing people whine about their actions and who are also protected by Polaris?

I confess! My guide for how to stop tech raiding does have a slant towards stopping tech raiding. I guess this makes me a fraud...

Since your question is topical I will respond with the current issue. Those wolf guys or whoever should get a protectorate. Enough people dislike the GOONS that it shouldn't be hard. They should then follow the steps above and get revenge for the initial attack.

Edited by RandomInterrupt
Link to post
Share on other sites

i used to be a hardcore anti-raider until i joined Gre and while i did not tech raid there, i started at IAA. hell i am a tech-raider now (though i only hit 1 man alliances or none) and i hope that my victim goes balls out on me. i have been nuked by a victim and unlike many raiders, i dealt with it alone. took 4 nukes and gained nothing. dude was leaving and had a blast on the way out. but i know many raiders would have loaded his def slots just because he nuked. frankly, the wusses that do that should not tech raid in the first place. if you don't have the balls to face the consequences alone, then don't do it in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I applaud your efforts.

Problem with taking to the OWF with a raid complaint is that unless there is someone or a group of someones already looking for an excuse to bag on the raiding alliance nothing will come of it, more often than not the nation complaining will take a worse beating than if they had just PM'd for peace.

I take exception with you belief that raiding has been on a down turn since the destruction of the UJP, a quick glance at the war screen for none turned up this:

Your search for none returned 1,144 results.

The only change in raiding since UJP was instead of bragging on the OWF the raiders do it in their private chans.

If you remember, and I am sure you do, during and right after UJW the question of ending tech raiding came and was soundly beat down with cries of "this war isn't about tech raiding and both sides tech raid" During and after the Karma war the same questions came up and the same answers were shouted out.

In fact red was the only place that was safe for the unaligned for any period of time (Thank you for that NPO) And red was raided in a almost orgasmic bliss during the Karma war by many of the alliances that were fighting to bring "justice" to planet bob.

Raiding will never end, nor is it likely to ever slow up, at best maybe it can be kept in the back channels.

Your advice will only cause further destruction of those who take it.

If your unaligned and getting raided get peace and then get into a alliance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

honestly, i would have to say that tech raiding is neither up nor down. it is about the same. we don't have statistics (i believe) on what tech raiding was like before the UjW. though, you also have to realize that i would say at least 10%-20% of those none wars are wars against rogues and thus not officially tech raids. you also did not include the wars against those with AAs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
i used to be a hardcore anti-raider until i joined Gre and while i did not tech raid there, i started at IAA. hell i am a tech-raider now (though i only hit 1 man alliances or none) and i hope that my victim goes balls out on me. i have been nuked by a victim and unlike many raiders, i dealt with it alone. took 4 nukes and gained nothing. dude was leaving and had a blast on the way out. but i know many raiders would have loaded his def slots just because he nuked. frankly, the wusses that do that should not tech raid in the first place. if you don't have the balls to face the consequences alone, then don't do it in the first place.

HELL yes. That was the best part about raiding, the possibility of meeting someone who wanted to go toe-to-toe with you. I can't understand for the life of me why people say things like "attack me back and get ZI'd." There, I think I'm in agreement with Random: Those people SHOULD be countered and destroyed. Raid, expect to get hit back. Accept it; move on. Don't call in your friends and ZI the poor guy who was only doing what you would've done.

But nuclear escalation is an entirely different story.

Link to post
Share on other sites
HELL yes. That was the best part about raiding, the possibility of meeting someone who wanted to go toe-to-toe with you. I can't understand for the life of me why people say things like "attack me back and get ZI'd." There, I think I'm in agreement with Random: Those people SHOULD be countered and destroyed. Raid, expect to get hit back. Accept it; move on. Don't call in your friends and ZI the poor guy who was only doing what you would've done.

But nuclear escalation is an entirely different story.

yarly. i started tech raiding due to boredom though at my range, tis very hard to find any targets not in an alliance. but when i do, most tend to fight back and that just fills me with :D. i like being hit back since i am in it more for fun than for profit. hell, i have had raids where the victim just pounded on me for a bit (that guy i hit who had a pentagon and like 1k more infra than me while i had no pentagon and only 200 more tech than him....) then sent me peace. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Certain people in the real world attack people and beat them for fun. When they are caught, they are sent to jail. Not many people think they are cool. "Allowing the victim to defend himself" does not make their actions more acceptable in the eyes of most civilized people and stealing the victim's property being the motivation only makes their actions worse.

Now, I realize that this is not rl and nobody will get to a hospital for being tech raided (or for tech raiding), but principally, on a moral level, I see little difference. Attacking innocent people is wrong!

All excuses to justify that are just that: excuses.

The sad reality of CN is that might makes right. The discussion about the size of an alliance which is "OK to attack" and the widely accepted notion that there is nothing wrong in attacking unaligned nations demonstrates that well. All hopes some of us had that the Karma War would change that were crashed with an alliance of the kind of MK vocally supporting Athens while attacking a smaller alliance.

Alliances which find tech raiding profitable, entertaining or otherwise good for whatever reason can keep doing this because they know that nobody will actually do anything to stop them. I don't know any alliance that considers the position of a potential treaty partner towards tech raiding before signing a treaty. Basically, considering the intimidating atmosphere in the current CN for unaligned nations and very small alliances and the ability of most alliances to provide aid to their members, tech raiding is risk free in the long run.

Public opinion? For certain alliances being disputed is the raison d'etre. They think this makes them "cool" LOL.

The only way to stop tech raiding is if some major alliances agree to take action against it. Since clearly this is not going to happen, we will have to live with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
How we deal with tech raiders:

conflictresolution-1-1.jpg

Thats similar to my solution.

0901_012502.jpg

Seriously if you have a strong military and its known you are willing to use it you won't get tech raided.

(ok maybe once, not twice by the same guy for quite a while)

It's simple psychology, a tech raider is looking for an easy target to gain some tech off for minimal losses.

If it is likely that he is going to lose tech by attacking you then he will look elsewhere for target that won't fight back.

Then again, there are some raiders that are looking for war practice and then just no reasoning with them anyhow so you have nothing to lose by fighting back.

Note that I made a distinction between these two types, they are entirely different types of attacks that need to be handled differently.

Edited by Prime minister Johns
Link to post
Share on other sites
Certain people in the real world attack people and beat them for fun. When they are caught, they are sent to jail. Not many people think they are cool. "Allowing the victim to defend himself" does not make their actions more acceptable in the eyes of most civilized people and stealing the victim's property being the motivation only makes their actions worse.

Now, I realize that this is not rl and nobody will get to a hospital for being tech raided (or for tech raiding), but principally, on a moral level, I see little difference. Attacking innocent people is wrong!

All excuses to justify that are just that: excuses.

The sad reality of CN is that might makes right. The discussion about the size of an alliance which is "OK to attack" and the widely accepted notion that there is nothing wrong in attacking unaligned nations demonstrates that well. All hopes some of us had that the Karma War would change that were crashed with an alliance of the kind of MK vocally supporting Athens while attacking a smaller alliance.

Alliances which find tech raiding profitable, entertaining or otherwise good for whatever reason can keep doing this because they know that nobody will actually do anything to stop them. I don't know any alliance that considers the position of a potential treaty partner towards tech raiding before signing a treaty. Basically, considering the intimidating atmosphere in the current CN for unaligned nations and very small alliances and the ability of most alliances to provide aid to their members, tech raiding is risk free in the long run.

Public opinion? For certain alliances being disputed is the raison d'etre. They think this makes them "cool" LOL.

The only way to stop tech raiding is if some major alliances agree to take action against it. Since clearly this is not going to happen, we will have to live with it.

lawlz. i ain't making excuses just telling why i do it. whether you think that is an excuse or not is your choice. also, while morality does have its place in anything, this is also a game. morality tends to be more politically based than actually moral based. as a game, this does have a war aspect. ICwise, i will get moral mainly because some precedents should not be set in my opinion. tech raiding is something that has been done since CN basically began. it will most likely continue until CN ends. i doubt anything will ever truly wipe out raiding.

Link to post
Share on other sites
HELL yes. That was the best part about raiding, the possibility of meeting someone who wanted to go toe-to-toe with you. I can't understand for the life of me why people say things like "attack me back and get ZI'd." There, I think I'm in agreement with Random: Those people SHOULD be countered and destroyed. Raid, expect to get hit back. Accept it; move on. Don't call in your friends and ZI the poor guy who was only doing what you would've done.

But nuclear escalation is an entirely different story.

What makes nukes any different? Just because they have a bigger punch than ground attacks or air attacks doesn't mean zomg they shouldnt be used. I don't get how you can say you want to fight someone, and then !@#$%* when they nuke you.

Edited by Willaim Kreiger
Link to post
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...