Do you think Raid and Attack are same thing?

[South-East Antarctica]

Probably most of NS players always call attackers and raiders as one thing, but they aren't the same. This thread has goal to discuss matters of what we call attacker, and what raiders.

Raiders
Raiders, probably the biggest plague the NS world seen, who they actually are? According to Wikipedia raid is a:

''... military tactic or operational warfare mission which has a specific purpose and is not normally intended to capture and hold terrain, but instead finish with the raiding force quickly retreating to a previous defended position prior to enemy forces being able to respond in a co-ordinated manner or formulate a counter-attack ...''

Wikipedia was saying about what we call here on NS tag raids. For new persons, tag raid is attack on region to seize a delegacy, set own WFE, set own flag, close current embassies, open own embassies etc. when attackers leave the region and have no intention to hold it. Usually, after tag raid founder or defenders who text called enemy forces fix partially or full things that raiders did.

I don't personally know why most persons here call raiders and attackers the same thing. And I don't know why they call actual attacks occupation raids or simply raids, while only actual raids here are tag ones. So what things people call raids are?

Attackers

Attack, attack... On NS frequently mistaken with raid, as mentioned. This time, according to Wikipedia attack (offensive) is a:

''... military operation that seeks through aggressive projection of armed force to occupy territory, gain an objective or achieve some larger strategic, operational or tactical goal ...''

If you still don't see diffirence between raid and attack, I don't know what. Attack is basicly tag raid, or partial tag raid with intention to hold the region and stay with it.
It's frequently used in for standard for NS purposes like holding region like a trophy, installing puppet govenment, or using occupation as victory argument in peace negociations.

For defenders, attacks are harder to ''cure'' because of obvious reasons. Other terms describing attack are ''invasion'' or ''offensive''.

---

Thread inspired by Black Hawks calling attack and occupation of Heroes Rise as ''raid''.

And what you think, in your opinion raids are same to attacks, or they're something diffirent. Do you think if someone would be making ''The Ultimate NS Dictionary'' he should make attack and raid two other things?

[Scardino]

In invader circles, there is some discussion of a distinction between what is a raid and what is an invasion, with the obvious extension being a discussion on what is what constitutes being an invader and what constitutes being an invader.

My personal opinion is that a raiding is a subset of invading.

While "attacker" is not a term I have heard, it might be a good one for moral elites to start using as it could describe anyone who violates another region's sovereignty and the term seems to have a more negative connotation than the now bleached "raider" and "invader" titles.

[South-East Antarctica]

In invader circles, there is some discussion of a distinction between what is a raid and what is an invasion, with the obvious extension being a discussion on what is what constitutes being an invader and what constitutes being an invader.

My personal opinion is that a raiding is a subset of invading.

While "attacker" is not a term I have heard, it might be a good one for moral elites to start using as it could describe anyone who violates another region's sovereignty and the term seems to have a more negative connotation than the now bleached "raider" and "invader" titles.

Yup, as I mentioned other name for attack is invasion.

I agree with your personal opinion, IRL raiding is too subset of invading.

[Scardino]

There's a lot of gray area between what is considered a raid and what is more broadly considered an invasion. As I said before, I have not heard "attack" used regularly to describe invasions in a general sense. That said, a raid is usually a quick operation that involves rushing in at update and staying for a short occupation. An invasion can include that or any time a region's sovereignty is being compromised, particularly as a means to usurping the delegacy.

Your "IRL" definitions are irrelevant.

[Panzer Vier]

Your "IRL" definitions are irrelevant.

More or less this. It's important to remember that the terms used within NS are within the context of NS. Trying to subject it to IRL standards is largely pointless.

Not to mention that 'attack' is very much a term that remains more or less unused here

[General Knot]

Many of the newer organizations, invader or defender, call all operations "raids". I distinguish an occupation as an invasion and a drive-by as a raid.

When describing people and organizations, I usually use "invader", but sometimes substitute it with "raider" as a synonym because having "The Invaders" and "the invaders" in every sentence gets old quickly.

Over a decade ago, General Powell categorized "invaders" as those who grief, while "raider" are those who do not.

There is also some speculation that "raider" became common to distinguish from the great organization "Invaders".

[Dream Killers]

This thread has goal to discuss matters of what we call attacker, and what raiders.

For what real purpose though? Why differentiate? What does anyone have to really gain from this narrative?

Raiders, probably the biggest plague the NS world seen

I don't know about that honestly. We are playing the game just like you. Calling Raiderdom a plague seems a tad excessive especially when you look at the after-math we are directly responsible for - both good and bad - within various communities in NationStates. We spur things to happen and in some cases force individuals who never would have met otherwise to work together for common goals. Defenderdom(?) is completely in response to us. You could argue that without this "plague" everything derived from Defender-based organizations would arguably be non-existent.

As Scardino has said in the past, "[...] because the pot needs stirring".

Wikipedia was saying about what we call here tag raids. For new persons, tag raid is attack on region to seize a delegacy, set own WFE, set own flag, close current embassies, open own embassies etc. when attackers leave the region and have no intention to hold it. Usually, after tag raid founder or defenders who text called enemy forces fix partially or full things that raiders did.

The section of the Wikipedia article that you quoted also accurately describes traditional raids as well since we know that in many cases holding these regions are in vain either because of the Founder waking up or Defender as well as Native involvement in liberating the region. All parties involved know this to be the case from the start.

You need to address the difference between traditional raids and re-found operations.

I don't personally know why most persons here call raiders and attackers the same thing. And I don't know why they call actual attacks occupation raids or simply raids, while only actual raids here are tag ones. So what things people call raids are?

As I understand it, cascades - or tag raids, as so many call them now, are just hit and runs. Traditional raids are hitting the region with the intention of temporarily holding it -- hopefully -- having some fun with our Defender counterparts in the process. Occupations are raids that serve other purposes than just hitting the region for fun, usually something politically or ideologically motivated. I would argue however that "occupation" would imply it being temporary as well, which is how it differs from a re-found operation. Re-found operations are where we literally destroy the region with the sole purpose of claiming it. It should be noted that I personally dislike these as it takes away from the greater target pool we have to work with, ties up resources, and has the potential to cause drama.

In my experience when Raiders call something a "Raid" we are referring to Traditional Raids as described above.

If you still don't see diffirence between raid and attack, I don't know what.

There are different kinds of raids, sure - and we generally label them in a way to differentiate between them. You have what is true in real life and what is relevant in game. Sometimes things bleed into game from the real World - but this is not one of those cases.

For defenders, attacks are harder to ''cure'' because of obvious reasons.

I don't know how much experience you had Raiding before you switched to being a Defender, but I remember you telling me that you were not a member of any "mainstream" organizations. You switched over to ORCA and were with them for a time it seems, but again, that is not considered a mainstream Defender organization. You had said on Discord that you may potentially sign up to join the LLA, which is. Maybe running some ops with them will help you better understand the concepts behind what others and I have been bringing up here.

Other terms describing attack are ''invasion'' or ''offensive''.

Invasion, yes, "offensive" usually implies that we are engaging a hostile force in response to something. You could perhaps say that occupations can be seen as an "offensive" in certain situations but tag raids and traditional raids? Case by case basis on the latter at best.

Thread inspired by Black Hawks calling attack and occupation of Heroes Rise as ''raid''.

As someone who has been involved in this operation since the night it started, I can attest to this being just a raid. We did not go in with the intention of hanging around this long nor did we go into re-found. I cannot speak for EWS or TBHs in general, but that is what I believe. As time went on we got curious as to how ORCA would respond, since we saw the numbers that they could theoretically deploy and with how active Ac1dtopia was along with other members of the various communities involved within that organization - it seemed as though they would honestly make a move. We wanted nothing more than to see this happen. This was not the case though as the lack of a real response from both mainstream groups* (it should be noted that school hits everyone below the belt, though) coupled with the leaked plans of ORCA command, which essentially called for cutting their losses and abandoning it (well before Ac1d left the region for South Pacific) gave me reason to believe that Heroes Rise will never actually live up to it's name. The people in a position to protect it do not seem to care enough, the natives have given up, and outside a single Warden backed liberation attempt, no true action has been made.

I honestly feel bad for the natives there and for every member within ORCA too. I don't know how long I would want to be part of something that consistently and maliciously lies to you while infringing on your regional sovereignty.

Do you think if someone would be making ''The Ultimate NS Dictionary'' he should make attack and raid two other things?

I would have to search these forums a bit but I would be surprised if someone has not already made community resources such as this in the past. As for the actual question - no. It should strictly remain relevant to the game and how players actually use said terminology.

[Scardino]

Over a decade ago, General Powell categorized "invaders" as those who grief, while "raider" are those who do not.

While not having heard that said means little, I don't recall this distinction being common. I do recall "pirate" being used for people who griefed regions until The Jolly Roger had their flash in the pan. I also recall "crasher" being a common term for griefers, though this was usually pretty ambiguous with many mainstream raiders being called "crashers" all the same.

[Queen Yuno]

Personally, I'd call everything involving stealing the delegacy a raid

[General Knot]

Over a decade ago, General Powell categorized "invaders" as those who grief, while "raider" are those who do not.

While not having heard that said means little, I don't recall this distinction being common.

I don't think it was. Just a personal preference that was also shared by those close to him.

[Black Mekhet]

In NS; Raider, Invader, Crasher, Griefer (Not admin/mod definition) are synonymous in a general sense. Some may treat each name with separate nuances, but in context of gameplay implications they more or less do the same thing. Given definitions of those words are more in kin; than say "Protector", " Saviour", "Defender", etc.

It's really irrelevant to be honest.

MEKEDIT: ugh, stupid phone typos