Talk:Future World

This is the discussion page for Future World. If you have ideas or concerns or anything else, ask and discuss here.

Information
Before asking questions, be sure to review the Rules of Future World. For each topic or question, create a new heading, to keep things organized. Be sure to sign your name by placing four tildes (~) in a row at the end of what you posted.

General Conversation
Off topic discussion goes here.

Cybernations
How many of you play Cybernations? I'm sure at least one of you has heard of it or even plays it. It's similar to Future World in the fact that you create a nation and must rule over it, develop it, go to war, join alliances, etc. It is set in current day Earth. It's kinda fun if you are frequently bored with nothing to do. It's very slow paced. United Planets 10:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I have not heard of Cybernations. Could you give me a link and I'll try it later? —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 10:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to check my CN wiki page at http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Dragonial

Super Warmonkey 14:21, January 3, 2010 (UTC)

It's Cybernations. I already have my country Everett in there. I've been playing it for a year. You may only create one nation. If you create a country, I can send you monetary aid to help you boost your nation forward. Money is hard to come by in the game which is why it's so slow going. It's for serious players and alot of people get pretty into it, especially on the forums. United Planets 10:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll make Cascadia on there. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 19:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

CN players, list your countries here:

?
Is Future Worlds still going? I would like confirmation as I was thinking of joining --AdanRyder 13:26, November 13, 2009 (UTC)

Right now there is only one active nation and that is my country Union of Everett and my other one Iraqistan.United Planets 04:07, November 14, 2009 (UTC)


 * No, there's Cascadia too. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:17, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

LOL I never see you do anything with Cascadia, especially New Greece. No new events, no new pages or articles, no development... United Planets 19:04, November 14, 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL that's cause I'm waiting for fun to kick up. But you can remove New Greece from the map. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:05, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

Hello
Hello I am the mighty ruler of the newly found republic of Caucasus, bough before me! Lol, hey I was wondering if the few countries we have can all participate in a history editing project, to make sure all our histories make sence in Future Worlds, I and United Planets are going to work together with our histories. And uhm, I am more than willing to start a real forum for us, even if it is just 1 or 2 people still playing, it will make everything easier. Just let me know :)

Super Warmonkey 08:54, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

I guess we can make a Future World forum. At one point we had almost ten people playing. If you want, go ahead. What ideas do you have for editing the Everett-Russia War? United Planets 20:17, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

Well, we already have an advantage, we are both on Georgia's side, what I had in mind was, you did everything you said in the Everett-Russia War, but with a change in the end. We say Russia won against the odds, and conquered Caucasus, Azerbaijan was on Russia's side, and Armenia was on Georgia's side. Russia annexed Azerbaijan to keep "order" in the region, Armenia and Georgia were completely conquered, and the Georgians and Armenians started rebellion (thats us). Now Everett can help the rebels, and by that next December, the entire Caucasus was liberated. (Just read through my history, there will be more detail)

After we did that, we can work on the Everett-Russia War II. What do you think?

Super Warmonkey 08:54, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

Well if Russia is going to win, the droids would have to be removed from the incident. Outside of a nuclear EMP attack, Russia would have a long and hard time fighting off hordes of droids. That's why I said we should change it so Everett never got fully involved, never deployed droids and that's why Georgia lost.

United Planets 09:34, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

Cannot you get involved with normal soldiers?

Super Warmonkey 11:15, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

I have altered the Everett-Russia War. Alter your history to match as well as possible by including Everett's involvement, etc.United Planets 12:32, December 6, 2009 (UTC)


 * A comment, it seems Russia, after its seemingly over reaction, pulled out by itself and then helped the Caucasus nations rebuild. Not Everett forced them out and then Russia didn't help. So I thought it would make some more sense if threats from everett made the russians pull out instead? Since russians are done and pulling out when Everett and rebels are killing them. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:36, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I will try something.

Super Warmonkey 17:33, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, I edited my history, I wish to keep the Russia helping Caucasus part, it makes more sence for me. And I am not completely sure about whats happening in the second Everett-Russian war. If maybe you can move it to another region? Or something along that line.

Super Warmonkey 17:54, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

Forum
Hey, I took the time in creating us a normal forum, please join as it will make roleplaying much easier. It is still under construction and may not work right away. http://futworld.webs.com/

Super Warmonkey 13:02, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

Cool. United Planets 13:06, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

On the Homepage we have a chatbox where we can chat in real time. Your name will appear in the right of the box, click on it, then change your name to your on-forum name. Then just chat away!

Super Warmonkey 13:22, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

Great idea i'm in :P --Rasmusbyg 13:38, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

Is the Sovereign Communicative order of Sino-Korea in FW or does it need more? —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 01:34, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea whose country that is or who the owner is. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 01:42, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

From the name, I assume it's the Chinese/Korean country in South Australia. Woogers (lol what hax) 01:48, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, lol it's my friend's and my shared country. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 01:49, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

In or no? Of course there is no leader name or flag yet lol. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 02:02, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Put it in Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 02:05, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Okay. It is coextensive with RW South Australia. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 02:16, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Hey
Hey I think I'll help out. I ask for a thin strip of land along the Bay of Thailand from Ho Chi Minh City to Singapore. I'm not pro-dictatorship or anything, but there needs to be a dictatorship in the Future World. I wasn't originally planning to join FW, but it seems like a good thing that needs to be kept. Detectivekenny 01:26, December 28, 2009 (UTC) By the way, I'm a little bit confused. Are Everett and Iraqistan still part of FW? Detectivekenny 01:26, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

Everett and Iraqistan are still part of Future World. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:01, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Everett and Iraqistan are part of FW. They have been removed twice because of inactivity of FW. I'm gonna need a name for the country before I can add it to the map. Also what is the leader's name? United Planets 05:35, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

Let's see… Put the country name as Yarphei (Grand Yarphese Republic). The demonym would be Yarphese. I thought a conlang would be an apropriate national language, but I looked at the major ones and none seemed to be right in this case, so the leader conlanged his own (well, technically I did, or will). The leader's name is Tranh Chup-yar. The government is military junta. I probably won't be able to roleplay on weekdays much, but I won't desert FW. Give me a little time to prepare Yarphei and it should be up as soon as possible. Detectivekenny 23:48, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now that I have finished Yarphei's two most important articles, Grand Yarphese Republic and Tranh Chup-yar I now want everyone's opinion on the articles. Well you could fix spelling mistakes, etc., but I want to know what your countries' leaders think of Yarphei. Here are your choices:
 * 1) Decide to become extremely good diplomatic trading partners and form some sort of alliance.
 * 2) Have relatively good relations but not do anything about it.
 * 3) Have so-so relations.
 * 4) Sorta just ignore Yarphei.
 * 5) Criticize the government and/or call Tranh some offensive name, but otherwise ignore.
 * 6) Send troops/droids/whatever in order to depose the Yarphese government.
 * 7) Declare war on Yarphei.

I'll give you permission to do any one of those things. However, please follow the FW rules. I don't want to log on and find that Bangkok has been destroyed by a nuclear bomb or Buddhist temples are ravaged with dead monks still in them. Detectivekenny 18:20, January 3, 2010 (UTC)

I left off 8) Strongly encourage Yarphei to become a democracy. Detectivekenny 22:06, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

I will take number 2). I would take 1), but I am not sure that a full-democracy and a military junta can have an "extremely good diplomacy".

Super Warmonkey 22:19, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

Cascadia's on 3. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:50, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

Everett is a 4 1/2. It criticizes the government for its human rights abuses like it does with many nations but ignores them and generally cuts off relations such as with Saudi Arabia. United Planets 08:49, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Super Warmonkey, I need to know which country you're talking about, the Allied States or Caucasus. Detectivekenny 22:37, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Both. Although relations between Yarphei and the Allied States may be a bit worse.

-Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 22:47, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Awwright
I've begun preparations for my entry to Future World. Someone explain to me how this game works. --Woogers 08:07, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Read the following to learn the rules, information and events that have occurred so far:


 * Future World
 * Rules of Future World
 * National Info of Future World
 * Future World Events 2008
 * Future World Events 2009
 * Future World Events 2010

United Planets 08:20, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

I've read all the documentation. I still don't understand what I actually have to do.--Woogers 08:28, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

It's not really much different from the NRW. Make a country and roleplay it along with the other users. United Planets 08:43, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, alrighty then. Let the games begin. --Woogers 09:08, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

I've completed the basic framework of a country. Like with Yarphei, I ask for your political stances towards the East Asian Federation. And comments and tips, since I'm new to this Future World thing :D.Woogers 05:23, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Everett does not like the fact that corporations control the nation but views the Federation as an economic ally. United Planets 09:04, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Caucasus sees the Federation as a good trade partner. But the Allied States is still observing...

-Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 11:58, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

(This is a little late, considering we've already established AFTA, but I'll do it just for the heck of it.) The Yarphese government sees the country as another economy-oriented nation that could be a vaulable close ally. It has liker the idea of a corporate democracy since 2007. I mean, Yarphese government doesn't have anything against democracy; it just doesn't want to give up power. Detectivekenny 01:12, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Embassies
NRW went embassy crazy.

Everett
If you want embassies in Everett, write a small paragraph about your embassy here: Federal Center (Everett City) in the "International Buildings" section.


 * Okay, but lets all apply for embassies here, I would first like to apply for an embassy in all FW nations. PM me for ambassador names.

-Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 11:17, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Antarctic Treaty
I think it's about time to revise the Antarctic Treaty to allow for settlement of Marie Byrd Land between the 90th and 150th meridians west, and the 70th and 80th parallels south. Can all leaders meet in Kuala Terengganu to discuss this? Detectivekenny 14:51, January 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Settlement? SETTLEMENT? Of ANTARTICA? I dunno if lol. Life in Antartica would be harsh without limits. I suppose there are the benefits of penguins for the zoos, and gold, iron, and coal for the factories. Woogers 15:03, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

This is the Future World. If we can have droids, anti-gravity, FTL travel, etc., etc., then Antarctica would be pretty easy to live in. Detectivekenny 16:43, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Lol, Antartica will only be another source of conflict for the imperialists on Earth. And it's too far away from my zone of control to be suitable for a colony. Argentina, Chile, and Australia would be best suited for such a thing. Woogers 16:49, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Well, if there's a treaty, then there should be little conflict. Also, I'm not necessarily talking about territory claims. I mean settlement patterns so that countries can use the resources there. Secondly, look who has territory claims: France, Norway, Britain. Don't forget the many Japanese and Korean stations dotting Antarctica. Detectivekenny 17:36, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Can someone re-state what countries possess what areas of land? What does Everett own? Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 06:55, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

Forum:Antarctic Treaty (FW) —Detectivekenny; (info, talk) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 08:11, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

Militarization of space
What are your thoughts on the Outer Space Treaty? Woogers 23:13, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Everett currently had SDI. It will require two nations to have SDI, though. One for all but owning nation's itself's missiles, and the pther nation's SDI for the missiles the SDI nation may launch. Not sure if this is militarization. Cascadia doesn't have any space weapons, but it has plenty of military satellites. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:39, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

You dont need two nations for SDI. SDI is an anti ballistic missile system. The PDS system is active in space, which is used for orbital bombardment, SDI and anti satellite operations. The Outer Space Treaty bans weapons of mass destruction from being placed in orbit, not defense systems. BTW, PDS stands for Planetary Defense System and is used primarily for shooting down ICBMs and ballistic missiles but in previous wars (now reversed) has been used to take out buildings, satellites and vehicles. United Planets 02:04, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and the nation that owns the SDI won't shoot down its own missiles, another country's SDI has to do that. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:28, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Well, since the United Nations obviously doesn't do its job in Future World, allowing wars just like it epically failed to stop WarBush from 2003, it would appear that I need to take defense into my own hands. Woogers 16:44, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Back
The war's already over? We'll fix that. :) Detectivekenny 03:19, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

I tried my best to keep it slow, but like I said, the West was fast to jump the gun. Woogers 03:34, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

I understand. Hundred years war isn't suitable for Future World, eh? I can just imagine Winston Churchill trying to slow down WWII for some odd reason.

Does the GYR still own BIOT and Cardiff? Looking at the articles I don't see any record of them returning to the UK. Detectivekenny 04:31, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

No, combat is ongoing in those zones at last check. Chagos, actually have been unaffected since war's start. Woogers 04:33, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

What are you two going on about? The war is still in full-swing! -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 09:07, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Cascadia has liberated the Falklands, Chagos has not been liberated or fought for yet, war continues in Wales with Everett on two fronts (Wales and Yarphei homeland). NATO, the Allied States, the United States, Iraqistan, Malaysia and the Commonwealth of Nations are all at war with Yarphei, sending troops to both Wales and Yarphei. United Planets 14:44, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

I see Iraqistani/NATO/Italian/Spanish troops landed off the coast of Phuket (which is part of Thailand) at one point. Are you bringing Thailand into the war? Detectivekenny 14:50, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Malaysia has declared war so Thailand may become involved and I was possibly thinking of Vietnam as well. United Planets 14:56, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

This Might Prove Useful
I made this because I was bored and had paint in front of me. I can't really maintain it after today, but is anyone willing to maintain it?

Detectivekenny 04:41, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "maintain it"? United Planets 04:47, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Like whenever there's a disconnection.

But it shouldn't be too much of a problem. All the countries that participated in the war except for West Africa don't show any signs of leaving, but they will be disconnected cleanly into new blanks or just left as blanks. The rest of the countries could easily be disconnected via copy-pasting from a real world map. Detectivekenny 05:39, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

There is a problem with your idea of "clean disconnections." The reason I disconnect countries that go inactive is so other future players have choices of unused land they want. If for example Everett dies out and some new guy comes in wanting to make a country where Everett was, he is now restricted to play along with our line of history instead of being able to freely design his nation without disruption. I disconnect as if they never existed in the first place to clean up historical records. It's unfair to new players in the future if at some point all the land has been previously used and now they have to design a country based on our history. Another example is, had we had such a policy in the original 2008-2009 Future World, the EAF would not exist in its current state and would be forced to be far different. So would Yarphei actually. United Planets 06:00, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

I guess... But there's dimension two for that lol. I don't really want to let the time-consuming war go to waste just because Tharnton or someone gives up their country or because someone decides to use New Zealand as a part of their country. Detectivekenny 06:06, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

I removed Dimension Two after seeing how much of a failure that idea was. This poor dude was all alone in that dimension and couldn't interact with all the Dimension One players. So I scrapped Dimension Two. United Planets 06:12, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should just keep the war and deal with each new situation individually. Detectivekenny 06:20, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the map -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 10:30, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Could you maintain it? Also, do you think we could replace the old Future World Map with one based off of this one? If someone is willing to maintain this one, it shouldn't be much harder to maintain basically a labeled copy. Detectivekenny 05:39, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Roleplay
I don't know if some of you are actually fighting or arguing or if there has been incidents of infighting like with the 2008-2009 Future World but in case there is or someone feels offended you have to remember that Future World is a large roleplay and it involves controlling characters (Presidents, leaders, politicans, celebrities, etc) and roleplaying them. Their comments, actions, even offensive remarks agaisnt other characters are all part of the roleplay and shouldn't be taken personally IRL. United Planets 06:12, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Lol wut? Offended? I want to know who. Woogers (lol what hax) 12:03, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

No one specific I just somehow have the vibes of butthurt in the air... just a simple reminder that it's just a game. United Planets 12:05, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. Great example with this USA thing, its just RP, I am not going to destroy or tear up the Union IRL. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 12:56, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Foreign Relations
Need your formal foreign relations statuses with the East Asian Federation as of this moment so I can add reactions to my article. Woogers (lol what hax) 01:22, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Yarphei: Very good. The war and CEAS enforced this. Detectivekenny 01:26, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Everett on good terms, hurt from your support of Yarphei during war and doesnt like the corporate democracy thing.

Iraqistan is neutral.

4chanistan is filled with Japan fangirls and weeaboos. United Planets 01:36, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

The Allied States is kinda impressed overall with the EAF and would like them as an ally, however they can't, because you are involved with Yarphei. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 10:08, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Limited Space Travel
If Everett still has a Mars Research Station, can everyone else have far off, but still in-system artificial space constructs and/or space vehicles, can I rent space at the Mars Research Station, and how do you get people back and forth in a timely manner?

If not, can we restart limited (in-system) space travel for similar purposes? Woogers (lol what hax) 18:07, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

It's already stated that you may create sub-light space craft capable of travel within the solar system, Pluto being a distance limit. Everett currently possesses the MRS station in Mars orbit and uses two different shuttles for space travel, the Fusion Orbiter with a distance limit of Mars and back and the Expedition-class fusion shuttle with sub-light engines capable of travel within the entire solar system.

We can add an EAF component to the MRS if you want. The Expedition shuttle travels at a maximum slingshot speed from Earth of 750,000 miles per hour (893 times slower than the speed of light). Using a fusion generator burst engine (requiring a WMD explosion) it can launch itself up to 1.25 million miles per hour (536 times slower than light). United Planets 22:38, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

That's all good. I'll get to work for building a module for add-on. Are you doing anything with Mars? Woogers (lol what hax) 23:00, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

Landing dudes, exploring the ice caps and preparing Mars bases. United Planets 23:10, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

Alaska
Hello I would be interested in making a new nation in your RP. I have many ideas that might benefit your website. I will be active in your game and will be involed in many of the events that go on. The name of the country is the Republic of Alaska. It will be located in what is now Alaska. The type of goverment will be parliamentary republic with meritocracy. The leader will be Joseph Lebedev. I hope that you will let me join.Zestman 23:04, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for joining. This isn't exactly a true RP and also this isn't our website (it is a wiki shared by many), and I will add your country ASAP. Have fun. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:07, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Alaska? That's awfully cold a place. Woogers (lol what hax) 23:08, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Considering the potential size (Yarphei making Falklands have a ton of people) of the population and technology, it should be fine. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:13, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

CEAS or PAFF? Welcome, btw. —detectivekenny; reply; signed 23:18, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't make him choose a side yet. And besides, we shouldn't have two alliances anyway, but for some reason everyone hates everyone else. We should be working towards world peace for when the Scrin Tiberium Harvesting Force gets here, so we can be united in repelling the invaders. Woogers (lol what hax) 23:20, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol *coughjoinCEAScough*. —detectivekenny; reply; signed 00:39, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol *coughnamedoesn'tfitlolwutcough*. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:22, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? —detectivekenny; reply; signed 02:25, February 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * It isn't an east asian state lol. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:04, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Why couldn't it be? Some of the islands could be considered East Asian. —detectivekenny; reply; signed 20:28, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * That is beside the point, Alaska is North American. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:18, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Who knows? It's not my world. Lebedev sounds Russian, also. Besides, CEAS doesn't just take East Asian Countries. It could take Comoros if it had a reason to. —detectivekenny; reply; signed 21:21, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral is also an option. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:19, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

UHHH LOLWUT IS GOIN ON GUISE??? Republic of Alaska is hereby on a lockdown list for entry into Future World until that article gets fixed up. United Planets 13:00, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Lol
In the current world state, with another huge Australasian economy appearing, it appears that I'll have to stop being protectionist and allow free trade. That being said, I would formally like to apply to the Planetary Alliance for Freedom, with the following goals: Contemplate my argument before nay-saying. Woogers (lol what hax) 02:16, March 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Doing so will make it impossible for me to participate in World War IV (most important)
 * Being on both sides of the line makes it pointless for me to spy for either side.
 * I suppose it'll boost the economy in the long run, but there'll be short term unemployment to worry about.
 * Product gets to more markets with less fees, therefore bringing more profit.
 * Thaw currently intensifying relations with the West.
 * Be able to better represent Federation interests on the national stage.
 * Do what I had intended on doing right after WWIII anyway (I was for one alliance and everyone being united, rather than this weird schism thing we have going on)
 * Gives me an excuse to build up the air force.
 * Potentially opens the door for high-level technology trading.

Welcome to PAFF good sir. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 02:19, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

AFTA remains an observing member for economic purposes. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 02:20, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

As for the schism, Yarphei could join only if it adheres to the UDHR. But its doesnt because of Tranh Chup-yar. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 02:22, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Yarphei would likely prefer to maintain its traditional sovereignity and anti-globalization, no matter who is ruling. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 02:26, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

== Chat ==

For great justice! Woogers (lol what hax) 02:03, March 9, 2010 (UTC) No. Woogers (lol what hax) 02:04, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Can you? Because I am officially leaving within fourteen hours. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 02:17, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

North American Union
Thoughts?



Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 17:19, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

My, that's a nice coin. As for the whole Union concept, I would recommend it. It's well worth the grand experience. Although cultural difference would cause division, so you need to find a unifying cultural strand, or face internal tensions later. Generally, currency unions bolster econmic power, but as is the case with the present-day European Union, one bad economy drags everyone else down. Woogers (lol what hax) 17:29, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

Well if TimeMaster and Superwarmonkey agree to it, the NAU shall rise. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 17:50, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

I would support this, but, the Allied States' national bird is the Phoenix, can you in stead add something like the Statue of Liberty? -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 18:10, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

I didnt make the coin. Its something I found on Google. Google "Amero". Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 18:16, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

Ah... I see...


 * Super Warmonkey picks up with phone and calls Spart.*


 * "Hey man, can you make us a coin?"*

-Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 18:24, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

No. I don't want to be in the NAU because I really like Cascadia. Unless it is an alliance or something, but it doesn't seem like it. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:27, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

It is an alliance. An economic alliance. In the long run it'll make all the member countries richer. A similar union was predecessor of the East Asian Federation. Woogers (lol what hax) 20:42, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, its just the American version of the European Union. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 20:53, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

Its the European Union of North America. All nations retain their sovereignty and independence to do as they like. We just also freer trade, economic aid, start using a currency like the Euro except its called the Amero, our borders are more open to each other, we get our citizens a continental passport/ID card for free travel within the borders of the NAU. Read about the European Union on Wikipedia. Think of it like that. If you want to keep your currency, you can use both the Amero and the Casnara. Everett is keeping its Dollar if we agree to this but will implement the Amero. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 21:03, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but I don't want the Amero be in use, well maybe as legal tender but not the official currency. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:04, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

Can I not join the NAU, but adopt the Amero as a secondary currency for FedPass use abroad? It seems like a good idea, and I'll probably do the same thing with Euros. Woogers (lol what hax) 21:07, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

EAF is in Asia. Not North America. Why would you join NAU? Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 21:31, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

That's why I said NOT join the NAU. I want to use the Amero as a secondary currency. So FedPass can be accepted anywhere you want to be. Woogers (lol what hax) 22:27, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, well then sure, yes. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 22:41, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

eRepublik
You guys really should try it... at least get to level 6 then you can leave... use ONLY this link... http://www.erepublik.com/en/referrer/Martin+Warmonger

If you guys still like the game after level 6, please help eSouth Africa get its territory back from eArgentina and eBrazil...

Thanks -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 10:49, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

Chat
I would invite you all to chat, so we can discuss the next 30 days. Woogers, Ruler of (random nonsense, Koiwai, Saikyo, and some lines of text) 03:56, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

Teh Moon
Ladies and Gentlemen,

The East Asian Federation humbly requests permission as complementation to the ongoing Taoyuan Space Tether project to build a research colony on the Moon. I also would like to solicit comments, questions, and suggestions regarding this project. kthxbai. Woogers, Ruler of (random nonsense, Koiwai, Saikyo, and some lines of text) 17:20, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Can we put some stuff up for AFTA? And I don't think we have any ladies. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 18:06, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Moon research colonies are acceptable. Is it international or for East Asia only? Also, there is half a lady who is very inactive on 4chanistan. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 18:52, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

---

Can't we make this a joint program? Like the superpowers of the world have that privilege. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 21:28, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Woogers, Ruler of (random nonsense, Koiwai, Saikyo, and some lines of text) 23:57, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Detectivekenny - What kind of stuff, and regardless, I put ladies cause its an address to the UN General Assembly.
 * 2) United Planets - International, lol, spending my money to shine on the world stage.
 * 3) Super Warmonkey - Depends on what you mean by joint. It was my intention to administer the program, but any country is free to do anything there, barring research related to the militarization of space.
 * I mean like the current ISS, it is a joint operation between Japan(?), USA, and the UK. I just think this has to be similar. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 12:38, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Not going to be joint in that sense. Woogers, Ruler of (random nonsense, Koiwai, Saikyo, and some lines of text) 14:37, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Okayz. I was thinking an AFTA-funded research station for corporations and stuff. But you always take my ideas and make them a billion times better lulz. Don't hesitate. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 04:44, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Faster-than-Light Propulsion Laboratory. Woogers, Ruler of (random nonsense, Koiwai, Saikyo, and some lines of text) 08:14, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Request for Bids
Requesting all interested bidders for assisting in the creation and operations of a shared nation in Africa. Leave messages and potential bids below. Thanks, Woogers - talk 20:43, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Specifically, where is the nation supposed to exist? And there is going to be a war or something over this place? I'd like to assist in the creation of your nation, but currently I want to focus on CA. SSS (About Me/Contact/NRW/FW) 21:08, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Well, as an IRL African (South African) I would love to help, not to mention I am bored now... -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 22:33, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Id be interested in helping with this project. I was thinking africa would be a great testing ground for a truly unique superpower. no racism intended, but the nation-state model doesnt seem to work for africa. why dont we come up with something new and test-drive it in this proposed nation? i was thinking something like a a confederation of tribes, tribal democracy, a system constantly proposed by an independence movement in the western part of the island of papua, currently part of indonesia. i want this to be the starting point for ideas, to be improved. I cant imagine tribal democracy generating a major world power. any ideas? you may rebuttle any of my points, just please do it with a level head. Gatemonger 23:48, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

I am thinking of something more like the nation in Far Cry 2. It is getting boring for all FW nations to be perfect little superpowers and stuff. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 00:07, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Your ideas, while interesting, are not exactly what I was thinking. Read this. Any naming similarities between this an another country that may exist on this wiki are coincidental. I didn't notice it until recently, lol. Woogers - talk 00:11, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

I split Africa into conceptual regions. They include Arabic countries, Sahel and Sub-Saharan former colonies, nearby Ethiopia, East African community, Congo-ish, and southern. Not trying to be racist, just suggesting that we shouldn't take random countries that have nothing to do with each other. I'll upload a map if you want. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 00:24, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

I love how in this world people cant say anything about africa or people of african descent without being afraid of being called racist. we should try to address this with this new nation. and i was thinking the tribal democracy's respective tribes could, while not complete anarchy like far cry 2, fight and engage in ethnic conflicts. I think we should name the nation Azania, as opposed to a second EAF, lol. It could originate from a federation attempt of a supernational entity, like how FGC formed. btw here is a link regarding tribal democracy, if anyone is interested.

and this is in response to DK's link: Tharnton- we will never forget :P

and also, when it comes to africa, nationalism is next to none in the majority of the post-colonial states, partly because there was no "great" civilization on the magnitude of ancient egypt or ethiopia. I was thinking that an archeological dig in the new nation discovers some ancient civilization the new nation can unite around and create a sense of national identity. anyone who plays halo 3 and knows the storyline knows what i am thinking about :PGatemonger 01:03, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I offer my services to create the national symbols of the future nation, when I get my computer back. This means we'll take the EAC or that's just a base idea? SSS (About Me/Contact/NRW/FW) 00:40, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

There are no plans to create another EAF. Corporate Democracy is not well applied to undeveloped economies, as there's not much competition. Rather, something along the lines of the ends of the EU, a federation where current day nations merely become subnational divisions. There will be problems, as problems in the area are rampant, but the goal here is to explore what could be, as there are no Future World nations in Africa. And being part black, on your notions of saying "not tryna be racist or anything", only makes you seem more racist, lol. Woogers - talk 01:35, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry :) And by a second EAF, i meant Eastern African Federation; the two nations would have the same abbrev. and things would be very confusing, especially since you control both East A. Federations,lol.Ive seen too many politicians Im very cautious about my public image, lol. So the nation would be Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, and Uganda, right? why not add southern Sudan, an area that wants independence from Sudan?Gatemonger 01:47, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Lol, I would understand any dividing a continent could be considered offensive depending on the purpose, so yah. Azania sounds Asian, and EAF also sounds Asian. A better country name might have geographical or historical significance. It's up to Woog where the country is, but I think we should, rather than just carving out the old British colonial belt, we should follow the contours of actual cultural regions.

Mostly I guess I'll help on geographical stuff, like random geography articles, along with my project to create an article for every Yarphese province. Neutral, factual, uncontroversial, and fun (for me). <small style="color:#7F7F6F">—Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 06:14, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Uhh, by the looks of it, Super Warmonkey and Detectivekenny are the contest leaders. Spart's too busy holding the world on his shoulders (oh and running a country) and Gatemonger, I dunno. I just dunno. On the flipside, Super Warmonkey has practical experience (lol) and Detectivekenny has offered neutral help. Oh and I forgot to mention, this country, which I have decided to name the United African Hegemony will be neutral. That's right. No PAFF. No OIS. No Hesperian Alliance. Woogers - talk 10:45, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

I wanna help. Im proposing ideas, because, due to the fact you had put forward very few, except that it was going to be a nation in africa, i thought you wanted to brainstorm plans for the UAH. SWH can be your official partner, especially due to the fact that he, to my knowledge, is the only member of FW that lives on the continent where the new nation will be. Id be willing to help figure out how best to make a stable nation out of, essentially, no existing political framework. Why are you reluctant to let me help out?Gatemonger 18:43, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral as in Bitarap, Garssyz neutral? <small style="color:#7F7F6F">—Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 19:25, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Alright, so we want more anarchy? Or more civilization? -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 20:17, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

@ GM Geez, I thought I was reactionary. Just because this area fails to have an ancient civilization doesn't mean we should disencourage it. <small style="color:#7F7F6F">—Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 23:16, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Uhh.
 * Gatemonger: I have a general idea of the direction I'd like this to go. And it isn't really what tribal democracy sounds like. And there is an existing political framework. The EC/EU model, cookie cutter'd to another location. Great success.
 * Super Warmonkey: More civilization, ethnic violence sprinkled in, national guard emergencies here and there.
 * Detectivekenny: AFRICAN SWITZERLAND.

Woogers - talk 07:08, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

Alright, so before we begin we need a few basic things:


 * Flag
 * Coat of Arms
 * Leader
 * Capital
 * Government Type

-Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 20:44, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

Unaccounted For Territory
Looking at the Future World map, there are a few anomalies I noticed that don't have documentation. The users responsible are in parentheses.


 * 1) Akimiski Island, part of the territory of Nunavut, Canada, is drawn as part of Everett. (UP)
 * 2) Bornholm, part of Denmark, is drawn as part of the Soviet Union. (Rasmusbyg or Dennisbyg)
 * 3) Thrace, part of Turkey, is drawn as part of the UKEED. (Rasmusbyg)
 * 4) Lebanon is drawn as part of Israel. This occurred unexplained at the restart of Future World. (UP)
 * 5) A mysterious hole occurred in the Allied States and Mexico of the Gulf of California after the Allied States of America joined. (UP or SW)
 * 6) The Aleutian Islands, part of the United States of America, are drawn as a part of the Soviet Union. (Rasmusbyg)

<small style="color:#7F7F6F">—Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 15:06, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the gap between SC and Arizona. Can you please fix it if it is there? -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 16:47, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

The Gulf of California is a body of water that seperates Baja California, which is the Mexican peninsula below California, from the rest of Mexico. It's been mysteriously enlarged, causing Arizona not to be landlocked. I was wondering if it was some plan of yours to submerge part of Mexico in order to allow yourself to have access to the Pacific, but guess not. I'll have to check with UP, as it looks like mosty a stray mark. <small style="color:#7F7F6F">—Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 18:35, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, I know nothing about that. And now I see what you are talking about. With the next upload can someone please fix it? -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 19:03, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 18:48, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Akimiski Island is like... literally inside of Everetti waters and territory. I don't even know why Nunavut possesses it IRL, it's far from Nunavut mainland. I thought it belonged to Ontario.
 * Following the Iraqistan War, Hezbollah was destroyed and Lebanon was tranferred from Hezbollah control to Israeli control until a secured Lebanese government could be elected to power and ensure that this government would not once again be forced out by another terrorist organization. Lebanon remains under Israeli authority.
 * I don't know where that gap came from in Mexico, just fill it back in.

Additional note for Israel, I'm gonna reserve it until I can talk my friend into joining Future World. Hopefully she'll join. She has a thing for the IDF so keep Israel on reserve until I know. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 19:01, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

The reason Nunavut owns Akimiski is because it is an island in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. All of the Canadian Arctic Islands belong to Nunavut or the Northwest Territories. Let's keep the Canadian Arctic Archipelago Canadian, and let Canada have the islands. However, I'm sure Canada would allow Everettis to use the island for traditional and research purposes. It is only a speck, once again. Also, you might want to give back the Belcher Islands and take that speck near Rhode Island before Yarphei does. <small style="color:#7F7F6F">—Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 19:19, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

What speck near Rhode Island? Bermuda? Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 19:35, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

No, the grey pixel south of Cape Cod. There's another speck missing near Lake Melville, Newfoundland and Labrador. <small style="color:#7F7F6F">—Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 19:38, August 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * 2. Bornholm was captured by the soviet union in the end of WWII. In FW they just never left. (Deal between me and Dennisbyg)
 * 3. Thrace is a part of UKEED cause I want it to be.
 * 6. That's just a mistake I guess. --Rasmusbyg 08:22, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

3. There are several reasons you can't have Thrace:

1) You are splitting Istanbul in half.

2) It has no ties with any UKEED countries.

3) Thrace is not a single political entity, nor is it composed of whole political entities.

4) Turkey has always had full control of the Bosphorous.

5) Thrace is fully Turkish. <small style="color:#7F7F6F">—Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 16:42, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Post-Bellum Territory Changes
Well, as I was considering what territories Yarphei would keep and which it would give back (if they were not lost during the war), I thought of something that would change the original idea that Yarphei would keep Kalmykia. I was considering that the following territories could form into something along the lines of "League of Altaic Nations":

1) Kalmykia

2) Buryatia

3) Tuva

4) Mongolia

5) Manchuria (possibly including the USSR's sparsely-populated portion)

6) Inner Mongolia

These areas have two main defining characteristics, those being traditional existence of Mongolic culture and/or language, and predominance of Buddhism. Since Mongolic areas have had quite a history, I thought it would be cool to raise their status to something higher than the country named when asked to think of a random country. I mean, seriously, these people rivaled China in their days, and they controlled practically all of Asia, even spreading into Europe. I assure you the country is to remain a democracy ("free" as you guys call it), but I'm not sure of what sort.

First of all, I would like to ask the USSR for permission to use the #2 and #4 and of the status of #5. Secondly, I'm taking any requests for those willing to share the state with me. Thanks.

By the way, for anyone curious, the status of Free Cities is unknown (by me) for now, but Arequipa Free City will most likely be assimilated into Peru if Keiko Fujimori is elected president of Peru, whether or not the war is taking place. She currently has the polls as of June. <small style="color:#7F7F6F">—Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 21:33, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

I will think about this. By the way, "free" doesn't mean democracy, it means the country supports human rights. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:21, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

Peace Brokering
Now, I know the war is going to happen, but lets put on a peace show just to make it flashy and look like we tried to stop it. I'll host, in say, Tokyo, in a weekish? After its dramatic failure, I can have stock markets take a dip on speculations of wardec. Woogers - talk 15:54, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, but you may just as well start the article now and say it happened a week from now. No need to really wait until then. I want the A.S.A. to the the main player causing the treaty to fail because of obvious reasons. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 16:34, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

It would appear that my attempts at making a peace have failed before they've even begun in earnest. I really do want peace, though, lol. All these wars aren't the way to solve philosophical differences. Woogers - talk 21:32, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

The EAF is going to have to make a decision in its allignment with Yarphei. Being alligned with a country solely dedicated to war and provoking global conflict is not a good decision for a peaceful nation as EAF. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 21:47, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

While this is unfortunately true, there is a good amount of symbiosis between the Federation and Yarphei. They needed means of defense, and eventually, a means to win their revolution, and we needed supplies, food, and raw material. It stuck, and it sticks to this day, because of both the geographical proximity, and general unavailability of such synergy elsewhere. So until there is a drastic change in the situation, the status quo is maintained, political differences or not, this is a matter of survival at its core. Woogers - talk 21:59, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Everett and it's allies and trade partners are willing to provide the materials, food and goods you need and at no risk for destroying your nation's reputation, dragging you into war, nor forcing your nation to aid and support a nation (Yarphei) that supports terrorist organizations and criminal activities as well as abuses its own people. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 22:38, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

I can't think of a good response, but I'll think about the offer. If there were more people in Future World, I'd accept immediately, but what kind of game is fun when you're horribly outnumbered (Yarphei), or when there's nothing to oppose (PAFF)? The game wouldn't be as fun if there weren't something to fight against, lol, which is a big reason why I am where I am. Planning and strategizing war efforts, and designing faster, better, smarter, and stronger aircraft is awesome! I wouldn't have it (almost) any other way. Woogers - talk 23:00, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

---

Peace is boring, and to help my nation building in the ASA, I need a huge war which will so-to-say let the ASA be crushed under its own weight, because ICly at the moment, the ASA is having HUGH financial problems, and its military is is chaos, not to mention it was just nuked, making the population panic. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 12:19, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Cloning
While human cloning may already be extreme, I find the current uses of the technology to be absurd including this "accelerated growth", clone soldiers (making thousands I would guess of them) and other bizarre things. This bin Laden clone thing is BS. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 13:16, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean with Bin Laden clone... however, I find clones much more realistic than droids creating cities in mere months. We all have our share of powergaming, this is mine. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 13:20, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

Okay Guys
Who's up for a co-op moon base? (i.e. the one I proposed a couple a months ago) It's time to start on that advanced interplanetary propulsion research :D. Woogers - talk 23:22, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Count on me, I like the moon. :) I hope to start working in TBU space program in a few days. BIPU 23:32, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Of course the ASA will be involved! :D -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 12:26, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

Well, the glass panels and steel beams are on the lunar surface, now I need help putting them together, if you all don't mind. Woogers - talk 20:11, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't know much about all of this. So you can add the EcruFox Corporation to the list of helpers with assistance from the Allied States Government. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 20:14, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

I was actually hoping for droids, as they'd be cheaper and faster, but if you want to send men to the moon, I can facilitate that. We'll need construction equipment, like TBMs and some kind of bulldozer thing, though. Woogers - talk 20:16, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

EcruFox will be using clones... and droids.. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 20:27, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Counter-Incursion
I got permission from SuperWarmonkey to hit the networks in the Allied States. For a complete lolshutdown of western civilian fun, however, I request permission from the other three major American countries, Everett, Cascadia, and Central America. Please comment, and/or give permission. I hope for the festivities to commence on Wednesday. Woogers - talk 20:11, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I've got my own hackers protecting the internet lines. You might take down some individual servers though. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:28, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I asked. I asked for permission. Woogers - talk 21:30, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

I thought you would easily infer "no, you don't have permission." —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:46, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Nothing in your first sentence other than the word Nope, whose meaning is subsequently lost in the technically inaccurate rambling of "hackers protecting the internet lines", and made even more ambiguous by "You might take down some individual servers", would lead me to infer that. Woogers - talk 22:11, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

It's <no>. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:06, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

That's not the same thing as saying no. Thats like saying noyes. Woogers - talk 01:07, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, you may be able to take Myspace offline or something silly and obnoxious to the civilian populous but every important is safe from attack including the military, utilities, air traffic control, communications, satellites and all government offices. Anything on the civilian internet is exposed to potential attack including online payment services like PayPal, Ebay, social networks like Myspace and Facebook and civilian versions of government websites like fbi.gov.ev unlike the FBI's military network version (which contains all vital information and sekrits, fbi.gov.ue Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 15:31, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, (:/) the goal isn't to damage anything important, or harm civilians, really, but to inconvenience them. I don't want to shut off their electricity during the cold nights or cut off airport radar so they can't visit family and friends or go to work. I simply want to disable access to the most popular internet sites, and some other things. Perfectly innocuous. Woogers - talk 15:56, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Then attack the individual servers. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:49, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

That was the plan in the first place. You can't really attack "internet pipes" in the way you describe, anyway. It doesn't work like that. Woogers - talk 23:30, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

What? I didn't describe that. I said internet lines. They're kind of like telephone lines. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:40, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Pipes, lines, its the same concept. The point is, the only way you can really hack them is with an ax. Woogers - talk 23:50, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Proposal
I can easily predict that with the end of World War III, Future World is going to collapse into silence and boredom. So, after the war is over, I propose a cool sub-game of Future World called Future World Next-Generation, taking place in 2030. I had thought of this as I wrote my most recent article on Everett's future and decided 2030 would be a good and interesting time in Future World history. Then I remembered Detectivekenny has a future timeline of Yarphei, read up on it and coincidentally, the Yarphese Confederation is founded in 2030. So... I propose Future World Next-Gen. The following changes will occur game-wide in the Next-Gen version of Future World:

Technology rules are significantly altered, allowing everything except for time travel. Shields will be allowed in the form of weak deflector barriers that weaken as further attacks commense against it, similar to Star Wars rules, eventually eliminating the barrier. The mythical rules still stand completely except for the section regarding mutant humans. I will allow genetically altered and improved humans to exist through technological intervention. Alien contact rule will also be altered. There will be the formation of a global council which is considered a blank which controls communications with extraterrestrial races to the degree of communication, trade, visitation and maybe other stuff. No single country may form secret alliances with the aliens and the aliens are only solely interested in humanity as a race and not interested in dealing with individual nations or organizations. The council will consist of a member representative from each country on Earth, representing all peoples globally and there is no security council or higher council within the organization like the United Nations. The UN is dead at this point in Future World and dissolves. PAFF and OIS may or may not exist in some shape or form. OOC, one Next-Gen week passes every 24 hours, allowing one game year to pass every 52 days. It will be 2037 after one year of IRL game play and 2044 one year after that. Wars will be written and negotiated OOC and roleplayed OOC and then added to the proper timeline at the end of the war. With time moving one week every 24 hours, wars will go by much faster and become confusing when responses to actions would happen in hours our time and days in FWNG time. Any other ideas can be negotiated if anyone is interested in my Next-Gen idea. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 07:07, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

I can understand what you want. However, I don think that the game should become silence and bored once the war was finished. There are hundreds of things we can do. We can RP new crisis, we can RPdiplomacy, we can RP economy, etc. I suppose a new game without limits (technological and real life ones) would be more atractive for some of us, but I wont play this new game. I suppose that there are players who want to RP a more realistic game and I will try to contact them and create a new one together. BIPU 08:57, September 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * I would be interested in pursuing something like this. Both of my nations are kind of more designed for realism. What do you think of bringing some of your ideas to the Odyssey of Fate? I don't mention it much because I've ben very busy and have only a few spare moments to work on it. But basically, its a scenario with the objective of studying how nations develop in as realistic a future scenario as I can design. The fun part is throwing the unexpceted parts in to the scenario, like an unexpected war, for instance. Any interest in doing this? I would love to have a partner helping with this project!Gatemonger 14:43, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

Both Future Worlds will be played at the same time. Next-Gen gives us more to do. I notice alot of FW users are running low on ideas and things to do. Generally if there is not a war happening, things become stagnant. Next-Gen gives us alot to do on downtime on regular FW and opens up new things not possible of regular FW. I expect that everyone would continue using FW and while also joining FWNG. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 10:28, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

Its a pretty good idea. However, the rule on planet destroyer weapons, I think, should either stay, or be immediately replaced with some arms control treaty. Modify your rules all you want, but have some counterbalance so that gameplay can continue without humanity being wiped out.

So go ahead, good concept idea. Gatemonger 14:38, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

Right... I forgot about the planet destroying weapons. I was going to keep that restricted. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 14:50, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

The problem is I like to make stuff up as I go along. Yarphese Confederation would not exist under current Yarphese history plans, so right now it is only an idea, and not a real world. Thus, I propose that we create entire new countries for the game, or else our FW countries will stagnate.

And as for FW stagnation, I suggest pursuit of any of the quality awards I mentioned. They are harder than they seem because they reflect Wikipedian standards (encouraging geographic and people articles), and take a long time, so it should ocuppy significant time. <small style="color:#186405">—Detectivekenny; (Info, talk) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 03:58, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

I think it will be difficult to play the two games with a single wikia page. There will be many articles in FW Next Gen that wont be valid for FW. I think you should use new entire countries (or wiki pages) for the new game.BIPU 08:26, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

I will give my opinion once I am back in a few days. My bandwidth is depleted so I won't be able to do anything. If a reaction is needed from the ASA, you guys can decide, you know what I'll do. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 18:47, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Future of "Future Worlds"
Now that FWNG was launched I would like to know what do you think about "this" Future World. I have to think if I want to join FWNG becouse it is possible for me to play a futuristic game but I dont think that two different (in time and many other things) games could be played with the same wiki nation. Anyway, what I want is to continue FW and now that all we can fly our imagination in FWNG maybe we can play FW in a more realistic way. I think that we should clarify who is active in FW and what we want for the future of the game. BIPU 23:05, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

I plan on using both FW and FWNG at the same time with the same nations, Everett, Iraqistan and 4chanistan. Everything remains the same in the current FW. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 23:09, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

As confusing as it may seem, I am seconding BIPU's suggestion. We can keep Future World as it is now, but slow tech advancement down by a HUGE rate. We can do that for the FWNG. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 15:01, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Final arrangements
Alright guys. Now that I almost have the United States, I need to know who owns the overseas territories of the US? I am going to list them here. If you don't already own them, please don't make a bid, but if you already own them, they're yours. Don't worry about unincorporated or shizzazle now... if they are /kinda/ under the US Government and have large ties, I think they /kinda/ fall under us. So these which I can have will be incorporated states of the Allied States.

___
 * Johnston Atoll - Mine
 * Howland Island - Mine
 * Jarvis Island - Mine
 * Kingman Reef - Mine
 * Bajo Nuevo Bank - Mine
 * Serranilla Bank - Mine

In addition to this, I need to know about all foreign US bases still under US control. Thanks.

-Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 19:26, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

Time to go shopping. Lessee: Guam, Mariana, Samoa, Midway, Baker, and Wake should be fine for me. Woogers - talk 20:35, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

Lol I am not putting them up for grabs, I am just asking if you already own them. If not, their mine MWAHAHAH! -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 21:12, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I own the ones listed above. Especially Guam. Also will fight to the last man to protect them. Woogers - talk 21:18, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

Alright, anyone else? -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 21:36, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

I own Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Navassa Island and Guantanamo Bay. Navassa is now a county in Haiti, the U.S. Virgin Islands are now a county in Puerto Rico and Guantanamo was abandoned, destroyed and given to Cuba. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 07:38, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Alright, so these that are remaining in the list are basically mine. Now, the overseas bases? -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 10:46, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

You have no overseas bases in my zone. The sole remaining base that I can think of, Joint Base Guam, was ceded as a result of annexation. Pick up your troops whenever you get a chance, or I'll throw them in the ocean. We don't want them here. Woogers - talk 10:49, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

ICly that's not happening. It remains a Joint Base which is not under your control. But we will talk about that ICly further in the interactions section. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 12:39, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Overseas bases? Can we get a list of them? I know that anything in Iraq and Kuwait is now Iraqistani. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 13:31, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess I can list them here. I am not going to list the current FW nations in here. If it falls under your territory, I am assuming its automatically a Joint Base.

Air Force Bases


 * Pine Gap Joint Defence Space Research Facility - Alice Springs, Northern Territory, Australia
 * Aviano Air Base - Aviano, Italy
 * Incirlik Air Base - Incirlik, Turkey
 * NATO Air Base Geilenkirchen - Geilenkirchen, Germany
 * Joint Force Command Brunssum - Brunssum, Netherlands
 * Kadena Air Base - Kadena, Okinawa, Japan
 * Kunsan Air Base - Gunsan, South Korea
 * Lajes Field - Praia da Vitória, Portugal
 * Transit Center at Manas - Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan
 * Misawa Air Base - Misawa, Japan
 * Morón Air Base - Morón de la Frontera, Spain
 * Graf Ignatievo Air Base - Graf Ignatievo, Bulgaria
 * Osan Air Base - Songtan, South Korea
 * RAF Feltwell - Feltwell, United Kingdom
 * RAF Lakenheath - Lakenheath, United Kingdom
 * RAF Mildenhall - Mildenhall, United Kingdom
 * RAF Alconbury - Alconbury, United Kingdom
 * RAF Croughton - Croughton, Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
 * RAF Molesworth - Molesworth, United Kingdom
 * Ramstein Air Base - Ramstein-Miesenbach, Germany
 * Spangdahlem Air Base - Spangdahlem, Germany
 * Yokota Air Base - Tokyo, Japan

Army Bases

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Army_installations#Overseas (I can't list them, there are hundreds)

Marine Corps Bases

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Marine_Corps_installations#Overseas (Also a lot)

Navy Bases

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Navy_installations#Overseas (A lot)

If you don't already own them (with proof I guess), I can split them with Everett and Cascadia. So that we are even. All bases in your territory (EAF, NIR, etc etc) will be a Joint Base. If you want to evict us from the base, do it ICly on the Interactions of Future World page. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 13:51, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Well like I said, anything in Iraqistan is now under Iraqistani or Everetti authority. Most Iraq War camps have been dismantled since the Iraqistan War. Kuwaiti bases and camps are currently under Iraqistan/Everett control and will be dismantled or become Iraqistani bases. Guantanamo was dismantled and given to Cuba. Everett has left and dismantled its own Afghanistan camps and bases. Everett does not possess permanent foreign bases anywhere, so all the remaining bases are split between Cascadia and ASA. Everett possesses a base in Iraqistan and temporary war time bases in Somalia and Iran. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 15:03, December 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Its okay. I won't really be using them, I just need them for the List of Allied States Military installations. Super Warmonkey 17:27, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

None of the bases in the mainland are eligible for joint bases, this was outlined somewhere where I can't find now near when I first made the country. As for Guam, I don't particularly care for this to be an in character matter. You can either move them, on the threat of harm coming to them, we can assume that you moved them, for the benefit of all, or I can commit an atrocity on Current Events. Woogers - talk 16:06, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Well, ICly any threat to them will be seen as an act of war. So if you want to take that route you need to be able to take the consequences. But no bases on the mainland is okay. Super Warmonkey 17:27, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

FGC already made a claim on alaska. Just wanted to record that. Gatemonger 21:53, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

I'll have Alice Springs replaced with something non-military. It's basically in Yarphei. <small style="color:#AAAA00">—Detectivekenny; (info, talk) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 00:51, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

All the bases in OSF territory ( franco-german and alaskan), i would like to enforce my sovereignty on these areas. Gatemonger 01:51, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

Ok its cool. I also guess the bases in the NIR won't work either, but the Banana-Man is inactive, so I can't ask him. I am going to have to go on assumptions. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 10:57, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

Proposal
How about we modify the rule that you can only have two nations? I would personally like to start a new nation, but have already reached my limit, plus I don't want to give up Caucasus or the Allied States. I think it can bring some more activity to Future World. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 23:18, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

You don't even use Caucasus. Why would you need another country? Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 23:23, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Because I don't have any inspiration for Caucasus or the Allied States at the moment. But I know in the future I would use them again. I don't need it, I just want to start a Middle-Eastern Nation. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 23:25, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Specify the following: What is its land area comprised of (what countries)? What level military power? Economy power? Technology? Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 23:30, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Land: What's left of Iran and Pakistan. Military: Combined military of Iran and Pakistan. Economy: Combined economy of Iran and Pakistan. Technology: Not as advanced as most Future World nations. Just like the current Iran and Pakistan lol. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 23:34, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Well there is nothing left of Pakistan. Gatemonger claimed the rest when he made the United Islamic Ummah. So basically all you have is the remainder of Iran which currently has a lot of messy history leftover. Ahmedinjihad is dead, the Iranian Revoltionary government is dead, whats left of it went to the Ummah. The Green Opposition Party now controls Iran and I still have troops in there keeping the peace. Addition note, the history is non-negotiable. I'm not undoing or redoing two wars, Iraqistan and GM won't like altering his Ummah. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 23:40, December 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * I won't alter any history. In that case, I want Iran, Kuwait, Bahrain, a small piece of Afghanistan, and Qatar. I will leave the UAE as it is a nation someone is bound to want when they join Future World. If it is alright, can you please link me to all the Future World history which has to do with Iran and those other small nations so I can incorporate it? Thanks. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 23:46, December 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * Iraqistan now possesses Kuwait and half of Jordan. The other half is part of Israel now. The Ummah also took all over Afghanistan and Yemen. You basically have Bahrain, Qatar, Iran, Oman and Saudi Arabia to choose from. Also read:


 * Iraqistan
 * Iraqistan War
 * Second Iraqistan War
 * Iran-4chanistan Incident
 * 2010 Arab-Israeli War

Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 23:52, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

I have an idea. There will be a limit of say, six. Major nations are worth three, Shared majors two, and minors and shared minors one. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:37, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to propose a modification to the rules: "Any player can have one major nation, and either of the following: one minor nation and one shared nation, or two minor nations; if the second is the case, the minor nations must be weaker than the minor nations in the first package."

Any thoughts? I think it serves as a healthy compromise.Gatemonger 00:43, December 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * We have decided on the "point system". You get six points. Major (3 pts), moderate & shared major (2 pts), minor, shared minor & shared moderate (1 pt). You cannot possess two majors (technically 3 pts + 3 pts). Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 00:59, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Also, i would like to see your nation. I want to maybe integrate its story into that of the Ummah and its constituent war. I can only do that if i see your nation. The Ummah is destined for disolution after the war, anyway, but your proposal might make the war story more interesting.Gatemonger 00:43, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Gatemonger 00:43, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty. In this case, I would love what's left of Iran, Bahrain, Qatar, the small part of Oman north of UAE, and if possible Saudi Arabia, if its too much, I'll leave Saudi. The country's name will basically be Arabia and run like a terrorist state (?). But I will only start on it as soon as I have done sufficient research on this current state of all the nations I want. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 08:05, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Hello
As you might know, I have created a country in the harsh deserts of Austrailia, and i wish to submit it into Future Worlds. It is called Kinship of Terria, and I wish to expand it over time,

Thank You, Herblover123 03:24, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Good so far. You might want to add some more population. It's very small. If you are interested, check out the Microstate Alliance for Freedom which is an alliance of tiny countries. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 15:09, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Submission into Future Worlds
I hope you have noticed, but I hve been making articles for my nation, Egypt, and it is getting kinda boring just typing. So i want to submit it into Future Worlds. I hope you enjoy it! SandsofTime 05:17, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Welcome: Read this: 2010 Arab-Israeli War Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 07:02, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Eh, this could be a problem. What if it was my western Egypt attacking, not the one I made. SandsofTime 07:13, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

That works. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 07:15, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Hey, welcome to Future World! We need some active players. Feel free to ask if you have any questions. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 11:15, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Welcome! We are definitely in need of more players. Add your information on these three pages: National Info of Future World; Economic Demographics of Future World; Lists of Future World countries —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:02, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Hey. Nice country, well thought out. A few realism checks you might want to go over:

1) I like how the country is focused on traditional culture a lot like my own country. But there seems to be no real transition, it seems like the people just randomly decided to follow traditional culture.  That usually doesn't work.

2) From what I can tell, and using recent demographic estimate, the land which makes up your "East Egypt" in real life has around 98% of real world Egypt's population. Don't believe me, check out the Wikipedia page on Governorates of Egypt.

3) It doesn't really make sense for everyone in a country to adhere to the same religion without some form of government manipulation of statistics. Especially when that country was ruled by the Ottomans and British Empire, which would present some religious minorities.

4) It also is strange to have an absolute monarchy have excellent relations with western nations. <small style="color:#AAAA00">—Detectivekenny; (info, talk) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 03:46, January 17, 2011 (UTC).

Well, the crown was influenced by the Treaty of Alexandria. The Theocracy of Muslims was created in roughly the 1930's they moved west when the country split, and decided to attack East Egypt (see Invasion of Islam). Yes there is a small minority if christians, hindus and Muslim left, but Ancient Worship was declared by the founding government to be state advertised religion, and most people at the time (who believe everything the government said) simply swictched to Ancinet Worship. Really we are not a monarchy, but I can't figure out how to call a pharaoh government. Signed by Ramsesse I of Egypt (Page-Talk-Nationt) 04:05, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Umm no offense but I don't want to do this any more, you guys seem to smarticles for me.Signed by Ramsesse I of Egypt (Page-Talk-Nationt) 04:14, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean smarticles? We gave you some easy to follow advice. Myself am 16 years old and have no idea how to run a country politically, but I play for the fun in it, not to mention it does wonders for my reading and English. You don't have to feel threatened. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 12:49, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Joining
Can my nation Kingdom of Europa join? HORTON11 04:29, June 7, 2011 (UTC)

Complete a full nation page article about the country and it will be added to the National Info page. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 05:33, June 7, 2011 (UTC)

Moon
Are there any rules regarding the moon? HORTON11 21:03, June 7, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that it is now and always will be international territory. Scientific research settlements, such as the International Lunar Research Station are allowed. Woogers - talk 21:06, June 7, 2011 (UTC)

Wow... you start strong!!! Please... It would be good for you, for us and for the game that you spend some time reading what exist before your arrival. More than 90% of your articles are about bombs, missiles, etc. You have claimings over the Antarctica, the Moon... Please... i would like to know more about your nation, your economy, your politics, your culture... there are many other things to do here more that bombs and wars... --BIPU 21:12, June 7, 2011 (UTC)

We may have bombs, but we have no intention of going to war unless provoked. Furthermore, we will go through every diplomatic channel as well as non-combat military operations beforhand. (also I wanted to have a strong military before creating other pages to ensure I don't get invaded. HORTON11  21:21, June 7, 2011 (UTC)

If you had read the rules, you would see no one can invade you without your permission. Woogers - talk 21:28, June 7, 2011 (UTC)

Joining
Empire of Britannia, I will allow if any new people want India, South Africa, Nigeria I'll allow them to have the countries. Can I join? -Sunkist- 15:04, June 9, 2011 (UTC)

That country used to be connected in Future World, but was disconnected in June 2009 after all those Asian users disappeared. You are also the same as Zackatron, and two majors (Germany + Britannia) are not allowed. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:45, June 9, 2011 (UTC)

How do you view IP addresses? Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 17:51, June 9, 2011 (UTC)

You can't. You have to either ask wikia or do investigative work. On a side note, I confirm the findings above that Zackatron and Sunkist are the same person. Woogers - talk 17:56, June 9, 2011 (UTC)

Well then how are both you and TM confirming he is the same person if IP addresses cannot be viewed? Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 17:58, June 9, 2011 (UTC)

email a dress? (ᵒᴥᵒ) MineCraftian (Talk) (ᵒᴥᵒ) 18:03, June 9, 2011 (UTC)

I go through the histories of their articles for anonymous edits, and check the contribs of anon IPs. Idk what he does. Woogers - talk 18:06, June 9, 2011 (UTC)

He admitted it on Nation Wiki on Zackatron, and shows periods of activity close together on both accounts. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:12, June 9, 2011 (UTC)

Just viewed Zackatron's User Page on Nation Wiki and I see it too, admit he possesses an account called -Sunkist-. Well Sunkist/Zackatron you will have to decide whether you want to use Britannia or Germany, it's one or the other. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 18:23, June 9, 2011 (UTC)

Can the Greco-Turkish Republic also join. It's not a world power, it does not have WMD and has a small armed force. HORTON11 18:52, June 9, 2011 (UTC)

Finish up the main nation article and you can add it to the National Info page. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 19:00, June 9, 2011 (UTC)

Damn, caught redhannded. See this is what happend, I made Germany as a 1 point taker, according to the rules if you share a nation with some one it counts as 1, and I had always the idea of owning my own country. As soon as I enterd the war with NGE, I thought France (whoever controlled French-German Union) was going to help me out, and found out he went unactive. Thus I began to say I was losing the war to get NATO involed, and make peace, but it seems that NGE wanted to make the war long and hard, but I had plans for making my own country. So I used my old -Sunkist- account to make Britannia. Sorry for the confusion, I'll disconnect Germany. -Sunkist- 22:20, June 9, 2011 (UTC)

I could have the USSR do a <tanks roll into, pwned> thing. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:24, June 9, 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't get too far. :D Kunarian 22:26, June 9, 2011 (UTC)

Also can we end the German Republic with the Treaty of Trieste? Kunarian 22:30, June 9, 2011 (UTC)

How about Germany goes back to FGC, while Poland is ceded to the NGE? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:40, June 9, 2011 (UTC)

FGC is disconnected and the NGE wants nothing from poland, they are quite happy for them to remain independent. I was thinking about maybe negotiating Bavaria into NGE hands, I think that would be quite pleasing. Kunarian 22:43, June 9, 2011 (UTC)

I do not think partitioning a country is a good idea. Germany could be placed under UN/PAFF trusteeship until they decide if they want to remain independent or want to join another nation. HORTON11 22:44, June 9, 2011 (UTC)

Well the NGE wants unity, some Germans want unity. And after what they did they kinda owe us big time and instead of damaging their economy with reparations and what not, Bavaria should do fine. Kunarian 22:47, June 9, 2011 (UTC)

What about the successor of OSF which has France, German Republic, and Alaska? Is that still connected? Also Horton, we need to be realistic here, we can't just have another nation be put into UN hands. That's unrealistic, since it would logically surrender to the NGE if it doesn't receive help. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:49, June 9, 2011 (UTC)

I meant as a temporary measure. HORTON11 23:51, June 9, 2011 (UTC)

Yes but that wouldn't happen. Instead it would be annexed by NGE or just stay as Germany. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:54, June 9, 2011 (UTC)

NATO can't take EVERY nation under its wing. While the German Republic has help in defence against NGE attacks (and the German Republic is going to be disconnected), we could most likely annex Germany peacefully and free Poland. We already have peace talks in hand and with Germany being disconnected thats a logical end really. Kunarian 00:22, June 10, 2011 (UTC) Thats good. HORTON11 00:40, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is good. But USSR is going to be pissed, along with mild support of PAFF. Just warning you, xD —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:57, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, USSR will be angry but while the NGE is still in full mobilization it is safe. Once things relax, it will be a case of improving relations and showing we are peace loving. Hopefully the fact that some Germans support unification will make it easier. Kunarian 01:05, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

I think that Germany shoud stay "free" and open to a new player. If Zackatron wants a new nation, perfect, but he has to finish the current storyline and closing the war with the peace treaty. Once the treaty is signed, Germany should be open to be played by new players.

Anyway... I say the same thing again and again we should have an agreement with the history in order to new players to adapt their history to the previous one. We cant rewrite the history of Europe (the continent) and change all our national wiki when a new player arrives.--BIPU 16:58, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

Applying for admission
I'm an experienced user from outside this wiki and have taken an interest in this project. Would it be possible for me to join this late? The concept I have in mind is a world-weary Vietnam/Laos mash up. I think this country would be a valuable addition due to its proximity to (what rests of) China PR, its dependency on institutions such as the IMF and the unusual situation with southernmost Vietnam 'occupied' by another country. Regaliorum 11:44, June 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * Some basic info already:
 * Name = Indochinese Democratic Republic
 * Type = One-party state, oppressive regime trying to maintain itself
 * Position = Brutal language against imperialism, but fairly neutral
 * It would respect the boundary with its southern neighbor
 * Regaliorum 12:00, June 11, 2011 (UTC)

O.O Meh State of the World (FW) (ᵒᴥᵒ) MineCraftian (Talk) (ᵒᴥᵒ) 12:03, June 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * So if I negotiate about this with the user behind the Yarphese Republic? Would it be possible then? Regaliorum 12:07, June 11, 2011 (UTC)

Create a fully completed nation page main article and you may be admitted. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 12:35, June 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. I will start after my examinations are finished (07/20). I hope that is on time :p Regaliorum 13:35, June 11, 2011 (UTC)

Territories
So, what do you guys think about being able to have territories for your country? I'm not completely sure how "territories" work, but something along the lines of the US and Peurto Rico IRL. I think it may be a good addition to the game. For example, Iraqistan is basically a territory (protectorate/puppet state) of Everett. Maybe make a rule that each large nation can have three territories, and every small nation only one. When someone wants a nation in these territories, they may have it, but are somewhat required to make their history fit with what has already happened. I was just thinking about this now for some reason. I'd have Zimbabwe as a territory for the AS if this was allowed, by the way. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • contribs) 22:37, June 15, 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that we won't exercise full control over these territories. They'd have normal governments and basically be sovereign, but our respective nations will have a large amount of influence in their decision making and economy. Our citizens will also be able to move freely to and from these territories. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • contribs) 22:43, June 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * I would support this, and I would like to get Spain or Portugal as a territory. HORTON11  22:41, June 15, 2011 (UTC)

Make sure to make history for that. Don't just say, "Spain is a territory." For everyone. SW already has history, though. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:49, June 15, 2011 (UTC)

Yes. They would be more an economic ally, not really a puppet state. HORTON11 22:56, June 15, 2011 (UTC)It would be like a blank country, but created. HORTON11 02:28, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good idea, though I feel we should work this out a little better. Like in categories:
 * Type A territory = independent within a union with the motherland, somewhat like an autonomously ruled colony
 * Type B territory = small to medium puppet state or friendly regime anywhere across the globe
 * Type C territory = small puppet state or friendly regime bordering the governing
 * Type A for instance seems most fit to regulate the relations between the Empire of Britannia and India. Spain could be a type B territory to the Kingdom of Europe. Small nations like Indochina are to limit themselves to Type C while bigger ones can go for a combination of three like AAA, ABB, BBB, etc. Looks any good? Regaliorum 07:40, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the point of this. Whatever land area you choose for your nation is yours and however you wish to define your land area, whether it be official territory or some autonomous region or a dependent territory, etc, is up to you. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 12:07, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure everyone playing FW will want full control over their initial area. Having some "colonies" or whatever can just add to the RP. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • contribs) 12:17, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with UP, we have already seen this before in-game (e.g. Free Cities, Yarphese puppet regimes in North Australia during the war, EAF islands prefecture), no need to make a big deal over it now. I would also add many of us have antarctic territories. I mean, do what you want, but considering how much of it exists in real life, it doesn't have to be a community project. <small style="color:#004400">Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 17:42, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

Horton, I recomend you again that have a look to what other players has made before your arrival. Future world existed before you and Spain (all the iberian peninsula) is reserved by me by the moment. User_talk:United_Planets --BIPU 21:03, June 18, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I was wondering when you were going to say that Bipu. The Iberian Peninsula is going to be used by at least 3 new countrys (not counting france with catalonia) and maybe even 3 players. It would be nice if you looked around before trying to claim things horton just for next time. Kunarian 22:48, June 18, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. Its just I don't really look at user pages much. Well you could change the Spain page to one of the other countries then. HORTON11 23:55, June 18, 2011 (UTC)

Really I encourage you to read and have a look around before build your nation. Future World is a long game and there were a lot of things before your arrival. You are not the only player so It could be interesting to read and ask the others before to take control over a territory or to build stories that involve other nations (players). I hope you understand my words not as a criticism unless as a way to have a better game experience.

I have asked several times without success a committee that oversees the pages of the players to avoid, among other things, conflicts like this. Today anyone can write anything without considering how these things affect others or the "global balance". In other similar games in which I participated publications were reviewed to prevent a player can write things, which in one way or another condition the entire game.--BIPU 10:47, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * May I suggest to take my FW Atlas Project as a guideline? I'm creating it to give (new) users a page with a clear description of every nation's territory. Centralizing information and offering it in a clear way prevents major conflict without bureaucratically reviewing every word written. Regaliorum 11:56, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * Mainly anyone can complain if they see any discrepancy. The main filter is you have to ask UP before joining.  The State of the World and National Info articles, as well as tons of other articles listed on the Future World page help new players join.  It's not like anyone can just do what they want.  <small style="color:#004400">Detectivekenny (Info; Talk)  17:32, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * But if those pages are dated or inconsistent or incomplete problems occur. Centralization is a good thing, though I wont force anyone to use the Atlas. Regaliorum 15:17, June 20, 2011 (UTC)

Interesting
I just found it interesting that many FW nations are similar to historical ones, like: HORTON11 19:57, June 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * Baltic Union is like the 15th century Kalmar union
 * Central America is like the Central American reublic of the 1820s
 * South America is like Gran Colombia (only bigger)
 * The EAF is simal in concept to WWII Japanese empire "Dai Nippon"
 * NGE is like the Austro-Hungarian empire
 * Europa is like WWII Italy

In fact most nations in the world are like some historic predecessor in some way. Belgium for example is geographically like the Spanish Habsburger Netherlands. States are in essence illusions made up by men, as they are based on a historic identity. (Catholic and a French-speaking elite for the Belgian case). I'm sure there are exceptions, a lot of African colonies were drawn with completely arbitrary boundaries, yet the colonial maps of the past form the historic base for today's Africa. :D Regaliorum 06:51, June 23, 2011 (UTC)

Basically 90% of all current world borders were drawn by Europeans, so I would say most former colonies are exceptions. Even borders between seemingly nation-states tend to overlap. Even the borders of say Korea are not completely accurate, as there are many Korean regions in China. Yarphei could be compared to the Khmer Empire, by the way, or the successor to South Vietnam. Altaic Union is built along Pan-Mongolism so it's more of a nation-state. <small style="color:#004400">Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 07:12, June 23, 2011 (UTC)

What I was trying to say is that all arbitrary situations will lead to new historic claims, considered to be just by the ones who make this claim. A new identity can and will grow. Regaliorum 07:31, June 23, 2011 (UTC)

South Sudan
I've been gone a little while but I was wondering what was/would be done about South Sudan. <small style="color:#004400">Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 03:41, July 20, 2011 (UTC)

I did my part with Sudan by assassinating that retarded Sudanese president for the genocides he led in Darfur. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 04:41, July 20, 2011 (UTC)

S&P
Alright, I'm back. Which one of you American countries got downgraded, I need it for future events. Woogers - talk 19:34, August 7, 2011 (UTC)

Everett doesn't play chicken with it's economy so... not it! Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 17:41, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

None of them are in 15 trillion Dollahs of Debt. Why would any of them be downgraded? (ᵒᴥᵒ) MineCraftian (Talk) (ᵒᴥᵒ) 19:04, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

Joining the Future World
Hi! I've been looking around this Wiki for a while and I've seen that this is a very large part of the Wiki and I wish to be a part of this. I hope I'm not too late to join but I have had an idea for a country in East Africa made up of Ethiopia, Eritrea and Djibouti. I allready have some information about it: thanks :) Brapple11 09:27, August 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Name: The United Ethiopian State
 * Government: (Slightly Racist) Dictatorship
 * Position: It would Neutral. It would have been through a Coup in the 80's and then a dark more racist period, it currently is coming out of the darkness and begining to have more freedoms.
 * Leader: the Leader of the Ethiopian People (or Mari) is Mamo Dego (son of the former leader Abebe Dego).


 * No problem from me, but UP will have to confirm. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • contribs) [[Image:Flag of the Allied States of America.png|25px]] 16:53, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

Create a full main nation page and you are clear to join. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 17:41, August 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * Is there anything else that I need to do? Brapple11 21:13, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

Energy help anyone?
How much would you guys think that the UFSA needs in Energy? I would say the consumption rate would be about 2PW, but I have no clue when it comes to these things. (ᵒᴥᵒ) MineCraftian (Talk) (ᵒᴥᵒ) 03:26, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

2 Petawatts per what? Woogers - talk 03:41, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

Per Year (ᵒᴥᵒ) MineCraftian (Talk) (ᵒᴥᵒ) 04:55, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

Non-Nation User Organizations
What is everyone's opinion on players creating non-country organizations such as businesses/corporations in other user nations or as per Sunkist's request, religious organizations/churches or other international movements, organizations and groups? Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 07:24, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

As long as its not something like "We Give Free Guns Inc." or "Cult of Pikachu" I good with it. (ᵒᴥᵒ) MineCraftian (Talk) (  South America - Wringo - Oil City - Sola   ) (ᵒᴥᵒ) 08:14, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

It should be allowed. I didn't think we had any rules regarding this lol. I made the EcruFox Corporation in every country except those which protest. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • contribs) 08:42, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

But it must be within parameters given by the owners, just so they don't start contradicting each other or the main text. And no crap about "Free Cake Party takes over China," etc. <small style="color:#004400">Detectivekenny (Info; Talk)  18:22, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

United Emirates
Can the United Emirates join as a secondary nation of mine? It is not too large, and is not militaristic in nature. HORTON11 18:15, September 17, 2011 (UTC)

Probably, but UP will need to approve first. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:02, September 20, 2011 (UTC)

You're good to join. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 21:43, September 20, 2011 (UTC)

Hey
I would like to join this. Can I make a nation of Portugal or Spain or maybe Guatemala? Granero 23:08, November 17, 2011 (UTC)

Guatemala is currently occupied by Central America. I think you can take Portugal or Spain or Portugal and Spain, but first you'll have to make a detailed main page about your country, and a page for its leader. Read through these:


 * http://conworld.wikia.com/wiki/Rules_of_Future_World
 * http://conworld.wikia.com/wiki/Building_A_Future_World_Nation

-Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • contribs) 23:20, November 17, 2011 (UTC)

All right, I will do the page for the country. Also is France taked, because I would like to incorporat the southern part of it (Occitan areas). Granero 23:31, November 17, 2011 (UTC)

France is currently a gray area. It's owner has said he's leaving but we're not quite sure if he'll stick to it. United Planets will have more information. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • contribs) 09:44, November 18, 2011 (UTC)

Interested in joining
Hey. I'm interested in creating a country in Future World. I assume that any gray areas on the map on this page are free to take. Would this be correct?

Thanks in advance! Fendue 17:18, November 24, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the gray areas are free, but just to be safe, make clear which areas you want. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • contribs) 17:35, November 24, 2011 (UTC)

Liverpool Land, in Greenland. I doubt anyone has claimed this area. Fendue 18:51, November 24, 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I don't think anyone has. Make sure you read these articles before starting on your pages:


 * http://conworld.wikia.com/wiki/Rules_of_Future_World
 * http://conworld.wikia.com/wiki/Building_A_Future_World_Nation

-Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • contribs) 19:21, November 24, 2011 (UTC)

I'm just a little confused on the rules. Do I have to create the national page and the pages for the ruler, economy, etc. first and then request to join, or should I request and then create? When I do request, should I do so on United Planets' talk page?

Also, the country was pretty much formed by a group of Everetti citizens in opposition of the Union of Everett- not sure if that would be allowed, since, after all, the creator of the world does run that page. Fendue 19:29, November 24, 2011 (UTC)

Well, create them first then request to join. Also, you'd have to ask UP about the Everetti thing, but I don't think he'll have a problem with it. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • contribs) 19:51, November 24, 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for the help! Fendue 19:53, November 24, 2011 (UTC)

Also I would like to join this project. I would like to have a communist-bloc nation in Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary, but I want to know if that's Ok and if the area is not taken. MMunson 19:17, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

The Soviet Union is still alive in FW (You'll want to make friends with them), and yes that area is open. Hope to see you on the map soon!---Sunkist- 19:21, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

It would be more like Yugoslavia, taking an alternative path. Also, do you know if Yugoslavia is taken? MMunson

Yugoslavia is taken, look at this and the map on the page, National Info of Future World. -Sunkist- 19:33, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Is my nation East Bulgaria able to join?MMunson 21:38, December 8, 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to make a national leader page, as well as read through all the Future World rule and guideline pages. Then ask User:United Planets if you can join. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • contribs) 21:50, December 8, 2011 (UTC)

A $100 Question
Hi

I'm wondering why some of my countries that are on Real World Continents are being denied?

I know there not realistic enought but some are like Zuanauri and Chiangari.

I'm sorry about all those other times but i'm just too comfortable with NRW places.

Is it because i leave it half blank?

Feel free to add some of my ideas.

$100 21:51, January 20, 2012 (UTC)$100

Culture
Do any of you have any articles made on musical artists? I'd like to write one, but don't know where to start. Woogers - talk 04:18, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

I'll try and be quick as I have work in a few, but I find it easier to write when basing it upon somebody you know well. Like a book character for example. Just make a few adjustments and you can make it fit in perfectly. Synthic 05:29, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

LOL Woogers: Christine Fletcher Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 06:35, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

My Request
Id like to add Chiangari as a member of the Furue World.$100 03:27, February 1, 2012 (UTC)<font color=#009900>$100

Mexico in Future World
Is it possible for me to join Future World as Mexico? Enclavehunter 20:17, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Please note the following: List of Everetti Regions & Cities By Population. My country, Union of Everett possesses part of what used to be Mexico. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 20:19, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll rember to look at it. Enclavehunter 20:21, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

Idea for a Scenario
Mass Effect style alien invasion? One where Humanity has a close to zero chance of winning? Synthic 00:27, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

I never played Mass Effect. But this would work for FW Scenarios. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 03:11, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

I thought that alien invasions were banned in the rules. Anyway you know that I prefer a "real world" game. --BIPU 07:26, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not cannon, it's a scenario. See this. Synthic 10:09, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in this kind of matters.--BIPU 10:54, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

General suggestion
Sunkist and I were talking about how interactive Future World is and how we engage with EACH OTHER, in the sense of being a community. At the moment, we make articles about trade alliances and declare war upon each other. I want to suggest that each player of Future World be a "member" of each country's legislature, or be given the right to act as a politician in that country. Like, if I want a new law to be passed in the ASA, I create an article for it, and we all vote on it in the talk page. If majority votes yes, it passes, if majority votes no, it doesn't. If nobody votes, the player can decide if he wants the law to pass or not. In countries like Everett, where there is no legislature, everyone can act as a governor when it's time to vote at the Federal Assembly. For a more passive part of conworlding, what do you guys think? -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • contribs) 22:30, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

This defeats the purpose establishing rights of control over user nations by other users. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 22:42, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

I could like the idea but not the result. I mean that I can be agree with a way to give everybody an opportunity to talk but if all we have to be agree to run a nation, every nation will lost their own seal and in the mid term all nations will be similars. Maybe we could look for any other way to participate but without veto right becouse this would mean the end of a different world.--BIPU 01:01, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you guys mean. @UP, it defeats nothing, it adds interactivity and some challenge. We can't propose, we only vote yes no or don't vote at all. @BIPU, there will be no vetoing, unless one of us are the president. It's JUST voting - and only on legislative matters. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • contribs) 08:42, March 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you really think that if all we vote you could aprove laws like.... for example... those about your embasies? Please... look at our nations!!! All FW is "stupidilly" (please... this is not an offense Ok) green, "stupidilly" polite...."stupidilly" Disney. Now, we can be "bad" boys and we dont use this possibility. If all the decision of our nations have to be voted an aproved by all the players our nations will be clones, "stupidilly" polite and greeninh clones. I dont like the idea.--BIPU 08:56, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

How will they be clones? We don't propose the same laws to our respective legislatures. And again, the Allied States is not green nor is it "polite" nor Disney. Just because /some/ countries choose to be unrealistically perfect, doesn't mean we have all been infected by that plague. By the way, the embassy thing was an executive decision and had nothing to do with the legislature. It wasn't a law, it was merely a minor foreign policy change. The President and the Department of Foreign Affairs control foreign policy. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • contribs) 09:01, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

Well, theres also th issue of our legislator's composition. If it is mostly social-democrat (or conservative etc.) users should vote mstly like that. Cause you wouldn't want everyone demilitarizing the Allied States, or banning atheism in Everett? HORTON11 : •  10:54, March 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * That's why we won't propose such laws. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • contribs) [[Image:Flag of the Allied States of America.png|25px]] 12:18, March 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * But what's there to stop people from doing that? If, for example, a certain country is not liked by the majority of fw users they could potentially pass legislation not in its favor. HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 13:31, March 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * And that's exactly what happens IRL :) -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • contribs) [[Image:Flag of the Allied States of America.png|25px]] 13:35, March 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * IRL I vote in my national elections and you vote on yours. That is the why two governments implement different politics because the voters are not the same for every nation. What you propose here is that all the voters (5 or 6 people) will vote for every nation so in the short term all the nation will be the same.--BIPU 14:10, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

In my oppinion, the "ruler" of a nation should be the one who decide the way of the nation and the other players can give opinions but not more than this. I propose that we could establish parties and party leaders in the nations of other players but the parties should be the ones not in power becouse the party in power should be controlled by the "owner" of the nation. That is the way to guarantee that ASA is going to be what SuperWarmonkey wants and not Disneyworld but it put in the RP some interesting distortion elements. Nevertheless, this things has to be played with A GREAT COMMON SENSE becouse If I introduce a Communist Party in Everett or Skandinavia (or any other democratic nation) and I RP with the party it could put a bit of entertaiment in the national politics but if you do the same in DDR (for example with a democratic movement) Your party leader will have many chances of finishing executed at sunset and I dont want a nation declaring war to another becouse of this kind of things.

Anyway, I think we have enough to do ruling our nations (more than one) and what should be the most important is to develop completly our nations (military, budget, economy, companies, etc.) more than to start working in the nation of our neighbors.--BIPU 14:05, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

We have enough to do but our nations have no internal politics. That's the problem. These can't be conworlds if there is on internal politics. What do I mean, you ask? When was the last time our people apposed our war efforts? When was the last time our people didn't agree with our foreign policy? As it is now, each country's citizens stands behind their government 100% - thus, same with each legislature. Derp says he wants Nazism legalized and encouraged, Derp's legislature claps hands and votes yes all around. That's how it is now. We need more challenges - not everything should work out the way we want it to. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • contribs) 14:54, March 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about the unrealistic of dont take into account the internal politics of our nations. Yes... it is unrealistic to think that in a western and democratic nation people, media, society, etc. are stand behind the government specially when they act as usually acts the ones here. Anyway I dont know if this is the best way to work in internal politics.--BIPU 17:35, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

This wouldn't work well with my system of government, so I'm going to go ahead and opt-out in advance. Woogers - talk 15:48, March 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 16:33, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

You guys are no fun. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • contribs) 16:25, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not against the idea, but for it to work, you'd have to make an East Asian corporation, write article(s) about it, what products and services it offers, who it contracts other essential services out to, win an election, and then it could work. If you want to do all of that, then you are free to appoint a prefectural representative. Woogers - talk 17:26, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

This can be the idea. To use a political party or any other kind of organization (a corporation in EAF) to "move" the minds of the society but without "real" vote right and leave the owner of the nation the final decision of his policys. Every democratic and free nation are able to be influenced by any kind of social movement so this idea could work with any type of government. Anyway, this is only OTHER step and I wouldnt like to see that now everybody writes articles in foreign nations and leave his own without develop economy, energy, etc.--BIPU 17:33, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

A person can never be done with their own conworld. The USA project on Wikipedia isn't done and I am sure there are more than 1 mil articles. I have 141 articles for the Allied States and that makes it one of the more complete conworlds. I want a CHALLENGE. Not a war. I want politics. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • contribs) 17:46, March 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * OK to RP internal politics but dont put the national identity to be debated by all the players if you dont want to have clone-nations. Think, for example, in death penalty. If ASA puts it on debate and Euskadi puts it on debate and the voters are the same people (players) the results will be obviously the same. Go ahead with politics and with political parties, organizations, corporations, etc. and RP what happen if government propose a law or make some policies. Then, the player "self-regulation" should decide if the government go with the law or not but not the other players.--BIPU 18:47, March 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not really a challenge. We need something new to come with 3.0 which makes us all want to come back for more each new day. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • contribs) [[Image:Flag of the Allied States of America.png|25px]] 18:59, March 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well... we still have foreign policy, economy, etc. to RP controlling only our own nations. I acept the challenge of RP internal matters of a nation but I dont acept other than the owner to decide the course of a nation.--BIPU 20:45, March 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * These are what gave me the idea.
 * http://www.usgovsim.net/USG/index.php
 * http://theamericanrepublic.us/forums/index.php?act=idx
 * If they can work, I thought that it could work here, but without unanimous support, it obviously won't. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • contribs) [[Image:Flag of the Allied States of America.png|25px]] 20:53, March 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting.... but I'm afraid that is too much for FW, at least by the moment. I mean that it is a full time game and I see maybe FW needs to grow before playing something like this. Think that the game you show is only for ONE NATION and you are talking about doing the same for EVERY FW NATION. Personally I need at the moment and for the next months full time (nearly :)) here to develop Euskadi and DDR and allocate them in the international sphere. Then... when my wiki work become ligh... maybe I will enjoy playing politics. FW can be infinitely complex if we want because there are many things to be developed and played with realism. Internal politics of every nation could be a good idea but I insist that if we all decide for each nation, all nations will eventually be equal.--BIPU 21:39, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

Interesting idea, but the owner of the country needs to have plenty of extra control. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:53, March 30, 2012 (UTC)`

I agree with Timemaster, the person in control of the nation should be able to...
 * Veto the law if they REALLY do not want it passed (meaning they never planned for it to pass, just exist as a failed attempt)
 * Disallow certain members from voting on controversial topics (because some people would NEVER agree with some things I want to pass see here)
 * Bribe
 * Stab
 * Crush
 * [Vaporize]

Uh, there are only two there, but otherwise I would allow something like this in my nation. Who wants to be what party? :) Synthic 22:11, March 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to be part of a liberal party which seeks to abolish the corrupt monarchy. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • contribs) [[Image:Flag of the Allied States of America.png|25px]] 22:16, March 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * The Høyre Partiet is the closest thing to that. Liberal conservatives who dislike the monarchy, but only seek to diminish its power a few notches. Third biggest party after the coalition. Also, Y U NO LIEK MILITARY DICTATORSHIPS D: Synthic 22:19, March 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * I HAVE VISION OF MILITARY DICTATORSHIPS INVADING MY EMBASSIES. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • contribs) [[Image:Flag of the Allied States of America.png|25px]] 22:21, March 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey guys.... dont forget the DDR inspired Communist Party of Skandinavia lol and... what about the Communist Party of ASA?--BIPU 22:23, March 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * I only have a minor Socialist Party, which still needs a page. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • contribs) [[Image:Flag of the Allied States of America.png|25px]] 22:25, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

I thought that was behind us. Synthic 22:22, March 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't find a page about the Hoyre Partiet. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • contribs) [[Image:Flag of the Allied States of America.png|25px]] 22:25, March 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * Because I haven't written one yet. I'm still working on my government pages. I actually found the time now. Synthic 22:26, March 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll make a Scandinavian politician once that page is done. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • contribs) [[Image:Flag of the Allied States of America.png|25px]] 22:28, March 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * these people are the basis for the party. With a few tweaks of course. Synthic 22:30, March 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, it will be up to you if my guy can be in parliament or just a prominent member of the party. He'll be acting as one of my personal alter egos. If all of this works out, I'll make more people who represent the opposite of what I believe IRL. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • contribs) [[Image:Flag of the Allied States of America.png|25px]] 22:35, March 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll allow you to make him now, if you want, might take me a while to get to all the parties. Synthic 22:39, March 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * It's gonna be difficult to make him without seeing the party policy and all that jazz. He wants a complete abolition of the monarchy and a republican government. He is only part of this party because of its prominence and because it's the closest to his beliefs. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • contribs) [[Image:Flag of the Allied States of America.png|25px]] 22:41, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

I agree it wouldn't work for Yarphei. I think I gave others permission to control small states in the Yarphese Civil War (did I?) but it's a bit late for that. Right now I'm just trying to get a cohesive history down since the civil war. <small style="color:#004400">Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 09:07, March 31, 2012 (UTC)

Yarhese Relations in a Post-Yarphese World
Yarphei has undergone reforms (in September lol) that for the first time, bring citizens into the process of electing VLA officials, weakening the military. Yarphei wishes to pursue a role as an integral part of the world community. Although Yarphei will still keep most tariffs on its own products except in AFTA, Yarphei wishes to open up its ports to international trade. Yarphese mentality still remains though: empowering people to lift themselves up economically through hard work is more valuable than offering pure freedom.

In August, Yarphei will hold an International Exposition in Kampot, and the theme is Maritime Trade. Any countries who wish to send an exhibit are welcome. Please consider carefully and write below what your position on the Exposition and general foreign relations with Yarphei are to be. <small style="color:#004400">Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 22:48, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

I will definitely be attending the exposition, but I don't know what to send for "Maritime Trade". I wish to maintain stable and warm relations with Yarphei, considering you're my primary military ally. Synthic 22:52, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Staying the course. Woogers - talk 23:26, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Will Trahn be there, and will he be in the open air? What will the weather be like and how far is the perimeter of security going to be? -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • contribs) 15:59, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Oh shit! A snip- Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 16:28, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Technology vote
Alright, I am taking the initiative. I am setting a vote right here, right now about all this. We are going to do this the democratic way.

THE VOTE:
 * Remove droids, aerial aircraft carriers, weather control, fusion weapons and extensive fusion power.
 * Remove any phrases relating to "the best in the world", "one of the world's best", "largest in the world", "tallest in the world", "strongest in the world", "<EGO> in the world."
 * Set the maximum troop movement per day for 5,000 troops and 200 vehicles.

Vote. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • contribs) 16:06, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

IN FAVOR

 * -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • contribs) [[Image:Flag of the Allied States of America.png|25px]] 16:06, May 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * -Sunkist- 17:38, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

AGAINST

 * This is dumb. (ᵒᴥᵒ) MineCraftian (Talk) (  Skandinavia - Baltic Republic - Oil City - Mozambique   ) (ᵒᴥᵒ) 17:40, May 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * I second that motion. --<FONT COLOR="878787">"Truth fears no questions..."</FONT> 18:05, May 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't let you do that, Super. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 18:11, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

ABSTAIN
I don't care. As long as you all stop arguing, either way works for me. Woogers - talk 17:43, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

Technology vote comments
I agree with this but perhaps we can allow some sort of droids, like the ones cops use to diffuse bombs. Perhas we can allow some with simpler weapons for riot control or dangerous military missions. HORTON11 : •  16:50, May 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * No rule can take into account those "perhaps". And yes, perhaps some kind of droids (like in RL) able to fly and send a bomb or a missile are not a threat for game realism, but we cant make a rule for every situation. This is why I think that we dont need more rules. What we need is a clear idea of what we want for the game and an admin. An admin with power to allow or avoid any of the things we write.--BIPU 17:22, May 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * Remove droids, aerial aircraft carriers, weather control, fusion weapons and extensive fusion power.
 * No cooments
 * Remove any phrases relating to "the best in the world", "one of the world's best", "largest in the world", "tallest in the world", "strongest in the world", "<EGO> in the world."
 * Well... there is no problem when it is true. Problems come when we are not consistents with our own words. If I say that my nation is leaded by a mad fanatic that eats babies every morning and that has bring 20 years of civil war and bloody repression, I cant say later that during this 20 years my nation has become in "one of the most developed" nations.
 * Set the maximum troop movement per day for 5,000 troops and 200 vehicles.
 * I cant agree with that. This could be very little for some nations and imposible for some others. Again, the problem is not telling that I can move more or less soldiers. The problem is that there are nations that dont have what is needed to deploy abroad even a single one.

Problems of FW cant be solved only with rules. YOu will need one rule for every situation and this is impossible. I have been roleplaying for more than 20 years and in my modest opinion what FW needs is "administration". It is impossible to have self-explainable rules for every situation and this is the task for an admin or a board of admins. The admins has to be a clear idea about what they want for the game and aply the basic rules allowing or avoiding what they consider it is not according with the game idea.

From the beginning, future world was created without a clear idea of what is Future and what is Futuristic and now, the game story is too flawed and there will be allways an old article telling impossible things. There are a lot of wonderful work here but in my oppinion FW needs a complete shut down, a new building period and then a new game phase again.

FW needs many changes that cant be achieved during the game phase and we have to change many things before allowing new players entering the game.--BIPU 17:13, May 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * There aren't enough conworlders to have a board of admins. Ham Ham is the only admin and he isn't really the most active around nor the most realistic. It's either we solve it by rules or we just fuck on forth, and I'll revert everything to say my first clone army will be ready by the end of May. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • contribs) [[Image:Flag of the Allied States of America.png|25px]] 17:28, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

The troop movement may be unfair to larger nations, only due to that fact that they'd be able to break that limit in no time. The U.S. and allies dropped a quarter of a million soldiers into Kuwait with little effort at all. As for the drone deal, I can't really say much. --<font COLOR="878787">"Truth fears no questions..." 17:26, May 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * The rules weren't meant to be realistic or fair to anyone, it was meant to be uniform and allow for EVERYONE to be on the same level. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • contribs) [[Image:Flag of the Allied States of America.png|25px]] 17:28, May 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * On an in-game note, could we make an international court with legally binding authority? HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 17:37, May 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * And what about if Mandinka (lol) or any other nation says, for example, that they have discovered a drug that makes its soldiers to be 10 times stronger, faster, etc. than any other one? Or what about if someone says that has a weapon able to create earthquaques?.... Will you create a new rule and a new vote?? FW has several structural problems that I´m afraid cant be solved with individual rules. Maybe its time to a complete rebuild of FW and a period without roleplaying while we fix all our past mistakes.--BIPU 17:45, May 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * The ICC is in effect. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • contribs) [[Image:Flag of the Allied States of America.png|25px]] 17:40, May 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * That's the issue. If you make it uniform, then your ruling the out the main advantage nations have over each other. It you have a large navy, multiple cargo planes, and several cargo ships, then you'd expect you would be able to move several thousands of soldiers in short period of time. Heck, Britain put ten thousand troops in the Falkland Islands in one day (as far as unloading them was concerned), and the fleet that carried them them was tiny, and pieced together in a hurry. --<FONT COLOR="878787">"Truth fears no questions..."</FONT> 17:42, May 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * As the brithis ships couldnt fly and teletransportation was not a reality, they needed several weeks instead of one day to get south atlantic area.
 * Dont forget that the Royal Navy was in that time (and probably is today) the second fleet in the world and one of the only 3-4 blue waters navy in the world.
 * Dont forget that the argentinian government had not a plan and they though that the british would negotiate instead of fight.--BIPU 17:55, May 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * You'll noticed I said as far as unloading the troops was concerned. --<FONT COLOR="878787">"Truth fears no questions..."</FONT> 18:03, May 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry... --BIPU 18:07, May 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyway, the unload was easy becouse there were no real oposition. Everybody can move troops in a ferry from one port to another but only a small group of nations can "project" troops from the sea over a conflic zone.--BIPU 18:07, May 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * You see, with an MMO or any other game, there is a built-in system which allows for leveling. Even in Cybernations, you work with money and have to use that to buy troops. In this game, what WE TYPE is what happens. That is already a major flaw. I can go add 1000000 ships to my Navy RIGHT NOW, and nobody can do anything about it. We all also have different ideas of what Future World is and what realism is and how they come together. Thus, it's either uniform rules, or every man for himself. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • contribs) [[Image:Flag of the Allied States of America.png|25px]] 17:49, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

--

Alright, everyone has voted, democracy has spoken. Go crazy with whatever you can dream up at night. I have a clone army to deploy into Africa and the Far East. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • contribs) 18:15, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

Oh Lawdy-Lawdy
The point of Future World, is to not only maintain a multiplayer roleplaying game that takes place in our world, today, but to allow our creativity and imaginations run wild.... somewhat wild... and allow leeway to have interesting and often times unique technological capabilities for our countries. This is the most important thing I have to write, right now: If you want to play in a 100% realistic real world scenario roleplaying game, go join Nearly Real World. Future World is self-explanatory. It is a world, today, that uses abundantly, advanced technologies, many of which would exist in today's world if dumbshit corporate CEO's, retarded politicians and the Big Oil industry didn't stomp out technological progress in the name of profits and money. Other technologies in this game, may not exist in our reality for some time, maybe 5 years from now, 10, 15. A large portion of the capabilities many of our members nations have, is in fact, based on current scientific research. We have the ability to build space stations. We could, if we really wanted to, land humans on Mars. Fusion power technologies are only 10 years away. If it wasn't for Big Oil, we would already have fully hydro-fuel cell technology 10 years ago. Whether it's aliens or government test aircraft, we already have EF-100 Triads flying above our skies and landing at U.S. air force bases.

As for these issues of unrealistic military might, there are rules about this and I do step in, being the admin of Future World. The fact is, in regards to Mandinka, he does have an alternate timeline and point of divergence in regards to his nation's history and development from the 1950's forward. He does explain how his country managed to get ahead of other African nations. At the same time, I do not agree that his country, which runs on shit income, poverty, mass violence, child soldiers, extreme political oppression and genocide, can have the capabilities that it has.

Viva cites nations like Cuba, North Korea, China, Russia, etc has examples to prove his own country. The USSR died and turned to capitalism and civil freedoms (kinda) to actually get anywhere. Before that, Soviet citizens lived in shit holes. The whole country was unstable. Even today, it is still recovering from the Cold War mess and is still flooded with violence, corruption, a bad economy, an outdated military and is lagging behind the West in advancing its technological power. It has one (1) aircraft carrier and won't have a new one for 10 years. China was a shitty country until it turned to capitalism. Half its people are in poverty and starving. Its GDP is only growing because it has been changing its ways significantly in recent years. While China does have a shit ton of troops, it has nearly no ability to project them overseas. China has one (1) in repair aircraft carrier, which it bought from Russia. Only last year did China develop the ability for stealth flight. Cuba is pretty shitty. The whole country lives like it is in the 1950s era of technology. Its closed off society has killed it over the decades. Only recently has Castro's son attempted to change those policies. North Korea... it has a massive army.. which it cannot feed. North Korea's extreme isolation has reduced it to a poverty stricken and dying country. Its military has no supplies and the entire country is forced to abide by international sanctions yearly just to exchange for food supplies to keep its country alive. Iran only gets any support because it has relations with China and Russia. Both of which are also shitty countries. But does it have the ability to project its ground forces anywhere? No. None of these countries are capable of it. The days of corruption and isolation have proven these facts. The east will die off if it does not follow the ways of the West. For Mandinka, it is a similar situation. He can have a massive troop count... but the rest of his country will be falling behind in education, healthcare and his ability to project those forces will be dwindling and small. That is fact. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 18:39, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

New nation
Can the Novaya Zemlya Free Republic and the related Vanev join/be added? 77topaz 05:18, May 5, 2012 (UTC)

Please complete the requirements, listed here: [http://conworld.wikia.com/wiki/Rules_of_Future_World#Connection_and_Disconnection Connection Rules Part 1. a-e] Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 05:34, May 5, 2012 (UTC)

ATTN: Huria
Alright, it is starting to seem as if Huria is going to be disconnected ICly from the game. I may just be imagining things, but if the Huria part of Future World's history is wiped, the SAC won't make sense. I propose, that, instead of deleting it from the history books, we create a compact Huria (FW) page, where we summarize what Huria did perhaps with a timeline of events. The normal Huria page remains Viva's property so we need one which can give players accurate and up-to-date information. With Viva's permission, if we need to, we can change some of Huria's history in the FW page. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • contribs) 13:30, August 30, 2012 (UTC)

What did you need to change in Huria's history? Also, I could revamp Huria to make to less genocidial outside of their borders. Just a suggestion if you want them to remain IC. --<font COLOR="878787">"Truth fears no questions..." 15:26, August 30, 2012 (UTC)

I am not really looking for something to change, I just want to make a Huria page for FW. Since Huria is your project, you may decide to work on it further in the future, which will make any information found on the original page invalid. I am suggesting a shortish page which is a summary of the country which (was) part of Future World. See it as one of those Wikipedia pages about a historic country. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • contribs) 20:00, August 30, 2012 (UTC)

Sure go ahead and make one. Sometime in the near future when the issue has blown past a bit, then I'll reassume the mantle for Huria and try to remedy some of the issues during a more quite point in FW. --<FONT COLOR="878787">"Truth fears no questions..."</FONT> 21:54, August 30, 2012 (UTC)

25th Amendment
As Vice President, I am now Acting President of the United States of Future World. Ham still owns the name so he can close this down completely if he wants. As Vice President, I am gonna allow you acting bunch to throw some suggestions in here and we'll look over them. If that doesn't work out, I am going to start drafting my own policies. Rest assured, this will remain a place for your futuristic advanced nations. -Signed by Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 13:14, October 8, 2012 (UTC)

I suggest a rule, that if one nation is disconnected for a period of time, and new nation can take over. However, that new nation must describe what happened to the old nation.

Also, can my nation occupy the land ounce held by Everett. Enclavehunter (talk) 14:16, October 8, 2012 (UTC)

That suggestion sounds similar to my idea of no history can be undone without unanimous support. That will definitely be implemented. Also, the ISA is big, and America is the most sought-after land in the game, so I'd rather that space remain open for two new nations. -Signed by Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 14:31, October 8, 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I don't want North America really (maybe Illinois and Wisconsin out of self-preservation :P). I'm more concerned with East Africa and my current Tawhidi nation. Also, I support Enclave's claim to Everett. ((ლ( (ಠ益ಠ) ((ლ( 15:07, October 8, 2012 (UTC)

Because the decision has to be unanimous, I say no, and will always say no to any attempt to get rid of Everett. They are the most important nation in the game, and must remain in the game. Maybe UP is just pulling a BIPU. (ᵒᴥᵒ) MineCraftian (Talk) (  Duestchland - Texas - Oil City - Skandinavia   ) (ᵒᴥᵒ) 16:25, October 8, 2012 (UTC)

They were the most important nation in the game. And like any nation, it can fall. Right now, there is little Everett's division will do. It was rarely involved in international issues, only getting involved when UP had something at stake in the region in question. Only North America itself would be effected, while others wouldn't have much to worry about. ((ლ( (ಠ益ಠ) ((ლ( 17:17, October 8, 2012 (UTC)

They still are. Everett is only a nine years old. Its division will fuck everything up. It was always involved in international issues. The Western World would fall apart. (ᵒᴥᵒ) MineCraftian (Talk) (  Duestchland - Texas - Oil City - Skandinavia   ) (ᵒᴥᵒ) 17:22, October 8, 2012 (UTC)

From your point of view. I don't see how Europe will fall apart if Everett does. I also don't see how Everett will impact the articles of the world. In fact, the world may be stabilier. With Everett's superpowered arsenal of superweapons gone, then other nations will cease their arms race. I for one made Huria's army the way I did to counter any attempts by Everett to invade Huria because of Everett's moral policing business. Had Everett kept its hands to itself, Huria would have been a better neighbor. ((ლ( (ಠ益ಠ) ((ლ( 17:58, October 8, 2012 (UTC)

Everett's Removal
As did Superwarmonkey demand with the disconnection of the ASA, I request to total removal of Everett from Future World. This can be accomplished easily, by as we did with ASA's removal, switching every use of the title "Union of Everett" or "Everett", etc, replacing it with "USA" or "United States"; therefore completely removing Everett from the history, which essentially already destroyed and should be wiped out and re-written for all the new countries since FW 2.0 and older crap events left over from FW 1.0. Thanks. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 06:32, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, but the new admin after the election will have to enforce it. -Signed by Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 11:00, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that that is rather stupid given that Everett has been the pillar of everything Future World; from the wars, to politics, to economy, to basic ideas. Removing Everett from Future World may be easy, but removing its influence in the game is retarded. As Super said with Huria, Everett has left a huge mark on the game, and removing it from ALL Future World articles would not make much sense. The ASA was easy because it didn't interfere in international issues as much as Everett. I for one wish it to stay. Gives the new American nations a better story in my opinion. ((ლ( (ಠ益ಠ) ((ლ( 22:22, October 11, 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, I agree with that. 77topaz (talk) 23:12, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

I think Ham's trouble comes with the name and specifics. We can change Everett into any substitute. Call it Libertas or something and make up a name for their Spencer. -Signed by Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 22:42, October 11, 2012 (UTC)


 * "Libertas"? Are you sure? You have heard of this, right? 77topaz (talk) 23:12, October 11, 2012 (UTC)


 * I prefer Everett much better. Especially since it has a record to large to replace. I much rather have the Hurians brag about killing Spencer than <insert lesbian radical liberal atheist name here>. ((ლ( (ಠ益ಠ) ((ლ( 23:36, October 11, 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh no, what-ever will Viva do, unable to murder Everett and Spencer? It is such an atrocity that he wouldn't be able to blow up millions of Everettis or kill a homosexual? Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 03:46, October 12, 2012 (UTC)


 * Basically, yes. I won't be able to do that my narrow-minded friend. And you forgot radical liberal homosexual extremist. Get it right. ((ლ( (ಠ益ಠ) ((ლ( 04:06, October 12, 2012 (UTC)

Its really not that hard. If you guys want I can do it, I have the time right now. Enclavehunter (talk) 23:00, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

Election
Alright, it's that time. The incumbent versus the candidate. The winner will be official at 22:00 GMT Saturday. -Signed by Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 11:04, October 11, 2012 (UTC)


 * Super Warmonkey
 * Enclavehunter (talk) 18:57, October 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * Woogers - talk (Flag of Ivalice.pngFlag of the East Asian Federation.png) 19:11, October 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * 77topaz (talk) 21:12, October 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * ((ლ( (ಠ益ಠ) ((ლ( 22:16, October 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * Palo + Alto &#61; 3πr/4φ+ 〖2ρ〗^2 × ∑_6^(n&#61;3)▒2 (talk) 23:53, October 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * MineCraftian
 * -Sunkist- (talk) 18:56, October 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * VOTE HERE
 * VOTE HERE

Damn... (ᵒᴥᵒ) MineCraftian (Talk) (  Duestchland - Texas - Oil City - Skandinavia   ) (ᵒᴥᵒ) 04:27, October 12, 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry MC. I voted for Super out of shame. :P ((ლ( (ಠ益ಠ) ((ლ( 04:34, October 12, 2012 (UTC)

This election was rigged. ---Sunkist- (talk) 04:50, October 12, 2012 (UTC)

How would that even be possible? 77topaz (talk) 04:53, October 12, 2012 (UTC)

How? Enclavehunter (talk) 04:57, October 12, 2012 (UTC)

Super imposed several tactic which underhanded MC, clearly a foul tactic. This is dirty politics at its worst. I demand a recount! ---Sunkist- (talk) 05:06, October 12, 2012 (UTC)

Your voice doesn't count Sunkist. You are a faceless drone of the machine! ((ლ( (ಠ益ಠ) ((ლ( 05:09, October 12, 2012 (UTC)

But I mean its really not fair to have opened voting that shows everyone you voted for. We should have a secret ballot. ---Sunkist- (talk) 05:11, October 12, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how one would hold a secret ballot on a wikia... :P 77topaz (talk) 05:38, October 12, 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Besides, why would we need one? This is an open community, and having a secret ballot, even if possible, would make little sense to be honest. Though that is my opinion. ((ლ( (ಠ益ಠ) ((ლ( 05:59, October 12, 2012 (UTC)

Renaming Everett
As per UP's wishes, he wants Everett removed from FW. We're going to honor those wishes, but we cannot take the memory and actions of the nation out of a game which virtually revolved around the country. We're going to rename first and foremost the country and their president. Suggestions here. -Signed by Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 13:49, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not good of developing names for countries, but I think the "Liberalist States of America" or the "Democratic America" or something involving the liberalism, which was what Everett's government and politics revolved around. As for the President, I have no clue, when I develope people, I use deceased politicans or people, as well as random.name generator. Enclavehunter (talk) 16:13, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

That sounds good. Could name it the "Radical States of America", and you would stray far from the truth with that. For the President, I think it should just be a hard-copy of Spencer. Her "beliefs" were pretty much the defining feature of her leadership, and shaped much of the events in the game. ((ლ( (ಠ益ಠ) ((ლ( 17:29, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

Viva, the Union of Everett is a near copy of the United States, the difference being, while the United States is led by a retarded conservative government and still maintains global dominance and interference in foreign nations, Everett, was pro-gay, with a female President, that did the same exact thing. There is nearly no difference at all in general politics, while our government in the IRL USA launches pro-Jesus assaults on our civil liberties, the Union of Everett ensured total equality through secular belief, notably, gay marriage, women's equality, among others. The difference in the specifics are broken down into Conservative ideals and Liberal ideals, but both generally, enforced and legislated the exact same manner. I feel that there would be no issues from you, IF, Everett had been right wing and Christian extremist, rather than liberal and pro-secular, its President a man, straight and extremely Christian, rather than a woman, lesbian and atheist, while enforcing anti-gay laws, rather than total gay rights and freedoms, while at the same time, its international politics remaining exactly the same, invasions of foreign countries, which the IRL USA is known for, ie: the Iraq invasion, Afghanistan, Libya, Obama's Uganda mission, etc.

In regards to renaming, as I suggested earlier, change everything from Everett to United States. The differences in global politics is completely and utterly non-different from what we would expect from the United States. (Invasions of Iran, anti-Russian sentiment, pro-Israel, etc) Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 21:52, October 20, 2012 (UTC)


 * United States: Sane, doesn't blow up entire nations, attack people in the United Nations Headquarters, invaded two nations (Libya doesn't count, and there are no combat forces in Uganda). Oh, and it didn't fire bomb a quarter of a million withdrawing soldiers in the Amazon and kill tens of thousands of fleeing civilians.

Everett: Violated two UN rules; gave 220 million people tracking devices within their bodies, and killed 250,000 withdrawing soldiers, which is illegal given that troops ordered to leave a warzone cannot be attack by way of international law. Invaded Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Georgia, Libya, Syria, and Jordan. Oh, and Afghanistan, after arresting the entire Afghan government for passing a law.

Long story short: America = sane, Everett = not sane. ((ლ( (ಠ益ಠ) ((ლ( 22:30, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

So it would be "United States" instead of Everett and "Barack Obama" instead of Spencer.

Also, I believe I found a solution for the North American nation's history. What if the ISA became the first nation to secede from the United States, instead of Everett in 2003, which would hopefully keep the changes in the nations of North America simple. Just a proposal. Enclavehunter (talk) 22:00, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

Start Over
I think its time for a new start over, inactivity, I think has given us a new chance to arise from the ashes. I miss the News updates, the political fights. Future World was truely the heart of Conworlds.Bring back Everett and the Allied States, I miss the good ol' days. -Sunkist- (talk) 22:18, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

ASA never went anywhere. I am working on the new version on the private wiki before I start updating it again. It's never going to join an interactive game again, that I can promise you. About "restarting" Future World; that's all up to the players. My job here is to enforce rules, stability and consistency. Once there's activity again, I'll start working on that New England USA again. -Signed by Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 22:29, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

Can we atleast clean up the map, disconnect the inactive nations? -Sunkist- (talk) 22:31, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

"Disconnect the inactive nations" is disconnecting literally everyone. I'll do it if the "regulars" agree. -Signed by Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 22:33, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

I'm interested. Is there any way I can help? Enclavehunter (talk) 23:04, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

Hmm...well it sounds pretty interesting. No better time to start than the present. Maybe without any obstructions I can make my EU, or a Portuguese-style colonial empire from the 1970s. I guess I can use the distraction. Vivaporius says: "I don't need a slogan!" 05:06, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

Disconnect your old nations, Viva and Enclave. I am going to take a bystander admin approach to it this time around. I'll only take admin action if people ask me to. -Signed by Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 11:10, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

I think I might join the new FW, its more suited to me for Roleplay. Falloutfan08 (talk) 13:57, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree to a start-over if I get to put in Texas-Mexico. It doesn't really have any super unrealistic technology, and I like it too much to let it die. (ᵒᴥᵒ) MineCraftian (Talk) (  Duestchland - Texas - Sagesse - Oil City - Skandinavia   ) (ᵒᴥᵒ) 14:24, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

I'll disconnect my nations, and just join as another then. Makes sense. Vivaporius says: "I don't need a slogan!" 17:49, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll disconnect them.

On another note, can I play as Utah? Enclavehunter (talk) 19:30, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'll let the players decide on claims if they overlap. Some good debate and negotiation never hurt anyone. -Signed by Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 19:49, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

Except UP... <_< Vivaporius says: "I don't need a slogan!" 21:16, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

Can we have Amsterdam be the host city of the UN? Its already host to the International Court. -Sunkist- (talk) 21:28, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

That should be decided ICly. -Signed by Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 21:38, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

Can I create the nation now or should I wait? Enclavehunter (talk) 21:50, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

No need to wait. Future World never "closes." It's like NRW. -Signed by Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 21:56, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Enclavehunter (talk) 21:59, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

Oh. On another completly different note? Are all nations from the last Future World disconnected? The reason I'm asking this, is because my nation - Deseret - overlaps some territory from a former nation. Enclavehunter (talk) 22:34, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

I figured. Don't worry, Texas and Skandinavia are gone. I'm using Beringia. (ᵒᴥᵒ) MineCraftian (Talk) (  Duestchland - Texas - Sagesse - Oil City - Skandinavia   ) (ᵒᴥᵒ) 22:43, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea. I am waiting for everyone who wants to to remove their former nations. If it's not done by, say later tomorrow, I'll remove them myself. -Signed by Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 23:06, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

Well I'll disconnect Turkicstan, but it already is --Falloutfan08 (talk) 23:17, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

I have no interest in this. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 23:54, December 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * Then don't comment. Can I please put your un-intrested comments somewhere else? Its not helping the conversation nor anything being planned to revive the situation. I never said 'are you intrested?' nor did I say everyone has to join back, what you simply said make a fire rage inside of me. If you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all. -Sunkist- (talk) 00:27, December 31, 2012 (UTC)

Calm down. UP can give his opinion here. -Signed by Warmonkey (talk • contribs) 00:37, December 31, 2012 (UTC)


 * Its not an opinion, its a shitty short answerd dickish response. They need to teach social skills in preschool, or maybe college. Respect ends at the keyboard, the society we live in. I created the section for people whom were intrested, he was not, thus his comment is not needed. -Sunkist- (talk) 00:52, December 31, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is really Sunkist. I noted his account having been marked by Wikia with a notice "This account has been disabled globally by Wikia.". Seen Here Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 01:09, December 31, 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to stand by Sunkist here UP. What exactly is your point? You appear out of nowhere and annouce your not interested though no one cared to begin with, and now your telling everyone Sunkist's account was disconnected by Wikia, something Sunkist remedied a while ago. The rule Sunkist.. It seems rather fruitless and ungaining on your part, and is a distraction rather than anything actually infomative. If you told us why you had no interest in joining, that would make much more sense. But just announcing you have no interest in joining is very tacky. Vivaporius says: "I don't need a slogan!" 01:49, December 31, 2012 (UTC)