Talk:New Singapore Free City

This is bullshit --Rasmusbyg 09:26, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

LOL Lets give away 100,000 people to a horrible country for some stock shares... Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 09:54, June 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * He can't just take our cities! --Rasmusbyg 10:34, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

What do you want? And yes I can, it's in the FW Rules. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 15:23, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Fine then Songkhla is hereby a free city administered by the Soviet Union! --Rasmusbyg 15:53, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

You're not allowed to take other players' territory... —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 16:01, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Well since you are I guess I am to ! --Rasmusbyg 16:08, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

I had the territory first... —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 16:11, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

DK, at this point, I have determined that your cities are nothing more than useless disruptions to gameplay and therefore anyone that decides to create a country is entitled to repossess the free city, should there be one. Please provide a valid reason for gathering up cities everywhere. So far, all I see this as is a disruption. Until you can provide an explanation for what these cities are for and why they are necessary, Sir Spart may repossess Quepos and TM & Rasmus may repossess Yalta and Kamchatka. This free city stuff is far unrealistic. No one would give away chunks of land for stocks. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 16:30, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Reasons:

Arequipa: Important cultural centre and center for OIS, means of getting ahold of Fujimori and supporters

Wroclaw: Getting a hold of central Europe, means of controllling countries such as Franco-Germany, Soviet Union, or even Poland if necessary, gateway to the North Atlantic, initiation of relations with Poland

Never cared much about Yalta but you waited until now to complain so: means of getting control of the Black Sea, keeping the Soviet Union in check on aformentioned water body, tourism revenue

Kamchatka: means of getting ahold of the abused Republic of China, indirectly controlling northern North America

Quepos: gateway to North America for OIS, increased tourism revenue would benefit both countries —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 17:54, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

How does having a random tiny city "control" these chunks of the world? Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 19:13, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

The ROC is the only one that makes sense, the rest are, like i stated a while back, beachheads for invasion, and now that you have confirmed my theory, I am against them all.Gatemonger 21:05, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

More like easy to overrun, easy to occupy zones. These people inside most likely hate Yarphei and many are probably enraged that they are both oppressed by Yarphese officials and enraged at the fact their original governments abandoned them to such a horrible nation. Most would welcome liberators and would cause rebellion against Yarphese forces stationed in the cities should war break out. They aren't very stable beachheads. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 21:37, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

go to chat, UPGatemonger 21:56, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Why would war break out? They're safe and they're tax havens. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 04:29, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

I want Yalta and Kamchatka. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:49, June 27, 2010 (UTC

Hey, you don't just say that. Kamchatka actually make ense and you're not providing any reason anyway. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 15:57, June 27, 2010 (UTC)