Shiho Nishizumi

It's also not been used as a precedent for any of the subsequent NAP's, fwiw.

They didn't do that either.

The split was something that was mutually elaborated on and understood as needing to happen, as both parties felt that Quack had more or less run it's course. So this idea that it was somehow unilaterally t$ doing it, let alone t$ leaving TKR in a lurch, is nonsense. It's also nonsense that TKR had to suddenly figure out what it was to do post Quack, because they had already received a pitch by GG on basically what became HW earlier this year. Signing HM wasn't the last ditch, necessitated by circumstance thing that it's seemingly being made out to be, but rather the avenue they already had at their disposal before split talks had even seriously happened.

Not sure what to tell you but reiterate that our sphere went from varying levels of mobilization to full as a reaction to your milling. That's simply how things go. It's been elaborated to you why the feeler was interpreted the way it was. I've only seen build ups end up in one way, from my time playing this game. That's due to the importance of the first strike.

Indeed you can do that with those slots. But Gray had informed you what our plan was. You felt as though our word wasn't sufficiently credible and chose to fully militarize. As I've said before, I don't fault you for taking the precaution and think that it's fine for you to have done such, as you have an actual obligation to your sphere and none to us. That does go both ways though. Your response was "it's defensive", which is a, if not the, generic placeholder phrase that doesn't actually mean anything. Why should anyone in BW have taken it at face value as demonstrative of your intent? They had no reason to, so they didn't. Hence, CTO going from max barracks to max everything, HS mobilizing, and us simply continuing to buy as a response to your militarization.

I mean, a bunch of CTO's ties were involved in counters, with their MDP's own ties being hit. It's not exactly surprising they'd max soldiers as a precaution. As for the builds; you max slots for what you intend to buy to get the largest buy you can. Even if it's just one buy. You then decide whether to keep the imps or sell them once you've got the buy in. It's not really outside of what you had been informed.

I'll correct a few things in turn. He told you it was max for 30+, rest got a buy. Rose did mil after everyone else. As I've said before, I don't mind you milling as a precaution. CTO had gone max soldiers because we had gotten involved on the KT thing so it was a reasonable precaution on their end, and upped it following your mass swapping. HS also started milling after HW's response. As for e$... really? Need I elaborate that they're an extension of t$? Yes, naturally things such as MMR's are going to be standardized between both alliances. If you genuinely thought that they were a separate entity and that changes in it were outside of the response given to you, then that's frankly on you. The rest's been covered by W/Adam, so I won't expand upon it.

"Your story is weak and half assedly come up with to cover a grudge." "The stance dates back to literal years and upheld several times even by people who had no beef on the situation simply because they weren't there when a bunch of stuff happened." "Haha lol your story is weak and I won't actually address anything of you've said in my rehash of my first post." 10/10.

There are several things which dictate whether a stance/narrative is consistent or flimsy. Time it's been held for (and whether it was ommitted or not at an opportune time), maneuvers made during such time, etc dictate such. Our stance has been such for years by this point, held by people of vastly different backgrounds (so much for it being a grudge), and backed by yes, several actions; in fact, the only time t$ and GG worked together was during NPOLT, the latter half of which at that, and given the state of affairs at the time, I'd say was more than understandable to be the extraordinary exception. It's also remained in spite of, yes, some of said actions failing. That doesn't detract to the stance, but rather add to it because it shows commitment to it in spite of adversities. All in all, it is inarguably one of the most consistent stances in this game, and arguably the most consistent one. Just to contrast it with another stance, I'll take your alliance's about minispheres. Credit where credit is due, Chaos was most certainly one. But then you got smashed by KETOGG. NPOLT happens subsequently and we arrive at Quack. It was most certainly not a minisphere, but I won't at all hold it as a mark against you due to the stuff I have already mentioned in the original DoW thread (iirc), and given the genuine effort I had seen been undertaken to accommodate for such sphere. We fast forward to GW16 where Quack gets rolled as basically a result of a paperless machination, and past that, to the dissolution of Quack and the forming of HW. Which was, at the time... kind of a side grade to Quack. In the interim between GW16 and that, I noticed that your gov both in public and private shifted to more or less a stance of "Well we would really like minispheres but they can't reeeeaaaaallly be made to work because people choose security first.", and when presented with a clean slate, your government goes with this side grade kind of thing and pretends that things are okay and still consistent with the stance they had. That's basically where it was readily apparent to people that you had gone full on for security and were just trying to suit the narrative to fit it. That's where, imo, an inconsistency that had no real justification to exist popped up to undermine your stance. And it's not like it's changed ever since. If anything, it's been doubled down on. Perhaps overly drawn out, but I felt that it was warranted to address it properly. Mainly because, quite frankly, your take was exceptionally poor. The rest of the post was also addressed in some way or another here, so I won't bother rehashing.

A detail worth adding is that AA's like 404 only really began recovering when the war ended, because they were absolutely swarmed. Meanwhile, something like Grumpy can start building up the cash almost immediately, as soon as the action there dies down, which doesn't take that long in the usual war. So not only is the recovery period longer, but it also begins later for the usual aa.

Your understanding is incorrect.

Right. The membership sticks through thick and thin, as it's actually proven by history. Same about the AA itself. The FA climate often dictates the wars to be fought, which is well beyond the control of most people. It's neither their fault, or problem, if you, as a leader, handled yourself in such a way contributed to this end result.

It being your responsibility? Nah. Which only makes it worse.

It wasn't down to 'Grumpy paranoia', but simply established military procedure. Preempting is better than being preempted. Virtually always. It's something I'd expect you to do, provided you have the possibility to do so. You have formal obligations to your allies, let alone the ones you have to your community. Likewise I expect them to take priority over older/past relationships. As for Ben; I obviously won't fault him for being busied up. But you have two formal FA high govts, one being yourself. You also have Adri who more or less de facto handles FA stuff as well. The point of having several people to handle stuff is that people lower in the chain can take care of them, especially if it's pressing, which I would argue this was.