Botha Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 (edited) In regards to wars and naming conventioned used to describe them, I'm wondering if a better term for the current Karma conflict would be calling this the "First World War"? I've been playing CN since the time just after the Maroon War and before GW2. The "Great War" term has pretty much fallen by the wayside over disagreement as to what constitutes as a "great war" - however I cannot recall witnessing such an epoch-changing and massive conflict like we are having now. Whatever happens, whomever wins, the post-war world after this will be very different. The political build up to this war has been a long time coming, much like the First World War in RL. The change which follows could be just as revolutionary. So I'm throwing this out there - why not call this conflict the First World War? (and the criteria for any subsequent World War is that it must be more massive in terms of declarations, NS, involvement, etc than the previous one). Comments? Edited May 6, 2009 by Botha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobertFitzy Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 naming events is not democratic, no matter how many of these are made. voted no, WW1 was a term used for a war in this game, it was the first war ever I think and involved CATO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Botha Posted May 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 naming events is not democratic, no matter how many of these are made. Didn't say it was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arrnea Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 No. Quite simply, NO. Karma War is more than sufficient as a name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nish81 Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 I voted yes on the principle that this should be given a special name rather than just the 'Karma War', because of how much it has the potential to change the political landscape. However, I'd say that it isnt the first world war - either the second or the third, depending what you believe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earth Shaker Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 Voted No since I don't have a good memory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toto Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 WW1 is too impersonal. Karma is more than sufficient as you know that this war was the war with Karma in it. Simple and obvious beats indirect reference when it comes to naming events. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 Why isn't "stop making these polls" an option? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deSouza Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 Maybe first global war or something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 The breakdown over what constitutes a 'Great War' would be compounded with using 'World War' as something that represents a higher level of conflict. Think back to September 2007. Two sanctioned alliances were destroyed as a result of that war, at least a couple more notable ones disbanded and a whole new era of Planet Bob was ushered in. Yet, there are people who insist that the Unjust War was not a 'Great War' let alone a 'World War'. Say it out loud, the effective competitive duration of a conflict does not necessarily make a war a 'Great War'. Not in an era where nuclear war is part of standard war fighting tactics. Ultimately CN historians will argue the point over and over, but I believe that what we are fighting now is 'Great War VI: The Karma War. The previous one, 'Great War V: War of the Coalition'. Also previously: Great War IV: The Unjust War Great War III: The Epic War Great War II: The Farklands War Great War I Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 No, the Great Wars were not predictable from they first night they occurred, that's why UJW and the Coalition War are not Great Wars, and neither is this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOONS Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 No, the Great Wars were not predictable from they first night they occurred, that's why UJW and the Coalition War are not Great Wars, and neither is this. Lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cirrus Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 1) No. THIS was the First World War. 2) The whole point of naming wars is to make them easily identifiable. "Karma War" is more easily identifiable than any generic "big" name you can think of, therefore "Karma War" is a superior name. 3) Everyone already calls it the Karma War. The ship has sailed whether you like it or not. 4) If you are asking how many wars for global hegemony have been fought, the answer is that this is either the 6th or the 7th, depending on whether anybody thinks the Coalition War counts. 5) Great Wars 1 and 2 were unpredictable, but #3 was totally predictable. Aegis never had a chance, and everybody knew it from day one. Sorry, Mogar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingSuck Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 this war had the potential to be a great war, but it disappointed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruthenia Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 1) No. THIS was the First World War.2) The whole point of naming wars is to make them easily identifiable. "Karma War" is more easily identifiable than any generic "big" name you can think of, therefore "Karma War" is a superior name. 3) Everyone already calls it the Karma War. The ship has sailed whether you like it or not. 4) If you are asking how many wars for global hegemony have been fought, the answer is that this is either the 6th or the 7th, depending on whether anybody thinks the Coalition War counts. 5) Great Wars 1 and 2 were unpredictable, but #3 was totally predictable. Aegis never had a chance, and everybody knew it from day one. Sorry, Mogar. Why did you stop posting? This stuff and your old flag thread make me want to have your kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaone Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 (edited) No, the Great Wars were not predictable from they first night they occurred, that's why UJW and the Coalition War are not Great Wars, and neither is this. Are you serious implying this war was a curbstomp from the start? Even the most positive propaganda from our side gave us only a 50M NS headstart at the beginning of this war, of who 20 Million(TOP, NpO) were far from certain. The winner of this war is the side who made the least strategical mistakes during the stress of wartime planning. Hegemony just made more mistakes as Karma during the first 4 days of this war. Edited May 6, 2009 by thaone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabe Logan Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 True, it's going down in history as Karma War, like it or not. Should've been the Revolutionary War though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayOvfEnnay Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 To be honest the "karma war" was also a terrible name and not what I'll refer to it as. WWI isn't all that great either, but when it comes down to it there is no reason to "propose a name". With every war, people just refer to it as they saw it and in their eyes. I personally want to smack the person (not to say names >.>) who decided to make a long essay about why the NoCB war was called "War Of The Coalition" because it was a horrible name and a terrible misrepresentation. NpO refers to it as the Second Patriotic War, or something along that line. I call it the NoCB war as do many others (it seems, more than do call it the "war of the coalition"). There are tons of other names, and you can't force someone to call this something. Unfortunately the Karma War is sticking because that's what's on the wiki right now. I'll call it GWIV. It's the only "unbiased" name that fits, and doesn't sound stupid. Like it or not, this war caused a major turn in the way CN works, and was by all means massive. So yeah, GWIV for me. I really don't care what anyone else calls it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 Are you serious implying this war was a curbstomp from the start? Even the most positive propaganda from our side gave us only a 50M NS headstart at the beginning of this war, of who 20 Million(TOP, NpO) were far from certain. The winner of this war is the side who made the least strategical mistakes during the stress of wartime planning. Hegemony just made more mistakes as Karma during the first 4 days of this war. I'm implying this was designed to make sure NPO lost, and yes, the 30 million advantage did essentially mean you were going to win, especially with the absolutely massive WRC difference between the hegemony and karma sides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 I'm implying this was designed to make sure NPO lost, and yes, the 30 million advantage did essentially mean you were going to win, especially with the absolutely massive WRC difference between the hegemony and karma sides. Yes I agree. How dare the karma nations buy wrcs, nukes and build up warchests? That's totally unfair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fort Pitt Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 i voted yes because it needs something other than the Karma War... but it isnt WWI... its Great War V: the Karma-Sutra Conflict (my personal favorite name) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steodonn Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 1) No. THIS was the First World War. This GATO-ICN was the 1st world war We are not renaming wars Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 It is the Karma War, give over with these threads already. And how was it designed to make the NPO lose when the NPO started it? My, our agents really excelled themselves there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cirrus Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 [OOC] Hi Matt. CN was just taking up too much of my time in real life. It needed to go. Of course, right now things are too interesting not to keep tabs on, so I am temporarily out of retirement. Nice to be missed, though :-) I missed you guys too. [/OOC] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruthenia Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 It is the Karma War, give over with these threads already.And how was it designed to make the NPO lose when the NPO started it? My, our agents really excelled themselves there Moo was a Karma plant all along. It only took a couple years for the plan to come to fruition but it's been paying off in spades at long last. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.