Syndicate Press Release: Kangaroo's meat sales increase by 200%!

[Greatnate]

Thanks for the change in frame of reference, bud: some of your friends here were crowing (read: chest-thumping?) like they won the conflict. I've maintained throughout that Alpha can't afford to continue these losses, maybe you can help me convince them since you agree with me? Kappa

 

Since before you were a nation, I get that it means less these days, but still 30% by score. We can easily afford these loses cause there's !@#$ all left to lose. You're the target rich environment , you're welcome to join us in the rubble.

 

Edit: Post broke.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Greatnate

[Beowulf the Second]

Since before you were a nation, I get that it means less these days, but still 30% by score. We can easily afford these loses cause there's !@#$ all left to lose. You're the target rich environment , you're welcome to join us in the rubble.

 

Edit: Post broke.

 

1. wtf I had to read that post like three times to understand it

2. Greatnate. We were literally just talking about how much revenue you're losing per day. Did you forget? By your own damn calculations, you are losing 145.41% MORE per member than what t$ is losing (so 245.41% total).

[Greatnate]

1. wtf I had to read that post like three times to understand it

2. Greatnate. We were literally just talking about how much revenue you're losing per day. Did you forget? By your own damn calculations, you are losing 145.41% MORE per member than what t$ is losing (so 245.41% total).

 

The lost revenue at this point has not even surpassed the lost infra. How is it supposed to be a scary number that makes us want to give up?

 

Edit: Down hits by ranks were a big deal before you started playing this game, these day scores are much bigger and more important, but part of me does remember those days. There was a time when the 1st ranked aa could not hit the 10th ranked aa without international indignation.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Greatnate

[LordRahl2]

So a straight ZI and long term blockade on all your members is the answer or what?

[Beowulf the Second]

Got it. Ranks thing makes sense now. That's actually kind of interesting but there's a more pressing point

 

THE REASON WHY IT MATTERS IS THAT YOU ARE CURRENTLY AND CONTINUALLY LOSING MORE THAN US. EVERY DAY EACH OF YOUR MEMBERS LOSES 5.89M, MORE THAN WHAT T$ MEMBERS ARE LOSING. It doesn't even matter if y'all have dealt 20000B more damage than us so far, if currently you are losing money at a faster rate, the sane thing to do is end the war. It's ridiculous that you've dragged this loss out to the point that t$ has been the one advocating peace (literally because we're bored of this BS). Valakia went back to y'all a couple days ago with a reoffer of white peace and yall flipped him off again with your ridiculous 2 month NAP offer

[Greatnate]

So a straight ZI and long term blockade on all your members is the answer or what?

 

ZI is a lie, nobody has been zi'd on Orbis except by their own hand. T$ has been unable to blockade our members in this tier. Obviously, it's not a long term solution and we have things that we want, t$ is well aware, but we're happy to grind until they want to give them to us. 

[Spaceman Thrax]

Nate losing his chill is probably the most damning metric of this war. Never thought I'd see it, but his Alpha is showing.

 

 

You're not grinding anything when you're not able to damage us faster than we can generate income. You're just delaying your own rebuild, and keeping your allies in military spec costing them money.

 

Edited May 25, 2016 by Manthrax

[LordRahl2]

Hahaha. You are factually wrong there friend. People have been ZIed. And it sucks. Now then, the ZI or effective ZI would precede a blockade by people with fewer cities.

 

But I was just asking if that's what it would take.

[Beowulf the Second]

Well, at least Greatnate talks to us instead of hauling ship when the questions get tough. I appreciate that.

 

Looking especially at you Steve. If you can't guess, I'm still quite salty about your 'diplomacy' on our forums when we were still allies lmao, that was a kicker.

EDIT: dammit he stopped reading the topic. ah he prob went to sleep

Edited May 25, 2016 by Beowulf the Second

[Ekaterina Kalmyk]

ZI is a lie, nobody has been zi'd on Orbis except by their own hand. T$ has been unable to blockade our members in this tier. Obviously, it's not a long term solution and we have things that we want, t$ is well aware, but we're happy to grind until they want to give them to us.

 

What things do Alpha want, besides a NAP? Because a NAP basically means "no fighting" and that's exactly what Alpha's rejecting when they reject t$'s offers of peace...

 

I don't think Alpha is ever going to get a NAP from t$ because that implies a level of trust that just isn't there, but if Alpha wanted the fighting to stop, you'd think Alpha would accept peace.

 

Anyway, Alpha's going to do whatever it wants to do, obviously, but it just doesn't make much sense to me.

 

And I do see a scenario in which Alpha gets a short NAP from t$ in a month or two from now out of sheer annoyance, but I wouldn't say annoying someone into doing what you want is a victory. At least not one to be proud of, lolz.

[Kid Winchell]

I made an estimate for infra damage done by t$ and Alpha (sorry, TEst). Check it here. I grabbed the losses table from each timeline for completed wars that currently exist (the first three days of the conflict have been lost to the sands of time) and the city/infra stats from April 22, when each alliance was at a peak just before the war. The cost of damage is calculated assuming that all cities started with the average for their alliance and that damage was distributed evenly. The rebuild cost per city is calculated using the infrastructure cost formula provided on the wiki. It's not a perfect estimate, but it's as accurate as you can get without tracking nations individually over time (which I might get around to doing post-war). Anyways:

 

	                The Syndicate	     Alpha
Total Infra Lost	440,054.95           553,105.41
Cost of Damage          $6,569,308,905.18    $8,742,779,981.24
Cost Per Member         $61,974,612.31	     $264,932,726.70

Edited May 25, 2016 by Roll Sheepy

[Greatnate]

 

-(the first three days of the conflict have been lost to the sands of time)-

 

You don't say. Good on you though Ghux, those numbers are damn close to mine.

[Prefontaine]

ZI is a lie, nobody has been zi'd on Orbis except by their own hand. T$ has been unable to blockade our members in this tier. Obviously, it's not a long term solution and we have things that we want, t$ is well aware, but we're happy to grind until they want to give them to us.

 

What are the things you want?

[Ekaterina Kalmyk]

You don't say. Good on you though Ghux, those numbers are damn close to mine.

 

The link didn't work for me ("Sorry, unable to open the file at this time. Please check the address and try again."), but going by the numbers in his post...

 

We're all in agreement that Alpha has lost more infrastructure, sustained a greater cost for that damage, and has a greater "per member" burden for said cost?

 

Too bad the first three days' data has been lost -- I'd expect there was a lot of damage done during that time.

[Placentica]

It strikes me as odd, that tS claims to have gone to war with us because we were "plotting" to attack them.  Then when we ask for a NAP, to prevent that kind of attack, they refuse.  So let me be clear.  I would rather be at war for 30-60+ more days, than to peace out this war, and be attacked by tS again in 30 days after we've rebought our infra.

 

The purpose of a NAP is due to lack of trust.  I don't need a NAP with GPA.  I trust they won't be attacking us and vice versa.  A NAP substitutes for trust.  Because, one thing I trust - is that tS won't break a NAP to attack us again, even if they wanted to.  Refusing a NAP, is a sign they want to attack Alpha in the future.  That is what is most interesting.

 

Let's put it another way.  A NAP doesn't make it easier to attack each other.  It makes it harder or doesn't matter (if you break a treaty).

 

Ekaterina, I offered a 60-90 day NAP and The Syndicate did counter-offer Alpha with a 30-day NAP, but I turned that down because 30 days is just enough time to rebuy our infra, then get attacked again a month later.  As an alliance that was never plotting to roll tS, I was fine with a 90-180 day NAP, but I would be willing to compromise at 60-days.  This is where peace talks stalled and we will continue to nuke mid and upper tier tS nations until an agreement can be reached.

 

I do enjoy all the Syndicate members who constantly get the value of our alliance's banking system and warchest levels wrong.  Someone should put up a poll about how much cash we have left.

 

[Prefontaine]

Refusing a NAP is not a sign someone wants to attack you. I've refused tons of NAPs to alliances I've never attacked over the years. They don't want to sign anything with you, Steve because how it went last time. You also didn't require a NAP from TEst.

[Spaceman Thrax]

So let me be clear.  I would rather be at war for 30-60+ more days, than to peace out this war, and be attacked by tS again in 30 days after we've rebought our infra.

 

That seems sensible enough, I suppose? But here's a more sensible thing: declare white peace 3 weeks ago, stop trying to pose threats to our alliance/allies, and don't get attacked by us in 30, 60, or 900 days.

 

Whatever you like. 

[Keegoz]

Refusing a NAP is not a sign someone wants to attack you. I've refused tons of NAPs to alliances I've never attacked over the years. They don't want to sign anything with you, Steve because how it went last time. You also didn't require a NAP from TEst.

On the TEst not needing a NAP, I'd suggest he believes you won't be attacking him without good reason.

[Ekaterina Kalmyk]

It strikes me as odd, that tS claims to have gone to war with us because we were "plotting" to attack them.  Then when we ask for a NAP, to prevent that kind of attack, they refuse.  So let me be clear.  I would rather be at war for 30-60+ more days, than to peace out this war, and be attacked by tS again in 30 days after we've rebought our infra.

 

The purpose of a NAP is due to lack of trust.  I don't need a NAP with GPA.  I trust they won't be attacking us and vice versa.  A NAP substitutes for trust.  Because, one thing I trust - is that tS won't break a NAP to attack us again, even if they wanted to.  Refusing a NAP, is a sign they want to attack Alpha in the future.  That is what is most interesting.

 

Let's put it another way.  A NAP doesn't make it easier to attack each other.  It makes it harder or doesn't matter (if you break a treaty).

 

Ekaterina, I offered a 60-90 day NAP and The Syndicate did counter-offer Alpha with a 30-day NAP, but I turned that down because 30 days is just enough time to rebuy our infra, then get attacked again a month later.  As an alliance that was never plotting to roll tS, I was fine with a 90-180 day NAP, but I would be willing to compromise at 60-days.  This is where peace talks stalled and we will continue to nuke mid and upper tier tS nations until an agreement can be reached.

 

I do enjoy all the Syndicate members who constantly get the value of our alliance's banking system and warchest levels wrong.  Someone should put up a poll about how much cash we have left.

 

I see, so you're willing to enter into an agreement of trust with an entity you clearly don't trust. That's certainly one way to go about it, though I thought MDPs were supposed to be a defense against untrustworthy alliances attacking your alliance in this game. Why else would Alpha have so many? And perhaps more importantly, why require a NAP at all, unless you can't rely on your allies to come to your aid?

 

Anyhow, thanks for the insight into your peace negotiation process. Your point of view makes a bit more sense to me now, even if I still don't agree with it.

 

You use GPA as your example of an alliance with which you wouldn't need to sign a NAP to trust that they wouldn't attack you, but GPA is famously neutral and non-aggressive. Are there any other alliances you trust enough not to attack you without a NAP?

 

And one last thing I'd like to point out: "As an alliance that was never plotting to roll tS" -- The Syndicate's assertions were never that you'd get your own hands dirty or risk your own pixels to roll tS, but rather that you'd encourage your allies to do it for you, along with the usual backchannel badmouthing of The Syndicate to try to get their allies to turn on them (just summarizing, there's already been at least one thread detailing specifics of The Syndicate's claims).

[Kid Winchell]

 The purpose of a NAP is due to lack of trust.  I don't need a NAP with GPA.  I trust they won't be attacking us and vice versa.  A NAP substitutes for trust.  Because, one thing I trust - is that tS won't break a NAP to attack us again, even if they wanted to.  Refusing a NAP, is a sign they want to attack Alpha in the future.  That is what is most interesting.

 

Let's put it another way.  A NAP doesn't make it easier to attack each other.  It makes it harder or doesn't matter (if you break a treaty).

A treaty is not a substitute for trust. It's the exact opposite, actually. Alliances sign treaties with one another because they trust that the other will abide by the terms of the treaty. You said it yourself, even. You want a NAP because you trust tS to not break its word. The Syndicate refuses a NAP because it does not trust you to uphold your end of the agreement. As you said yourself, a NAP is a hindrance if you abide by the terms or insignificant if you don't. And as the Syndicate does not trust you abide by the NAP, in the eyes of the Syndicate you are asking for a guarantee that the Syndicate will have restricted movement in the case of (inevitable, if unrelated) future conflicts while you are free to do as you please. And I don't believe there has ever been a conflict in which the victors have agreed to terms more favorable for the losers than themselves.

[Placentica]

Refusing a NAP is not a sign someone wants to attack you. I've refused tons of NAPs to alliances I've never attacked over the years. They don't want to sign anything with you, Steve because how it went last time. You also didn't require a NAP from TEst.

The peace you offered was taken without much countering for other reasons as I took you at your word that you wouldn't have joined in the attack if you had you known about the 1v1 offer, after we all knew tS was attacking, that they turned it down.  And I trust you to get to the truth about Sparta-TEst tensions and when Alpha became involved in that.

 

Last war is a prefect example of my point.  The Syndicate attacked our MDP ally, Rose.  Alpha couldn't attack and defend our MDP ally, Rose because tS and Alpha had a NAP as part of our treaty.  tS has even said that had we not had our NAP/treaty - tS would've attacked Alpha.  So I think last war is a perfect example of why I am pursuing a NAP as part of terms.

[Spaceman Thrax]

The peace you offered was taken without much countering for other reasons as I took you at your word that you wouldn't have joined in the attack if you had you known about the 1v1 offer, after we all knew tS was attacking, that they turned it down.  And I trust you to get to the truth about Sparta-TEst tensions and when Alpha became involved in that.

 

Last war is a prefect example of my point.  The Syndicate attacked our MDP ally, Rose.  Alpha couldn't attack and defend our MDP ally, Rose because tS and Alpha had a NAP as part of our treaty.  tS has even said that had we not had our NAP/treaty - tS would've attacked Alpha.  So I think last war is a perfect example of why I am pursuing a NAP as part of terms.

 

I think at this point even Rose has admitted they were the aggressor, by the by.

[Prefontaine]

Steve, they don't trust you. You don't trust them. A NAP is really a worthless thing. i believe you should find a mediator between your alliances to work on solving this conflict if you actually want it to end. Which you should, yeah you can poke nukes here and there but you're damage output will not like exceed their growth output. Meanwhile you're not growing at all, you're expensing resources, and you could be back to making lots of money with your nations if you had peaced out weeks ago.

 

I'm not arguing about your ability to be annoying to syndicate with pokes from nukes and navy. Both of you have proven you're not going to budge even though it's in both of your best interests. It's time to get some third party help.

 

I think at this point even Rose has admitted they were the aggressor, by the by.

Pub stated they were on the radio show. He was the leader at the time.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Prefontaine

[Placentica]

That seems sensible enough, I suppose? But here's a more sensible thing: declare white peace 3 weeks ago, stop trying to pose threats to our alliance/allies, and don't get attacked by us in 30, 60, or 900 days.

 

Whatever you like. 

Like my opinion on why you attacked Alpha this war.....I do not trust that should everyone in Alpha go 100% dead quiet (like not use any comms with anyone ever, IRC, in-game, forums, etc, lol), you won't still attack us in the very near future. 

 

I've maintained that tS was going to use Alpha to start the next great war, no matter what we did or didn't do.  I trust a NAP.

We have not taken any real damage in the past 2-3 weeks while doing over 10x more $ in infra dmg to you than we are taking.  I'm being honest when i say you have given us no incentive to end the war.  Just lots of vitriol about how awful I am as a human being.   You can believe all the spin about how we are all just "nuclear rogues" doing no damage, but daily infra damage numbers do not lie.  And in the past week we've done $600m+ in infra damage to tS while only taking about $50m.  Internally, where there is no public spin, I know you are seeing these numbers too.

[Roy Mustang]

I'm not arguing about your ability to be annoying to syndicate with pokes from nukes and navy. Both of you have proven you're not going to budge even though it's in both of your best interests. It's time to get some third party help.

 

We dropped the apology and offered straight white peace. That is budging. We walked our half way to the center, Alpha's left us hanging.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Roy Mustang