Shiho Nishizumi

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.

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.

Setting up what's basically mine fields is detrimental for the FA landscape for reasons which should be obvious. Hence, not good FA. There's not really any reason why they couldn't have been made public other than for people wanting to have their cake and frick it too.

Signing paperless is very much not "better FA".

I don't disagree. It's obviously a rather considerable commitment which people have demonstrated to be unwilling to go with. Being frank here, it's not something that I can say to be surprised having seen people dip out on. What I'm (more) surprised about is the manner in which it happened, and some (albeit not all) of the behavior associated to such way in which it happened.

I mean, talking about something that's for the purported good for the game does, by design, transcend any individual alliance and even sphere. It's not a complicated dynamic.

We don't need to accuse you of it because you've already admitted to, at the very least, signing off on one (with there being more to it, I'm most certain). We also don't need to accuse you (for the record, the "you" transcends HM) of paperless because they've likewise been admitted to. It's simple fact at this point. Unless if you want to argue that SRD and Left are lying, in which case, go ahead.

There's nothing noble in wanting to incur disproportionate infra turnover on the foe relative to oneself. Wanting no toxicity is good but it goes out of the window when labels start to be applied.

I've noticed that you've been portraying yourselves as a sort of benevolent figure over the timing of the first feelers, and terms themselves. The former is anything but. The timing coincided with the ballpark where we largely maxed out on the damage taken, chiefly on infra but also loot petering out. There's nothing kind in wanting to keep the damage dealt to a maximum and sustained to a minimum. It is purely driven by self interest. To clarify, I am not faulting the attempt at it (it's a rational motivation), but to portray it as being anything but driven by one's own interest is laughable. As for the terms themselves; yes and no. It's very much true that more stuff could have been added. It's also true that these set precedents which can very well be held against you in the future if the situation so materializes. That, combined with the desire to wrap things up as quickly as possible for the reason I mentioned in the paragraph above, are reasons which are pragmatic and responding to one's own interests, rather than some notion of benevolence. To reiterate, those are rationales which make complete sense, but that certainly have nothing to do with this whole idea of "Oh we were just being benevolent/kind".

I SAW THE ORIGINAL. No it doesn't automatically strike when you use the tildes even though I wish it did.

It being blanket was an insistence by your side. So that's on you either way.

Your idol flat out told you that it had 0 impact in any way, shape or form. Because of course it wouldn't. A single member is hardly going to sway anything on his own AA, let alone sphere and certainly not other spheres. But I suppose that ignoring what he says because it's inconvenient with the head canon you've set up for yourself is consistent with the behavior you've displayed throughout the war.

You mean the same leaders whose words you saw fit to ignore or cast doubt on when they told you that you had zero bearing on peace?