Jump to content

Shiho Nishizumi

Members
  • Posts

    838
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by Shiho Nishizumi

  1. That's the culture he's more than happy to let flourish. Moreover, he's perfectly content with Yang being his high gov. It reflects on him, whether he likes it or not.
  2. Yet, you're more than content to continue it. This isn't the first time TKR's signed an alliance that had shared grievances on another alliance, to/and then attack/ed said alliance. I'd argue there's a pattern to it by now. From what I can see, your words ring hollow. Counting on just hope to get things done too is, to be blunt, foolish, wishful thinking. It's genuine effort and concrete actions that get things done. And the only concrete action here was one that took a step backwards, a step contrary to what you purport to wish. How things develop in the postwar is obviously for you and W to iron out on. What that'll entail, I have no idea. I have a strong suspicion that it'll take a bit more than preaching talks you didn't walk to get anywhere though.
  3. Your only regret was that the people propping you up quit. So yeah, it's not genuine. Glad to see that you only ever know how to speak when someone else's enabling it for you.
  4. You're complaining about a half a year old cancellation and oversimplifying for the spin of it. Obviously someone will come along and amend it. I've no qualms in saying that I supported the drop. That said, your failure (or uncaringness) to understand how awful those ties were and how people didn't wish to be even tangentially linked to is on you.
  5. Not sure why you're bothering to DC over something fairly old by this point, and that Polaris probably wouldn't bother reading and most certainly wouldn't act on anyways. Alliances can't dictate their allies' FA (or at least shouldn't be able to), but they can cut them instead if they're dissatisfied with them. Which is what was done.
  6. T$ dropped CoA because (among other things) CoA reneged on a promise to drop Polaris; effectively signalling that it chose Polaris over T$. The subsequent results are not surprising. You're entitled to tying whoever you want, but not to having others just put up with such ties for no good reason. Even truer once commitments start being broken.
  7. I'd like you to recount which ones those were.
  8. It's also not been used as a precedent for any of the subsequent NAP's, fwiw.
  9. The split was something that was mutually elaborated on and understood as needing to happen, as both parties felt that Quack had more or less run it's course. So this idea that it was somehow unilaterally t$ 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. "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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. It being your responsibility? Nah. Which only makes it worse.
  19. 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.
  20. I guess anyone who played Hearts of Iron is now a NeolibNazbol.
  21. I recall checking myself on stuff towards the latter half of the sphere's existence (which is when I was checking more often because, obvious reasons), and I recall stuff such as Rose+HM having a pretty good lineup for such. I can see the argument of it being extremely large early on, but it quickly diminished as other spheres formed and consolidated (I don't say consolidation in the negative sense, but simply establishing themselves and growing) while Quack remained relatively stagnant in part because it was policy not to sign more stuff. I'm not sure what you expected Partisan to do in the face pertaining to actors which had sprung far too quickly on the narrative, instead of chilling for a few weeks and perhaps using that energy to focus on rebuilding their communities. Granted, he had actually poured a fair amount of diplo effort on parties which were (or least were perceived as such) neutral at the time. The portrayal that nothing was done is inaccurate. A couple of people were already negatively predisposed against us. It had the risk of alienating a sphere, certainly, but it'd have secured another. Frankly, it'd have been probably a net neutral if not a win, and certainly better than the alternative which came to pass. Granted, easy to win the lotto with Monday's newspaper. You're certainly right in that, in spite of what there was to be gained with the opportunity, the conflict itself didn't concern us. Which was a big reason why Quack didn't do anything about. Still something which contrasts with much of what would happen afterwards. I tend to lean on one month being a good period of time for a war to last for. The wars I've fought on which dragged for longer than that did so because of political considerations not being met. You mean the nukes that you just laugh off as being able to cover the expense of in a few days' lapse, while the guy launching them is making basically zero income of his own? You mean the rebuild I've seen people brag as being able to just build up during the duration of the war itself, because it usually takes that long for the drag-down to happen, if it does happen? Relative to other alliances; yes, the damage sustained is negligible. Much of the sphere was actually on board with a longer NAP. That said, I hope your ally did notify you that it was chiefly them the ones who wanted the NAP to be non blanket. That argument doesn't make sense because if they're irrelevant, then no NAP for them would've been perfectly fine. They don't matter after all. The actual reason you gave them that sort of NAP was just to prevent them from tagging alongside us if such possibility were to happen, and it cost you nothing to have such guarantee in place. As for your assertion, I'd say that the events which unfolded the past half a year put a big question mark on them.
  22. I said that it was similar, not 1:1. The other spheres are also a bit smaller compared to some of the stuff we had back then, so it's not like one variable changed and the others remained constant. The bolded part is simply a lie (I presume unintentional), by virtue of TI and associated parties leaving. Regardless of the rationale, it was a a not minor change. That aside, there had been no change on the situation that spurred it. So yes, lack of reason to change caused things to remain the way they are. You're free to ask your now MDP partner pertaining how unassailable we actually deemed Quack to be. Or rather more simply, just check old conversations with them. Given the fact we, quite frankly, not only had the chance to roll you, but also had potential to gain diplo wise from such when you hit tCW (by virtue of securing them as an ally), but didn't take it; yes, I'd say that plenty of restraint was shown. Those "whispers" were plenty credible enough and, as things aired, proven to be not only correct, but also run deeper than what we had initially thought. Circle back to my first response. Also compounded by how your first maneuvers as a sphere were perceived. Short wars benefit you (by you, I mean your alliance, not even sphere) because you're at the top of the pyramid and have such a massive edge that you just btfo whatever is there on a one-on-one match-up, and provided you got the hits in first, more than that. And once you do, it's up to your allies to pick up the pieces and deal with turreting or mil suiciding that the other party might do because, again, you're at the top of the pyramid. Good chance that your nations can't even be reached in the first place, especially as the other party loses their infra which is inflating their NS, and if they can, people won't send their suicide nations on them. They'll hit as low as possible in order to best leverage their military edge. So you come out relatively if not virtually unscathed and basically workaround what is an otherwise normal rebuild cycle that other alliances have to deal with in a semi constant basis. This fundamentally renders the argument that your grouping is ok because other people can grow faster moot (not mentioned here but I've seen been used, hence why I'm mentioning it here since I'm already elaborating on it), since those people are dealing with billions spent on widescale rebuild which you seldom have to engage in. That's why I find your endorsement for short wars to be laughable at best, self serving at worst. As for the six month thing; you pitch higher than what you're aiming to get to have leeway in negotiations. I didn't think that it need be explained, but apparently it does. Especially given how you deemed it to be perfectly fine to give tCW and friends a three month nap for a 10 day war, whatever was to be finally agreed on was nowhere near as outrageous as you make it out to be. You already have my opinion on lopsided wars with credible reason to justify concern.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.