Great War [insert roman numeral here]

[Bleh32]

Hit the nail on the head you did my friend.

Basically agreeing with Penchuck here, but you have also hit it right on the head. Especially the "better names" part.

I agree with everything here. Hopefully there will be more even wars that aren't easy to see the winners.

You remind me of Walford

[Mack Truck]

Why do they have to involve LUE/NAAC/GATO and the Orders? If it had been just those three alliances against the two Orders in January '07 would it have been a 'Great War'? Hell no.

[joetrek1234]

what about IRON and the war about to break tonight? Does anyone knows whats going on?

[anenu]

I don't understand why we would stop at GW 3. I believe that any war that determines the hegemony of Planet Bob is a GW. As such the noCB war was not a GW but the Unjust War was.

[Ada069]

Great war i think are done.

Lets face it, if another Great war like event happened it would far exceed the previous great wars in Ferocity. Mainly because back then there was no WRC or other war type wonders or military as there is now.

Great war is far outdone

if a major war that constitutes 20 or More Alliances including at least 6 Sanctioned ones, and the war isnt one sided.

it should be changed to The Great Bob War. or something queer along those lines.

[Proxian Empire]

Generally I see people who were not participants in the Great Wars to be the ones who want to continue the ridiculous "Great" branding. I would assume it is because they were not there and therefore do not understand that "Great" symbolises the series of interconnected wars and is not actually referring to the definition of "great" as in "important" or "large".

The "Great" to us veterans is the actual name of the war. It would be like referring to World War 1 as "the Napoleonic War 2" simply because they both involve a large number of powerful nations. Do you not see how ridiculous that looks?

Edited April 19, 2009 by King Penchuk

[Mack Truck]

The "Great" to us veterans is the actual name of the war. It would be like referring to World War 1 as "the Napoleonic War 2" simply because they both involve a large number of powerful nations. Do you not see how ridiculous that looks?

'Napoleonic' refers to Napoleon, it's a very specific name. If you want to use 'great' specifically then any war that is of great size would qualify. There's nothing in the name 'Great War' to suggest who the participants were or why it should be restricted to LUE v NPO.

Also, I'm a veteran of them.

[Bleh32]

Generally I see people who were not participants in the Great Wars to be the ones who want to continue the ridiculous "Great" branding. I would assume it is because they were not there and therefore do not understand that "Great" symbolises the series of interconnected wars and is not actually referring to the definition of "great" as in "important" or "large".

The "Great" to us veterans is the actual name of the war. It would be like referring to World War 1 as "the Napoleonic War 2" simply because they both involve a large number of powerful nations. Do you not see how ridiculous that looks?

I've seen some that are the opposite as well. Those who do not want to name the last two major wars as "great wars" because they were not there and don't get the glory of fighting in the "great war".

Someone said something about "the great bob war", that actually sounds kinda cool.

[anenu]

I see Great as a title symbolzing the great amount of change that resulted from the war

However if you want to end great then i suggest naming major war that change or reaffirm the global power structure as a Hegemony War as Great Bob War sounds lame and seem like a sad attempt to make it a Great War but not actually.

[CptGodzilla]

Generally I see people who were not participants in the Great Wars to be the ones who want to continue the ridiculous "Great" branding. I would assume it is because they were not there and therefore do not understand that "Great" symbolises the series of interconnected wars and is not actually referring to the definition of "great" as in "important" or "large".

The "Great" to us veterans is the actual name of the war. It would be like referring to World War 1 as "the Napoleonic War 2" simply because they both involve a large number of powerful nations. Do you not see how ridiculous that looks?

lol I remember people calling RIA vs MDC in GW3 the "maroon war 2" which is just idiotic

I like to refer to them as "global" wars, or wars that involve much of planet bob (the CN globe). GW 1-3 were Global wars that were named "great war ect.) UJW was a global war, but not a great war. that coalition dealy was a global war but not a great war

I like to think of it like i learned with brandy in school

All cognacs are brandy, but not all brandy are cognacs (because a cognac is a brandy from cognac france)

All great wars are global wars, but not all global wars are great wars.

Edited April 19, 2009 by CptGodzilla

[Proxian Empire]

'Napoleonic' refers to Napoleon, it's a very specific name. If you want to use 'great' specifically then any war that is of great size would qualify. There's nothing in the name 'Great War' to suggest who the participants were or why it should be restricted to LUE v NPO.

Also, I'm a veteran of them.

I did not name the wars so don't shoot the messenger. Clearly the names could have been more creative, but at the time they seemed unique and no one expected there to be more of them. Afterwords the name just stuck and people became lazy. It would've been nice if we had named it the "Hegemony Wars" or something more iconic but it was not to be.

[Elderago]

personally I don't see the point of trying to say which was a "world war" why ? because all the wars mentioned involved most major alliance at the time, furthermore I find calling this upcoming war a world war before it has even started pointless, yes everybody is gearing yes many treaties have been canceled, but until the nukes start flying we are not at a war yet, and even after this war ,if it comes (not saying ir won't because something will happen) there will be people who do not believe it was a "world war", in the end it all comes to are personal opinion not what some text book (or wiki ) says.

admittedly I came after the unjust war and the disbanding of GOONs so I can't personally argue to much.

Edited April 19, 2009 by sircrimson

[Lycurgus Rex]

The GW wars ended with GWIII. Simple

[the peaceful samurai]

I believe what makes a great war a great war is when a majority of the game is involved in it.

[Azaghul]

Great Wars ended with 3, I think people are trying to make it too much like the world wars in real life.

The noCB war, while significant, was not a great war. One side only involved 1 sanctioned alliance (NpO) and two others in the sanction race (MK and NV) and those 3 plus NPO were the only ones to take major damage. It wasn't much different from the original GATO war except that the sanctioned alliance involved was somewhat bigger and a lot more famous, a powerful and damaging counter-attack from MK, and the fact that it went nuclear.

[njndirish]

As a person who has witness 4/5 major CN wars, I can say for certain that there have only been 3 Great Wars.

Now one will always ask, why aren't UJW or WoC a great war? Well first of all they weren't as "great." They lacked the nature which had made up I, II, and III. No, the LUE-Orders battle was not what defined them, but rather it was a series of instances. It is perhaps easier to say what doesn't make up a Great War.

First of all I want to remove the War of Coalition. The WoC was a series of wars all fought at the same time making it appear bigger than it was. When removing that conflict, it leaves us with I, II, III, and the UJW.

Now on to the reasoning the UJW is not a GW. First, the UJW was lopsided. Within the first few days of the war, NpO's coalition had grown into a large handful of bandwagoners, and though not as coordinated as the UJP, NpO's coalition had much larger numbers than that of UJP. Second, the ending sucked. OOC attacks ended the war with the departure of \m/ and Genmay and suddenly the entire UJP collapsed like a house of cards.

More to come....

[Proxian Empire]

Great Wars ended with 3, I think people are trying to make it too much like the world wars in real life.

The noCB war, while significant, was not a great war. One side only involved 1 sanctioned alliance (NpO) and two others in the sanction race (MK and NV) and those 3 plus NPO were the only ones to take major damage. It wasn't much different from the original GATO war except that the sanctioned alliance involved was somewhat bigger and a lot more famous, a powerful and damaging counter-attack from MK, and the fact that it went nuclear.

Actually that is a fairly logical comparison.

[Bleh32]

As a person who has witness 4/5 major CN wars, I can say for certain that there have only been 3 Great Wars.

Now one will always ask, why aren't UJW or WoC a great war? Well first of all they weren't as "great." They lacked the nature which had made up I, II, and III. No, the LUE-Orders battle was not what defined them, but rather it was a series of instances. It is perhaps easier to say what doesn't make up a Great War.

First of all I want to remove the War of Coalition. The WoC was a series of wars all fought at the same time making it appear bigger than it was. When removing that conflict, it leaves us with I, II, III, and the UJW.

Now on to the reasoning the UJW is not a GW. First, the UJW was lopsided. Within the first few days of the war, NpO's coalition had grown into a large handful of bandwagoners, and though not as coordinated as the UJP, NpO's coalition had much larger numbers than that of UJP. Second, the ending sucked. OOC attacks ended the war with the departure of \m/ and Genmay and suddenly the entire UJP collapsed like a house of cards.

More to come....

I agree. It can really only be considered great if there is a fair chance on each side.

[Doc Taco]

I think that this thread has shown that enough confusion and ambiguity exists that the next big war should definitely NOT be called "Great War X". The individual arguments about why, and the distinctions that people are coming up with largely ring hollow to me, but the fact remains that the "Great War" name is such a loaded term that it should be retired for that reason alone.

[Lycurgus Rex]

I christen the next war "total war I", due to the destruction it will cause.

[Ventus ex Gutter]

I christen the next war "total war I", due to the destruction it will cause.

If we can't call it Great War VI, I say will call it "The Apocalypse", "The Apocalyptic War", "The Reckoning", or "The Great Reckoning."

Edited April 19, 2009 by Ventus ex Gutter

[Proxian Empire]

I say we call it the "Not Penchuk War" for extra confusion.

[Doc Taco]

Dude, the Posting this will get me warned. War, or simply the War Before Mogar. These are the only reasonable names available.

[Mogar]

^is correct, As a veteran of most major conflicts, the GW ERA died with NAAC and LUE.

[MTTezla]

I'll join the group of oldies saying that the Great War series was the series of wars between NPO and LUE (and their brown colony).