Jump to content

Shiho Nishizumi

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Shiho Nishizumi

  1. Shiho Nishizumi

    Changes to score calculations -- Need input.

    There was no such thing as a W/L counter until about year and a half ago.
  2. Shiho Nishizumi

    Peace Terms.

    >Be KT >Get rolled in 69 alongside TGH >TRF wants to impose the harshest terms on you >Get revenge war a couple of months down the line >Impose no terms other than color change, don't even go for an official surrender >Have people pretend that you gun for deletions even though you didn't go that route in the one situation you could've potentially done it Truly KT man bad.
  3. Shiho Nishizumi

    Changes to score calculations -- Need input.

    What? It's the opposite. The strategy has only gained momentum, as the city gap of those employing it narrowed down when relative to that of their opposition. Simply take a look at the outcomes of GGF/ToT and AC. I do agree that KF is an apple to oranges comparison due to the extreme lopsided nature of that conflict, hence I'll clarify that now so I don't have to reiterate on it later. At any rate, the different outcomes on the two former conflicts, in part it was due to the match ups of the non-IQ alliances in each war. However, it was also due to the jump on average city counts with NPO in particular, IQ in general. The bravado indicates intentions that contradict that notion. Do I actually need to spell it out letter by letter? Fine. The reason Coalition A didn't do it is simply because (aside from the limitations which I highlighted, but you promptly ignored) it's a raw numbers game when it comes down to aircraft (the nation counts grow quite exponentially in the lower tiers for Coalition B side). Furthermore, there was another mechanical limitation, in the form of offensive wars slots. Yes, TGH, KT and many others were constantly sitting on 5/5 offensives early in the war. No, I'm not asking to have it changed, but merely pointing out that it was a thing. And I think that you're overestimating the effort it takes. Infra gets burned sooner or later, not to mention the wholesales that were done. Resource management is a thing. Simply take a look at 69. Morale I'm more inclined to agree as being an actual concern on that strategy. However, there's a difference between taking a beating or one or two rounds, and then submarining, and that of getting dragged and spending a couple of months down in Vietnam. Some people love it and ask for seconds, but it isn't exactly the majority's cup of tea. Read above. In fact, it'll also need acknowledgement on the limitations on downdeclares given the current situation, but I won't hold my breath in that regard.
  4. Shiho Nishizumi

    Changes to score calculations -- Need input.

    Except a C37 can't downdeclare on a C20 easily (and if memory serves me right, Sphinx wasn't max air when he did his rodeo either. Again, there's a lot of context that's being deliberately left out for narrative purposes). If the C20 inflates himself to that point, then quite frankly that's on him for stacking too many tanks and ships, which are seldom if at all ever worth it due to their expense and fairly lacking utility. Meanwhile, the extreme NS compression that has been ongoing makes it difficult if not nigh-impossible for a similarly sized nation to hit said NS compressed nation and for it to be able to avoid or mitigate the chances of retaliation, thanks to absurd updeclare ranges. Ironically enough, it makes it so that only whale-sized nations can downdeclare with relative safety (safety, not ease), both because they have the upfront planes to both more quickly neutralize whoever they're hitting alongside tanking any potential counters better, and because of more substantial double buys which would make it easier for them to buy out of range. However, to insinuate that such downdeclares are easy to pull off is mere delusion. At an NS range of 2350 (about average for C20 people with wartime (800) infra, max air, and an usual amount of projects (5) ), the downdeclare range is 3133 NS. Someone at 28 cities and at 800 infra, with only planes and 5 projects (which is about the standards I'm going with) can't even hit that range. They'd need to either sell infra (I'll touch on infra in a moment), some projects, or planes. And obviously, that's 2350, and not the even lower ranges that are possible with infra selling/buying shenanigans which we've seen in this war so far. And of course, that's merely city 28. The larger they are the higher the lower ceiling is. Quite frankly, with the way things are going, I wouldn't be surprised if it became meta in the future to simply preemptively sell your infra down to 1500 or lower. Hence, I don't think that it's much of an issue in on itself. With that said, I do think that infra should be relatively more rigid on both acquisition and selling. The hegemonic trends as of late have been from the bottom and the middle, not the top. Alex has simply not caught up to that fact yet. No, that 700 have been able to fight 1400 and whale tier is (relatively) unscathed, is a testament to the ineptitude of said 1400. Especially given context that's being deliberately omitted to drive the narrative. A solid 40% of Coalition A's forces were at half strength at best, yet that contingent managed to bring down one of the heaviest hitters of Coalition B on the outset of the blitz, alongside busying up it's partner. The alliances that came on the days that followed the blitz came in piecemeal, which resulted in them being picked off; that is the real reason why they were ineffectual. It was a strategic mishandling of assets from Coalition B, not the overpowering capabilities of the upper tier in Coalition A. Besides, the slowness has more to do with a desire on Coalition B to play it long term, rather than a true mechanical impairment. I've seen plenty of people bragging about how this will go for months, so... Pick that 2350 NS C20 I mentioned earlier. Shove him down to 2040 because of 300 infra/city and dropped projects. New downdeclare range is 2720. Guy keeps losing daily planes so he drops a bit further. Now he's at 1890 NS. New downdeclare range is now 2520 (and he'll keep dropping further with subsequent attacks). Pick the aforementioned C28. Have him also drop to 300 infra/city and the two projects. 2860 NS. That's about 680 planes he needs to drop to get in range. The sale of planes leaves him without reserves, and not even max air. That opens him up to be picked off. Again, that's with a mere C28. It gets worse with the larger nations. It's also critical to mention that mass infra imports weren't a thing when this scenario was ongoing. Which meant that, thanks to the generous ranges, the C20 was not bothered by the amount of time it took to sell down to 300 infra, while for the C28 it's a several-minutes window where he can be hit in turn, because at 300 infra he obviously can't buy up planes to the max. And obviously, it takes longer for the C28 to build said infra simply because he has more cities. Even longer downtime for larger nations which left a wider window open for retaliation. So no, it's not just a matter of "lol you didn't try hard enough". There's an actual mechanical inhibition behind it. Which doesn't even cover the economic expense. I'm also seeing plenty of cherrypicked examples being used here arguing about savage downdeclares, in particular Ripper's. Which is not an example, but a flat-out lie. For starters, Ripper isn't even at 34 cities, but 32. Furthermore, since Moon didn't bother to mention which war he was talking about, I dug through his wars and the only one that was close to that was one with NPO, where he obviously had to drop substantial amounts of military to get in range (down to mid 3400's), thus disproving the notion that he was max mil at the time, but he also did it hours after reset which meant he didn't double buy out of range. At most he had day and half's worth of tanks and ships. All of his other wars were at 3k ns base for the targets, and the Yakuzas he hit at the onset of the blitz had ground. Again, that runs counter to his claim. Meanwhile, 4200 NS can be declared on by 2400 NS. Do I need to say more?
  5. Shiho Nishizumi

    Changes to score calculations -- Need input.

    I'm working on it :p. The city change seems like a fair enough change. I'd say put it out on the test server to see how it plays out. For military NS, it depends on the unit you're talking about. Due to the sheer versatility and efficacy of aircraft, I do think that the NS needs to be increased (basically doubled). As for tanks and ships, I'd rather see them have more utility than the one they do at the moment, which I think would be preferable to an NS reduction. Infra and project sliding seems unnecessary to me. 1500 base infra is not really necessary for military either. It's the minimum barebones econ setup, but not the mil one. Nuke and missile sliding is also not something I see as being necessary, because the substantial upkeep expense from a large stockpile already deters most people from piling up any appreciable amount. Obviously, bullet points 2 through 5 should only be tested after seeing how the city NS changes affect the overall ranges.
  6. Shiho Nishizumi

    Blatantly Self-Serving War suggestion Volume 2

    To be fair, he said that in a tongue in cheek manner. Though a slight revision would help towards balance.
  7. Shiho Nishizumi

    Mass Infra Buying War Declaration Restriction

    This is just a manifestation of an underlying set of greater balance issues, rather than an issue in on itself. With that said, quite frankly, I'd say that it'd be best to just allow it as is. The entire rationale behind why it'd be used as described can be easily nullified with minimal effort.
  8. That's false. Everyone's reminded of our existence due to Buo's @everyone pings.
  9. Shiho Nishizumi

    We are here for the Whales

    I've seen less armchair theory-crafting in the Grosser Generalstab as they drew war plans for The Great War, than the one being done in here. Seriously Inst, don't you have a better use for your time? Go out for a walk, take a nap, read a book. Infanterie Greift An if you're so into it. Anything would be better than taking abstract principles and laws that no one in this role has taken, takes, or will take into consideration. Any Milcom worth their salt is far more concerned with activity levels and coordination than they are to know the exact coefficient for how many tons of ordnance it takes to get the job done just right. For frick's sake. Usually I ignore your wall of text nonsense, but at this rate we will have you try to teach us the aerodynamic principles behind the fricking aircraft and the exact amount of propellant that goes into the tank's shells.
  10. Shiho Nishizumi

    We are here for the Whales

  11. Shiho Nishizumi

    We are here for the Whales

    That statement implicates that BK/NPO had never truly split. Otherwise, there'd be no bipolarity as it'd be KERCHTOG (which is a temporary arrangement, ftr), BK/Cov and N$O.
  12. Shiho Nishizumi

    An Orbis Chronicle: The Endgame

    The opposite. There was only a single mention of water in there. This should fix that.
  13. Shiho Nishizumi

    Dial Up War: Propaganda

    Photoshop? How dare you. It's Paint! It was also made a year ago.
  14. Shiho Nishizumi

    Dial Up War: Propaganda

    Old but gold from AC.
  15. Shiho Nishizumi

    Declaration of War

    As we did with BK and friends, because they plotted to roll us. Alliance fronts are a long outdated concept, but I'm not surprised that the inQompetent side is oblivious to that fact.
  16. Shiho Nishizumi

    We are here for the Whales

    Jessica Rabbit would've never planned such a shoddy offensive either, but that's neither here nor there.
  17. Shiho Nishizumi

    Fark Announcement

  18. Shiho Nishizumi

    My last request after deleted my nation

  19. Shiho Nishizumi

    My last request after deleted my nation

  20. Shiho Nishizumi

    End off-shore banks for Alliances

    Yes, the losing side has to do it more often. That's simply part of fighting a losing war. Again, with enough activity (log in twice a day) and caution you can avoid the looting. The losing side should be more cautious with it's spending and management either way. Depositing it in nations, beige or otherwise, is always a bad idea, as nations provide no benefit over AA's. Especially since those records are visible while bank to bank aren't. And I wouldn't say unnecessary, as it entirely disregards the potential for gain that comes with it. Can the risk be deemed not worth of the risk? That's up to each individual. But it's still a factor that exists and shouldn't be disregarded on it's entirety.
  21. Shiho Nishizumi

    End off-shore banks for Alliances

    Others have covered most of what I have to say in the matter (Mitsu, Scarf, Nizam etc). But I gotta comment on this... presentation that solo AA banking is somehow difficult to pull off. It isn't. All you need is a decently active individual whom you can trust. If he's cautious even the better. Keeping a bank safe that way is no rocket science. Even then, one man AA isn't the only way to do it. Having an ally hold it for you, for instance, can work in certain circumstances. Apeman held TRF's bank when we blitzed them, for instance. Furthermore, I'll go ahead and say that the amount of leaders who went like "Uhm, we shouldn't war in part because our bank AA might get looted during the war." in the pre planning of a war is 0. It's not a frequent enough occurrence (practically 0 if you picked the right guy to do the job) to ever be considered as a factor, nor is it a factor you should even be weighing in to conclude whether you should war or not. Your main concern is seeing if you can even win. If so, you'll be too busy reaching out for potential allies, organizing the coalition and sorting out who hits what to be concerned about such a minute detail. I also don't see the issue of scoring a big hit with proper coordination if you were presented an opportunity, given that such opportunity always pops up as a result of the banker's slip up, be it inactivity, overconfidence or others. I think that we should be aiming to have everyone be more competent and capable, rather than dumbing things down. As for the "transfer of wealth". AA bank loot can be nullified if you're reasonably competent. Individual/nation loot can be greatly mitigated if you properly manage the amount of resources sent to nations in between and manage your tax policies. We learned that when we bled loot like crazy in the first weeks of 69, but after a couple of weeks it basically went down to nothing. Part of it was natural thinning out, but we noticed that it decreased greatly after implementing our countermeasures. Obviously, everything is a tradeoff, but that's just part of the game. As Scarf said, nothing is without risk. @Venom It would be a double edged sword for raiders. In one hand, yes less loot. But on the flip side, their bank held loot would be far, far safer. This is particularly more important for solo man raiders than for other raiding AA's.
  22. Shiho Nishizumi

    SNN-Too big to fail

    They actually pulled a Corralito? Lmao. I figured it would have been considered to avoid a bank run, but never thought it'd go through. Never trust banks.
  23. Shiho Nishizumi

    Increased Costs to Build New Cities

    fricking finally. The entire point of banking is long term returns. It makes no sense that people who bank for a profit would pull a 180 for short term gains (buy a bunch of cities while delaying the retroactive expense), while gutting the long term (lost interest rate revenues due to pulled assets, alongside loss of share of the market). Especially since, again, the retroactive cost would have to be paid for anyways if they ever intended to buy another city (which they do), and a higher cost since it'd also include the retroactive cost of those cities they frontloaded. With less money than they would otherwise have since they just blew it on a bunch of cities that won't pay off. It's no rocket science that generating 5b from just your nation's income is a lot harder than generating it with your income plus your investment's returns. All of this is just some nonsense doomsday calling. And even if such a withdrawal were to happen, the end result would be a temporary shrinking. Savvier bankers will remain to make extra buck off of higher interest rates, and likely reach out to more potential investors to fill in the demand that the bankers who withdrew left unattended. New banks might also form to try to fill in such demand, not to mention that sooner or later, the bankers who pulled would return, albeit weakened because they have less capital to work with in the face of those who remained. I do agree that this sink by itself won't do much, and it'd perhaps be better off if it was made to cost refined. As Frawley pointed out, raw's sink is refining, so increasing the demand for refined goods will by proxy increase the demand of raws to be used to manufacture them. Infra would also be good if the goal was just to have sinks, though I prefer the consumer goods proposal for a consistent peacetime sink.
  24. Shiho Nishizumi

    Fixing the war system

    I think it would be a bad change to implement, especially if made from the angle of a resource sink. I can understand and sympathize with wanting to fix the problem of R1 deciding the course of a war, but the economic aspect would be rendered moot simply because of the heightened cost of waging war discouraging people even more from warring than as of current. The econ problem should be tackled with a constant peacetime sink instead. Just add improvements that use up refined resources and pump out cash. You would be killing refined production (due to limited slots and/or pollution stacking up), using up current stocks, and generating cash which would all result in refined being less common and money being more abundant, thus driving prices up. I also disagree with the change as a whole, because it would basically shift warfare to being economic warfare (even more so than it arguably is as of current), given that the only way to subjugate some definitely would be to make him run out of resources. While coordination would generate better trades, it would still be beholden to how deep each participants pockets are. Exception being in the case of gross military incompetence on the richer party's side which would be no different from as of current. With that out of the way... 1) True. 2) Would fall flat due to aforementioned costs shying people away from warring as often. 3) Fair, though first strike is still important due to controls. 4) A pipedream due to fear of escalation. 5) Controls are also an advantage. 6) Not that black and white, given that beiging would shield him from new attacks and thus reduce the potential max damage dealt in coordinated hits due to less people being engaged. 1) A lot stronger, given better rolls due to larger armies, and the capacity to fully flex their econ assets. 2) That, or aversion to them unless if absolutely necessary. People would be far more concerned about letting a sphere/s sit on the sideline and just keep generating stuff which would give them greater direct staying power in a war. 3) Yes. 4) They would likely need to be able to kill military or other strong buff to justify their usage instead of spamming navals or airstrikes, especially if the target is at war with plenty of people; obvious exception being nuking a 4k infra city. 5) Yes. I'm glad to see this being added in. It would have been a colossal oversight if it had gone unattended. 1) That would likely rip one of their few benefits, that being them being decent ratio netters due to how cheap they are. They aren't a particularly strong unit, and being able to max right away would be a nerf as is, given their quicker mobbing rate as of current. 2) Yes. 3) They would need a new niche, given their current one would be largely gone under that framework. Either killing units directly, or impairing their production would make the most sense to me. It would be a very delicate thing to balance, as if handled without care they could inexpensively cripple conventional military entirely, but that could possibly be mended with hardcaps or diminishing returns over repeated use. 4) That would be a good change under that rework. 5) It would probably still be fine by then. 6) Not a bad idea, though that would make NS ranges basically useless.

Important Information

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