An Announcement from The Order of the Paradox

[Chaoshawk]

NpO and TOP together still seems so bizarre and unnatural.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

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.

[berbers]

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.

 

well my no damage claim may have been facetious, but kindly look back in time to the gopherbashi war stats page for 1)  grudge war and 2) dave war to highlight the point I am making.

[Believland]

well my no damage claim may have been facetious, but kindly look back in time to the gopherbashi war stats page for 1)  grudge war and 2) dave war to highlight the point I am making.

You realize many alliances that have faced TOP on the losing side put their biggest nations in PM so they can't attack TOP nor get attacked by TO-- Eh, fuck it. Shut up, nerd.

[Ardus]

well my no damage claim may have been facetious, but kindly look back in time to the gopherbashi war stats page for 1)  grudge war and 2) dave war to highlight the point I am making.

TOP took decent damage in Grudge, just not as much as MJ iirc.  DH/PB took precisely nil.

[Azaghul]

His example was about Echelon cheering on a war against MK while they were allied to MK. This isn't a war against TLR and the circumstances around it are not even close to being the same.

To be fair though, everyone knows that this war is about more than just NSO and that TLR will be in on that side.

 

That doesn't mean that I agree with Rush that GOONS cheering for people not on TLR's side is wrong.  As long as it's not on TLR's front, it's not a big deal, at least in my opinion.  But I can still see how it'd be raw for TLR to see it.  This war sucks for many of us.

Edited November 2, 2013 by Azaghul

[Gibsonator21]

You are just wrong. There is a modicum of respect that should temper any enthusiasm. It was eerily reminiscent of when Echelon went around roundly hailing a DoW on MK while they held a treaty with MK many years ago. Sometimes, it is better to say nothing, than to say the wrong thing.

Yeah, like NPO hailing people in the opposite coalition last war.

[Aegon Targaryen]

Yeah, like NPO hailing people in the opposite coalition last war.

 

[sarcasm] that is totally different and you know it.[/sarcasm]

[Steve Buscemi]

You appear to have developed the odd impression that people actually place importance upon your opinions. Is this phenomenon limited to you, or has the remainder of your alliance become similarly deluded?

 

Yea, he's totally wrong.  Now it's up to 60% in peace mode so you'll take even less damage than your allies.  Way to emerge post-war in a very powerful position, while your allies glow green.  Masterful planning.

[Ardus]

Yea, he's totally wrong.  Now it's up to 60% in peace mode so you'll take even less damage than your allies.  Way to emerge post-war in a very powerful position, while your allies glow green.  Masterful planning.

I thought the world had agreed that comments on peace mode were dated and inherently flawed some three wars ago.  You know TOP fights well, loves to do so, and is in a front row seat to do heavy lifting on any who might consider intervening in this operation.  You know that peace mode is a vital tool to asserting front control against counters.  It is transparent desperation and slander to imply anything otherwise.

[mmansfield68]

I thought the world had agreed that comments on peace mode were dated and inherently flawed some three wars ago.  You know TOP fights well, loves to do so, and is in a front row seat to do heavy lifting on any who might consider intervening in this operation.  You know that peace mode is a vital tool to asserting front control against counters.  It is transparent desperation and slander to imply anything otherwise.

I agree, and thus rescind any derogatory comments I've made in regard to Dilber going into PM, <cough>, on his day of reckoning.  ;) 

[CnaedmacAilpn]

NSO is going to reap what it has sown, give 'em TOP

[berbers]

TOP took decent damage in Grudge, just not as much as MJ iirc.  DH/PB took precisely nil.

13% iirc...

[berbers]

I thought the world had agreed that comments on peace mode were dated and inherently flawed some three wars ago.  You know TOP fights well, loves to do so, and is in a front row seat to do heavy lifting on any who might consider intervening in this operation.  You know that peace mode is a vital tool to asserting front control against counters.  It is transparent desperation and slander to imply anything otherwise.

I have no issue with peace mode as a tactic, hell it's an awesome tactic and should be used to the utmost.

My issue is how TOP uses peace mode strategically to limit fights in their outnumbered tiers for the entirety of the war, letting their allies burn in those tiers while they cherry pick fights in a tier where they can limit their damage.

This has happened in 2/3 of the last wars and will likely happen this war.

So to recap, shifting in and out of pm to restock nukes good. Holding reserves to counterattack a counter is good.

Peacemoding 60% + of your AA, mostly in the tiers Polar and Fark are fighting in = bad.

[Aegon Targaryen]

I have no issue with peace mode as a tactic, hell it's an awesome tactic and should be used to the utmost.

My issue is how TOP uses peace mode strategically to limit fights in their outnumbered tiers for the entirety of the war, letting their allies burn in those tiers while they cherry pick fights in a tier where they can limit their damage.

This has happened in 2/3 of the last wars and will likely happen this war.

So to recap, shifting in and out of pm to restock nukes good. Holding reserves to counterattack a counter is good.

Peacemoding 60% + of your AA, mostly in the tiers Polar and Fark are fighting in = bad.

 

You do realise that when you compare the four alliances involved so far, that is NpO, FARK, TOP and NSO that there is some variance in the natural NS ranges found within each alliance and that when counters are considered that a viable plan in order to create both an efficient offence and defence is required? It's called strategy and taking the initiative. 

 

I tried making a witty reply but why waste my time. Here, this will do!

 

 

strat·e·gy

 noun \-jē\

: a careful plan or method for achieving a particular goal usually over a long period of time

: the skill of making or carrying out plans to achieve a goal

 

Edited November 2, 2013 by Aegon Targaryen

[Rebel Virginia]

So, you do have a larger goal in mind? Do tell me, would a significantly weaker New Polar Order help you to achieve that goal?

[Aegon Targaryen]

So, you do have a larger goal in mind? Do tell me, would a significantly weaker New Polar Order help you to achieve that goal?

 

NSO needs to weaken NpO first ;)

[Believland]

So, you do have a larger goal in mind? Do tell me, would a significantly weaker New Polar Order help you to achieve that goal?

You do realize when you war you're not trying to hurt yourself in the process right? Considering you're in peace mode right now makes me believe that you understand this concept, so why are you trying to play the fool right now?

[Rebel Virginia]

You do realize when you war you're not trying to hurt yourself in the process right? Considering you're in peace mode right now makes me believe that you understand this concept, so why are you trying to play the fool right now?

Let's not compare apples and oranges here. NSO is the disadvantaged party in this war, and our use of peace mode is tactical. TOP on the other hand is at no such disadvantage, and, as others have so kindly observed, has a pattern of manipulating its allies so that they take damage in their stead. Granted, it is perfectly rational, and I can applaud the deviousness of the strategy. Still, it does make me wonder why anyone would want to ally themselves with such an alliance.

[Ardus]

I have no issue with peace mode as a tactic, hell it's an awesome tactic and should be used to the utmost.

My issue is how TOP uses peace mode strategically to limit fights in their outnumbered tiers for the entirety of the war, letting their allies burn in those tiers while they cherry pick fights in a tier where they can limit their damage.

This has happened in 2/3 of the last wars and will likely happen this war.

So to recap, shifting in and out of pm to restock nukes good. Holding reserves to counterattack a counter is good.

Peacemoding 60% + of your AA, mostly in the tiers Polar and Fark are fighting in = bad.

Your proposition that our use of peace mode is intended to be detrimental to our allies is without merit.  It was only through extensive collaboration with our allies that our range of application was determined.  We execute upon the role agreed upon to TOP and every other alliance to support this cause.  There is no malevolent machination behind the method, save perhaps for our enemies.  Why, it's almost as though we agreed to focus on different tiers in order to operate in our respective areas of greatest strength, a luxury afforded to a strong coalition.

 

Your accusation as to the eQ War is bewildering, as it boils down to "you didn't take enough damage" in a war that was incredibly damaging not only to TOP but to all of its allies.  Your assertion as to the Dave War is hypocritical, given NATO's own use in that war of diplomatic strategies intended to limit its damage relative to that of its allies.

[berbers]

Your proposition that our use of peace mode is intended to be detrimental to our allies is without merit.  It was only through extensive collaboration with our allies that our range of application was determined.  We execute upon the role agreed upon to TOP and every other alliance to support this cause.  There is no malevolent machination behind the method, save perhaps for our enemies.  Why, it's almost as though we agreed to focus on different tiers in order to operate in our respective areas of greatest strength, a luxury afforded to a strong coalition.

 

Your accusation as to the eQ War is bewildering, as it boils down to "you didn't take enough damage" in a war that was incredibly damaging not only to TOP but to all of its allies.  Your assertion as to the Dave War is hypocritical, given NATO's own use in that war of diplomatic strategies intended to limit its damage relative to that of its allies.

 

Ok, I'll try again one more time.  Right now, in the under 80k tier (where 100 of NSO nations are currently located) TOP has a whopping 80% in peace mode.  That is the tier where 95% of this war will be fought, and you've neglected to show up for the battle.

 

Now you can argue that you're just biding your time, that the hordes of TOP nations (roughly 50% of the AA) are going to come out of PM at a tactically sound time, however historical precedent dictates this will not happen.  In Grudge and Dave Wars TOP maintained a PM percentage comparable to now in that tier once the fighting in the top tiers died down but the <80k tier was still in full swing.

 

I place a lot of value on using historical data to project future actions, and right now my original hypothesis on how this war was going to go is bang on.  Time will tell if I am correct or not, but I am still betting on TOP taking a significantly less amount of damage than NpO and Fark.  Which is sad, because I like NpO and Fark.

 

As for your second paragraph, I never once said TOP didn't take alot of damage in Eq.  I said in the last 2/3 wars they did.  I also made the statement that when TOP is on the offensive side of a war they have trended to peace mode tactics in heavy fighting tiers while keeping war made nations in the top tiers where little fighting is happening.

 

In terms of NATO using diplomacy to limit it's damage, you couldn't be more wrong.  We went into that war with the expectation that NPO was fully committed to the other side and we at no point thought they would shield us.  I have the council discussions to prove that.  We fully expected to be countered and destroyed, but we felt the cause was worth it.  The fact that NPO protected us from the other side is less a testament to our amazing diplomatic abilities and more a testament to how loyal NPO is to it's allies.

 

In any event, we can agree to disagree and let the war stats determine the victor of this argument.

[berbers]

You do realise that when you compare the four alliances involved so far, that is NpO, FARK, TOP and NSO that there is some variance in the natural NS ranges found within each alliance and that when counters are considered that a viable plan in order to create both an efficient offence and defence is required? It's called strategy and taking the initiative. 

 

I tried making a witty reply but why waste my time. Here, this will do!

 

My problem is that you have exasperated the differential by taking 80% of your overlapping tier nations out of war mode.   

[enderland]

Wow I didn't realize this war was over already and TOP hung out in peace mode the entire time! Congrats TOP for peace modeing your entire lower tier the entire duration of the war and avoiding all damage!!!

 

It's almost like you want to ensure there are nations available for round 2 on NSO so you can self-sustain the war against them rather than requiring allies to DoW NSO just for purposes of picking up staggers, since if you get countered many of your war mode nations will be in nuclear anarchy by the end of the first wave of wars and unable to prevent much of NSO hitting peace mode.

 

Err wait. Maybe it makes sense to actually plan for a war longer than a single round to maximize damage and offensive potential?

[berbers]

Wow I didn't realize this war was over already and TOP hung out in peace mode the entire time! Congrats TOP for peace modeing your entire lower tier the entire duration of the war and avoiding all damage!!!

 

It's almost like you want to ensure there are nations available for round 2 on NSO so you can self-sustain the war against them rather than requiring allies to DoW NSO just for purposes of picking up staggers, since if you get countered many of your war mode nations will be in nuclear anarchy by the end of the first wave of wars and unable to prevent much of NSO hitting peace mode.

 

Err wait. Maybe it makes sense to actually plan for a war longer than a single round to maximize damage and offensive potential?

 

 

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?

[Centurius]

Wow I didn't realize this war was over already and TOP hung out in peace mode the entire time! Congrats TOP for peace modeing your entire lower tier the entire duration of the war and avoiding all damage!!!

 

It's almost like you want to ensure there are nations available for round 2 on NSO so you can self-sustain the war against them rather than requiring allies to DoW NSO just for purposes of picking up staggers, since if you get countered many of your war mode nations will be in nuclear anarchy by the end of the first wave of wars and unable to prevent much of NSO hitting peace mode.

 

Err wait. Maybe it makes sense to actually plan for a war longer than a single round to maximize damage and offensive potential?

Watch out ender, sensible war tactics might be too much for berbers to handle.