Talk:World War III

From eRepublik Official Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
WPMillogo.png This article is within the scope of the Military WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve the eRepublik Wiki's coverage of wars and military-related articles. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Hey so I'm new to the wiki, and I don't mean to step on any toes, but I noticed there wasn't an article for this event yet and decided to make it.

I wasn't sure if I should call this WWIII as there appears to be a controversy with regard to what counts as a world war, so I came up with this title. --Old Gregg 21:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The name of the wars is still up for discussion. Some people say it is WWII, while others say it is WWIV.--Citizen596922.jpg malta_1990 Icon-Malta.png Icon-UK.png 06:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Kudos for starting this article, Old Gregg. The conflict is being called WWIII commonly in many forums. Chris Stanwick 15:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
While the section contains massive battles throughout North America, Europe, and Asia, qualifying it as a world war, it all centers around North America. If Canada or the USA were to take the fight elsewhere, a renaming might be in order. For now, this is good. --Mjb Silent 20:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Mjb Silent, thanks for stepping up and helping me do the major edits. RL has kept me busy the last few days so I haven't had much time to work on it. Thanks! Chris Stanwick 01:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Sure thing. I'm not very good with regular work on the wiki, but the occasional big project gets my attention. This one's a nightmare (111 battles so far). Sorry to bring this up, but... should we include certain additional secondary conflicts? Switzerland attacked France, Norway attacked Hungary's Scotland, Russia's fought Finland and Norway... Nations allied with two different sides at war.--Mjb Silent 00:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget Spain taking the French Riviera from France; only to have it taken back not much later. This is completely unrelated to the North American Wars but I'm really starting to annoyed that I currently can't resign from my job even though the time I had to wait for the resignation has long passed, at least in my time zone. Konstantino 01:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

During today's massive update, I changed "Internal Conflicts" to "PEACE Internal Conflicts" so I could group them by war (United Kingdom vs France was getting too big to be thrown into a sack with everything else). USA/Canadian allies have yet to engage in an internal conflict, and Canada is getting to hold enough US territories that, should they be returned in the future, a separate section might be appropriate. There are now 146 battles listed.--Mjb Silent 18:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think "PEACE invasion of North America" is really an accurate title anymore. After all, North Korea has been utterly destroyed, it looks like Switzerland is on it's way to joining North Korea, Greece has just been attacked and fights were directed there rather than in North America (At least, for those of us in North America... And actually, I don't know about Mexico, either). It's hard to say that this is really constrained to 'North America. Still, I don't really know an appropriate name for it now. --Cam94509 16:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

A good point. I think it is time to start World War III (which redirects here) and keep there the sections that actually relate to the Invasion. I know that there might be some conflict over this name, but even I have accepted that this war is called WW3, even if no one fully knows what WW1 or 2 were.--Martin23230 09:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The name MUST be changed now. There isn't even fighting in North America anymore, and for the past week all the action has been taking place in Scandinavia. Spencer Magee 17:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Name Change

Seeing as the conflict had spread far beyond the boundaries of North America and included participants on every continent, PEACE Invasion of North America no longer was an acceptable name for the conflict. Since there is no consensus on which world war this is, it can be called the Great War of 2009, which is a good description of the conflict as it is the largest, most encompassing war of 2009. Plus, many biographies and region articles use the name Great War of 2009 to describe this conflict. --Chris Stanwick 17:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The article now needs to be edited to reflect the name change, if anyone is up to the task. If noone is, I'll do it when I have time. --Chris Stanwick 17:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I can help. What format were you thinking of? Should we continue with the country vs country perspective or post about one front as a whole? Say instead of Canada vs. France, that would just be merged into a larger section about the invasion of North America? Spencer Magee 05:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
There is a drop-down list of all the battles up to 31 July, organized by date. It needs to be added to, as there are a lot of battles that aren't on the list currently. Also, mention of the PEACE invasion of North America need to be changed to Great War of 2009, the Romanian flag apparently needs to be fixed, and I suppose the current format erased since the drop-down list makes it unnecessary. --Chris Stanwick 17:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


"Strategically, the war was a decisive victory for PEACE in the North American theater"

How is this a "decisive victory for PEACE"? They didn't keep any land in their target countries, and the countries who they did manage to conquer were easily freed very soon afterward. The only thing that really changed in the war was that Russia got Urals back, and Iran lost its high iron region. --Emerick 23:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I might be tempted to say it was an economic victory (they destroyed all of your infrastructure certainly, which must of cost the USA allot, but I don't know how the cost of the battles and the Q5s they put down work out.) However you are right, in almost every other way E/F was successful. Socially, politically, militarily, territorially etc... One could argue that PEACE’s strategy was very successful, and very nearly wiped you out. However, looking back there is very little ground for saying that. E/F won in North America, Full stop. --Martin23230 18:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Move back to World War III

It seems we are now in the Fourth World War, so I think it is about time we move this back into its correct place in the sequence. See eRepublik talk:WikiProject Military#World War VI for my naming suggestions.--Martin23230 12:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

  • I have been a supporter of this, but I do not know how to do it Spencer Magee 00:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Alright them, I will move it. Keep up the good work by the way, you have greatly improved this page!--Martin23230 16:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)