An Announcement from The Order of the Paradox

[enderland]

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?

 

Welcome to CN, a world where alliances try to do what is in their best interests.

[Auctor]

I would be pleasantly surprised.

[Dochartaigh]

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.

 

Do you have the stats on how many of those nations lasted for 3-4 weeks in PM? How many lasted around 5-7 days? Were they cycling nations in and out? If they were cycling nations in and out, then you are a fool who is using only partial stats as a way to prove a point most of us already know is fallacious. I have fought against and with TOP in previous years. To state that they just chill in PM for the entire war is idiotic. If that did happen, then there are a lot of idiots in CN including most of the major alliances. 

 

Do you think that maybe Polar and Fark know about this tactic and are okay with it? Do you not think NATO's own ally NPO is going to be entering soon and thus, TOP is holding back for that? I get it, NATO is not used to war tactics and strategies, preferring to allow others to use you as they will, but most of the big boys know tactics and strategies, so please leave that kind of thinking to those who know how.

 

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.

 

Same could easily be said of NPO, yet NSO is allied to them... May want to think before you speak mate.

 

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.

 

And this is why you and NATO should just stop any sort of discussion about the use of tactics and strategies. You have none. You don't know how to use them if you had them. So, as I said to those who made fun of NSO for hitting PM, can you just shut up now. It is not even half a round into the war for admin's sake. All this PM discussion on like day 2 is friggin stupid beyond belief.

[Azaghul]

Hasn't NATO been a part of several coalitions that systematically kept their top tiers in peace for the entire war?

 

I'm not saying NATO did, but their allies certainly did.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

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? 

[bcortell]

Do you have the stats on how many of those nations lasted for 3-4 weeks in PM? How many lasted around 5-7 days? Were they cycling nations in and out? If they were cycling nations in and out, then you are a fool who is using only partial stats as a way to prove a point most of us already know is fallacious. I have fought against and with TOP in previous years. To state that they just chill in PM for the entire war is idiotic. If that did happen, then there are a lot of idiots in CN including most of the major alliances. 

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. 

 

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? 

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?

Edited November 2, 2013 by bcortell

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

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.

Edited November 2, 2013 by Yevgeni Luchenkov

[bcortell]

We committed forces, along the lines of the coalition-wide strategy which was to engage in very specific tiers. Others did not.

So that 30% is committed forces?  I just want to make sure I understand you correctly.  I mean, you said to look at the wars you were heavily engaged in, so I did (sure, the sample size I looked at was 1).  

 

I didn't ask about others, but thanks for informing me.  

[Roadie]

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.

Edited November 2, 2013 by Roadie

[Auctor]

In fairness to TOP, keeping as many in peace mode as they did made staggers more manageable.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

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).

Edited November 2, 2013 by Yevgeni Luchenkov

[bcortell]

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).

25 of your top 37 nations were in PM by the end of the war.  In your "lower" tier, only 23 of 61 nations were in PM. 

[berbers]

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? 

In both Dave and Grudge you kept a large chunk of your middle/lower tier nations in peace mode while your allies were fighting in those same tiers and taking much more damage. That will happen again this war. I am not arguing about the prowess of your nations or your coordination, simply stating a fact.

I don't consider it valid war tactics either, as some have implied my grasp of tactics is limited and causing my opinions on the matter. It doesn't help the war effort at all to PM your outnumbered tier, it just shifts the burden to other coalition mates.

Now as a political/economic tactic it's sound because you continue to exit wars in better shape than most people, and as long as you can keep sucking people in to doing your heavy lifting it will keep working. But at some point people will smarten up and you'll be left holding the bag.

Edit: in response to your "we peace modes when the odds were 7:1" the problem is your coalition didn't and they took a bigger beating because you avoided your share. Edited November 2, 2013 by berbers

[Auctor]

Peace Mode stats notwithstanding, TOP's lack of commitment pales in comparison to that of most of the alliances that fought against them in Equilibrium war.

Grudge War would be much better fodder for snide criticism on this subject, if anyone remembers that far back.

[Sarkin]

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?

 

These are good points, and even if Competence's coalition-wide strategy was (understandably) to engage in only a few tiers, that had some really serious repercussions in terms of staggers after the first few weeks of war on our front. If TOP had brought just another four or five mid-sized nations out of peace mode, we would've been extremely hard-pressed to maintain staggers across-the-board through the duration of the war. Hell, we were hard-pressed as it was, although we managed to keep up with it.

 

I won't argue with TOP's fidelity to the coalition's strategy, but I would argue that on the TOP front, having fewer nations in peace mode (not all of them were small nations, as you seem to be suggesting and as bcortell just refuted) would've helped you out a lot. Considering the amount of damage you guys took with that strategy, I have a hard time believing it would've been worse if you'd tried something else. Also, considering the amount of hostility directed toward the alliances participating in the TOP front during the war, I doubt that the other EQ fronts would've been willing to shift over resources to help with the newcomers, especially after war fatigue started to settle in.

 

Still, I could see TOP bringing out 50%+ of its peace mode nations for this war. With EQ, TOP was on the losing end of the war and part of a coalition that was significantly outnumbered in most tiers. Here, if things go as expected, TOP's coalition will hold a large quantitative edge. Therefore, it's not so much "bringing out more sacrificial lambs to overstretch our attackers" as it is "letting more people join in the victory parade."

 

Also, and this is probably besides the point of this discussion, but I'll grant that TOP did fight well even in a bad situation. That's more than can be said for most alliances.

[Ardus]

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.

The battle proper hasn't even begun.
 

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.

I have learned over the course of years, the hard way, that historical precedent has some hard limits in its applicability to how alliances wage wars. I've seen groups I expected to excel flounder; I've seen groups I expected to suck turn in virtuoso performances. I've had friends disappoint me and enemies impress me. Given the alignment of nations and frustrations, I do not believe the conclusions you draw from Grudge and Dave are accurate or applicable.

Of course, I find myself at an unfortunate disadvantage here. I can't crush you with facts because to do so would be a terrible breach of operational security.
 

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.

I never noticed such a trend from my spot in MK during those wars. We were generally pleased and extremely grateful for TOP's military performance. Unfortunately I can't seem to find the posts from after the war where we analyzed losses. I only recall from most to least it went something like SF/XX/NpO--MJ--PF--DH--PB. Hearing "TOP DIDN'T FIGHT HARD ENOUGH" about Grudge is therefore really amusing to me, because from my seat in that war they paid more than did my little locality.
 

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.

That's good and fine, but it doesn't dissolve the fact that you benefitted at the expense of others, though I can empathize with the fact that it was due to details outside your control. In any event NATO troops provided much needed financial support in between rounds with Liz :P
 

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

Given you continue to insist that you are proven right before any conclusions can be made, I don't think you're really committed to "agreeing to disagree."

[Krashnaia]

Strange is this new world in which I have to congratulate TOP for something.

 

I still think worshipping Johan is rubbish, through.

[Simon De Montfort]

Strange is this new world in which I have to congratulate TOP for something.

 

I still think worshipping Johan is rubbish, through.

SILENCE unbeliever!

[Steve Buscemi]

The battle proper hasn't even begun.
 I have learned over the course of years, the hard way, that historical precedent has some hard limits in its applicability to how alliances wage wars. I've seen groups I expected to excel flounder; I've seen groups I expected to suck turn in virtuoso performances. I've had friends disappoint me and enemies impress me. Given the alignment of nations and frustrations, I do not believe the conclusions you draw from Grudge and Dave are accurate or applicable.

Of course, I find myself at an unfortunate disadvantage here. I can't crush you with facts because to do so would be a terrible breach of operational security.
 I never noticed such a trend from my spot in MK during those wars. We were generally pleased and extremely grateful for TOP's military performance. Unfortunately I can't seem to find the posts from after the war where we analyzed losses. I only recall from most to least it went something like SF/XX/NpO--MJ--PF--DH--PB. Hearing "TOP DIDN'T FIGHT HARD ENOUGH" about Grudge is therefore really amusing to me, because from my seat in that war they paid more than did my little locality.
 That's good and fine, but it doesn't dissolve the fact that you benefitted at the expense of others, though I can empathize with the fact that it was due to details outside your control. In any event NATO troops provided much needed financial support in between rounds with Liz :P
 Given you continue to insist that you are proven right before any conclusions can be made, I don't think you're really committed to "agreeing to disagree."

So many words.  I didn't think an alliance that was so egotistical and confident they are running CN would need to be so defensive. 

Edited November 3, 2013 by Steve Buscemi

[Centurius]

So many words.  I didn't think an alliance that was so egotistical and confident they are running CN would need to be so defensive. 

Where did we say we are running CN? I know you like your delusions but it doesn't make them true.

[Ardus]

So many words.  I didn't think an alliance that was so egotistical and confident they are running CN would need to be so defensive.

I wish to win all peoples to the glorious Ardus banner.

[His Lordship]

Happy hunting comrades

 

o/ TOP

[Mogar]

The battle proper hasn't even begun.
 I have learned over the course of years, the hard way, that historical precedent has some hard limits in its applicability to how alliances wage wars. I've seen groups I expected to excel flounder; I've seen groups I expected to suck turn in virtuoso performances. I've had friends disappoint me and enemies impress me. Given the alignment of nations and frustrations, I do not believe the conclusions you draw from Grudge and Dave are accurate or applicable.

How did you know if I never told
You found out
I've got a crush on you
No more charades
My heart's been displayed
You found out
I've got a crush on you

 

[JoshuaR]

TOP fought valiantly for and with Umbrella. Zero complaints about one of my favorite alliances.

 

TOP's enemies attempt to plant a seed of doubt in her allies. Nice try.

[SoADarthCyfe6]

Because Polaris needed help defeating an alliance half their size. We all know where this Coalition's true intentions were, and I'm glad to see them coming about.