The use of Peace Mode

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='Ogaden' timestamp='1341005309' post='3000156']
The ultimate reality is that for us, all we need to win this war is not to be defeated. For you to win this war, you have to actually defeat us, something you are unable to do.

It would be a miracle for you to win anything more than a Pyrrhic victory at this point, everyone has gotten a good old taste of the limits of your coalition's power and influence, and that it's actually not all that tough after all.
[/quote]
Alot of coalitions in the past have said these things before. Will be interesting to see how much of your coalition is willing to fight for months on end.

[Ogaden]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1341007656' post='3000177']
Alot of coalitions in the past have said these things before. Will be interesting to see how much of your coalition is willing to fight for months on end.
[/quote]
Sounds like fun

[GuMMyWoRm]

[quote name='Mogar' timestamp='1341007500' post='3000175']
I've been in 4 wars, and hopped into peace mode so I can reload nukes, once am able to hop out of peace mode I intend on stagger nuking your coalitions tiny nations to keep them in nuclear anarchy for as long as possible, I'm not sure you understand that we outnumber you in the lower tiers, so beating down the NS of the nations that aren't in peace mode helps us in this war.

@yev, if you don't think this war was chosen because it was far more favorable than the war you're currently fighting in chaining out, I have highly over estimated you, we made an easy target because certain alliances have been ensuring we stay one(ironic considering MK's DoW of "Xiph has been saying mean things about us in backchannels")
[/quote]

I understand completely restocking in PM. I also understand you have us outnumbered in the lower tiers. But my question to you is this....Do we have every single nation below a certain strength level in PM? No we dont. So your example of yay we want to win the lower/mid tiers is not valid because you guys will find no problem in finding nations to fight down there. There was no MK announcement that said all nations less than say 72K hit peace mode RIGHT NOW! Yes some lower guys were put in PM due to vacation/inactives/warchest issues. But some of the AA's were fighting are just mass PM'in their upper tiers. Now not all of the alliances are doing that but RIA and Sparta come to mind with the entire first page in PM. Theres not a single nation on those that have anyone fighting in upper tiers.

You knew you could beat us up a lil in lower tier. We knew also. But where is the long list of PM'ers in MK in the lowers. You'll find some. But were not gonna cower and say oh no'z we might lose down there!

edit: Not singling out sparta and RIA but those are just 2 that came to mind. Im sure there are plenty others. Throw TTK,RnR and MCXA in there too

Edited June 29, 2012 by GuMMyWoRm

[Il Impero Romano]

Peace mode is certainly a valid tactic, however only when used within the confines of reason. It makes sense when reserving a second offensive wave or drawing a distinction between advantageous NS ranges. The problem is, there is a thin line between tactic and excuse, and too often the second wave never comes or the NS range being protected becomes far too encompassing. People seem to forget that you have to actually deal damage to wage war.


That being said, the reason we don't use peace mode is simply because it's not our style, not because we look down on those who do. For us, the best defense is a good offense.

[Azaghul]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1340989059' post='3000027']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.
[/quote]
In many cases harsh reps are imposed [i]because[/i] an alliance had many nations hide in peace mode for the duration of the war. NPO in Karma, NpO in noCB, and to a certain extent even DH/NPO are examples of that.

[magicninja]

[quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1341005799' post='3000160']
Point is which flew right over your head, percent-wise both side have pretty much the same in peacemode. The war hasn't gone on for that long to even complain about anyone not cycling nations in and out of peacemode since most of the alliances haven't even been involved for one round yet.
[/quote]

There is a key difference. Their peacemode numbers are primarily in the top ranks while ours will be smaller nations to cycle in and out and we are still causing more damage. Funny how we aren't even out in force yet and are still putting it to them. I don't think they will be doing what they thought.

[Mogar]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1341008553' post='3000187']
In many cases harsh reps are imposed [i]because[/i] an alliance had many nations hide in peace mode for the duration of the war. NPO in Karma, NpO in noCB, and to a certain extent even DH/NPO are examples of that.
[/quote]
in other words, your coalition imposes harsh reps when they cant beat people down enough.

[magicninja]

[quote name='Mogar' timestamp='1341009103' post='3000194']
in other words, your coalition imposes harsh reps when they cant beat people down enough.
[/quote]

We've never taken reps. Try not to generalize too much.

[Mogar]

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1341009208' post='3000197']
We've never taken reps. Try not to generalize too much.
[/quote]
you support alliances that do though, and evidently that is one of RIA's supposed crimes that we're getting beatdown for, why not hold yourselves to the same moral standards?

[magicninja]

[quote name='Mogar' timestamp='1341009303' post='3000199']
you support alliances that do though, and evidently that is one of RIA's supposed crimes that we're getting beatdown for, why not hold yourselves to the same moral standards?
[/quote]

We control only what we do Mogar, not what our allies do or allies of allies. To me RIAs only crime is guilt by association. You guys supported Xiph when he was advocating forcibly disbanding alliances. Lets not forget that it was Xiph who said Pacifica didn't pay enough. Those who live in glass houses.....

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1341007317' post='3000170']
@Doch: to take two mortal enemies, who have been at it for five years, is a bit much. Although, nobody in TOP has any desire to go after Polaris again and that's a good example: Polaris is free to better their relations with other alliances now that they don't have a target on their back. They said it themselves that they had one and that it hurt all their diplomatic efforts because other alliances knew TOP would come for Polaris.

A good way of doing things is how VE is doing it at the moment.
[/quote]

Sorry, I put the to show I was joking about the TOP-Polar treaty.

[Lurunin]

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1341009542' post='3000201']
We control only what we do Mogar, not what our allies do or allies of allies. To me RIAs only crime is guilt by association. You guys supported Xiph when he was advocating forcibly disbanding alliances. Lets not forget that it was Xiph who said Pacifica didn't pay enough. Those who live in glass houses.....
[/quote]

Saying things and acting upon them are two different things

That is a defense your allies and allies of allies have used on a regular basis so I thought you would know that

...also you $%&@s have got to stop making me defend xiph

[Melancholy Culkin]

[quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1341004466' post='3000151']
Considering Deinos has 60% of its alliance in peacemode and Fark only 14%, I would call that an achievement to lose the same NS percent-wise especially when you're also fighting multiple alliances and not just one like Deinos.
[/quote]

73% of which are under 25k ns. We're really stockpiling all our ns in PM!

[Mompson]

[quote name='Melancholy Culkin' timestamp='1341013499' post='3000228']
73% of which are under 25k ns. We're really stockpiling all our ns in PM!
[/quote]
His point still stands that Fark is fighting three alliances, you are fighting one, your PM count is 46% higher, and you are still losing the same NS percentage. You really don't have a case here.

Edit: Grammars

Edited June 29, 2012 by mompson

[Melancholy Culkin]

[quote name='mompson' timestamp='1341013797' post='3000232']
His point still stands that Fark is fighting three alliances, you are fighting one, your PM count is 46% higher, and you are still losing the same NS percentage. You really don't have a case here.

Edit: Grammars
[/quote]

I wasn't making a point about Fark at all, only Deinos' peace mode numbers. I don't understand why people are surprised that Fark's 1500+ day old 40k nations with WRC's are doing well against nations that were created within the last year.

[scytale]

[quote name='Melancholy Culkin' timestamp='1341014675' post='3000236']
I wasn't making a point about Fark at all, only Deinos' peace mode numbers. I don't understand why people are surprised that Fark's 1500+ day old 40k nations with WRC's are doing well against nations that were created within the last year.
[/quote]
We also have a 5 day old nation doing pretty good, too.

/ got the number of days wrong

Edited June 30, 2012 by scytale

[Alex0827a]

I know my alliance (Bio) is just a micro fighting another micro, but here's how I see it - Peacemoding is a legitimate strategy if you don't do it too excessively (though I'd laugh if an alliance went 100% peace mode to prevent anyone from attacking them). That's been fairly established in this topic. But I've always thought that to gain and maintain a reputation as good allies and someone that other's hesitate to war with, you have to go balls-to-the-wall in war. Granted, the alliance we're attacking doesn't have anyone in my range or the 32k guy I'd work with. But the only member of our alliance in peace mode is in peace mode because he's making about a 2,000 mile move and can't be active during that time. That's as close as anyone can come to saying, essentially, "Come at me, bro" when at war. And the nation in peace mode? Yeah, he's about 7k NS. If their top nation would clear his slots, our top two would be on him and maybe send him down to my level (which would make me extraordinarily happy by upping my casualty count). But I guess the whole point of this rant/ramble/whatever you want to call it is that when war comes your way, don't run and hide, or that'll give you a reputation that won't wear off anytime soon. Face it like you mean it.

Edited June 30, 2012 by Alex0827a

[the rebel]

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1341008760' post='3000191']
There is a key difference. Their peacemode numbers are primarily in the top ranks while ours will be smaller nations to cycle in and out and we are still causing more damage. Funny how we aren't even out in force yet and are still putting it to them. I don't think they will be doing what they thought.[/quote]

I'm bored so here lets look at the numbers both sides have in peacemode above 50k NS:

MK and Co: 295 / 38%
SF and Co: 228 / 44%

Still not much difference.

Edit: added percentage above 50k in peacemode.

Edited June 30, 2012 by the rebel

[Voodoo Nova]

This whining about peace mode is annoying. Who cares about peace mode numbers in a game, when the topic is discussing the use of peace mode in the game? We know both sides use it, no one is arguing against that. What is being argued is the use of peace mode on each side. The losing side uses it to minimize damage in the long run, which while annoying for the people who want to curbstomp/demolish/etc, is still a viable strategy when money is plentiful. The winning side uses to maximize damage, which once again, is a viable strategy.

[Do Not Fear Jazz]

[quote name='Voodoo Nova' timestamp='1341027093' post='3000308']
This whining about peace mode is annoying. Who cares about peace mode numbers in a game, when the topic is discussing the use of peace mode in the game? We know both sides use it, no one is arguing against that. What is being argued is the use of peace mode on each side. The losing side uses it to minimize damage in the long run, which while annoying for the people who want to curbstomp/demolish/etc, is still a viable strategy when money is plentiful. The winning side uses to maximize damage, which once again, is a viable strategy.
[/quote]

I could not have summed it up better than this post. It's a viable strategy on both sides of the fence.

[Melancholy Culkin]

[quote name='scytale' timestamp='1341019219' post='3000255']
We also have a 5 day old nation doing pretty good, too.

/ got the number of days wrong
[/quote]

Wars are won at the <10k ns range.

[Scorponok]

[quote name='Voodoo Nova' timestamp='1341027093' post='3000308']
This whining about peace mode is annoying. Who cares about peace mode numbers in a game, when the topic is discussing the use of peace mode in the game? We know both sides use it, no one is arguing against that. What is being argued is the use of peace mode on each side. The losing side uses it to minimize damage in the long run, which while annoying for the people who want to curbstomp/demolish/etc, is still a viable strategy when money is plentiful. The winning side uses to maximize damage, which once again, is a viable strategy.
[/quote]

I have got to agree with Voodoo here. Too much whining going on ATM.

[Owned-You]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1341004938' post='3000153']
Or it will result in them being far less able to do damage when they get hit yet again for some BS reason. The whole "It may earn you respect and may impress someone..yada yada yada" is a thin line and unless people are willing to ally the beaten alliance and actually defend said alliance against whomever decides to hit them, it is basically a useless and ultimately destructive course of action.
[/quote]

It's all about displaying value to the world. There is immense opportunity in displaying that value by displaying tenacity and coordination in war. I'd cite the MK-TOP relation as the prime example, we spent months beating each other to hell cycling nations in and out of PM to re-enter the conflict. Afterwards we both gained a level of respect that could only be attained after going toe to toe for months.

So your entirely right by saying alliances must be willing to ally and defend these alliances destined for destruction. But in order for that to happen those alliances must demonstrate some sort of value... Nibbling on the lower tiers and stashing masses of nations in peace-mode simply doesn't. Instead their actions demonstrate a uselessness in the upper tiers and unreliability as a whole. How can any alliance ever entertain the idea of allying these same alliances in the future when they've yet to prove anything to anyone? Instead of fighting and impressing the public with a valiant defense they stash their upper tier nations in peace-mode and boast about beating nations that can be rebuilt in a month with a couple of rounds of aid.

I speak for most of us on our side of things when I say [i]we're truly impressed[/i]. [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif[/img]

Edited June 30, 2012 by Owned-You

[Arcturus Jefferson]

Oh good the regularly scheduled peace mode cj

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Owned-You' timestamp='1341027704' post='3000321']
It's all about displaying value to the world. There is immense opportunity in displaying that value by displaying tenacity and coordination in war. I'd cite the MK-TOP relation as the prime example, we spent months beating each other to hell cycling nations in and out of PM to re-enter the conflict. Afterwards we both gained a level of respect that could only be attained after going toe to toe for months.

So your entirely right by saying alliances must be willing to ally and defend these alliances destined for destruction. But in order for that to happen those alliances must demonstrate some sort of value... Nibbling on the lower tiers and stashing masses of nations in peace-mode simply doesn't. Instead their actions demonstrate a uselessness in the upper tiers and unreliability as a whole. How can any alliance ever entertain the idea of allying these same alliances in the future when they've yet to prove anything to anyone? Instead of fighting and impressing the public with a valiant defense they stash their upper tier nations in peace-mode and boast about beating nations that can be rebuilt in a month with a couple of rounds of aid.

I speak for most of us on our side of things when I say [i]we're truly impressed[/i]. [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif[/img]
[/quote]


I can understand that sentiment and agree with it for the most part. Though I still understand why the other side does it. We shall see how this war goes.