Jump to content

Shiho Nishizumi

Members
  • Posts

    779
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by Shiho Nishizumi

  1. It's also not been used as a precedent for any of the subsequent NAP's, fwiw.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. "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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. It being your responsibility? Nah. Which only makes it worse.
  12. 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.
  13. I guess anyone who played Hearts of Iron is now a NeolibNazbol.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. On the first war where they had the actual capacity to do so, moreover. KF was different due to the different groups in it. They also flipped a profit from their racket. As if cheating to win wasn't bad enough.
  22. "AA's that can't fight an 8 month war don't deserve to exist" was literally a line spoken by them to justify the treatment not only to foes, but also allies which didn't kowtow to them. It's not my problem, or fault, if through your ignorance you stumbled upon it. The truth of the matter is that a war of such length in any capacity is extraordinary, and going like "lul imagine struggling over not building infra/cities" is grossly misrepresentative of why it wasn't a good experience for people during it. As for FA; yes, virtually all of the major players were plotting one throughout it. It doesn't change the fact that the experience was quite unpleasant (to put it mildly) regardless of that.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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