Levonscott

Hurt, durr, light mode. Go on, get it out of your system. A year and a half? Sounds like a GATO efficiency record, to me!

Look who's vying for another wiki ban! I'd suggest even suggesting you'd engage in edit warring is a bannable offense. Weren't you the one that wanted a wiki team? Surely you should know that consensus is how decisions are made. The poll you made shows pretty clearly Herogasm isn't the consensus, or even the preferred option.

If you fought on both sides, do you get two?

In fairness, had I been active around then, I would have equally criticised that naming, too 😛 Feel free to ignore the old man shouting at clouds, but as I say, I'm of the opinion it's inappropriate 🤷‍♂️ On both the CN Wiki, and in the "A Christmas Miracle" Peace Talks Server, your coalition is listed as Herogasm, so that's what I was basing that logic off of. Feels pretty uniform to me?

Given Herogasm is now the accepted name of one of the coalitions, I think it is inappropriate to have the name of the war also be identical (even merely for clarity purposes).

That's my only criticism with it, really. And yet, I continue to hear that it's categorically genius, with great comedic relevance. Still, I've yet to see one that I really like, that isn't relatively biased one way or the other. (Plenty of funny one-sided ones, though 😅)

Since this round will come to an end within hours, I'd just like to humbly push this to the front of the agenda, again. Any other thoughts?

I don't claim to speak for the whole coalition, but in my opinion, it's just not funny (or alternatively, relevant)? That, or I'm missing a reference somewhere. Call me odd, but I love wars which are named in a way that parodies/works off of both sides. Snake Eyes, for example incorporating both RFI's dice theme, and the COBRAsphere's ophidian nature 😅

Recalling that this is was a "defensive" declaration by NATO and FTW in response to DBDC's blanket DoW (according to their recognition of hostilities, and numerous instances of parroting, anyway), it really falls to Doom to name it, if we're going by the logic of who "started" the war. Further, since the prevailing consensus on that front is the Delusions of Grandeur War (JA, making himself relevant again?), the matter is quite settled. ...that us, unless the opposing forces have dropped any pretence of them really being the victim? --- In principle, though, I do agree with Tevron that we should attempt to find an title that is amenable to all parties.

@Overlord Wes and I have had this argument time and again (which usually boils down to us disagreeing on the fundamental phonemes of the English language); but the gist is: Gatto when spoken aloud (hence my favourite of our nicknames, the Spanish Cats); Gay Toe when reading it in one's mind. Since one rarely speaks any CN terms aloud, but instead reads them, more often than not it's Gay Toe. At the end of the day, though - much like my own name - say it either way, and we'll understand what you mean! 😅

Always and forever, LWW! (Though I may have to palm you off to J3, because they're nearly starting to fly over my head...) 😅 "You know, there's a lot of nonsense talked about the Civil Service GATO. It's actually a marvellous, efficient, professional organisation, capable of enormous energy and speed. It's staffed by a lot of talented, dedicated people who do everything in their power to help the Government make it's policies into law." Shame my computer didn't want to render the Yes Minister gif that went along with this line, it would have been perfect. I'm not sure where exactly it was suggested that NPO couldn't handle CCC and Sparta. Think of it as the legal literalist's free pass to join the fun of the war? I'm sure you can appreciate that! 😛

On the 3rd and the 5th of July, respectively, Sparta and the Christian Coalition of Countries declared war on the New Pacific Order. Following these declarations, the New Pacific Order requested that both the Mutual Defence article of the Global Alliance and Treaty Organization's treaty, and the Optional Defence article of Argent's treaty, be activated. Therefore, pursuant to Article III of the New Unity Covenant between the Global Alliance and Treaty Organization and the New Pacific Order, the Global Alliance and Treaty Organization declares war on both Sparta and the Christian Coalition of Countries, in defence of the New Pacific Order. Further, pursuant to Article II of the Project Purity Control treaty between Argent and the New Pacific Order, Argent declares war on both Sparta and the Christian Coalition of Countries, in defence of the New Pacific Order. Signed for Argent, Lowsten, The Great and Loveable Emperor of Argent trimm, Regent and Curmudgeon at Large Legatus, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Clown Appreciator King William, Minister of War and Certified Kindergartener iamthey, Minister At-Large, Lasagna, and Clown IMP REBS, Minister of Internal Affairs and Humanoid Spaceship Janax, Dragon Emperor Emeritus and Minister of Communications Signed for the Global Alliance and Treaty Organization, Levon, Assembly Chairperson, On behalf of the General Assembly

Indeed, while Tevron's were for the most part stinkers (sorry Tev!), this was his best attempt so far. You see, not to pre-empt anything, but this only really works if CCC decides to come to play. Where's the fun in a Crusade, if no "Deus Vult"?

Exspecto.

Tell me, were the Crusades not Christian, or was there no fighting? 🤔

Isn't it? It makes the literal months of bickering back and forth about vexillological theory almost worth it. 😅 I can't take all the credit; it was a joint effort between myself and Tevron, with a load of input from all leaders of RFI. We've also got a neat wartime variant... coming soon, to a Global War near you?

Because you'd know all too well about that, wouldn't you, Johnny Boy? 😅

That's because @LittleRena is using the old version 😛 Slander the bloc itself, all you like, but don't talk bad about my precious flag!

Don't get me wrong, the Supplemental Resource system is amazing. Trades are always difficult, and this allows greater levels of flexibility; it was a brilliant change, and one of the rare instances where firingline has made a constructive contribution. However, it has introduced a new issue - or rather, exacerbated an existing one - nations are not harshly penalised for remaining under the blockade limit set by the game. In CN:SE, this limit makes sense. Smaller nations with no navy getting blockaded by much larger and older nations with one is sure to be particularly frustrating. But in CN:TE, where nations always start on the same footing every round, to not build into a navy is a choice. Why should those nations who build a navy be worse off than those who do not, in a war-based game mode? A nation who is so inclined can build a harbour, fix their trades, build, and collect; then immediately decommission their harbour and sell to under 250 land. This process takes, what, half an hour at most? And for the rest of the round, they need not waste money on building and upkeeping a navy, or risking being blockaded. One assumes XP could be a solution, since not building a navy removes the opportunity to own one of four generals; however, the amount of XP required for an econ general is 14, which simply requires sending one boat on a suicide run 3 times a day, for 5 days, and one is set for the rest of the round. So, what is the solution? Remove the restriction on blockades; a nation should always be at risk of being blockaded in the dedicated war-mode that is CN:TE. While it makes sense in CN:SE, it has no place in TE. This would require nations to plan their military, and restricts the ability for them to hide away. Hopefully, this shouldn't be a particularly arduous implementation for @admin!

Careful, now, else there will be a strongly worded letter of protest with your name on it! Congrats CLAWS and KoRT. The web grows ever more webbier (though this one was fairly close, so I'll let it slide with little grumbling 😉)!

Thankfully, recent events would suggest otherwise.

I did petition our good friend JA for some more The Day Today, of which we have been sorely lacking, but I was shot down. Alas, yours will have to suffice for now.

LWW, continuing to express most succinctly the heart of the truth of the matter. Truly the philosopher of our times. Is that so? Well, I must sincerely apologise for being far too hasty! Here's my message for you then, Al. "Please stop raiding all of those unaligned nations. I'll grant you probably want a round with UCR as reps, so you can have that, but then peace them out too. Thanks!" Somehow, I don't think it's gonna work like that, but it's worth a try? Deescalating tensions here would be in everyone's best interest.

This is the singular correction I must make; as far as I can tell, CLAWS has no current 1st-degree treaty with UCR. Obviously they're connected at the 2nd-degree, by a few links. Hooray for the web being webby?

That's pretty much it, right? Such a result of human nature is good for society IRL, but damn, if it's not boring as hell for a game! Most games typically have some function that actively pit one against another (in your Civilization example, a win condition - even one as boring as a diplomatic victory - result in competitiveness, and thus, the desire and need to crush your opponents); in CN, there is no real in-game impetus to go to war. There is no "end goal", other than the collection of pixels. Thus, any meaningful event is purely the result of the RP of individuals and their alliances. What's the easiest way to grow pixels? ODs, MDs, and Trade Agreements everywhere. All this to say... Admin needs to give us a reason to go to war. Otherwise, we're going to end up min-maxing the game (and thus making it unfun) in our human nature to cooperate, in order to get bigger pixels on a screen.