All Activity

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Today
  2. Persia
  3. Iran cause a lot big army than saudi. Also Iran has a lot stronger navy than saudi (33 submarine vs 0 submarine) and you expect this war must be spread in seas as well. So clearly Iran will be on winning side. Anyway you can check this list for better economic and military view http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp Iran is #21 and Saudi #24 they are close but still Iran is stronger than saudi (just a bit)
  4. Saudi Arabia, sheer monetary strength, a very large % of their GDP is military in comparison to most of the world, and their GDP itself is higher than IRAN, so they likely would have better equipped soldiers on the battlefield, which makes a lot of difference in conventional warfare.
  5. Chess can be difficult at the very beginning. It can change the way you think and how to solve problems. I'm also garbage at chess. I haven't been playing for like, what, 8 months and I'm getting a feeling that I'm a beginner once again.
  6. Yesterday
  7. Another poll about war. This time, it is Saudi Arabia and Iran. But first, here are a couple of rules. Rules 1. No allies included that means the US won't be helping out Saudi Arabia or vise versa 2. By win, I mean until the military of one side is completely destroyed, or one side voluntarily surrenders
  8. I play a lot of things. I've mainly been playing LoL, Overwatch, and MGSV lately, but I was excited when I heard you guys play Grand Strategy Games. I love me some CK2. I play chess, but I'm garbage.
  9. What genre of games do you like to play? Also, do you play chess? Btw, welcome to TKR!
  10. Well, tbh the British Empire surely benefited from what they gained after the 7 Years War (in North America). They got control over the fur trade that was happening where the mid western states are today (like Michigan and Ohio). However, the colonists didn't benefit much because they were prohibited from settling past the Appalachian Mountains. Here is a map of the Eastern United States. Where you see that red line is where the Appalachian Mountains are and the colonists weren't allowed to settled past that due to the Royal Proclamation of 1763. Today, most of that territory is part of the United States but some of it is part of Canada.
  11. Looks like Nichijou, but is it?
  12. I don't know man, I didn't choose the weeaboo life. It chose me. I think it was Angel Beats or Mirai Nikki that sucked me back in, which is funny, because I consider them good but not anything special.
  13. Why are you a weeaboo
  14. You should recount the many tales of our old adventures That and once again, welcome to TKR
  15. Hello, I'm Tevron, you may know me from CN in Polaris, INT, Atlas, or GATO. I heard you play good games and Lordship is king, so here I am. I look forward to getting to know you guys, and feel free to ask me any questions here. AMA.
  16. I don't know my US history, did the colonies that formed the USA (and complained about taxes) benefit from the land and resources gained from the French? Are these territories part of the US now or part of Canada?
  17. Since we have a medieval song as our alliance song, I figure I must not be the only one who likes this type of music. Some of my favorites:
  18. So you would be fine with keeping reserves on your nation in case of war?
  19. I am not sure what that is but sure?
  20. Last week
  21. It was an obvious opening, but first to it gets the rep.
  22. Greetings fellow members... Going round in circles here...: Ulvland led by the szeged (Protector Szeged) has joined the Alliance (TKR), and we celebrate this in our great capital city, Ulvslott... However we appear to be going round in circles somewhat... We believe that we have joined Forum already via message from'Dayz', and this new Greetings message has been prompted by a message from Ching-Chong... Can somebody confirm that we have ticked all boxes thus far? Fraternal Greetings from Ulvland on the north-west shores of the Black Sea... Protector Szeged
  23. Afghanistan in the '80s. It was Russia's Vietnam. I would say they lost the Cold War too... I mean they ultimately broke up into a whole bunch of countries. The nations of the EU (which basically means NATO since they are tied to each other, but I'll exclude the US, Canada, and others not in the EU for argumentative purposes) vs Russia... The E.U. is comparatively as powerful as the United States from a total GDP perspective (EU is actually larger than the US), and based on the NATO alliance has the majority of the same types of equipment that the American's have positioned in their countries who have developed the absolute best with their world leading military expenditures. Additionally, many of the countries alone in the EU have larger GDP levels than Russia. Germany, UK, France, Italy are and Spain almost is larger than Russia. In total, the EU collective GDP is about 14 times larger than Russia allowing for superior tax base for the military (speaks to the age and level of the current military equipment in each country). If you look at military expenditures; you will see according to this data (http://books.sipri.org/files/FS/SIPRIFS1604.pdf) that European expenditures are about 5 times the size of Russian expenditures. If you compare military equipment, Russia would have the edge in total still from previously huge military expenditures in the '70s and '80s, however, the bulk of their equipment is pushing thirty years or older (ask France what old equipment meant to them when they tried fighting new equipment of the Germans during WWII with equipment that was only about ten years older on average) and based on some reports Russia has only about 10% "current age" equipment. Whereas, due to NATO policies of sharing defenses, there is some of the most current and best equipment in the world positioned in EU (NATO) nations. Lastly, what rules the day in modern warfare (like P&W) is air superiority. The NATO based air power (fighters) in the EU nations is far superior to the Russian fighters which are, once again, mostly thirty plus years old. The Russians might make some head way on the ground early, but they would never make it far because the EU nations would take the air superiority allowing for an effective ground/air attack. None of this means anything though, it would never go down like this since the threat of taking this from a conventional war format to a nuclear based war format would mean it is incredibly unlikely to ever occur. If it does, we are probably all screwed. - red
  24. Jealous history geek here. Love it.
  25. While it is almost certain that NATO would be involved, I'm just asking if it was just between the EU and Russia. The only rules are no nukes, and no outside assistance (allies such as the US). But if NATO were to be involved, without nukes, Russia would lose.
  1. Load more activity