Shiho Nishizumi

I was paying attention at your (Singu's) gloating for the first few hours that then turned into seething, yes.

The coalition was a tripartite affair though.

They got conned into a war that didn't concern them in the slightest, and with a pretty horrible timing to add on top. The only real purpose that timing served was to bail Singu out; a post-war hit would've made more sense by all other metrics. I can see why Rose/Singu (Singu specifically) were annoyed at the change of mind. I'd also say that ODOO should've known better than being fooled by people who either dislike or despise them. On the other hand, it shouldn't surprise them that a case built on quicksand collapsed as quickly as it did. Or be earnestly upset for that matter. I know that there's politicking at hand, but I'd be surprised if they genuinely thought what they're writing out here.

1DW was ODOO carrying everyone else. Rose was getting mauled by Eclipse and Singu/TFP were still half dead (if not mostly). It's the entire reason why they had the position, and leverage, to make peace happen. This spin makes no sense to anyone that was paying even a modicum of attention.

https://discord.com/channels/446601982564892672/599998912128090133/1228407425510539274

I'm not sure how you can look at a formula which accompanying chart has Lime skyrocket from lowest value bonus to highest value bonus, and go "Damn, this is really what we should be going with". I'd like to think that that alone would highlight the issue with the formula as is. A good portion, if not most of, whale nations can't even spawn treasures given the 15-65% range. The largest nation sits a 15035 score which caps it at 9772. While whalehood is defined by city count and not score (and with scores fluctuating as well), if you take Grumpy as a benchmark, most of their nations can't spawn a treasure. It similarly excludes Eclipse's upper cohort (C45 and up). Rose's a bit more mixed but their larger/largest nations are similarly excluded. t$'s largest nations are likewise excluded. At a glance, roughly 45 and up with fairly tall infra can't spawn it due to score inhibition. I imagine that this city count would lower as people presumably move back to 0350. In most cases (whenever they didn't just happen to spawn in their alliance), alliances get those treasures by buying them from whichever smaller alliance spawned them. That's why there's a concentration of them along the larger alliances. This is doubly true given that the price floor for treasures tend to be fairly high (usually something like 300m), and becomes harder to justify paying for the smaller an alliance is. I recall being hard pressed to justify the cost for one in Requiem (a small upper tier, edging whale alliance), as it didn't leave much of a profit margin after the fact. I struggle to see how your proposal is going to address concentration in the top alliances when it it doesn't affect why this concentration is happening (larger alliances/economies benefitting from having them, smaller alliances benefitting more from selling than keeping), or how this concentration is happening.

A minor suggestion, but could extensions be given the same bonus as alliance mate training would give (and perhaps have MDP allies have some in between between randoms and alliance mates)?

Enclave's called. They want their POTUS back.

Although it's true that smaller nations get affected more on relative terms due to city count, that's not the logic by which nukes are used. The logic for their usage is maximum damage inflicted, and larger nations tend to make for better targets due to taller infra. Nobody's going to nuke a 2250 infra C23 nations when (and if) they can nuke a C45 nation with 2800 infra. Disproportionate impact on smaller city count nations is also a thing with all attack types. A ground attack launched on a C20 affects 5% of his cities. A ground attack launched on a C40 affects 2.5% of his cities. I'm not entirely sure why would nukes be singled out, their peculiarity of just deleting a city down to sub-1000 infra put aside.

Perhaps I phrased it poorly, but yes. For people who actually tried to nuke them (by building up), it's been made easier. For those who didn't, it was made possible. I have to question the point of the change, if nuking them doesn't have that much of an effect on them anyways (a premise I disagree with).

It was proposed and pushed explicitly to make turreting easier, if I recall Keegoz correctly.

Further buffing nukes and missiles seems unnecessary (even if by means of fairly pricey projects). Missiles in particular have already gotten several buffs over the years, and both benefitted greatly from the updeclare range increase. Nukes and missiles have always destroyed a fixed amount of infrastructure in contrast to conventional militaries' always scaling infra destroyed (which I presume is what they're being contrasted to). I don't see the particular relevance of this given that they don't compete with each other in this regard; you use missiles and nukes exclusively when you're losing, while tanks/planes/ships either get used when you're winning (nukes/missiles wouldn't even be considered), or as suicide when you're losing (they'd either be followed up with nukes and missiles, or you would use the ones you recently built on the wars which you can't touch conventionally), or alternatively, flashing (you usually have a separate target for nukes/missiles, both due to how flashing works, and because MAP's would get tight if your flash target was also your nuke/missile target). Fixed amount of infra destroyed doesn't mean fixed damage either. It depends on how tall your target's infra is. It was already the case that larger nations would have better targets than smaller nations by virtue of who they could reach (simply put, it scaled to some extent), but the updeclare range increase made it possible to hit targets with even taller infra which were otherwise inaccessible. In other words, that formula change already addressed any potential scaling off, by virtue of letting you hit targets which were previously unreachable, with these not being people that you would be hitting with a conventional military anyways. With that said, the other suggested changes do seem interesting; changing how color blocs work would probably be the easiest one to code with a more immediate impact on things, although nation/alliance decisions could be a neat little addition to change things a bit. On perks: Would it be you either pick military or econ perks, or would it be a matter of mutually exclusive picks within those separate branches (as an example, Integrated vs Dispersed Fire Support, and Concentrated vs Dispersed industry in HoI4).

I mean, there was more chatter in that brief convo than there was in the embassy for the entirety of the past year. While embassy chatter is hardly the defining aspect of a relationship, it does serve to show, alongside everything else, how glacial the relationship's been. But yeah, a brief one-time exchange on the public channel in t$' main discord (the FA one is a separate one, for the record) doesn't amount to much. These sorts of things are a fairly constant undertaking, especially if the starting point is a strained relationship rather than a neutral one.

In most cases, it's either the group doing the rolling or being rolled discussing those. Rarely, if ever, was it the case that there's a fully milled third party that one knows isn't on good terms with you. Couple that with them already having an idea of what to do next (sign Singu) and apparently not getting along too well with Eclipse (cue Pascal's comment), and my wonder is why didn't they wait until peace to 72 (or otherwise notify).