Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
This forum is used with the NationStates web-game designed and run by Max Barry. While not officially affiliated, this serves as the regional forum for the regions: Middle East, African Continent, American Continent, Asian Continent, and European Continent.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and can "read only".

In order to get the most out of these forums, please become a member and read this guide - http://z3.invisionfree.com/nationstates/index.php?showtopic=3060


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The World War; Let us discuss...again.
Topic Started: Apr 4 2007, 09:28 AM (3,411 Views)
Noriega
Member Avatar
Resident Hobbit
Kasnyia
Apr 10 2007, 04:38 PM
I think the Muslim Brotherhhod should be a third side, going against the other two. While JAUST and the Commies are fighting they can try for a European land grab starting with Asia minor.

No, the Commies are far too weak to take JAUST on.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kasnyia
Member Avatar
Chairman of the Bank
They can always gain support from non-JAUST and non-Brotherhood allies.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Noriega
Member Avatar
Resident Hobbit
Kasnyia
Apr 10 2007, 05:09 PM
They can always gain support from non-JAUST and non-Brotherhood allies.

Such as?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kasnyia
Member Avatar
Chairman of the Bank
GC would be a prime player....some of the African rogues...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Comrade Queen
Member Avatar
Comrade Bitchqueen
Norightsia
Apr 10 2007, 03:08 PM
Kasnyia
Apr 10 2007, 04:38 PM
I think the Muslim Brotherhhod should be a third side, going against the other two. While JAUST and the Commies are fighting they can try for a European land grab starting with Asia minor.

No, the Commies are far too weak to take JAUST on.

You underestimate our ingenuity, Comrade. We have Comrade Batman, and when given time to plan, Comrade Batman can do anything.

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nag Ehgoeg
Member Avatar
The Devil's Advocate

Norightsia
Apr 10 2007, 05:08 PM
Kasnyia
Apr 10 2007, 04:38 PM
I think the Muslim Brotherhhod should be a third side, going against the other two. While JAUST and the Commies are fighting they can try for a European land grab starting with Asia minor.

No, the Commies are far too weak to take JAUST on.

And JAUST is too weak to take the Brotherhood on.

I think it works.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kasnyia
Member Avatar
Chairman of the Bank
That way no one side gets walloped by some super alliance. Commies plus other guys against JAUST against Brotherhood evens everything out.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
New Harumf
Member Avatar
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
Alliences can also fluctuate during times of war - think of the USSR and Germany. First they are allies, then they are having the biggest tank battles ever!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kasnyia
Member Avatar
Chairman of the Bank
Sure, as long as no one goes overboard about it...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Noriega
Member Avatar
Resident Hobbit
I don't necessarily want to be with the Commies any longer than I have to lol. ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kasnyia
Member Avatar
Chairman of the Bank
Oh to be sure.

By the way, With Europe about to fire its sho and Asia not too far behind...how will the other areas come to war?

The Americas...Middle East....Africa...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

Kasnyia
Apr 10 2007, 05:38 PM
I think the Muslim Brotherhhod should be a third side, going against the other two. While JAUST and the Commies are fighting they can try for a European land grab starting with Asia minor.

CE is playing his nation in chaos, and mostly self-contained for some time. I don't think he should be factored into any of these plans unless he gives his express permission.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kasnyia
Member Avatar
Chairman of the Bank
The mid east tries anyway...just not in CE's land. They go north rather than northwest.

Also I posted that not expecting CE to return. He did. Ah well.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Noriega
Member Avatar
Resident Hobbit
Kasnyia
Apr 10 2007, 06:45 PM
The mid east tries anyway...just not in CE's land. They go north rather than northwest.

Also I posted that not expecting CE to return. He did. Ah well.

The whole "Muslims invading the World! Gasp!" plot is a bit old, as it has been the basis of every other WW attempt to date. Can we try something else this time?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kasnyia
Member Avatar
Chairman of the Bank
They are a powerful military force and it allows everyone to fight on even footing. Unless a new similarly powerful alliance comes about, why not. If we can actually do it, then let it be done. This time we dont have to wait as its basically starting within the next week or so.

If you have a suggestion for a similarly powerful alliance that could accomplsih the same thing, then please, I'm all ears.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Noriega
Member Avatar
Resident Hobbit
Kasnyia
Apr 10 2007, 07:31 PM
They are a powerful military force and it allows everyone to fight on even footing. Unless a new similarly powerful alliance comes about, why not. If we can actually do it, then let it be done. This time we dont have to wait as its basically starting within the next week or so.

If you have a suggestion for a similarly powerful alliance that could accomplsih the same thing, then please, I'm all ears.

Why does it have to be one big alliance against the world with intent to dominate the world? It's been done. Personally, I would like to see an end to superalliances on the forum. JAUST, the Holy League, the Baghdad Pact, and all others just make things less dynamic. I can't ask that, but now you know where I'm coming from.

I propose that this alliances not occur along superalliance lines. By that I mean that Kasnyia doesn't have to side with AA over the Commie thing just because JAUST says so, when they will be fighting for (generally accepted) nuclear terrorists. I think that it should be more dynamic than that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lebowski2123
Member Avatar
Resident?
Norightsia
Apr 10 2007, 07:43 PM
Kasnyia
Apr 10 2007, 07:31 PM
They are a powerful military force and it allows everyone to fight on even footing. Unless a new similarly powerful alliance comes about, why not. If we can actually do it, then let it be done. This time we dont have to wait as its basically starting within the next week or so.

If you have a suggestion for a similarly powerful alliance that could accomplsih the same thing, then please, I'm all ears.

Why does it have to be one big alliance against the world with intent to dominate the world? It's been done. Personally, I would like to see an end to superalliances on the forum. JAUST, the Holy League, the Baghdad Pact, and all others just make things less dynamic. I can't ask that, but now you know where I'm coming from.

I propose that this alliances not occur along superalliance lines. By that I mean that Kasnyia doesn't have to side with AA over the Commie thing just because JAUST says so, when they will be fighting for (generally accepted) nuclear terrorists. I think that it should be more dynamic than that.

I agree. The concept of super alliances is something ingrained in all of us as the result of two world wars in which super alliances played a large part or were a large result. However, more localized alliances and fighting would elevate the interest level for all participants as well as prevent the war from simplifying the whole conflict to "good vs evil, communist vs capitalist, catholic vs muslim, democracy vs world, etc."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Noriega
Member Avatar
Resident Hobbit
lebowski2123
Apr 10 2007, 07:46 PM
Norightsia
Apr 10 2007, 07:43 PM
Kasnyia
Apr 10 2007, 07:31 PM
They are a powerful military force and it allows everyone to fight on even footing. Unless a new similarly powerful alliance comes about, why not. If we can actually do it, then let it be done. This time we dont have to wait as its basically starting within the next week or so.

If you have a suggestion for a similarly powerful alliance that could accomplsih the same thing, then please, I'm all ears.

Why does it have to be one big alliance against the world with intent to dominate the world? It's been done. Personally, I would like to see an end to superalliances on the forum. JAUST, the Holy League, the Baghdad Pact, and all others just make things less dynamic. I can't ask that, but now you know where I'm coming from.

I propose that this alliances not occur along superalliance lines. By that I mean that Kasnyia doesn't have to side with AA over the Commie thing just because JAUST says so, when they will be fighting for (generally accepted) nuclear terrorists. I think that it should be more dynamic than that.

I agree. The concept of super alliances is something ingrained in all of us as the result of two world wars in which super alliances played a large part or were a large result. However, more localized alliances and fighting would elevate the interest level for all participants as well as prevent the war from simplifying the whole conflict to "good vs evil, communist vs capitalist, catholic vs muslim, democracy vs world, etc."

Amen!

Furthermore, a myriad interconnected wars based on regional factionism or just plain belligerency brings everything down to a level where everything is very accessible. Small nations will have no qualms joining the World War, as it will be less about someone like Paradise coming over and beating the crap out of them, and more about different struggles in different regions all connected by common combatants and common cause.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kasnyia
Member Avatar
Chairman of the Bank
You will not have JAUST deconstructed. Stop hounding that. JAUST will be around for a loooooong time. Leave JAUST outta this. <_<

And I WASN'T saying one superallaince versus the world. I was saying things would be more equal if the three (or more, but as there are only three at the moment) alliances were after each other rather than everyone against one. I WANT more alliances to be about, so in effect I agree with lebowski. It's just that at this moment there are not that many out there. You have two "super" alliances (JAUST is hardly a super alliance..we have alot of members but that be it) and two (maybe three) smaller alliances (Konigsberg Treaty, GC, and a Communist alliance). I'm all for having more. But no one has YET to come up with anything solid yet.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lebowski2123
Member Avatar
Resident?
That all makes sense, and I don't think it fair to ask for the dissolution of JAUST, but I think that the point Norightsia might be getting at is that superalliances such as JAUST or the HLtake away from the war because they "lock up" the commitments of nations who would otherwise form or join minor alliances, which would give the more diverse blend of fighting that we all agree we would like to see.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kasnyia
Member Avatar
Chairman of the Bank
While JAUST would like nations to fight for JAUST interests they dont force nations to not join other alliances. If it clashes in interests they are allowed to make a choice on which alliance they want to join.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Eleytheria-Duo
Member Avatar
Resident Bystander
Norightsia
Apr 10 2007, 04:43 PM
Why does it have to be one big alliance against the world with intent to dominate the world? It's been done. Personally, I would like to see an end to superalliances on the forum. JAUST, the Holy League, the Baghdad Pact, and all others just make things less dynamic. I can't ask that, but now you know where I'm coming from.

I propose that this alliances not occur along superalliance lines. By that I mean that Kasnyia doesn't have to side with AA over the Commie thing just because JAUST says so, when they will be fighting for (generally accepted) nuclear terrorists. I think that it should be more dynamic than that.

Nor, you stated once before that you wanted to JOIN JAUST ... Contradictory don't you think? Besides everyone is saying 'No super allies' right now, but everyone changes their mind when threatened by a country who can kick their arse...

Hush and be a good little boy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

I'm not too enthusiastic about using alliance-based fault lines. I had recently envisioned a renewed baghdad pact, but it was not to be like the old one. The idea is more of a gentleman's agreement between certain powers to commit to enforcing the status quo. This leaves plenty of room for disagreements and personal interests. I also hoped that it would be divided for the World War, to avoid concentrating too much power.

I agree with those who want to see a web of interconnected local conflicts, rather than seeing two or three large sides facing each other on all parts of the globe. No offense to anybody else, but I'm a regional type person myself.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Assassin
Member Avatar
Field Marshal
Well, we ca always just let nations choose sides as they want. Its pretty much like this anyways: Either you belive we attacked him, or you dont. Then pick a side if your involved.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kasnyia
Member Avatar
Chairman of the Bank
Honestly I want do want to see large sides going at it all over the world...


Why does it have to be one or the other? Why not both? :huh:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply