ULTIMATE WAR BETWEEN TANNU TUVA AND LUXEMBURG

GeneralJames wrote:

The Final War. Tannu Tuva, agenst Luxemburg.

THE BATTLE OF THE AGES.

A simple 1v1 gamemode, with massive armies, nukes. And the ENDRITCH GOD UNITS

So yeah.

No. Why you might ask?

This is a world war 2 game, this suggestion just doesn’t make sense, don’t get me wrong this does sound fun, but it probably won’t happen because it just doesn’t have logical sense, plus Tannu Tuva and Luxembourg are in two different continents, Europe and Asia. How will they fight each other? Will this be worth the making? Will people play it since this will be a 1v1?

Think of these questions before you try and suggest stuff.

It’s a fun idea, but I just can’t see it happening in the actual game

no. it's needed. 1000/10 suggestion. I'd suggest MORE nukes.

*sigh*

NEPTUNE the great wrote:

GeneralJames wrote:

The Final War. Tannu Tuva, agenst Luxemburg.

THE BATTLE OF THE AGES.

A simple 1v1 gamemode, with massive armies, nukes. And the ENDRITCH GOD UNITS

So yeah.

This is my honest opinion so try not to get mad at me, ok here is my answer:

No. Why you might ask?

This is a world war 2 game, this suggestion just doesn’t make sense, don’t get me wrong this does sound fun, but it probably won’t happen because it just doesn’t have logical sense, plus Tannu Tuva and Luxembourg are in two different continents, Europe and Asia. How will they fight each other? Will this be worth the making? Will people play it since this will be a 1v1?

Think of these questions before you try and suggest stuff.

It’s a fun idea, but I just can’t see it happening in the actual game

• We also have Call of Christmas.
• Antartica Domination.
• And used to have that gamemode where you were on an island.

And Luxemburg and Tannu Tuva would be massive empires spanning the world, very few Independent countries, nukes would also be deployable after 3 days.

Huh, I’ve never thought about that.

GeneralJames wrote:

NEPTUNE the great wrote:

GeneralJames wrote:

The Final War. Tannu Tuva, agenst Luxemburg.

THE BATTLE OF THE AGES.

A simple 1v1 gamemode, with massive armies, nukes. And the ENDRITCH GOD UNITS

So yeah.

This is my honest opinion so try not to get mad at me, ok here is my answer:No. Why you might ask?

This is a world war 2 game, this suggestion just doesn’t make sense, don’t get me wrong this does sound fun, but it probably won’t happen because it just doesn’t have logical sense, plus Tannu Tuva and Luxembourg are in two different continents, Europe and Asia. How will they fight each other? Will this be worth the making? Will people play it since this will be a 1v1?

Think of these questions before you try and suggest stuff.

It’s a fun idea, but I just can’t see it happening in the actual game

We have Homefront. We're each US state is independent, Canada, and Mexico are also broken up.

• We also have Call of Christmas.
• Antartica Domination.
• And used to have that gamemode where you were on an island.

Call of War is not realistic, and many scenarios are fiction, I mean EVERY US STATE INDEPENENT WITH NUKES. They won't tell you that in schools.

And Luxemburg and Tannu Tuva would be massive empires spanning the world, very few Independent countries, nukes would also be deployable after 3 days.

Need this mode

people never comment to real suggestions and they always comment to rubbish threads

Undaunted wrote:

people never comment to real suggestions and they always comment to rubbish threads

GeneralJames wrote:

NEPTUNE the great wrote:

GeneralJames wrote:

Call of War is not realistic, and many scenarios are fiction, I mean EVERY US STATE INDEPENENT WITH NUKES. They won't tell you that in schools.

70% of the USA population has as highest 'degree' ... Highschool.

That means that out of those 70% many, many didn't even finish Highschool...

So...when Trump becomes President, that is exactly what will happen.

So, hell yeah! COW is not just realistic... it is bloody visionairy!!!

why are you brining politics into the game?

Trump is not going to cause the US to fall apart, it didn't happen in his first term, its not going to happen again if he becomes president. He will prevent foreign wars and bring America back economically.

If Kamala wins, things could very well take a nose dive.

I am not even sure what point you are tying to argue, but COW is a very unrealistic game, I should say that units don't march single file down a road...

I was merely stating a point of view about the realism of COW, based on verifiable facts.

As you (should) know 'Politics' is synonymous with 'lies'.

I don't do 'politics'; only common sense, based on knowledge of history (verifiable facts), and the latter always repeats.

With a basically 2 party system (like the UK or US) people only can choose between 2 evils.

Harris for instance could not ever be where she is if she were an 'angel'; neither could Trump.

And believe me when I say I would love to be wrong about Trump

That does not necessarily mean that a multi-faceted party landscape, resulting in coalition governments, leads to better choices. But it does take off the sharp (extreme) edges of any government program and that is what serves the (multi-faceted) people best.

However, with decades of degradation of education for the masses behind us, there are very few people left who can still more or less objectively judge what is going on. Simply because they dont have enough knowledge of history and don't read books anymore (did you read '1984' for instance? it was obligatory in my days)

For instance, may I ask you;

- what was the cause of the Cuba Crisis and how was it solved?

or

- why were the Moroccan Crises instrumental to what followed later?

or

- can you name a single right-wing government anywhere in any country ever in history, which brought about wellfare for the regular people (as opposed to politicans, bankers, project developpers etc)

or

- can you name a single right-wing government anywhere in any country ever in history, which did not plunge its country into (civil) war? Except maybe Salazar, when disregarding decolonization wars, because his country was simply too poor. Well, let me correct that: his country and the people were dirt poor, but the political and business elite were very, very rich ofc.

Very much looking forward to your answers and pls try to answer from the top of your head and do not google it.

But if you do have to google it, you already have proven to yourself (and you thus know) that I am right.

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

I was merely stating a point of view about the realism of COW, based on verifiable facts.

As you (should) know 'Politics' is synonymous with 'lies'.

I don't do 'politics'; only common sense, based on knowledge of history (verifiable facts), and the latter always repeats.

With a basically 2 party system (like the UK or US) people only can choose between 2 evils.

Harris for instance could not ever be where she is if she were an 'angel'; neither could Trump.

And believe me when I say I would love to be wrong about Trump

That does not necessarily mean that a multi-faceted party landscape, resulting in coalition governments, leads to better choices. But it does take off the sharp (extreme) edges of any government program and that is what serves the (multi-faceted) people best.

However, with decades of degradation of education for the masses behind us, there are very few people left who can still more or less objectively judge what is going on. Simply because they dont have enough knowledge of history and don't read books anymore (did you read '1984' for instance? it was obligatory in my days)

For instance, may I ask you;

- what was the cause of the Cuba Crisis and how was it solved?

or

- why were the Moroccan Crises instrumental to what followed later?

or

- can you name a single right-wing government anywhere in any country ever in history, which brought about wellfare for the regular people (as opposed to politicans, bankers, project developpers etc)

or

- can you name a single right-wing government anywhere in any country ever in history, which did not plunge its country into (civil) war? Except maybe Salazar, when disregarding decolonization wars, because his country was simply too poor. Well, let me correct that: his country and the people were dirt poor, but the political and business elite were very, very rich ofc.

Very much looking forward to your answers and pls try to answer from the top of your head and do not google it.

But if you do have to google it, you already have proven to yourself (and you thus know) that I am right.

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

I was merely stating a point of view about the realism of COW, based on verifiable facts.

As you (should) know 'Politics' is synonymous with 'lies'.

I don't do 'politics'; only common sense, based on knowledge of history (verifiable facts), and the latter always repeats.

With a basically 2 party system (like the UK or US) people only can choose between 2 evils.

Harris for instance could not ever be where she is if she were an 'angel'; neither could Trump.

And believe me when I say I would love to be wrong about Trump

That does not necessarily mean that a multi-faceted party landscape, resulting in coalition governments, leads to better choices. But it does take off the sharp (extreme) edges of any government program and that is what serves the (multi-faceted) people best.

However, with decades of degradation of education for the masses behind us, there are very few people left who can still more or less objectively judge what is going on. Simply because they dont have enough knowledge of history and don't read books anymore (did you read '1984' for instance? it was obligatory in my days)

For instance, may I ask you;

- what was the cause of the Cuba Crisis and how was it solved?

or

- why were the Moroccan Crises instrumental to what followed later?

or

- can you name a single right-wing government anywhere in any country ever in history, which brought about wellfare for the regular people (as opposed to politicans, bankers, project developpers etc)

or

- can you name a single right-wing government anywhere in any country ever in history, which did not plunge its country into (civil) war? Except maybe Salazar, when disregarding decolonization wars, because his country was simply too poor. Well, let me correct that: his country and the people were dirt poor, but the political and business elite were very, very rich ofc.

Very much looking forward to your answers and pls try to answer from the top of your head and do not google it.

But if you do have to google it, you already have proven to yourself (and you thus know) that I am right.

Just tell me your point with put a college thesis.

I will answer one question,

The point about right wing government.

There was a king called James, king james v and I. He was a pacifist and didn't bring his kingdom into war, he also tries and failed to prevent hawkish elements from taking power.

Monarchist is a right wing ideology.

this is a joke thread. Not a big thing. Get over it.