Yevgeni Luchenkov
-
Posts
1,468 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Yevgeni Luchenkov
-
-
No. It's a reflection of a (now) very common strategy.
It consists of preventively peace modding the tier(s) where you feel you are the weaker. It has the double effect of bringing the fight where you want it to go. Which is why our alliance's mid to low tiers are in peace mode and others just peace out their top tiers, even if we're in the same coalition.
Why? Because we entered while they were still alliances left to join on the other side.
Which means that, yes, an alliance who has a strong upper tier (say, 50% of its nations) will comparatively have a high percentage of peace modded nations if it wants to follow through with said planning. Once all major players are involved, we know where to deploy our meager low-mid tiers and can do it effectively.
Every war, we get alliances who whine about our strategies. 98.5% of the time, they're our enemies. We must definitely be doing it right.
-
Exactly, we are putting forth a minimal effort and using the rest of our coalition to carry the load. :rolleyes:
If Steve and berbers were not there to repeat it in every thread, I think we might have been able to fool our coalition and thus enact our grand plan of backstabbing everybody the next war, as usual.
Damn them.
Also, welcome to the battlefield, MHA.
-
Hey look, a declaration a war too late.
Stalinists. -
Sure he can. TOP kept half their alliance in PM and still lost of ton of NS. Both are true because both happened. That doesn't make TOP cowardly; tucking away what would otherwise get crushed is smart and both the NS loss and damage output by the nations not in PM proves TOP fought hard.
Can we get both sides to agree the other is also correct and move on?
Except, that's not what they're implying with "TOP kept half their alliance in PM". They're implying we hid and didn't take the damage we should have taken. Which, on its face, is false.
Also, half is false as well. We had more than 80 members.
-
Yes. Accurate in every way.
It's not ignorance because you don't want to hear it Gibs, I've looked back at the old war stats pages, it's plain as day to see. I know you need to defend your ally and you know I need to attack them, so hopefully once this is over we can go back to normal :P
Edit: I mean I'm not a frothing at the mouth lunatic, I look at historical data and see TOP using PM in their underpopulated tiers to avoid damage and subsequently take less then their coalition mates. Then we see leaked logs of TOP saying they want to avoid damage in the "next " war ( that's this one) and hope to make it in on the third wave.
So what else do you need to convince you that they are snakes playing everyone off against each other?If we wanted so much to avoid taking damage in "this" war, you know what we could have done?
Accepted NSO-NPO-NG's plan and rolled Polar and the South pole for, what, a third or fourth consecutive time? Given our position in the treaty web, we would have been engaged in a minor fashion and would have seen our side score a decisive - albeit boring - victory over outnumbered forces. The lack of a powerful upper tier in that pole would have meant that very few of our nations would have been engaged.
Edit:
For the love of God, the PM point was already being addressed in the TOP DoW thread.They did keep half their AA in pm for the entire war. They just had a lot of nations at their plate so the ones that did stay in war or didn't get into pm in time were dealt a lot of damage by a coalition that was much bigger than them.
If you remove ghosts from the count, we had I believe 40 or 41 nations who stayed in peace mode that entire war.
The war was waged on fronts. Our front's strategy was to do a full engagement in the upper and super tiers where we could realistically have a chance to bring a stalemate. We got very close to that point but our initial heavy engagement on Anarchy Inc. meant that we had few reserves in that area.
The nations who stayed in peace mode the entire war were all in tiers where they'd have been outnumbered more than 5 to 1. A dozen of those nations were tech farms. A few were decent but unprepared/unreliable nations. We didn't save perfectly good nations from getting hammered.
The fact that we bled over 70% of our NS shows that we did a full engagement. You can't have it both ways.
-
We bleed 70% of our NS for our allies and it's somehow "not enough". We somehow "saved more". We fought on a front where we were massively outnumbered, yet "we could have brought more out".
Bcortell's stats of our "upper nations" being in PM don't reflect this fact: it wasn't an upper tier anymore but a larger higher mid tier. As our warring nations fell down the ranks, they passed by those nations that we had ordered to peace mode.
Aside from 4 or 5 nations at 100k+ NS, the rest of those "upper tier peace mode" nations he's refering to are nations who were:
1)Less than 80k NS.
2)Had activity problems and would prove unreliable in combat.
Our front was fought down to the last nation. From a 2.3 to 1 advantage in nations in the upper tier for our enemies, we fought it down to parity or very close. Releasing more nations (who were either less prepared or unreliable at the moment) at 80k NS wouldn't have helped our front or war. DT, among others, was able to cycle nations in and out of peace mode. Heavy tech nations that had the potential to declare in the 80-92k NS range.
Given what we faced on our front, with the help we received, we did a very good job.
If people want to criticize peace mode as a tactic, they should do it as part of a global strategy, looking at global (or at the very least, front-based) results.
-
Ardus trying to play the moralist card. With TOP absorbing half of MK I figured you wouldn't even bother trying to find moral high ground. Guess not.
We have more ex-Pacificans than ex-Mushrooms in our ranks, I think.
We "absorbed" nine or ten MKers. Not half.
As for the DoW in itself, I really didn't expect you to try to go the moralist road, Steve. Ballsy. I like it. It's as good a time as any to rebrand Non Grata.
You're really going to take it there? Coming from the alliance that decided to triple team one? Sounds like you were just trying to avoid war with two alliances... Look, I can play too!
I don't think maths work that way.
-
A very classy declaration.
-
Not acting on a CB doesn't negate the existence of said CB or the legitimacy of other similar CBs.
-
You're probably not going to be able to differ with bcortell on this one without looking bad. He practically ran that front by his lonesome and probably still has every stat imaginable. The fact that he has given specific numbers on specific dates tells me he's still got all the data and countering that with the word strategy doesn't play well out here.
I'm not arguing with his stats. By memory, I believe they match ours.
The initial point that I addressed was that we were, in TOP, trying to limit our engagement during our wars. Given that we're a top heavy alliance (less the case than before, maybe there's a hint there), being heavily concentrated on in two tiers means you can't simply look at peace mode numbers to see how much we actually commit. His numbers are correct but they also prove what I asserted: when faced with overwhelming numbers, we didn't shy away from the fight where it mattered.
Did we keep 45-50 nations in peace mode in the very low tiers? Yes. They represent roughly 10 to 15% of our total NS. More importantly, coalition wide strategy was to keep such tiers in peace mode because we simply couldn't win it.
To look at it from another point of view:
When faced with odds of 7 to 1 (lower tiers), we stayed in peace mode.
When faced with odds of 2.2/2.5 to 1, we engaged.
Even in the 4 to 1 (60-80k NS), we did engage several nations.
Our front was limited to us and our immediate allies. Nobody else was to be heavily engaged in the lower tiers.
Another point of view would be to look at the NS we engaged. Which would make more sense than the number of nations, given our composition.
During BiPolar, the other example, virtually all of TOP fought.
I'm amused that some people are trying to harp it as if we shy away from fights, even though we go beyond what's asked of us in every war coalition (save perhaps for Karma, for different reasons).
-
This is just from last war, but TOP started with 65 of 106 in PM. Within a week they had 53 in PM. By the end of the war they had 48 in PM. (I didn't do it by <100K because by the end of the war, nearly all of TOP was below that level.)
What does this mean? Well, yes, some will come out of PM, but the smart money is on the majority of them staying in PM the entirety of war. TOP certainly PM'ed some guys as reserves, but they also PM'ed a ton of guys that didn't want to fight, weren't prepped to fight, and/or to limit the damage to those guys.
Eh, last war you committed about 30% of those that started in PM. The rest stayed in PM for the entire war. So, I guess that depends on what you want to consider staying away from the battlefield or committing forces? Do you consider 30% committing your forces?
We committed forces, along the lines of the coalition-wide strategy which was to engage in very specific tiers. Others did not.
We had no one who didn't want to fight. We did have a few who were not prepared to fight - we encourage our nations to grow quickly because tier dispersion is what loses wars.
Given that we lost roughly 65-70% of our total NS, I wouldn't expect you to actually call us out for our war effort but it's tough to please people. Either we don't lose enough NS, or we don't lose it across all tiers or we don't lose enough tech, etc.
-
Ender, are you just not reading my posts? The potential for them to do as you say is there, but historically they didn't come out of pm for round 2 :(. So yes, I may be surprised by a deviation from historical patterns, but to ignore historical patterns doesn't make much sense, does it?
We have always done our utmost to respond to coalition strategies and allied requests. You claim we lost only 13% of our NS in Grudge War. I'd ask for you to tell us where you're getting those numbers.
Assuming they are right, though, we cannot force people to beat us. We were fighting a winning war. Our alliance was (still is) very much an upper tier alliance, with few nations to spare in the lower tiers. We wiped out the enemy's upper tier. Our big nations had the luxury to rebuild during the war because they were not really engaged. That means only our 0 to 60k NS nations were engaged, so maybe 45 nations. Comparatively, those nations form a minor percentage of our NS. It's true that our allies lost more than we did during that war. I think IRON bled something like 40% of its NS. However, we always responded to their demands to the best of our ability and our members fought in the lower tiers. We were simply winning the war and had comparatively less nations engaged in that tier.
What do you want us to do? Play badly on purpose? Mass recruit so we, too, can lose lots of NS in lower tiers?
If you want to look at historical precedents, look at wars where we were heavily engaged and losing. Did we stay away from the battlefield or did we commit our forces?
-
Yes that's exactly why they didn't take any damage, they have mastered the art of war.
Not to undermine our own war performances but can you point to us which war we didn't take damage in? Or which war you're using as a basis for your wild claim that we're minimizing the damage we suffer? I'm curious.
-
Okay, we've all had a blast calling each other out over the use of peace mode.
Let's stop doing it, please. Please?
-
Yet you will still be here.. telling everyone, every day, how much you do not care. Care to make a wager?
And you'll still be there, reminding him about it. And posting about Athens. ;)
Falalalan!
-
I still think Yevgeni should have posted this under the name Neutron Squeegee.
All hail Stratephor.
I'll be posting Pacifica's DoW under the title of Imperial Advisor Emeritus and Ombudsman to the Body Republic.
Sidenote: it's always TOP manipulating everyone. No matter what side and who's fighting.
-
So if TDO were to politely ask the rest of you lot to stop attacking MQ/former MK nations, you would immediately stop attacks?
Yeah, except some of those alliances have also formulated their own set of demands.
So who knows. I just know that this is a first, where uninvolved alliances are hitting rogues and then demanding reparations from them. It's like a raid where you also ask the raided nation to pay you.
I guess raiders need to take note. This is progress.
-
The highlight of this thread are the MK/GOONies complaining about reps that haven't even been asked for when they were the rep taking kings of CN for years. Didn't GOONS used to constantly brag about getting reps in every situation possible? Didn't MK once demand millions over a trade circle? Weren't GOONS the most excited when a raid target fought back so they could 3v1 that nation until they faced the mercy board, keeping them at war for as long as it took to do whatever idiotic thing to GOONIE satisfaction? Hilarious posting by the lot of you.
"Millions".
Yes, that was mostly my work, when I was in MK, as a low government official (Baron of Trade/Tech, whatever).
Since it often gets repeated as an heinous crime MK committed, here's the full story:
I had been organizing trade circles on the behalf of MK members. One circle in particular lacked a rare trade (before resources swapping) so I started messaging nations with those resources and offering them a few millions dollars if they accepted to join said trade circle. One of them did. He was a member of NSO. He accepted the money, sent me a message saying he also accepted the conditions (one of them was that he would be bound to the TC for at least sixty days, seemed fair on both sides).Fast forward fifteen or so days, he cancels the trade. We send him a few messages, no answer. I contact NSO's leadership, ask them about this fellow and his current status since he was still on the NSO AA. They tell me he has left the alliance and is essentially a ghost and that we are good to attack him (OOC: guy has like 100 NS so meh). Normally, it would have stopped there but we found out a few days later that he was still masked as a member on NSO's boards.
So we went to NSO and asked what was up and why they had lied to us about it, since the guy was clearly still masked and active on their boards. They told us that it was an oversight and not their responsibility. At that point, we saw it different. We figured that since the guy had accepted the money as a member of NSO and since he still showed apparent signs of being a NSO member (being masked on their forums, being on their AA), we would hold NSO responsible for that. We got into a discussion with RV, who was into their govt at that time. We had given a few millions to the nation in question and figured they were only abandoning him because he probably didn't care about his own nation (OOC: being 100 NS, easy to rebuild, nothing to lose, except our own money). We thought we would start it by asking them to repay a little bit more than what we had given to their nation.
Normally, it would have led to a bit of back and forth and they probably would have accepted to repay the six millions we had paid in the first place. Instead, RV decided to play the "anti-MK" card publicly and went on a campaign of "see, they are trying to extort 15m-250tech from us for a single cancelled trade!". Add incomplete logs and half the story and most people ran home thinking we had asked for reps just because someone cancelled a trade. It was a good move by RV, though, as we simply abandoned the affair entirely, given public backlash. Amusingly, RV was to join MK shortly after.
-
This went from a bunch of nobodies threatening to PZI Timberland to a discussion on post-hegemonic Karma to a discussion on MQ's rogue band of warriors to revelations about MHA.
PZI is a fantastic practice. It fell out of use because too many people actually bought the anti-NPO propaganda and it was part of it. So now viceroys, PZI and so on are frowned upon to the point where they're more damaging than useful for any alliance who use it.
Shame.
-
Now you know why I won't be joining TOP.
You were already not joining prior to that, much to my dismay.
:(
-
Good work on the reconstruction. It is a good thing that you have honed your skills in that department to such a level.
-
Terrible treaty, terrible people.
-
I'd like to thank you for actually posting a DoW. It's a classy thing to do and as a community that runs on annoucements, it's the right thing to do. No one will fault you for standing up for what you believe in.
I'll go with Steve on this.
I, for one, appreciate alliance announcements of major events and decisions. I won't wish you luck but standing up for what you believe is right is always commendable.
-
I really like times like these: when alliances on a given side understand that they got outplayed and now resort to petty insults, until such time as the next war comes and they inevitably lose.
Uh oh I've been put on a ZI list
in World Affairs (IC)
Posted
I really dig the "Indonesians" part of it.