Concerning Raiding

Throughout time in NS history, raiding has had a very negative stigma on it. They have recently become targets by the World Assembly, in which most notably a solid, clean raid could be canceled out via the removal of a password (Chicago). But, people will always be opinionated on that, as they should. Most who are against such things have raided before, and know the difficulty behind it.

I was the founder and leader of a raider organization called Fox Rite. This group was active from around early-to-mid-2006 to the end of 2007 and, at the height of its power, had World Assembly nations participating in eight separate raids at one time, still a record among raiders even to this day. This region led forty-one unique raids in the span of a little less than two years - the raids in which the region merely assisted were left uncounted, lost in time. It held a reputation of being very organized and very intel-oriented. The raid on San Francisco Bay Area saw eighteen World Assembly nations move in over the span of roughly four minutes to sweep the delegacy - again, still a record today. Clearly, the qualifications I hold as a former raider (and I stress former) are acceptable. While I am forever removed from that area of the game (for various reasons), I do not mind giving advice to help those who wish to raid to flourish and move on.

I’d like to begin this session with a little question and answer:

Is raiding evil?
In three words, yes and no. While raiding does indeed destroy communities, it can also make them stronger, and, throughout my history with that talent, this has proved itself in nearly every raid but one. Raids actually make communities stronger; wake the native nations up to a threat and force them to unite. They absolutely must contact external help to remove the threat, therefore giving their region more attention and more diplomacy. From this emerge capable players who have more of a chance to play the part of the game. Don’t believe me? Prior, I was the delegate of a founderless Poland. It wasn’t until we were invaded and then almost refounded by a defender organization of all things (Zurich), that I finally joined the NS world spectrum. I should also note that this isn’t totally uncommon for defender groups; I have witnessed the refounding of other regions against the call of the natives in that region. It happens, I suppose. But that doesn’t make one group more dastardly than the other. Instead, while the intents of the raider may be against that of regions, what they do isn’t necessarily evil. It is legal, and it wakes up nations to do something. It keeps communities together and makes them stronger. It forces players to deal with it.

How much work is required for a raider?
Endless. I wouldn’t hazard the guess to say they are among the most dedicated people in the game. Very, very few raiding groups ever become successful. The difficulty lies in picking good nations, avoiding spies which come by all the time, getting people organized and on the same page, keeping their morale up, organizing their ties with other raiding groups to keep coordination together, planning the right time to raid so it is close to the update time, having the other nations in their group trained enough so they know how to move into a region without being noticed, keeping ties with everyone in the region at all times, handling diplomacy… it’s truly a very tough, paranoia-fueled job. And they have to do this all without the other side knowing of it. And it is so easy for the defenders to know, because they are good at what they do. One spy can ruin a raid of one hundred organized raiders. One raider nation boasting about the plans to another nation or on the RMB can ruin the raid too. Even one nation moving in too quickly or too slowly into the target region can ruin a raid. Truly, a raider group must be well-oiled and ever organized. And a raider leader must be the organizer and especially paranoid, as that keeps the spies out of the region. He/she may send false telegrams to his people. He/she may plan two raids in one night to see which goes and which fails. It all comes down to that, and the job is tremendous.

What is a raider, and what isn’t a raider?
Raiders will move into a region, gain the delegacy, and either (a) move on after a period of time or (b) begin banning natives and start refounding the region. Either constitutes as a raider. But there are qualifiers put on these preferences. Simply trying to refound the region while another nation is trying to refound a region, swooping in and taking said region, is not a raider. A group which puts a password on the region shortly after taking the delegacy is not a raider. Sorry. Part of the job of taking a region is having the gumption to hold it if they plan to do so. Defenders and natives will try to get in at least a handful of counterattacks. Most will hold out to the bitter end. That’s what makes that aspect of the game exciting. Good raiders will know this.

That’s it for now. I’ll answer any questions, and will post more later, preferably on the art of raiding and how to raid well.

— Begin quote from ____

The raid on San Francisco Bay Area saw eighteen World Assembly nations move in over the span of roughly four minutes to sweep the delegacy - again, still a record today.

— End quote

Hardly a record, 28 nations moved in within a minute in the liberation of Belgium and last month 24 nations moved in within a minute in the liberation of A Silly Place among others. I believe 18 nations moved in in a similar timescale in the recent invasion of Japan also.

— Begin quote from ____

Raiders will move into a region, gain the delegacy, and either (a) move on after a period of time or (b) begin banning natives and start refounding the region. Either constitutes as a raider.

— End quote

I disagree, the language has become confused by many but more and more raider groups are making a distinction and distancing themselves from different strategies. Terminology would suggest raids and raiders are quick in-out operations that involve holding the region for a limited time before striking another target. Many raider groups maintain that this is the only tactic they would use outside of war and with regards to innocent regions. Always moving, leaving their mark and keeping the enemy one step behind.

Holding and occupying a region is different and I would refer to that as an invasion and not a raid. So I would make a clear distinction between raiders and invaders. As I mentioned before, many raider groups distance themselves from the idea of holding and occupying regions and try to respect the natives of a region. Some other militaries make this distinction as well. Equilism recently declared itself to not be a defender region and seems to now focus on countering invasions, rather than simple raids.

Its hard to draw a line, particularly when raiders, invaders and defenders alike mix their words so much. But it seems more and more common that defenders counter raiders and chase them round NS regions as an ongoing rivalry whereas some groups are more focused on protecting regional sovereignty and so focus on countering invaders rather than getting involved in the “raider/defender game”. It has become a game because some players who call themselves defenders wouldnt play the game if raiders stopped raiding, because they’d have nothing to do with themselves.

This is a really interesting thread Todd, thanks for starting it. My original region or Ulthar has no army at all - we neither raid nor defend - so I don’t claim to be an expert or to judge people who like that part of the game.

The rules do allow a raider to leave a couple “placeholder” nations in a passworded region while using their WFE as a billboard for the raider region. So NS allows for something you said you disapprove of - which is a prolonged password enforced occupation.

I agree with you - if you’re gonna play capture the flag, then you ought to be able to hold that flag or surrender it. I don’t think it’s cricket for a well-oiled machine of 50 to 100 raiders to go around stomping on tiny regions of less than 20 nations obviously played by children. banjecting them, then slapping on a password. That doesn’t encourage nations to rally and get involved. It discourages them because they didn’t understand the rules or they wouldn’t have been vulnerable in the first place.

I fear some of them quit. It’s the high school equivalent of seniors picking on freshmen. They hate you for it. It’s bullying. So now we have this WA Security Council stuff where they “oust” current residents and “restore” the region. Which sounds a lot like raid by WA, so I’m not sure if I like the sound of that either.

I have seen so many posts on the old and current NS forum about weakening regional security to “save the raider game” I’ve lost track. I think that’s because the rules allow another kind of military: Defenders. You aren’t, but I have seen raiders essentially complaining that Defenders make raiding no fun because they’re too good at it.

I’m confused by that argument. Defenders essentially do what raiders do in reverse. It doesn’t make sense to invoke the rules to defend raiding as “part of the game” then turn right around and complain that rules allowing other militaries to oust raiders are “ruining the game.” I don’t see the game in ruins, but I’m not in a raider region.

I do know that if you sit and watch new nations being founded on the TEP RH, a high percentage of them immediately head off to raider regions. Suggests to me that they’re alive and well and enjoying what they do.

I’m all for enjoying NationStates.

Ultimately invaders can cause the end of not just communities; which we see so much of just from entropy; but the end of NS careers, particularly worryingly those of the just beginning to mature type that are so essential to our futures.

Is there some way raiders can tear the heart out of communities, as they always will do with impunity, whilst fuelling disgusted natives from not just dropping out of the game, but moving on, say back to their birthing feeder?

I want to add that TEP does not take an official stance supporting raiding and that the opinions of raiding suggested here are the independent opinions of a member and not the region.

:slight_smile:

Note: This is not an attack against Todd or a bash against raiding either, but it needs to clear that our region does not officially support raiding. It may seem otherwise in this thread and I just do not want to deter new members from TEP who may believe that TEP actively supports raiding.

Indeed. I am a big fan of feeder neutrality when it comes to raiding v. defending, and TEP has been fairly neutral for the past few years or so, I think.

— Begin quote from ____

Indeed. I am a big fan of feeder neutrality when it comes to raiding v. defending, and TEP has been fairly neutral for the past few years or so, I think.

— End quote

I’m a big fan of not-raiding. :lol:

I miss the good old days when raiding was easy to accomplish.

Raiding is a young person’s game. As we all get older and established, we all give it up.

— Begin quote from ____

Is there some way raiders can tear the heart out of communities, as they always will do with impunity, whilst fuelling disgusted natives from not just dropping out of the game, but moving on, say back to their birthing feeder?

— End quote

Well, yes. Absolutely. From my observations nations in highly inactive regions are at best bemused about a raid happening. Once the raiders leave they are happy, although they face the prospect of sinking back into obscurity.

However, locals are usually highly antagonistic towards the common defender practice of re-invading regions after raiders have been there. Raiders tend to be amusing, whereas defenders resemble a horde of Vikings crowding into your living room and stealing your valuables while telling you that you are safe now…

I would make a further distinction, Todd … surgically removing NS deadwood regions.

Deadwood regions are regions with a dead founder and only one to three residents that pop in once every 28 to 60 days. In effect, the region is comatose.

Is it an “invasion” … technically, it is. But it is one with the purpose of restoring health to a region. In every deadwood operation, I encourage the oldest resident to refound the region once the region goes CTE. A region with a founder is a much safer and stronger region. Many comatose players agree to move to a new region. A few have chosen to refound the old region but more have rediscovered the fun of a community atmosphere in another region. And in a few operations, the region has such a cool name, it is refounded by someone else and the old players are invited back and asked to take an active part.

In my opinion, this is all WIN-WIN for the game.

Btw … anyone wanting to assist in clearing deadwood regions can contact a TAO nation in the game. Or visit [region] The Beech Beach House and leave me a message.

I don’t think it’s fair to characterize raiders OR defenders as better or worse, more or less annoying - or more or less good for the game. There are divisions, political and practical, between some defenders and others - just as there are between some raiders and others. I completely agree with TAO that using conquered regions as 2 nation billboards for any region is in the end creating ghost towns, not communities.

I have seen raids destroy communities and discourage players - even after the region was “restored.” Two examples.

An ex-nation, Citar, was a genuinely nice guy and excellent leader. He had originally started a region with a RL friend and that region turned from neutral to pro-raider. At that point, he left and with no hard feelings, started neutral British Steel. He built it the old fashioned way: social networking, on and off NS.

The region was first attacked by a puppet bomb: an obviously staged die-off of about 2/3 of its nations over a month. It weathered that. What it couldn’t weather was what Citar couldn’t control: his family experienced some RL tragedy, which required he leave the game, leaving the region founderless. It was then subject to an old school WA Delegate raid, which it survived. It locked itself behind a password and now it’s refounded - with a founder - as http://www.nationstates.net/region=new_british_steel, which might currently seem small for a UCR, but in terms of percentage of players who are active, it’s as viable as any. I predict a bright future.

On the other hand, http://www.nationstates.net/region=ulthar was established by the somewhat discouraged nations of a region whose forum was vandalized (sound familiar?) and whose puppet die off continued for over two months, CTEing perhaps as many as 200 nations. The vandals returned, declared victory and a “New Epoch” of restoration then left it to languish. Ulthar started with a password, less than a dozen disaffected nations from the other region, and no forum.

In China they say that before you go out to seek revenge, dig two holes. So instead of looking back, Ulthar looked forward and made as many friends as possible (yes, yes, some of our friends and defenders and some of our friends are raiders - it’s just intentionally a no-drama region: no inter-regional spitballs allowed). Granted a large number of Ultharians are part of a huge http://cityofulthar.wordpress.com/ns-school/. It’s also an interesting, stable, and active community. 34th in the world today.

It is also said the best revenge is a life well lived. Today the region whose trashing inspired the players that did not become discouraged when it was vandalized and left - well I won’t name it. Because that’s not how I roll. Gloating is uncool. Suffice it to say that the region page says it has 25 nations right now and the region’s “RMB Question of The Week” is:

Do you wear matching socks?

OMG. Don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

I’ve just had an epic weekend with DFD and Todd and Moafin and the TEP gang RPing on our RMB, which I’ve never even tried before. In the meantime, New British Steel is reinforcing old friendships, making new ones, and region-building. In Ulthar, it was a Monty Python weekend on the RMB (completely spontaneous - as was the haiku smackdown and Tom Lehrer songfest) that veered dangerously towards The Mighty Boosh. LOL.

Yy are I are comparing Linux builds and antivirus apps by TG and tomorrow I head back to the Conclave to kick some butt and take some names. Just kidding, working in the Conclave is tremendously rewarding because of the quality of the people I get to work with.

— Begin quote from ____

Indeed. I am a big fan of feeder neutrality when it comes to raiding v. defending, and TEP has been fairly neutral for the past few years or so, I think.

— End quote

I’ve heard a lot of people say this, and I understand that there was a vast amount of corruption when NPO and their defender opposition (sorry, can’t remember the name, it’ll come back to me in a minute) were most involved in feeder politics. However, I don’t think that it has to be that way. Surely, raider or defender armies operating out of feeders would inspire activity; keep people in the feeders; and encourage more UCR-based players to get involved. If people thought that a few votes could be the difference between working with a raider/defender army in TEP, or facing one as opposition, they would be much more inclined to ask their friends to sign up as citizens.

— Begin quote from ____

I miss the good old days when raiding was easy to accomplish.

— End quote

I remember you <3.

Even if TEP has not a standing army, I have an A.A.R.D.T.R. (*). It’s extremely useful in attacks against carrot regions (**). If you need it, make a whistle! :lol:

(*)Armored Assault Rabbit Dedicated To Raiding
(**)According to the latest classifications, a region can be considered a Carrot one if a) it’s named after Carrots; b) its Founder has the word Carrot in either his/her nation’s name or his/her nation’s title