Talk:Principia Moderni (Map Game)

Map


Wasn't Tibet divided up between Hanthawaddy and China? Also, I can't believe I forgot about two Khanates! CrimsonAssassin 20:19, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

War
Okay, so it appears we have our first real conflict between players. Japan vs. Brandenburg. So I have a rough outline of how we determine the outcome. It will be by points. The proportion of points will determine who keeps what territory. For example, Portugal and Nepal go to war (random example). Portugal has 5 points and Nepal has 40. Thus, it is Nepal's victory. Since Portugal got only 5/45 total points, that means it will lose 35/45 (the total number of points minus twice that much) of its territory. Note that if someone invades another country and loses, the defenders do not get to annex the attackers' territory unless it is nearby. If a country is victorious over a colony, it needs to take over 50% of that country's colony, which may be compounded over multiple wars as long as the wars occur within a hundred years. The formula makes more sense once you see how it works. Points will be awarded as follows. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 03:12, March 27, 2011 (UTC)

Location
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 (capital is on higher ground than fought-over territory by at least 300m): 2

Strength

 * each country on a side of the war: 3
 * side with greater population: 2
 * 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

 * participating in the war: 10
 * said country does not rule said area: 0
 * said country has ruled said area for 0-5 years: -5
 * said country has ruled said area for 6-15 years: 2
 * said country has ruled said area for 16-30 years: 5
 * said country has ruled said area for 31-80 years: 10
 * said country has ruled said area for 81-150 years: 4
 * said country has ruled said area for 151+ years: -5

Multiply

 * times 2/3 (country has vassals or is in personal union with another country)
 * times 1.5 (country is in civil disarray)

Discussion
Everyone okay with the rules? They should apply until we get into global wars. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 03:31, March 27, 2011 (UTC)

I strongly suggest in wars where the main nation targets a nearby colony of another far away nation that the main nation gets some sort of bonus. Anyone agree? Scandinator 12:59, July 31, 2011 (UTC)

We've had this issue before during the Brandenburg-Japan War. What we decided was that a) faraway countries get lower points, b) if a country causes a colony to lose 50% of its land, the colony is fully annexed. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 16:39, July 31, 2011 (UTC)

Wars?
I was just wondering... If this is going to be a feasible alternative history, shouldn't their be more conflicts? We are all (me included) trying to avoid even minor wars like it is the nuclear age. We have only had (correct me if I'm wrong ) two conflicts which have gone to an algorithm in the entire game! This is far less than would be expected in an actual history!Zagoria 14:23, July 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, Inca is under Chinese occupation (when they took it over, there was no War Algorithm, so I had to use colonization rules. Taking forever to annex though!) -CrimsonAssassin
 * There is a lot of territory not occupied by the chinese, is completely feasible for some user to control the Inca.However, you should estabilish a new colony to expand quicker in Inca territory.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 16:23, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * I attempted to make the Russo-Mughal phony war flame up, but to no avail. I think there will be some conflicts in the future as there certainly seems to be 2 seperate "alliance blocs" and nothing good can ever come from that. I've got some things up my sleeve in terms of radically changing my particular political spectrum, which in turn of course changes my particular alliance structure, but that is still quite a few years away. I also attempted to make the Iberian conflict flare up, but it ended pretty quickly since Emperor Fuiroz was assassinated. I've tried twice to start up a war, but both times the other sides backed down. Eh, hopefully it will happen sooner or later. JonAllenMichael 15:53, July 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * I attempted to make the Russo-Mughal phony war flame up, but to no avail. I think there will be some conflicts in the future as there certainly seems to be 2 seperate "alliance blocs" and nothing good can ever come from that. I've got some things up my sleeve in terms of radically changing my particular political spectrum, which in turn of course changes my particular alliance structure, but that is still quite a few years away. I also attempted to make the Iberian conflict flare up, but it ended pretty quickly since Emperor Fuiroz was assassinated. I've tried twice to start up a war, but both times the other sides backed down. Eh, hopefully it will happen sooner or later. JonAllenMichael 15:53, July 19, 2011 (UTC)

I agree but I can't think of a feasible way to carry it out. I don't expect any world wars, it's way too early to do so. Around this time, to my knowledge, wars are mostly limited to a few feuds and the general roar of war in Europe. I may plan to break up the power bloc in Southeast Asia sometime soon but my country is not ready. Also, people should not overlook civil wars as a realistic event. So I'll leave this to the Europeans to create small minor conflicts by invading each other. Part of the problem is our power blocs are too big. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 02:05, July 20, 2011 (UTC)

I guess a lot of it is my fault, for uniting Germany. Most of the wars of the time came from Germany and Italy. Maybe we should invite any new players to play as a minor Italian nation. Italy seems kind of neglected at this point.Zagoria 15:51, July 20, 2011 (UTC)

Well, the wars happened in Germany not just because it's Germany, but around this time they were mostly wars of religion, and Germany was just the melting pot of European religion. Since most nations have Freedom of Religion (which by the way, is a pretty foreign concept pretty much globally at the time) then they also have no real reason to fight religious wars. If a state doesn't endorse a religion, then why bother invading nation "x" because they are persecuting a particular faith? The 1600's was also characterized by Dynastic and Secessionist wars, which were basically just power plays by a major nation to alter the balance of power in their favor by either marrying into and forming a dynastic link with another nation, or by becoming pretenders to a throne. (See the War of Spanish Succession and the War of Austrian Succession.) Honestly, we have done exactly what the powers in Europe and Asia did at the time, we've established a balance of power, and we are maintaining the status quo. What would be interesting is if there was a royal crisis that perhaps divided Europe or Asia and destroyed the balance of power in either of those continents... I couldn't see a World War happening here as Europeans really didn't care what happened in Asia and visa versa at this time. Just a thought. JonAllenMichael 19:33, July 20, 2011 (UTC)

Im pretty sure many countries are avoiding most wars because of the complex net of alliances that are probably more complicated than the ones that started WWI! If one country attacks another half the world is either neutral because of mutual alliances with both combattants or of allies of allies of either side and if they support one ally they are attacking another one that is helping the other side.(btw this is Lx, i cant seem to log on here)85.237.50.123 07:09, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

Very true as well. I dunno, maybe having mod created political disasters as well as the enviromental disasters could perhaps change the landscape a little? JonAllenMichael 15:43, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

Flag Creation
So I'm attempting to expand the details of my nation, and I was wanting to be able to create some flags instead of reusing and rehashing old flags from the OTL. Is there a "how to" or anything like that for how to go about creating your own flag and coat of arms?? JonAllenMichael 01:22, July 21, 2011 (UTC)

1 2. There are many places online to find resources on making a good flag, but sometimes you just have to improvise. For coats of arms, a good idea to study Heraldry. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 03:08, July 21, 2011 (UTC)

Is there a good place that I can go to that will also teach me how to actually make the flags also, ie Photoshop?? JonAllenMichael 16:04, July 21, 2011 (UTC)

Jon's Rant on Rifles
So yeah, I know I'm not a mod, but there is one thing that bugs the heck out of me. I really hope I don't create enemies but... it bugs me that entire armies have been using Rifles since the 1550's. Look, I know that rifles have been around since then, but just because a technology has been around since a certain time period it does NOT mean that in an ATL countries can magically adopt it. First off, the technique to actually produce a rifle during this time period takes MUCH longer than producing a musket. Since everything is handcrafted, it makes it close to impossible to actually equip an entire army of a nation with just a rifle until the Industrial Revolution.

Even if you were able to explain in our ATL how you could manufacture such a complex firing system for an entire army, you would have to take into fact that the quality of gunpowder and metallurgy actually destroyed most rifles after around 50 shots. The residue of the gunpowder in 16th and 17th century rifles would foul the rifle and make it useless. Muskets didn't have to worry about this problem since they didn't have any grooves. Also, the fact that a pointed projectile hasn't been invented (that was invented in the early 18th century) means that ball ammo is absolutely going to destroy the rifling of your weapons.

So let's assume you have found a way to increase industrial production time, created a sufficient metallurgical process, found the secrets to modern black powder, and created a shaped round. Now that your army is completely equipped with rifles, I would honestly still go to war with you and I could probably guarantee that I would win. My army still uses matchlock muskets, so we have a firing rate of about 1 shot per minute, but if I adopt flintlock, I can fire on average about 2 a minute. If you are using a matchlock rifle, it would take about 3 minutes to load a round, and a flintlock rifle would take about 2. It takes this long not only because you have to ram the bullet down a rifled barrel, but also because you have to take extra steps to ensure you aren't fouling your gun. That means I'm sending twice as much lead down the field as you. Your argument then would be "Well, my guns are much more accurate!!" which you would be absolutely correct about, for about the first volley. We are firing 17th century black powder. You know in the movies how the smoke just whips away off the battlefield? Yeah that's because they are using about a hundred actors. Imagine tens of thousands of soldiers, firing their guns for hours on a battlefield. I promise you, you would lose any advantage of accuracy after about a minute, at which point more lead flying down the battlefield becomes all the more important. Why do you think it took so long for armies to adopt the rifle anyways? JonAllenMichael 16:20, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

Archive
This talk page is getting pretty big. I think we should archive it.

-CrimsonAssassin

You're right, I was waiting until it reached 100,000 and it has. Do me a favor and create the page Talk:Principia Moderni/Archive 1 and copy-paste everything above "Wars?" into the article but don't delete it from this article. I will do that myself. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 18:33, July 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * I already did that.-Collie Kaltenbrunner 22:10, July 23, 2011 (UTC)

who messed up the page?

An unregistered user I think. CrimsonAssassin 01:52, July 30, 2011 (UTC)

doesnt matter i fixed itLxCaucassus 02:14, July 30, 2011 (UTC)

Algorythm #3 (China/Vietnam/Commonwealth/Sweden vs Hanthawaddy/Russia)
Somebody can do it?--Collie Kaltenbrunner 07:50, July 30, 2011 (UTC)

I'll do China/Hanthawaddy and Sweden/Hanthawaddy. Would you be okay with following suit and doing Russia/China and Vietnam/Hanthawaddy? Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 16:14, July 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 17:11, July 30, 2011 (UTC)

Hanthawaddy

 * close to the location of war: 3
 * attacker's advantage: 1
 * Hanthawaddy/Russia/Kazakhstan: 9
 * military development: 5
 * expansion: 0
 * motive is religious: 7
 * 1061/336*pi = 992.032682% >3 pts
 * 18:17:32 > 1*8*1*7*3*2=336
 * Editcount: 1061


 * participating in the war: 10
 * country does not rule said area: 0

Total points: 3+1+6+5+0+7+3+10=35 pts

China

 * far from location of the war: 2
 * China/Vietnam/Commonwealth/Sweden: 12
 * side with greater population: 2
 * country has developed military: 1
 * expansion: 0
 * motive is life or death (country's sovereign existence is threatened): 10
 * 790/160*pi=1551.16137% >6 pts
 * 21:12:58 > 2*1*1*2*5*8=160
 * Editcount: 790


 * participating in the war: 10
 * said country has ruled said area for 151+ years: -5

2+12+2+1+10+6+10-5=38 pts

Result
(38/73-1/2)*2=0.0411% > Chinese victory: Hanthawaddy is expelled from China, and China is entitled to 1196 px (59800 sq km) of territory within Hanthawaddy which may be chosen by China, or alternate discussion may take place.

Discussion
kazachstan also was fighting china, does this count as a participant(it was a vassal state) in the algorithm or does it count as the amin country or as part points?(i know they pulled out but for some time they were fighting china they only fully pulled out in 1610 just before the algorithm so I think it should still count, i dont want to be unfair, this is curiosity, if it counts as full nation, then it sould be equal points and it should be status quo ante bellum or unti possedis treaty)

Yeah they count, sorry I missed that. For the sake of simplicity let's just apply it to this war and not the other two. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 17:56, August 1, 2011 (UTC)

Vietnam/Hanthawaddy War
Territory in question: OTL Thailand and Laos.

Hanthawaddy

 * close to location of war: 3
 * Russia/Hanthawaddy: 6
 * side with greater population: 2
 * country has developed military: 5
 * expansion: 0
 * motive is life or death (country's sovereign existence is threatened): 10
 * participating in the war: 10
 * said country has ruled said area for 151+ years: -5
 * 1067/24*pi=13966.9973% >9 pts
 * 1*6*1*2*1*2=24
 * Editcount: 1067

3+6+2+5+0+10+10-5+9=40

Vietnam

 * close to the location of the war: 3
 * Sweden/China/Commonwealth/Vietnam: 12
 * country has developed military: 0
 * expansion: 0
 * motive is political: 5
 * 3596/54*pi=20920.679967%>7 pts
 * 23:10:45 > 2*3*1*4*5=54
 * Editcount: 3596


 * participating in the war: 10
 * said country has ruled said area for 151+ years: -5

3+12+0+0+5+7+10-5=32

No Full Unity: 32 times 2/3 = 21.3333333

Result
40/61.3333333=0.652173913

2(Ans-0.5)=0.304347826

Decisive Mon victory. Hanthawaddy may annex 9,390 px (469,532 sq km) of Vietnamese territory from ante bellum, or arrange additional concessions via treaty. The Kingdom of Singburi is abolished and may be partitioned or fully annexed by Hanthawaddy or Vietnam.

Hanthawaddy

 * other side of the world: 1
 * attacker's advantage: 1
 * Russia/Hanthawaddy: 6
 * side with greater population: 2
 * country has developed military: 5
 * expansion: 0
 * motive is life or death (country's sovereign existence is threatened): 10
 * participating in the war: 10
 * said country has ruled said area for 31-80 years: 10
 * 1067/24*pi=13966.9973% >9 pts
 * 16:12:12 > 1*6*1*2*1*2=24
 * Editcount: 1067

1+1+6+2+5+0+10+10+10+9 = 54 pts

Sweden

 * close to the location of the war: 3
 * Sweden/China/Commonwealth/Vietnam: 12
 * country has developed military: 1
 * expansion: -3
 * motive is political: 5
 * participating in the war: 10
 * said country has ruled said area for 0-5 years: -5
 * 90/57*pi = 496.0409% > 4 pts
 * 00:35:32 > 3*5*3*2 = 90
 * Editcount: 57

3+12+1-3+5+10-5+4=27 pts

Result
54/81=0.66666

0.6666-0.5=0.1666666

0.166666*2 = 0.333333

Clear Mon victory. Hanthawaddy may annex 9,895 px (494,766 sq km) of Swedish territory from the point of ante bellum as part of its Toeh Ngoa Nyoing administration, or make additional concessions via treaty.