Shiho Nishizumi

I guess anyone who played Hearts of Iron is now a NeolibNazbol.

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.

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.

What each person thought of the situation is their prerog based on their own experiences and line of thinking. That said; you've rooted your FA rather heavily on stuff that you deem to be ideologically good, rather than be more of a ruthlessly pragmatic type. That has it's ups and downs. It certainly helps narratively on your end, both internally and externally, if there's consistency to it. That's the key part. I'd say that the common point was that people saw your prioritizing of security as an abandonment, partial of otherwise, of said ideological roots, and criticized such. It should go without saying that objections were expected going into this. I'd be far more surprised if they weren't there. So no issues there. I saw it (or things meaning similar things) repeated like thrice on the same page, if not top half thereof. I'd not call it overemphasizing based on that. Some people do like to throw even the kitchen sink with the plumbing still attached to it into the situation for the reasons you mentioned; I find that to be dumb by all metrics. That's also not what's happening here. Personally speaking, I'm not one to mind reasonable dice rolls all that much, and in fact rolled them a few times in the past. I wouldn't consider going head-on into a situation that you have a slim chance of success without having any reason for doing so (as opposed to, say, thinking you were going to be preempted and blitzing to have a slim chance at winning rather than no chance) to be sensible in any capacity which wasn't just "Well I'm bored, let's yolo for shits ang gigs" though. Especially if there are specific practical considerations to be met which wouldn't be fulfilled in such a manner.

You and your government are intimately aware of the issues we had getting adequate coverage on the planning of GW16. It's a simple reality that when updeclaring any fairly meaningful amount (not like one or two cities apart from each other) you effectively need at least 50% more nations than the other guy does by virtue of assigning 3 on 2 to offset the fact they're smaller nations and the penalties accompanied with such (worse rolls, needing to rely on dogfights vs the other guy simply being able to ga you for higher effect, etc). This is the unfortunate change brought about by the rebalance Alex introduced the past year. Even if we were to take the 10-20% as being truthful (I'd say not, but for argument's sake let's pretend it is), and assume that said 10-20% actually represent nations in the upper-top and not people in the low tier, that's nowhere near sufficient. The reality is that your sphere, owing the heavy top tier and the escalation of effectiveness thereof, can rather comfortably take on any other sphere solo and have a reasonable chance at victory. The same cannot be said on the inverse. In spirit, it's quite similar to Quack in that as a sphere it was meant to have a reasonable chance at deterring a 1v1 and in good conditions, withstanding a 2v1. The reason Quack retained such set up, though, is because there was a very credible reason for believing that such would happen owing to immediate post-NPOLT diplomatic and narrative developments; to put it in other words, people had jumped to conclusions and began narrative crafting before the people in Quack had any chance to reassess the dramatic FA landscape change that had occurred towards the end of NPOLT and properly adjust to such, instead being forced into the defensive from the get-go. Your sphere lack any such rationale justifying that sort of set-up because you put it together based on what you saw as being pragmatically beneficial for you, as opposed to having what was effectively a leftover infrastructure which was not allowed to be revised. Put in another way, you had a clean slate you could've worked with, and from the ground up went with this. The fact that Quack also showed considerable restraint throughout it's existence, owing exactly due to it's size and perceived threat, while you pretty much didn't care about the latter two as evidenced by the fact that you deemed it sensible to start right off with a war also didn't help matters on your end and how your sphere is perceived. As for the "cowardliness" you mention. As far as I'm concerned, it's rather unreasonable to expect people that have shared interests/concerns which are rooted on credible reasons not work together. And it's certainly something that in the past was used to justify rather lop-sided match-ups, with the rest of the spheres going like "Well okay, your rationale is sound." and largely accepting it. Case in point, the war between tCW and Swamp and HM. Nobody denies that it was a lopsided conflict. People also agree that Swamp and HM had more than justifiable reasons which warranted such coalition. Now, if the concern is irrational or otherwise unfounded, then sure. But such isn't the case here. If I'm being frank, this whole "cowardice" whole line of thought comes across as lazy, unaccountable FA. Instead of acknowledging that your moves were such that alienated or otherwise caused concern among other spheres, you reduce people acting on said concerns in unison as doing so "unnecessarily and cowardly". That's not how it works. It's on you to do your due diligence by not providing said people cause for which to have concerns, or not give them a reason to act against you. This whole situation is essentially you failing to do so and blame shifting instead of acknowledging that you somehow positioned your sphere in such a manner that gardened zero sympathizers from anywhere. I guess, if I have to summarize about HW. It's your prerogative how you decide to set up your sphere. I can understand and respect the pragmatic reasons you had for setting it up the way you did. That said, that goes both ways and people elsewhere are likewise going to find it necessary to act in ways which safeguard their pragmatic needs. Reducing those as "cowardice" does you no service as they neither will endear the other party and even obfuscates your failings which put you in the current predicament. Ultimately, I find the whole moralistic undertone to be empty and ultimately betrayed by said pragmatic needs, because said idealism invariably requires compromises to be made, and these compromises affect pragmatic considerations, which in this particular case were given clear precedence.

Back when I was being headhunted by several alliances, this one was the only one that hadn't tried to secure me with cheap trinkets such as city offers, tax exemptions, or the likes. That spoke volumes to me, since I don't think that an alliance that's confident on what it's got to offer needs to resort to such methods. I wish more alliances realized that there are plenty of people who aren't drawn it by those tactics, and that trying those on them will just have the opposite effect. I'm thankful that the alliance, leadership and membership alike, welcomed me and my little group (one which was simply looking for a good place to land in) the way it did, with practically no favoritism or strings attached to it. I'm also grateful for the vote of confidence cast on me at the time, of which you were one of the main casters as acting COO, especially given the context. That meant infinitely more than, again, the things others attempted to pass for an offer. I'm certainly looking forward to it, and hopefully helping with advice, much the same way me and certainly others were helped with.

Investor Contact: Justin Media Contact: WANA SYNDICATE, INC., ANNOUNCES CHANGES TO EXECUTIVE LINEUP NASSAU, Bahamas, 2020-07-14: SYNDICATE, INC., (NYSE:SCC) is forwarding this public notice to all shareholders, current and future, on the condition of the position of Chief Security Officer. Effective immediately, Shiho Nishizumi will no longer be the acting CSO, with Gray taking over the position in his stead, and Golden Pope filling the position of Vice President of Security. Finally, Ghost will replace Golden Pope in the position of Director of Security. Both Gray and Golden Pope are internally trained officers, deemed by the former CSO to be more than capable to fulfill their new positions based on their performance in both day-to-day operations and past major endangerments of the company's assets. Ghost is an equally able officer with a similar in-house track record who acquired his training prior to investing in SYNDICATE, INC., but was able to seamlessly mesh with the current structure. This decision is being made after much deliberation and planning with the Board of Executives and the Security department. As a thank you gesture to Shiho, the Board offered him an advisory position within it, which he gladly accepted. He'll still retain his equity within SYNDICATE, INC., since recent failed projects entrepreneured by former associates of his demonstrated to him that going with the old and reliable is the best course of action. Both the Board and Shiho are optimistic with this new lineup, and confident that they'll be able to expand upon the foundation laid by their predecessor, and with it, the Corporation's projection and financial prospects. We thank you for your time, and hope that this is enough to address any concerns. Shiho Nishizumi Former Chief Security Officer About SYNDICATE, INC., SYNDICATE, Inc., based near Nassau, The Bahamas, is the world's leading gasoline, aluminum, steel and munitions distributor for a wide variety of peacekeeping and humanitarian activities. Wholly-owned SYNDICATE, Inc. subsidiary brand/s include ENTERPRISE, Corp., (NYSE: ESC), which provides opportunities for growth, development, and outreach for exceptional candidates throughout the globe, The Rohirrim, a rising equine research and breeding firm, and Prima Victoria, a corporation with extensive contacts and knowledge in former British-held colonies and dominions. For more information about SYNDICATE, Inc., and it's activities, contact WANA, Chief Global Strategist.

That's up to each individual. As far as I'm concerned, IQ top brass gets 0 chances while more middle management people need to work for it. Time isn't enough of a rationale to let go of especially when you factor in their reaction after moderation.

NPO and manwha induced ragequitting.

They didn't leave due to that; they were already in the process of packing up by the time Alex whacked their offshore for cheating their revenue.

You clearly don't remember when Dynamic was asking for payment from his protectorates.

There's always a number of people who leave every war due to the shock value of that sort of loss. It's unfortunate, but unavoidable. I doubt there was much (or any) of a loss of long standing members due to the war, specifically considering what Dryad alluded to; NPOLT, if nothing else, tempered a bunch of people. It's awesome for the one padding. The one being padded on? Not so much. Important distinction to be made. Whilst it'd be nice to have them be of more use on these sorts of situations, the problem is that it's a bit difficult to balance conventional military which is being used in unconventional ways, and still have the conventional aspect be balanced. As a matter of fact, when conventional got "rebalanced", it is exactly the unconventional aspect thereof that arguably got shafted the most. Probably unintentionally at that. It's also not the only option. Unless if your foe is literally maxed on his 5553 (which is never the case), there are ways to go about in pretty much every war. It's mainly a matter of whether you know how to do it number one, and can be assed to do it number two. Though yes, turreting is obviously the most straightforward and foolproof of the options.

Having the tools at hand doesn't mean that they'll be used. E.G. TCW during that 10 day skirmish. It mainly boils down to whether the leaderships deem it worthwhile and viable to continue. Of which the mechanical viability of it isn't the sole, and sometimes, even the main reason for such a decision. Either way, deliberately crippling the tools so that a conclusion to a war is forced isn't the way to go. It's much better for said tools to be available and for the people that'd be resorting to them to decide whether it's worthwhile to go with, than just shaft them from them altogether.

It was floated at one point, though I presume it went nowhere. I do agree that making imp killing isn't really the way to go. Lose your mil imps, and if you don't want to refit at the loss of your econ, and you're basically left as a turret which isn't the most engaging thing ever, and isn't something everyone is necessarily able to do either way.

Meh. It's a dirt cheap project, and unless if you literally just got it or it's always failed you since acquiring it, it's more than likely to have paid back and then some. Also, one of the proposed changes is for missiles to destroy 2 imps and for ID to halve that, so there's that. RNG (which is ultimately what 'surprise' is) is a fairly lazy method to add a variable, and such variable is more often than not just frustrating. It's also hardly a 'surprise' when every other shot is statistically set to not land.

People who are bombarding are very well capable of fielding such, because if you're spending MAP's bombarding you've already got it in the bag. Meaning, the ships aren't actually at risk of being sunk. I don't see a problem with it not being perfectly round, since it could just be rounded up or down. Much the same way how PB works (you aren't recruiting 1.1 ships, for example). It'd also be going off the value of 15 ships rather than 3 drydocks. You'd be surprised at the value of having to reslot the improvements time and again (me knowing that because they make for good nuke cash in a pinch). And the response also doesn't address the loss of output in cases where you need to refit cities to something 800 infra spec or something of sorts. Which definitely ought to be factored in when balancing this since it's a long term productivity loss being incurred. Missiles don't cost as much, but they also can be ID blocked, kill less imps given the same MAP's, can be spied to be removed, etc. It's nonetheless a massive increase w.r.t. imp killing compared to the previous value; especially at higher infra values.

Eh, the 75% he mentioned tied to city count is good enough. Make it too cheap and it's just overpowered due to the value of the improvements being destroyed. Especially considering that currently, best case scenario is a 60% chance if you have tactician and the other guy has pirate. Considering that the loss of military improvements would force a beat down nation to respec to something lower and lose it's economic improvements, it's only fair that it costs the winning party a fair bit to cause such destruction in the first place. Especially since I suspect a bunch of it would be done as nations go down and are in the process of losing their infra either way. And you already would have an avenue to maximize imps destroyed while minimizing infra damage dealt right there if the requirement was any lower.

It certainly should, if it is to go through. And yes, it should be pinned to city count rather than navy possessed or drydocks possessed at hand because otherwise it'd be easily gamed.

Uh. 50% less or more rss usage and less infra killed is meaningless if one ship can destroy those two improvements just fine. It'd completely !@#$ over raiders and people fighting uphill since hundreds of improvements could be destroyed at the cost of pennies.

Investor Contact: Justin Media Contact: Dionysus SYNDICATE, INC., ANNOUNCES CHANGES TO EXECUTIVE BOARD NASSAU, Bahamas, 2020-01-19: SYNDICATE, INC., (NYSE:SCC) is forwarding this public notice to all shareholders, current and future, on the condition of the office of Chief Global Strategist. It is with deep regret that we have to inform about Partisan's resignation from the position, one which he held for fourteen months. His fifth tenure saw him begin with combatting an existential threat to all entities in this realm, and following the pacification of said threat, continue to oversee the foreign direction of SYNDICATE, INC., alongside monitoring/facilitating the internal restructuring to ensure the retention of the Corporation's competitiveness. Both efforts have proven to generate results, as proven by unmatched quarterly growths, public recognitions, and the Corporation's ability to swiftly rebound higher after some substantial lows during Q4 of 2020, spawned by an illegal Trust arranged by competing firms. Following a conversation with close confidants and with the board, Partisan deemed it to be most optimal for a new person to oversee future developments. He was subsequently seen vacating his office, with the security camera recording him carrying recently awarded trophies under each arm, which seemed miniscule relative to his broad shoulders and overall stature. The rest of his belongings were packaged and shipped shortly afterwards, bar a few alcoholic beverages retained to compensate for unauthorized consumption of the Corporation's stocks. As a recognition for his contributions, coupled with the fact that he retains equity within SYNDICATE, INC., the board has decided to retain him as an Advisor deprived only of the privilege of making general notifications to the shareholders, both moves which were received with unanimous approval by the latter. The board has decided to appoint Dionysus as the new Chief Global Strategist (CGS). A well-proven performer following his displays in ENTERPRISE, Corp., (NYSE: ESC) and SYNDICATE, INC., (NYSE: SCC), he is responsible for a good portion of the reforms and restructuring which led to the aforementioned record quarterly growths. As he will fully dedicate himself to his new role as SYNDICATE, INC.'s CGS, he will be replaced in the office of Chief Operations Officer by Lucas. As part of Dionysus' staff, he is also a part in the aforementioned record growth, one which is projected to be maintained for the foreseeable future. Finally, in order to fill the vacancy left in the position of Vice President of Operations, Vero is set to take over said office. A long-time manager in the SYNDICATE, INC. subsidiary, ENTERPRISE, Corp., Vero is also part of the same staff arranged by Dionysus, and a big reason for the continued increase of shareholders who opt to invest with SYNDICATE, INC. for reliable and strong returns on their investment. With the current arrangement, the board is optimistic about future projections on the Corporation's growth and outreach. We would like to thank everyone for your time, and are hopeful that this will answer any and all concerns. Shiho Nishizumi Chief Security Officer About SYNDICATE, INC. SYNDICATE, Inc., based near Nassau, The Bahamas, is the world's leading gasoline, aluminum, steel and munitions distributor for a wide variety of peacekeeping and humanitarian activities. Wholly-owned SYNDICATE, Inc. subsidiary brand/s include The Enterprise, which provides opportunities for growth, development, and outreach for exceptional candidates throughout the globe. This sentence is here because Zwarte Piet did nothing wrong. For more information about SYNDICATE, Inc., and it's activities, contact Dionysus, Chief Strategic Officer.

It'll be ongoing even by 2050.

He doesn't want that guy to be pestered by you incessantly, and thus be tempted to hand in his 72.

Sarcasm works just fine.