Manetheren Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 Actually the US is a very good example of a merger. The 13 colonies were exceptionally different. They spoke the same language and had the same general background, but that is about it. They strongly opposed each others religions, they had different ideas about government, totally different economic structures. They were not united in any sense before the war, and, quite frankly, didn't like each other very much until they realized that now that they kicked the British out they would be crushed to stand alone. So they sucked it up and tried to make it work together. The Soviet Union is another example, albeit more centralized. Yugoslavia is another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tahsir Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 Actually the US is a very good example of a merger. The 13 colonies were exceptionally different. They spoke the same language and had the same general background, but that is about it. They strongly opposed each others religions, they had different ideas about government, totally different economic structures. They were not united in any sense before the war, and, quite frankly, didn't like each other very much until they realized that now that they kicked the British out they would be crushed to stand alone. So they sucked it up and tried to make it work together.The Soviet Union is another example, albeit more centralized. Yugoslavia is another. The ussr was held together by force, and yugoslavia broke up quite fast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 The ussr was held together by force, and yugoslavia broke up quite fast. So? The original formation of the USSR is what a merger is. Four nations in 1922 signed the Treaty of the Creation of the USSR and the Declaration of the Creation of the USSR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sumeragi Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 Also, this.Please Mods, get rid of them. Sooner the better. Funny that this should come out of a person who had the worst merger besides the Canadian-Angola one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergerberger II Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 The ussr was held together by force, and yugoslavia broke up quite fast. Yugoslavia stayed one nation for 73 years, whereas the USSR stayed together for 69 years. I'd hardly say that Yugoslavia broke up 'fast'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sumeragi Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 The ussr was held together by force, and yugoslavia broke up quite fast. Yugo broke up due to rising nationalism and demagogy. Nordland has a centralizing force in the form of the Martens Family, is ethnically similar, and no demagogy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormcrow Posted May 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 Merger's aren't going to be outlawed, and as I've stated in the Italian Mess thread, any future rulings on this are going to be routed through the gameplay mods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sumeragi Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 Merger's aren't going to be outlawed, and as I've stated in the Italian Mess thread, any future rulings on this are going to be routed through the gameplay mods. Thank you. This should stop the reckless use of GM powers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEDCJT Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 Yugoslavia stayed one nation for 73 years, whereas the USSR stayed together for 69 years. I'd hardly say that Yugoslavia broke up 'fast'. Well, except for the period of 1941-1945, when Yugoslavia was invaded and divided by the Axis Powers...but yeah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerreyRough Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 (edited) As a note, the textbook definition of the USSR defines it more of a bloc than a merger (I find that suprising). Edited May 26, 2009 by JerreyRough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeVentNoir Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 As a note, the textbook definition of the USSR defines it more of a bloc than a merger (I find that suprising). Interesting in the least. Also, Yugoslavia was three countries, of which only one was a merger of independent established states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Confederation Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 (edited) Interesting in the least.Also, Yugoslavia was three countries, of which only one was a merger of independent established states. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Yugoslavia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Fed...c_of_Yugoslavia Geographically, Jugoslavia is defined as the serbo-croatian region in the Balkans. However, politically it's either been a kingdom with the three groups unified, or a socialist federation (ignoring the period when the Axis was in control.) If you're looking for a Jugoslavian "bloc" (not unlike the Nordic Confederacy, where in it's goal was to unify all Serbo-Croatian speaking peoples) look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Slov...roats_and_Serbs Although it claimed to be a single state, very few saw it as such, because each ethnic group had their own executive that equaled the power of the others, so it was a giant three-way argument. Edited May 26, 2009 by Brian Reimer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justinian the Mighty Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 Merger's aren't going to be outlawed, and as I've stated in the Italian Mess thread, any future rulings on this are going to be routed through the gameplay mods. That's sad to hear. I don’t know if I've told anyone this, but I don't think mergers belong in cnrp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeVentNoir Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Yugoslaviahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Fed...c_of_Yugoslavia Geographically, Jugoslavia is defined as the serbo-croatian region in the Balkans. However, politically it's either been a kingdom with the three groups unified, or a socialist federation (ignoring the period when the Axis was in control.) If you're looking for a Jugoslavian "bloc" (not unlike the Nordic Confederacy, where in it's goal was to unify all Serbo-Croatian speaking peoples) look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Slov...roats_and_Serbs Although it claimed to be a single state, very few saw it as such, because each ethnic group had their own executive that equaled the power of the others, so it was a giant three-way argument. So it was never a real merger? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sumeragi Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 So it was never a real merger? It really depends on who you ask. I would say Tito's Yugo was a merger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firestorm Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 I'd say Tito's regime was more of a join or die kind of deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeVentNoir Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 I'd say Tito's regime was more of a join or die kind of deal. Then it would have been an annexation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 That's sad to hear. I don’t know if I've told anyone this, but I don't think mergers belong in cnrp. If CNRP is going to be based on CyberNations game statistics mergers should not be included; nations cannot merge in the CyberNations game, thus shouldn’t be able to in CNRP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeVentNoir Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 If CNRP is going to be based on CyberNations game statistics mergers should not be included; nations cannot merge in the CyberNations game, thus shouldn’t be able to in CNRP. I believe the same. However, the mods have said they will stay, and the merged players would cry too much of they were taken away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manetheren Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 If CNRP is going to be based on CyberNations game statistics mergers should not be included; nations cannot merge in the CyberNations game, thus shouldn’t be able to in CNRP. CNRP has never been based purely on game stats, nor has it been based purely on RL. It is, and continues to be a mix between the two. I believe the same. However, the mods have said they will stay, and the merged players would cry too much of they were taken away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykep Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 Funny that this should come out of a person who had the worst merger besides the Canadian-Angola one. Actually, second worse. It was also a merger to stop THE worst merger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firestorm Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 LOL.... haahahahahah On that note... Quick.. someone go rp something.. I heard role playing is the cure to OOC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sumeragi Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 Actually, second worse. It was also a merger to stop THE worst merger. Nordland was the best merger possibile, if it weren't for Martens's ZI sentence. Don't use a non-reason to cover yourself. Now, let's all go fly a kite- I mean roleplay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykep Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 Nordland was the best merger possibile, if it weren't for Martens's ZI sentence. Don't use a non-reason to cover yourself.Now, let's all go fly a kite- I mean roleplay. Talking about The Europa blunder. You know, the 'war time' merger of 7 nations. Its not a non-reason, I literally made the merger to get rid of mergers. I've stated it hundreds of times...I hate mergers. Roleplay your own states into mergers to create your country. Use your own stats. If you'd like, RP the same concept as the USSR if you wish on your country, just keep it YOUR COUNTRY. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firestorm Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 What is the difference between a bloc and a merger anyway? 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.