Talk:Axis vs Allies (Map Game)

Where is the map?
I usually don't enter the realm of the map games but I was skimming the recent edits and I came to this article and I could not help but notice...there is no map! How can you have a map game without a map?!?!?!? Mitro 21:17, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

yeah I will add one PitaKang 22:36, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

Pita I found a good map. just have to change the colors and such.



I can fix the colours. I just need everyone to say whether they're going to be allied or axis. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 02:10, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

I did this quickly and it likely has inaccuracies, possibly in German and English empires. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 05:16, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

Are we using it or not? It took a lot of work. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 22:58, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

New users?
Do you still accept new users in the game?Collie Kaltenbrunner 20:46, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Yes. In fact, you are welcome to. PitaKang 20:48, February 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * There are still vacant countries?Collie Kaltenbrunner 21:14, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Great Britian is still vacant, as well as France, Norway, Demark, Spain, Portugal, maybe a newly independent India, An independent Australia, almost all South American nations, and more! PitaKang 21:22, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * I would take Britian or France. Roguejedi 21:23, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * anyone have pros and cons for Brazil?Collie Kaltenbrunner 21:57, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to be the Congress for India (for now) and eventually Independent India,Batmanary 03:56, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Can I join as Australia? God Bless the United States of America 14:24, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure! Like I said, It's never too late to join. Remember to declare independence, though. PitaKang- (Talk|Contribs) 16:19, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Can I replace Baconton as Britain? He doesn't seem to be responding much Batmanary 00:50, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure! PitaKang- (Talk|Contribs) 23:11, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Can someone give me the pros and cons for Columbia? I joined, but I don't really have many options at this point. Michael Douglas 21:56, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * How about: [Pros: large oil exporter, self-sufficient, fast-growing population][Cons: fairly undeveloped, lack of hi-tech industries, small navy & air force). I think it's pretty accurate, but I'd ask Fedelede as he's Columbian. Matt 22:10, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * From now on, please spell it as Colombia with an O. It's the correct spelling. Columbia is in western Canada. As for the pros and cons, they are mostly correct, although oil, of what I know, was discovered relatively late. I'd also consider Colombia's great food-producing industry and it's rich minerals as a great pro, with the cons that it's still undeveloped and rough, and many natural resources are in areas in which it's hard to extract them. Fed (talk) 22:14, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol I'm sorry bout the spelling; it's just in our nature. The self-sufficient thing sort of ties into the whole agriculture and such. What are the main crops in Colombia? (Other than the happy happy plant :D) Matt 22:25, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, excuse me for getting it wrong. It's not agriculture, but just plants outright. Colombia produces bananas (hence the term "banana republic"), coffee, flowers (it's one of the largest flower producers in the world), and clothing-making plants. By the way, Colombia is very rich in other minerals, such as emeralds, copper and nickel.
 * As for the spelling, yes, that's right. In English, the pronunciation of Colombia's name would be written with U, but in Spanish it's with O. Fed (talk) 22:31, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, excuse me for getting it wrong. It's not agriculture, but just plants outright. Colombia produces bananas (hence the term "banana republic"), coffee, flowers (it's one of the largest flower producers in the world), and clothing-making plants. By the way, Colombia is very rich in other minerals, such as emeralds, copper and nickel.
 * As for the spelling, yes, that's right. In English, the pronunciation of Colombia's name would be written with U, but in Spanish it's with O. Fed (talk) 22:31, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

WW2
I think WW2 should be nuke-free. Say I if you are with me. PitaKang- (Talk|Contribs) 23:11, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe have a nuclear war to end the map game...Batmanary 23:34, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

The WW2 restriction, yes. The nuclear war, no. Fedelede 23:36, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Hey, who will control Soviet Union? It seems the whole of Europe is in the Italian Alliance...Batmanary 01:43, March 4, 2011 (UTC)

Well, our OTL World War II was a nuclear war (It only takes one nuke for it to be a nuclear war, kids!) I would love to restrict nukes until after the war. However, we should step out of our comfort zone (but keep it plausible!) I think that superpowers like the US should get nukes first. A few turns later, nations that have been working since 1940 on the Manhattan Project like West Cuba can join the nuclear family (and I'm giving Cuba leeway since they've got spies working on the project in America. CrimsonAssassin 21:32, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but West Cuba isn’t going to join that particular club anytime soon. It just doesn’t have enough resources, and I’m sure everyone else agrees. How would the top scientists in the Manhattan Project be Cuban spies? That’s just implausible. Oh, Cuba may join in maybe 20-30 years, but not in 5 or 6. PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 23:01, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Hey, it's possible for a Cuban Spy to be a chief scientist. In fact, that's the best place I could put them. Yes, Cuba has little resources. They can't produce the nukes, but if their spies worked on the atom bomb, they're already lightyears ahead of several other countries by just KNOWING how to build an atom bomb. Without America's help, it would take a long time for a cuban nuclear program. However, with America's (up until now unwilling) help, Cuba could have nukes by 1950.

However, the topic of this section is whether WWII should be a nuclear war. I say yes, with limitations.

CrimsonAssassin 15:37, March 7, 2011 (UTC)

Map
Hey, somebody is noting that the last map was posted in the 1940 section and we are almost in 1945?Collie Kaltenbrunner 21:02, March 5, 2011 (UTC)

Codes and stuff I've seen
Although I haven't been playing this, looking through recent stuff I have seen some things that I feel I need to say about.

1. The Italians land in Gibraltar. This is near impossible by themselves. Gibraltar is a Fortress, designed to hold out for months, if not years. Not to mention that any naval invasion would have to get past the coastal defense guns, and withering fire trying to climb the slopes. Even then, as I've said before, the fortress is designed to last months in a seige, and as long as Spain isn't in the war, they are going to sit there and wait for the british navy to show up and destroy your landing force.

2. Codes. I see that there were lots of arguments about who knows what. As everyone knows, Germany has the Enigma code. No one could break this until the Brits managed to get a working copy of Enigma, and then build their own computer to decipher it. Even then, they had to act like they had another reason for acting on information from Enigma, lest the Nazi's realize their codes had been broken. The Italians have Enigma, so ditto for them. British codes got broken by the Germans, but the Germans were crippled by the fact that there was no central command like in the UK. In Japan, only the diplomaic code was broken first. The military codes came after the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor. And everyone knows about the US codes. These are probably hard to break, since you need to get someone who can translate the Navajo, then figure out what they are saying. as for Russia, I don't really know, but I bet you could find someone who does.

Just my piece, thankyou for your time

Azecreth 21:46, March 5, 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Azecreth you know your codes and that is one of many things that impresses me. BlackSkyEmpire 21:52, March 5, 2011 (UTC)BlackSkyEmpire

Thank you. I also do parties and Bar Mitzvahs. Azecreth 22:11, March 5, 2011 (UTC)

Hey Azecreth, want to be our official neutral implauisibility inspector?Batmanary 00:21, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Sure. That's fine with me. Just don't expect me to be forgiving. Azecreth 01:48, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

After some thought, I've decided on a better role. Basically, if there's a big argument over implausibility, just call me, and I will give my judgement. is that cool with you guys? Azecreth 17:28, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I've already given you Mod powers. PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 17:33, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

Can I join
Can I be South Africa

Can I join
Can I be South Africa.

Yes, and please sign your post with 4 tildes (PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 00:18, March 7, 2011 (UTC)). PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 00:18, March 7, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jer1818 00:20, March 7, 2011 (UTC)

Nation profile
I want to know which should be the pattern to the pages for the nations that you've talked about.Collie Kaltenbrunner 10:21, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

Axis and Allies
Put your nation in those categories

Allies
United States

India

Britain (and the rest of the Commonwealth/Imperial Federation.)

Korea

Britain vs Turkey discussion
Please sign your posts!!!


 * Buuut the Kurds already have a state in parts of Turkey and Iraq. I highly doubt they would like to be restricted to only Iraq, as the majority live in what was formerly Turkish territory. There's no point in having two Kurdish nations either, and one already exists that includes both regions. It makes no sense whatsoever to found a new state.- Matt 22:45, March 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you totally, but of course I can't because I'm supposed to be on Britain's side in the war :) PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 22:48, March 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * PitaKang has seen the light, Batmanary. The question is, will you? BTW Peter which came first; Koryo or Choseon? Matt 22:52, March 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha, seen the light. Also, Koryo came way, way first. It was founded in 918, while Choseon was founded in 1392. Go hereand herefor more info on them. PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 22:56, March 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks man. I have a big history exam tomorrow so I'm just studying up on the most inaccurate history site here on the web. Matt 23:04, March 10, 2011 (UTC)\
 * Haha, true. Hey, there was some guy on the Alexander's Empire article that didn't know this was alternate history so he corrected all the "inaccuracies" in it before he left. Then I reverted it. Hahah. :) PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 23:07, March 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol! One might think that the whole "alternate" thingy in "alternate history" might have some meaning, but I suppose not. Matt 23:18, March 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Anyways, back to the discussion. So, we need to get more people to decide what's plausible about this situation. PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 01:45, March 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Yeah sure buit they are a British Dominion, which is actually advantageous for a small landlocked state, to have a powerful country ensure proper trade into the region and promising stability. Batmanary
 * True, but Turkey has already really sort of done that. PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 03:10, March 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * But at this point, Britain leads to total stability, plus I am planning on giving actual independence to all my colonies, and then having them in the Commonwealth of Nations. Not all the countries in it recognize the Queen as head of state. India, or Brunei for instance.
 * It makes absolutely no sense to create two different nations claiming the exact same area with the exact same goals. I think seniority would prevail in this case, so the one founded first would most likely be recognized by the majority of people.Matt 19:58, March 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * True, as that Turkey is also a stable nation, with a leader known for his greatness. However, Great Britain is much the same, but also, I think they would identify themself with Turkey more, as that first, Turkey is closer, and second, there are lots of Kurds living in Turkey. PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 21:33, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

Siam's War of Aggression
Hey, Batmanary here. I wanted to talk about the whole implausibility of the Siam-India War and hopefully you guys can help mediate the situation. Detectivekenny constantly tries to take Tenasserim from India, and charges me with threatening Siam. I countered that he could expand anywhere east or south of Siam, but he says that he cannot expand there. Here are the rough estimates of India's population in the 40s and Siam's today.

400 000 000 ( India's population in the 40s) and 66 000 000 (Thai population as of 2010). I said my army size is 2 million, which is plausible for India at this time, but he says that his armed forces are also 2 million strong, which is totally impossible, since Siam's population today doesn't even come close to India's in the 40s. Please share your thoughts and comments as to who will win this argument. If the majority of you agree with Detectivekenny, I will gladly back out and give Tenasserim. Batmanary

Okay here's my argument: 1) Economics: Siam has a lot more to gain from Tenasserim, including more access to the ocean, versus India where it is a drop in the bucket.

2) Location: Tenasserim is a day's walk from the capital, Bangkok, versus over a thousand miles from Delhi.

3) Geopolitics: Siam is a relatively compact nation, with ability to control nearby areas, versus gigantic India, which would have difficulty in moving large numbers of troops to extremeties

4) Manpower: Siam's army does have two million, plus added Japanese and Malays. I checked, and the population of Siam was pretty close to 20 million at the time. That's one in 10 people in the army, very close to the ratio in North Korea, or Japan in OTL WWII.

5) Religion: Simply put, Thais are like 99% Theravada Buddhist, while India has no religious unity, split between antipathic Hindus, Muslims, Buddhosts. Under a single relgion, the army has a common enemy and has much higher morale.

6) Nationalism: India has many seperatist movements due to cultural diversity. India was never unified until the British. Thus, nationalism would make a unified movement difficult. Thailand does not have any seperatist movements excep some southerners, who could be categorized as Malays.

7) Tehnology: Check old posts, and you will see that Thailand has borrowed from Japan almost all of their technology, as well as developped its own significantly. Japan defeated Britain in WWII, and Indian tehnology might be sligthly inferior to British technology. India has not developed its technology much, so we can assume Siamese technology is pretty close to Indian technology.

8) Government: India is ruled by a prime minister who is disliked by many Hindus, who make up around 90% of the population. On the other hand, Siam has a single figurehead who represents most Thais.

9) Geography: Thailand has good control of the Karen mountains just east of Tenasserim, making high ground invasion easy.

10) Support: Most Southeast Asians welcomed the Japanese as liberators from European rule, even though much later they decided the Japanese were worse. The inhabitants of Tenasserim would definitely show support for Asian liberators rather than a European-created nation. Unless India could mass-distribute hundreds of millions of (present-day US) dollars in propaganda to everywhere in the country within five years or so.

11) Existence: This is a slight red herring, I admit, but did anyone find the idea of India completely unified with no riots a bit fishy? Not to mention being coupled with a Buddhist nation (Burma) with its own culture.

12) Sovereignty: One point for India.

Disputes? Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 05:19, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

Pan-Asian Trade Union
These are the members of the Pan-Asian Union, at the moment: The Pan-Asian Union is a cultural and economic union that would guarantee the economic stability and interests of Asia in the world. It would have relief programs for the impoverished, and would develop welfare between all states. All Pan-Asian Union members would have free trade between each other as well, and the Bombay Stock Exchange, as well as Tokyo SE and Hong Kong's would serve as the centre of many Asian enterprises.
 * India
 * Korea
 * Australia
 * Malaysia
 * Phillipines
 * British Mandate of Hong Kong
 * Portuguese Mandate of Macau
 * Siam (proposed)
 * Japan (proposed)
 * China (proposed)
 * Saudi Arabia(proposed)
 * Turkey (proposed)
 * SAR (proposed)

United Nations
NPC. Countries with no player who are in the UN or are being assessed for it '''Belgium is part of Germany at this time. Batmanary 18:12, March 12, 2011 (UTC)'''
 * Britain and its Dominions
 * France
 * Turkey
 * Sweden
 * India
 * USA
 * Germany
 * Italy (only allowed in if they stop the war with France)
 * Saudi Arabia
 * DSAR (proposed)
 * Korea
 * Brazil (proposed)
 * Switzerland
 * Spain
 * Kurdistan
 * Portugal
 * Japan (proposed)
 * Netherlands

How the UN would function
This is how I think the UN should function:

A permanent council that proposes proposals and the like, which would consist of: These countries would vote on proposals. Depending on what type it is. Declaring war on another country, would require 100% of the votes. Other motions, such as currency, mediating wars already in motion, or discussing economics or whatever else would be decided by a majority vote. - cheers,Batmanary 18:17, March 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Britain
 * US
 * Germany
 * India
 * Turkey
 * Brazil

Perfect! And we'd make a UN proposals/voting page for it, so we can do stuff and basically be a government in this map game! This would be the first map game (created by me, of course :) to have stuff llike that. I'm so excited about that! And I'm going to make an actuall TL off of this, so this'll help too. PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 18:20, March 12, 2011 (UTC)

I suggest to wait until the game ends, until making a TL about everything, as each page would be that much better.Batmanary 18:31, March 12, 2011 (UTC)

That was my plan. However, we should do this NOW. PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 18:37, March 12, 2011 (UTC)

The image has been reverted to its original picture - the UN building - and removed from here. Bat, upload it as something else. Lordganon 20:06, March 12, 2011 (UTC)

Problem: Germany annexed Austria and Sudentland, I posted it around 1939 or close to that year. 174.60.86.95 00:49, March 13, 2011 (UTC)BlackSkyEmpire

No worries, Germany Batmanary 02:16, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

I think that France should be in the Council because it has major land claims in Africa.-Ocelot9011 01:09, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

It will not be a permanent member. It will be one of the non-permanent members of the SC, which will rotate, due to not wanting the SC members to outnumber everyone else in the Map Game. Besides, this adds a Polycentric dynamic to the whole thing Batmanary 02:16, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

'''ATTENTION ALL SECURITY COUNCIL MEMBERS!  Go to this link,United Nations, to vote on resolutions!!!!!!''' Batmanary



Italian-French War Peace Talks
You accept proposals for a treaty? i mean, somebody think that would be fair if the war ended and Italy got Tunisia and Corsica and a territory in mainland France up to Nice, but it would have to pay war reparations and give the Aouzou Strip to France?Collie Kaltenbrunner 09:50, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

I think that no territorial gain should be made.-Ocelot9011 21:17, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'd NEVER agree at that. Fed (talk) 22:24, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

What about this proposal: I gain PACA, Rhone Alpes, Corsica and Tunisia. You recuperate Algeria, I give you the Aouzou Strip and a war compensation. Fed (talk) 22:58, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

I will give you Corsica but that is it!-Ocelot9011 04:27, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

Then we'll continue the war. Fed (talk) 22:59, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

How bout i give you PACA and the Rhone Alps and a 20 year lease to Corsica?-Ocelot9011 01:39, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

Nope. I want the three regions. Fed (talk) 01:40, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

Deal-Ocelot9011 03:49, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

Britain's Dominions
This is just a heads up to show all of Britain's dominions. Yes, some them are controlled by other players, but they are still Dominions:
 * Newfoundland
 * Canada
 * South Africa
 * Australia
 * New Zealand
 * Egypt
 * Sudan
 * Rhodesia
 * Malawi
 * Zambia
 * Botswana
 * Kenya
 * Uganda
 * Tanzania
 * Palestine
 * Malaysia
 * West Indies
 * Guyana
 * Belize
 * Congo

I thought we had agreed that Kurdistan was fully independent. Your whole arguement for its existance as a Dominion makes no sense whatsoever. Matt 13:30, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, there we go, but I think the borders are too big. I say make Kurdistan have a bit less of Iraq, because that's a huge chunk of Iraq. Batmanary 17:58, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

I didn't make the maps. However, that is a pretty good estimation of Kurdish-majority areas in previously Iraqi territory. I'll add in more of Turkey to make up the difference. Matt 18:23, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. BTW the reason I wanted it as a dominion, is because I literally gained nothing for either of my countries. Well...until gaining Congo, that is.Batmanary 18:46, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

Batmanary vs Detectivekenny
Why does User:Batmanary keep switching countries? First it was India and Malaysia, then India and Kurdistan, and now India and Britain? Both of which are superpowers? 05:40, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

I never played as Kurdistan. And I quit playing as Malaysia, so you could conquer it, remember? Since then (about a week or two ago), I've been exclusively playing as India and Britain(which I asked permission to play as) Batmanary

Okay, but they can't both be superpowers. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 21:55, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that India is a real superpower. PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 22:21, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

India is more of a regional superpower. The only reason they are SC is to represent Asia. (-unsigned)

What's SC? Also, if it's a regional superpower, then keep it that way. Although I'll point out that it's made out of five OTL countries, three of which are in the top 8 in the world, and the others are 24th and 56th, it's still really big. Maybe it doesn't have power on a worldwide scale, so I don't want to see this "India will crush Siam." Because Siam was intended as a semi-superpower… Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 04:10, March 19, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for intervene, but SC means the UN Security Council.and sorry again, in case that you already know.Collie Kaltenbrunner 17:21, March 19, 2011 (UTC)

I've never had "India crush Siam". There was war because you invaded sovereign territory. India never even went past Tenasserim, other than one bombing. In fact they didn't even threaten you with war. Britain declared war on you for taking over the Maldives, which is British sovereign territory.

Okay. Just keep in mind, Britain did the same thing against Japan. And Japan took over all of Burma. PLUS the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. PLUS a bunch of British Pacific Islands. PLUS Hong Kong. And that's full control. And British Territory was only a small part of Japanese invasion. Not only that, but the British LOST. Siamese technology is more than Japanese, because they have Japanese technology plus the technology the Europeans gave them before the war. So keep that in mind when you try to declare war over a couple of small atolls. Also, Siam wasn't technnically launching an invasion. Some "volunteers" went over there to help out the protesters who wanted independence. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 04:22, March 19, 2011 (UTC)

And keep in mind that Japan's attack was when the majority of British forces was divided between different fronts, whereas this is Britain against Siam. No distractions. Batmanary

Distractions? You're changing government in like 20 different territories around the world, founding an international organization, and dealing with a ton of separatist movements. Plus trying to defend from Germany's nice beachhead in Belgium, attempting to buy Suriname, etc. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 04:43, March 19, 2011 (UTC)

Britain is at peace with Germany. In fact it is currently one of the members who is against Siam becoming a UN member with its meddling in other countries territory, and before your actions in Maldives, Britain was willing to let you join the UN. Batmanary

Okay sure. By the way another point to bring up is that all of Europe plus the United States and China were against Japan. For this game it's mainly Britain. And again, it's not invasion. Its support for independence movements. Don't say Britain OTL has never done that before . Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 04:57, March 19, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that. But there is a stark difference between supporting independence and actually establishing a republic for someone else on another country's land and then making them swear allegiance to Siam, which is not strategically a good thing anyways.

Anyways, can we continue this later? It is 1 AM here for me, and I need to catch up on some sleep. Bats

Okay. I'll just leave the comment: Stark difference? Who says the Siamese won't eventually allow the Dhivehis republic independence? It's just that when they know they have the support of fellow Asians it gives them a surge of hope that one day they will be able to rule themselves without having to respect a foreign king. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 05:06, March 19, 2011 (UTC)

Even countries like India and Pakistan had a period of Dominionhood just after 1947, where they sorted everything out. Without this crucial step, it would descend into anarchy, and it is self-government.

No to sound offensive but at independence India were British kiss-ups because of Gandhi (not saying it's a bad thing, just pointing out what happened). And again, the question is not what's better for the country. It's what people want for the country. If they don't want the UK flag in/above their flag or white people in their government buildings, then clearly they would support Siam. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 20:28, March 19, 2011 (UTC)

Again, clearly, it wasn't just India and Pakistan, it was all the colonies, with the exception of the US. Plus there was no obligation to have the Union Jack in the canton, and in the end it is self-government. Just saying. Batmanary 18:48, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, here's my deal. I don't mind giving independence to my colonies. I don't. But I DO mind when another user, instead of simply having written "Siam is influencing the independence movement", instead directly acts as if he is playing as Seychelles and Maldives, and Mauritius. You can't just up and decide if you want land, then you just write that that colony of a nation wants independence and wants Siam's help! It's unsportsmanlike. Plus he only seems to invade my countries' lands!

Dominions and Unions
I propose that all colonies must become dominions after 1960, and every dominion must be totally free by 1989 Batmanary 21:19, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

Colombia
about my editing and putting the name of the user Michael Douglas in the nation's list.well, he has been playing as Colombia recently, but he didn't put his name on the list of nations,nor added Colombia to the list.Collie Kaltenbrunner 21:44, March 21, 2011 (UTC)