Talk:Principia Moderni (Map Game)

Labeled Map


The map will only be up-to-date for five years at a time, and I'm not planning on doing it more than every few decades. This is just a guideline to help people understand the situation of the countries. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 04:16, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't somebody updating that map above? RandomWriterGuy 06:51, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

I tried to do it, but is impossible to add those letters.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 12:34, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

War Algorithm
An updated algorithm can be found on the rules page

Location goes by capital city.
 * at the location of the war: 5
 * next to the location of the war: 4
 * close to the location of the war: 3
 * far from location of the war: 2
 * other side of the world: 1
 * Antarctica: 0

Tactical Advantage

 * attacker's advantage: 1
 * high ground: 2
 * Note: A country receives high ground if:

1) Its capital has a high topographical prominence, meaning it is surrounded by areas of significantly lower elevation. Even plateaus count, but it must be so that the enemy has to climb the mountain to capture the capital.

2) For countries being invaded from the coast, they get high ground if their capital is 300 m or higher.

3) A country invading via sea does not get high ground.

4) A country gets high ground if their capital is more than 300 m higher than the capitals of the neighboring countries.

5) A country invaded from a bordering country, and its capital is 500 m higher or more.

Strength

 * each country on a side of the war: L for leader (+4), M for military aid (+3), S for supplies (+2), V for vassalization or subordination (-1) and then W for withdrawal (-1). So a list of belligerents read like China (L), Zhuang Warlords (MVW), Japan (M), Korea (MW), Hawaiian rebels (MV), Mali (SW), creating a score of 13
 * country has developed military: 1 for each turn dedicated to military or military technology in the last 15 years
 * expansion: -1 for every turn used for expansion in the past 10 years

Motive

 * motive is life or death (country's sovereign existence is threatened): 10
 * motive is religious: 7
 * motive is social or moral: 6
 * motive is political: 5
 * motive is economic: 3

If there are multiple motives, the one told to the army will be selected.

Chance
0 to 9 points will be awarded to each person based on chance. Factors will be the opponent's edit count (on Althist's main articles) and the precise time when the country declares war or acknowledges the other's declaration of war. The product of the non-zero digits of the time by UTC (0:00 yields 1) will be written as a percentage of the opponent's edit count at the exact time of the declaration. If the resulting number is less than one hundred percent, the reciprocal is taken. The result is multiplied by pi and the hundredths digit is the amount of points that person gets (e.g. 123.8377% yields 3). The algorithm is online for fairness, but I will be the moderator.

Other

 * Countries in civil disarray are able to resist invasion by a factor of 1.5. However, they may not take territory in another country.
 * If X countries attack another country, they have to take 100X/(X+2)% of their opponents' territory to facilitate a full government transplant.
 * Expansion into countries not fully united is multiplied by 1.5, but it does not affect how well the country fares in war if it wins the war.
 * Stability bonus points as calculated by the stability moderator.

Discussion
Vassals no longer have an effect on war? Kunarian 20:46, September 23, 2011 (UTC)

They do. They may be used as combatants, but expansion in countries with vassals is multiplied by 1.5. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 23:20, September 29, 2011 (UTC)

Stage 1

 * Hungarian colonies
 * French colonies
 * Persian colonies
 * Hanthawaddy + colonies
 * Naples
 * Joseon
 * Northern Itsaygahi
 * Turan
 * Finnish home territories + colonies
 * Rest of China + colonies

Stage 2

 * All of Russian territory + colonies, vassals & puppets
 * All of Russian territory + colonies, vassals & puppets
 * Persia
 * Hungary, Greece, Egypt
 * France + vassals & puppets minus Burgundy
 * Northern China and areas around Fuzhou and Amoy
 * Toeh Ngoa Nyoing

Stage 3

 * None.

Stage 4

 * None

Discussion

 * Don't nations have to mention something about the expansion of industry to be able to get it? Because Persia never posted anything to do with them building up any industry or anything, so I think Kenny said they get -10 years if they never post anything/are NPC. LurkerLordB 23:27, December 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * No its player nations/areas that can industrializeScandinator
 * So they can industrialize up the point on the map, but if they don't post that they do so then they don't get the benefits until later? LurkerLordB 03:32, December 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly!Scandinator
 * Naples is the same color as France on the map, so ought't they to industrialize the same time? LurkerLordB 22:09, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * Aren't you confusing Sweden with Naples?--Collie Kaltenbrunner 06:44, January 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * No, see the most recent map:Industrializations2.png France is the color of Naples, but it is now put on the same level as Anglo-Germany. LurkerLordB 22:04, January 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought that you was talking about the conventional map, not the industrialization map.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 16:52, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * That is because of their occupation of Sweden. Scandinator

Stability for non-player nations
Just to clarify: from this point on, the population and time ruled factors in the algorithm will be replaced with bonus points for player nations. For non-player nations, it will go as follows:

2.5*Number of digits of population*Time

Time is:


 * 1) Number of years ruled / 10.
 * 2) Plug into: x^1.25/1.25^x.

So take the current United States: 9 digits in population. Ruled for 235 years. Thus:23.5^1.25/1.25^23.5*2.5*9 = 6 points

Any problems with this system?

Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 23:25, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I tweaked it slightly just a second ago, and it is correct as above. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 01:16, October 31, 2011 (UTC)



Graphical representation. Red is 6 digit in population, green is 7 digits, blue is 8 digits, and yellow is 9 digits. The horizontal axis is years and the vertical is bonus points. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 01:36, October 31, 2011 (UTC) {C}{C When you archive the page again,please don't remove this section. i need to remind how the stability curve is done.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 20:15, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Stability for Player States
Okay, time for the new system. This should be a lot more simple and a lot fairer.

System on Stability
The new system will distinguish government stability score (GSS) from common stability score (CSS). The sum is overall stability score (OSS).

Government stability score is basically the stability curve. The formula is 10*d^1.25/1.2^d where d is the number of decades the government has been in power, rounded to the nearest year. It is rounded to the nearest 0.1.

Common stability score starts at zero, and measures the stability of the common people. This number starts at zero. Economic improvements, propaganda, and religious revivals are +0.5 per year. Expansion and war are -1 per year. Make the most out of your expansion, and choose wisely guys.

When OSS reaches 0, you get a mod rebellion, so you can always change governments before then to keep this from happening.

System on War Algorithms
The new equation for gains from war algorithms is (p)*(1-1/(2x)), where x is the number of the years the war goes on and p is the amount of territory determined by the algorithm ((y/z+y)*2)-1 where y is the winner's score and z is the losers). So if your war lasts one year, you only get 50% of the territory, but if you let the war last five years, you get 90% of the territory. But you still lose -1 CSS for each turn you take during the war. However, it should be noted that the person who chooses how long the war is going to last is the winner. The winner may not hold the war if their OSS goes to zero. A country fighting on multiple fronts will lose twice as many OSS each turn.

If your OSS reaches zero during a war, you will have a rebellion during the war but it will not affect your overall score.

System on Rebellions
For mod rebellions or rebellions for new players who want to join, a specific area will be selected. For new players, it has to be a specific ethnic, regional, or national area, but for mod rebellions it will depend on the situation (i.e. for homogenous countries). The algorithm will continue normally, except the territory "owned" by the rebellion will equal half the disputed territory. If the war is a tie, the rebellious country may choose territory from 1/2 of the disputed area.

Why this works:
 * The stability scores are much lower and much less variable.
 * It actually takes into account usage of resources.
 * It prevents people from accumulating huge stability scores and wielding them against blank player nations who only have the stability curve.
 * It discourages too many changes of government because countries are most vulnerable as soon as they change government.
 * Rebellions have a good chance but they won't necessarily take over the entire country or completely be annihilated.
 * It's possible to keep your stability score artificially just above zero, but if you get invaded, you're screwed.

Discussion
Please discuss here. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 05:28, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

... after all my effort... ah well i understand. Especially since Hungary was going to get 114 points if I updated now Scandinator 06:22, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

I like this system much better. The old one would have worked good in theory, but there were too many things which opinion could effect or were complicated. It would work well in a videogame or something though. LurkerLordB 21:59, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

My only question is how drastic does it have to be to be considered a change in government? LurkerLordB 22:14, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think mod rebellions should be like a civil war. CrimsonAssassin 00:01, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well, I can't think of a better way to give rebellions a chance without taking too much territory out of the nation. Got a better idea?

And a change in government would mean that the previous government wouldn't have wanted the change to happen. This is different from say, a new king that is much more well liked than his predecessor. Instead, the way you make your king more well-liked is with propaganda, which adds

One problem I am running into. Take the scenario: someone works on their economy one hundred years straight, and their stability is at 50 by the end of that period. Then, they go on a rampage, and because their stability is so high, they conquer about 20 countries with about 2 years each, and still have about 10 stability left, which makes it hard for them to be invaded. The only solution I can think of is another curve (yay). So when your Common Stability Score gets above 5 or below -5, additional quantities are square rooted. So instead of 8 stability points, it would be 5+√(3), and the person in the example would have 5+√(45) stability, which is about 11.7 instead of 50. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 02:12, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

If someone was working on their economy for a hundred years straight, they deserve a successful rampage if you ask me. CrimsonAssassin 02:30, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Crimson, both to make it fair to nations that works on their economy for a hundred years straight, and because I am tired of math. LurkerLordB 02:56, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

I have found a problem: the new results algorithm says that the winner determines how long the war occurs. However, what happens if an NPC nation beats a player in a war? It's happened in-game, so it stands to reason it could occur again. However, the NPC (obviously) cannot post to say how long they are keeping it. So do we generate a number for how long it will take? Or generate a number in what percentage of their potential gained territory they could take? Or if that is too much RNG, we could make a second chance formula perhaps for how long it would take. LurkerLordB 22:06, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

World Religions in Principia Moderni
I'm planning on making a map of World Religions for the year 1750. I know some differances (like Schmittism) but what are the other major differances I should know about? Are the largest religions in China Buddhism, Taoism, or Confucianism? Has much of the middle east converted to Christianity (since Persia is christian, and Europeans are controlling parts of it)? Has chritianity splintered in different ways?

Wow. That was a lot of questions....Flagmania 21:45, December 14, 2011 (UTC)

I'm making a map of religions in France. I'm gonna put it on the page soon. --Galaguerra1 22:02, December 14, 2011 (UTC)

Confucianism is prevalent in Canton and West China. Buddhism is prevalent in central China. Small parts of Eastern China have large Taoist populations. Christianity is somewhat prevalent, especially East Asian Christianity. Good question. CrimsonAssassin 22:32, December 14, 2011 (UTC)

I imagine that it will be hard to graph China, as there people could be Taoist, Buddhist, and Confucian, or any combination, at the same time! I guess you could choose what would be their top preference.

Schmittism will be the largest in Doitmania (the small little part of Denmark that sticks out to the side) the Netherlands and Prussia, due to all being former Japanese colonies, and they will have many in some French Colonies (I don't know which) and perhaps a group in South France?. And Istoias.

Meanwhile, by then Hussite Christianity will dominate the rest of Eastern Germany, Austria, Poland, and the northern parts of Hungary. Waldensian Christianity will be in the non-Neapolitan controlled parts of Italy and perhaps Burgundy. Eastern Orthodox Christianity will be in Russia & Colonies and Greece and Sweden, Roman Catholicism in Spain & colony, Portugal, Naples & Colonies, France & some colonies Scotland, the rest of Hungary, the Rest of Anglo-Germany, Belgium (or whatever its called) and maybe Ukraine? (because Lx mentioned there being some Eastern RIte of Catholicism there). Ethiopian orthodox would be in Ethiopia competing with Schmitttism. East Asian Christianity-Vietnam and Colonies. I believe Joseon would be part Christian.

Judaism-only in Israel.

Shinto-only in Japan, competing with Buddhism and Schmittism

Buddhism-Need to ask China how to depict China & Colonies, Mahayana competing with Christianity in Korea, Theravada in Hanthawaddy and Sri-Lanka and the free nation east of Hanthawaddy and possibly the parts of Vietnam taken from Hantawaddy in the war (ask Yank), TIbetan in Tibet.

Sunni Islam would be primarily in the north Africa (competing with Catholicism in Tunisia and Eastern Orthodoxy in Egypt and Tripolia) and Turkey, Kurdistan, French Songhai, most west African nations, and Arabia (ask France for French Crusader states). Sunni and Shia would compete in Shahzur and Assyria and Yemen. Shia would still probably lead in Persia, the merging faith just began. Shia also leads in Itsaygahi.

Hinduism in the Free parts of India, Chinese India, competing with Christianity in the colonies, ask Hanthawaddy for the statistics in Hanthawaddian India.

Tribal religions in the black areas (except for the black areas in north Africa, those would be Sunni Islam). Tribal religions may also have large sway in recently colonized areas and Siberian Russia, and they will dominate the Independent nations of South America and in the non-western or northern Africa. LurkerLordB 22:46, December 14, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the imputs so far! I'm making a map now....I'm going to post it in 1750.Flagmania 23:15, December 14, 2011 (UTC)

The nation of New Lithuania, though a Vietnamese vassal state, has a majority of it's population practicing Eastern Orthodox Christianity. This is due to the fact that a majority of the population is descended from pro-independance refugees from (where else?) Lithuania. The purity of ancestry varies wildly, of course.

Yank 00:45, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

About Hungary: Othodoxism is big on parts of Ultraylvania, Serbia and Southern Balkans.Islam is the bigger religion on Tripolitania and Egypt.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 06:28, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

Russia is very difficult, sunni islam would dominate in Kazakhstan and Armenia, and rpobably around Kazan, probably the size of OTL Tatarstan. um...I think that in the russian colonies it would be a mix of orthodox amongst russians and converts and paganism. The Russian siberia, once again, mostly around populated areas like the coasts and around major rivers would be orthodox, and lithuania prodominately orthodox except for mabe the border with Poland and Some parts in OTL West lithuania and Livonia might be catholic where the 13% would reside...Otherwise all unmentioned regions of Russia are orthodox and FInland in the parts that used to be russia orthodox and used to be sweden catholic except for the large cities witch would be mixed by this point. -Lx (leave me a message) 17:32, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

Armenia is primarily Armenian Orthodox Christian, not Sunni Muslim. LurkerLordB 22:04, December 17, 2011 (UTC)

Update
Well, I'm back for a day, I am very glad to see that everything is still in proper order, as far as I can tell. I regret to say that I am extending my Wikibreak another month in order to deal with school and other things. I will be back in the second week of February. If you have any immediate concerns, I can address them now please… Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 00:34, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

The new stability system for Player-states with the OSS and The CSS and the GSS is it in place?-Lx (leave me a message) 00:43, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

Yes please, I didn't think we should start using it until you officially said the system was complete, but currently the curve is sometimes yeilding,.. strange results (like Poland beating Russia in a war almost!) LurkerLordB 00:46, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

It would add a bit of realism, as sometimes reality is stranger than fiction. Fiction has the need to make cohesive sense plot-wise, but reality doesn't have that restraint.

Yank 00:49, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

Well if it's unanimous, I can't argue. Although I might take it over once I get back. Scandinator showed interest, so is there any objection to him controlling it? Yank, I was thinking the same thing when I saw the map that had a large portion that was green and blue, and most of the map is only of a small collection of colors. But didn't the same thing happen in OTL around the same time, as Britain and France started gaining huge empires? That doesn't seem to cause huge problems, as any empire could be destroyed with a large enough coalition.

And as for industrialization, I'm sorry if I never got around to saying this, but I want everyone from now on to declare themselves going into different stages, because not everyone necessarily will want to industrialize. And another thing, if a country declares independence, it's still yours (see rules), that's what lighter colors are for. Gray countries mean only mods can choose what happens to them. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 01:14, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

So the Hungarian colony needs to be shown as the lighter color. Speaking of that, Collie ought to start saying what's going on there. LurkerLordB 01:46, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

Where you mean there?if you mean Newfoundland/Újfundlandi, i'm posting about it.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 06:30, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and, if one colony becomes independent, and you still has six colonies and two vassals, your maximum expansion is 3500 or 3800 sq km in a half turn?--Collie Kaltenbrunner 06:44, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

I see, I thought that they would be in a seperate bullet point, but I guess not. Would that be better to do? LurkerLordB 03:52, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

French-Lombard War (1766)
Can somebody make a algorythm?--Collie Kaltenbrunner 19:08, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

As this was made way before the new stability was implemented, we'll use the old one. LurkerLordB 22:40, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

France

 * Close to the location of the War: 4
 * Attacker's Advantage: 1
 * France(L)/Burgundy(MV)/Algeria(MV)/Arabia(MV)/Sweden(M)/Estonia(MV)/Flanders(MV)/Arabia(Swedish)(MV)Hungary (S): 21
 * Expansion: -2
 * Military Expansion: 5
 * Stability: 23.7^1.25/1.25^23.7*2.5*8=5.2
 * Motive (Political): 5
 * Participation: 10
 * Chance: 3
 * Editcount:562
 * Time:1*8*4*9=288
 * (562/288)*pi=6.13
 * Total= 52

Lombardy

 * At the location of the War: 5
 * Lombardy(L): 4
 * Expansion: 0
 * Military Expansion: 0
 * Stability: 0.2^1.25/1.25^0.2*2.5*7=2
 * Motive (Life or death): 10
 * Participation: 10
 * Chance:5
 * Total=36

Result
42/78 = 0.538461538 - 0.5 = 0.038461538 0.038461538 x 2 = 0.076923076 = 7.69%

French Victory.France has right to 7,69% of Lombard territory.

Discussion
I assume that the Lombard portion will be somewhat independent, or at least will be after another war when they get more territory? Because Naples will side with them if they think France is going to destroy the Italian language and culture. LurkerLordB 01:44, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

Hungary is only joining because they want to reestabilish Verona.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 09:55, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned the Lombard Confederation was founded to act as a political counterweight to the powerful nation of Naples, and were not the expansionalist warmongers that Kunarian turned the Venetians into. The event describing Lombardy's expansion suggest that the expansion into the neighboring states was bloodless, again unlike Venice. For all we know the residents of Verona were absorbed into Lombardy without local resistance.

Yank 23:38, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

Future of AGC
With Zagoria probably not returning. I was wondering what we shou.d do with the AGC. Everyone please vote mod votes are worth two. If you vote to divide the AGC please put it in the correct area

Split Prussia, England, Czech, Austria from Brandenburg

 * 1) CrimsonAssassin 22:26, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

Total split with at least 10 German States and England

 * 1) VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 12:35, January 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Yank 05:07, January 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Scandinator 11:46, January 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) LurkerLordB 01:23, January 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Flagmania 03:29, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
I don't know. in case that he returns in spring, i will vote for only England to be separated. if is definitive that he won't come back, i will vote for the 10-state option.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 11:25, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

When is the spring brreak in the US? We could have the German states separating instead of uniting in OTL. Scandinator

Sincerely, i don't know, i'm brazilian. but in the northern hemisphere, spring extends from March to June.But, if the 10-state wins, which wll be the states formed?--Collie Kaltenbrunner 21:18, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

The states would be Saxony, Brandenburg, Rhinish-Walienstein, Austria, Czechland, Prussia, Bavaria, Heveltic Confederation, Rhinland-Saarland, Flemland and maybe more. I will post a map when I get home. Scandinator 11:35, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

Austria is already independent. Also, Switzerland should be independent (it is the sort of corner-area that borders Burgundy and Lombardy) LurkerLordB 01:14, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

Spring break in Quebec is 5-9 or 5-16 of march depending if your school has alot of ped days or decides to use them to prolong breaks-Lx (leave me a message) 01:50, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

Also, this had better not turn into some sort of giant power-grab for Sweden. LurkerLordB 02:14, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

If Austria is already independant, why isn't the nation on the map? The 1775 flag clearly has the Austrian region under Anglo-German control. I believe that Anglo-Germany should be "balkanized" for precedent's sake, at least. The last time a major user went away and never came back was the Ottoman Empire, and we mercilessly cut them to shreds. Why should Zagoria get special treatment?

Yank 05:32, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

Austria is not independent. Moravia is.Oh, and he mentioned the Heveltic Confederation (ie Switzerland)--Collie Kaltenbrunner 07:16, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

Collie is right. Austria is not independant. And the Helvetic Confederation is the offical name for Switzerland. Here are the maps.Scandinator 11:35, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

Two to seven. It looks like at least Enlgland will go and the process will begin in 1777 and end within two decades.Scandinator 11:47, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

I believe that prussia and brandenburg need to be united...prussia was the dominant state before...although if you dont want it like that its fine.-Lx (leave me a message) 11:58, January 12, 2012 (UTC)



I'm going to call for Welsh independence too, if the Welsh nationalists saw all of those German states gaining independence from England, then the Welsh would want independence too. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 12:07, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

I am with VonGlusenberg on the Wales issue.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 12:14, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

I like the name Bohemia better than the "Czechland" label given for it.

Yank 16:49, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'd thought that independent nation had been Austria. It seems strange for Prussia and Brandenburg to stay together. Remember, in this timeline most of Prussia was taken by Japan, then Sweden, then Anglo-Germany, so it wouldn't be the dominant state like in OTL. Czechland sounds fine to me, but I don't really care. I agree on the Wales issue. My only question is why are there two nations with long panhandles just to border France? I'd break the two panhandles aqay to be independent. Also, that map is very old, what year did you use it from? (I'm still voting for it to remain together, as my nation is sending so much aid). LurkerLordB 22:27, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

Here is my proposal for the division (which also has an updated surrounding map with the new states being Wales, England, Hanover, Brandenburg, Prussia, Rhineland, Westphalia, Saxony, Flemland,Helvetic Confederation, Austria,Bavaria, and Czechland. The colonies can be divided among the four with coastlines. LurkerLordB 23:04, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

Explication of my changes: I had Wales break away (because many people requested it, and in-game it is getting the most support. I had the Rhine areas break away and united to form one nation to make it look prettier, and I had the rest of the merge to form Westphalia. I had hanover break away from Saxony, I had Bavaria shrink a little as Saxony made up for lost space, and I had Brandenburg bigger as they are the most powerful area (the seat of power of Anglo-Germany, there's no way tiny weak Prussia would take so much of them. Other than that, the changes are just me not being able to perfectly recreate the old borders. LurkerLordB 00:10, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

Fun facts: religions of my map: I assume the Freedom of Religion policy was kept. LurkerLordB 00:20, January 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * Wales, England, Rhineland, Flemland-Solid Catholic
 * Westphalia-Mostly Catholic, Waldensian Minority
 * Bavaria-Mostly Catholic, Hussite Minority
 * Helvetic C.-Solid Waldensian
 * Austria-Catholic/Hussite Mix, small Waldensian minority
 * Czechland-Solid Hussite
 * Hanover, Saxony,-Mostly Catholic, Schmittist Minority
 * Brandenburg-Mostly Catholic, Schmittist & Hussite Minorities
 * Prussia-Mostly Schmittist, Hussite Minority

Naples has changed it's postion, and I change mine, under the condition that we use my map. LurkerLordB 01:23, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

I vote for using Lurker's map.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 05:09, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

Prussia is that large as while AGC disintergreated the Southern and Western states occupieed Brandenburg's attention. Prussia launched a surprize attack and with Saxony beat the last remanents of the Brandenburgs. Brandenburg should not have a coastline as should be much smaller as it is the main state right now that controls the AGC and the others would be attacking it.Scandinator

Prussia is so weak, and Brandenburg is so strong, it just doesn't make any sense for them to be able to take so much power. Plus, most of the land isn't even Prussian. Brandenburg is still very strong, the strongest area of Anglo-Germany. Prussia, on the other hand, was conquered first by Japan and then later by Sweden, then broke away in a war fought primarily in it. Also, the Prussian culture, a mixture of German and Japanese, is only strong in the part which I have as Prussia, your map has it like the Swiss rule large portions of Germany, two different cultures. It makes sense that the Prussian culture group would be trying to break away, in your map they become a minority despite the seat of power being in their nation. It makes no sense for Prussia expand so much, only to have themselves be in the minority and ruled over by pure Germans. It's a strange design for a nation anyways, with it being stretched so far across like that. There's no reason they would want to be designed like that. The area north of Brandenburg would probably break away and join Brandenburg right after as Brandenburg is culturally, lingually, and religiously far more similar. LurkerLordB 21:57, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

But what will happen with Brandenburg's colonies?--Collie Kaltenbrunner 07:14, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

England takes the ones in Australia, South Africa and New Zealand. Prussia and Brandenburg split the one in South America. Is that ok with everyone?Scandinator 22:18, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

Who get's the AGC's Californian colony? VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 00:16, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, good question. Maybe China or Japan could have it?Scandinator

While I wouldn't mind Nippon gaining a colony in the Americas, I'm not too sure if it would be plausible for a colony full of Germans wanting to join Nippon or China. Maybe they gain independence as New Germania or something. Depends what nationality of colonists are the majority. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 00:34, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

And I thought it was impossble that Sweden could annex a de facto independant country full of a people with a Dutch/Japanese hybrid culture and keep it peaceful. I was proven wrong by centuries of nothing happening in the former Japanese colony of Doitsuchou which, regardless of popular belief, did control the territory of the Netherlands.

Yank 01:44, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

I think that the German side of the Union is getting short-changed, perhaps Hanover should get the New Zealand one, and Brandenburg gets the South African one, and Prussia gets the Californian one, and England gets the South American one and Wales gets the Australian one? Then it is divided among all of the splinter nations with seaports each getting a single colony, that seems the easiest to do.LurkerLordB 02:39, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

My plan for the Union of Cymbria under Itsaygahan rule, if that alright with everyone. Also shows Itsaygahan Isle of Man. Mumby 17:26, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

Since you devoted so much time to getting Wales independent, giving Itsagahi Wales as a puppet state is reasonable. LurkerLordB 17:31, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

Stability
As according to DK and with no objection I will take over stability again and start from this turn (1775). I will be using the new system that is there and keep track of the CSS off the website as it is too much of a pain to update with my computer disagreeing with the wiki format. The new system including the new war algorythm will be fully implemented with me keeping track of the years. Scandinator

Can't you just have a list of nations, so we can see whether it would be practical to go to war with another nation? Just like so we can estimate if victory is achievable. LurkerLordB 01:25, January 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * Naples-30 algorithm points

The thing I must protest about in the CSS counting is that Expansion is -1. THis is becasue we aleady have a -1 point for expanison in the last 10 years. this will extend that expansion to perhaps a long time and put russia, for one in the negative numbers for a good while. and, how far back does the CSS go? to the begining of the Governement, the past century? I propose we get rid of the expansion becasue A. It realy gives the incentive NOT to expand into unclaimed territories bordering your nation becasue you will have to work on economy like 200 years later just to get your OSS to 0 and we already have a -1 point for the past 10 year penalty in the algorithm. -Lx (leave me a message) 21:30, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

True, we already have a negative for expansion already, but maybe you should have brought this up earlier. LurkerLordB 16:02, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

One is wiped in 10 turns the other lasts forever.Scandinator 21:58, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

And you actualy think that expansion 100 years ago into uninhabited areas will affect the stability 150 years don the line? I think not. -Lx (leave me a message) 01:14, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

Siberia is not unhabitated. is just too sparsely inhabitated. imagine the population density of the island of Newfoundland in 1500, smething like that, 0,05 persons for square kilometer (5000 persons in 100,000 square kilometers.).Siberia's density should be less than that, or something like that.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 15:42, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

Thats basicaly what I meant...its too sparsely populated for those people that inhabit it to make any sort of fuss and threated the stability of a nation that has a population of 80 000 000.-Lx (leave me a message) 18:46, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

Wait, does expansion penalties and such carry over after a government change? Because aren't government changes supposed to wipe everything clean? Also, is there a list somewhere we can access so we can see our stability? To make sure a. we can get in a war and not be crushed and b. to make sure our government isn't about to fall. LurkerLordB 18:48, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

No, the algoryth one stays, but i think that the one of the stability score is reseted, along with the score.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 21:11, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

That's what I meant, I am pretty sure all stability modifiers should reset after government changes (except for things like population or number of colonies or things like that) LurkerLordB 21:16, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

The expansion penalty makes no sense...I dont feel like working on my economy for 60 years just so I can fix the -30 for my 20 years of siberian expansion! We need to get rid of one of the penalties, the algorithm one, or the Stability one becasue having both just makes no sense whatsoever. -Lx (leave me a message) 21:48, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

I say as long as it resets after a change of government, it should be OK. LurkerLordB 21:50, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

France's inactivity
Hello! Sorry for not advise before, but I'm on vacations, and the wireless of my hotel is not very good. Anyway, France will be inactive until my return in sunday. So, when I come back I will read the posts and all the stuff. Bye --Galaguerra1 23:54, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

Industrialization Update
Industrialization and its perks beyond Stage 1 will not be given unless an announcement of stage upgrade is made. I will post another update of the industrialization map and Collie - I will send a pure copy of the PM map from 1775 (no minor colour variations) on Sunday so colour counter will work.Scandinator 11:44, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

Naples will get to stage 1 in about 1780, and then will stay on schedule. LurkerLordB 01:26, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

But How we are going to announce this?--Collie Kaltenbrunner 09:21, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

Here is a proposal for the Stage Upgrade Plan.
 * To be eligable for Stage 2 you must announce the start of industrialization (stage 1).
 * To start Stage 3 you must open a rail link during Stage 2.
 * To be allowed to enter Stage 4 you must implement the assembly line at the end of Stage 3.Scandinator 09:54, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

And i qualify to the first point?--Collie Kaltenbrunner 10:21, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

Stage 1 is automatic by area colour code. If the above is not reached by the time your colour progresses to Stages 2, 3 & 4; you are devalued to the colour below you (e.g. yellow to green)Scandinator 11:48, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

No, i was trying to ask if i announced the start of industrialization.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 15:54, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

Still, having to post exactly that the country reached stage II of industrialization is too artificial, as those divisions were estabilished after those events had long taken place.I support your new Stage Upgrade Plan, specially because is the best way of doing those stage upgrades, without making the posts sounding like: a "Level Up!"--Collie Kaltenbrunner 18:24, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Also you are qualified for Stage 2 in 1790.Scandinator 22:09, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

When does Nippon reach stage one? I ask cause Nippon is in all different colours and I don't know which one I should refer to. :P VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 22:49, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

1800.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 09:47, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 13:31, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

China is now in Stage 2. CrimsonAssassin 21:42, January 18, 2012 (UTC)

NO it is NOT. And DO NOT edit that section again. China remains on Stage 1 until 1790. The colours still apply. Scandinator (talk) 05:15, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

Ah yeah, parts are. Anyway I was told not to say anything's going into stage two on the game page so I said it here to avoid any BS. Should have worded my original statement better. CrimsonAssassin 04:45, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

Update II
I moved some of the already-finished threads to the Archive.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 09:21, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

AGC Inactivity
may I take over the Anglo-German Commowealth until Zagoria comes back, and if he doesnt, switch to it permanently? DeanSims 16:03, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

No. you would have to ask his permission first, and he probably won't respond until he comes back.if he comes back.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 17:13, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

What happens if he does come back now that the AGC has split up? <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 17:20, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

That's why i didn't vote for the 10-state option.if he comes back, i would vote for the division of Prussia, Wales, England, Bohemia, Austria and Bavaria.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 18:09, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, he has still lost loads of territory. I'd personally think giving him a less prominent/important country if he comes back would be best in case he doesn't return again for a while, <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 18:30, January 14, 2012 (UTC).

so can I take over? DeanSims 18:38, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

You're going to have to choose one of the successor states, as the Anglo-German Commonwealth is well on it's way to total collapse. Zagoria might return to Brandenburg, so that leaves a grand total of twelve nations to choose from when all is said and done.

Yank 18:44, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

which one is more powerful? DeanSims 18:51, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

But, as far as i know, switching nations is not allowed.Roguejedi was a isolate case, and it is nothing like thi case.DeanSims still is playing as Inca, so by switching nations, he would be opening a precedent.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 18:58, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

I agree, you shouldn't be able to switch your nation for no reason. Why do you want to switch anyways? LurkerLordB 01:31, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

Because DeanSims pops in every few weeks and sees that Zagoria is gone and the AGC looks so good on the map and therefore, not content with his nation which he deserted and came back as it was being destroyed wants a new one the drop and pick up once a fortnight. Scandinator 02:48, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

It would actually be somewhat funny for him to take over the AGC, and then the moment he starts with that it gets destroyed into 15 pieces as well. But I digress, it's really pointless to take a new nation (and don't post something saying that the ICR asks Russia to take it over so that you can say that your only nation got taken over and that's why you are getting a new one) LurkerLordB 16:01, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

Turan-Bulgaria War (1779)
Without the stability numbers, I can't complete this. LurkerLordB 22:55, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

Turan

 * Location: 3 (they are fairly close, but their seaports are further, having to go all around Anatolia, through straights and islands and whatnot)
 * Attacker's Advantage: 1
 * Turan(L)Ottomans(MV)/Mesopotamia(MV): 8
 * Expansion: -0
 * Military Expansion: 6
 * Stability: 32+0
 * Motive (Religious): 7
 * Participation: 10
 * Chance: 9
 * Editcount:284
 * Time:1*7*5*1=35
 * (284/35)*pi=25.49
 * Total= 76

Bulgaria

 * At the location of the War: 5
 * High ground: 2
 * Bulgaria(L): 4
 * Expansion: 0
 * Military Expansion: 0
 * Stability: 3.1^1.25/1.25^3.1*2.5*7=36
 * Motive (Life or death): 10
 * Participation: 10
 * Chance:0
 * Total=67

Result
Victory for Turan. Turan could ideally take (76/(67+76)*2)-1=6.23% (p) of Bulgaria, This must be plugged into the equation (p)*(1-1/(2x)), where x will be number of years of the war and p will be amount gained from the original algorithm. Saamwiil can determine how long it will be.

Discussion
Can the stability for Turan at least be made now? We really shouldn't have declared it to have begun if it wasn't ready to be implemented yet, we should have waited. LurkerLordB 22:00, January 19, 2012 (UTC)

ATTENTION: Add your nation's government origin to the list
We need a list of when each nation's government has begun for stability. Here is a list so far: If your nation is not on the list, or if the information for your nation is wrong, please change/add to the list right now (that means go into my posts behind Nippon, click enter and add your own info, you can edit the list itself). Please post a brief description of the government change as well. LurkerLordB 23:12, January 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * Naples-1751 (Carlo overthrown)
 * Turan-1715 (Ottomans defeated and replaced)
 * Sweden-1747 (union with France)
 * France-1747 (union with Sweden)
 * China- 1732 (government reform & new nobility & provinces after a rebellion)
 * Nippon- 1750 (independent from Vietnam)
 * Hungary - 1733 (Erdődy dynasty comes into power, replacing the Hunyádi dynasty)
 * Russia - 1689 (Czarina overthrown, new reforms implemented)
 * Spain - 1710 (monarchy restores full order over nation in civil disorder for centuries)
 * Vietnam - 1750 (pure guess. Open to adjustment)
 * Finland- 1714 (Union with Russia)
 * United African Allies-1755 (formed from anarchy in Ethiopia)

I honestly don't remember the last date aplicable for Vietnam.

Yank 05:16, January 18, 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised that Russia isn't on the list. Last time I went to war it was under heated debate, and I think that we decided on 1689, the beginning of reforms of Peter that introduced new nobility, completely redecorated the Russian system if governrment, and tha was also the year that Sophia was overthrown. I don't think that france-Sweden union affects Sweden more than France, so France has to have a different start date. This was the same argument to discredit the Russia-Finland union as a start date for Russia in 1710 or 1714 because it really didn't affect Russia as much as Finland. -Lx from iPhone

I'd forgotten what date we had decided on. YOU CAN ADD YOUR NATION TO THE LIST! I don't want to be shouting, but I want it to be clear that you can edit my post to add your name to the list like Collie did, I didn't want people to post "I started in 1702, can you add me???" and I have to do all the work. LurkerLordB

My point was that Fance and Sweden's dates shouldnt be the same because it affects sweden and not france at all. this was the exact same argument that shot down russia and finland's union in 1714 as Russia's date but secured it as Finland's date.-Lx (leave me a message) 22:06, January 19, 2012 (UTC)

Find a better date for France then. Using the older date helped you in that war, if you had used 1714 you would have lost the war. LurkerLordB 22:15, January 19, 2012 (UTC)

Also if I could get the non player nations that would help in doing much faster war algorythms.Scandinator (talk) 10:13, January 20, 2012 (UTC)

OCD Attack
Hey everyone, I must announce I had a major OCD attack yesterday and ... FULLY STANDARDIZED THE MAP. Ever get tried of inconsistent borders? Annoying nation colour changes? ColourCounter freezing? FRET NO MORE!!Scandinator (talk) 22:21, January 18, 2012 (UTC)

Only problem-Neapolitan Tunisia is part of the main nation now, not a colony, so it should have the dark border. LurkerLordB 00:06, January 19, 2012 (UTC)

The UAA has a darker uglier color now.....Flagmania 02:11, January 19, 2012 (UTC)

Probably to differentiate it from Nippon. LurkerLordB 02:34, January 19, 2012 (UTC)

But this is good for me, as my map overall has a darker color than the others.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 05:34, January 19, 2012 (UTC)

Itsaygahi does not have its vassal of Cymbria, the colony of Man or the colony of Noovelongahi on this map. Mumby 13:25, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

Industrialism
NEW MAP!!!

Why is Naples green? When 2 of my colonies of Ricasolia and Tamilia and my puppet state of Israel are yellow, when I am closer to Russia than Spain is? Why am I at the same level as Ethiopia, on the same level as Darfur, on the same level as Benin? When on the original map I was yellow, and I have lost nothing which would make me move down a level on the industrialization? I can see no logical reason for Naples not being yellow. LurkerLordB

Oops. I knew I'd made a mistake somewhere.Scandinator (talk)

Thank you! LurkerLordB 01:21, January 19, 2012 (UTC)

This will soon need correction. first for the new German states borders. then for overall errors.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 09:01, January 19, 2012 (UTC)

I know...Scandinator (talk) 10:59, January 19, 2012 (UTC)

Wait? What overall errors?Scandinator (talk) 05:20, January 20, 2012 (UTC)

--Collie Kaltenbrunner 13:00, January 20, 2012 (UTC) There fixed the mapScandinator (talk) 22:17, January 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Sharzur borders only Green [Kurdistan, Assyria], orange [Persia] or red nations [Russia/Armenia], so it does not make sense that Sharzur is Green, when it should be yellow.
 * 2) Mesopotamia should be Green, as it does not border any orange nation.
 * 3) Florence and Siena are yellow, when, due to them being Napolitan vassals, they should be green.The same can be applied to Ricasolia amd Tamilia, while Istoias is light blue.
 * 4) Tripolitania is a Greek theme, not a colony, so it should be onn the same color as Greece.
 * 5) The aforementioned German states.But with this one, wait until i post the new map.
 * 6) New Vietnam is yellow, and Vietnam is green.
 * 1) Sharzur had three wars against Persia and are in no shape to industrialize. (Note there will be nations that can industrialize but choose not to for various reasons resulting in demotion - Finland)
 * 2) Mesopotamia borders a yellow nation it can go in the green phase
 * 3) Ok good point.
 * 4) Didn't know that
 * 5) The German states can all industrialize in the yellow phase
 * 6) New Vietnam borders an orange colony. Meanwhile Vietnam itself borders only yellow nations.

1. Shahrzur won those wars against Persia, thus they would have become more powerful

6. You are supposed to be a step above your colonies. Earlier, Detecticekenny had told me that if I made a colony near Russian territory, it would have made Naples industrialize faster.

LurkerLordB 14:11, January 21, 2012 (UTC)

1. They lost two of them and 6. the colony industrializes due to its neighbour and can send stuff back to the player to allow the player nation to go into the next colour block.Scandinator (talk) 04:02, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Shahrzur only lost the first war, they won the second two, their first victory just didn't get added to the map. They beat Persia, if anyone should be moved down it should be the Persians, not the people of Shahrzur who in all recent conflicts have won massive victories. LurkerLordB (Talk) 05:27, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

Stability implemented too soon?
It appears that we officially declared the beginning of the new stability system too soon, as we have no stability scores of any nation, several important questions by me and Lx have not been totally addressed, and the Turan-Bulgaria war is going to damage Turan's stability due to lasting really long, when the only reason it has been so long is because Scandinator is not ready yet. I think it was a mistake to implement stability before any of the new system was set up, and I say we should go back to the stability curve for Turan's current conflict and any future conflicts until the new system is all the way set up, because now it is not set up at all. LurkerLordB 01:13, January 20, 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I can give Turan's stability score right now. At 1779 it was 32 and it has stayed at that plus the war has only lasted for 4 years Turan can gain more of Bulgaria if they drag it on. But I still need the start dates of Hanthawaddy, Vietnam and Itsaygahi as the war algorythms for them are not attainable.Scandinator (talk) 04:29, January 20, 2012 (UTC)

My question has not been answered still: how do we determine how long the war will last if the winner is an NPC nation? Random.org, or maybe a new chance equation (like using the 10s place instead of the 100s or something, with 0 meaning they take no territory) ? LurkerLordB 21:48, January 20, 2012 (UTC)

I dunno Chance, a pertcentage of the stability converted to years or until they drop?? LETS VOTE. Mod votes are two. Add your own ranges if you are a mod and vote under them.

1 to 9

 * 1) LurkerLordB 22:00, January 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) -Kogasa [[Image:Symbol of Natori, Miyagi.png|23px|border]][[Image:宮城県.png|23px|border]][[Image:Flag of Japan.png|23px|border]] 06:56, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) -Lx (leave me a message) 18:58, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 21:45, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

50%

 * 1) Scandinator (talk) 21:57, January 20, 2012 (UTC)

Don't stop till they drop (severly weakened nations following war)


Hello? Can more people vote? Because having 2-2 isn't going to get us anywhere. LurkerLordB 15:18, January 21, 2012 (UTC)

Maybe better explain the pros & cons of each option. It took me a little while to get my head around it all & I'm not completely sure about the 20% & 50% stuff. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 15:56, January 21, 2012 (UTC)

Chance a moderator (preferably one who isn't involved in the war) generates a number 1-9 to determine how long it lasts. I am sort of confused as to how the percent thing works. The last option is that it basically continues for decades until both nations implode into anarchy and chaos. LurkerLordB (Talk) 23:02, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

The middle ones mean that if the winner is not a player, that nation will fight in the war until they lose a certain percentage of their stability.Scandinator (talk) 23:09, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

Got ya now, and I think random numbers are fairer than it always being 50%; especially if that NPC kicked the ass of the player country. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 21:47, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

1-9 Chance appears to be the winner, so I say it is implemented in all wars beginning 1791 or later. LurkerLordB (Talk) 23:01, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

I'm Sorry
I had another OCD attack all over the nations page...... Africa took a whileScandinator (talk) 11:48, January 20, 2012 (UTC)

Stability Start Years
The nations without parentheses next to them are banned from wars until I get a start date, place it next to your nation with reasoning

Example Nation (Year of current regime)(event to start regime)

The list is:
 * Brunei (1754)(unification of nation)
 * UAA (1754)(Ethiopia to UAA)
 * France (1746)(Union with Sweden, the Parliament becomes super-national)
 * Hanthawaddy (1736)(Lost a major civil war)
 * Itsaygahi (1730)(Union of Itsaygahi Proclaimed)
 * Joseon (1686)(Entered isolation period)
 * Persia (1648)(Safavid Dynasty Established)
 * Vietnam (1785)(Minor noble rises to power)
 * Yemen (1705)(Unification of tribal groups)
 * Russia (1689)(Start of Petrine reforms and overthroiw of Sophia)
 * Hungary (1733) (Erdődy dynasty comes into power)

Also any of the Non player nation start years would be good. Please list them below this list. And please you are welcome to edit my edit.Scandinator (talk) 23:36, January 20, 2012 (UTC)

I thought I gave Persia's in the prior section, as 1648. Ethiopia is 1754, when they made the UAA. Itsaygahi got a new gov in 1730. Brunei's player began playin in 1755, and the nation wasn't on the map before, but he didn't create it, so I don't know. The others I don't know. LurkerLordB 00:56, January 21, 2012 (UTC)

Sigh... must I do it? Also I still can't find France's value.Scandinator (talk) 22:26, January 21, 2012 (UTC)

Interesting fact
With the breakup of the AGC. I am proud to announce that Principia Moderni has now officially got over 100 nations. In most map games these numbers tend to drop like flies but in PM... Neutrals Dominate!Scandinator (talk) 00:58, January 21, 2012 (UTC)

True, our game is the only one in which an NPC nation can sit next to a player nation and not be swallowed up. Unlike in most map games, where nations, in the words of Janusary, "expand like engorged mollusks" LurkerLordB 01:10, January 21, 2012 (UTC)

Or like my dog after a haircut :P.Scandinator (talk) 01:13, January 21, 2012 (UTC)

AGC
The map for the AGC should be

Also WHY DID YOU NOT USE THE MAP I CLEANED UP??????? I SPENT HALF A DAY ON IT!!Scandinator (talk) 09:04, January 21, 2012 (UTC)

First: I already gave you a explanation.

Second: I though that we had agreed on using Lurker's map proposal.

Third:stop screaming. --Collie Kaltenbrunner 11:21, January 21, 2012 (UTC)

Currently, the vote for which map to use when LurkerLordB's map: 2 (LLB and collie) and Scand's combo map: 1 (Scandinator). So the majority voted to use mine (although this would have been much easier if more than 2 people had posted instead of just sat there doing nothing) so it seems we should use mine. LurkerLordB 12:48, January 21, 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I posted my above comment before you gave me the explaination. About Lurker's proposal I felt that many of the borders were just too well rounded. And yes I should stop yelling.Scandinator (talk) 22:00, January 21, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, remember that China bought AGC's California colony. It didn't show up on the map. CrimsonAssassin 04:35, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

Moroccan War (1790)
A section for the upcoming war in Morocco.

Yank 21:37, January 21, 2012 (UTC)

Puppet States
I have recently decided that puppet states must recieve some sort of restriction, due to the fact that their existance could be greatly abused. For example, let's say I decided next turn to split the colony of Tamilia into 20 puppet states. This would mean any war Naples joined in on, Naples' side would automatically gain 49 extra points just from Naples and all of it's vassals and puppets joining in, 50 if Naples was leading a side. This would give me a totally unfair advantage over any other player in a war, so obviously we need to somehow limit the amount of puppet states someone can have, or limit how they can be formed. Any suggestions? LurkerLordB (Talk) 03:43, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

Having a few puppet states is no problem but 20? Especially splitting a colony like that would be an impausgasm. The current maximum number of puppet states any nation has is three, which is a reasonable number. With colonies becoming independant this number is set to rise to around 8.Scandinator (talk) 03:58, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

Independent colonies are not puppet states, they just use that color. Puppet state's aren't independent, the "puppet" part implies that they don't have total sovereignty, which most independent nations would have. The US when it broke away from Britain did not become a puppet state, the many ex-colony nations of today are not puppets either.

My example was just to show that there is nothing in the rules to stop such an event from occuring. If someone tried hard enough, they could break and mold territory into such a faction to give them huge amount of puppets but still being plausible. Puppets need to be regulated, but I don't know how. LurkerLordB (Talk) 05:16, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

Juat an FYI, the colonisation of Britain never really happened in OTL. The British government has clauses in the constitutions of many of their former colonies that would allow the UK to retake full control over that nation.

Australia's head of states is technically still the good ol' queen. Scandinator (talk) 05:24, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

But they are de-facto independent, they aren't puppet states. Plus, how many of the various leaders of the African former British colonies can be trusted to follow the constitutions of their nations? Especially when it interferes with their own power? Australia's case is more like dynastic union, it's a constitutional monarchy whose monarch also is monarch of another nation. Most independent nations are not under enough influence of their former colonizers to be called puppet states. LurkerLordB (Talk) 05:36, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

We must trust the moderator sense of plausibility when a player try to abuse his territory to create many puppets.

About the independence, I think that if a player makes independent one of his colonies he could keep his control over the new independent puppet state (like what happened with Hungary and Újfundland). And, if it's a moderator event that causes the independency of the colony, the player obviously can't keep the control.

And, in my socialist third word, anti-imperialist, the countries of the Commonwealth are still puppets of the UK. I mean, in the Flaklands War, the british were still using soldiers of the "independent" states and manipulating the decissions and relationships of that countries, as today. That's be cause they themselves led the colonies to independency before them decided to rebel to get sovereignity. --Galaguerra1 06:35, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

The player having control over the new independent nation does not mean that his nation does though. They player then just controls multiple independent new nations. When you have independent colonies, that means that you now can controlm more than 1 totally sovereign nation. Puppet state implies that the government of your nation controls the government of the independent nation, which is not the case. You in-game controlling your new independent nation does not any any way cause your original nation to control the government of your independent nation. LurkerLordB (Talk) 15:24, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

Persia
Total:70
 * Close to the location of war: 3
 * Persia (L)/Sweden(M)/Estonia(SV)/Flanders(SV)/Arabia(MV)/France(M)/Eddessa-Antinoch(MV):16
 * Expansion:0
 * Military expansion:10
 * Participation:10
 * Stability:22
 * Motive (Political):5
 * Chance:842/5*pi = 529.04
 * Time:0x0x0x5 = 5
 * Editcount: 842

Bharat
Total:72-7 (due to famine)=65
 * Next to the location of war:4
 * Bharat (L)/Gondwana(MV)/Bidar(MV):8
 * Expansion:0
 * Military expansion:0
 * Paticipation:10
 * Stability: 3^1,25/1,25^3x2,5 x 7 = 34,179687500000000000000000000003
 * Motive (Life Or Death):10
 * Chance: 6 (random)

Result
Persia can annex {[70/(65+70)]*2-1}*1.5=5.6% of Bharat

Discussion
I had to put a 1 on the time for Persia's chance, because the original result was 0. since it's impossible to divide per 0, i had to add a 1 to make the count advance.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 14:59, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

Kenny said chance was the non-zero digits of the time multiplied together., so his time would be 5. Also, Bharat vassalized Gondwana and Bidar, so they would help them. LurkerLordB (Talk) 15:17, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

Chinese Intercontinental railway
CHina is a mostly orange nation and it has made more railroads than all the other nations combined, russia, who actualy industrializes first, has less railways, china is connecting others, china is only shceduled to be level 3 in 1825...while it acts like its already in that stage. the nation is yellow and Orange, so its way too early for China to even think of such a monumental industrial project, not to offend Crimson or aything, but mabe china should wait out on the "Trans-Continental rail road"-Lx (leave me a message) 00:45, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

This is an trans-coastal railway. It is just connecting the cities along the coasts. CrimsonAssassin 04:31, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

Russian Empire

 * At Location of War: 5
 * Attacker's Advantage: 1
 * Russia(L)/Lithuanaia(MV)/Finland(M)/Kazakhstan(VM)/Iroquois(VM)/South Armenia(VM)/Sweden(M):19+
 * Expansion: 7
 * Military Expansion:3
 * Stability: 29+CSS
 * 10*9.6^1.2/1.2^9.6=29
 * CSS=TBD(maybe 1.5?)
 * Motive (Life or Death): 10
 * Participation: 10
 * Chance: 7
 * Edits: 1919
 * Time: 1*2*5=10
 * (1919/10)*pi=606.8716
 * Total= 67

Kingdom of Poland

 * Close to the location of the War: 4
 * Attacker's Advantage: 0
 * Poland(L): 4+
 * Expansion: 0
 * Military Expansion: 0
 * Stability: 10.2 ^1.25/1.25^10.2*2.5*7=32.7~33
 * Motive(Life or Death): 10
 * Participation: 10
 * Chance: 4(RNG)
 * Total= 65+

Result
Depends on Stability, and Unknown factors

Discussion
I hope that there will be less interferance in this war...the Poles will declare war on Russia, becuase they want revenge and they think russia is weak because they nearly beat russia the last time...hopefuly, the poles will be wrong.-Lx (leave me a message) 01:16, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

Um, no. You can't control an NPC nation like that. You can attack Poland, but you can't say they will attack you. LurkerLordB (Talk) 01:45, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

Yes I can. check for yourself, Rules: Section Name: War: First Paragraph: " You may have any NPC declare war on you as long as it is plausible"-Lx (leave me a message) 01:52, January 23, 2012 (UTC) 

Yeah, and Poland thinking it can beat Russia in a war is not plausible. They only almost beat Russia the last time because Sweden and France joined in on their side, without assurance of such an event they would have no hope of beating Russia. LurkerLordB (Talk) 01:58, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

Ok, then I'll just change it to russia declares war on poland if the poland declares war on russia path doesnt work.I'm having this war no matter what, so please dont strike it out.-Lx (leave me a message) 02:05, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

Can somebody please do the stability for the war...it wil realy help me to know the result.-Lx (leave me a message) 23:34, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

French Empire

 * At Location of War: 4
 * Attacker's Advantage: 1
 * France(L)/Edessa-Antioch(MV)/Algeria(MV)/Arabia(MV)/Sweden(M)/Flanders(MV)/Denmark(MV)/Estonia(MV): 19
 * Expansion: -2
 * Military Expansion: 3
 * Stability: 28
 * Motive (political): 5
 * Participation: 10
 * Chance: 9
 * Time: 21:16=12
 * Edits:424
 * (424/12)*pi=11100.2 9 404
 * Total= 77

Rhineland

 * Close to the location of the War: 5
 * Attacker's Advantage: 0
 * Rhineland(L): 4
 * Expansion: 0
 * Military Expansion: 0
 * Stability: (0.6^1,25/1.25^0.6)*2.5*6=7
 * Motive(Life or Death): 10
 * Participation: 10
 * Chance: 8 (RNG)
 * Total= 44

Result
<p style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; font-style: normal; font-size: 13px;">Depends on Stability, and if anyone join Rhineland or myself.

Discussion
Shouldn't France be impacted by the famine and be weaker? Or will that be reflected in the stability? LurkerLordB (Talk) 01:55, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

Both are in famine so not impact.Scandinator (talk) 08:43, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

Independent Colonies playable?
So, if you opt to control your independent colony, shouldn't it be rendered as non-playable and not be added to the list or added to the list with your signature by it? Because currently they are listed as playable by new players. LurkerLordB (Talk) 01:58, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

So... LurkerLordB (Talk) 21:42, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

Sweden

 * At Location of War: 4
 * Attacker's Advantage: 1
 * Sweden(L)/Flanders(MV)/Fjordlaand(MV)/Estonia(MV)/England(M)/Swedish Arabia(MV)/France(M)/Edessa-Antioch(MV)/Algeria(MV)/French Arabia(MV)/Damascus(MV)/Naples(M)/Siena(MV)/Florence(MV)/ Israel(MV)/Vietnam(M)/Taiwan(MV)/Finland(M)/Nippon(M)/Burgundy(M): 49
 * Expansion: -3
 * Military Expansion: 15
 * Stability: 29
 * Motive (social): 6
 * Participation: 10
 * Chance: 6
 * 2*1*2*9=36
 * Editcount=1534
 * 1534/36*pi=133.86
 * Total= 119

Russia

 * Close to the location of the War: 5
 * Russia(L)/Lithuania(M)/FInland(MW)/Kazakhstan(MV)/Armenia(MV)/Iroquois(MV)/China(M)/ Changitistan?????(MV???): 18-21+
 * Expansion: -9
 * Military Expansion: 4
 * Stability: 19
 * Motive(Life or Death): 10
 * Participation: 10
 * Chance:9
 * 5*1=5
 * Editcount=1942
 * 1942/5*pi=1220.19
 * Total= 69-71 (depending on Changistan)

Result
At Russia's best (with Changistan), Swedish victory, Sweden can get at most (119/(71+119)*2)-1=25.26%*1.5=37.89% of Russian territory, depending on how long they make the war last.

Discussion
I counted negatives for expansion by Sweden and Russia for wars that they are in already (against Poland and Bharat) since they will gain territory from them, and would have already gained a little territory by now. I counted all of Sweden-France except Burgundy (since they are player controlled). Finland had to be counted as they are under attack. I also counted Sweden vassalizing England as expansion. We really need a stability list posted on this wiki (or another site that we have a link to)LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:36, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

Arabia must be counted twice, be cause there are a Frenhc Arabia (The Caliphate of Arabia) and a Swedish Arabia (the Kingdom of Damascus). --Galaguerra1 22:51, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

I'm throwing Vietnam's nón lá into the ring. I'm supporting the Franco-Swedish Coalition. {C --Yank 00:34, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

Add China to Russia's side. CrimsonAssassin 00:43, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

Do I add CHinese vassals aswell?-Lx (leave me a message) 00:57, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

Is Vietnam's vassal Taiwan in the war as well? LurkerLordB (Talk) 01:14, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

Also, at least according to the external territories page, The Aztecs are a colony, not a vassal. LurkerLordB (Talk) 01:16, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

My mistake.-Lx (leave me a message) 01:19, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

Of course Taiwan is going to join the war. They follow Vietnam everywhere, like a baby duck following their mother. {C --Yank 04:32, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

Another Northern War.Until when you are going to keep fighting?--Collie Kaltenbrunner 05:47, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

Until I can snag the Kola and Livonia and maybe Finland back.Scandinator (talk) 10:35, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

Can somebody please show me where trhere getting the stgability-Lx (leave me a message) 11:45, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? Another one? Scan, you should quit acting like that, umpteen wars like this is not all that plausible, imo. Lordganon 14:58, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

oh well, what can I do? I haveno power. Everybody was against me. they all stabbed me in the back and now I willbe weary of their true intentions.-Lx (leave me a message) 16:20, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

FYI Nippon has a vassal state, though since Chamoru is so small, I think they would only be able to send supplies. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 20:26, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that they would even be able to send supplies in a significant quantity.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 20:48, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, its only one extra point anyway. Looks like Sweden has comfortably won so no need. Forget I mentioned it :P <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 20:56, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

I want Russia's Canada colony. --Yank 21:15, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

Can Crimson please confirm Changistan for us? LurkerLordB (Talk) 21:40, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

Also, the Russian government is not overthrown, so we can't just carve up their empire (although they are so big, 20% should be enough for everyone). Naples wants nothing but the agreement that Sweden&France will help them against Malaysia sometime in the future.LurkerLordB (Talk) 21:47, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

You forgot that Russia has vassals therefore that result is multiplied by 1.5.Scandinator (talk) 22:36, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

How much would the war last? --Galaguerra1 23:09, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

I assume long enough to take down the government (UNLESS Lx decides to end it sooner and adopt the treaty). LurkerLordB (Talk) 23:11, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

Ok, there are many things that I disapprove of. the fact that all of the people that i once considered allies(and that measn you too france) have just turned around and stabbed russia in the back. I dont know who to trust, and the princess jean(french as I recall) will copmmit suicide because she cant believe that russia and france are at war because the french are now being the stooges of the swedes. I thought we were allies. and nippon too. good luck trying to subdue 20-40 million people in your 20% of russia! I just dont know why population is no longer a factor in war!-Lx (leave me a message) 00:09, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

Population never played much of a factor in war, in the original algorithm it was just +2, by every other system Russia and Sweden, both having more than 10 million but less than 100 million, would have gotten the same bonus. LurkerLordB (Talk) 00:20, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

The war was sort of random, if I were Sweden I would not have declared war, but since Sweden was going to do it anyways, Naples would join a side to make sure they would get help in their future war with Malaysia, and it makes sense that they would choose their fellow Catholic nations, fellow nations they just made a deal in Tunisia and India with, nations that speak fellow romance languages, etc., versus Russia. Sorry, but that's what I had to do for my nation. LurkerLordB (Talk) 00:26, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

Would Nippon's claim to the rest of Kamchatka be represented as a line on where Nippon's claim ends, and then over time Nippon colonizes up to that line? <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 00:38, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

Again, I am pretty sure Kamchatka is close enough to Nippon not to count as a colony, especially if those little islands and Sakhalin are part of the main Nipponese nation, you could expand up there in far less than the colonial time. LurkerLordB (Talk) 01:04, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking in suicide the princess myself, anyway, yes, I stabbed you in the back, I have no honor and no ally will trust me again, but what could I do? You've seen how Sweden can be a trouble if you don't do what it wants, and I'm not disposed to loss that country. I still have some empathy for you, Lx, so accept to sign a treaty and I will make sure that you keep the most of the industrialized center and the most of your important colonies. If you don't I can't asure you that you will really participate in the negotiation. --Galaguerra1 01:14, January 26, 2012 (UTC)


 * wait, what kind of trouble will scan be if he doesnt get what he wants? we were on the way to an eventual unification of france and russia through the future tsar near 1800...you didnt need a war for that. look th at the facts. in the real world, thats what would have happened, and the Sammi lord that declared war on russia would be viewed as a traitor for going to war with the princess of france. I doubt that there is no question of loyalty, seeing as they are going to war with The Kings eldest daughter to a king with no sons perhaps?-Lx (leave me a message) 03:39, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

It's in everyone's best interests to accept the treaty ASAP. LurkerLordB (Talk) 01:25, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

@Lurker I dont think that Sweden is even catholic anymore, and it is orhtodox christian. Ever since Charles XI who became orthodox and premoted orthodoxy in Sweden. and, considering that the Russian Future empress is French bkood, I doubt that the pope will be pleased by that, becasue familicide is one of the greater sins or something, and france in the real world would wait for the peace ful unification of rulers in Alexander, Paul and Jean's eldest son. so this war is in all implausible.-Lx (leave me a message) 03:35, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

Sweden went back Catholic after the civil war due to the fact that the clergy were defeated by the Catholic French-supporting nobility. The Russians lost any sympathy they might have had with the Church when they attakced Jerusalem. LurkerLordB (Talk) 03:42, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

Now dont just bang me for jerusalem, that was the only coastal city in that region of the world that I could remember the name of. And even then, iw as just short bombardements by naval ships because they flew a french flag, nothing more, the Jerusalem part was to show that russian naval boats did not just bomb stuff iun france proper, and did not discriminate agisnt its vassals. and I think that the french are non-interfere-with religeon people, so becoming froench would not have effected the orhtodoxy of sweden-Lx (leave me a message) 03:45, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

The war with the clergy is what made the people distrust the orthodox clergy of the nation. And in this time OTl a third of the French legislature was of the clergy. LurkerLordB (Talk) 03:48, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem would have either flown a Neapolitan flag or its own flag. LurkerLordB (Talk) 03:49, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

Wait...jerusalem was neopolitain...woops, realyy not paying attention to things, it looks all french...now that I look...sorry, but anyways, raging in the moment of WTF people stab me in the back isnt when I can concentrate on whats true the most. what are french ports oin the med> I mean near arabia and stuff?Come to think of it, after looking at a mop of israel, I now can safely say that jerusalem was way too far inland to even be touched by cannons. All this hypoe over an impossibilit taken for truth. so jerusalem is untoucked, so there should not be a reason for the vatican to hate russia.-Lx (leave me a message) 04:26, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

Search for OTL lebanese coastal cities.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 09:02, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

I wan to make sure that therer not neopolitan,

I don't know, look for cities in Syria, it's all French. Also, who added Toeh Ngoa Nyoing to Russia's Score? Because they are most definitely not helping Russia, unless Kenny posted something when I wasn't looking. LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:20, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

im pretty sure they came into the war when scan attacked thewm-Lx (leave me a message) 23:25, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

They came into war with Sweden, but they are in no way affliated with Russia. They will need their own algorithm for any gains to be made. Furthermore, even if they were on Russia's side (which they were not, as Kenny did not say so) they would not lose any territory due to the war on account of only Russia and its vassals being able to lose territory in this war. LurkerLordB (Talk) 23:31, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

even then, since they are at war with sweden they are technicaly fighting them, even if not to suppor russia(this was the logic given to the +30 or something when everyone faught the mughal empire in seperate algorithms, all the people with algorithms counted as combattants against the mughals).-Lx (leave me a message) 23:36, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

I don't even actually see any post saying that Sweden attacked them, all I could see was that they invaded the Kola peninsula, so they could have just been attacking the Russian parts. Either way, they are not on Russia's side, adding them to Russia's side is controlling another user's nation, which I will not allow. I suppose that Russia could be given some bonus due to the divided Swedish forces, but the former Hanthawaddian colony is too weak to add much more than a couple points. Whatever happens, they will not lose territory from this war, they'll have to have their own algorithm. LurkerLordB (Talk) 01:24, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

As an fyi, I joined on Russia, only for the safety for the country. RandomWriterGuy 07:10, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

Puppet States solution
I have come up with several possible solutions to the puppet state abuse problem outlined above.

1. Each vassal/puppet state adds 0.2 to 1 for the percentage of territory lost in a war. So if you had one vassal and lost you'd have to give away 120% of the amount you lose by the algorithm, and if you had 2 vassals and 2 puppets, you would have to give away 180% of what you would lose. Advantages: discriminates based on amount of puppets you have, as it makes no sense for someone with 1 vassal to be penalized as much as someone who has 5. Disadvantages: If you had enough puppets, you'd never lose.

2. Each puppet/vassal will subtract a point from the algorithm stabiliy. So, if your normal stability you'd get on the algorithm would be 23, if you had one vassal your bonus would be 22, if you had 4 your bonus would be 19. Advantages:Discriminates based on amount of vassals. Disadvantages:Vassals add 2 points to the war, so if you had enough, you'd be able to overcome the penalty.

3. Every puppet state you have (not vassal) would subtract a colony from your colonial expansion number, so if you had 2 vassals, 2 colonies, and 1 puppet, you would count as if you had 3 colonies/vassals for expansion. Advantages: Penalizes based on number of puppets. Disadvantages: Again, you could then just expand solely through the algorithm you'd always win.

4. Puppets only count as 1. Like what Kunarian did with the Crusader states, all of your puppets would add together to just count as 1 nation. So, if you had 10 puppets, you'd still only be able to put "Puppet states (M)", not list them all individually. Advantages:Having a lot of puppets wouldn't get around this one. Disadvantages: It does seem a bit unfair that a person with 10 puppet nations would get the same bonus as a guy with 1.

5. Nothing happens. No penalty for having 10 puppets over 1, having 1 vassal or 2+50 puppets gives you the same penalty of the amount of your territory lost being multiplied by 1.5. Advantages:Simple, no change. Disadvantages:Lets user weild as many puppets as they want, a nation with 1 vassal loses out as badly as a nation with 2 vassals and 10 puppets.

So, here's how voting will work. We will vote for the four options or you can make your own. To add your idea to the poll, post it beneath my number 4 in the above list and add it in in the below list. You can change your position. This poll will end in 3 days. Mod votes are bolded and count twice. Any of the options other than number 5 will replace the current penalty. LurkerLordB (Talk) 01:22, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

2.Stability Penalty

 * 1) LurkerLordB (Talk)
 * 2) Galaguerra
 * 3) Collie Kaltenbrunner

3. Puppets take away from colony number

 * 1) <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 16:26, January 28, 2012 (UTC) we do this & just treat them the same as vassals. So on top of having up to 2 vassals and 9 colonies, you can have up to 4 puppet states, so you have a maximum total of 9 external territories, and that goes up to 10 if one is a puppet state.

5. We keep the current system

 * 1) Scandinator (talk) 05:08, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Yank 05:10, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) -Kogasa [[Image:Symbol of Natori, Miyagi.png|23px|border]][[Image:宮城県.png|23px|border]][[Image:Flag of Japan.png|23px|border]] 15:09, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

Comments & Discussion
Wait, why Galaguerra is bolded and he is not a mod, while Yank is not bolded and he is a mod?--Collie Kaltenbrunner 08:57, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

Can the people who voted against this please provide a reason they think the current system is best despite its' failures? And "my nation will be weaker" is not a valid reason. LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:16, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

It's sort of strange the 3 people for number 2 all signed with three ~, but the 3 people for number 5 all signed with four. Anyways, the vote is now tied 5-5, it would be nice if more people voted. Everyone, please vote unselfishly. Voting for restrictions because you have no vassals and want to damage those who do is just as bad as voting for nothing because you have a lot of vassals and don't want to be damaged. LurkerLordB (Talk) 02:54, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

Can some more people vote? I don't want to get to the 29th and it still be 5-5. LurkerLordB (Talk) 03:40, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

Also can I get some reason why people like the current system? I thought I had shown that it was incredibly flawed, what advantages does it give anyone other than making it easier to gain incredible power through making a bunch of tiny puppets and through not changing the system? Why do so many people want to keep the old system? If you were all voting for a new one I wouldn't ask this. LurkerLordB (Talk) 03:44, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

Treaty of Berlin
It's official. The Russians have lost the Swedo-Russian War. This is a section for the resulting treaty. The users on the victorius side (like me) should feel free to include any territory concessions they want from Russia. --Yank 03:01, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

France

 * Russia will give France Prince Edward Island (What is its name in the Map Game?), and the half of the coast in the Black Sea including Crimea. Poland will recognise August I Harold as king.
 * You cannot take over nations that are not dependent upon Russia without another algorithm. France would double its population from taking that much, it's implausible.

Sweden

 * Russia will give Estonia back the Gulf of Finland Islands, and allow Livonia and OTL Lithuania and Northern Belarus to be incorporated intot the Baltic Confederation - a Swedish vassal
 * Sweden will annex the entire Russian Kola Peninsula.
 * The colony on the West Coast of North America is handed to Sweden.

Finland

 * Finland would like that tiny island between Finland and Arkhangelsk Oblast. Finland would also like part of Primorsky Krai (only like 1%, and lined up directly across from Hokkaidō), and it can be administrated by both Finland and Nippon and/or Finland wants the New Zealand colony Russia has...

Naples

 * Naples gives its share to France-Sweden, in return for the promise that they will help them in a future war with Malaysia and not take any Malaysian territory for themselves.
 * Sweden transfers Swedish India to Naples in thanks for the support and promises support in Malaysia.

Vietnam

 * The portion of the Russian Canada colony that directly borders the New Vietnam colony

Nippon

 * Full control over the Kamchatka Peninsula. Meaning that Russia can't expand into the unclaimed portions of the Kamchatka Peninsula.

Discussion
I propose that Russia's industiral heartland be declared off-limits. It would be the hardest part to control anyways, so we should say that people can't take any of it LurkerLordB (Talk) 03:37, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

Also, everyone needs to be plausible with what they take. No one is going to take half of Russia, taking any significantly populated area of Russia is going to be hard to maintain, giving the conquered lands semi-autonomy could deal with that. LurkerLordB (Talk) 03:46, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

I agree, to a certain extent. We need to regulate the portions of the Russian mainland that we take, but the colonies are quite frankly up for grabs.

Yank 04:39, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

I'm only taking about 4% of Russia. Just the Kola and Lithuania plus the cities of Nyenschantz and Pskov in Russia proper and a zone around them.Scandinator (talk) 05:05, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

Since when are people who support one side in a war allowed to gain territory in this game?

Also, Scan: I suggest that you compare that territory you say is "only 4%" to the size of Sweden That's ridiculous.

Lordganon 07:28, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

Technically people that support another side can't take territory but there is a loophole as the leading nation can give away parts of the conquered nation to their supporters. Sweden proper only expands by 30%. The main gain in territory is Estonian, where they unite with Lithuania and form a Swedish vassal state called the Baltic Alliance. I am only taking 3.5% of Russia compared to the fact that I can seize their entire government and control the nation if I follow the algorythm to the max.Scandinator (talk) 10:59, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

yes, and just how do you think swden, a nation of 5 million can control a population of nearly 100 million? and there stiull havent been questions adressed about wherer the stabilities came from and what points population gives you and what expanion we keep and witch one we throw out because having both nmakes no sense,-Lx (leave me a message) 12:04, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

You missed the point entirely, Scan. The area you are trying to capture and take is as large or larger than your whole country. If you think that's plausible, in the least, you're nuts.

Once again, Lx has (justified) problems with it. He'd be crazy to agree to anything, especially a list of demands like this. Nor does that blasted math have any reflection on country size, geographically, in it, which makes entirely no sense in the case of Russia.

Lordganon 14:29, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

I know that this was a major defeat, but annexing the industrial heartland of Russia, and Toeh Ngoa Nyoing already is exaggerating, besides what Lordganon already pointed out.somebody please can point out where Lx said that Toeh Ngoa Nyoing was supporting him, and, since Toeh Ngoa Nyoing was a Hanthawaddian colony, this means that who should control it is DK, not Lx--Collie Kaltenbrunner 15:03, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

I still want the mainland portion of Russian Canadian colony. That's the only thing I want from Russia. --Yank 21:44, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Sweden cannot take Toeh Ngoa Nyoing without an algorithm of their own against it. LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:06, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, Sweden is over 11 million now in population now. The stability is following DK's algorythm letter for letter. Would you like to see?

10*9.8^1.2/1.2^9.8=29 for Russia. Minus the expansions for 9 years and the one year of war with Poland equals 19.

10*5^1.2/1.2^5=27.3 Plus one years economic expansion equals 27.8 round to 28.

~Scan

so...wait, sweden had expansions and bonuses and russia didnt? somehow I find this very hard to believe.-Lx (leave me a message) 02:19, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't building up the military count as improvement as well, so they should get a couple points of that? And I counted Sweden taking control of England as expansion, even if it isn't added to the direct Swedish empire. However, other than those things, everything else seems in-place. LurkerLordB (Talk) 02:35, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

>Considering all of Europe just united and attacked Russia I think the territorial demands are reasonable. Russia gave away twice that amount of land in the Brest-Litovisk treaty in WWI and that was only to Germany. Toeh Ngoa Nyoing was included in the Russian war algorythm so...

And sorry LG but Sweden is only expanding by 60% if all that territroy is taken. I calculated it. Russia has 518,725 pixels in its main nation. Sweden has 29104. The territorial demands from Sweden are at 19,900 pixels. And if controlling territory greater than the size of your original nation is such a problem, take a look at Napoleon... and Hilter. And Alexander... and Genghis Khan.... History is littered with examples.Scandinator (talk) 22:10, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

you forgot to mention that the brest litovsk treaty was becasue of the russian revolution...right? and scandinavia's population in 1800 was 5 million in OTL, add some more peoples becuase of colonizing and industrial and realisticly it becomes 8-9 million,-Lx (leave me a message) 02:13, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

Who ever added Toeh Ngoa Nyoing was violating the rules and controlling another player's nation without their permission. Anyways, even if they did help, only the leader of the losing side can be forced to give away any territory. Sweden cannot take Toeh Ngoa Nyoing without another war of their own. LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:14, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

That0s why just roll down I suggested a Coalition vs. Coalition algorithm. Scan in fact invaded Toeh Ngoa Nyoing at the same time that Russia. --Galaguerra1 22:17, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

But Toeh Ngoa Nyoing is not on Russia's coalition, even by those rules. Its 2 totally seperate wars, which will require 2 totally seperate algorithms. LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:26, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

On the subject of the plausibility of Swedish gains-almost no one lives in the Kola peninsula, and the prominent role the Saami now have would have the Saami majority of the Russian Kolan area want to join Sweden. Lithuania is mostly just switching who dominates over it, although controlling the non-lithuanian parts may be dificult (unless they split away as well), Sweden could do it. However, the parts of them taking St. Petersburg and some more of the industrial heartland appear to be against Galaguerra's wishes (and hence the wishes of the king of France and Sweden) and they would be the most Russified parts of the nation, so I think Scandinator should probably remove those claims, but if he really wanted them they'd be so devestated by the war I think that France&Sweden combined could do it. LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:53, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, LuckerLord and I first proposed the front for front algorythm on this wiki.Scandinator (talk) 00:49, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

Could Galaguerra be more specific on what parts of the Black sea he is getting? Ukraine, the Caucasus, all we know is the Crimea. And if he gets Ukraine, I recommend Sweden gives France the southern part of Lithuania to make Ukraine bigger. LurkerLordB (Talk) 02:35, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

Basically, yes, I want Ukraine plus some lands, the northern half of the coast in the Black Sea. --Galaguerra1 03:11, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

I'll take Lithuania down to just below the Hungarian border. France can have the rest.Scandinator (talk) 03:24, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

So youree going to try to take control of terrotory with basicaly the size of twice your nation and with the populaiton of france...this should be a coalition war. but I have no power. and since everybody in the game ovbiously wants me gone, I will set forward a motion to do so officialy.-Lx (leave me a message) 04:03, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

Ok, we understand, message received, you we all stabbed you in the back and you have no power, but please stop saying it to us. --Galaguerra1 04:16, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

Since when not helping is backstabbing? (i'm talking about me)--Collie Kaltenbrunner 05:43, January 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * i know oits no uniform but im trying to make a point.-Lx (leave me a message) 11:44, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

Scan, history is not littered with examples like you think. Virtually every historical case is minor territorial losses. The first three "examples" you quote are not even remotely what you claim. Nor is the Treaty of B-L quoted by some a case, either. And if you read anything about Genghis Khan and his Mongols, you'd noticed that what he and his descendants managed - GK managed fairly little himself, overall, compared to them - was through slaughtering millions.

I will repeat my statement: Make the offered losses realistic. You have not attempted to do so in the past - and look where that got you - and are not doing so now.

Only a country (and a half - see Finland, not that that is realistic, either) - border Russia - Sweden. Any contributions made by any others would be barely existent. The idea that their forces added could beat a far larger, and a little more advanced, power is unrealistic enough - but the concept that that power could be devastated is not even close to reality, either.

Lordganon 10:14, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

I have my proposal for a more moderate treaty:
 * 1) The Finno-Russian union is dismantled (obviously)
 * 2) France, most specifically, the Nouvelle-France colony gains the island which is OTL Prince Edward Island.
 * 3) a part of the eastern part of the Russian colony of Canada, if not all of the colony, will pass to vietnamese control.
 * 4) The islands of the Gulf of Finland are given to Sweden/Estonia.
 * 5) Courland is annexed to Estonia (this will need Lx's approval)
 * 6) The Articles of the first draft concerning Naples are unchanged.
 * 7) Russia gives up its claims to the peninsula of Kamchatka.

Obviously, i still don't know exactly what to do with Kola.a part, or all of it may be given to Sweden or Finland.

--Collie Kaltenbrunner 17:17, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

Kola should probably still join Sweden, it is mostly frozen and very few people live there, it wouldn't be too hard to control. So now, I think there are two options: the old treaty, with massive gains, which will for plausibilities sake cause massive moderator revolts within those territories taken by Sweden and France within a few years, or a modified version of Collie's new treaty, with no revolts. LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:14, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

I'll take Collie's if you throw in Pskov, OTL Lithuania, Kola and Nyenschantz.121.216.222.36 22:47, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

You already have pskov, and St petersburg was founded in 1703...witch is part of the industrial heartland, and is therefore off limits. and I would opt to keep the gulf of finland islads to ensure the security of ships traveling to St Petersburg, the Capital, but wont argue that point. Im fine with giving up the kola, not like anyone lives there anyways, and for poland, its not a vassal of russia's so therefore requires a seperate algorithm for the war, so france cant realy say much about it, but we all know what the result will be so...lets not waste time in doing it, unless everyone just wants it for the sake of beurocracy and shtuff. Livonia is probably the most annexable of the liuthuanian states, as it came under russian dominance the latest. and kola would preferably go to finland...but its up tok you to decide, nobody lives there anyways. and the onlyu populated area realy of russian/non-saami people(witch in in of themselves arent that numerous) is Toeh Ngoa Nyoing so take it... its yours.-Lx (leave me a message) 00:27, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

Collie's terms are both realistic and reasonable. Scan, cut it out. Lordganon 01:31, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

Collie's terms+the Kola is the only option that Sweden could control. Try and control more and you will collapse from revolts. LurkerLordB (Talk) 03:33, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

Scan, do you understand that Nyenschantz equals St. Petersburg, and Russia needs a outlet to the Baltic?--Collie Kaltenbrunner 05:26, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

... Fine, I'll leave Nyenschantz. But I still want Kola, OTL Lithuania and Northern Belarus. Also Finland is switching to a confederation with Sweden. Kogasa has already agreed to that. Scandinator (talk) 06:31, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

You have offered a reasonable settlement twice now, Scan. I suggest you take it. Lordganon 06:33, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

The latter two claims (Lithuania and Northern Belarus) are up for Lx to decide.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 06:34, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

By Lithuania I assume you mean the part of OTL Lithuania, not the entire Grand Duchy? And taking more of Belarus is taking part of the industrial heartland, which was agreed not to happen. LurkerLordB (Talk) 15:23, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is OTL Lithuania.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 16:11, January 28, 2012 (UTC)



Ok, hows this? The Kola and Northern Finland are filled with Saami and a few Mons. Kogasa said I could annex Northern Finland. And I take OTL Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania plus a chunk of Northern Belarus.Scandinator (talk) 21:43, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

That looks reasonable I would advise Lx accept it. Although, why is it an old map with Anglo-Germany still together that is being used? (Prussia is still attached) LurkerLordB (Talk) 21:45, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

It just happens to be the 1780 map. I keep one saved on my computer at all times for various mod duties. e.g. industrailism and wars .etcScandinator (talk) 21:52, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

Scan, Lx has agreed to Livonia and Kola being added to Collie's list. That is more than you should get.

Take what is reasonable, and quit making demands. I will not say this again.

Lordganon 08:02, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

Scan, if you thought I would miss what you said on the game page, which runs counter to what I've warned you several times not to do, you are sadly mistaken.

As such, you now have a day to think about your actions. I've warned you more than enough.

Lordganon 15:39, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

I assume this means Collies treaty +Livonia and Kola will be used then. In that case, can we end this war now? LurkerLordB (Talk) 15:57, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

I think that yes.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 20:18, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

Do it. All these blasted wars between these two cause is trouble. Lordganon 02:17, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

OK, message to Scandinator and Lx- end the war this turn. POR FAVOR. LurkerLordB (Talk) 03:01, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

You speak Portuguese?--Collie Kaltenbrunner 06:11, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

I speak some Spanish. LurkerLordB (Talk) 11:45, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

Ah, is because in your last post, you probably was speaking spanish, but since we use this phrase in Portuguese too, and has the same meaning, i thought that you was speaking portuguese.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 12:52, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

hey look, I'm just waiting for the final word on the treaty to end the war...I would happily end it right now...but I want to know the final version of the treaty and who gets what so I can edit my game posts accordingly.-Lx (leave me a message) 13:06, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

Alliance wars
One thing I mentioned in the talk page on the rules concerned the matter of "alliance wars." Basically, wars between two or more countries, because lets face it a lot of war is fought between alliances of two or more countries. E.g. if we used our current war system then OTL World War One would be a war between Austria and Serbia with the other central powers/allies simply giving military aid. This there anything we can do to amend the problem of realistic alliance wars? <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 12:17, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

In fact I was just thinking about it two days ago and I thought that we may: --Galaguerra1 18:05, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Instead use one algorithm for the entire war, we may use one for each front (OTL WW1=Balkan Algorithm[Austria-Hungary/Serbia], Central Europe Algorithm= [Germany/France]). The bad thing is that it would take a lot of time and effort, and a country that leads several fronts (Germany against France in the Center and Russia in the East and the colonial fronts) would loss a lot of lands more than a one front country.
 * 2) Create some new algorithm.
 * 3) Put together for the algorithm the bonuses, chance, stability, expansion and military building up of each allied country and divide the percentage of lost land according to the total score that the country contributed (the more problematic countries like Germany would loss more land, and the less problematic like Bulgaria would loss less land).

Isn't the bad part of #1 realistic? Fighting on multiple fonts makes your nation weaker. It seems the best to me LurkerLordB (Talk) 02:09, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

I really like more the option three. May be we should vote. --Galaguerra1 03:13, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that is that the stronger countries would lose more land than the weaker countries that contributed. LurkerLordB (Talk) 03:15, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

Is realistic to me. When the Allied Forces won the WW2, did they take lands from Romania, Finland or Iraq? Not, they occupied Germany and Japan. The same in the WW1: The weakest Bulgaria didn't suffer any major lost considering that the Austo-Hungarian Empire was almost destroyed forcing it to divide its own territory in many independent state and the strongest Germany was forced to pay for the war, loss all the territory gived to them by Russia and change their government. --Galaguerra1 03:35, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

I guess number 3 is better then. Although, remember people, if we want we can make wars between player nations without the algorithm, as long as everyone agrees to the end result. LurkerLordB (Talk) 23:02, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah 3 looks like a good idea to me, it gets the essence of 1, without having to bother making algorithms for each front. I'd also say only use 3 when its an actual war of alliances though, as countries often send aid to nations in war, without getting properly involved in the war. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 20:01, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

That's what I was about to mention, but I fogot it: How to make difference between a Country vs. Country was in which the both countries have allies and a Coalition vs. Coalition war? I thought that may be a One vs. One war turns in a Coalition War when more than one country of one or each side (you decide, I prefer the second) is attacked. In the last Northern War, for example, just Russia suffered the attacks from the Franco-Swedish. --Galaguerra1 21:19, January 30, 2012 (UTC) coaliton

How about it becomes a coalition if more than one side wants to gain something from the war? Like in that last northern war, you had more than one nation gaining something, so that'd be a coalition; whereas in the Persian-Bharatian War (1785) while Persia had allies, only Persia gained anything from the war, making that a 1V1 war. --<font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 22:06, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

That's completely different. Sweden was who really get all that territory. No ally of Russia gained territory. Sweden just gave some territories to its allies in comepnsation for the efforts spent. --Galaguerra1 03:46, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I know no ally of Russia gained territory because they lost. Guess I should of made it clearer in my explanation: I meant its the winning coalition of nations which each gain something. Also yes Sweden just gave some territories to its allies in compensation for the efforts spent, but that's because it was still using the old system. If you were using the new coalition system, I rate each country on the winning side is entitled to some sort of gain/spoils of war. Meaning if you were to re-do that last Swedo-Russian war as a coalition war with the new algorithm, then each nation in the winning coalition would be entitled to gain something from the war. Obviously not including vassal states, just the player controlled nations; <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 18:04, January 31, 2012 (UTC).

Why Isn't It Recognized
I established a colony called New Tehran where OTL Belem is. Also, I had laid control of all lands bordering the Amazon. Why isn't this recognized? RandomWriterGuy 05:15, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

the colony is on the map, just zoom on the area and you will see it.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 06:27, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

What about my claim to the Amazon? Isn't that supposed to be reognized? RandomWriterGuy 00:44, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

You can make a map showing what land you claim, but until you actually own it it won't be shown on the map. LurkerLordB (Talk) 01:21, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

I do own it. RandomWriterGuy 05:27, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

No, expanding so many square km in just one year or two would be implausible. it won't be recognized as owned until it is settled.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 06:21, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

Map
Do not appear on the map annexed territories to Burgundy

I wasn't sure if you had annexed it or not.i thought that you was just claiming it.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 14:28, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

But... if they have placed these areas belong to Burgundy (Marseille and the Swiss Francophone area). (Jaeden Cuenta Cuentos 16:15, January 26, 2012 (UTC)).

I'm back! I'll be picking up Prussia, anything I should know about it? I'm glad to see France has expanded like crazy :P I worked hard on that country awhile ago haha

The Swiss Francophone area already belongs to Burgundy I believe, it is the german-speaking area which is currently independent. Yeah, I think he should get the French Lombard areas, but if not, then he'll get it in a few years (you'll see) LurkerLordB (Talk) 21:56, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

In fact, during a moderator event, the francophone area of Lombardy asked for enter in France. France gave it to Burgundy in the same turn. Is an anexation, not reclamation. --Galaguerra1 21:08, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

Prussia
I'm back! I'll be picking up Prussia, anything I should know about it? I'm glad to see France has expanded like crazy :P I worked hard on that country awhile ago haha JonAllenMichael 17:04, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

In fact, most of the expansion is because France and Sweden are in personal union.Anyway, welcome back.Should i tell what happened in Prussia since then?--Collie Kaltenbrunner 17:11, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

You got an alliance with Nippon in 1787. I saw Prussia used to be a Japanese colony so I formed an alliance with Prussia to retain colonial ties. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 18:21, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

You have a colony in OTL South Africa, by the way.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 18:42, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

Prussian culture now has huge amounts of Japanese influence in it, and its by far dominant religion is Schmittism (like 90% of the population, the rest Hussite). LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:05, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

Ok, totally different question. Is it possible to play France within the dynastic Union? If not, at what point would France become "free" from such a union?? I would absolutely love to play France again... And now that my computer is fixed (finally) I'll be active on this thread again! JonAllenMichael 18:48, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

No, France already has a player which joined after you left, and in fact, Sweden joined the dynastic union with France, and not the opposite.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 19:44, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm playing France :) You were France before me? Placed to meet you! And if some country would become free from the union it wouldn't be me, France is the head of the union. I'll enjoy anyway to play with you. --Galaguerra1 19:50, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

Ah! Sorry I thought it was Sweden that was the primary. Good to meet you also Galaguerra, looks like you've done a good job with France so far! I'm going to rethink which country I'm going to have, and I will become active tomorrow! Glad to be back everyone! JonAllenMichael 01:37, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

Final Question: On the map, is Prussia the country touching Russia, or is it the one where Berlin is? I saw that Prussia occupied Berlin, so I'm just slightly confused about which territory is Prussia... JonAllenMichael 04:42, January 28, 2012 (UTC) 04:41, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

Prussia is on the most northeast area of the former German states, east of Brandenburg, north of Poland, and west of Russian Lithuania on the most recent map. It is a coastal nation. Look above at the map of the split of the AGC, the last map, to see where it is. LurkerLordB (Talk) 04:49, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :P I was just making sure Prussia wasn't where Brandenburg is, after reading that Prussia had taken Berlin, I thought that the country that actually is Prussia might be Lituania or something... anyways, thanks for clearing up my confusion! JonAllenMichael 06:33, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

Armenia's Status
Is Armenia a free nation or still a puppet of Russia? RandomWriterGuy 00:18, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

It's still a puppet of Russia. LurkerLordB (Talk) 00:32, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

In that case, why is its color not fixed? RandomWriterGuy 00:34, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

Just the vassals states (that count in the colonial expansion) and the player nations in confederation (formerly, Russia and Finland) or union (France, Sweden and Burgundy) are shown in the main color. The puppets (that are just countries that are under the main nation) and independent colonies (that are completely independent from the motherland but are still controled by the same players if they want) are shown in a different color, reserved for theem. In the colorbar, right under the map, the corner of the different bars show the colors for puppets. --Galaguerra1 01:54, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

Does Lx have any plans for Armenia? RandomWriterGuy 04:18, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, send him a message on his talk page. Maybe Persia should concentrate on expanding in one direction first, instead of attacking India then Shahrzur then trying to by land from Russia then switching all around. Too much non-colonial expansion kills you in wars you know. LurkerLordB (Talk) 04:32, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

I Will Exit the Game
Hello Guys! I have kind of gotten the hang of my college class, only to return and find that the AGC has already been divided. No hard feelings, I was a little past the end of winter break. Anyway, it seems a little too late to join in as any country that could make a meaningful contribution to the game, and so, regretfully, I will have to officially leave the game. Good playing with you!Zagoria 18:58, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

You could always be another country not part of the former AGC, such as one of the African nations or the south American independent nations or even ask a player if you can have a revolt and break away as an independent nation or colony. LurkerLordB (Talk) 21:40, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

All right, I've changed my mind. Would it be possible to convince whoever is in control of my former South American Colony (that might have been Sweden-France?) to let me have it revolt? I could try and build a nation in northern Brazil....Zagoria 03:02, February 1, 2012 (UTC)

The colony in Brazil is either a Hanover or Brandenburgen colony.Scandinator (talk) 11:45, February 1, 2012 (UTC)

Puppet Solution Run-Off Election (PLEASE VOTE)
OK, so there is a problem that currently if you have enough puppet states you are practically invincible, which makes it really hard for you to ever lose a war and get the *1.5 penalty to territory lost, so I made solutions, and we have a tie, so here's the run-off. I changed number 1 to make it simpler, but it functions the same as the original. To clarify: puppet states are either vassal states that you do not have a border with, or are above the number of 2 vassals which is the maximum. This does not count dynastic union states (which must border you and only can be gotten if you are a monarchy and you marry into or create a new nation), player nations in union with you, or colonies or union states which do not count for the algorithm (like the states of Itsaygahi and the UAA) Voting will continue for 2 days. If it is a tie, the voting period will be extended. Mod votes count 2 and are bolded. LurkerLordB (Talk) 00:09, January 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) We subtract a point from the algorithm for every puppet state that you control, so there would be a new line of the algorithm that says "number of puppet states" and you would subtract the number of states your nation has from it (even if they aren't helping in the war). So 1 puppet you get -1, 5 puppets you get -5. This dullens the impact of having more than 2 vassal states, making the gain from creating them less. It's also fairer, as it disrciminates based on number of puppets, while the current system penalizes people with 1 vassal as much as people with 2 vassals and 4 puppet states.
 * 2) The current system, where if you lose a war and have any number of vassals, the territory lost gets multiplied by 1.5. The reason I dislike this one is due to the fact that the number of vassals doesn't matter, and if you have enough to win every war, the penalty never goes into effect.
 * 1) Option 1 (-1 for each puppet your nation has)
 * 2) *LurkerLordB (Talk)
 * 3) *Yank 00:44, January 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) *<font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 00:49, January 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) *Galaguerra
 * 6) *Collie Kaltenbrunner
 * 7) *JonAllenMichael
 * 8) *Flagmania 19:56, January 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Option 2 (stays the same, 1.5 modifier)

Discussion.
So how do vassals differ to puppet states then, if option 1 is chosen? <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 00:49, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

Since vassals are restricted, yes. Puppet states currently have no restrictions, so that's why they must be restricted. LurkerLordB (Talk) 02:59, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

Northern War's armistice
Final draft.it is not subject to changes, as the conditions already were defined recently.

Conditions:
 * 1) The Finno-Russian union is dismantled
 * 2) Finland will enter in a confederation with Sweden
 * 3) France, most specifically, the Nouvelle-France colony gains the island which is OTL Prince Edward Island.
 * 4) all of the colony of Canada will pass to vietnamese control.
 * 5) The islands of the Gulf of Finland are given to Sweden/Estonia, as well as Courland.
 * 6) The Russian part of the Kola peninsula will be given to Sweden.
 * 7) Russia gives up its claims to the peninsula of Kamchatka.
 * 8) The Swedish India colony will be given to Naples.

Signataries
We need the signatures of most of the involved on land cession (specifically, France, Russia, Naples, Nippon, Vietnam and Sweden). The treaty can be considered approved when more than half of the subjects vote for the approval of the treaty.


 * On behalf of Empress Catherine III of all the Russias, Generalissimo Alexandr V. Suvorov-Lx (leave me a message) 14:52, January 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * August I Harold, Emperor of France and Sweden, King of Burgundy and Shogun of Finland.' --Galaguerra1 16:08, January 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * On behalf of His Imperial Majesty Emperor Kōkaku, Emperor of Nippon, her colonies, and vassals' --<font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 19:56, January 30, 2012 (UTC).
 * His Imperial Majesty Benvolio Entori-Sicilia III, King of Naples, Protector of the Faith of the Vatican and Israel, Defender of Tuscany and Lombardy, Emperor of the Neapolitan Colonial Empire.
 * Overlord of Sweden, Protector of the Saami, liege of Emperor August I, Fredrick Gaup Scandinator (talk) 03:55, February 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * Empress Ba Mai of Vietnam Yank 23:53, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

--Collie Kaltenbrunner 14:19, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

Algorithm issues and Stability Chart
Well, I have seen some things in the algorithms that have gone wrong, and although I have noticed them probably becasue of me loosing(honestly)...I can say that there are now unacounted factors, or just things that "pop out o the blue". let me explain

1. Population no longer plays a role in wars. I know that it never played much of a role in algorithms, but it was still a factor, wether it be a numerical value to add to the total, or a multiplier in stability, it has always played a role, untill now. Now it plays none.

2. The Stability is not shown, so I cant see where or how I got the Stability number I currently have, At least in the old system, ther was a table, now, there is nothing at all.

Possible Solutions
1. Use the old Stability curve that includes population factors

OR

2. make it harder for people to expand and take area from more denser populated areas(or just areas with more population than their army in general). Make some sort of border proximity populaiton density divisor for the total area gained,

OR

3. simply use common sense in taking area with large population

4. Make a Table Showing each Nation's Stability and the Contributors to the sum(ex. a row for the military update, expansion, economic update, etc...)

Discussion
Ok, what are people's thoughts? DO people agree, do you disagree?-Lx (leave me a message) 02:31, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

1. I agree population should remain a factor, but the old system of the digits was messed up, with a nation with 10 million as strong as one with 99 million, it should be a ratio, so there should be some factor about how much you outnumber them by. If you outnumber them, but you don't have twice their size, +1, if you have between double and triple, +2, if you have between triple and quadruple, +4, etc.

2. YES! We need a chart (or at least a list) for the stability. If a list cannot be provided, then perhaps a new stability moderator who can provide one must be gotten. For we need a public list.

LurkerLordB (Talk) 03:30, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't revolve around Principia Moderni. I have 10,000 words to do for English and several pages for History. I've said I'd get the list up ASAP. But if you wish to help get a table up with 9 columns and 20 rows I'll fill it over the weekend.Scandinator (talk) 08:26, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

There is a problem with the first. you can't know exactly how many people your nation has (For a example, i extremely underestimated the population of the colonies.my classic example is Öböl, which i initially said that had 15,000 of population, when the same area in OTL probably had a populaton past the 1,000,000 people mark.) .And given that in a war against the NPCs, you can never know the population of the other side, this is subject to errors.and the person declaring war (if it is a PC) can inflate his population deliberately, if he didn't posted it before, to win the war.You must know what DeanSims does with the Inca. the nation is tiny, and still, he inflates the number of persons in the army to a unrealistic number for the territory that the population has.Given that somewhere else, we may have users as implausible as him, and capable of doing the same to the population.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 09:37, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should just bring back the old +2 for greater population factor? It helped a little... And I will make a table for stability unless someone else has...LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:13, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

Diplomatic Standoff
I think that Persia, Sweden, and Vietnam (and maybe Russia?) have reached into a diplomatic crisis. Persia broke off relationships with Sweden since it harmed its ally Russia (which was done during the Third Swedo-Russian War). Vietnam, in response, does the same thing Persia has done with Sweden.

Now, this is open for talks to hopefully end the crisis. Scandinator, Lx (if you might), and Yank, put your comments here to give us your points. RandomWriterGuy 06:08, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

Sweden did not offend russia in any way, if you were to sever diplomatic realaitons, and had dnoe so during the war, then there would be no problem, but now, since you severed realtions after an armicetice was signed, and an official end of hostilities, there is a porblem, sweden in fact offered russia money for the territories they are taking. Im sorry but your actions were, becasue of the timing very unreasonable. and another question, why do you want armenia? or do you want it, I was planning to expand it somehow into former ottoman states somehow someday...maybe not so much anymore...-Lx (leave me a message) 23:49, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. the reason I did it was Sweden's actions against Russia. I never new there was an armistice. Yet I still feel that I should be there for Russia's security. Yet Russia gained nothing (except money) from the war.

By the way, how did the rivaly between Russia and Sweden began? RandomWriterGuy 23:53, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

About Armenia: is it going to be a vassal state of yours? RandomWriterGuy 23:52, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

Russia got nothing from the war on account of losing badly. The rivalry with Sweden began when Sweden did its massive vassalization scheme to take control of all NPCs in the Baltic coast, which Russia objected to them gaining the tiny sliver of land that was Livonia for some reason, and then they began warring. Armenia is a vassal of Russia. If Persia gets sold it, at least the northern half would probably wish to remain at least a vassal and not incorporated into Persia proper. LurkerLordB (Talk) 02:19, February 1, 2012 (UTC)

I will only restore rlationships if Sweden apoligizes for its actions. I know it already got its "revenge" for loosing the first war against Russia by wining the second war. There should be no point in waging a third war! RandomWriterGuy 05:58, February 1, 2012 (UTC)

Why is there no response? I need this to get going. We need negotiations from Sweden, Russia, and Vietnam! RandomWriterGuy 22:58, February 2, 2012 (UTC)

Upcoming Neapolitan-Pahang War of 1801
This is really early, but I'm making it anyways so that I can see how it will go. I am assuming all nations who promised to help will do so, along with their vassals and other nations in confederation. I also assume that the personal union with Hungary will not count as a change in government, as Naples is a constitutional monarchy, and they are strong enough for Hungary not to dominate, so there would be no change in how the government is run other than the fact that the constitutional monarch is also monarch of another nation. LurkerLordB (Talk) 00:01, February 1, 2012 (UTC)

Naples

 * Location: 4
 * Attacker's Advantage: 1
 * Naples(L)/Lombardy(MV)/Tuscany(MV)/Israel(MV)/Sweden(M)/Swedish Arabia(MV)/France(M)/United Principalities(MV)/Mecca(MV)/Damascus(MV)Finland(M)/Burgundy(M)/Hungary (S)/Kandy (MV)/Vietnam(M)/Taiwan(MV)/Persia(M)/Korea(M): 45
 * Expansion: -1
 * Puppet States:-1
 * Military Expansion: 12
 * Stability: ?
 * Motive (Political):5
 * Participation: 10
 * Chance: TBD
 * Editcount=
 * Total= 77
 * Total= 77
 * Total= 77

Pahang

 * Location: 5
 * Pahang(L): 4
 * Expansion: -0
 * Military Expansion: 0
 * Puppets:0
 * Stability: 8.1^1.25/1.25^8.1*2.5*8=44
 * Motive(Life or Death): 10
 * Participation: 10
 * Chance:6
 * Total= 79

Result
Depends on what my chance will be, if anyone betrays me and doesn't help, and what my stability will be. Most likely Neapolitan victory, although it may be very narrow.

Discussion
I'm sorry but Algeria is no more a independent state, now is a colony of the Caliphate of Mecca, while Edessa is a vassal (by the way, it should be shown in the map). Don't have Sweden some more vassals? --Galaguerra1 05:26, February 1, 2012 (UTC)

Vietnamese and Persian and Korean support has been confirmed, if they have some crisis which prevents them from sending aid, I'll remove them. LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:24, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

Micro-Nationalism
Currently, a great deal has been written regarding colonial independence, but what cannot be forgotten is the large amounts of micronationalist groups that in OTL would begin breaking away in about a century (Like in Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire and later in Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union). Some nations are relatively homogenous (France, Naples, Japan, etc.), yet others possess large swathes of land where minorities dominate (Hungary, Sweden, China, Vietnam, etc.). The question therefore is, how can we handle such movements in game?

The obvious solution is simply "Moderator Revolts of all large ethnic minorites within nations" (obviously working their way from outward to inward). However, not all micronationalist groups are successful! Federalism can greatly reduce such revolts. For example, in OTL, Spain, Russia, and China, by giving ethnic minorites large amounts of semi-autonomy, have managed to prevent revolts. However, we cannot simply say that by giving semi-autonomy, you will avoid revolts. If that happened, everyone would give every minority within their nation semi-autonomy and thus no one would allow any large territories to break away from their nations.

So, the question remains, how to balance which ethnic minorities will revolt, and which ones will seek total independence and which ones could be pacified by semi autonomy. I have several ideas, but feel free to add their own. I'm not opening it for voting yet, I want to hear more ideas first. LurkerLordB (Talk) 23:10, February 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Random Chance. A moderator will randomly generate a number to determine if the independence motion can be quelled by semi-autonomy (a moderator could not generate the number for their own nation). They would generate like 1-2 (semi-autonomy can pacify the revolt) 3-4 (almost total autonomy is needed to stop the revolt, but some sort of commonwealth or an alliance could remain) 5-6 (revolts will continue until total independence is granted). Advantages:Fair and simple. Disadvantages:no consideration based on the situation
 * 2) An independence revolt algorithm. Factors would include: how long ago the area came under the main nations rule (longer rule-more likely cultural assimilation, more likely to accept semi-autonomy), language similarities (if the language is of the same family, it will be easier for the people to learn the main nation's language, more likely to accept semi-autonomy) population difference (if the nation is much smaller than the main nation, it's revolts would be easier pacified by semi-autonomy) religious difference (the closer they are religiously, the more likely they are to be pacified by semi-autonomy). Advantages-considers each situation totally seperately. Disadvantages-complicated, more room for interpetation.

That's true but the majority of the revolts only came after their nation was embroiled into an unpopular war - WWI. Before that Europe was essentially composed of 18 nations with 6 main powers not the 53 of today.Scandinator (talk) 05:18, February 2, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but eventually they will need to break away, it would be unrealistic for this TL to get to modern times with a Europe composed of 18 nations. LurkerLordB (Talk) 23:33, February 2, 2012 (UTC)

The radical elements of the minority's population will want more autonomy. If the minority is kept well fed and entertained then the majority will ignore the protests and separatist movement. If the minority is starved and ignored then protests will occur.Scandinator (talk) 22:34, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

We simply cannot let giant meganational nations stay together with no revolts. Even in democratic, liberal nations like Spain and Britain, minority seperation movements have gained great power. LurkerLordB (Talk) 02:04, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

I'm already planning on making some peoples within Hungary (specifically, Serbs) declare independence on the 19th century.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 05:24, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we could just make it a rule that all nations that have minority culture groups will lose at least one of them to independence? LurkerLordB (Talk) 13:03, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

Thats... Majorly implausable. Only the HUGE empire suffered greatly from independence movements.Scandinator (talk) 21:47, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

I Will Exit the Game
<p style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial;">Hello Guys! I have kind of gotten the hang of my college class, only to return and find that the AGC has already been divided. No hard feelings, I was a little past the end of winter break. Anyway, it seems a little too late to join in as any country that could make a meaningful contribution to the game, and so, regretfully, I will have to officially leave the game. Good playing with you!Zagoria 18:58, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

<p style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial;">You could always be another country not part of the former AGC, such as one of the African nations or the south American independent nations or even ask a player if you can have a revolt and break away as an independent nation or colony. LurkerLordB (Talk) 21:40, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

<p style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial;">All right, I've changed my mind. Would it be possible to convince whoever is in control of my former South American Colony (that might have been Sweden-France?) to let me have it revolt? I could try and build a nation in northern Brazil....Zagoria 03:02, February 1, 2012 (UTC)

<p style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial;">The colony in Brazil is either a Hanover or Brandenburgen colony.Scandinator (talk) 11:45, February 1, 2012 (UTC)

<p style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial;">Okay..Can I revolt as maybe a branch of the Hohenzollerns in the Hannoverian/Brandenburgian colony in Brazil (instead of controlling Brandenburg)? It won't be exactly a revolution, just a dynastic crisis which will result in Brazil being independant under a branch of the Hohenzollerns...Since the other nations colonies around there are minor, maybe I could expand to control, say, northern Brazil by 1900 and stop expanding there (with maybe some colonies in Africa).... I would be a mostly ethnically German nation, because of immigration from a divided Germany...Is that all right with everyone? Zagoria 00:55, February 2, 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with you returning if you can manage to post at least semi-regularly.

Yank 01:18, February 2, 2012 (UTC)

If it was France or Sweden, it would be blue, so that means its either Brandenburg or Hanover, either one you could revolt away easily. I see no reason not to allow it, as your nation is gone. LurkerLordB (Talk) 01:52, February 2, 2012 (UTC)

UAA

 * Near the Location of the War:3


 * Attacker's advantage:1


 * UAA (L): 4


 * Military Development:1


 * Expansion:0


 * Motive: Moral (6)


 * Chance:???


 * Participation:10


 * Stability:???
 * Total:

Vietnam

 * At the Location of the War:5


 * Vietnam (L)/Taiwan(MV)/Naples(M)/Tuscany(MV)/Lombardy(MV)/Jerusalem(MV):15


 * Military Developement:4


 * Expansion:-1


 * Motive:Political (5)


 * Chance:???


 * Participation:10


 * Stability:???
 * Total:

Result
No idea yet....

Discussion
Vietnam is Naples' greatest ally, they will aid them in the war. Also, colonial expansion does not count for the negative modifier LurkerLordB (Talk) 23:27, February 2, 2012 (UTC)

The Greater Korean Empire will stand by Vietnam in a war. PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 01:20, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

Persia's doing the same thing Pita said. RandomWriterGuy 01:02, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

Nippon is aiding Vietnam, but is this war even happening anymore? <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 16:31, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

1798 Issues
A majoirty of the year 1798 is crossed out. What is going on here? RandomWriterGuy 00:57, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

Majority? only one post out of 15 is crossed out, and is Sweden's attempt of annexing Iceland.Though since 1796, we had one post crossed out per turn.two are from Sweden, and one from Turan.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 05:21, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

No, when I saw it, it was a majoirty. RandomWriterGuy 15:22, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

Can you find the specific edit in the history? I assume that if you actually saw it, someone was trying to cross out a tiny part and then it messed up. LurkerLordB (Talk) 21:38, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

I saw it too, but now is corrected. I supose that Sweden missed up trying to cross out the annexation of Iceland. --Galaguerra1 00:58, February 5, 2012 (UTC)