World War 2 Roleplay - Applications & Questions

Taffyta Muttonfudge wrote:

Kadeko wrote:

Lady Aragosta wrote:

Are we going to bother waiting for players for Tibet and Xinjiang?

Should we?Who else wants to be picked for a country that'll die with a guarantee?

Tibet can actually become pretty OP if it isn't conquered in the first few days. I was able to win with it a few times in 1.0, and the doctrine benefits in 2.0 should help even more.

In RP...being a country like Tibet is not easy just to survive...

I've been playing as Morocco in CoN RP...the bigger countries is able to break the rules, such as violating the land exchange period which should ended on day 7, but they still continued it without even giving them a punishment for it.

It was already written a rule about it.

Being a Tibet and assaulted by a bigger nation in Asia...even if they scream for justice...nobody really cares about them since they're only a "Filling Hole" just like what I've experienced before.

Being Tibet and Xinjiang will not be easy if there's nobody is willing to be their loyal ally or somebody who's able to protect them. So, that means the chance of them dying is higher than the superpowers...

If this RP was supposed between teams for example.

Team A consisting of Country A, Country B, etc.. is fighting with Team B which consists of Country B, Country C etc...

The chance of them surviving will be higher...

So, did I survive as Morocco in CoN RP? Well, it's not easy to tell if I was winning or not as we fool the other team to turn down the game and get inactive to abandon the game as we brutally finish them without their knowing.

So, I won't call it a win, but more of a survival.

Hence, not many people like to play as the "Underdog" in the game.

We're lucky enough to find somebody who plays SA and other small nations.

But, in the case of Tibet and Xinjiang...it's up to @Zaktty to decide if he wants to do it with or without them.

Kadeko wrote:

Taffyta Muttonfudge wrote:

Kadeko wrote:

Lady Aragosta wrote:

Are we going to bother waiting for players for Tibet and Xinjiang?

Should we?Who else wants to be picked for a country that'll die with a guarantee?

Tibet can actually become pretty OP if it isn't conquered in the first few days. I was able to win with it a few times in 1.0, and the doctrine benefits in 2.0 should help even more.

This is...roleplay...

In RP...being a country like Tibet is not easy just to survive...

I've been playing as Morocco in CoN RP...the bigger countries is able to break the rules, such as violating the land exchange period which should ended on day 7, but they still continued it without even giving them a punishment for it.

It was already written a rule about it.

Being a Tibet and assaulted by a bigger nation in Asia...even if they scream for justice...nobody really cares about them since they're only a "Filling Hole" just like what I've experienced before.

Being Tibet and Xinjiang will not be easy if there's nobody is willing to be their loyal ally or somebody who's able to protect them. So, that means the chance of them dying is higher than the superpowers...

If this RP was supposed between teams for example.

Team A consisting of Country A, Country B, etc.. is fighting with Team B which consists of Country B, Country C etc...

The chance of them surviving will be higher...

So, did I survive as Morocco in CoN RP? Well, it's not easy to tell if I was winning or not as we fool the other team to turn down the game and get inactive to abandon the game as we brutally finish them without their knowing.

So, I won't call it a win, but more of a survival.

Hence, not many people like to play as the "Underdog" in the game.

We're lucky enough to find somebody who plays SA and other small nations.

But, in the case of Tibet and Xinjiang...it's up to @Zaktty to decide if he wants to do it with or without them.

Gungan wrote:

Should we postpone this until January?

Can someone sum this up, its gone from 2 to 45 pages for me.

Zaktty wrote:

Can someone sum this up, its gone from 2 to 45 pages for me.

Hadn't we sort of agreed to the ninth? Or possibly the twelfth. December, anyway.

Carking the 6th wrote:

Kadeko wrote:

Taffyta Muttonfudge wrote:

Kadeko wrote:

Lady Aragosta wrote:

Are we going to bother waiting for players for Tibet and Xinjiang?

Should we?Who else wants to be picked for a country that'll die with a guarantee?

Tibet can actually become pretty OP if it isn't conquered in the first few days. I was able to win with it a few times in 1.0, and the doctrine benefits in 2.0 should help even more.

This is...roleplay...In RP...being a country like Tibet is not easy just to survive...

I've been playing as Morocco in CoN RP...the bigger countries is able to break the rules, such as violating the land exchange period which should ended on day 7, but they still continued it without even giving them a punishment for it.

It was already written a rule about it.

Being a Tibet and assaulted by a bigger nation in Asia...even if they scream for justice...nobody really cares about them since they're only a "Filling Hole" just like what I've experienced before.

Being Tibet and Xinjiang will not be easy if there's nobody is willing to be their loyal ally or somebody who's able to protect them. So, that means the chance of them dying is higher than the superpowers...

If this RP was supposed between teams for example.

Team A consisting of Country A, Country B, etc.. is fighting with Team B which consists of Country B, Country C etc...

The chance of them surviving will be higher...

So, did I survive as Morocco in CoN RP? Well, it's not easy to tell if I was winning or not as we fool the other team to turn down the game and get inactive to abandon the game as we brutally finish them without their knowing.

So, I won't call it a win, but more of a survival.

Hence, not many people like to play as the "Underdog" in the game.

We're lucky enough to find somebody who plays SA and other small nations.

But, in the case of Tibet and Xinjiang...it's up to @Zaktty to decide if he wants to do it with or without them.

That was a case of unclear rules, had nothing to do with size.

If you said that size doesn't matter, why did many people fight (contestants) for the superpowers?

Like the USA, Germany, USSR, etc..

If you were given the choice of playing between Tibet and the USA, what would you choose? Personally, I would go with the USA.

Why? It's because it has bigger starting points, more resources, and more troops than Tibet.

I'm not trying to make all people who chose the major powers guilty.

I myself would also pick a bigger nation as well unless I was doing some challenge like "Winning as Danzig in ACAI without gold speedrun" or something like that.

Even the last time, the rule clearly stated that the Land Exchange has to stop after 7 days.

So, it's not really about how the rules were blurred or size doesn't matter.

Even I, refuse to pick a smaller nation because I know the chance of being independent and survivability is not much compared to the bigger ones.

Even if you said that they're not going to die easily, when they're attacked...they become puppets if they can't defend themselves or die slowly afterward.

It takes a lot of patience, hard work, and dedication to be able to survive being countries like that.

That's from my own experience while playing as Morocco several times may or may not have accidentally angered the superpowers.

TheZhukov wrote:

You remember Chaldiran?

TheZhukov wrote:

are you persia in the RP?

-VIP- wrote:

Zaktty wrote:

Can someone sum this up, its gone from 2 to 45 pages for me.

basically sounded like they dont want to start till the new year...

JASLOLY wrote:

-VIP- wrote:

Zaktty wrote:

Can someone sum this up, its gone from 2 to 45 pages for me.

basically sounded like they dont want to start till the new year...

Let’s do that

Kadeko wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

Kadeko wrote:

Taffyta Muttonfudge wrote:

Kadeko wrote:

Lady Aragosta wrote:

Are we going to bother waiting for players for Tibet and Xinjiang?

Should we?Who else wants to be picked for a country that'll die with a guarantee?

Tibet can actually become pretty OP if it isn't conquered in the first few days. I was able to win with it a few times in 1.0, and the doctrine benefits in 2.0 should help even more.

This is...roleplay...In RP...being a country like Tibet is not easy just to survive...I've been playing as Morocco in CoN RP...the bigger countries is able to break the rules, such as violating the land exchange period which should ended on day 7, but they still continued it without even giving them a punishment for it.

It was already written a rule about it.

Being a Tibet and assaulted by a bigger nation in Asia...even if they scream for justice...nobody really cares about them since they're only a "Filling Hole" just like what I've experienced before.

Being Tibet and Xinjiang will not be easy if there's nobody is willing to be their loyal ally or somebody who's able to protect them. So, that means the chance of them dying is higher than the superpowers...

If this RP was supposed between teams for example.

Team A consisting of Country A, Country B, etc.. is fighting with Team B which consists of Country B, Country C etc...

The chance of them surviving will be higher...

So, did I survive as Morocco in CoN RP? Well, it's not easy to tell if I was winning or not as we fool the other team to turn down the game and get inactive to abandon the game as we brutally finish them without their knowing.

So, I won't call it a win, but more of a survival.

Hence, not many people like to play as the "Underdog" in the game.

We're lucky enough to find somebody who plays SA and other small nations.

But, in the case of Tibet and Xinjiang...it's up to @Zaktty to decide if he wants to do it with or without them.

That was a case of unclear rules, had nothing to do with size.

So you're telling me that countries that started with 280 points and with at least around 15+ troops are the same as countries that started with 50 points and less than 15 troops?

If you said that size doesn't matter, why did many people fight (contestants) for the superpowers?

Like the USA, Germany, USSR, etc..

If you were given the choice of playing between Tibet and the USA, what would you choose? Personally, I would go with the USA.

Why? It's because it has bigger starting points, more resources, and more troops than Tibet.

I'm not trying to make all people who chose the major powers guilty.

I myself would also pick a bigger nation as well unless I was doing some challenge like "Winning as Danzig in ACAI without gold speedrun" or something like that.

Even the last time, the rule clearly stated that the Land Exchange has to stop after 7 days.

So, it's not really about how the rules were blurred or size doesn't matter.

Even I, refuse to pick a smaller nation because I know the chance of being independent and survivability is not much compared to the bigger ones.

Even if you said that they're not going to die easily, when they're attacked...they become puppets if they can't defend themselves or die slowly afterward.

It takes a lot of patience, hard work, and dedication to be able to survive being countries like that.

That's from my own experience while playing as Morocco several times may or may not have accidentally angered the superpowers.

Kadeko wrote:

JASLOLY wrote:

-VIP- wrote:

Zaktty wrote:

Can someone sum this up, its gone from 2 to 45 pages for me.

basically sounded like they dont want to start till the new year...

Let’s do that

I agree as well.

Let’s do it on January 1, 2024

Suits me.

Alright but to be serious 9th or 12th is preferable

Honestly I'm fine with any time after the tenth, but the longer I have to collect 5000 gold the better. In all seriousness I have zero problems with January 1.

In all seriousness with this matter, I'm good if it's start in 2025.

Now while I think we're mostly willing to put up with a month-long delay, asking people to wait a year is going a bit far.

On the plus side I'm guaranteed to have finished my CoN and made 5000 gold by then.

Lady Aragosta wrote:

Now while I think we're mostly willing to put up with a month-long delay, asking people to wait a year is going a bit far.

On the plus side I'm guaranteed to have finished my CoN and made 5000 gold by then.

The longer, the better.

I see no problem with that.

Might as well wait a decade and go to 2030, then