Raiding Demystified

[Tikal Wolf]

This thread aims to clarify some biases related to Invading. Any questions pertaining to Raiding may be asked, and Experienced Raiders are welcome to answer them.

[Tikal Wolf]

What is raiding
-
The multitude of tactics and the subjectivity of the motivation to raid.



Invading is the coordinated movement into the enemy territory, aiming to weaken or submit the enemy to our control by force.

In NationStates that control will be exercised through the regional controls, to which we gain access by getting ourselves elected as World Assembly Delegates.

In the past, at a time in which the game rules were different, crashing, raiding, and invading described different activities; today, they have mere historical roots, and have all blended into a common meaning.

---

There are many ways to invade, a whole pallet of techniques to choose from and innovate. You can endorse previously to moving, or afterwards; you can move through a series of regions before moving to your real target, using diversion techniques; you can move into the target, collect native endorsements, get elected, and then enforce your rule with the homeland backups, among many other things.

Raiding offers the most varied tactics, and the widest possibilities to innovate. If you are naturally creative, from the moment you master the basics of invading, you have a chance to become a genius in the battlefield.

---

As with most human actions, the reasons that lead people to raid are plenty, and differ. If you want to know the most common ones, check the "Why Raid" section. You'll notice that each raider has a unique view of invading, turning the motivation to raid into an utterly subjective issue.

[Tikal Wolf]

Who Do I Raid



Preferably the enemy (i.e. Defenders). Neutrals are raided as well. Some raider groups prefer targeting generically disliked regions, such as nazi themed regions.


Don't raid other raiders. That is unprofessional, and you'll be looked upon as a n00b, ignorant of one of the most basic principles of invading - raider unity¹.

You will earn not only spite, but make enemies with nearly every military force in the game, and be deprived of allies. Most defenders won't protect you, and raiders won't help you.

---

¹Raider Unity

In Short, Raider Unity means that all raiders are one.

Raider Unity is an ideal - the unification of all raiders, not under a flag, or a name, or a commander, but under a purpose: raiding.


Among the practical consequences of Raider Unity we may notice:

• Raider regions, or regions under the control of raiders, should never be invaded - for we all are one.
• Raiders are allies, whom we should share information with, and aid in operations.
• The absence of alliances between raider and defender regions - seen as they are the enemy, whom we seek to destroy, rather than cuddle with.
• The default military activity of invader regions is raiding; however, (and only) if raider allies, or our homeland are under attack, defending them is an acceptable action.
• Defenders shouldn't be assisted in any way.

(Original post on Raider Unity from Diddly Squitt, adapted)

[Tikal Wolf]

Can all regions be raided?


No. Generally, you can't raid regions with ⁽ⁱ⁾WAD powers off, or with ⁽ⁱⁱ⁾active founders.

---

⁽ⁱ⁾If the WAD powers are off, you can't suppress posts, manage the embassies or regional tags, are unable to edit the WFE and the regions flag; and more importantly, you can't ban or eject nations.

In practice, regardless of being elected, all you can do is vote in the WA, lacking relevant control over the region.

---

⁽ⁱⁱ⁾Active Founders can eject you, or turn off the WAD powers. The likeliness of them doing so is very high, as soon as you reveal your true intentions.

[Tikal Wolf]

Which regions are the most adequate for raiding?


The Value of a Target is appreciated taking into account:

1. our specific relation with the target - for example, we can strike raiders if a War is had between both, making them the enemy in that special situation;

2. the targets defender affiliation;

3. the difficulty/size of the target.

[Tikal Wolf]

My Founder/WAD ejected me from my region! I want to raid him!


So you are thinking, you're going to ask those raider guys to do it. You've probably already posted on their Regional Message Board, and said openly who you want to raid.

This means that you have just revealed your true intents to the enemy, causing him to watch you more closely, and probably asked the wrong guys to do it.

---

Most raider organizations are established, with their own internal structure, ranks, and tactics; usually, the higher ranks pick the targets they raid.

Although they have liberty to accept suggestions of nice targets, you can be sure they already know where the juicy targets are; be aware that picking a target is a privilege given to people who work for it, and the raiders aren't your servants, coming into this world just to do your bidding.

---

What you want are mercenaries - players who raid or defend at the request of nations, without any further ado - who usually lack proper training.

However, you can take this chance to learn the Art of Raiding, and become a master of an exciting part of Gameplay - the military.

Experiment enlisting in a raider organization; by learning to raid you will, symmetrically, learn to defend, knowing all the "dos" and don'ts" of the military, an expert in this field of the game!

[Tikal Wolf]

So I Was Playing Mario Kart: Raiding Is Immoral
-
This is part of the series: Responding to fender insanity, By Lord Alphanesia / Ostroeuropa


So I was playing mario kart while thinking about how to best counter the argument that raiding in NS is immoral.
Those players work hard on building up their region to be a lead player; sure, they fail since its founderless and most often weak enough to be taken down by a dozen or so people, but they try and that's what counts.

I was in 5th place in the race, doing pretty badly, - but happy at least I wasn't 6th - when out of nowhere a blue turtle shell knocks me down to last place.
I can't believe it, it's so immoral that these guys also taking part in the race have the audacity to use a game mechanic to benefit themselves!
Anyway, this revelation caused me to in turn agree with the fenders.

Similarly, I've decided that employing headshots from hidden areas in Call of Duty is likewise immoral, and everyone who plays this game should openly reveal their location and strive only to use body shots so as to make everything fair.

In addition to this, duelling in World of Warcraft must be done naked, especially in arenas, and other such moral behaviour must be observed in all gaming activities.

We should also expand this principle to sports, and have all players declare their game plan to the other side, in addition to signalling all passes, attempts to score and such, before the fact.

I know I can count on the fenders who have been so excellent in their revealing to us that raiding is immoral to spread this new doctrine of moral gaming.

Or you know, you could just quit the game if you don't like the mechanics.

[Tikal Wolf]

Destruction of Communities?



As raiders who eject natives, (who constitute a minority in the raider community - most raiders don't exile natives nor perform refounds often) we are the ones with the capability to enlighten the World on the reasoning behind it.

---

When we aim to build Empires, and obtain definite control over a certain region, we need to refound it. For a region to be refounded, no nations can be located inside it during the update; if there are nations in it, they'll need to move out on their own accord, or be ejected; when the region is empty of nations, it will cease to exist, and we are able to recreate it.

---

When we intend to maintain our troops in a determined territory, which we are holding, and there is a native collecting endorsements, bound to be elected and replace us as WAD, the way to prevent his election is to eject him, and/or the nations endorsing him.

---

When there is a native insulting us, actively opposing our rule, attempting to round up support to kick us out, even if previously we were just intending to occupy the region temporarily, we are now more prone not only to eject that native, but to extend our stay.

This all comes to say that if we do eject a native, we usually have reasons to do so, justified by military strategy.

[Tikal Wolf]

What about their sovereignty?



Surely you will find defender rants who go on and on about how you are disrespecting the targets sovereignty.

Before falling into the mistake of letting Unibot tell you what sovereignty is, take a look at a credible definition - "Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory."- from Wikipedia.

Now, you can see targets who may - or may not - have a WAD, an established government -on or off site - whose activity is roleplay or chatting on the RMB.
Thus, you have multiple elements that can indicate a usage of authority.

From all the listed ones, the existence of a WAD, a government, or organized roleplay, may all be indicatives that the regional powers are being used.

Distinguishing the mere existence of authority, from its usage, we do not deny the existence of authority; if it didn't exist - being translated into the regional powers - we wouldn't be raiding the region at all, for we could not exert control over it.

---

Regarding the use of this authority, we may have several perspectives.

The first being that, ^(a) those who do not wield their power do not deserve it.

The second being that, ^(b) we will use the power better than the current government.

The third being that ^(c) we are the newly elected legitimate government, and are free to use our attained power as we see fit.

---

^(a) The first is rather obvious; if the current leader is a weakling, ridding the nations of him is a public service we do to them - and get thanked for, at times.

^(b) The second may need a closer look to be observed, but it is still present; having an active leader, who can provide the nations a safe home region, with a properly structured community where they can partake, presents an advantage when compared to a "leader" who can't even maintain his seat.

^(c) The third being clear; we get elected by a majority of votes!
You'll hear the rebuttal "HA! But you got elected by foreign nations!", questioning our legitimacy as Rulers.

---

To begin with, not all missions are alike; we can request endorsements of natives, and stick around long enough to fit the criteria to be considered a native, a member of the region beyond any doubt, before we take control.

And even when we don't do so, we believe ourselves in the right of attempting to get elected where we want.


Not only because the game allows it, but because we see ourselves as the best government, and will use the power to provide those nations a better place to stay at.

Our legitimacy derives from our lawful election, and from the undeniable fact that we are better than any government that allows itself to be overthrown.


And even if we were "foreign", since when is any nation in the world, in NationStates or the Real World, immune from foreign influence? Rest assured plenty of regions are joined in oligarchies composed of diplomatic ties in NS.

---

It is absurd to condemn people for going around getting elected. This is a political simulator with elections, which allows us ideological freedom when we use our power.

More so, we find morally reprehensible the hypocritical kingmaking that accompanies defending.

The damage of each defence, forcing the same people into power indefinitely, allowing the region and the nations to remain vulnerable; and the obscure criteria used to decide who is going to be put in power; shows an utter lack of respect for natives, especially in cases where dictators are kept in power.

Just look at them, those fraudulent tyrants! Are you going to let corrupt defenders, hippie supporters of weakling governments, tell you what to do? You can strive for More and Better! Join the Raider Cause Today!

[Tikal Wolf]

Nefarious consequences in griefing?



"But you are destroying a community! Who cares if you need to do it, stop raiding NAO! Hmf!"


No, we are not destroying communities. Do you have a community? You know what it is then; you talk to those people regularly about common interests, which may or may not involve the game. You like those people, or at least enjoy talking to them, and even if they move out, you'll maintain contact with them.

A community "is a group of interacting people, that shares some common values, and is attributed with social cohesion within a shared geographical location." - Adapted from Wikipedia.


If you don't talk to those people because you got raided, you weren't in a community with them.
You were, at most, in a place where players gathered randomly, without any attachment to the location or the other players there; and that warrants no protection whatsoever. Or do you stop talking to your roommate just because he moved out? Do you get upset when someone interrupts your random chat with the mailman?

[Tikal Wolf]

Reasons to Raid
-
Authored by Alan Smithee



Top Ten Reasons To Raid In Nationstates:
I was talking to a Defender friend of mine, and they said that 'there is no reason to raid', so this is a response to him and to all the other fenders who think this.


10. Social Bonding

It sounds lame, but there it is. Bear in mind this is at the bottom of the list for me, but if you are one of the internet loner types this reason probably has you squeeing in joy already. With the fender armies being so huge, all notion of regimental loyalty, espirit de corps, is gone. Small, unit based raider armies allow a sense of comradery absent from most other regions.


9. The Rush

There's nothing like the excitement you get when you click refresh and see your delegate in power, except during the unit briefings maybe, especially if you have a sergeant who chews a cigar and ends all sentences with a cry of "Hoo-ah!" and punching the air, fenders don't get a sense of accomplishment.
They aren't changing anything, just putting things back to where they were.


8. The Challenge

We're outnumbered, but we sure aren't outgunned. I play RTS and TBS a lot, and frankly I never let myself get into the situation the raiding community is in now, we're completely outmatched, but thats almost the fun part. Every time we win a battle with the fenders its a massive accomplishment.


7. The Theory

Fender tactics essentially boil down to throwing hundreds of men at a region and ejecting the raiders.
Raiders have no such luxury, we have to make up for our crippling lack of manpower by putting it to good use.
I'm not saying Defenders are crap at strategy, its just they have no need to be good at it. Raiders have had to evolve with the times, and coming up with new stratagems is one of the reasons I like to raid.


6. POWER!!!!!!!!

I'm a raider because I'm good at it, and because I'm good at it I get shiny titles and stuff. Honestly, your NS career has more chance of advancement with the raiders than the fenders. Think of it as going for a job interview where there's 500 more applicants on the fender side, and 500 more jobs going on the raider side.


5. The Evulz

It's fun to be a "bad" guy, I'm fairly sure you all know this to be true. How many despotisms are there in NS, how many times have you tittered when you select the worst possible option on a given issue?
Its also fun to be a white knight and gallop around being just and all that, so when I tried fendering I was genuinely ready to get into it. Instead I found an air of stuffy bureaucracy and unendingly watching dossiers.


4. It isn't fendering

Speaking of which, there's none of that dossier watching. (Unless you are the top brass and fancy a particular region).
That, by itself, is reason enough to turn raider.


3. The Purpose

There is no purpose except fun. DOESN'T THAT SOUND AWESOME?!


2. Beating the fenders

Man, I hate those guys.


1. I'm a Raider.

Don't you want to be cool like me?

[Tikal Wolf]

"Why do Raiders Raid?"
-
by Kurosaki/Cosmonesia


Ultimately, with the current lack of actual physical interaction between differing nations, at least in any manner similar to a classical "wargame," invasions and takeovers of other regions by given nations, whether acting alone or in concert, is the only way players can display any "aggression". Namely, you were/are in a region, and then suddenly you aren't, by force of another. Depending on your level of friendliness with other players in that region, and/or any emotional enjoyment you might gain from being a part of it (players that believe in, say, socialist, monarchist, etc. values, might want to be in a region dedicated to their pet political position), the feeling of being thrown out of it by force might be either completely inconsequential, or heart-wrending (and yes, I spelled that right, by Tolkien standards).

'Raiders', as those who engage in such behavior have come to be termed, gain pleasure, as a general group, from the energy, aggression, and for that matter planning and coordination, that such actions involve. With the lack of any way for more classically-realized 'armies' to move from a given nation into another, the perceived power and prestige for a "raiding region"...such as Unknown and their allies, in this case...is accrued among raider regions and nations by how many invasions and 'conquests' they successfully undertake; or, in turn, by what methods they might have used to accomplish a specific, prominent takeover. Such prominence is usually determined by how difficult they were/are to pull off. The smaller region is worth less on such a scale than a larger; a larger region composed primarily of "neutrals", in turn, might be a 'juicy' target to a raider, but wouldn't mean as much as taking over one composed of "defenders"...those nations/regions that have arisen on the opposite side: to combat the "raider menace", as they would have it...or to solidify a constant status quo and make EVERYONE "sit quietly in their corners", as some others would have it.

"Why...do raiders raid?" Why do they...we...get pleasure from doing it? I'd say that it's a surprisingly complicated question, and easily one with more than one answer. Some wish to 'conquer', outright. Take over a region, and play out the part of a dictator over it. This might sound 'petty', in some ears...but in a game where the whole basic point is to run a nation however the h/ll you want, such a stance is rather contradictory, at best. Granted: there's no way any such 'dictator' can keep a member nation from leaving, and going their own way; on the contrary, really the only 'war power' they have is to exclude, and block from entry. But even if on only a minor level, that region WAS still another's; better still, if it was "defended"...like this one was, by yet another group of ultimately self-proclaimed guardians of the universe...and yet STILL taken over, then not only was it another's, but they were trying to stop 'you', the given raider: you overcame them, defeated them; outsmarted them. That's fun. H/ll, that's ONLINE GAMING, itself.

Likewise, others love the raw drama that can play out, as Heartless Doxy briefly alluded. For some people, there's nothing quite like hearing/seeing the shrill wails...if only that...of people who think, apparently, that everyone should get along, and play in their own personal sandboxes, removed from everyone and anyone who might disagree with how they want to run things (just like real world politics, right?). ...Nothing like hearing the accusations that those who would come in and SEIZE CONTROL of a group of clustered sandboxes are...what?; "meanies", really? Bullies? People that will get what's COMING to them, they just WAIT!...?? Someone tried that a short while ago with Heartless Doxy, didn't they.

Mmm. Bullies: good jumping off point for a third reason why some raiders do what they do.

Some of us LOVE watching a formerly peaceful nation...a potentially BULLIED nation, perhaps?...rise up, and become aggressive themselves; grow the fangs. Plenty out there might scream, "Believe me, we HAVE! We're DEFENDERS, NOW, here to STOP YOU!"...but they really haven't. Not even close. If all raiding stopped this very day, they'd just stop right along with them. The proverbial 'ball' would constantly be in the raider court, not their own. They're just reacting, not DOING. If you...[name redacted, for the moment]...were to ask tentatively (or not so tentatively!) about how to begin raiding...ask how to GO AFTER TARGETS...prey... *grins* Well, now, what kind of -bully- gets charged up by that? What bully has ever said to his 'victim', "I want to see YOU...become like ME"?

[Tikal Wolf]

{Case Study - Raiding and Nazi regions}

A fracturing issue for the raider community came to shore in the light of day recently;

---

{The Case}

As noted, the Lone Wolves United raided Anarchy after weeks of infiltration; as soon as Marxist Rebel took the WADship with native endorsements, raiders from multiple raider organizations dropped in to support the operation.
Notwithstanding, defenders probably thought it would be nice to cause some disruption in the already fragmented raider community, and decided to point out that there were also nazi raiders providing support in the operation, causing several regions – who all have political systems, and are not pure raider organizations – to immediately put a hold on supporting the raid, and even requesting other raiders to leave it, using as excuse the refusal to cooperate with nazis.

Lone Wolves United knowingly requested the Greater German Reichs support, as they would have to any other raider military - for the Lone Wolves United stand for Raider Unity.

---

We all are aware that raiders (and even defenders) often consider nazi themed regions juicy targets, seen as the general public finds it easy to dislike them. However, if those nazi themed regions also Raid, Raider Unity should take precedence over any target that may be considered desirable due to political, or any other reasons - they should not only be safe from raids, but also be considered allies.
In fact, one could point out it’s intolerant to militarily attack a certain region due to their political views; LWU certainly doesn’t choose to attack targets based on their political ideologies, but rather on their lulzyness; after all, this is a game, and thus should be fun, not a mudfight fed by political flaming and hatred.
A roleplay condemnation without gameplay effects would suffice to demonstrate dislike.

---

Naturally, LWU respects different views on the subject, and does not require a conversion of policies to be allied with raiders, or even just to provide support. Although the expedite retreat, and the lack of forewarning of said retreat, could have made a less experienced raider organization lethally vulnerable – that is, more vulnerable than those who already listen to defenders to direct their policies.

---

Another issue that arises is that any respectable and established raider organization will see the attitude of immediately leaving the region without even warning extremely bad form, for it’s far too easy to fiction the presence of a nazi on a raid, and even worse leaving an ally without any etiquette.

One could say that these “raiders”, - or better, raider militaries who inhabit political regions – whose focus is more on making pompous and void speeches than learning invasion tactics or training troops, are a lesser, more crude, form of the pure raiders who approach raiding in a professional perspective, and are thus not subjected to the same standards of quality and decency when supporting allies, because they have to maintain appearances on the Foreign Affairs side of the game.

To the professional raider organizations though, we expect allies to give us a notice when they intend to retreat all their troops from a joint-operation, and do so with enough time to ensure those troops are replaced, so that no damage is caused.

---

In the end, defenders managed to sway raiders to not support other raiders, by calling to their political intolerance.
We can only hope this does not cause disunity in the raider community, and raiders keep vigilant of when taking defenders reports seriously.

[Tikal Wolf]

Reserved for future expansions.

[Tikal Wolf]

Reserved for future expansions.

[Tikal Wolf]

Reserved for future expansions.

[Skyrim Diplomacy]

A very extensive list. Great work, Tikal. Countdown to Unibot/Mahaj comments starts now!

[Sedgistan]

Good job. Added to the Directory of helpful Gameplay threads.

[Commander Halcones]

Wow, Tikal, and others who contributed!

Really impressive. Will have to read when my mind reawakens.

[New Sark]

pretty much. We're all nice people once you get to know us.

[Belschaft]

• The absence of alliances between raider and defender regions - seen as they are the enemy, whom we seek to destroy, rather than cuddle with.

[Ostroeuropa]

Finally posted, nice job Tik.

[Goobergunchia]

Not only because the game allows it, but because we see ourselves as the best government, and will use the power to provide those nations a better place to stay at.

Our legitimacy derives from our lawful election, and from the undeniable fact that we are better than any government that allows itself to be overthrown.

So you believe that the sole criteria of an effective government is whether or not it can protect itself from external forces?

From a Gameplay perspective, that's not unreasonable. But plenty of NationStatesers don't focus on Gameplay. Whenever a region whose inhabitants focus on roleplay gets invaded, I regularly hear complaints about how raiders are disrupting their NationStates activities. As it turns out, not everybody thinks that the government which you impose on a region is the best for them.

And that's just granting your assumption that you provide a government. Let's look at a couple of examples!

Dark hills at evening in the west,
Where sunset hovers like a sound
Of golden horns that sang to rest
Old bones of warriors underground,
Far now from all the bannered ways
Where flash the legions of the sun,
You fade - as if the last of days
Were fading, and all wars were done.
- Edwin Arlington Robinson

You have been raided by Unknown!

With thanks to The Holy Cosmarchy Union, DEN, TBH, TBR, LWU, TNI, LKE, TPK, and Euro.

A noise shatters the silence of the night: Link Whatever could it be?

Huzzah! Huzzah! Huzzah! This region proved no match for a Charge by The Black Riders!

Occupied by The Black Riders! Our lair can be found here LinkTBR forum

Into the battle rode the following riders:


The Kingdom of Prantmair
The Fiefdom of Kommandant Von Gest
The Dictatorship of The Sicliods
The Kingdom of The Sanger Dynasty
The Commonwealth of The Governors Land
The Armed Republic of Malkontents
The Holy Empire of Ashbringer
The Republic of The Republic of The Republic of
The People's Republic of Nash Castro


Vaporized Fenda: 9

I'm not seeing anything that will actually promote regional activity here. I'm seeing calls to join the invaders' region. That's pretty much the exact opposite of a regional government. And as for providing native nations a better place to stay at -- maybe I'd take that seriously if the Civil Headquarters of invaded regions weren't invariably full of taunts directed at the natives, posted after any posts by the original inhabitants were suppressed.

Goobergunchia
Nasicournian Officer
Citizen of the Rejected Realms

[New Sark]

• The absence of alliances between raider and defender regions - seen as they are the enemy, whom we seek to destroy, rather than cuddle with.

But, we do have ways to bend the rules. *tickles*

[Commander Halcones]

Calls to join the invaders' region, because that is the better place to be. There are a few raiders who I picked up from dying founderless regions. I am sure they thank me eternally.