The Invaders | Ego Sum Ideo Vici

[Katabasis I]

Gotta love how hard defenders are trying to switch the vote. Does it honestly matter? We're still unbeaten, and always will be. Half of the fun is watching you all scramble around to block the repeal - but we win either way

Hail Invaders! o7

[Eostitorie]

We're still unbeaten, and always will be.

*cough* *cough*

[Lockdownn]

We're still unbeaten, and always will be.

*cough* *cough*

Unbeaten you say?

[Pergamon]

Gotta love how hard defenders are trying to switch the vote. Does it honestly matter? We're still unbeaten, and always will be. Half of the fun is watching you all scramble around to block the repeal - but we win either way

Hail Invaders! o7

What are you trying to say? Anyone voting against the repeal is a Defender? Look at me for example, I am many things, but among all those things I can hardly be considered a Defender. Isn't your logic a little bit flawed then? I try to avoid saying something about the claim of being "unbeaten", I see some factual error must have happened there to you.

Hail Pacifica o/

[Tombouctu]

Gotta love how hard defenders are trying to switch the vote. Does it honestly matter? We're still unbeaten, and always will be. Half of the fun is watching you all scramble around to block the repeal - but we win either way

Hail Invaders! o7

What are you trying to say? Anyone voting against the repeal is a Defender? Look at me for example, I am many things, but among all those things I can hardly be considered a Defender. Isn't your logic a little bit flawed then? I try to avoid saying something about the claim of being "unbeaten", I see some factual error must have happened there to you.

Hail Pacifica o/

All he said was that defenders were trying really hard to sway the vote, not that everyone trying to sway the vote is a defender. I wouldn't consider you a defender either, Perg.
Hail Pacifica! o/

[Altmoras]

What are you trying to say? Anyone voting against the repeal is a Defender? Look at me for example, I am many things, but among all those things I can hardly be considered a Defender. Isn't your logic a little bit flawed then? I try to avoid saying something about the claim of being "unbeaten", I see some factual error must have happened there to you.

Hail Pacifica o/

All he said was that defenders were trying really hard to sway the vote, not that everyone trying to sway the vote is a defender. I wouldn't consider you a defender either, Perg.
Hail Pacifica! o/

Are we? Major defender regions switched our votes sure, so did almost every other mainstream region. From what I've observed it's been mostly Independent or Unaffiliated individuals and regions actively campaigning against the Repeal.

[Funkadelia]

There cannot be even a remotely justifiable reason to ask that question.

If we already know this information, why on earth do we ask?

Think.

-- Lawrence.

You are a morally repugnant crypto-fascist who has no place taking part in this game. You should take some time to reflect on yourself and ask if this is really the way you want to be spending your time, then come back when you've found some answers.

[USS Monitor]

If we already know this information, why on earth do we ask?

Think.

-- Lawrence.

You are a morally repugnant crypto-fascist who has no place taking part in this game. You should take some time to reflect on yourself and ask if this is really the way you want to be spending your time, then come back when you've found some answers.

*** Warned for flaming ***

[Katabasis I]

We're still unbeaten, and always will be.

*cough* *cough*

What's your point? I see links to two regions that we conquered, thoroughly subjugated, and then moved on from when native spirits were too crushed for us to crush them any further.

[Rufford]

*cough* *cough*

What's your point? I see links to two regions that we conquered, thoroughly subjugated, and then moved on from when native spirits were too crushed for us to crush them any further.

As a native of one of those regions, who was there when you raided it, I can tell you all firsthand that, that statement is not true.

[Katabasis I]

What's your point? I see links to two regions that we conquered, thoroughly subjugated, and then moved on from when native spirits were too crushed for us to crush them any further.

As a native of one of those regions, who was there when you raided it, I can tell you all firsthand that, that statement is not true.

Clearly you were one of the fortunate ones. Or perhaps your ability to know when you are defeated was crushed as well?

[Rufford]

As a native of one of those regions, who was there when you raided it, I can tell you all firsthand that, that statement is not true.

Clearly you were one of the fortunate ones. Or perhaps your ability to know when you are defeated was crushed as well?

I was one of the most influential so you couldn't kick me. And I certainly wasn't crushed or defeated.

[Pergamon]

As a native of one of those regions, who was there when you raided it, I can tell you all firsthand that, that statement is not true.

Clearly you were one of the fortunate ones. Or perhaps your ability to know when you are defeated was crushed as well?

"Remind yourself that overconfidence is a slow and insidious killer" ~ Best game ever.

[T E Lawrence]

*cough* *cough*

Unbeaten you say?

Very.

-- Lawrence.

[Plagentine]

Not sure how a founder returning makes for a failed raid. The Invaders took over SLU fairly and were occupying it without much threat of a liberation. A founder returning is not a liberation, it is an unpredictable change in the environment that completely takes away any mechanical possibility for an occupation. Just like ancient regions are inherently raidable, foundered regions are inherently unreidable. No serious or honest gameplayer will see that as an actual defeat.

[WARDEN DRAKE]

IMO, the actual raid was very successful, it's the occupation that wasn't. The founder coming back is basically deus ex machina. Raiders are able to claim a military victory, defenders are able to claim (a non-military) occupation victory, as the raiders were still forced to end their occupation at a time and method not of their own choosing.

Raiders usually need military victory in order to "win", but defenders need only to have the region returned to native control in one way or another in order to "win". Military victory is of course preferred, but often doesn't work out. If a person only sees binary win/loss and only military victory, then they will obviously disagree with my viewpoint. I see an initial raid and an occupation/hold as two separate events that comprise one operation (excluding tag raids). IMO, raiders can only win both, and thus win the overall op, if the raid succeeds and then they pull out under conditions entirely of their own choosing (and still with influence points). The founder returning and kicking them out is a lost occupation, the most total loss of an occupation one can have. But, that doesn't take away the total success of the raid.

[Cormactopia Prime]

IMO, the actual raid was very successful, it's the occupation that wasn't. The founder coming back is basically deus ex machina. Raiders are able to claim a military victory, defenders are able to claim (a non-military) occupation victory, as the raiders were still forced to end their occupation at a time and method not of their own choosing.

But not by defenders, and not due to any gameplay skill. When a Founder returns, no one outnumbers, outplays, or outwits us, least of all defenders. So it's completely accurate to say we aren't "beaten" in that situation. A Founder returning is a reset, not a defeat.

[Guy]

Depends on context. Can be a defender trap.

In any case, no one cares for "defeating" or "outwitting" you. You're playing a made-up game with yourself - and worse, it's on the lowest possible difficulty. But hey, I suppose that can feel good too, even if it's not the real thing.

Pick a day, trigger, pile (and/or sit on the banject button).

We do this to enjoy ourselves, and some of us to do the right thing by the native communities. But no one cares about you.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Depends on context. Can be a defender trap.

Also see: Evil Wolf letting himself CTE
Also see: Islam and Woodhouse
Also see: Vac and TGW raiding his region

I think raiders generally call that a victory when they pull a founder back and boot someone else. Not sure why we'd deny the same courtesy. Drake made plenty of sense - we can win the raid, but lose the intended occupation. Whether it's lost as a direct result of defender actions or native actions, the defenders may or may not have *militarily* won, but their goal (prevent destruction of a native region) is still complete.

[WARDEN DRAKE]

A region ending up back in native control is the overarching win condition for a defender. If you really want to split hairs, you can say that the raiders won the raid, the natives won the occupation, and the defenders had a ND on the occupation. That's perfectly fair if your definition of "winning" is so narrow. But, it misses the whole point of defending.

Edit: I think Cormac's point would be more accurate if regions were unable to be destroyed/refounded by the raiders. In such a context, there'd be no true threat to a region, so there would be more of a need to beat the raiders militarily, and more of a let down when we fail at that. There'd also be less of a need for defenders in general. Raids and holds ultimately are not a big deal and the damage is not lasting. Refounds, however, are game over.

[T E Lawrence]

Very good points, Duxburian, but it doesn't detract from our claim that The Invaders remain undefeated.

Defenders and natives are very welcome to claim an overarching "win" when regions and communities are freed through processes that include their founder returning, The Invaders withdrawing, etc., because it does indeed signify that these communities are given another chance to grow, develop, and regain sovereignty to their internal affairs, as opposed to having Invaders wipe the board clean with a trophy refound. Military victory, however, is the only thing that matters to The Invaders, and military defeat is achieved only when defenders and/or natives manage to unseat the Invader delegate with one of their own through military means. This has yet to happen and will never happen so long as I command The Invaders.

Also see: Evil Wolf letting himself CTE
Also see: Islam and Woodhouse
Also see: Vac and TGW raiding his region

I think raiders generally call that a victory when they pull a founder back and boot someone else. Not sure why we'd deny the same courtesy.

You're missing the point again here, because defenders do the exact same. When TITO hit Lone Wolves United over a year ago, they claimed total victory, giving out battle stars and medals, making banners, taking screenshots, granting Witchcraft and Sorcery his knighthood, and generally going crazy over a raid that lasted mere minutes. You're extrapolating the idea of intentional deception between raiders and defenders to apply to native communities, where natives scramble to track down their long-departed founders through social media to halt invasions (see Social Liberal Union). Similar examples include the raids on Atlantis and Nasicournia, where the accidental CTE's of Lemmingtopias and Pope Hope were ended following their returns to clean up their homes. Raiders claimed victory that they hit ancient defender hubs and defenders claimed victory that their communities were no long being destroyed.

And once again, this has nothing to do with defeat.

In any case, no one cares for "defeating" or "outwitting" you. You're playing a made-up game with yourself - and worse, it's on the lowest possible difficulty.

I know that defenders motivated each other by quoting our undefeated track record in preparation for the ill-fated liberation attempt of Singapore. You'd have a stronger point if you started to defend again instead of parking yourself in the Rejected Realms and getting in trouble on the forum.

In short, a circular argument is happening between two factions that are not so unlike each other.

-- Lawrence.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Seems to be a matter of semantics with a fundamental disagreement that parties on both sides use for propeganda. *shrug*

That noted, on the same topic but a different angle - if you're going to claim The Invaders' history back twelve years, you really ought to also acknowledge defeats from that era as well. Bit of historical cherry picking there. Would be happy to shoot you come Jolt archive links if you'd like record of those to go along with 12 years of claimed vistory.

[Cormactopia Prime]

Seems to be a matter of semantics with a fundamental disagreement that parties on both sides use for propeganda. *shrug*

That noted, on the same topic but a different angle - if you're going to claim The Invaders' history back twelve years, you really ought to also acknowledge defeats from that era as well. Bit of historical cherry picking there. Would be happy to shoot you come Jolt archive links if you'd like record of those to go along with 12 years of claimed vistory.

Where did he claim twelve years of victory? He said military defeat hadn't happened yet and wouldn't so long as he's commanding, which implies that the "yet" means since he's been in command, i.e., since The Invaders were revived. Why would anyone deny historical defeats? Point is, since revival The Invaders haven't lost on the field of battle, which is a lot longer a streak than The Black Hawks have. Perhaps if you spent more time mastering raiding, recruiting, training, etc., and less time taking pointless cheap shots in this thread, The Black Hawks could also have that impressive a winning streak.

[Lockdownn]

Seems to be a matter of semantics with a fundamental disagreement that parties on both sides use for propeganda. *shrug*

That noted, on the same topic but a different angle - if you're going to claim The Invaders' history back twelve years, you really ought to also acknowledge defeats from that era as well. Bit of historical cherry picking there. Would be happy to shoot you come Jolt archive links if you'd like record of those to go along with 12 years of claimed vistory.

Where did he claim twelve years of victory? He said military defeat hadn't happened yet and wouldn't so long as he's commanding, which implies that the "yet" means since he's been in command, i.e., since The Invaders were revived. Why would anyone deny historical defeats? Point is, since revival The Invaders haven't lost on the field of battle, which is a lot longer a streak than The Black Hawks have. Perhaps if you spent more time mastering raiding, recruiting, training, etc., and less time taking pointless cheap shots in this thread, The Black Hawks could also have that impressive a winning streak.

Considering their professionalism thus far, your word, and your "organization's" word for that matter is crap. If it's anyone taking cheap shots, it's your newbie wanna-be super raiders that make up 98% of your entire group. "Being the best" is not determined by length of time existing in a dank corner, but by retaining a good image while being good at what you do. Or what they do for that matter, since the great majority of your group seems to only excel at belittling and baiting natives.

[Cormactopia Prime]

Where did he claim twelve years of victory? He said military defeat hadn't happened yet and wouldn't so long as he's commanding, which implies that the "yet" means since he's been in command, i.e., since The Invaders were revived. Why would anyone deny historical defeats? Point is, since revival The Invaders haven't lost on the field of battle, which is a lot longer a streak than The Black Hawks have. Perhaps if you spent more time mastering raiding, recruiting, training, etc., and less time taking pointless cheap shots in this thread, The Black Hawks could also have that impressive a winning streak.

Considering their professionalism thus far, your word, and your "organization's" word for that matter is crap. If it's anyone taking cheap shots, it's your newbie wanna-be super raiders that make up 98% of your entire group. "Being the best" is not determined by length of time existing in a dank corner, but by retaining a good image while being good at what you do. Or what they do for that matter, since the great majority of your group seems to only excel at belittling and baiting natives.

Retaining "a good image" -- in the gameplay sense -- is for raiders who care what defenders and natives think about them. One has to ask why such raiders even exist. If you're going to raid, which necessarily involves invading and disrupting regions and their populations, why bother to care what the people you're disrupting and the people who think it's their sacred duty to protect them think about you? It seems like an awful waste of time and energy. Life's too short to care that much what people think about you in a game when you're deliberately playing the bad guy.

There's another kind of good image, and that is out-of-character image related to obeying the rules of NationStates, which means treating people with OOC respect according to those rules, not using illegal scripts and tools, etc. In that sense, The Invaders are maintaining an OOC good image, and that's all that matters. All any raider should be worried about is complying with the rules, not whether they're liked by their enemies. Any raider who cares about the opinions of the natives whose regions they're invading or the defenders who oppose them should reconsider why he or she even is a raider. Maybe that time would be better spent doing something else, something more respectable in NationStates. Raiding isn't supposed to be respectable. We're supposed to be the villains who steal your regions, not cuddly BFFs.