The use of Peace Mode

[Azaghul]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1341004938' post='3000153']
Unfortunately, all that would happen is that many alliances would get beat down worse than before and would still have to pay reps anyways. This is to ensure that those on top stay there.



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]
There are plenty of alliances that have fought well on the loosing side, gained the respect of their enemies and/or the world at large, and ended up in a better situation in the next war.

A very good example of an alliance that had the oppurtunity to do that in the last war was Sparta and they completely blew it. They had a reputation of jumping onto the winning side that they said they openly wanted to overcome. They had decent allies and friends on the other side. Few wanted a shot specifically at them. They could have fought bravely and honerably and come out of it in a great position diplomatically. Instead they hid their upper tiers in peace mode and whined incessantly and ended up going from a widely respected alliance among the 'other side' to a pariah with a target on their backs.

Edited June 30, 2012 by Azaghul

[Laslo Kenez]

I agree there's too much whining. My issue with PM usage in this war is that it's a terrible strategy. You're preserving NS in the hope of a battle our side grows tired of, but you have achieved nothing. You preach this "Fungicide" stuff, but the damage to MK so far is laughable; if you want to stop MK being a relevant player, use your NS to take this medium term defeat and put a dent in them that reduces their political relevance. Don't just sit there in peace mode, hoping and praying we get bored of aiding our smaller nations.

[Scorponok]

[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]

Death to the infidels.

:3

[Steve Buscemi]

The peace mode usage I've seen this war and the last has the opposite effect of protecting your nations. It actually makes you more of a target and more likely to lose your infra. It makes people less likely to treaty you. Is isolation, future stomping, and loss of respect really worth it?

Yes, it's a lottery ticket that if you win the peace mode game, a [i]vastly [/i]changed political climate whereas you can attach yourself as a meatshield to the powers that be. I'd give this one a 1 in 50 shot though. Grudges don't die easily. i.e. Sparta will never be able to treaty anyone important for at least 3 years I figure and at least one war where they go all out.

Sparta was targeted this war and will be targeted the next one. Pretty much everyone I knew wanted them dead. And if they do come out and fight, it will still be years before people think they aren't cowards. ODN, still gets called "optional defense network" for stuff that happened before the majority of CN had nations.

Edited June 30, 2012 by Steve Buscemi

[Teddyyo]

[quote name='Sweeeeet Ronny D' timestamp='1340997977' post='3000092']
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.
[/quote]
Props for that statistic We're only a few spots behind.

[Ogaden]

Newsflash: I don't respect NG or MK and could care less what they think of me

Also the "You guys didn't really fight last war" you obviously weren't paying attention, we lost 4/5ths of our NS and the only people in peace mode were on vacation (and it was in the single digits).

As it happens we did make new friends in that war, but it sure as hell wasn't with the bunch of cowards and opportunists who attacked us this war.

Edited July 1, 2012 by Ogaden

[Neo Uruk]

People really don't get that if they brought their upper tier out of PM that they could also damage the other side's upper tier? Really?

Not to mention that alliances like Umbrella practically exist to keep their allies' low-tier intact via aid because you're too chicken to fight them. Come out and show that your NS is relevant, otherwise you'll never gain a relevant ally.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1341070013' post='3000629']
There are plenty of alliances that have fought well on the loosing side, gained the respect of their enemies and/or the world at large, and ended up in a better situation in the next war.

A very good example of an alliance that had the oppurtunity to do that in the last war was Sparta and they completely blew it. They had a reputation of jumping onto the winning side that they said they openly wanted to overcome. They had decent allies and friends on the other side. Few wanted a shot specifically at them. They could have fought bravely and honerably and come out of it in a great position diplomatically. Instead they hid their upper tiers in peace mode and whined incessantly and ended up going from a widely respected alliance among the 'other side' to a pariah with a target on their backs.
[/quote]

Again, I do agree to a point. Frankly, there are many who actually do understand why Sparta and others put their alliance in PM at certain strengths. Sure, it is hard to make inroads with the "in" crowd because most of the "in" crowd want to destroy those alliances and did not get their chance to do so. Grudges end hard and sometimes regardless of fighting all out grudges may not die. Sparta could have gone full out and fought bravely and honorably in the last war and could very well have ended up in the exact same position they are in in this war. Too many ifs though to be able to actually predict accurately.

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1341117591' post='3000974']
Again, I do agree to a point. Frankly, there are many who actually do understand why Sparta and others put their alliance in PM at certain strengths. Sure, it is hard to make inroads with the "in" crowd because most of the "in" crowd want to destroy those alliances and did not get their chance to do so. Grudges end hard and sometimes regardless of fighting all out grudges may not die. Sparta could have gone full out and fought bravely and honorably in the last war and could very well have ended up in the exact same position they are in in this war. Too many ifs though to be able to actually predict accurately.
[/quote]
If they had fought in the last war instead of hiding, their upper tier would have been a lot smaller. This means those nations with their full wonder set could have middle tier (under 70k) and therefore would have been useful in the Superfriends overall strategy. Instead of being useful there are just pages and pages of nations that will contribute nothing.

[Ardus]

[quote name='Ogaden' timestamp='1341105539' post='3000872']
Newsflash: I don't respect NG or MK and could care less what they think of me

Also the "You guys didn't really fight last war" you obviously weren't paying attention, we lost 4/5ths of our NS and the only people in peace mode were on vacation (and it was in the single digits).

As it happens we did make new friends in that war, but it sure as hell wasn't with the bunch of cowards and opportunists who attacked us this war.
[/quote]
You seem far too upset for an OOC forum. Take a day off.

[Monster]

[quote name='Neo Uruk' timestamp='1341107875' post='3000886']
People really don't get that if they brought their upper tier out of PM that they could also damage the other side's upper tier? Really?

Not to mention that alliances like Umbrella practically exist to keep their allies' low-tier intact via aid because you're too chicken to fight them. Come out and show that your NS is relevant, otherwise you'll never gain a relevant ally.
[/quote]

because it doesn't really. If I have an upper tier nation at tech disadvantage, it's basically going to get 3 v 1 ed and cause minimal damage to opposing upper tier and I'll lose a good chunk of my tech in the process and I'll have a precipitous fall in NS. the argument is getting knocked down means you can wreak havoc on mid tiers, but it has little do with doing damage to super tech'd up nations that outnumber you.

[Neo Uruk]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1341134338' post='3001100']
because it doesn't really. If I have an upper tier nation at tech disadvantage, it's basically going to get 3 v 1 ed and cause minimal damage to opposing upper tier and I'll lose a good chunk of my tech in the process and I'll have a precipitous fall in NS. the argument is getting knocked down means you can wreak havoc on mid tiers, but it has little do with doing damage to super tech'd up nations that outnumber you.
[/quote]
In that case, you can rely on the other benefit of not hiding out and hope the enemy admires your bravery. Enemies don't stay enemies all the time.

Edited July 1, 2012 by Neo Uruk

[Canik]

My only real complaint is with MCXA which has nearly 70% of their nations in peace mode and no signs of coming out to fight.

MCXA, this is how you do it:

1. Get everyone in peace mode.
2. Wait for 5 days.
3. Send out your most prepared nations (biggest warchests)
4. Wait for 5 days.
5. Send out your second most prepared nations (good warchests)
6. Wait for 5 days.
7. Send out your not-so well prepared nations (with 'meh' warchests)
9. Wait for 5 days.
10. Send out anyone else with the guts & enough money to fight for at least 1 cycle.
11. Wait for 5 days.
12. Agree to Peace Terms.
13. Pay 50k Tech to Canik
14. Retain Honor
15. Sign treaties with new friends who are impressed by your strategy & bravery.
16. Get revenge on Canik.

Is that so hard? I mean geez. C'mon now.

[WorldConqueror]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1341134338' post='3001100']
because it doesn't really. If I have an upper tier nation at tech disadvantage, it's basically going to get 3 v 1 ed and cause minimal damage to opposing upper tier and I'll lose a good chunk of my tech in the process and I'll have a precipitous fall in NS. the argument is getting knocked down means you can wreak havoc on mid tiers, but it has little do with doing damage to super tech'd up nations that outnumber you.
[/quote]
That's true, you do get the opportunity to deal out 3 nukes compared to their 1 though. So you can do a decent amount of overall damage, as I remember MK used this strategy really well in WotC against NPO.

[Canik]

[quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1341149203' post='3001135']
That's true, you do get the opportunity to deal out 3 nukes compared to their 1 though. So you can do a decent amount of overall damage, as I remember MK used this strategy really well in WotC against NPO.
[/quote]

TIFDTT also used that same strategy to great effect in Bi-Polar. We put out more damage than we took for the first 2 weeks.

[MrMuz]

Obviously everyone angry with peace mode here is ignoring that the tactic itself is to piss the winning side off and extend the war.

[irule777]

I think peacemode is a perfectly viable tactic as long as you're not there for the entire war.

[Canik]

[quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1341150191' post='3001138']
Obviously everyone angry with peace mode here is ignoring that the tactic itself is to piss the winning side off and extend the war.
[/quote]

Trying to piss off the winning side is always a good idea.

Edited July 1, 2012 by Canik

[MrMuz]

[quote name='Canik' timestamp='1341150401' post='3001141']
Trying to piss off the winning side is always a good idea.
[/quote]

War exhaustion results in a higher willingness to end the war with less damage done. Or let an uninvolved third party build up while their growth is stunted. Or just make it really annoying and inconvenient to hit the SF sphere, and SF doesn't plan on making friends with the MK side either. There's more of the larger winning side being held in peace mode as well, and that's also doing damage.

It does mean that the winning coalition will want the losing one punished further, but the losing side will want to drag it out long enough that the winning coalition will be too tired to push for harsh terms.

[Seerow]

[quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1341151563' post='3001150']
War exhaustion results in a higher willingness to end the war with less damage done. Or let an uninvolved third party build up while their growth is stunted. Or just make it really annoying and inconvenient to hit the SF sphere, and SF doesn't plan on making friends with the MK side either. There's more of the larger winning side being held in peace mode as well, and that's also doing damage.

It does mean that the winning coalition will want the losing one punished further, but the losing side will want to drag it out long enough that the winning coalition will be too tired to push for harsh terms.
[/quote]

So you're trying to tell me the entire coalition is trying to pull a FAN?

Because short of that, the strategy you're describing doesn't work. Or if it does work in the short term, it just encourages people to go attack you again in the next war.

[Canik]

[quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1341151563' post='3001150']
War exhaustion results in a higher willingness to end the war with less damage done. Or let an uninvolved third party build up while their growth is stunted. Or just make it really annoying and inconvenient to hit the SF sphere, and SF doesn't plan on making friends with the MK side either. There's more of the larger winning side being held in peace mode as well, and that's also doing damage.

It does mean that the winning coalition will want the losing one punished further, but the losing side will want to drag it out long enough that the winning coalition will be too tired to push for harsh terms.
[/quote]

Kind of makes sense on the MK & NPO fronts. Though I doubt it will make any significant difference. Every day they are at war, they are losing way more than we are losing. One reason terms are light after wars that are dragged out is because the losing side is so beat down, how much can you really ask for?

There still isn't any reason for MCXA not to come out and play.

[Monster]

[quote name='Seerow' timestamp='1341155432' post='3001180']
So you're trying to tell me the entire coalition is trying to pull a FAN?

Because short of that, the strategy you're describing doesn't work. Or if it does work in the short term, it just encourages people to go attack you again in the next war.
[/quote]

Worked for NPO and they didn't get attacked again.

[Canik]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1341161364' post='3001214']
Worked for NPO and they didn't get attacked again.
[/quote]

Worked 'for' NPO or worked 'on' NPO?

Because if you're talking about FAN they actually did get attacked again.

http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/FAN_War

[MrMuz]

I think Roq means the DH-NPO war, where NPO put many of their nations in peace mode, and eventually were not punished with reps, just the condition of bringing some nations out of peace mode to be beat down. And NPO eventually recovered from that to become one of the major forces on Digiterra again; the peace mode thing certainly helped.

Edited July 1, 2012 by MrMuz

[Monster]

[quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1341165886' post='3001242']
I think Roq means the DH-NPO war, where NPO put many of their nations in peace mode, and eventually were not punished with reps, just the condition of bringing some nations out of peace mode to be beat down. And NPO eventually recovered from that to become one of the major forces on Digiterra again; the peace mode thing certainly helped.
[/quote]


Yes, that's what I do mean.