Talk:War of the Coalition

No Great War IV?
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.

Rawr.

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.

WTF?!?
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 >:(

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=30932&st=60&p=822309&#entry822309

Rishnokof 00:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Great War V
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. 71.182.190.126 12:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

NAME
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)

TWO WARS
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. 71.182.190.126 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
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. 71.182.190.126 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
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
--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
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.

-tweek

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.

-tweek

Theaters of war
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. --71.169.148.65 05:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"Reformed alliances"
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)