Shiho Nishizumi

And who actually dealt with it from beginning to end, rather than drop out midway through.

Unpleasant as it may sound; yes, that's how it works. Having actually done it myself, it's a risk we accepted when TGH signed KT and split from the treaty web. We got rolled shortly afterwards. We simply took the rolling and focused both on the war itself, and the post-war FA to assist on what eventually materialized as KF. Which, rather ironically, we sat out of. Talking is easy if you intend to back out at the slightest incovenience.

Looming threat of... us having cordial relationships with Swamp, agreeing to Rose's request to let Camelot be once asked to do so (and if I need remind people here, as they are seemingly pretending otherwise; we weren't the only skeptics pertaining Camelot), and doing nothing when Sphinx called for us to help him vs HM; help which, had we provided, would've given us both an opportune window to hit HM and secured us an ally for our so-called "hegemony". Right. These just being starters, of course. As Partisan told Hodor, we simply recognize that all of the above, done to accommodate for your (irrational) fear, have not been noted and have been ignored in your hollow, inconsistent and hypocritical spiel.

It was realized that it wasn't possible to go up the staircase by skipping every other step. And considering that you yourself said that you'd have taken to justifying *their* CB if you were our FA head; sorry Hodor, but I can't really quite take it at face value.

Except they didn't own up to the risk, nor is the CB being taken as legitimate. So it seems like another 22 pages are in order. If I'm to be honest, the amount of scrutiny pertaining to it is as hilarious as it is insane, given what Cooper has listed, given that wars have been justified, waged, and accepted for far less, given the transparent convenience (for your group) in discrediting Sphinx as a legitimate source, etc. And given that the response to such 'shaky logs' has been a combination of people throwing each other under the bus, unsavory comparisons, the aforementioned rather baseless scrutiny, empty rhetoric, and when all else failed, ultimately silence; yes, that tells me that the logs aren't shaky.

Now I understand why your side is gagging y'all.

I mean, they're consistently full of it.

Months apart from each other, whether you count the feelers or the actual peace talks.

That is misleading. Chaos was de-spied thoroughly (brought down to 20sh spies), sure. KETOGG, not so much. The 10:1 ratio also doesn't actually pan out in practice because BK's reinforcements came in staggered, which was chiefly beneficial for conventional as they practically came in as rebuys became available, but also for espionage. I'd suggest you re-read what I said. I didn't say "purely". I said "largely". The changes being suggested aren't part of my argument, or the point I'm making. Which is why I didn't quote it.

DtC, both you and I know how the spy game is something that largely favors raw numbers for securing. Cases where it happened otherwise (e.g. NPOLT) was because of a combination of disjointed foes and the bulks being handled separately (NPO entering once Leo's BK and Covenant were already wiped). Your side has a 2:1 advantage and actually opened with spy ops on us in the interim between CTO/TEst's hit and our hit on HM. We have the spy team (which is why you're practically 0'd, for example), but given the other factors winning it wasn't a realistic prospect in the first place. So you'd be best served to pocket that "git gud" card for the time being.

If I'm allowed to be frank, stats only mean anything if the guy possessing them keeps it up once he's under; otherwise, it's just meaningless padding. I've seen too many people with ostensibly good stats just purple/roll over once they've been 0'd or dragged.

Radicalization Of Investment.

I can confirm. As a matter of fact, Chaos was unwilling to hit either sphere w/KETOGG, and when asked about what if of one of the spheres hitting us, they had said something to the tune of "We'll weigh in the situation and then decide whether to assist or not." (for clarification's sake, this being before Surf's Up had started). Which is actually far more in line with the spirit of minispheres (well, multispheres at this point), than the empty preaching thereof whilst simultaneously covertly engaging in practices which entirely undermine it's foundations which we've seen happen as of late.

Ronny, I thought you didn't FA?

I see that the opposing coalition's FA has aptly taken Persica's advice.

Merely a matter of fact by this point. Liar.

That's a falsehood. We gave assurances to two parties. The deals were either set in place (as claimed by your lot) or existed (as substantiated by the logs) regardless. Your timeline of events is misplaced. At first Rose seemed undecided, but it became apparent by the last day that they were going to join in. The statements you're referencing to here occurred after Rose's demeanor and shift of tone was apparent. That they opened with espionage ops before we had even opened on HM/you (and the pre-planned blitz which followed) just reinforces that they had plans to get involved even before it became apparent to us that they were going to, due to the time necessary to arrange the targets and other logistical needs. Two dogpiles back to back do not show a bright future for multi-polarity.

Will you AFK for 1/2 of the war duration after dropping a FA disaster of a statement once more this time around?

Not so much to encourage it, but rather to avoid having a project which is directly detrimental in such a case. More of what Akuryo had suggested. Yes, perhaps not fully realistic/authentic, but such aren't something I'm hugely bothered about considering some of the stuff you see in game (such as being able to repopulate/rebuild overnight).

Cost slashing is a way to make it more appealing, even if it's a bit of the boring alternative. I'd probably try to encourage getting it by having it do something unique. The idea of ura cost upfront and no upkeep is such an aspect (even though yes, long term demand would be lower and it'd have an impact on uranium's value), since it means that you don't have to about restocking uranium to remain powered. This is a fairly minor convenience factor for peacetime, though it does mean that you can't go unpowered in a war setting where you're blockaded (so long you're not being bill locked that is). Obviously ignoring native uranium production, which may either not be a possibility for the person, or simply isn't economically worthwhile to do so. Tweaking the max infra it could power would also address the problem of needing two NPP's anyways if you go above 3k infra, which is a worthwhile consideration for the target audience.

That's actually fair (I felt that something was off, but couldn't quite place my finger on it after having double checked most cells). But even after doing such, you're getting a ROI of over a year and a half. A project like Telecom (which is aimed at roughly the same audience) had a ROI of third of that. And Telecom is already considered to be a very long term project. If you want to be generous and do 30k/slot instead, that'd be roughly 16 months before you get your money back. There's also the issue that if a nation is doing over 3000 infra, then the project is useless because that'd require two power plants anyways, neutering the benefit from the extra slot. And if you wanted to run two NPP's in such an instance, then the project is actually losing you cash since it's using up more uranium. If you lower it to 2800 infra instead, then higher than 2800 the same issue would persist, albeit a bit sooner. Perhaps disproportionately sooner because 3k as a top for infra is fairly common for whales. You're overstating the value this project would have for smaller people. For it's cost they could just get a new city (or several new cities) and get more improvements as a whole from them, alongside the benefit of more military. This is before we even consider the fact that it'd need them to go above 2k infra for the benefit to be relevant in the first place. Alternatively, they could get A/UP and recoup that investment far more quickly than with this project. Basically, this project would be of most use for people who are large enough to where they can't just buy another city (or have that money contribute greatly towards their next) or set of projects, but also don't go above 3k infra ( and going above 3k isn't exactly uncommon for whales).

It's a waste of cash for whoever gets it, and a waste of dev time for Alex and the rest due to the (near) 0 usage it'd see.

My post was a response to Roberts stating that you can not get onto a lower city count and low mil guy anymore. The point of it was to state that you can. I merely cited a extreme case to get the point across. If you dig through my posts, you'll find me criticizing the original NS changes that came with the casualty ones. I also supported the mil NS changes as suggested via DM's, before they went live. Because yes, having a fully milled nation be able to hit on a ZM'd one the same size without issues was not good. And because that's an MMR, not a 5553 build. I presume you meant win. And yes, between a beige and airstriking soldiers, it should go without saying that the latter is preferable, and it's the reason why people airstrike soldiers. But it becomes an argument of the lesser evil at that point. The preferable route is just to build your own soldiers if that's viable. Eh, it 100% adds up over the period of time and extent they did it. There are many wars which I netted 8 digits largely because of that. And as I had said, it wasn't the only thing that burned through their stockpiles (constantly selling to 300 infra also did, for example), but just one of many which contributed towards it. Nobody would end a war for econ reasons after R1 because that'd be too short for grinding down the other side's infra, especially if you're trying to actually secure it instead of dishing out beiges for maximum upfront damage (and if you're just beiging out, you're handing the other guy rebuild time to hit back). There's a reason why people tend to open with raid nowadays on a war. It's because infra will invariably be ground down, and the priority is to have the other guy be as high NS as possible to make it easier to reach him for subsequent rounds. The long wars are the ones where inefficiencies make themselves the most felt because of the amount of times they occur compounded by lower output due to swapped slots. And are the ones where stuff such as opportunity costs often come up as a factor. To be frank, it's Prefontaine we're talking about. I'd not be surprised if he threw soldiers in to pad the list so to make it more impressive on his CV. As for the rest... soldiers becoming tankier is more useful for raiders. Fortifying while it still provided resistance was better for raiders, as it meant not being beiged and getting looted in turn. It obviously got changed, but it was nonetheless a thing for some time. Higher unlootable cash minimum is more useful for raiders as it means that you lose less to being GA'd or having to spend less to avoid it bleeding. It also guarantees that you'll have sufficient cash at hand to recruit more soldiers. It's true that raiding has taken a few hits over time, but it's also benefited from additions which happened throughout time.

Meh. I've seen C37's hit down to as low as C23 with current scores. And I'm sure that they could reach lower for the smaller guys who like to stack taller infra than it makes sense to do at that given city count. Perhaps it's not to the extent of 2:1 as it used to be pre-changes, but the recent increase to military score made smaller guys more reachable. And also, bearing in mind that pre-changes the soldiers were dying a lot more quickly (or at the very least, with less effort involved for the defender). And no, max soldiers on that specific 37cv23c instance just cleaves through the rather normal 2 factory MMR. Carrying out an attack that costs you more than it does your opponent is economically unsound. The severity thereof may vary, with planes vs soldiers being the most extreme and one which will never be economically sound to do (short of being able to roughly wipe out the totality of that count with a single airstrike, which would be obviously dumb to try to gun for). How much this matters vary from person to person. NPO didn't care (among the cost of others of their practices), which is why they nearly went broke just two months in and had to cheat to keep afloat. Just an example of how much it actually matters. If a war's being waged for economic reasons, then this matters substantially more and it becomes counterproductive to that war's reason to perform that attack in the first place. Staying power is a thing. However, at the end of the day, they're still a meatshield unit which is expected to be recruited and to die quickly. Which is why they max out in three days, as opposed to five. A certain degree of turnover is expected from them. And this, alongside what I had said earlier, is why I can see why people would care to tweak the casualties rates a bit. This tweaking isn't actually that significant in practice either, since it's not 10% flat out (as in, going from 25% to 35%), but 10% modifying another %. So it ends up being an increase from 25% to 27.5% as Ava's post illustrated. A practical 2.5% increase won't spell the death of soldiers as a raiding unit. Them dying a bit more quickly isn't something that I personally care much for. The main thing I'm interested in (and would like to see go through) is them killing a few less tanks, which I find to be a more proper change for an ostensibly meatshield unit, and because they do kill a fair bit of tanks as it stands.