Join the new world

I have a general Pro TWO policy because CoT invades us, treats us like crap, and has stabbed us in the back, CoT can't be trusted. Pro TWO does not mean leaving NaN necessarily it just means signing Pro TWO MPPs and supporting TWO in the World War against CoT.

thanks Molly Jo i need to know more about what role Australia and South Africa would play under your plan. I've read elsewhere that some consider COT and TWO to be roughly the same group what do you think about that?

Ironic how we can't trust CoT because they stabbed us in the back when they name is Circle of Trust....

True, most of our problems are due to CoT.

Seems to be something like that.

Aus and SA founded NaN a few months ago. Other smaller nations have joined since. One side of the fence (Majester) wants to stick with NaN in the hope that it grows over time and eAus benefits. Mojo hasn't committed to either side of the argument (that I am aware of) But I know that they will be seriously considering TWO, not joining but some sort of diplomacy. (That seems obvious from her choice of MoFA's) That puts us against our regional enemies CoT, the group that has kept us wiped for months, and provided TWO nations with a foot in the region where they can attack CoT. That would be done via MPP's and TWO soldiers fighting under the eAus flag.

I think the main issue with NaN and TWO is the MPP of Albania, (a Serb (TWO) enemy) Nobody really knows why our gov MPP'd them. The only sense is makes is some under the table dealings forcing us to remain NaN orientated.

Its up to you to make your own decisions on the NaN/TWO issue but facts are simple to understand, NaN has not accomplished anything since its inception other than uniting smaller nations. They have not pulled any military victories simply because many weaker nations combined does not match the strength of the larger nations in the game. TWO is the opposite end of the scale, they are large nations and know how to win battles. (due to size)

thanks Daenerys its a lot to take in i don't understand how these countries relate to each other more trying to get a grasp on the major differences between the two. Would South Africa and Australia play the same big role as they do now in TWO?

na that is the main issue.

In NaN eAus is a big dog, aligning with TWO basically makes us a minion of the large and powerful.

While it benefits us in the short term, Pro NaN think their way is better in the long term.

Horses for courses basically, 6 of one, half dozen of the other. Pro TWO could see us freed within a month but owing debts to big nations over seas. NaN may see us freed eventually and owing debts to nobody.

thanks again Daenerys by what you're saying it's costly and risky to align/friend TWO the other that's a problem for me is Australia and South Africa going from the top of the pack to where the bottom feeders are. I'm open to hear how being a friend v being an ally would make a lot of difference in the game play and how it physically works

sorry if these questions sound dumb i'm trying to work this all out in a way that makes sense so i can take it all in thanks again for your help 😃

You pretty much hit the nail on the head. It's a risky issue that could fall either way and we have one candidate ready to roll the dice and the other not even sitting at the gambling table. As a former CP and very successful CP I've always believed in taking risks, its the only way to force things to change.... yet in the same breath I always had Majester backing me up making sure I never went too far with things. Both candidates are solid, which is the main thing really, there is no 'bad' choice it just comes down to personal preference.

No it's not a choice of leaving NaN to join TWO but we must become very friendly towards them and help them in battles against CoT countries. Also why would and TWO countries dislike NaN ?, we are the nicest people in the entire world. I really hope TWO win this war decisively

aligning isn't joining 😉 and the 'dislike' afaik is Serb/Albania.

Is afaik a word ???................. p

as far as I know afaik stands for something....

hi greg L as per other question would like to know more how being friendly v not joining works differently in the game and where it leaves South Africa and Australia compared to now as major players. Daenerys mentioned there's a trade off with going to TWO and my two worries are how supports for former NAN countries will be decided upon since they will no longer be shot callers and is the debt worth it? thanks

Some of the game is a bit complex for me atm, been playing about 14 weeks or so. If we went to TWO I wouldn't mind too much as long as we stay loyal to every NaN nation as I feel that is out duty, we signed up for it, we MUST honour our contract, if you screw anyone you create a long term anemy, just like when Chile backstabbed us when we were friends, our feelings towards them is hostile at every turn, we got wiped quite a few times but in the end we know that we have the high moral ground and others can see this as fact clearly, it's all about trust.
I think one major thorn in any alliance is internal national politics, all it takes is one dishonest self serving government to decide they want to stab a nation freind in the back and the rest of us get tarred with the same brush, I have seen many articles from around EWorld and I have seen countless times where players from an enemy country don't say stuff like, "those guys you have in your government are RATS", you more often read this instead, "those bloody Rat Hypermians (mythical eCountry) are traitors (seen many Chileans claim that) and backstabbers and knobs, etc.

yes completely i wouldn't be supportive of any change unless there were guarantees by our president that NAN countries are represented with the same dignity and respect they have now. There seems to be a lot at risk and without knowing who and what on all ends its hard to make a decision

Staying NAN and going pro TWO right now is the only way to change the game.

yep seems so logical to some....

Foreign policy is one part of the CP candidate's platform. There are other matters to consider as well, such as military policy.

The difference in Military Policy between Majester and Molly is that Molly is set to disband our Australian Defence Force, while Majester does not intend to. Some people will say that joining a private MU is enough, but based on most of our private Military Units, they cannot afford to supply our soldiers, and it is left to the Government run MUs to do so, or risk losing our players to other Nations where they can be supplies with tanks and food for battles. 99% of people calling for the ADF to be disbanded are those who have personal problems with it's leadership or who run their own private MUs.

i don't know what the government military is v military units and how they differ in practice to come to an opinion on military policy I ask what does the government do differently? not sure what you're saying does it have to be one or the other or can a country have both?

Yes, our Country has both at this time. This is how many Countries operate. With a Govt funded Military and with private militaries that self fund.

"Molly is set to disband our Australian Defence Force" That is a lie, she plans on restructuring and changing the focus.

She plans on booting out 99% of the ADF. She has said so on the forums in the public CP debate.

99% lol you are so full of it. Most eAus D3's and D4's aren't in the ADF in the first place. Its on the dozen or so that her plan effects while the new players are set to benefit.