The use of Peace Mode

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

Now, this isn't another thread (or post) where people call out their enemies because of their cowardly use of Peace Mode. I think it's a perfectly legitimate [i]war[/i] tactic.

That said, it used to be that it was used for two reasons:
1)To keep fresh reserves for counter-attacks during wars;
2)To save a few intact nations to help rebuild the alliance afterwards (see banks of old).

Those two reasons are still perfectly valid.

Since the past year or so, we have seen a new use of Peace Mode, where most of the alliance at war stays in Peace Mode... for the entire duration of the war and orders go out to have the entire alliance in full Peace Mode as much as possible.

Now, I personally think it's a weak strategy that leaves many of your colleagues to fend for themselves and bear the burden of the war while the most active are perfectly safe. Amusingly, those most active generally are the ones who dictated alliance policy and brought them to this point in the first place.

But what I think on the subject isn't that important.

However, when you complain that the same alliances are getting beat down once again, you might want to think about this: if people go to war against you, most of the time, they do so because they feel you [i]deserve a beatdown[/i]. By hiding over 60% of your alliance in Peace Mode, you deny them that beatdown, that's true, but you also deny yourselves the ability to move on and get a fresh start.

Just food for thought.

[Max Power]

Not just that, you'll also never earn the kind of credibility that can get you back on top. Friendships are made in war all the time but I've never heard of it happening when one of the alliances stays in peace mode the whole time.

Edited June 30, 2012 by Max Power

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1340988578' post='3000025']
Now, this isn't another thread (or post) where people call out their enemies because of their cowardly use of Peace Mode. I think it's a perfectly legitimate [i]war[/i] tactic.

That said, it used to be that it was used for two reasons:
1)To keep fresh reserves for counter-attacks during wars;
2)To save a few intact nations to help rebuild the alliance afterwards (see banks of old).

Those two reasons are still perfectly valid.

Since the past year or so, we have seen a new use of Peace Mode, where most of the alliance at war stays in Peace Mode... for the entire duration of the war and orders go out to have the entire alliance in full Peace Mode as much as possible.

Now, I personally think it's a weak strategy that leaves many of your colleagues to fend for themselves and bear the burden of the war while the most active are perfectly safe. Amusingly, those most active generally are the ones who dictated alliance policy and brought them to this point in the first place.

But what I think on the subject isn't that important.

However, when you complain that the same alliances are getting beat down once again, you might want to think about this: if people go to war against you, most of the time, they do so because they feel you [i]deserve a beatdown[/i]. By hiding over 60% of your alliance in Peace Mode, you deny them that beatdown, that's true, but you also deny yourselves the ability to move on and get a fresh start.

Just food for thought.
[/quote]

I mostly agree with you. However, we've seen multiple occasions where an alliance got their revenge and then came back for more. FAN for example has attacked NPO on multiple occasions for essentially the same dickery that happened years ago.

Ultimately peace mode can be an extremely effective military tool. But there's diving for cover and then there's cowering. Too often alliances resort to cowering and hoping the bad people will get bored and go away. It drags on fights much longer than they need to be. Of course it would also help if people would grant light terms or white peace at the end of wars rather than reps designed to tie up aid slots for months on end. Otherwise it tends to increase the tendency for many alliances to cower rather than fight.

Edited June 29, 2012 by ChairmanHal

[The Pansy]

[quote name='Max Power' timestamp='1340988712' post='3000026']
Not just that, you'll also never earn the kind of credibility that can get you back on top. Friendships are made in war all the time but I've never hears of it happening when one of the alliances stays in peace mode the whole time.
[/quote]
Amen Brother Max, A !@#$@#$ Men.

I met my favourite allies in BAPS due to conflict, I think I have a good relationship with the former Kronos guys for the same reason, and the Umbrella guys I have danced with.

An alliance that stands up and is counted, gains a far larger respect than one that doesn't.

TOP/MK anyone?

Edited June 29, 2012 by The Pansy

[IYIyTh]

I don't find anything wrong in denying what people want. In fact, I take great pleasure in it.

[Expletive Deleted]

That post would make sense if this war wasn't about destroying alliances/blocs the current hegemony doesn't like.

[Lurunin]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1340989155' post='3000029']
I don't find anything wrong in denying what people want. In fact, I take great pleasure in it.
[/quote]

While you may deny the other side from getting what they want, you are also denying your side the ability to inflict actual damage

1 week full out war is better for you than 1month cowering

[MrMuz]

[quote name='Lurunin' timestamp='1340989817' post='3000033']
1 week full out war is better for you than 1month cowering
[/quote]

But 4 months cowering actually does more damage at lower cost.

[Ogaden]

Both sides are fighting where they can win and peace mode where they would lose.

Both sides are literally doing whatever is necessary to deny victories and score their own wins, rulebook be damned.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Ogaden

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Lurunin' timestamp='1340989817' post='3000033']
While you may deny the other side from getting what they want, you are also denying your side the ability to inflict actual damage

1 week full out war is better for you than 1month cowering
[/quote]

This isn't true. You're simply doing more damage where your cost for doing so is much lower. More bang for the buck = long-term win.

[Simon De Montfort]

[quote name='The Pansy' timestamp='1340989129' post='3000028']
Amen Brother Max, A !@#$@#$ Men.

I met my favourite allies in BAPS due to conflict, I think I have a good relationship with the former Kronos guys for the same reason, and the Umbrella guys I have danced with.

An alliance that stands up and is counted, gains a far larger respect than one that doesn't.

TOP/MK anyone?
[/quote]
Pretty much this.

[magicninja]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1340991340' post='3000042']
This isn't true. You're simply doing more damage where your cost for doing so is much lower. More bang for the buck = long-term win.
[/quote]

Not really. It costs less for us too. Even better we have more in the top tier to rebuild everyone. Your two pals I caught out of peace mode will take a long while to recover if they ever do. If they had help or if me and my pals were taking that kind of damage as well....it would be better for you. I dont think peace comes until your big nations come out anyway. While it is true you have an easier time fighting where you are....you will still lose and take as much if not more damage than we will. Soyour logic is pretty flawed.

[the rebel]

Percentage in peacemode on all fronts:

Deinos: 60%
TOP: 36%
TLR: 35%
FEAR: 35%
NEW: 33%
GATO: 33%
BN: 33%
HB: 29%
MK: 29%
IRON: 28%
ODN: 26%
Oceania: 24%
Wolfpack: 23%
GOONS: 20%
Umbrella: 18%
NPO: 17%
Europa: 16%
NG: 16%
INT: 14%


MCXA: 67%
NADC: 34%
CSN: 32%
RIA: 31%
Sparta: 30%
BM: 30%
CRAP: 29%
TTK: 27%
RnR: 26%
GOD: 25%
NATO: 21%
Invicta: 21%
App: 21%
Fark: 14%
Legion: 11%
VE: 6%

Both sides look similar, could go further in depth and do percentage of total nations on each side in peacemode but lazy. So can we cut the crap everyone is a "coward" or using strategy, can't have it both ways.

Edited June 29, 2012 by the rebel

[Geerland]

up to ~30% peace mode at the start of the war is a good idea to maintain a reserve.

[Chaoshawk]

Only cowards use unmanly things such as strategy or tactics.

[Beauty]

[quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1340992525' post='3000052']
Legion: 11%
[/quote]

Well then if the first post is true, I hope not to see many Legion jokes anymore xD

[Mompson]

I view PM as a legit tactic as long as it is used as just that, a tactic. A tactic that is actually part of a plan. The only time I get mad about PM is when there are orders for everyone to be in PM.

[smurthwaite]

[quote name='Rotavele' timestamp='1340994594' post='3000064']
Well then if the first post is true, I hope not to see many Legion jokes anymore xD
[/quote]
I thought they took care of those jokes with the rolling of Tetris and friends.
/me shrugs.

[Beauty]

[quote name='smurthwaite' timestamp='1340995675' post='3000075']
I thought they took care of those jokes with the rolling of Tetris and friends.
/me shrugs.
[/quote]

Not from what I see

[MrMuz]

[quote name='Rotavele' timestamp='1340994594' post='3000064']
Well then if the first post is true, I hope not to see many Legion jokes anymore xD
[/quote]

Peace Mode = Tactic.
Therefore, Legion = Bad at Tactics.

[sammykhalifa]

[quote name='Lurunin' timestamp='1340989817' post='3000033']
While you may deny the other side from getting what they want, you are also denying your side the ability to inflict actual damage

1 week full out war is better for you than 1month cowering
[/quote]


But so what? I've never understood this here. In a war, one of the goals is to piss off your enemy. Caving in and giving your opponent what they want just because it will make them happier isn't a very good goal, though. If a side is obviously going to lose, I can totally understand why they might want to just give the ol' middle finger to the other side by denying them the war that they want.

[Ogaden]

[quote name='Lurunin' timestamp='1340989817' post='3000033']
While you may deny the other side from getting what they want, you are also denying your side the ability to inflict actual damage

1 week full out war is better for you than 1month cowering
[/quote]

We're doing a rather lot of "real damage" thanks

[Owned-You]

Peace mode is a valid strategy when used in conjunction with a battle plan designed to win a war. But when it's plainly obvious your going to be rolled and you respond by placing a large portion of your alliance in peace-mode it isn't a strategy. It's just a cowardly means to preserve your alliances pixels... when the object of a war for the opponent is to destroy said pixels. Obviously in the long term it results in a repeat beat down as the original goal is left unaccomplished. I would suggest some people on the opposite side of the fence realize this fact. Your going to lose this war...so accept it and fight while you can. You'll earn some respect and maybe impress some of the people your currently fighting which will move you closer to a point where you can finally have a chance to rebuild your reputation and standing in the world.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Owned-You

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

VE sends its apologies for having 6% in peace mode, we have a couple of guys going on vacation so they went to peace mode because they wouldn't be able to log on.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Sweeeeet Ronny D

[Ogaden]

[quote name='Owned-You' timestamp='1340997459' post='3000090']
Your going to lose this war
[/quote]

Interesting, by what metric are we losing, exactly.
You have double our NS, but most of that is way out of our range, your "operable" NS is losing the war, so what possible reason do we have to suddenly change this strategy.

You would be better off desperately finding someone to save Deinos from Fark tearing them a new body orifice right now than whining at me that our already tiny upper mid tier is in peace mode.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Ogaden