post here if you think the idea of a merger is retarded

post

Post.

it's not completly retarded. but not good either.

POST.

Even if it was good, the merger won't still happen the way we want it. So, most probably, we will make the sacrifices if we merge.

I agree with Manong.

POST

for all the above

post

The game mechanics just don't favour a merger of countries - it is always seen as a hostile takeover. We'd loose the TW and NE advantages. Better continue the way we're doing now, in trust and dignity. Two small sovereign countries are more difficult to conquer anyway than one small sovereign country ;-)

Ward De Bever wrote:post

The game mechanics just don't favour a merger of countries - it is always seen as a hostile takeover. We'd loose the TW and NE advantages. Better continue the way we're doing now, in trust and dignity. Two small sovereign countries are more difficult to conquer anyway than one small sovereign country ;-)

+1

Ward De Bever wrote: We'd loose the TW and NE advantages.

That's not a argument, we can always find another country to NE and do a TW with.

They helped us againts UK, it will be a treason to merge with an invasion. Respect before all !
If we have some persons who don't agree and in the other side too, we can stay in the same situation.

Ward De Bever wrote:post

The game mechanics just don't favour a merger of countries - it is always seen as a hostile takeover. We'd loose the TW and NE advantages. Better continue the way we're doing now, in trust and dignity. Two small sovereign countries are more difficult to conquer anyway than one small sovereign country ;-)

+1

Xgentis Lempereur wrote:

Ward De Bever wrote:post

The game mechanics just don't favour a merger of countries - it is always seen as a hostile takeover. We'd loose the TW and NE advantages. Better continue the way we're doing now, in trust and dignity. Two small sovereign countries are more difficult to conquer anyway than one small sovereign country ;-)

+1

+2

POST HARDCORE