SSI rules of engagement - as short as I could make them.
Updated slightly sept 20, 2014; changes appear inside # #
symbols.
The mission of SSI is to
demonstrate the viability of certain "Swiss" deterrance
charactaristics:
1)
Independence
2)
Neutrality
3)
Non-aggression
4) Undesirable
target status (retaliation against raids).
The goal of every war
SSI wages is the same: Prevent or punish players from
profiting off of aggression against us. In theory, this
should limit the amount of warfare in which we must engage. In
practice, it may get hairy.
The means: Avenge
attacks against our guild members on your own initiative, but stay
within these parameters:
A) Don't initiate force (don't attack a player who hasn't
attacked us first.* Even if they're in a hostile guild...you
only attack the ^individuals^ whove aggressed)**
B) Don't initiate harmful fraud/theft (i.e. don't lie to
neutral*** or friendly players if it will hurt them in some way.
Don't take debris from their bases without asking first+ , and
don't hit neutral players' trade.
C) Cease hostilities against each enemy player once war aims are
achieved against him. (i.e. all his occupations of us are lifted
and his gross financial losses from war with us are 2x his gross
financial
gains.****) #Obviously the enemy may re-initiate conflict
by sending a fleet, stealing derb, or attacking.#
D) Post combat reports to our guild board, so we can figure out
when our war aims aginst each individual have been met.
E) Treat all players with respect, especially the ones you are
killing.*****
Ultimately we'll have to rely on the same techniques that kept
the Nazis and Soviets out of Geneva: Neutrality, diplomatic
demeanor, deterrance and...if that fails...determination to wage
costlly guerrilla war in retaliation for
aggression.
* Some situations fall into a grey area but need to be adressed.
If a neutral player lands on your base with a small force,
it's probably an accident. Better not to just kill them. In my case
I just tell them in exhange for my refusal to kill your ship, I'd
like long term clearance to land cyclers on your bases. If
their presence isn't hurting you, give them fair warning before
removing them. On the other hand, you getting killed over a
neutral player's base by a member of that player's guild is not
considered an act of aggression. You losing a scout over an
empty or abandoned planet is more serious but not high priority.
Probably the best response is to declare a temporary
exclusion zone against that player. i.e. you'll attack any of
her fleets that you see over empty planets in your systems.
Guild-wide excusion zones would be a sterner option. Attacks on our
trade routes are acts of war. When you receive a message from
AE in your inbox, notifying you of the attack, post a copy to our
combat board so we can see who did it.
**The idea here is to
follow Sun Tzu's advice: "If his forces are united, separate
them." Attacking only certain players... tends to separate them
politically from players who aren't getting attacked. It also
lets us "focus our fire." However a guild's top leader is
responsible for the actions of his members, so he would be fair
game if you can get to him while we are at war with one of his
members.
+You don't need
permisson to take derb from under a guidless player who obviously
isn't playing the game anymore; he won't miss it. You don't
have to wait for a player to respond after you've sent a permission
request, but we won't go to war over you getting killed on their
base.
***Neutral in this
context means the player is not at war with us....it does not mean
he is a member of our neutral guild. If you want to hit an
apparently inactive player, first be sure he's guildless. Ssend a
message to him asking if he's still playing the game. If
after 48 hours they have not responded, fire away. If at any
point they come back; cease occupation and open a dialog with the
player explaining we thought they were "dead." Offer them safe
passage above our bases as reparations. Guildless players
with the red "inactive" warning on their profile are just plain
dead and may be attacked without asking.
****Hostilities by all
guild members continue against an aggressing player until that
player has no fleet above any SSI base. And his financial losses
from war with us are 2x his financial gains.
Example 1: Player [HOS] Ustasa raids player [SSI] Denja, occupies
his base and gets 1000 credits worth of debris from killing its
fleet. He also gets 1000 plunder for conquering the base.
His losses are 1000 credits worth of cruisers. So his
financial gain is 1000. That means our guild "owes" him not
only the liberation of Denja's base....but 2000 credits worth of
damage. This includes damage inflicted liberating the base.
If, during the ensuing conflict, Ustasa tags one of
[SSI]EndTheFed's cycler fleets for a profit of 500... his financial
gain rises to 1500. this means we now owe him a total of 3000
credits worth of damage. The idea here is that we can't let
the enemy profit from attacking us; we can live with being harmed
but the more profits he makes the more we have to kill
him.
Example 2: player [HOS] Ustasa raids player [SSI] Denja,
fails to conqer the base but kills 1000 credits worth of fleet.
Denja collects 800 debris so he has no financial gain.
Thus war aims were techincally achieved by your base defenses
and no attacks on his fleets are authorized.
Calculating financial
damage is important to keep conflicts from spiraling out of
control, but it can get complicated.
Example 3: player [SSI] Denja attacks player [HOS] Ustasa
above his base, killing 1000 credits worth of cyclers and fighters.
The battle leaves behind 600 debris, which Denja fails to
collect. So the damage to Ustasa is only 400....because we assume
Ustasa or his guildmates will get the debris. On the other
hand if Denja finds 500 debris under one of Ustasa's other bases
and steals it without combat...that counts as 500 damage to
Ustasa.
Example 4: Player [SDS] Cetnik conquers a neutral player's
base. Player [SSI] Jarow has a trade route with that base.
Cetnik attacks the route, collecting an estimated 100 in
plunder with no loss. In that case owe Cetnik (not his
guild!) 200 credits worth of damage. This is why you don't
do long range routes.
If your ships are above
planets which have no player bases, it's an act of war againt the
guild for anyone to attack them. In some cases the hi-level players
who do so can't be directly attacked without you losing your
important level protection. #So we can retaliate against that
player with recon, stealing debris or having a hi level player
attack.#
If certain our war
objectives have been achieved against a player, it would help to
publicize this on the guild board. You may want to inform the enemy
player you're attempting to shut down the attacks on him. Once
fighting ends, friendly neutrality resumes until the player
re-initiates hostilites.
#Some situations will
defy these formulas, such as aggressive players attacking us
repeatedly without making a profit. If in doubt as to whether
we are or should be at war with a player, the highest ranking
avaiable player has authority to make the call. #
*****This is aimed at weakening the enemy's will to
fight.