No Great War IV?Edit
There hasn't been a GW IV yet dammit, so any speculation about this being GW V is inherently wrong on that fact alone.
- Yes there has. Just because you don't consider it a great war doesn't mean it wasn't one. I could consider GWIII a fake great war, that doesn't change the fact that it WAS a great war. Stop going on about it - everyone was involved, and so it IS by definition a global war. The wiki is for facts, not "in my opinion one side gave up too fast so it shouldn't be a global war". Stick to the facts - entire globe in conflict, therefore a global war.
Also, we need a link saying sparta declared war. The only reason I left them there is because they are actually fighting Greenland ingame
- This is Great War V because, compared to the total of CN, it involves a very large percentage of alliances. GW4 (aka UJW) also had two separate CB's. The notion that separate CB's makes it not a global war is ridiculous. The term "Great War" refers to size of the conflict and size alone; it has no bearing on whatever politics are going on at the time.
Sparta hasn't Declared War or Declared Support yet, did a looselip member edit them in a few hours too soon?
Editted out because it's wrong >:(
Rishnokof 00:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Great War V Edit
It could be Great War V and to those who say that it can't because there's been no Great War IV your wrong because Great War IV was the Unjust War.
-No. The Unjust War was not nearly long enough to be called a Great War, and there was little material damage done to alliances save for the GOONS (Gen[M]ay and \m/ did disband, but for the most part its members surrendered and lived to fight another day, joined other alliances, etc.) Plus, the war was too short in duration. It was more of a massive political agreement correction than a Great War. There was fighting, hence the title Unjust War, but it was a very anticlimactic movement that is only now being resolved nearly a year later. I'd even argue that it short-circuited the inevitability of this current conflict when the UJP collapsed dramatically, postponing it and causing the general malaise about CN for the past year.
To most people, the Great War series was a set of worldwide conflicts between the Orders and LUE. The Unjust War is hardly considered a Great War as it does not fit that criteria, same with this war. 22.214.171.124 12:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
can we name this something like the War of the Sea or something like that. blue/bleu is colour of the ocean and first major war with navy. thought it would be a good them for this war.
I think that name is lame. Sticking with the Great War theories and whatnot, why not Great Suppression, to symbolize the suppression of freedom which is getting stomped into the ground.
Because that's such a neutral point of view name for the wiki.
The current name is staying Rishnokof 12:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Can we stop renaming this war already? It makes it difficult to find this page again especially without at least making some temporary redirection pages. I see this as one war not two. Fred Derf 14:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
This war needs to be renamed. It's a terrible name. <-- unsigned comment
- I'm all for Great War V. Anything else is worse than WotC. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)
TWO WARS Edit
This should be split into two wars, the GGA war with Hyperion and related declarations, and the Coalition war with NpO and related declarations, as both have separate CBs and motives. (unsigned talk note, don't know who said it)
Arguably you could include the BDC and CIS wars in this war, as they are all rather closely linked. However, yes, I agree, there should be some kind of note made on the main page about the split in mission objectives between the two different attacks; one set directed against Polar allies and Mushroom Kingdom and the other at Polaris itself. Haflinger 15:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, you could also put the original GGA-Hyperion War as it's own war just like the Genmay-BotS War is it's own separate from the Unjust War. 126.96.36.199 12:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the above, but for sure this is all one war. Even though the CB's are seperatie, the fact that Friends>Infra rallies under one name, and the way the treaties end up panning out make this one war.
GOD vs CCC Edit
Why's this listed here? They seem to be a side dispute amongst themselves; I haven't noticed anything on either one being in this mess--even the 'war web' has them off by themselves. If I missed how one or the other's joined to an already-fighting alliance by treaty ties, that's fine, but otherwise I don't really see how this relates.
The GOD-CCC War does seem to be rather isolated. The only connection it has to the overall war is that GOD is in the SuperFriends, and CCC has some sort of treaty with BLEU. That's also why each alliance is placed where it is in the infobox. 188.8.131.52 12:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Would they have gone to war with each other without the greater conflict raging in the background? Probably not. I see this as being very related. Each had ties to a distinct side so there was no real need to draw out the diplomatic stage as there would have been during peacetime. Fred Derf 14:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Ragnarok bloc issues Edit
Why is Ragnarok also posted as being a Poseidon alliance? Unless they switched off of Aqua and didn't tell anyone... Fireguy15207 14:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Legion absent Edit
--Melidan 20:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
The Legion is absent from the Continuum side of the conflict, under Poseidon. Also absent is the CN BB link to our DoW on PAIN. Someone needs to add those..
Universalis Vs Legion Edit
Speaking officially for Universalis. The dispute between our alliance and Legion has nothing to do with the BLEU/Continuum wars. Could someone please remove us from the Friends > Infra combatants list? Thanks.
Would you still have gone to war had this overall world war not happened? That seems to be the problem with the GOD-CCC War. Fireguy15207 17:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we would have acted in the same way. Perhaps the Legion wouldn't have had target lists up of friendly alliances if there wouldn't have been a World War, but that's their problem. In any other given situation Universalis would have acted in the same way if we found out that an alliance was preparing target lists against us and having nations from said alliance attack us.
Poseidon's response to the Universalis and Vanguard wars with Legion was quite definitely affected by the large war though, so this is at least a related war. Haflinger 16:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Theaters of war Edit
In RL when wars are raging but are not exactly connected fully they are called theaters. Might be a good way to break up each individual conflict in this war. --184.108.40.206 05:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Outside of a few side conflicts, more than half the alliances on each side are involved in the main war. This I've figured out after trying to decipher the web of DoWs in the first few days of the conflict.
"Reformed alliances" Edit
Adding reformed alliances is dumb. It's just one member saying "we reform and we're fighting xxx", it doesn't really count. I could go and switch my AA to \m/ and declare war on NPO, that doesn't mean it's really been reformed. Don't include these reformations unless they're REAL (see: VE), or you'll just be giving more attention to some idiot who posted a thread 'reforming' an alliance to get attention in the first place.
- I reverted the edit, because I don't think it's really for us to say one way or the other what is and isn't legit. But, if you feel strongly about it, I won't revert a second time. :) Ogden Chichester 19:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Ogden Chichester. If it is or isn't legit, it is still part of the war.(ForPointSix 08:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC))
- In regards to this, the reformed NoR was removed a few days ago since they merged into Vox Populi right away and technically haven't been an alliance yet. The other reformed alliance, HoG, has had over 20 members so they aren't just one member reforming and saying they are fighting. Lol pie 16:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- That seems settled then. :) Ogden Chichester 17:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Why have the updates stopped at the end of August? I mean, at least put the diplomatic discussions summarized day by day if there's no military action happening, eventhough there likely is tons.
- Perhaps there is nothing to add. Sure, nukes are fun the first time, but they get tedious past the third day. About the only news I heard of is the the GRL going down, and outside of that, it's just the same old rhetoric. -President Laughlin 21:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
STA Surrender? Edit
The Siberian Tiger Alliance has been stricken from the Friends > Infra Coalition listing, but I see nothing that indicates a STA surrender. Is there any information on this change? President Laughlin 05:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- No we have no surrender to all of the Coalition. One alliance, DefCon has given us white peace.(ForPointSix 08:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC))
- So I see. Should we put something in the timeline, like "STA declares white peace with DefCon?" President Laughlin 18:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
War of the Coalition? Edit
We all know the last war in August was very devastating to both sides. It was a Global War, but because it was one-sided from the beginning I believe it should not be called Great War V. I also believe it shouldn't be called the War of the Coalition. Many people including my self believe that is not a good name for this war. I think we should vote for a new one. Weather you like the War of the Coalition as a name, Great War V as a name, or another name, please vote for a name by clicking the link below. - Ryan Greenberg
- Yeah, except whoever made the poll didn't include Great War V as an option. This is really fair. At any rate, the current poll shows most people are sztisfied with the name. I don't like it, but it beats the hell out of the 'No CB War'. I reckon people who don't like the name are too lazy to research the actual War of the First Coalition. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)
Actually, if you look at the poll, more people like no CB war and a majority of people DON'T like the name. The reason it has so many votes on the second poll, is because people who don't like the name have to split up between the other choices. If there were better choices, I'm sure it wouldn't be doing so well. It doesn't matter if there's historical significance to it or not. It doesn't matter if it's a one sided name or not. It doesn't matter if it makes sense. It sounds dumb.
- Dumber then the No CB War? Please. First of all, take that poll. I voted that 'Yes', it's a stupid name, but also was forced to vote to keep the current name because the choices presented were dumb as hell. This isn't HALO, we can't just go using Red vs BLEU War. Furthermore, the No CB War in fact violates the Wiki's rules, as it is inherently biased. There was a CB: Saying that there wasn't is taking sides, stating that one doesn't agree with the CB. So please, if you're going to make a poll, at least do it fairly. Include names that people other than you think up. The only reason the No CB War is winning is because it looks pretty good next to the other two even DUMBER choices. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)
I don't like No CB War either, but I feel the same about the War of the Coalition too. The Great Polar War is ok, but it's not amazing either. How about Operation Polaris Storm or the War of Arctic Storm. Something like the 1990 Gulf War. Maybe the War of the Apocalypse or the Apocolyptic War. I know they're not great. but they're just ideas. - Ryan Greenberg
- Great Polar War was okay, in retrospect I probably should have voted for it. War of the Arctic Storm would create confusion with the Arctic Wars, and having 'Operation' is generally referential from a single side. What about the War of Disorder (referencing the split of NP/pO on either side of it)? ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)
If not War of the Arctic Storm, how about War of the Polaris Storm or War of the Polar Storm. I do like War of Disorder too because it does show the split between NPO and NpO. - Ryan Greenberg
- I do like War of the Polar Storm, although I can see how some may argue that it focusses too much on NpO (not that I agree, but I'm just saying some may feel that way). ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)
If someone comes up with a bunch of other choices, I'm sure someone can make a new poll.
List of Names Edit
These are the names for the war we have so far. Please edit and add a new one if you have a new idea. We can create a poll once we get enough. - Ryan Greenberg
- War of the Vox Rebellion
- Great War V
- War of the Coalition
- Continuum-BLEU War
- Polar Warming
- Second Unjust War/Unjust War II
- War of the Forgotten Order
- Great Polar War
- Red vs. BLEU War
- War of Disorder
- War of the Polar Storm
- War of the Arctic Storm
- OoO War
- No CB War
- Spongeotic War
- War of the Great Suppresion
- Sponge's War
- The War to End All Wars
- the Great Tech War
- the Great Tech Raid
- World War II (apparantly referenced from the GATO-INC War being called World War I)
I say we end here so we can have a few reccomandations from people voting. I unfortunately can not post this poll because my alliance does not like members posting on the Open World Forum too much because of the recent war rumors and speculation, so somebody else has to post the poll. - Ryan Greenberg
Ok, someone has to do this poll because I can't. We need to find a better name for this. - Ryan Greenberg
End of War Missing Edit
ZI Peace Pact Edit
It didn't ban permazi or PZI. It sought to ban what it called EZI, or eternal ZI, which was the practice of attacking new nations belonging to the same RL player who was on an alliance's target list. --Haflinger (talk • contribs) 13:03, February 1, 2012 (UTC)