Vladimir Stukov II Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 (edited) He's probably insinuating you plan on taking very little damage in order to give yourself better positioning for the next war. And anyone with a brain can look at this chart and see that is not the case. But don't let facts get in the way of your spin... Edited November 9, 2013 by Vladimir Stukov II Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerschbs Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 I think Vladimir Stukov II already addressed this point. Just like in the last war, we will see that GATO takes virtually no damage and does no fighting. I've been a GATO member and am friends with most GATO members (well, most of them that I liked have jumped ship already). TOP's usage of PM is for strategic purposes related to cycling because of the amount of nations they are up against vs the amount they have, GATO's is to avoid hurting their pixels. I see your posting hasn't improved since you were a GATO member. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander shepard Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 I think Vladimir Stukov II already addressed this point. Just like in the last war, we will see that GATO takes virtually no damage and does no fighting. I've been a GATO member and am friends with most GATO members (well, most of them that I liked have jumped ship already). TOP's usage of PM is for strategic purposes related to cycling because of the amount of nations they are up against vs the amount they have, GATO's is to avoid hurting their pixels. I'm having a problem understanding how keeping a lot of nations in PM for the entire war is strategic in terms of fighting that war. You can say it is strategy but TOP did the same thing in the last war and partially comparable in wars before that, if it can be called a strategy then it would be called an avoidance of damage strategy. You can preach all day about how the war is not over and TOP is coming out, GATO did the same thing. But maybe by the end TOP will have more nations out of PM as they're probably not on the losing side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 I think Vladimir Stukov II already addressed this point. Just like in the last war, we will see that GATO takes virtually no damage and does no fighting. I've been a GATO member and am friends with most GATO members (well, most of them that I liked have jumped ship already). TOP's usage of PM is for strategic purposes related to cycling because of the amount of nations they are up against vs the amount they have, GATO's is to avoid hurting their pixels. Actually, it is possible to have very few nations in war mode but still have them all fighting at full throttle. TOP being good at war and TOP saving their nations in PM are not mutually exclusive positions. That said, none of this has anything to do with MHA. I intend to, when I get a chance, analyze whether or not any cycling is being done and I'll post that in a new thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 That's an interesting characterization of an alliance who came into the fray yesterday on the side of the war that has been taking more damage. I don't think it is accurate, because I don't think you can say "GATO is hiding" when a 60% majority are, in fact, in war mode. However, TOP is not only over 10% more in peace mode than GATO, but they have been in the war since the first day, and also have over half of their nations in peace mode. Steve Buscemi added that over 60% of Umbrella nations are in peace mode. Would you make the same damning comments about how TOP and Umbrella should just "go neutral"? I don't think so. Your characterization seems to be serving a political point rather than being based in the numbers. Look man, its simple. When THEY do it, its strategy. When anyone else does it, it's hiding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Stukov II Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 Actually, it is possible to have very few nations in war mode but still have them all fighting at full throttle. TOP being good at war and TOP saving their nations in PM are not mutually exclusive positions. That said, none of this has anything to do with MHA. I intend to, when I get a chance, analyze whether or not any cycling is being done and I'll post that in a new thread. I'm going to be honest with you and I can give a shit if you believe me or not. Only reason I'm responding is because military is my forte and I take great pride in how TOP performs during a war. There are a few reasons we send nations to peace mode: 1. They are going to be unavailable at the start of the war. Believe it or not 100% of our alliance is not always around and people do have obligations outside of this world. Doing this allows us to use them later for staggers and doesn't leave their nation as a tech farm for our enemies. If they are going to be away for an extended period of time we will try to get them sitters. 2. They are in the lower tier. It's no secret that our lower tier is not our strong point. We usually put most of our lower tier in peace mode to start a war because we don't have the resources there to defend everyone and they are usually not as prepared as the rest of our alliance. Of course we have some smaller nations with substantial warchests and experience who we let loose to wreak havoc, but the rest we will bring out once the war is fully underway and we've evaluated the situation. These nations are no good to anyone if after a round or two into the war they are already spent. 3. They are in anarchy and their wars have expired. This allows us to redeploy them where needed instead of letting them sit there and get hit by our enemy. 4. They are unprepared for war. This is something we never want to do because we pride ourselves on our war preparedness. Anyone in this situation has screwed up. Luckily there are only a couple who fall into this category... If need be we would send them out (such as in a losing war where we need all the help we can get). What we don't do is order well prepared nations to peace mode in order to save them for after the war. We will always use the resources available to us to help win the current war we are fighting, we will worry about rebuilding and preparing for the next war after this one is over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 And anyone with a brain can look at this chart and see that is not the case. But don't let facts get in the way of your spin... My Spin? I was explaining HIS position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 I'm going to be honest with you and I can give a shit if you believe me or not. Only reason I'm responding is because military is my forte and I take great pride in how TOP performs during a war. There are a few reasons we send nations to peace mode: 1. They are going to be unavailable at the start of the war. Believe it or not 100% of our alliance is not always around and people do have obligations outside of this world. Doing this allows us to use them later for staggers and doesn't leave their nation as a tech farm for our enemies. If they are going to be away for an extended period of time we will try to get them sitters. 2. They are in the lower tier. It's no secret that our lower tier is not our strong point. We usually put most of our lower tier in peace mode to start a war because we don't have the resources there to defend everyone and they are usually not as prepared as the rest of our alliance. Of course we have some smaller nations with substantial warchests and experience who we let loose to wreak havoc, but the rest we will bring out once the war is fully underway and we've evaluated the situation. These nations are no good to anyone if after a round or two into the war they are already spent. 3. They are in anarchy and their wars have expired. This allows us to redeploy them where needed instead of letting them sit there and get hit by our enemy. 4. They are unprepared for war. This is something we never want to do because we pride ourselves on our war preparedness. Anyone in this situation has screwed up. Luckily there are only a couple who fall into this category... If need be we would send them out (such as in a losing war where we need all the help we can get). What we don't do is order well prepared nations to peace mode in order to save them for after the war. We will always use the resources available to us to help win the current war we are fighting, we will worry about rebuilding and preparing for the next war after this one is over. None of the problems you mentioned there are problems that other alliances do not have to deal with. [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/119224-pm-statistics/]Numbers don't lie[/url]. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Stukov II Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 None of the problems you mentioned there are problems that other alliances do not have to deal with. Numbers don't lie. What matters is our ability to output damage in a sustained war and I would say we do that quite well. Your peace mode statistics are irrelevant to me as I was never the one to call out someone for peace mode usage (unless of course they truly were hiding their nations in peace mode to avoid damage, which I haven't personally seen any evidence of yet this war.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krashnaia Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 Have fun, MHA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 (edited) Edit: Double Post. Edited November 10, 2013 by Azaghul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 Just so everyone knows, E is an excellent fighter, but I think he has too much of Planet Steve mindset stuck in him. The WRC is far more effective on Planet Bob when it comes to war because of the much larger warchests to support it, and the ability to destroy tech faster. A cost/benefit analysis would show it cause the enemy to lose money faster then yourself, which supports the latter part of your statement. But the first part of this comment was dumb. :| Also, what's up, E? Long time, no see. WRC's are well worth it on Planet Steve too. There's really no excuse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scytale Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 WRC's are well worth it on Planet Steve too. There's really no excuse. But not too early in the round. I made that mistake... twice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.