NationStates Jolt Archive

Do we need better invaders to make NS more interesting, and if so, what can be done about this?

Not necessicarily Better invaders, if you can get "Them" to return and guide a force, you will have created a Invader army of Exxtraordinary Magnitude,
Trained in the ancient ways with spirits forged with the souls of our ancestors, You would have My Gratitude.

We do have better invaders. Those of us who actually have the skill and subtelty to achieve positions of power without using an army are pretty much the ultimate invaders. And we're generally nicer and more trustworthy too.

The people generally labelled invaders are mostly just a bunch of people who lack the intelligence to know that the most effective route to longstanding power and influence is to do good stuff. It's really quite simple. No need for elaborate tactics or strategery. Only a bit of discretion is required.

Question - How do you class any invader better than the ones we have today?

And how do you plan on making an invader 'better'?

In the end, if there are more defenders than invaders in a region, then the invader can't become any better!

As defender, the question posed is a problematic one and actually raises more questions in the process of attempting to understand the question in the first place.

Why do we need to have invaders with a particular level of skill? Who's "we" in that question anyway? What are "we" trying to achieve anyway by having invaders around in the first place? Am I the only one who notices that of all the 'imperial' groups none of them ever were able to conquer and keep a sufficiently large number of regions to warrant the name 'empire' to begin with? Considering there's no real such progress at all after all this time, why do invaders continue to invade at all? What are they trying to achieve? Have any of them ever done the math required to understand they do not have the forces to hold on to such an 'empire'?

So... do we need better or worse invaders? Well... tell me what 'we' are trying to achieve in the first place, and I can then tell you whether that goal will require better or worse invaders.

Then there's also the simple answer that as defender I would prefer worse invaders as they'd be easier to defeat, but somehow I doubt you're just tallying numbers of invaders / defenders here. A simple poll "Are you (o) Invader; (o) defender; (o) neither" would've been more clear in that case.

Ballotonia

I for one think we need invaders like the old days, with well planned slugfest, none of this hopping around just before the update stuff. <moans> I need my beauty sleep!

In the end, if there are more defenders than invaders in a region, then the invader can't become any better!
This isnt true, the invader can be outnumbered and win. If they capture the delegacy in a suprise raid then they can eject incoming defenders, and with the use of passwords and the new random UN update time it's just made harder to retake...

it would be good to make wars and stuff more realistic but possibly go off of nationstates and have net battles on age of the empires or warcraft III
that would sure make it more realistic if used that along with the gnp calculator and use the forums like scoreboards

tell me what you think. :cool: :gundge:

Question - How do you class any invader better than the ones we have today?

And how do you plan on making an invader 'better'?

In the end, if there are more defenders than invaders in a region, then the invader can't become any better!

read above post by me

This isnt true, the invader can be outnumbered and win. If they capture the delegacy in a suprise raid then they can eject incoming defenders, and with the use of passwords and the new random UN update time it's just made harder to retake...

I do see what your saying, but if there are more defenders endorsing their 'leader' than invaders endorsing theirs, and everyone gets in before the update, then the defenders win. There's no dispute in that.

Then there's also the simple answer that as defender I would prefer worse invaders as they'd be easier to defeat, but somehow I doubt you're just tallying numbers of invaders / defenders here. A simple poll "Are you (o) Invader; (o) defender; (o) neither" would've been more clear in that case.

Ballotonia
Well, some defenders, (like me) would prefer better invaders, who are more fun to defeat.

We do have better invaders. Those of us who actually have the skill and subtelty to achieve positions of power without using an army are pretty much the ultimate invaders. And we're generally nicer and more trustworthy too.

The people generally labelled invaders are mostly just a bunch of people who lack the intelligence to know that the most effective route to longstanding power and influence is to do good stuff. It's really quite simple. No need for elaborate tactics or strategery. Only a bit of discretion is required.
The people you're talking about aren't really invaders so much as powerbrokers. I'm talking about regular invaders conducting invasions as a part of gameplay.

Question - How do you class any invader better than the ones we have today?

And how do you plan on making an invader 'better'?

In the end, if there are more defenders than invaders in a region, then the invader can't become any better!
Yeah, but the trick for invaders is to make plans that come to a head without any defenders getting themselves involved.

Defenders have it much easier. All they need to do is endorse the current Delegate. Invaders need as many plus one.

Plus its difficult to coordinate large troops. Or to keep everyone alert 3:00 in the morning.

On another note what was the largest region you have taken, Not in nation size but in numbers of endorsements the delegate had.

I have two cats, one goes through the heating vents and the other gets dirty under the porch.

I have two cats, one goes through the heating vents and the other gets dirty under the porch.
Huh?

People say that defenders have it easy. Well, they have it easy when they have good intell or the invaders are just ignorant of the fact that you can see them jump.

Many of the invasions that defenders stop is just pure luck. You just happen to see something, a jump to a interesting region name. You click and you get vibes of a invasion in progress when viewing the regionals.. And you check, and you alert the defender communites.

Once I even saw a multi attack when doing a t-gram recruitment drive. I got a bit perplexed when I sent yet another t-gram to a newly recived UN badge in the same region. First I thought it was a invasion going on in there that was carefully planned, but then they jumped to another region, griefed it and I wasn't able to stop it.

So sometimes its just pure luck.

In fact, the invaders have all the bonuses. They know the date, they know the target they know everything.
Defenders just have to work that extra bit to succede. So saying that its easy for defenders is just plain bs. There is alot off hard work put in.

If I would attack a region I would plan it, either days ahead or just throw some region names around and just choose one. Then jump in before the update or crawl in during several days. Plus adding some extra gizmos like never before used nations (not newly created) and hopefully see to it that eventual defender spies in my midst was unaware about the invasion.

Think a bit, it aint that hard. Complaining is easy, work on it instead

Defending is pretty easy when you're the founder and the delegate has no power :)

I find the whole region invading thing stupid, though. I only consider regions a place to park your nation and attract some liemined people, if you want war then do a RP on the forums.

Defending is pretty easy when you're the founder and the delegate has no power :)

I find the whole region invading thing stupid, though. I only consider regions a place to park your nation and attract some liemined people, if you want war then do a RP on the forums.
the only problem is that RP wars are unrealistic, but now I think about it so is region crashing (that is what this thread is about isnt it?)

anyway I thought I had a good idea on the last page but nobody seems to have noticed it.

so Im gonna bitch and moan until i get some recognition

:headbang:

think about it we could create maps of our nations like capital cities and stuff and stage battles against each other and move to different maps depending on wins and losses

It would be a better challenge for defenders if you change to region crashing rules to be less invader bias

In fact, the invaders have all the bonuses. They know the date, they know the target they know everything.
Defenders just have to work that extra bit to succede. So saying that its easy for defenders is just plain bs. There is alot off hard work put in.
So how do you explain the fact that there are many more sucessful defenders than sucessful invaders?

Sorry, but I have a small question. I'm new to this and I was wondering how one region goes about invading another? I know it's all RP, but who's the ref in it? How does one know when he/she's lost a battle or war? :eek:

Sorry, but I have a small question. I'm new to this and I was wondering how one region goes about invading another? I know it's all RP, but who's the ref in it? How does one know when he/she's lost a battle or war? :eek:
Ah, ok, you're slightly confused here. There are 2 kinds of war, one is RP, the other is region crashing. Here we're talking about the second.

In RP wars there is no ref. People can choose to win or lose however they like.

In region crashing, you move a bunch of UN nations to another region and endorse each other. If you have enough people, you take control of the delegacy.