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

[Placentica]

I suppose that's why:

 

1) Your alliance expent so many alum (critical for nukes) in planes that you later recycled away, losing a good chunk of it.

2) Your alliance had only 18 nuke capable nations out of 30 being a mainly high-tier alliance (if I'm preparing for a nuclear defensive war, I'd build as many NRFs as possible)

3) Only 10 of those 18 nuclear-capable nations had resources to purchase their daily nuke during the first week of the war (according to your own account)

4) Only about 7 of them have resources to purchase their daily nuke right now (acording to the game data on Alpha nukes launched a day)

5) Your bank had so much Steel and Munitions (useless for nukes) and not that much Uranium. According to the data seen in Steve's bank movements, I can see him moving as much as 150,000 munitions and 40,000 steel, but his peak uranium moved was 7,000. An amount that lets you purchase 28 nukes, which isn't even 2 days of your alliance's full nuke production capacity.

 

So, either you weren't preparing anything, or you did prepare poorly.

You are driving me crazy!  Your conclusions are so horrible dude.  Someone inside tS needs to straighten you out man.  Maybe between Greatnate and I, you will see some reason.  I can't do all 5 pts without going insane, so I'll do these 2.

 

2) Every nation in Alpha gets a nuke loan to buy a NRF when the timing works is right.  Alpha is a defensive minded alliance.  I actually prefer nation building, anyone can attest to my joys in the market, trading, but I'm not afraid to lose pixels either as you well know.  Nukes will always be a defensive weapon and some of us had them for over a year without launching a single one.  We spiked our buying immediately when we knew you were going to attack us.  You don't buy nukes for any other reason than defensive, imo.  Nukes are a terrible offensive weapon.

 

5) Yea, our peak was much higher than 7,000 plus that doesn't account for the thousands in each Alpha nation.  Sure, no one has 30 nukes worth of uranium.  I certainly didn't being up to 32 nukes launched.

 

It's still quite funny you think you know our bank based on a loot record and our bank records.  Even I'm smart enough to know your bank isn't just our latest tS loot plus Jessica Rabbit's bank records.

[Ekaterina Kalmyk]

You are driving me crazy!  Your conclusions are so horrible dude.  Someone inside tS needs to straighten you out man.  Maybe between Greatnate and I, you will see some reason.  I can't do all 5 pts without going insane, so I'll do these 2.

 

Well, that must've been a short drive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[Sisyphus]

In a game like this, there are never 100% guarantees of anything. The Syndicate has said that they're not interested in attacking again and that they'd rather just forget Alpha exists. I'm inclined to believe them, you're not. Either way, you can't ever be sure of anything, but you'll never get any sort of trust without extending some first.

The only reason we're even here is because Alpha insisted on starting something.

 

The only reason we would attack them in the future is if they insisted on starting something.

 

I think it's kind of ridiculous that Placentica and others in Alpha have spent the last three months talking shit about us and planning our destruction but expect us to sign a NAP that would effectively limit our ability if they started repeating such behavior.

 

Even if they are useful tools for calming tensions, NAPs at their most basic level still depend on good faith between both parties.

 

We have no interest in continuing hostilities but we have even less faith in Alpha to act in good will towards us after signing a NAP.

 

And considering the way they've conducted themselves over the last month especially, I think they're getting off absurdly easy with white peace, to be quite honest.

[Crust]

I don't get it tho, why the heck would t$ end a war just to start it again? If it's to start another world war, shouldn't this war have been one? I mean if Alpha didn't do all those things t$ are saying, if it's all a bullshit spinn, this should have ignited a sphere war. It didn't. Why would t$ attempt it again, knowing they risk losing face and without Alpha's allies jumping in once again (if that's what they want).

 

Or is it cause t$ wants alpha to rebuild so they can do more cash damage? If that is true and also the claim that t$ is losing more money rn than Alpha, why would they wanna go at it once again? A month gives y'all enough time to buy a bunch of nukes + armies, why would they want to risk losing more cash on another war?

 

There's a lot of things that makes little to no sense without some sort of proof or explanation.

[DodgyBobMcMayday]

Steve, 

 

I admire your resolve.

 

But heres the thing;

TS is offering Alpha a chance to rebuild. 

Like you stated the only thing you get to dictate is to keep this war going. We have, morale and money wise, no problem running out Alphas bank (which is what counts. !@#$ those subjective "winning" bullshit stats) and ruining any chance Alpha has to rebuild. 

which in the the end would mean a NAP to Alpha would be useless anyway since Alpha would be nothing but smoldering rubble and no threat to TS. 

 

Take the white peace Steve. Yes it will hurt your ego. But it will give Alpha a future.

 

Think of the children Steve.

 

(who am i? and why do i have a opinion?)

Edited May 26, 2016 by DodgyBobMcMayday

[Prefonteen]

Oh we are most definitely losing this war, lol.  I have no issues with admitting defeat.

 

It's not so much pride as it is future survival.  All opposition spin aside, we are alive and nuking and attacking and doing as much damage as possible in this situation.  We aren't going to win the war doing $100m in infra damage a day to them, but it's the best we can do right now.

 

Alpha would prefer to be in this war, while we have nothing to lose infra-wise than to peace out and then be attacked in the next 30-60 days, etc.  It is my opinion that tS is planning to do that knowing we will be less prepared for a future attack.  Thus we will continue to be at war until I feel the right assurances are in place. 

 

That is where the NAP comes in.  To end this cycle of tS-Alpha hate (hopefully everyone moves on, lol), I offered a 90-180 day NAP so we could all simmer down.  tS a few days ago offered a 30-day NAP and while that's progress I find that to be not much help, whereas a 60-90 day one is necessary for Alpha's future survival.  Sure you can get around it, but then it's another alliance that will have to suck 300-400+ nukes.  I'm willing to take that gamble on a completely unprovoked attack on Alpha.

 

Being the loser here, lol, I'm not in a place to dictate anything other than to continue the war, but if I had it my way we'd have a 180-day NAP.  White peace is very very bad for Alpha.  tS is planning a future attack on Alpha to try to start another great war, like I think they will, then it's exactly what they want and what just white peace is terrible for Alpha.  Lets make no bones about that, that white peace is not "good" for Alpha.  It's signing to be attacked in the near future by tS.

 

You are aware that a NAP in no way guarantees non-aggression right? If I/t$ wanted to do you harm following this war, I would simply sign the NAP, wait a month for you to rebuild *while the NAP is still active* and then incite someone else to hit you, or simply pull the triggers on your allies. You would then either be forced to sit out and watch your allies burn (losing precious capital), or be forced to jump in ill-prepared and lose your rebuilt pixels anyways.

 

While we do not plan to do such things (hence our refusal), your assertion that a NAP magically ends tensions is ridiculous.

 

Similarly, you could cook up a similar thing to take us out. Here's the crux: We're not planning to do jackshit. You not believing us is not our issue. You're free to continue the war if you so desire. It does nothing but delay your own rebuild. If I have my way (and chances are that I will when I return), you will not receive your NAP. Not without providing ample concessions. Why? Because I do not trust you to uphold your treaty. History is on our side in that regard: You have already shown tendencies to take liberties where treaty obligations are involved (See: last war).

 

A NAP is silly, because it's only worth a damn if both parties trust one another to uphold their end of the bargain. You have clearly stated that you trust us to uphold our end. We do not trust you to uphold yours. Find a way to brush that concern away and perhaps we can talk. Until then: you're talking up a brick wall.

Edited May 26, 2016 by Partisan

[Roy Mustang]

You are aware that a NAP in no way guarantees non-aggression right? If I/t$ wanted to do you harm following this war, I would simply sign the NAP, wait a month for you to rebuild *while the NAP is still active* and then incite someone else to hit you, or simply pull the triggers on your allies. You would then either be forced to sit out and watch your allies burn (losing precious capital), or be forced to jump in ill-prepared and lose your rebuilt pixels anyways.

 

While we do not plan to do such things (hence our refusal), your assertion that a NAP magically ends tensions is ridiculous.

 

Similarly, you could cook up a similar thing to take us out. Here's the crux: We're not planning to do jackshit. You not believing us is not our issue. You're free to continue the war if you so desire. It does nothing but delay your own rebuild. If I have my way (and chances are that I will when I return), you will not receive your NAP. Not without providing ample concessions. Why? Because I do not trust you to uphold your treaty. History is on our side in that regard: You have already shown tendencies to take liberties where treaty obligations are involved (See: last war).

 

A NAP is silly, because it's only worth a damn if both parties trust one another to uphold their end of the bargain. You have clearly stated that you trust us to uphold our end. We do not trust you to uphold yours. Find a way to brush that concern away and perhaps we can talk. Until then: you're talking up a brick wall.

 

Assuming he hasn't put me on ignore, he should be aware, considering that I said more or less the same thing last night

 

How many times do we have to make the same point before you respond to it, Sir Kangaroo?

 

Wait are we doing that public negotiation thing now? Partisan will be so disappointed he wasn't around for it

 

Let's be real, if we wanted to find a way around a NAP and screw with your infra rebuys, we could. Ask an ally to hit you on our behalf, hire Arrgh and Fraggle to mess up your day, etc. We really have no interest in wasting either our time nor our money in doing so. In that same vein, we have no interest in attacking you again ourselves even if there is no NAP. Really we'd just prefer to forget you exist entirely, so unless you intend to circle the wagons for some kind of revenge war, you really could just sign the white peace and we could both enjoy mutually ignoring each other.

[Apeman]

As always well written partisan. Truth be told a nap is pointless as long as you have outside treaties. With all the reasons and shit behind us, surely alpha or her allies won't let this keep going for much longer. I respect what both parties are trying to accomplish. Currently it appears as a loss for both sides.

 

Time for a science experiment. TS quit hitting for 6 hours. If alpha stops then walk away. I believe they only fight because they are being hit. I admire that. Keep your eye on them, be paranoid. Hire some thugs, or whatever needs to be done.

 

 

Please don't let Steve take most nukes thrown. Pretty please

 

If need be I volunteer to host peace talks.

[Buorhann]

You could come join t$, tank your score, then throw nukes at them Apeman.  FIGHT FIRE WITH FIRE

[LostWorld]

Whitrpeace? NEVARRRR

[HopeSolo]

Whitrpeace? NEVARRRR

hey look, it's the guy who declared 3 wars, then ran out of gas and munitions after day 1 and is now getting owed.

 

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=30214

[LordRahl2]

hey look, it's the guy who declared 3 wars, then ran out of gas and munitions after day 1 and is now getting owed.

 

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=30214

Wow. You guys were able to take down a 4 month old nation with 6-7 Alpha fighters? No way!

[Valakias]

Wow. You guys were able to take down a 4 month old nation with 6-7 Alpha fighters? No way!

Dem skills amirite

[Tali]

Dem skills amirite

Alphas war machine!!!!!1!1!!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1111!!!!!!!!

[Ivan the Red]

1. Planes are cheap, decomming returns 75% of the resource.

2. Our average member had 14 cities and an NRF, being prepared for a nuclear scenario does not mean not building cities for a conventional one.

3. I said built, not had the resources to build. Plenty of people were conserving resources for down the line as they still had more than 3 nukes in their silos.

4. 8 are launching, that has more to do with targeting than resources.

5. The alliance bank is there to help make up shortfalls in peoples warchests, not hold all of the uranium in Alpha. We're up to 380 launched, but clearly we didn't stock up enough uranium.

1. Still its a waste of resources if you were just preparing for a nuclear defensive scenario. Like it was a waste of resources to build tanks and navies. Or to store that much steel and ammo while short of uranium.

 

2. 40% of your alliance had not a NRF and thus were not prepared at all for a nuclear defensive scenario. If you were preparing for a nuclear defensive scenario, why invest so many resources in preparing for any other kind of war when you were still far from being prepared for the nuclear defensive scenario?

 

3. Given that your nuke production rate has done nothing but go down since day #1, logic dictates people who didnt buy nukes were not saving resources, they just had not the resources to build them.

 

4. There are plenty nations in t$ with cities worth nuking and not attended. There is no shortage of targets.

 

5. Our intel on stocks of individual Alpha nations early in the war doesn't shows a particular high level of uranium stocks in individual alpha nations.

 

It's not that hard to admit that your leader was lying when he said he has been preparing his alliance for a nuclear defensive war. Your nations were full militarized with planes, tanks and ships and well stocked with steel and ammo while poorly stocked with uranium.

Edited May 26, 2016 by Ivan the Red

[James II]

1. Still its a waste of resources if you were just preparing for a nuclear defensive scenario. Like it was a waste of resources to build tanks and navies. Or to store that much steel and ammo while short of uranium.

 

2. 40% of your alliance had not a NRF and thus were not prepared at all for a nuclear defensive scenario. If you were preparing for a nuclear defensive scenario, why invest so many resources in preparing for any other kind of war when you were still far from being prepared for the nuclear defensive scenario?

 

3. Given that your nuke production rate has done nothing but go down since day #1, logic dictates people who didnt buy nukes were not saving resources, they just had not the resources to build them.

 

4. There are plenty nations in t$ with cities worth nuking and not attended. There is no shortage of targets.

 

5. Our intel on stocks of individual Alpha nations early in the war doesn't shows a particular high level of uranium stocks in individual alpha nations.

 

It's not that hard to admit that your leader was lying when he said he has been preparing his alliance for a nuclear defensive war. Your nations were full militarized with planes, tanks and ships and well stocked with steel and ammo while poorly stocked with uranium.

In this case, intelligence is the wrong word.

[Ivan the Red]

White peace is very very bad for Alpha. tS is planning a future attack on Alpha to try to start another great war, like I think they will, then it's exactly what they want and what just white peace is terrible for Alpha.

I could adress the lack of logic in the sentence "I think Bob wants X, then X is exactly what Bob wants". But the flaw is so obvious that adressing it would be a waste of time.

 

So, moving on: Your argument is that we are planning to hit you again in order to start another great war.

 

Problem is, we hit you a month ago and all your allies ducked. Therefore, if we wanted to start a great war, it is clear that attacking you is not the right switch to trigger.

 

In any case, signing a NAP with you increases your chances of being used as entry point. We know that attacking you is not enough to get your allies moving. Maybe attacking you while breaking a NAP will. Also, as Partisan and Roy pointed out, we could just use a proxy to hit you and start said war.

 

But, what really fascinates me about your arguments, is the amount of mystical power you seem to concede to a written paper. If we have no NAP and we attack you, you get to call your allies to defend you. If we have a NAP and attack you, you still get your allies to defend you. There is no additional mystical force going to help you in case a NAP is breached.

 

A NAP doesnt makes you any more safe. Unless you are suggesting that for your allies, a Mutual Defense Pact with you is not grounds enough to come to your aid, and they require additional motivation like the breaking of a NAP. If this is the case, then you are asking us to solve a problem between you and your allies. We can help you with that, but won't do it for free.

 

We trust our allies to help us. We do not concede mystical power to a paper. We do not trust your word as you have breached it before. We attacked you because you gave us grounds to think you were an inminent threat, but now we have crushed you military and diplomatically and thus no longer evaluate you to be a credible threat.

 

For all those reasons, a NAP is worthless for us.

 

tl; dr:

Your exposition of motives did explain why you find value in a NAP. But it does not adress the main problem of the situation:

- You value a NAP, and explained why.

- You also stated that you value peace.

- We value peace.

- We do not value a NAP.

 

You are offering an inequal deal. In order to make this a fair deal, you need either to drop the NAP, or offer us something we value in order to balance the scale.

Edited May 26, 2016 by Ivan the Red

[LostWorld]

hey look, it's the guy who declared 3 wars, then ran out of gas and munitions after day 1 and is now getting owed.

 

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=30214

Oh look at him. He won his first war. You mom must be so proud of you.

[Kastor]

I don't know about the rest of you but if the post is over 100 words at first glance I'm not reading it.

[Ivan the Red]

I included a tl; dr tag for your convenience.

[Beowulf the Second]

This war came about because Alpha gov was slandering us. The desire to smash Steve's face in did not come in until then (and is now satisfied, I mean look at his nation). My advice to Alpha is that if you want long-term peace, stop instigating war lmao.

 

Steve, I'm not sure if you really think that t$ has some conspiracy against you. Honestly, we'd rather not deal with you: attacking you again means you talking to us for another month, and heaven knows what I'd give to stop that from happening xD. Obviously though, we'd protect our allies, and so I think this is an attempt to do some treaty manipulation later; especially since a time period of two months usually is equivalent to the next major war. The NAP cannot and will not happen, not because t$ has some secret plot to undermine you that would be magically foiled by an NAP (Partisan has already detailed why an NAP would be useless in that case), but because it weakens us when it comes to protection of our allies, and that is unacceptable. I'm not a high level gov member, but even I understand that.

[James II]

This war came about because Alpha gov was slandering us. The desire to smash Steve's face in did not come in until then (and is now satisfied, I mean look at his nation). My advice to Alpha is that if you want long-term peace, stop instigating war lmao.

 

Steve, I'm not sure if you really think that t$ has some conspiracy against you. Honestly, we'd rather not deal with you: attacking you again means you talking to us for another month, and heaven knows what I'd give to stop that from happening xD. Obviously though, we'd protect our allies, and so I think this is an attempt to do some treaty manipulation later; especially since a time period of two months usually is equivalent to the next major war. The NAP cannot and will not happen, not because t$ has some secret plot to undermine you that would be magically foiled by an NAP (Partisan has already detailed why an NAP would be useless in that case), but because it weakens us when it comes to protection of our allies, and that is unacceptable. I'm not a high level gov member, but even I understand that.

I don't know if they told you, but the NAP definitely would have been conditional. If Alpha were to attack one of your allies, a clause would be available for tS to void it in that case.

[LordRahl2]

So if any war breaks out the NAP is voided?

[James II]

So if any war breaks out the NAP is voided?

If war breaks out, the defending party decides whether the NAP is voided. The Offending party does not.

[LordRahl2]

Who decides who is defending/offending?