Talk:Principia Moderni III/Archive 6

Australian Aboriginal Tribes
European nations were not allowed to come into contact with the Aborigines of Australia until the 18th Century, this made Australia pretty much undiscovered. I think the Aboriginal tribes were controlled by moderators by now, which is why most of Australia is black which I think signifies unexplored areas. Now unlike the Europeans, the Aborigines however do know a little about Australia and where what tribe is settled so would it be possible for me to utilize this map of Australia? (I'll edit it so as to unite the northern tribes into Marrikuwuyanga)

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2cfphle&s=8

- RexImperio (talk) 10:56, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

Black signifies areas which are in a tribal, non-state-like form of government, as the Aboriginal groups were prior to European colonisation. You'll notice that on the map, the Marrikuwuyanga are light grey, to signify that (thanks to mod events) they are essentially an organised, state-style government (although still quite underdeveloped). After you've played as the Marrikuwuyanga for a while, it will be coloured in a distinctive colour to show that it is a player-controlled nation. You'll notice that around where Sydney is otl, there is a dark grey section of land which represents the Tharawal, who are semi-organised, but still essentially tribal.

A much better and more accurate map is this one from the ABC's Indigenous site.

Oh, and in future, please sign posts on the talk page by leaving four ~ in a row (or pressing the "Signature" button in the top panel). Callumthered (talk) 10:11, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

Edited in my signature + thank you -RexImperio (talk) 10:56, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

Hungary
Result: 87
 * Location: 3
 * Tactical Advantage: 7
 * Nations: Hungary (L), Poland (MV), Croatia (MV): 9/3 = 3
 * Military: 20/3: +7
 * Economy: +20 +15 (Much larger economy, Larger Trading Empire): 35/3 = +12
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +6 +4 + 5: 10
 * Chance: 7
 * Edit count: 10,213
 * UTC Time: 00:40 = 4
 * (10,213/4) * pi = 8021.27144278
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Population: 27
 * Participation: 10
 * Number of troops: 55,000/10,000 = 5.5 = 6

Banu Sulaym
Result: 28
 * Location: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: 1 + 2 (being invaded from the sea, open ground)
 * Nations: Banu Sulaym (L) = 5
 * Military: 3/20 = 0
 * Economy: 3/20 = 0
 * Infrastructure: 4
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +9 -5: 4
 * Chance: 1
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Population: 6 (no more than 500k)
 * Participation: 10
 * Number of troops: 10,000/55,000 = 0

Result
((87/(87+28))*2) - 1 = 8

Hungarian Victory. Hungary can claim 8% in their war against Banu Sulaym.. They can burn. It will take years to tumble them:

*(1-1/(2(12))) =

Due to negotiations with Alexandria, lands shall be transferred to the nation in the east as per this map.

Discussion
Negotiation, not "negociation".

Also, "they can burn"?

The Anon Grammar Nazi Who is certainly NOT Guns

Don't like em. Imp (Say Hi?!) 22:35, May 6, 2014 (UTC)

Really? You seemed so friendly towards them! (This is sarcasm).

22:57, May 6, 2014 (UTC)

No two motives over 5 are allowed. Saamwiil, the Humble 20:56, May 7, 2014 (UTC)

Both sides only have one nation. I'm not sure what you're talking about.

20:58, May 7, 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind. I think I understand. But to avod fuure confusion, they should be labelled, instead of just numbers. (Like what are your goals). There are some problems with the algorythm that I'm tweaking, but he should still be able to conquer them. Saamwiil, the Humble 21:08, May 7, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Impo, Modifiers are a seperate section than motive- look at the rules.

21:23, May 7, 2014 (UTC)

The war will not be taking 12 years, nor will Banu Sulaym have *1.5 - the first revolt happened 25 years ago. Imp (Say Hi?!) 22:38, May 8, 2014 (UTC)

12 year war between a major regional power and a bunch of disorganized rebels who have no serious weaponry (like artillery, etc).

2/10 would not call plausible.

(Also, before you draw up comparizons to the Vietnam war, the Viet Cong and the NVA were heavily armed, outnumbered the US troops, were extremely well organized, had huge amounts of popular support, knew how to fight in the terrain, and were supported by the OTHER major world power).

22:50, May 8, 2014 (UTC)

Resignation
Sorry everyone, I have not been able to post for the last week or so due to an illness in the family, and with exams and everything coming up I do not have the time to post. I think it is best that I take time off and resign from the game. I will probably be able to come back in about 50 turns or so, as a different country of course.

I have one request: please do not chew up and spit the Ottoman Empire up in less than a decade. The Ottomans at this time were at a high point in their political and territorial influence, and it is unfortunate that I will have to miss out on this. Obviously they're destined to fall, but at least try to be plausible about it (I remember my nation was taken over in less than one turn last game, lol.)

Hope to be back soon. Good luck to everyone in Arabia, may you give the Europeans a hard time--just don't attempt to create another Caliphate ;)

ChrisL123 (talk) 02:58, May 6, 2014 (UTC)

Oh no, Chris :(

I hope you're back soon, and I wish you good luck. Fed (talk) 03:03, May 6, 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, pity. See you next time. I recommend something in India or SE Asia, it's amazing.

22:07, May 6, 2014 (UTC)

Bye Chris! Cour *talk* 23:00, May 8, 2014 (UTC)

France

 * Location: close the location of the war +4
 * Tactical Advantage: Siege equipment +5
 * Nation Per Side: France (L), Africa(LV), Sardinia (MV)= 9/5 = 1.8 - 2
 * Military development: +20/7 = 2.85 =+3
 * Economic: +20/7 = 2.85 = +3
 * Motive: Attacking to enforce political Hegemony +11 (Non demo,supported by people)
 * Chance:6
 * Edit count 2445
 * 2443/10: 188.0769
 * 188.0769*pi :590.861
 * Nation age:+5
 * Population:+28
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of troops: 200.000/ 40.000 = 5
 * Total: 82

Tunisia

 * Location: +5
 * Tactical Advantage: +3 Fortifications?
 * Nation Per Side: Tunisia (L) = 5/13 = 0
 * Military development: +7/20 = 0
 * Economic: +7/20 = 0
 * Infrastructure +7
 * Motive: Defending from total annihilation +10
 * Chance:1
 * Nation age:+0
 * Population :+6
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of troops: 40.000/200.000 = 0
 * Total:42

Result

 * If this is alright (Which i'm dubious of) i should get 32% which added to the 18% i got from tunisia last time should mean 50% and allow me to topple the tunisian hafsid government, which means that the wars of north africa are over with me lol!

Discussion
Anything?? Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 04:31, May 9, 2014 (UTC)

Grats Sine. You deserve it after 3 whole wars. Just wait until the next round of Jihad is declared, lol. 07:35, May 9, 2014 (UTC)

Attacker (Marrikuwuyanga Empire)
Total: 163
 * Location: +4
 * Tactical Advantage: +2
 * Nations: Marrikuwuyanga (L), Ayutthaya (M) = 8/5 = 1.6 ~= +2
 * Military Development: 24/12 = +2
 * Economic Development: +12
 * Economic Bonus: -2
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +5
 * Chance: +119
 * Edit Count: 38
 * UTC: 10:11(1*1*1)
 * Total: 38/1*3.14 = +119
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 5 (40 000) +2 = +7
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 1800/180 = +10 (800 Marrikuwuyanga, 1000 Ayutthaya)
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Defender (Yolngu)
Total: 54
 * Location: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations: Yolngu (L) = 5/8 = 0.6 ~= 1
 * Military Development: 12/24 = 0.5 ~= +1
 * Economic Development: +14
 * Economic Bonus: +5
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: +7
 * Motive: +9
 * Chance: 0
 * Edit Count: 0
 * UTC: 0
 * Total: 0
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: +4 (9000)
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 180/1800 = 0.1 ~= 0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result
((163/(163+54)*2)-1 = 0.5023 %

So basically 50.23% of Yolngu territory is conquered. The state soon collapses and is declared part of the Marrikuwuyanga Empire

War lasts for 2 years in which Marrikuwuyanga conquers 37% of Yolngu territory

Discussion
Anything wrong?

http://www.abc.net.au/indigenous/map/

This is the Aboriginal Australian Map All of Australia North [Including Tiwi] is under Marrikuwuyanga control. In Arnhem, the following states are NOT under Marrikuwuyanga control

Reximperio
 * Nunggubuyu
 * Ngalakan
 * Dangbon
 * Rembarnga
 * Ngandi
 * Ngalkbun
 * Wardilninyakwa

Troop numbers seem a bit low.

Please write in what motive and modifiers you're giving yourself and your opponent (also, modifiers and motive are different sections).

Apart from that, looks good- but I'm not a mod.

23:29, May 9, 2014 (UTC)

I think the troop numbers are probably about right. Remember the tribes they are fighting are stone-age bands (I don't mean that in a derogatory way, it's just a fact). Callumthered (talk) 02:06, May 10, 2014 (UTC)

Exponential population growth
After some random discussion on the chat, I wanted to know what formula is used to determine the growth of population.

I mean, it could increase by a few percent every year, but as far as I know it should be this

Pt=P0*e^(r*t)

With Pt being the current population

P0 starting one

e being... well e

r growth per year

and t being time.

I wish to ask the mods, what is the % of r for nations?

Sky Green 24 15:15, May 9, 2014 (UTC)

Depends on the nation and the time period.

Any algo for population would be either very innacurate or ridiculously complex, so I don't think there's any point.

The mods will correct implausible population growth. Think about 1% for this time period (not counting additions, of course- for instance, my nation has expanded quite a bit over the last 40 years, which is why it's population has doubled.

23:23, May 9, 2014 (UTC)

ASB Mod Event
My sultan did denounce Christianity in 1497. So can you cross out this event for 1498.Since the assassination of my leader the new leader went to fix the proble and put things back to normal in my country. - Scarlet

Even if you did happen to denounce Christianity in your nation, the Muslim zealots would still be infuriated by your alleged freedom and tolerance for the heathens. Upon further inspection however it's clear that you never actually did denounce Christianity, in fact in the turn right after the assassination you claimed you were converting to Orthodox. Mscoree (talk) 14:54, May 10, 2014 (UTC)

They wouldn't be infuriated by tolerance because jizya, but Ms is right. 201.233.153.178 15:43, May 10, 2014 (UTC) ^That was me. Fed (talk) 15:46, May 10, 2014 (UTC)

Fed, he removed Jizya, that is what I was talking about when I said he was giving greater freedom to the them. Mscoree (talk) 19:35, May 10, 2014 (UTC)

Castile
Location:  +2


 * Castile: 2


 * Aragon: 2

Attacker: Nations Per Side on the War: +5 Military Development ​Economic Locations Bonus: +9 Economic Bonus Expansion N/A
 * Seige Equipment: 5
 * Castile (L) Aragon (L) 10/2
 * Castile: 20 Aragon: 20= +40/6 = +7
 * Castile: 20 Aragon: 20 = +55/6 = +10
 * Economic bonus +15
 * +5
 * Straits of Gibraltar
 * +2
 * −Seville (Castile)
 * −Barcelona
 * Much Larger Economy +10 Castile, Aragon
 * Larger Trade Colonial Empire +5: Castile, Aragon

Motive Chance Nation Age Population +8 Participation +10
 * Attacking to enforce political hegemony: +7 (Castile)
 * Aiding Ally (+3) =
 * Modifiers:
 * Non-democratic Government supported by people: + 8
 * Edit count=x
 * nonzero digit in time*nonzero digit in time=y
 * x/y*pi=z
 * Chance=Hundredth place of z
 * Castile: +0
 * Aragon: +0
 * +2 less than 5 times

Recent Wars: N/A

Number of Troops: +0 Total: 76
 * 12,300 / 25,000 =
 * Castile: 12,000 (Includes recruited auxilaries)
 * Aragon: 300

Mayans
Location:

Defender:
 * +5

Nations per side: Mil development: 
 * +2 (high ground ambush)
 * Maya: +5

Econ Dev:
 * +12/2 = +6/40= 0

Infra Dev: Expansion: N/A
 *  12/2 = +6/55 = 0
 * -2 (smaller economy)
 * +8/2 = +4

Motive: +9 (they are being conquered lol) Nation Age: 
 * Non dem supported +5

Population: +7
 * Antique nation (-15)

Participation: +10

Troops:  Total: 34
 * 25,000/12,300 = +2

Discussion
((76/(34+76))*2)-1 = 0.3818181818181818

(38.18%)*(1-1/(2*4)) 0.334075 = 33%

Mayans lose resoundingly and Castile conquers them

I have a question.. Doesn't the defender get location bonus? Because the attacker got location bonus in this one. Also, is it possible to develop both Military and Economy in one turn because I have been developing my Military only - RexImperio

German Coalition (Attacker)
Total: 92
 * Location 3
 * Hamburg: 5
 * Magdeburg: 3
 * Bavaria: 2
 * Trier: 2
 * Tactical Advantage: 5
 * Nations: Hamburg (L5), Mecklenburg (L5), Magdeburg (LV3), Bavaria (L5) Munich (LV3), Wurzburg (LV3), Trier (L5), Julich (LV3), Zweibrücken (LV3), Brandenburg (LV3), Bohemia (L5), Silesia (LV3), = 46/8 = 6
 * Military dev: 240/260 = 0
 * Hamburg: 20
 * Mecklenburg: 20
 * Magdeburg: 20
 * Bavaria: 20
 * Trier: 20
 * Munich: 20
 * Wurzburg: 20
 * Brandenburg: 20
 * Silesia: 20
 * Bohemia: 20
 * Zweibrücken: 20
 * Silesia: 20
 * Julich: 20
 * Econ dev: 240/140 = 2
 * Zweibrücken: 20
 * Silesia: 20
 * Julich: 20
 * Hamburg: 20
 * Mecklenburg: 20
 * Magdeburg: 20
 * Bavaria: 20
 * Trier: 20
 * Munich: 20
 * Wurzburg: 20
 * Brandenburg: 20
 * Bohemia: 20
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +55
 * Hamburg: 7+4
 * Mecklenburg: 5
 * Magdeburg: 5
 * Bavaria: 3+4
 * Trier: 3+4
 * Munich: 3
 * Wurzburg: 3
 * Brandenburg: 3
 * Bohemia: 3
 * Zweibrücken: 3
 * Silesia: 3
 * Julich: 3
 * Chance:
 * Nation Age: 2
 * Hamburg: 0
 * Mecklenburg: 0
 * Magdeburg: 0
 * Bavaria: 5 (unified 1415)
 * Trier: 0
 * Munich: 0
 * Wurzburg: 0
 * Julich: 5
 * Zweibrücken: 5
 * Brandenburg: 0
 * Bohemia: 5
 * Silesia: 5
 * Population: 7
 * Recent wars: 0
 * Participation: 10
 * Troops: 115,300/60,000 = 2
 * 20,000 from Hamburg and Mecklenburg
 * 5,000 from Magdeburg
 * 10,000 from Trier
 * 30,000 from Bavaria
 * 1,300 volunteers from Buxtehude
 * 3,000 lansquenets from the Luneburg area
 * Black Guard, numbering 6,000
 * 20,000 from Brandenburg
 * 20,000 from Bohemia

Russian Coalition (Attacker, Russian front)

 * Location: 4
 * Pskov: 5
 * Novgorod: 5
 * Lithuania: 4
 * Ukraine: 4
 * Tver: 4
 * Yaroslavl: 4
 * Tactical Advantage: 5
 * Nations: Pskov (L), Novgorod (L), Lithuania (LV), Ukraine (LV), Tver (LV), Yaroslavl (LV) = 20/14= 1
 * Military dev: 120/20 = 6
 * Pskov: 20
 * Novgorod: 20
 * Lithuania: 20
 * Ukraine: 20
 * Tver: 20
 * Yaroslavl: 20
 * Econ dev: 120/20 = 6+1=7
 * Pskov: 20
 * Novgorod: 20
 * Lithuania: 20
 * Ukraine: 20
 * Tver: 20
 * Yaroslavl: 20
 * Motive: 5
 * Pskov: 7+4
 * Novgorod: 3+4
 * Muscovy: 3+4
 * Lithuania: 3
 * Ukraine: 3
 * Tver: 3
 * Yaroslavl: 3
 * Chance:
 * Nation Age: 2
 * Pskov: 5
 * Novgorod: 5
 * Lithuania: 0
 * Ukraine: -5
 * Tver: 5
 * Yaroslavl: 0
 * Motive: 6
 * Pskov: 3+4
 * Novgorod: 7+4
 * Lithuania: 3
 * Ukraine: 3
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Troops: 50,000/20,000 = 3

Total: 58

Scandinavia (Defender)

 * Location: 3
 * Nations: Scandinavia (L), Schleswig (LV), Leubeck (LV), Bremen (LV), Albion (L), Scotland (MV), Wales (MV), Brittany (MV), Netherlands (L), Prussia (L), Courland (LV), Ossel-Wiek (LV), Eire (LV) = 38/13 = +3
 * Military dev: 260, 1
 * Scandinavia: 20
 * Schleswig: 20
 * Leubeck: 20
 * Bremen: 20
 * Netherlands: 20
 * Prussia: 40
 * Courland: 40
 * Ossel-Wiek: 40
 * Albion: 20
 * Eire: 20
 * Economic dev: 140, 0 (Albion and netherlands are added, Prussia is too cool for economic dev)
 * (Sorry their scores were never posted -Feud)
 * Motive: +59
 * Scandinavia: 5 +4
 * Schleswig: 5
 * Leubeck: 5
 * Bremen: 10
 * Netherlands: 3
 * Prussia: 3 +4
 * Courland: 3
 * Ossel-Wiek: 3
 * Albion: 3 +4
 * Eire: 3 +4
 * Infrastructure: 3
 * Expansion: 0
 * Chance:
 * Nation Age: -2
 * Scandinavia: 0
 * Schleswig: -5 (founded 1058)
 * Leubeck: 0 (independence in 1226)
 * Bremen: -5 (founded 1180)
 * Population: 7
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Participation: 10
 * Theaters of war: -5
 * Troops: 60,000 (Disputed)
 * Troops: +35,200
 * 25,000 from Prussia (half of army, other half sent to Russia)
 * 10,000 from Hungary
 * 200 from Roman Empire
 * Total: 79

(For Russian front) Please note I did not include the Scandinavian vassals, reasons below
 * Nations: Scandinavia (L), Prussia (L), Courland (LV), Ossel-Wiek (LV) = 14
 * Military dev: 140, 0
 * Econ dev: 20, 3
 * Motive: 14
 * Scandinavia: 5
 * Prussia: 3
 * Courland: 3
 * Ossel-Wiek: 3
 * Nation Age: (again, all 0s)
 * Participation: +10
 * Troops: +25,000 from Prussia and co. added to what ever plausible sized army is at the front.
 * Total: +42

Result
Do we need to do the equation?

Discussion
Sorry but the Russians may not join this war, they would need to wage their own war on Scandinavia and as they are 1. Russian and this is an HRE war not a Russian one. 2. They are located on the Eurasion front and not the Eastern European front. Russian forces would need their own algo against scandinavia as well as their own war. This is non negotiable.

I believe that this war isn't separate. We declared war as a direct result of the war in Germany to aid our allies against a mutual enemy. I don't see why we would make a separate algorithm. We basically made two and put it in one, using the new fronts system that you yourself pioneered. If you don't want us to use that then remove it from the rules, but we will follow the rules and use the front system. Fritzmet (talk) 22:09, May 10, 2014 (UTC)

For one, 10,000 troops are coming from Hungary - so less points there. Plus, Hungary will be an (M) too, so this algo needs to be changed. Imp (Say Hi?!) 22:30, May 10, 2014 (UTC)

Two algos are definitely necessary. ~Fed, whose internet is acting up and logging in is nightmarish

England, Scotland, Wales, Dublin, Brittany the Kingdom of the Eire and the French vassals of Burgundy and Loirraine are in, if you could add them to the algoALLONS-Y!!,Basically, RUN!! 22:35, May 10, 2014 (UTC)


 * Due to deliberating, Albion should not be added to the algo just yet. Cookiedamage (talk) 23:22, May 10, 2014 (UTC)

the netherlands are also joining as leaders on scandinavias side. With Blood and Iron (talk) 22:50, May 10, 2014 (UTC)

Not that I'm involved, but we need to define "non-lethal". As the one who wrote that motive section, I meant that the difference between the scores is less than the lower value. To put it in another sense, winner/loser is less than one.

Course, I defer to Feud here.

23:51, May 10, 2014 (UTC)

Is it really possible for Scandinavia's vassals to send support to the Russian front? And why are they listed as fives and fours when their capitals (including Scandinavia's) are a thousand miles away? It's also impossible for Scandinavia to send 50,000 to both fronts, let alone 60 or 70. Scandinavia also clearly has four vassals, and Bremen should at most be 9, not 10. Also, what's with all these 5 motives when at most they should be three?

I haven't got to the Russian algorithm yet, as that may be removed, but I fixed some things in the German one. Mscoree (talk) 00:25, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

Burn Scandanavia. Bring back the UNC.

Also, burn Hamburg. I've done it twice, I figure third times the charm.

00:36, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

After much delibration I have decided to declare my full support for Scandinavia. Both military and supplies. I also beleive Eire will also support me in this solemn endeveour. ALLONS-Y!!,Basically, RUN!! 01:06, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

^So Albion would under (M) and (S)? Cookiedamage (talk) 01:21, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

M all vassals I can put in without penalty are also MALLONS-Y!!,Basically, RUN!!

Let's start out by saying that Ms deserves to be impeached for starting this powder keg when he not only knew that one of his cronies wanted to attack me, but for subsequently having nations under his own watch (Brandenburg and Bohemia) attack me. Ms is a corrupt mod. I have pointed this out time and again. Not sure why other people haven't listened to me. Secondly, the other nations on my side need to be added. Andrew said that Albion, Wales, Scotland, and Brittany are supporting me against the Germans. Netherlands and all of her vassals have declared war as well. Prussia and Mazonia also need to be added. All of these guys are leaders. Hungary is aiding me with troops, as is the Byzantine Empire. There are the sides of the war. Sigh... Bananananananana BAT-CRIM 03:02, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

MS didn't start anything. He made an event that was later removed anyway, so its involvement is irrelevant. Austria isn't even involved, nor are his "cronies" (although every time you disagree with someone that definition grows). Based on the behavior I've seen from you this evening I'm not sure who the real bad mod is. You spent all this time insulting, harassing, and "acting drunken", to the point where Feud and everyone else in chat had to ask you to stop. And now the algorithm is locked for the night until you can calm down thanks to your immature behavior. Overall this is not the behavior I'd expect from a moderator, let alone an admin, and I recommend you spend the time this algorithm is locked to actually take a step back from things, lest you make things even worse for yourself. Fritzmet (talk) 03:09, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

^^ Plus Albion's support and the Neth. will be added tomorrow. Cookiedamage (talk) 03:11, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

Note how I said Brandenburg and Bohemia. Not Austria. I don't think you know what I mean by cronies. As explained MANY TIMES, they are people who follow Ms constantly, not people I disagree with. I spent absolutely zero time harassing anybody. The sorts of insults I flung were, to be honest, earned and deserved due to peoples' inability to actually read. If you think that was bad, you are not going to like LG. I was, to be honest, being an ass. The algorithm is locked because Ms is biased and you people think I'm biased. It's to prevent a shitstorm. If you would read into a situation instead of just scratch the surface, you would know this. I know your reading comprehension is not top-notch, however, so I'll sum it up. Fritz, you're wrong about everything that you said. Bananananananana BAT-CRIM 03:22, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

There's literally no point in arguing with you when you try to justify rude, insultive behaviour as well as trying to get us to believe you're not biased. Cookiedamage (talk) 03:30, May 11, 2014 (UTC)
 * Here we go again, but whatever. Here feud I saved you some trouble:
 * (for German front)
 * Nations: Scandinavia (L), Schleswig (LV), Leubeck (LV), Bremen (LV), Albion (M), Scotland (MV), Wales (MV), Brittany (MV), Netherlands (L), Prussia (L), Courland (LV), Ossel-Wiek (LV) = 34 -12 (six vassals) = 22, 0
 * Military dev: 220, 0
 * Scandinavia: 20
 * Schleswig: 20
 * Leubeck: 20
 * Bremen: 20
 * Netherlands: 20
 * Prussia: 40
 * Courland: 40
 * Ossel-Wiek: 40
 * Economic dev: 100, 0 (just Netherlands is added, Prussia is too cool for economic dev)
 * Motive: 5
 * Scandinavia: 5
 * Schleswig: 5
 * Leubeck: 5
 * Bremen: 10
 * Netherlands: 3
 * Prussia: 3
 * Courland: 3
 * Ossel-Wiek: 3
 * Nation age: (I believe they're all 0s)
 * Troops: +35,200
 * 25,000 from Prussia (half of army, other half sent to Russia)
 * 10,000 from Hungary
 * 200 from Roman Empire
 * (for Russian front) please note I did not include the Scandinavian vassals, reasons below
 * Nations: Scandinavia (L), Prussia (L), Courland (LV), Ossel-Wiek (LV) = 16, 0
 * Military dev: 140, 0
 * Econ dev: 20
 * Motive: 4
 * Scandinavia: 5
 * Prussia: 3
 * Courland: 3
 * Ossel-Wiek: 3
 * Nation Age: (again, all 0s)
 * Troops: +25,000 from Prussia and co. added to what ever plausible sized army is at the front.
 * First, I would like to point out the implausibility associated with Crims vassals, currently being invaded, sending support to the Russian front.
 * Second, I would like to point out Prussia is now also fighting a two-front war, as they are fighting both Brandenburg and the Russian states.
 * Third, there's almost no possible way Crim can have 70,000 troops fight on the Russian front. His entire army might, and that's a big might, be 70,000 strong, which comes out to around 3% of a population of 2.5 million, which I doubt Scandinavia has. The prospect of using the entire army numbers for a single front, when it can't possible accomplish, is insane.

albion also joined the war this turn so they also need to be addedWith Blood and Iron (talk) 10:53, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

I'm sending 10 dragons to aid Scandinavia, +10 for each dragon (jk). But as far as I've read on the 1498 turn, Novgorod is attacking to aid Hamburg (Motive: Aiding an ally), which doesn't really seem like a good reason to break a treaty. But anyways, another thing is that I don't see why the rest of Russia would suddenly rush to aid Novgorod in aiding Hamburg. And furthremore, Scandinavia is in some trade/military alliance with Albion and Netherlands. So no matter how the war ends most Russian nations would have issues when it comes to trading with the west. I just think it's a fool's move to do what they are doing Sky Green 24 11:26, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

Um Akbion should be a leader as well, I have a vested interest in retaining the status quoALLONS-Y!!,Basically, RUN!! 16:25, May 11, 2014 (UTC)
 * You just said you're sending military aid.
 * ^^ Sending military aid and/pr declaring support does not make you a leader in a war. Cookiedamage (talk) 16:45, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

Let him do what he wants with his nation. Also, add in Azov and Perm, as it seems Fritz's deal does NOT include vassal states. Fed (talk) 16:45, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

We're not going to randomly add Albion to leader status when he has not explicitly declared war. What that is is essentially manipulating the algo based on decisions said in chat or on talk pages. So no, he cannot just do what he wants with his nation unless he details it on the main page first. Cookiedamage (talk) 16:48, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

Novgorod isn't just aiding an ally. Their primary motive is taking back lost territory. Tr0llis (talk) 16:49, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

Bah ok, this is muh more calmALLONS-Y!!,Basically, RUN!!

KARMA, BITCH!

Told you to keep calling it the UNC.

Oh, no!

Hehehehehe

21:08, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

Ayutthaya (Attacker)
Total: 94
 * Location: 4
 * Tactical Advantage: +5 (siege weaponry, I've talked about it each turn since, like, 1485)
 * Nations: Ayutthaya (L), The Majapahit (LV), Siak (LV), Holland (M) = 14/5 = 3
 * Military Development: 52/4 = 13
 * Ayutthaya: 10 turns: +20
 * The Majapahit: 8 years: +16
 * Siak: 8 years: +16
 * Economic Development: 61/3 = 20
 * Ayutthaya: 10: +20
 * The Majapahit: 7: +14
 * Siak: 7: +14
 * Much Larger econ: + 10
 * Straits of Malacca: + 3 (You guys need to update that section, BTW)
 * Expansion: - 2 (War of Pre-Emption)
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: Taking Territory of Similar culture but not part of nation: +5
 * Modifiers: Support: 4
 * Chance: 3
 * Edit count: 7884
 * UTC: 12:05 = 10
 * Total: 7884/10*(3.14159265359) = 2476.83164809
 * Nation Age: (5+5+0)/3 = ~3
 * Ayutthaya: Mature (+5)
 * Siak: Mature (+5)
 * The Majapahit: Old: +0
 * Population: 8+20 = 28
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 65,000/20,000 = 3
 * Recent Wars: -2 (War of Pre-Emption)
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Pagaruyung(Defender)
Total: 27
 * Location: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: +2 (high ground, since some of my invasion is seabased, though not all.)
 * Nations: Pagaruyung (L) = 5/14 = 0
 * Military Development: 4/48
 * Economic Development: 3/61 = 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 4
 * Motive: +9 (defending from fatal attack)
 * Modifiers: Low Morale: -5
 * Chance: 1 (see above)
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 (0) =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: +5 (mature)
 * Population: 6 digits
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 20,000/65,000 = 0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result

 * ((94/(94+27))*2)-1 = 55.4%
 * (55.4)*(1-1/(2*2)) = 41.55 % after two years WHOA LOOK SAME RESULT

Discussion
This algorithm needs a lot of work. Mscoree (talk) 02:15, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so I have gone ahead and taken care of a few things. Firstly, you messed up the location. You would get a 4 and he would get a 5. You get a 14 for 5+5+5-2-2+3 for nations per side.

Then there are development scores. According to the NPC bonus, the NPC gets dev. scores for each year not in a war, so they get 20 years worth of dev. 7 years go into infra., 7 towards econ., and then 6 into mil.

You do not get high morale seeing as your chance is under 4. Furthermore, I'd assume the other nation would have support in defending the motherland. I had a mod's ok to do this, but all decisions can be debated, in theory. 02:46, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

Read the rules Rex. For the 20 years, the scores are then divided by 2 and rounded to the nearest whole number. The military score will not be 14, but in fact 4. Imp (Say Hi?!) 16:55, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

And I am having serious worries about the counting ability of some. Imp (Say Hi?!) 16:58, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

^ Same. I'm not sure what you're counting, Rex.

Agh, I forgot that about the Location.

This new rule is extremely stupid; it allows for Vivimpires once more.

I'm fixing it.

Furthermore, as the rules clearly state, NPCs don't get support unless the mods say so in a mod event.

20:06, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

Alexandria (Attacker)
Total: 64 so far
 * Location: 5+3+3+2+5 = 3.6 = 4
 * Tactical Advantage: +1
 * Nations: Alexandria (L) +5, Roman Empire (M) +3, Mughal Empire (M) +3, Ethiopia (MV), Alexandrian Aiguptia (LV) = 11/3 = 4
 * Military Development: 8 turns = 16/10 = 1.6 ~ +2
 * Economic Development: 2 turns = 4/5 = .8 ~ +1
 * Economic Bonus: +2 Alexandria, + 10 Much Large Economy, +5 Larger Trade +17
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 6 turns = 12 NA
 * Motive: +7 Enforcing Political Hegemony
 * Modifiers: 0
 * Chance: 3
 * Edit count: 2790
 * UTC: 810= 8
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =1095. 630437939513
 * Nation Age: 0 (mature)
 * Population: +18
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 49/10 = 5
 * 15,000 Alexandria
 * 10,000 Christian Aiguptia
 * 10,000 Ethiopia
 * 10,000 Roman Empire
 * 4,000 Mughal Empire
 * Recent Wars: Aiguptia -4 (Ls), Ethiopia -2 (L), Aiguptia (-2) -8
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Islamic Aiguptian (Defender)
Total: 22 * 1.5 Popular Revolt Bonus = 33
 * Location: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: +1
 * Nations: Aiguptian rebels (L) +5 = 5
 * Military Development: 10/16 = 0
 * Economic Development: 5/4 = 1
 * Economic Bonus: -2 Smaller Economy
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: +3
 * Motive: Aiding religious kinsmen who are being oppressed +7
 * Modifiers: -5 Troop Moral Low
 * Chance: 0
 * Nation Age: -10 Newborn
 * Population: 1,000,000 +7
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: TBD/10,000 =0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result

 * ((64/(33+64))*2)-1 = .319587 so far.
 * (.32)*(1-1/(2*0)) = 0
 * Rebellion is halted. I was told by mods that i only have to win a popular revolt rebellion in order to hold onto control.

Discussion
This is only the start, feel free to add the rest Sky Green 24 19:32, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

Do I even need an algo? g greg e  (talk)  19:41, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I think you are done. As far as I know if you win a rebellion you win.ALLONS-Y!!,Basically, RUN!! 20:40, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

You did screw up a bit.

For economy, you can only recieve ONE of those bonuses; ie, +5 OR +10, not both.

Furthermore, Ayutthaya sent you some supplies and some ships to aid with transport.

21:17, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

Ayutthaya (Attacker)
Total : 109
 * Location: 4
 * Tactical Advantage: +5 (siege weaponry)
 * Nations: Ayutthaya (L), The Majapahit (LV), Siak (LV), Holland (M) = 14/5 = 3
 * Military Development: 52/4 = 13
 * Ayutthaya: 10 turns: +20
 * The Majapahit: 8 years: +16
 * Siak: 8 years: +16
 * Economic Development: 61/3 = 20
 * Ayutthaya: 10: +20
 * The Majapahit: 7: +14
 * Siak: 7: +14
 * Much Larger econ: + 10
 * Straits of Malacca: + 3
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: Taking Territory of Similar culture but not part of nation: +5
 * Modifiers: Support: 4, Morale: +5 = 9
 * Chance: 9
 * Edit count: 7893
 * UTC: 8:36 = 144
 * Total: 7893/144*(3.14159265359) = 172.198547325
 * Nation Age: (5+5+0)/3 = ~3
 * Ayutthaya: Mature (+5)
 * Siak: Mature (+5)
 * The Majapahit: Old: +0
 * Population: 8+20 = 28
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 85,000/20,000 = 4 (I explained the troop increase in my turn)
 * Recent Wars: -4 (War of Pre-Emption, Pagaruyung)
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Selebar (Defender)
Total: 33
 * Location: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: 0 (Not attacking by sea this time)
 * Nations: Selebar (L) = 5/18
 * Military Development: +3/52 = 0
 * Economic Development: +4/61= 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: +4
 * Motive: 9 (defending against lethal attack)
 * Modifiers: Low morale: -5
 * Chance: 8 (see above)
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 (0) =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: -5 (Ancient)
 * Population: 7 digits
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 20,000/85,000 = 0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result

 * ((109/(33+109))*2)-1 = 53.5%
 * (53.5)*(1-1/(2*2)) = 40.125% 2 year war.

Ayutthaya (Attacker)
Total : 114
 * Location: 4
 * Tactical Advantage: +5 (siege weaponry)
 * Nations: Ayutthaya (L), Siak (LV), The Majapahit (LV), Aru (LV),Holland (M) = (5+5+5+5+3-2-2-4)/5 = 3
 * Military Development: 62/4 = 16
 * Ayutthaya: 10 turns: +20
 * The Majapahit: 8 years: +16
 * Siak: 8 years: +16
 * Aru: 5 years: +10
 * Economic Development: 71/3 = 24
 * Ayutthaya: 10: +20
 * The Majapahit: 7: +14
 * Siak: 7: +14
 * Aru: 5: +10
 * Much Larger econ: + 10
 * Straits of Malacca: + 3
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: Taking Territory of Similar culture but not part of nation: +5
 * Modifiers: Support: 4, Morale: +5 = 9
 * Chance: 6
 * Edit count: 7903
 * UTC: 12:36 = 36
 * Total: 7903/36*(3.14159265359) = 689.666853926
 * Nation Age: (5+5+5+0)/3 = ~5
 * Ayutthaya: Mature (+5)
 * Siak: Mature (+5)
 * The Majapahit: Old: +0
 * Aru: +5 (Mature)
 * Population: 8+20 = 28
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 90,000/20,000 = 5
 * Recent Wars: -6 (War of Pre-Emption, Pagaruyung, Selebar)
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Tulang Bawang (Defender)
Total: 21
 * Location: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: 0 (Not attacking by sea this time)
 * Nations: Selebar (L) = 5/15 = 0
 * Military Development: +3/52 = 0
 * Economic Development: +4/61= 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: +4
 * Motive: 9 (defending against lethal attack)
 * Modifiers: Low morale: -5
 * Chance: 6 (see above)
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 (0) =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: -15 (Antique)
 * Population: 7 digits
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 20,000/90,000 = 0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result

 * ((114/(21+114))*2)-1 = 68.8889%
 * (68.889)*(1-1/(2*1)) = ~34.4445% One turn, What's it called FALLS.

Possible Treaty-breaking penalty
In the recent war, two non-aggression pacts were broken: Novgorod->Scandinavia, and Prussia->Hamburg. Issues (especially the Novgorod one) were raised on chat, ranging from "they can't do that", to "they can break the treaty". Either way, I believe this will set a dangerous precedent, therefore, I'm suggesting a penalty be put in place if a nation breaks a non-aggression pact. The amount will be up to the mods.

Aye

 * Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 10:48, May 12, 2014 (UTC)
 * Callumthered (talk) 12:14, May 12, 2014 (UTC)
 * Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 13:02, May 12, 2014 (UTC)
 * Mscoree (talk) 14:10, May 12, 2014 (UTC)
 * Tardis.pngS-Y!!,Basically, RUN!!Tardis.png 14:35, May 12, 2014 (UTC)
 * Batmanlogonobackground.pngananananana BAT-CRIMBatmanlogonobackground.png 19:06, May 12, 2014 (UTC)
 * Fed (talk) 11:59, May 13, 2014 (UTC)
 * Fed (talk) 11:59, May 13, 2014 (UTC)

Aye

 * I completely agree. In OTL, when an alliance was broken nobles would be greatly distraught. Futhermore, other nations would stop respecting a nation, an effective death notice for some time in the future. Think of what would happen if the US elected a new leader and he declared war on traditional leaders. In EUIV, a pretty historically accurate game, stability drops when a treaty is broken. 06:40, May 12, 2014 (UTC)
 * With Blood and Iron (talk) 11:40, May 12, 2014 (UTC)
 * If people are allies as well you should also have the penalties. [[Image:Flag of Russian Alaska (HR).svg |40px|link=User talk:Octivian Marius]] OCT MARIUS, HAIL HIM  [[Image: Flag of Italy (Federalist Italy).svg|40px|User talk:Octavian Marius]]
 * One of the major problems I have with this game. Bfoxius (talk)
 * One of the major problems I have with this game. Bfoxius (talk)

Nay

 * I like the principle, but we already have a modifier that can be adapted for this- the War and Government not support by people mods. Just apply em here.
 * As the point above, however, broken treaties are a fact of history. Some nations do it more repetitevly than others. Saamwiil, the Humble 02:27, May 13, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
I assume we're just going to add a subtraction in the algorithm. Another alternative would be to have some sort of revolt if a nation does it twice within a certain amount of time. I think it should also be dependent on the level of treat. Breaking a trade agreement or something minor should be no effect, and maybe from a minor war (less than a certain amount of points in the previous algorithm) can have a lesser affect than a major war. Just some ideas there. Mscoree (talk) 14:47, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

A points hit in the algorithm could work, and for repeat offenders, possible revolts. It is a logical step, there are several games like EUIV that illustrate the instability of breaking a treaty, not to mention OTL instances in which the aggressor nations were looked on with distrust following the event. I don't think penalties should exist for breaking something minor like a trade agreement or cancelling diplomatic relations, only if they break alliances and Non aggression pacts.ALLONS-Y!!,Basically, RUN!! 14:50, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Probably something like this:
 * Minor Agreements (Trade, Relations, etc): 0
 * Minor War (Victory less than 15%): -1
 * Major War (Victory over 15%): -2
 * Second Offense within current reign and/or ten years (Of either of the last two): -4

The numbers may be tweaked, but I think something like that makes sense. Also possible revolts, apply as needed, for two or more offenses, and of course the general distrust other nations will surely feel. Mscoree (talk) 18:20, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

or the nations could get an automatic "War not Supported by People" in their motive? with stacking in the past 15 years?-Lx (leave me a message) 00:02, May 13, 2014 (UTC)

Guys- as Lx said, there is already a modifier for this.

00:20, May 13, 2014 (UTC)

Guns we aren't sure of the system yet. You basically just voted no but yet in the comments described how we could implement this with the already existing system, so which are you? Mscoree (talk) 10:40, May 13, 2014 (UTC)

I'm saying "we already have this, there's no reason to change the rules".

20:28, May 13, 2014 (UTC)

Editing Past Turns
Hey, guys. Something that I noticed that was happening big time during the last major war: people editing past turns. We used to crack down on this hard in Principia Moderni II and I'm not sure why we aren't now. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons why a user may want to edit a past turn. However, it's up to a user to make sure that his/her post remains on the page. Mods will help you out on this, but it ultimately falls on your shoulders. During this war, I saw people posting in turns that were over, adding things to their posts or even adding posts in general. We allow a window of opportunity after midnight UTC to add or edit your posts. Let's stick to this window.

We are going to start cracking down on this again. Apologies to anybody who was unclear on this rule.

Thanks,

Bananananananana BAT-CRIM 19:20, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

As it stands, nobody is allowed to edit a previous turn after 06:00 UTC (about midnight in some areas). However, since many may not have been able to make their edit before that time, some go ahead with it either when they wake up, or when they have the time (since many of the players have jobs, at least I hope they do). So it truly depends on the situtation of the player. It would be up to the mods to figure out the time tables of each player, and depending on their circumstances, I can possibly see some allowances to the rule. But like I said, it all depends on the individual player's circumstances. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 19:28, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

The accepted norm since Lurk cracked down hard on past turns' is you are allowed ~1 hr after the end of the year to post. Not much more. Imp (Say Hi?!) 12:24, May 13, 2014 (UTC)

Uhh... not to nag, but for some ~1 hr after the end of the year is 3 A.M. What I would like to suggest is that for players with that issue, they are allowed to post their turns 'till 6 A.M. UTC, but aren't allowed to declare war, offer treaties, trade agreements etc. if they post after the new turn starts Sky Green 24 15:24, May 13, 2014 (UTC)

May i have Michigan?
I would like Michigan as a nation soon, after it gains independence. Is this alright? In the mean time, with the mayans dead, i would like to be the Vatican City again. May i?

There will be no jumping around to different nations. The rules technically don't allow it, unless the user's first nation is destroyed. Once you commit to a nation, you cannot change. If you're waiting for a nation, you may not sign up as another nation in the meantime, you will just have to wait. Cour *talk* 21:44, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

Location
Look, I'm not trying to be annoying about this- and it works fine for now- but this kind of "location doesn't matter" attitude is what led to the Caliphate and the Vivimpires (no offense intended, Viva; it's just the common lingo). At the present moment, Castille could probably annex the Fusahito Theocracy, or at least get a percentage north of 33%.

However, I do see some of the reasoning for the switch from multiple of five, so instead let me suggest this:

Location is done in PENALTIES, of power of two. Alternately, multiples of four. Thoughts, anyone?
 * At Location of War: -(2^0) = -1 (You still have to move your troops, after all)
 * Bordering Location of War: -(2^1) = -2
 * Near Location of War: -(2^2) = -4
 * Close to Location of War: -(2^3) = -8
 * Far from Location of War: -(2^4) = -16
 * Other side of the world: -(2^5) = -32
 * At War: +20
 * Bordering War: +16
 * Near War: +12
 * Close to War: +8
 * Far from War: +4
 * Other side of the world: +0

I have to say, it matters less right now, but in the next couple of centuries- especially in the 1600s and 1700s, before industrialization- location implausibility will become huge.

23:04, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

The Caliphate was, besides Ethiopia, completely contiguous and only declared war on contiguous states, so no, that doesn't support you, but I do see a need for distance to become a factor. Being able to lead a war half a continent away should be made harder. A continuous penalty of one though wouldn't make sense, as it would basically make participation a 9. Saamwiil, the Humble 02:21, May 13, 2014 (UTC)

The penalty system is much better/plausible/makes sense. The invader is the one that has to deal with transporting soldiers, resources, provide shelter thus it would be simple to say that the invader must suffer penalties. But that's only my opinion

~ RexImperio

I prefer the penalty option. The defender will always get a minus one- but hey, they have to move their troops too; and the attacker can get a -2 at best, since they still have to move across the border.

20:59, May 13, 2014 (UTC)

I think the penalty system is fine, but somebody who can conceptualize math better should make sure that the lower overall scores will not mess up the algo formula for results. 23:31, May 14, 2014 (UTC)

No, I calculated. It still will not be possible to get negative scores, unless you are attacking from the other side of the world with absolutely no development- which would never be done, of course. To completely forestall that, participation could be raised to 15 for both sides.

23:39, May 14, 2014 (UTC)

Teraty-Breaking Proposition...and something more
as you guys know, History is not all sunshine and butterflies, and, sometimes, despite some nations' best intentions, and learders' competance, sometimes politics, intrigue, and downright bad luck ruin crops, spur religious fundamentalism(decrying the governement as sinful, and detatched from devine will), or simply rival politicians looking for vengance(I'm looking at you Congressman Underwood). so I hereby propose that a system, combining ruler age, political family/dynasty, reign length, war outcome, warmongering, treaty-breaking, and base "revolt risk" and perhaps more to combine to a chance to have a negative mod event hit every nation, and, if not dealt with, be headed for full-on rebellion.-Lx (leave me a message) 01:24, May 13, 2014 (UTC)

100% agreed. Bfoxius (talk)

Questions
1) Is there a certain limit to the number of wars that may take place in let's say '10 years'

2) I have seen some people expand 1000-4000km while some expand 50km. Any particular reason for the difference?

3) How do we know which nation has a stronger military or economy other than the point system? I mean if a tribal nation and a nation in Europe develop their economy each turn, they'd end up with equal points..

4) If one army uses gunpowder weaponry whilst another uses swords, where one the algorithm would the former gain a bonus?

5) When PvP wars end and one nation gets 33% 34% land from the opponent, will the loser have all of his land annexed? Or to show plausibility and also role play; will a treaty be formed?

~ RexImperio

1. There isn't necessarily a limit, but at the same time you need to make sure it's plausible. Having too many wars will bankrupt your nation and heavily lower your stability. Having more than two in a decade, especially expansionist/offensive wars will likely collapse your nation.

2. Details on how fast you can colonize can be found on the rules page. Some nations can expand faster than others, and older colonies can also expand faster. This again comes down to plausibility too, meaning even if a nation is allowed to expand say 5000 sq mi, it doesn't mean they can/should expand by that much constantly.

3. This is something that is often criticized about the algorithm. For the most part anyway a nation that has a higher quality military will feel that effect somewhere else in the algorithm, such as number of troops.

4. That currently isn't accounted for in the algorithm, but perhaps that can be a new addition soon.

5. If a nation gets 34% or higher in an algorithm it means they topple to enemy government. From here you can theoretically do whatever you want, such as annex all their land, but in practice for plausibility the gains have to make sense, and the attacker must be capable of actually taking that particular land. Either way a treaty is usually formed.

Anyway, I hopes that helps to answer some of your questions. Mscoree (talk) 18:00, May 13, 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, it was indeed helpful - RexImperio

Actually, no. Technology IS factored in, as a country with better tech will have a much bigger economy, population, and thus more troops, etc.

When industrialization comes in, that'll grant a multiplier.

20:58, May 13, 2014 (UTC)

Ayutthaya (Attacker)
Total : 111
 * Location: 4
 * Tactical Advantage: +5 (siege weaponry)
 * Nations: Ayutthaya (L), Siak (LV), The Majapahit (LV), Aru (LV),Holland (M) = (5+5+5+5+3-2-2-4)/5 = 3
 * Military Development: 62/4 = 16
 * Ayutthaya: 10 turns: +20
 * The Majapahit: 8 years: +16
 * Siak: 8 years: +16
 * Aru: 5 years: +10
 * Economic Development: 71/3 = 24
 * Ayutthaya: 10: +20
 * The Majapahit: 7: +14
 * Siak: 7: +14
 * Aru: 5: +10
 * Much Larger econ: + 10
 * Straits of Malacca: + 3
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: Taking Territory of Similar culture but not part of nation: +5
 * Modifiers: Support: 4, Morale: +5 = 9
 * Chance: 5
 * Edit count: 7917
 * UTC: 9:01 = 9
 * Total: 7917/9*(3.14159265359) = 2763.55433761
 * Nation Age: (5+5+5+0)/3 = ~5
 * Ayutthaya: Mature (+5)
 * Siak: Mature (+5)
 * The Majapahit: Old: +0
 * Aru: +5 (Mature)
 * Population: 8+20 = 28
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 97,000/20,000 = 5
 * Recent Wars: -8 (War of Pre-Emption, Pagaruyung, Selebar, Tulang Bawang)
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Tulang Bawang (Defender)
Total: 20
 * Location: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: 0 (Not attacking by sea this time)
 * Nations: Selebar (L) = 5/15 = 0
 * Military Development: +3/52 = 0
 * Economic Development: +4/61= 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: +4
 * Motive: 9 (defending against lethal attack)
 * Modifiers: Low morale: -5
 * Chance: 4 (see above)
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 (0) =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: -15 (Antique)
 * Population: 7 digits
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 20,000/97,000 = 0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result

 * ((111/(20+111))*2)-1 = 69.5%
 * (69.5)*(1-1/(2*1)) = ~34.75% One turn, What's it called FALLS.
 * Jakarta goes to the Dutch, the rest to Ayutthaya.

Albion

 * Location: 3
 * Tactical Advantage: Siege equipment, ambush +7
 * Nation Per Side: Albion (L), Scotland (L), Wales (LV), Eire (L), Brittany (MV), Scandinavia (M) = 23/14 = 2
 * Military development: 80/68 = 1
 * Albion: 20
 * Scotland: 20
 * Eire: 20
 * Wales: 20
 * Economic: 80/(68/2) = 3 + 15 = 18
 * Albion: 20
 * Scotland: 20
 * Eire: 20
 * Wales: 20
 * (larger colonial empire + much larger economy)
 * Motive: 26
 * +6 +5 +3 +3 = 17
 * (modifier) +3
 * +6 (morale high)
 * Chance: 9
 * Edits: 1911
 * 00:30 = 3
 * (1911/3)*pi = 2001.1945203
 * Nation age: +5
 * Population:+27
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent wars: -6
 * Number of troops: 90000/40000 = 2
 * Total: 107

Hamburg

 * Location: 4
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nation Per Side: Hamburg (L), Mecklenburg (L), Holstein (LV), Bremen (LV), Lubeck (LV), Madgeburg (LV): 22 - 8 = 14/23 = 0
 * Military development: 68/80 = 0
 * Hamburg: 20
 * Mecklenburg: 20
 * Holstein: 2
 * Bremen: 2
 * Lubeck: 2
 * Madgeburg: 20
 * Economic: (68/2)/80 = 0 -2 = -2
 * Hamburg: 20
 * Mecklenburg: 20
 * Holstein: 2
 * Bremen: 2
 * Lubeck: 2
 * Madgeburg: 20
 * Smaller economy
 * Motive: 31
 * +9 +5 +5 +5 +5 +5
 * (modifier) +3
 * -6 (morale: all categories score lower, recent war)
 * Chance: 5
 * 879
 * 01:00 = 1
 * (879/1)*pi = 2761.4599425
 * Nation age: +0
 * Population: +6
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent wars: -18
 * Number of troops: 40,000/90,000 = 0
 * Total: 39

Result
((107/(107+39))*2) - 1 = 0.465753424

Albion and Co can claim 46.6% of Hamburg and Co.

(46.6)*(1-1/(4)) = 34.95

If the war lasts 2 years, Albion can topple the government of Hamburg.

Discussion
Imp will come and fix things ~Andrew

I would seriously like to question the plausibility of Albion deciding to launch an unprovoked, amphibious, 90,000 man invasion only two years after they were involved in a full-scale war. Really think about it, would the populace be ready to launch an invasion so soon? I think not. I am that guy (talk) 03:52, May 14, 2014 (UTC)

Revenge has caused a lot of wars OTL. Its the same ATL. Imp (Say Hi?!) 13:20, May 14, 2014 (UTC)

We all just got done got done with one of the largest wars in PMIII, we all lost tens of thousands of soldiers, and now he wants to invade unprovoked only two years later? And he wants to do it in some D-Day scale amphibious invasion? There's no way any country would launch an invasion like this after only one year of peace, its insane, it's not smart economically, it's not smart politically, it's not smart militarily. Any reasonable country would wait years, wait for the people to move on from the last war, wait for his military to fully recover, and wait for his supplies to recover. I'm not saying he can't have his war of revenge, I'm saying a war of revenge after only a year of peace after the largest war he's been involved in is crazily implausible. I am that guy (talk) 13:36, May 14, 2014 (UTC)

Not really that implausible, Scandinavia is ruled by an implausible ruler. If he is, for example, as eccentric as Louis XIV, he could pull a move like this. Of course it would further hurt the Scandinavian economy, influence the trade in that are and stuff like that.

TL;DR He can do it, it's just not a smart idea. Sky Green 24 14:35, May 14, 2014 (UTC)

And how did Scandinavia come into this argument? Bananananananana BAT-CRIM 14:51, May 14, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry thought you were listed as L. Sky Green 24 15:23, May 14, 2014 (UTC)

Technically I didn't lose much but a little bit of resources in the last war. Revenge, as imp said, is a powerful motivator. Politically it make more since for me to have a retaliton strike than to wait a decade then do it. My troop strength and economy were largely uneffected. Yak and I were probably the only to nations involved that didnt get demolished economically and actually emerged somewhat ok. As for the population arguement, when you've pissed off an entire nation of people they dont listen to reasonable arguements, they want their payback.ALLONS-Y!!,Basically, RUN!! 16:11, May 14, 2014 (UTC)

Oh and calling me a bloddy crony illustrates part of the reason I am warring with you. You are an arrogant and insolent. I am noones crony I saw an oppurtunity and seized, much like you did when you attack a nation that wasn't harming you. Shut up guy. You obviously love to insult others. ALLONS-Y!!,Basically, RUN!! 16:17, May 14, 2014 (UTC)
 * I insulted no one until you attacked me (in game and personally) for no reason, turn about fair play. We just got done with this giant war, and you go attacking right out of the blue. You are just admitting you are doing this for OOC reasons. You didn't lose all that much in the war, so revenge is highly doubtful. I am that guy (talk) 17:15, May 14, 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, replace Crim with Ms, you with Fritz or Cookie, and myself with you or crim, oh my god in heaven, the crony accusations that would be flying.I am that guy (talk) 17:34, May 14, 2014 (UTC)


 * Look i will not argue with you anymore. i attacked, I won, the end. I will not call you any names, other than what i already have, which seems to describe your personality quite well. This conversation is over. I did not attack out of the blue, I made it quite clear IN CHAT and in game that I was gunning for you, all you did was lol. Your fault not mine. This is over. Now. 97.65.25.162 18:58, May 14, 2014 (UTC)
 * I did no such thing. You told me mere hours from this you though of it, but decided not. I then told you I wanted to better relations. You also lost next to nothing in the war, so revenge is a BS, cop out. Anyway, I see you don't like being called a crony, not so fun is it? Your personality also fits your accusations of me, and is accurate for deciding to launch an unprovoked invasion after only one year of peace.I am that guy (talk) 20:48, May 14, 2014 (UTC)

Actually I did say that on main chat and you and tr0ll were being really obnoxious about it. I had bee struggling with whether opto invade or not. I'm not arrogant nor a prick, I was never haughty never rude on chat, alway polite, you weren't.it isn't a cop out. Look you obviously won't see my side of things and I won't see yours just drop it, I'm not changing my mind., again it wasn't unprovoked you keep saying it was, but it isn't. Either way I'm done segueing with you. Please have a good day.ALLONS-Y!!,Basically, RUN!! 21:00, May 14, 2014 (UTC)
 * If I was rude, it was in response to being insulted myself. And while Tr0llis might've, I never was obnoxious about it, I cared not for prolonging the bitterness, but here we are by your hand.I am that guy (talk) 21:08, May 14, 2014 (UTC)
 * FINALLY! Someone burnt Hamburg!
 * 
 * 21:49, May 14, 2014 (UTC)
 * Andy, you lost nothing, you have nothing to take revenge on, you have no reason to invade, especially so soon after a giant-a** war. I am that guy (talk) 05:23, May 15, 2014 (UTC)

This war is nothing but BS, it was started over an OOC disagreement, there is nothing for Albion to take revenge on as they lost nothing. The fact that the mods decided to turn the other cheek as one of their own committed this ultimate ASB act is unbelievable. I am that guy (talk) 00:42, May 16, 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Venice (Attacker)
Total: 92
 * Location:
 * Milan: 5
 * Austria: 5
 * Roman Empire: 5
 * Crete: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: +5 (siege weaponry)
 * Nations: Milan (L), Austria (L), Roman Empire (L), Crete (L), Padua (LV), Swabia (LV), Albania (LV) = 29, 2
 * Military Development: 140/56 = 3
 * Milan: 20
 * Austria: 20
 * Roman Empire: 20
 * Crete: 20
 * Padua: 20
 * Swabia: 20
 * Albania: 20
 * Economic Development: 140/56 = 3
 * Milan: 20
 * Austria: 20
 * Roman Empire: 20
 * Crete: 14
 * Padua: 20
 * Swabia: 20
 * Albania: 20
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: 61
 * Milan: 5+4
 * Austria: 3
 * Roman Empire: 5+4
 * Crete: 9+4
 * Padua: 5+4
 * Swabia: 3
 * Albania: 5
 * Chance:
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Milan: 5
 * Austria: 0
 * Roman Empire: 0
 * Crete: -5
 * Population: 8+2=10
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 125,000/15,000 = 8
 * Milan: 20,000
 * Austria: 20,000
 * Roman Empire: 40,000
 * Padua: 5,000
 * Swabia: 20,000
 * Albania: 10,000
 * Crete: 10,000
 * Recent Wars:
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Venice (Defender)
Total: 40
 * Location: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: 0
 * Nations: Venice (L), Epirus (L), Candia (LV), Kaffa (LV) = 16, 0
 * Military Development: 56, 0
 * Economic Development: 56, 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 12
 * Motive: 9 (defending against lethal attack)
 * Chance:
 * Nation Age: -3
 * Venice - -15
 * Epirus - 5
 * Candia - 0
 * Kaffa - 0
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 15,000, 0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Discussion
At this point you can get 39%. Enjoy your piping hot slices of Venice. --Yank 00:45, May 14, 2014 (UTC)

France

 * Location: close the location of the war +4
 * Tactical Advantage: Siege equipment +5
 * Nation Per Side: France (L), Burgundy(LV), Lorraine (LV)= 11/11 = 1
 * Military development: +54/42 = +1
 * Economic: +60/60 = +1 (Much Larger economy, Larger Colonial Empire) +15 = 16
 * Motive: Attacking to enforce political Hegemony +28, (Troop morale high)
 * Chance:
 * Edit count 2445
 * 2443/10: 188.0769
 * 188.0769*pi :590.861
 * Nation age:+5
 * Population:+28
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of troops: 200.000/ 25.000 = 8
 * Recent wars:-8
 * Total: 98

Trier

 * Location: at the location of the war +5
 * Tactical Advantage: no defense, Open field +1
 * Nation Per Side: Trier (L), Julich(LV),Zweibrucken (LV)= 11/11 = 1
 * Military development: +42/54= +0
 * Economic: +60/60 = +1
 * Infrastructure:15/0 = 15
 * Motive: 12
 * Defending Heartland from attack that will not cripple/ destroy nation: +5 +5 +5 = 15
 * +3 (Non demo,supported by people)
 * Low morale -6
 * Chance:
 * Edit count 2445
 * 2443/10: 188.0769
 * 188.0769*pi :590.861
 * Nation age:+3
 * Population: +7
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of troops: 25,000/200,000 = 0
 * Recent wars:-18
 * Total: 37

Result
(98/(98+37))*2)-1 = 0.4518 45% of Trier can be annexed, therefore causing a fall in the government.

(45.18)*(1-1/4)) = 33.885

In two years, France can overthrow the government of Trier, and establish it as their puppet or vassal.

Discussion

 * Hells yeah niggas lol

Algo Editions by non authorized

 * If you arent fed or imp paste here your edits

A few changes:

France
 * Location: close the location of the war +4
 * Tactical Advantage: Siege equipment +5
 * Nation Per Side: France (L), Burgundy(LV), Lorraine (LV)= 11/11 = 1
 * Military development: +54/42 = +1
 * Economic: +60/60 = +1 (Much Larger economy, Larger Colonial Empire) +15 = 16
 * Motive: 9
 * France: 3 (Economic/territorial gains)
 * Burgundy: 3 (Aiding Ally)
 * Lorraine: 3
 * Chance:
 * Edit count 2445
 * 2443/10: 188.0769
 * 188.0769*pi :590.861
 * Nation age:+5
 * Population:+28
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of troops: 200.000/ 25.000 = 8
 * Recent wars:-8
 * Total: 79

Trier
 * Location: at the location of the war +5
 * Tactical Advantage: no defense, Open field +1
 * Nation Per Side: Trier (L), Julich(LV),Zweibrucken (LV)= 11/11 = 1
 * Military development: +42/54= +0
 * Economic: +60/60 = +1
 * Infrastructure:15/0 = 15
 * Motive: 14
 * Trier: 9
 * Julich: 5
 * Zweibrucken: 5
 * +3 (Non demo,supported by people)
 * Low morale -6
 * Chance:
 * Edit count 2445
 * 2443/10: 188.0769
 * 188.0769*pi :590.861
 * Nation age:+3
 * Population: +7
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of troops: 25,000/200,000 = 0
 * Recent wars:-3
 * Total: 55

I thought there was a tactical advantage for defenses too? I have been building defenses non stop since about the beginning of the game. NonEuclidean ツ (Talk) 00:53, May 14, 2014 (UTC)

Work and Uni
Hey guys, srry I haven't been on for a while. Uni and work are keeping me busy. I should be back in three weeks. Scandinator (talk) 10:10, May 14, 2014 (UTC)

Fusahito Theocracy (Attacker)
Total: 92
 * Location: 3
 * Tactical Advantage: +5
 * Nations: Ayutthaya (L)=5/5=1
 * Military Development: 8
 * Economic Development: 5
 * Much larger economy: +10
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: Aiding Social/Moral/Religious/Ideological kinsmen who are being oppressed: +7
 * Modifiers: Support: 4 + troop morale high:5 = 9
 * Chance: 6
 * Edit count: 186
 * UTC: 17:35 = 105
 * Total: (186/105)*pi = 5.565106986
 * Nation Age: +0 (Maturing)
 * Population: 7 + 20 = 27
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 12000/9000 = 1.33 = 1
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Ryukyu (Defender)
Total: 55
 * Location: 4 (troops are landed on northern islands)
 * Tactical Advantage: +2 (high ground, invasion from sea)
 * Nations: Ryukyu (L) = 5/5 = 1
 * Military Development: 7
 * Economic Development: 8
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 7
 * Motive: +5 (Defending heartland from attack that will not cripple/destroy nation)
 * Modifiers: none (supported gov. only for player nations)
 * Chance: 5
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 (0) =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: +0 (Maturing)
 * Population: 6 digits
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 9,000/12,000 = 0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result

 * ((92/(55+92))*2)-1 = 25.17%
 * (p)*(1-1/(2x)) = 25.17*(1-(1/2*3)) = 20.98% in three turns

Discussion
This is just the begining, although I'd like a mod to help. I've put the motive of Ryukyu +5 because this is not an expansionistic war but one that is there to stop slave trade. Done for Ozymandias2 Sky Green 24 19:17, May 14, 2014 (UTC)

Algo Editions by non authorized

 * If you aren't a PMIII mod please post your editions here.

ASB collapse of the Philidelphi
Moved from gamepage:

'''A freak storm causes several ships to collide in the canal, blocking it off. To further complicate things, large amounts of sand is dumped into the canal by the winds trapping many more ships. This incident closes off the canal with repairs expected to take at least a decade. It also calls into question the feasibility of the canal itself as yearly dredging costs seem to be higher than the benefit to the Alexandrians.'''
 * I'm sorry, but nature just doesn't work like that. A canal is a massive national project, and the idea that a "freak storm" could destroy a heavily reinforced man-made canal is both implausible and impossible. Canals are designed to weather the assaults of nature, and go so far as to cut into the land. No amount of sand will ever be able to shut down a 120 mile long canal built into the land. Even when the canal was purposefully blocked by Nasser in the 1960-70s, the Egyptians had to sink whole ships just to block off portions of the canal. Plus, that region is very stable weather-wise. Your not going to have any major storms in that region since there isn't enough cold air in the area to interfere with the warm air cells that blanket the region. So no storms unless you can plausibly explain the climate and geography that could permit such an event. ~Viva


 * 'Tis slightly different, however, there is the hydroelectric dam in Egypt that is being slowlyblocked by sand, because a flaw in the design of the architecture. A canal in 1500 A.C.E. is bound to have plentyof arcitectural flaws, not to mention the lack of the support of modern equipment.
 * Yeah, another negative mod event :/ Could you (preferably signed) explain how ships would collide due to storm. I presume that many of the ships would dock when they see a massive storm coming (especially if its someting they have never seen that bad before). I just dont really understand this event. If the storm is really that massive shouldnt it effect a lot more than just Alexandria.
 * This event is somewhat BS. Yes, it IS possible for a storm to wreck a couple of ships as they pass through the canal, but it's highly unlikely, and it would take just two or three other ships to pull said ship out of the canal. Total repair time: one week. Plus, what, ten years because if it's non-European it can't succeed? Ebul Mosslems must die? ~G

My personal opinion is that it IS somewhat ASB. 22:17, May 14, 2014 (UTC)

If the mods want to punish Alexandria (which would be the only explicable motive) then they should attack the nation, not the Canal. The Canal was already ruled plausible, and therefore any attempts to destroy it due to plausibility should be stopped. 23:47, May 14, 2014 (UTC)

And destroying a plausible canal implausibly is NOT the way to go.

I think you've punished Alexandria enough, anyway- they just had a rebellion.

00:02, May 15, 2014 (UTC)

I feel like it might be meant as a punishment for all eastern mediteranean countries, as we have just formed a trade alliance, with the intent of setting up trade ports along the african coast. Stephanus rex (talk) 01:23, May 15, 2014 (UTC)

I doubt that it is in order to punish you for the alliance, however, the consequences of the canal being blocked are damage to the economy of any nation that trades in Asia. I don't quite understand why anyone would want that, especially since most of the mods own nations that depend on the canal. Sky Green 24 13:18, May 15, 2014 (UTC)

Blocking it like that is ASB by itself - destroying it, completely and utterly ASB. Lordganon (talk) 13:20, May 15, 2014 (UTC)

I do not support the blocking of the canal, which as desribed by others above, is ASB. My nation, as well as many from Europe, have come to rely heavily on the canal for trade in Asia, which would otherwise be a long and very expensive venture.ALLONS-Y!!,Basically, RUN!! 15:57, May 15, 2014 (UTC)

Attacker (Marrikuwuyanga Empire)
Total: 114
 * Location: +3
 * Tactical Advantage: +2
 * Nations: Marrikuwuyanga (L), Ayutthaya (M), Yalngu (M), Jawoyn (M) = 14/5 = 2.8 ~= +3
 * Military Development: 80/12 = 6.6 ~= 7
 * Marrikuwuyanga: 20 turns
 * Yalngu: 10 turns
 * Jawoyn: 10 turns
 * Economic Development: +44
 * Marrikuwuyanga: 10 turns
 * Yalngu: 6 turns
 * Jawoyn: 6 turns
 * Economic Bonus: +10 [Much Larger Economy]
 * Expansion: -2
 * Motive: +5
 * Modifier: 4 + 5 = +9
 * Chance: +9
 * Edit Count: 65
 * UTC: 10:11(1*1*1)
 * Total: 65/1*3.14 = +203.9
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 5 (68000) +2 = +7
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 2620/300 = +9 (1360 Marrikuwuyanga, 1000 Ayutthaya, 180 Yalngu, 280 Jawoyn )
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Defender (Timor)
Total: 43
 * Location: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations: Yolngu (L) = 5/14 = 0.3 ~= 0
 * Military Development: 12/80 = 0.15 ~= 0
 * Economic Development: +14
 * Economic Bonus: -2
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: +7
 * Motive: +9
 * Modifier: -5
 * Chance: 0
 * Edit Count: 0
 * UTC: 0
 * Total: 0
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: +4 (15000)
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 300/2620 = 0.1 ~= 0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result
((114/(114+43)*2)-1 = 0.4522 %

So basically 45.22% of Timor territory is conquered. The state soon collapses and is declared part of the Marrikuwuyanga Empire

War lasts for 1 years in which Marrikuwuyanga should be able to topple Timor government/tribes

Discussion
No, it would actually take you two years.

Their population is larger than yours, far as I can see from Wikipedia, and their troops are probably larger too.

20:47, May 15, 2014 (UTC)

ASB as Hell
 '''Pirates block the Strait of Malacca and any access between the Asian mainland and Sumatra. As soon as supplies for the Thai soldiers shrivel up, the recently oppressed populations of four different kingdoms conquered within ten years by Ayutthaya launch an open rebellion. Even Aceh rebels against the Thais. The six rebellious kingdoms have near universal support and are essentially in a state of total war. (+10 in the algo) (Undoubled scores: 10, 10, 10)'''

'''Ok, this is some GIANT Bullshit. Firstly, Ayutthaya has one of the largest fleets in the world. Pirates would be smashed to pieces in a week. Next, Aceh? They've been rules by Ayutthaya for nearly 50 years, and they weren't oppressed; we vassalized them by MARRIAGE. Tualng Bawang and Selebar both have many of their nobles in Ayutthaya, and all the noble's children, AND are tied by marriage to Ayutthaya. Who's leading this rebellion? Next, there is no reason for the peasants to rebel- nationalism doesn't exist yet, and frankly speaking, we're of the same culture and general religion. Aru and Siak have basically been rebuilt by Ayutthaya. Their economies revolve around AYutthaya. Furthermore, they too have their children in Ayutthaya. Basically, only Pagaruyung and Sunda can plausibly rebel, and NEITHER would have access blocked off by this ASB "closure" of the Straits. '''

This is MAJOR BS. Ayutthayan law ensures that the nobles of all Kingdoms under Ayutthaya must have their nobles send their children to Ayutthaya for education. Admittedly, this doesn't cover Pagruyung and Sunda, but it does cover the two stable nations, whose relations with us were sealed by marriage. Aceh makes NO sense, it's like Texas revolting today because they weren't always part of the USA. No reason other than HEY LOOK WE WERE ONCE PART OF MEXICO THAT WAS FUN. Aru was basically rebuilt by us- they were extremely disorganized before be basically built their economy ground up. They rebel, they all die of starvation in week two. Siak, basically, same thing.

Oh, and let's not forget; PIRATES? REALLY? Ayutthaya has one of the LARGEST navies in the world. Maybe Castille and China have larger. There is exactly ZERO plausibility in a group of pirates- even a FLEET- doing this.

Also, this would affect the Dutch too, as they took part of Sunda in exchange for their aid.

00:14, May 16, 2014 (UTC)

ALSO, if you lot actually READ any of my turns, you'd see that I made revolts of my own without mod prompting? I had a giant civil war, then another three rebellions.

My point is, I agree, a rebellion is plausible in the conquered states. But in Aceh? It's been a Ayutthayan vassal for 50 years. It was never once oppressed. Not once have Ayutthayan troops marched into Aceh. Aceh was sealed with a MARRIAGE. Aru? The state with no economy, no infrastructure, no central government, where I spent 10 years stabilziing it and basically built it from the ground? What are they revolting against, pray tell? Prosperity? Peace? Because people HATE those. Siak? Sure! It's not like we basically fought a war for them! It's not like we tripled their economy in 20 years. I mean, gosh! Why would ANYONE like being rich?

Furthermore, I'm of the same culture as ALL of these nations. Just saying.

Basically, this is some of the most meta-gaming Bullshit I've seen since the GCC.

Feddy, you're reverting to Caliphial form.

00:33, May 16, 2014 (UTC)

I would be happy to present a settling decision as a non-biased outside participant if Fed would be so kind as to present a counterargument.

00:49, May 16, 2014 (UTC)

I second Scraw's motion, and I do think all of those states revolting at once is a bit much. Escalation over time is theoretically possible, or the rebels could become powerful enough to make siginificant progress, but all those states revolting at the same time seems a little unlikely.

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 01:22, May 16, 2014 (UTC)

For the culture, I'm sure that we can agree that Ayutthaya is a muslim country, right? Because it has the same culture as Aceh, and the rest of its empire. I think we can also agree that, in Ayutthaya, Thai cannot be spoken, because it's a Tai-Kadai language; because Ayutthaya has the same culture as its vassals, they speek some sort of Austronesian language. I think history shows that Muslims LOVE to be ruled by Buddhist, and Buddhist love to rule over Muslims as Myanmar has shown. But that is irrelivant, since Ayutthaya IS a Muslim country, as the majority of their population would suggest, who by the way, have culturally no reason to revolt. Saamwiil, the Humble 01:34, May 16, 2014 (UTC)

I have to admit, the event wasn't plausible. Many waged numerous wars of expansion, and didn't snap like a Kit-Kat. China, Rome, the Mongol Empire, and Spain are some examples. Any rebellious they faced, even large ones, were dealt with quickly, violently, and successfully, and their empires went bacck to sleep so to speak. Just because you think quick expansion leads to destruction, doesn't make it a fact. Napoleonic France was only crushed with the aid of the Russians. The British were spent by the war expenses, and they lacked the manpower to take on all of continental Europe, which was under Napoleon's control. Only when the Russians, who had to manpower to get involved supported the Fifth (or was it the Sixth?) Coalition to defeat Napoleon, that France fell. Same with Nazi Germany, it was only once the United States got involved that Hitler was defeated, as the Soviet Union was quickly exhausting its manpower to fight Hitler. So quick expansion does no correlate to quick collapse. It's only when the leaders fight the wrong enemy during a current war on several fronts that collapse becomes evident. Rome was expanding all of the time, but it was always fighting on a single front with one or two enemies. Only in the late empire when Rome was fighting on multiple fronts against multiple enemies did it collapse. Same cannot be said here. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 03:26, May 16, 2014 (UTC)
 * The invasion resulted in the beginning of the sixth coalition. And after thinking about it, I have to agree, his has been aggressive, but I think he hasn't quite overexpanded just yet. But, if this was EUIV, there would be a coalition comprising of half of SE Asia against him due to his aggressive expansion (Gotta work on coring your new territory Guns ;) ). I am that guy (talk) 03:39, May 16, 2014 (UTC)

Talk about vastly overstating the strength of pirates. Lordganon (talk) 12:39, May 16, 2014 (UTC)

I agree that perhaps priates aren't the right vehicle to start this event. Maybe a rebellious general/army instead? Either way you need an event, considering you've been expanding exponentially into hostile and disorganized territory, and have aggressively expanded through conquest several times in the last decade. Mscoree (talk) 14:32, May 16, 2014 (UTC)

This isn't 1970s Africa. Generals of this time didn't just "rebel" for no reason, and rarely did when there was much glory to be won from winning in wars such as these. In fact, you rarely, almost never, hear of a general breaking from his government during an series of conflicts, as they could gain much power from fighting for their government, instead of against it, especially given that there were many active armies that could be sent to deal with him. The only time a general rebels is typically during peacetime, when no other forces can stop him. And LG is right on this one. These are pirates for Christ's sake. Not the godd*** Locust. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 19:06, May 16, 2014 (UTC)

Ok, Can I make a suggestion?

Instead of randomly nations who have existed under Ayutthaya PEACEFULLY for 50 years, let's do this.

Each of the four conquered nations- Selebar, Pagaruyung, Tulang Bawang, and Sunda revolt. No one else.

Are there ANY objections to this?

22:44, May 16, 2014 (UTC)
 * i think parts of the events are asb but i also think some are plausible the non-mulim parts of your empire would not revolt the muslim parts may though With Blood and Iron (talk) 22:57, May 16, 2014 (UTC)
 * Religious forces in historically Muslim lands have never really revolted under Muslim leaders. Often because they would have been crushed by the more fanatical Muslim forces, or because early Islam and the Islam of this period, stipulated the care for non-Islamic peoples. So a revolt against the Muslim population wouldn't happen. Flag of the Hurian Federation.png Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 01:07, May 17, 2014 (UTC)
 * Ayutthaya is weirdly designed, sort of like the American states only a little more autonomous (that's OTL, too). Muslim areas would have Muslim leaders, who in turn would be loyal to the Kingdoms as a whole, and the same for Buddhist and Hindu areas. Religious tolerance is pretty high- I dealt with that several decades ago. 13:27, May 17, 2014 (UTC)
 * Is a coordinated rebellion plausible? Generally when a bunch of disparate nations revolt, they end up fighting among themselves - especially if, in this case, they're culturally and religiously different and historical enemies. Krasnoyarsk (talk) 18:43, May 17, 2014 (UTC)
 * Such differences can be put aside in the face of an outside force, in this case the Ayutthaya. -cue Reagan's alien invasion speech- I am that guy (talk) 18:50, May 17, 2014 (UTC)

Retirement
As stated here, I am retiring from the wiki. This is likely to be the one of the two pages I edit. I'm scaling my involvement back drastically, but I will still be here. This game will be down a mod. I wish I could pass the title down, but that's not how it works around here.

Also be plausible. That'd be great.

CrimsonAssassin-See you, space cowboys 04:12, May 16, 2014 (UTC)

As I states there, I wish you the best. And, well, if a spot is open, well, I wonder who could... erm... let's see what happens! (*Looks around for possible supporters*)

On a more serious note, have a great time and we will all miss you! The HRE has lost a noble foe, the Brits have lost a strong ally, the Russians have lost a powerful rival. We will honor your legacy in Scandinavia (AP parallels?) 09:08, May 16, 2014 (UTC)

well what can i say we will miss you however before we decide on the fate of scandinavia id like to talk to mp and crim about something. With Blood and Iron (talk) 12:57, May 16, 2014 (UTC)

But.. Crim!

You can't leave us! You're the core of this wiki!

Ok, that might be overstating it.

Still, I promise, your name will stand there next to Mitro, Ben, and Brian in the ranks of the departed great.

We'll miss you. Promise to check in every now and then? Who knows, we might have made Scraw ruler of the wiki by then :D

22:50, May 16, 2014 (UTC)

What!? NO!! Cour *talk* 14:24, May 17, 2014 (UTC)

Ayutthaya vs revolting nations.
Coming soon as Feud gives me a list of what nations are actually revolting. We had a "conversation" last night and agreed that there might be changes.

Ayutthaya
Total: 46
 * Location: 4
 * Tactical Advantage: 5 (siege weaponry) 5/2 =3
 * Nations: Ayutthaya (L) = 5/35 => 0
 * Military Development: 10 turns: 20/20 => 1
 * Economic Development: 10 turns: 20/20 => 1
 * Econ bonus: 10 = 10 (much larger econ)
 * Expansion: -4
 * Infrastructure: 0/20 = 0
 * Motive: Taking back territory recently held: +6
 * Modifiers: +4= 4 (support)
 * Chance: 6
 * Edit count: 7942
 * UTC: 2:01(0) =2
 * Total: 7942/2* (3.14159265359) = 12475.2644274
 * Nation Age: +5 (Mature)
 * Population: 8 (digits)
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 10,000 (rest are dealing with other rebellions)
 * Recent Wars: -8 (4 wars of conquest)
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Rebels
Total: 57*1.5 = 85.5 = 86
 * Location: 5
 * Tactical Advantage:2 (being attacked from the sea)
 * Nations: Aceh (L), Aru (L), Siak (L), Majapahit (L), Kedah (L), Padan (L), Sri Vijaya (L) = 35/5 = 7
 * Military Development: 20/20 = 1
 * Economic Development: 20/20 = 1
 * Econ bonus:
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 20/0 = 20
 * Motive: (Defending heartland?/Religious?) +5+7 = 13
 * Modifiers: +4 (support) = 4
 * Chance: 4 (see above)
 * Edit count:
 * UTC:
 * Total:
 * Nation Age: -10 (newborn nation)
 * Population:
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops:
 * Recent Wars:
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Discussion
I used the collective +20 for all categories instead of multiplying it by 7 which would yield 140. I also refreined from editing the population and troops section, though I would assume that the revolters would have more, as they are a majority of the territory. Saamwiil, the Humble 16:35, May 17, 2014 (UTC)

I believe Aceh was removed from this due to its closeness to Guns nation or something. I Believe that the Rebels still maintain the upper hand though Guns would lose these nations

Can Guns claim some things?

Kedah, Padang, and Srivijaya are literally part of AYutthaya. They're not in Sumatra. They should be removed too.

Aceh, as Feud said.

Neither defending homeland nor religious would apply for motive.

Number of troops, dealing with these guys, Ayutthaya is pulling out all stops. 90,000 troops, at least. And assuming we still have control over my nation (if Kedah and Padang are revolting, I imagine basically the rest of Ayutthaya should be too, just for plausibility), I outnumber the other guys.

Also, NONE of those nations were among the four conquered nations the revolt is about. Those should be added, and many of the current ones- specifically the four which are actually part of AY\yutthaya- taken off.

Tactical advantage doesn't get subtracted, IIRC. But IDK.

Ayutthaya's population (assuming we retain control over Kedah, Padang, SV, and Aceh) should be 16 million.

The combined population of Aru, Siak, The Majapahit, Selebar, Tulang Bawang, Sunda, and Pagaruyung would be on the order of 10 million.

They, as the mod event specified, get TEN each, undoubled. Not twenty.

Asumming control of Kedah, Padang, SV, and Aceh, I still control the Straits of Malacca.

Just as a note, if you take away those four, you should (just plausibly speaking) collapse my whole nation. In such a case I will be glad to move to another nation. I would, however, prefer that not to occur. See, in Ayutthaya, basically, the central King had power over the lesser Kingdoms and principalities- hence the name the "Kingdoms of Ayutthaya" rather than the "Kingdom of Ayutthaya". In fact, at many points in Ayutthayan history, lesser Kings performed coup de etats and took over. All of those four have been part of Ayutthaya for many generations, so if they revolt, then they're doing it not because they don't want Ayutthayan oppression but because they see an opportunity for self-rule. In such a case, practically every lesser Kingdom would be doing the same thing. Hell, in this state of general uproar, that might be the most likely thing. If you do rule it so, don't bother with the algo, just collapse Ayutthaya into it's individual states, and I'll take something else. I hear tiny little German states are nice this time of year. :D

Sincerely, and appreciatively, 23:07, May 17, 2014 (UTC)

Any way, if a mod could inform whether my nation is being collapsed for doing something done hundreds of times OTL without consequnces (:D), I'll get to either crushing this revolt or looking for a new nation.

Anyone? Feud? Punkin? Andy?

23:34, May 17, 2014 (UTC)

As a fanatic of the Ottoman Empire, I can tell you that the last thing you'd want to do, in the long run, is give large amounts of local autonomy to people of different cultures within an Empire. Even the Arabs, of the same Sunni Islamic religion as the Ottoman bureacratic elite, eventually had the urge to revolt. This would apply here, coupled with the fact they ARE of a different religion. Drawing from the United States, it's not necessarily the amount of time a country is apart of a nation, but rather the feel that makes it a core. The South way apart of the United States for about 100 years, but even after that time, many did not feel they were apart of the Union. India had been apart of the British Empire for a long time, they definately didn't want to stay with them. And finally people like power. They will revolt. Saamwiil, the Humble 16:59, May 18, 2014 (UTC)

Undoubled means before doubling, ie a ten produces a twenty in the algorithm. Mscoree (talk) 20:06, May 18, 2014 (UTC)

Well then, opinion is "Goodbye Ayutthaya, and f*** plausibility".

S'all good. I hear Scandanavia is nice this time of year.

00:47, May 19, 2014 (UTC)

No. CrimsonAssassin-See you, space cowboys 01:15, May 19, 2014 (UTC)

Oh.

China, mayhap.

01:36, May 19, 2014 (UTC)

Since Ayutthaya will not be conquered, there is no reason to switch nations. Saamwiil, the Humble 03:13, May 19, 2014 (UTC)

It has been ripped apart. Like, what are you talking about? Ayutthaya no longer exists. 21:07, May 19, 2014 (UTC)

Resigning
I'm sorry folks, but I'm officially resigning from PMIII. I don't have the time or energy to keep up with the game anymore, and I'll be gone all summer anyways. Have fun, and play nice.

PitaKang- My Life for Aiur! En Taro Tassadar 01:10, May 18, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, Pita! Have a great summer, and remember that it'll never be too late for you to join the action!

It's been a hard week for the PM3 community, with hits like these, but we shall overcome! 07:19, May 18, 2014 (UTC)

Why is everyone leaving?! Miss ya Pita!! Cour *talk* 02:18, May 20, 2014 (UTC)

I Asked Two Turns And Nobody Moded My Event
We ask the leader of Mansuriyya Caliphate to spare a daughter for our leader's son to marry. (Mods needed for this event) - Scarlet

Spare a daughter? Better words could be

''We question the Caliph of the Mansurriya Caliphate, if it is possible for the Crown Prince of the Safavid Empire to marry one of his daughters. The Emperor believes that only would it improve the relationship between the two Muslim nations but also open a gate that has long been sealed between the two nations following the atrocities committed at Baghdad by my foolish predecessors... For brotherly relationship between all Muslims is what any man would cherish'' ~ Sincerely, Emperor _________

RexImperio (talk) 12:54, May 19, 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I already responded days ago. Stop spamming people about this when it was already answered. Mscoree (talk) 14:11, May 19, 2014 (UTC)

I never saw this in any of the posts sorry for all the trouble. Thanks you for your time and effort - Scarlet

Nah, happened to me last game, too.

I asked for like 10 turns, because Lurk had replied to my first post... the next day.

22:50, May 19, 2014 (UTC)

Naming the New World
So, its that time of the Game again, and I believe it is time to name the new world. Since Amerigo vespuci probably will not be an exploerer this timeline, I suggest we all propose names for the Continents, and Vote on them. So, let's begin.-Lx (leave me a message) 21:11, May 19, 2014 (UTC)

North America Proposals

 * Kanata
 * -Lx (leave me a message)Azarath Flag.png 21:11, May 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * Vinland?
 * Aretrila
 * West Indies
 * Saamwiil, the Humble 22:52, May 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * WHY seriously why???!!! WHY seriously why???!!! WHY seriously why???!!! WHY seriously why???!!! WHY seriously why???!!! WHY seriously why???!!!
 * Borealis (Latin for "North")
 * I am that guy (talk) 23:03, May 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * 20:55, May 20, 2014 (UTC)
 * Krasnoyarsk (talk) 23:22, May 20, 2014 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Flag of Russian Alaska (HR).svg |40px|link=User talk:Octivian Marius]] <font color=Purple face="Algerian">OCT MARIUS, HAIL HIM  [[Image: Flag of Italy (Federalist Italy).svg|40px|User talk:Octavian Marius]]
 * Flag of the Hurian Federation.png Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 20:22, May 21, 2014 (UTC)
 * I support Borealia (the feminine version of the name. Also, majority of the mods have already voted among ourselves for this to be northTardis.pngS-Y!!,Basically, RUN!!Tardis.png 21:06, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

South America Proposals

 * Amazonia
 * West Indies
 * Saamwiil, the Humble 22:57, May 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * Australis (Latin for "South")
 * I am that guy (talk) 23:03, May 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * 20:55, May 20, 2014 (UTC)
 * Flag of the Hurian Federation.png Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 20:22, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
Wasn't the term "Hesperia" thrown around somewhere? Cookiedamage (talk) 23:09, May 19, 2014 (UTC)

Hesperia was my recommendation for the collective term for both coninents, like "The Americas" otl. According to the event (which interestingly, I didn't make), a German mapmaker began using the name on his maps. This doesn't necessarily make it the universally accepted name, but it goes some way to making it official-ish. The two individual continents have not been given names in mod events (but I think we came to the conclusion that Borealia was a good name for NA). Callumthered (talk) 23:30, May 19, 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the names were already decided upon on the moderator page many days ago. Mscoree (talk) 23:11, May 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, shoot I am that guy (talk) 23:16, May 19, 2014 (UTC)

The agreement was that Hesperia would be a general term for both and then primarily a term for South America, while Borealia would be used for North America. The moderator event established the first into use, and over time the two would develop as the official names. Mscoree (talk) 23:33, May 19, 2014 (UTC)

The Names were in fact already agreed upon and when it was presented to the Chat they seemed okay with Borealia and Hesperia. those are the Official/Unofficial names

Why do these things always happen behind closed doors away from the general population, and nobody EVER notifies the general public, EVER. Please try to make a habbit of doing these arrangements in PUBLIC where EVERYONE can be made aware. I have had the...mispleasure...of being affected by these secret arrangelements more than once, and trust me, it is not very pleasant. Please try to notify EVERYONE of any rule changes, agreements, and not just say things like "We agreed" and "consensus" that drastically change half of what is going on because nobody is aware of these agreements. Thank you for your time everyone, and please refrain from this in the future. Also, please dont forget about/ignore agreements made on the TALK PAGE, FOR ALL TO SEE, while following ones made in SECRET on "CHAT" or the MOD PAGE. Thank you for your time everyone, it seems that the topic of this page was already decided, away from the majority and behind closed doors unlike in PMII where everyone had a chance to openly propose names, this was decided on a mod page. Such is life.-Lx (leave me a message) 13:32, May 20, 2014 (UTC)

We should name it either 'Murica or Bob. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 14:47, May 20, 2014 (UTC)

Lx you didn't know about it because you seemingly don't read the moderator events (we already said that Hesperia comes into common use), and because the people don't know it in-game yet. Those names come into use because the people doing the discovering named it, and that hasn't really taken off yet. Mscoree (talk) 14:56, May 20, 2014 (UTC)


 * I do read mod events, mostly so that I can see if my nation has been affected to ajust my post accordingly. This, however, was posted while I was...let's just say up north at my friend's cottage and only got to internet at around 20:00. THis technicality still does not adress the wider point I am trying to make: i.e. decisions being made without popular knowledge of their occurence.-Lx (leave me a message)Azarath Flag.png 21:22, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

Hey guys, let's call it anything but Kanata. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 19:17, May 21, 2014 (UTC)


 * :'( Well, there goes my attempts at having the name be native in origin...-Lx (leave me a message)Azarath Flag.png 21:22, May 21, 2014 (UTC)
 * : That's seriously the most douchey comment I've ever heard Sky. What's so stupid with calling it something in a native language instead of latin for once?--Yank 14:10, May 22, 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I had not known that Kanata is native american. If it is, I fully support it. I excuse myself for this rude comment <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 18:09, May 23, 2014 (UTC)

Lucca
I was wondering if I could play as the republic of lucca, independent but not on the nation list. <font color=Purple face="Algerian">OCT MARIUS, HAIL HIM

The Republic of Lucca doesn't exist at the moment, so no. Mscoree (talk) 02:19, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

Actually it does,I have been following the game closely and it does, no greater power has done anything to it like OTL because of its size. It was founded in 1160. <font color=Purple face="Algerian">OCT MARIUS, HAIL HIM

Hesse (Attacker)
Total: 18
 * Location: 4
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations: Hesse (L), Berg (MV) = 6, 0
 * Military Development: 26, 0
 * Hesse: 20
 * Berg: 6
 * Economic Development: 24, 0
 * Hesse: 20
 * Berg: 4
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 10
 * Hesse: 7
 * Berg: 3
 * Modifiers: 0
 * Chance:
 * Nation Age: -8
 * Hesse: -5
 * Berg: -10
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 25,000, 0
 * Recent Wars: -6

Munster (Defender)
Total: 42
 * Location: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: 2
 * Nations: Munster (L), Koln (L), Cleves-Mark (LV), Paderborn (LV) = 16/6 = 3
 * Military Development: 62/26 = 2
 * Munster: 20
 * Koln: 14
 * Cleves-Mark: 14
 * Paderborn: 14
 * Economic Development: 52/24 = 2
 * Munster: 10
 * Koln: 14
 * Cleves-Mark: 14
 * Paderborn: 14
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 5
 * Motive: 18
 * Munster: 9
 * Koln: 3
 * Cleves-Mark: 3
 * Paderborn: 3
 * Modifiers: +4 (Support)
 * Chance:
 * Nation Age: 1
 * Munster: 5
 * Koln: 5
 * Cleves-Mark: 0
 * Paderborn: -5
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Number of Troops: 30,000/25,000 = 1

Discussion
The algo is wrong, I will re-do it myself Blocky858 (talk) 00:49, May 22, 2014 (UTC)

Please just explain your changes below instead of editing the algorithm itself to avoid an edit war. Thanks, Mscoree (talk) 01:22, May 22, 2014 (UTC)

Bavaria (Attacker)
Total: 65
 * Location: 3
 * Tactical Advantage: 2
 * Nations: Bavaria (L+5), Saxony (LV+3), Thuringia (LV+3), Luxembourg (L+5), Mainz (L+5), Palatinate (L+5) = 26/6 = 4
 * Military Development: 120/24 = 5
 * Bavaria: 20
 * Saxony: 20
 * Thuringia: 20
 * Luxembourg: 20
 * Mainz: 20
 * Palatinate: 20
 * Economic Development: 120/24 = 5
 * Bavaria: 20
 * Saxony: 20
 * Thuringia: 20
 * Luxembourg: 20
 * Mainz: 20
 * Palatinate: 20
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 5
 * Motive: 22
 * Bavaria: 7
 * Saxony: 3
 * Thuringia: 3
 * Luxembourg: 3
 * Mainz: 3
 * Palatinate: 3
 * Modifiers:
 * Chance:
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Bavaria: 5
 * Saxony: 5
 * Thuringia: 5
 * Luxembourg: 5
 * Mainz: 5
 * Palatinate: 5
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: -8
 * Number of Troops: 60,000/12,500 = 5

Hesse (Defender)
Total: 3
 * Location: 4
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations: Hesse (L), Berg (MV) = 6, 0
 * Military Development: 26, 0
 * Hesse: 20
 * Berg: 6
 * Economic Development: 24, 0
 * Hesse: 20
 * Berg: 4
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 10
 * Hesse: 7
 * Berg: 3
 * Modifiers: -6 (low morale)
 * Chance:
 * Nation Age: -8
 * Hesse: -5
 * Berg: -10
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 12,500/60,000 = 0
 * Recent Wars: -15

Discussion
Hesse should have a low morale modifier for over 8 years of recent wars.

Oldenburg declared war on Hesse last turn. Callumthered (talk) 04:37, May 23, 2014 (UTC)

I've left my propositions on the treaty page. What I want from this war would be a connected port or a large chunk of land bordering the North Sea which would also be connected to Bavaria propert. In essence I would not like an exclave and would prefer mainland Bavaria to not be landlocked. Also this may be one of the only times I am online so, yeah. Cookiedamage (talk) 01:17, May 24, 2014 (UTC)

Tibet
I've been wondering for the last couple weeks if Tibet is open. As if you look http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Rules_(Principia_Moderni_III_Map_Game)#Types_of_Countries It states that "Countries are disconnected after an extended period of unplanned inactivity (over a week), and only when it is nearly certain that a player will not return.". JB hasn't posted in over a MONTH. I was wondering about this if I could open up Tibet for me and so I could play PM3 finally on a consistent basis. <span style="color:Blue; font: 1.2em Palatino, serif; text-align: center; font-variant: small-caps;">❂ FOR THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA ❂ 19:59, May 22, 2014 (UTC)

Don't take this as an absolute approval, but I believe that yes, you can indeed take Tibet. Especially since IIRC he quit PM3. Fed (talk) 22:17, May 22, 2014 (UTC)

Second Indian War (1510-1513) (Locked)
​Total: 137.125
 * ===Indian League (Attacker)===
 * Location: Bengal (3), Gondwana (3), Bastar (3), Vijaynagar (3), Khandesh (3), Malwa (3), Mewar (4), Gujarat (4), Jaisalmer (5), Dhundhra (4), Kathaiwar (4), Orissa (3), Kamarumpa (3), Delhi (4): Jaunpur (3) = +3.5
 * Location Advantage: Delhi and Gujarat (+2) = +2
 * Tactical Advantage: + 5 (Siege equipment)
 * Nations Per Side: Bengal (L), Gondwana (L), Bastar (L), Vijaynagar (L), Khandesh (L), Malwa (L), Mewar (L), Gujarat (L), Jaisalmer (L), Dhundhra (L), Kathaiwar (L), Orissa (LV), Kamarumpa (LV), Delhi (L): Jaunpur (L), Castile (M) = +4.5/4 = +1.125
 * Military Development: 216/42 = 5.1
 * Economic Development: 216/98 = 2.2
 * Economic Bonus: Much Larger Economy (+10), Larger Trade (+5) = +15
 * Motive: Aiding Social/Moral/Ideological/Religious Kinsmen who are being oppressed (+7), Non-democratic nations (-3), Aiding Ally (+3*14), High Morale (+6) = +52
 * Chance: +6
 * ​Edit Count: 1,695
 * UTC Time: 4:46 = 1*4*4*6 = 96
 * 1,695/96*3.14=55.4687452899
 * Nation Age: Mature Nations (12*5), Maturing Nations (3*0) = 4
 * Population: >100,000,000 (+9), Ten times larger than Marwarian Mughals (+20) = +29
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 751,000/340,000 = 2.2

Marwarian Mughal Empire (Defender)
​Total: 32.3
 * Location: 4.3
 * Mughal (5)
 * Marwar (5)
 * Chagatai (3)
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations Per Side: Mughal Empire (L), Rajya of Marwar (L), South Chagatai (LV), Safavids (M) = 4/4.5 = 0
 * Military Development: 42/216 = 0
 * Economic Development: 98/216 = 0
 * Economic Bonus: Smaller economy (-2): -2
 * Motive: 11
 * Mughals: 3
 * Marwar: 9
 * Chagatai: 3
 * Mostly Non-Democratic Nations: -4
 * Chance: 5
 * Edit count: 1282
 * UTC Time: 4:46 = 1*4*4*6= 96
 * 1282/96*3.14=4.25291932059
 * Nation Age: Mughal Empire (0), Marwar (0), Chagatai (-5) = -5
 * Population: over 10,000,000 (8), = +8
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 340,000, 340,000/751,000= 0

((137.125/(32.3+137.125))*2)-2 = 0.6187103438

( 0.6187103438)*(1-1/(2*3)) = 74.245241256?

Discussion (Indian War)

 * Oh my Eip, must have been fun to wait for this moment, but I must inform you that this war is completely implausible. Yeah, as all of you might know, this war was determined after the Indian League decided upon it, and with the support of a biased mod whom I know would likely try to establish a Spanish Raj, it passed. Now, I want a unbiased mod that isn't absolutely involved in this to decide upon the outcome of the proposal. Now, in order to avoid any bias, the following mods shouldn't be able to decide: Feudalplague (because of the status of Bengal-Castile relations and the relations between himself and Eiplec), moreover, Andr3w777 because of his trade with Mughals ingame and that would be it. Furthermore, I wish for that both Eiplec and I are given the opportunity to give a logical and plausible explanation as to WHY each nation would either disagree or agree, until this is done I cannot accept this war as valid. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 11:39, May 23, 2014 (UTC)


 * P.S. I've just noticed something, see, the War for Indian Hegemony united all of India miraculously, but after 50 years, and after improved relations I must inform you about another thing. Not ONLY would some nations fight alongside the Marwari-Mughali union, but I don't see any reason as to why nations that are further away than others would even get involved, nations such as Jaffna for example. My point is, the first war for "Indian" hegemony was somehow able to unite all of the League, but this happening twice is like the whole HRE uniting twice in order to fight of another nation. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 11:47, May 23, 2014 (UTC)


 * P.P.S I would also wish for the Marwari representative to defend himself before such a large decision is made by the Indian League. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 12:04, May 23, 2014 (UTC)


 * P.P.P.S. Oh my, I'm really having the ideas flow, but let's just recap which nations actually profited from the war. Delhi, Jaunpur, Bahmani, Vijaynagar and Bengal and vassals. Now, let's think about this real hard. Most of the nations which had fought against the Mughal Empire the first time gained  NOTHING  out of it. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 12:56, May 23, 2014 (UTC)


 * Fed also helped decide, but Feud posted, but we'll allow MP, or other non-biased, active mods decide so that you can have non-biased mods against you. Also, you've specifically asked for Feud before in approving/disapproving League things, such as stopping the League Proposal that nearly killed your Marwar/Mughal Personal Union. Do you only ask for mods that will have some chance of favoring your interests, or do you truly want non-bias? At least act consistently in asking for mod approval/help. Improved relations? Improved relations with whom? Europe? You never post about improving relations with any Indian nation, save Jaisalmer, have made one League proposal that banned a foreign nation, whom you GAVE your own land to, from joining the League. What nations would fight alongside the Mughals that went back on their public word of not wanting to control India? India was united before the War for Indian Hegemony through the League, which then, after its formation under the pretense of defending India against rampant, and existant foreign aggression, declared war upon the Mughali invaders. After this, Bengal, the one who proposed the current war against the Mughals, proposed numerous proposals that were accepted by the League and benefitted all Indian states. The HRE has no such history of proposing issues that actually benefit any member other than the Emperor, unlike the Indian League's proposals which increase trade (Free Travel of Merchants), technology (Siege Guns), and sovereign rights (Domestic Belligerence and An Upset to the Balance of Power). The whole HRE uniting is because of some large nations personal interests being infringed upon. India is uniting because the Marwar-Mughal's have gone back on their public declaration that they CANNOT take India, India is uniting because the Marwar-Mughali union have infringed upon the sovereign rights of Jaisalmer as a fellow League member, and India is uniting because they must recover their honor because they were lied to by the Marwar-Mughali union, after forgiving a nation that is back to its old tricks. Marwar can represent itself, but wouldn't it be the same as Marwar stating they are Indian, CANNOT take India, and accept all League laws; as in, just more lies to the Indian states? Finally, ALL Indian states gained from the war against the Mughals. Each nation got a portion of the spoils of war (Gold, elephants, weapons, armors, jewels, supplies, ships, statues, etc.), divided out evenly and not based on preference (That was in the Bengali post, not League proposal), freedom from tyranny, and a belief that India united is strong.


 * Reasons why Indian states diasgreed/agreed:


 * Member Decisions:
 * Bengal: Agree "SO SAYETH THE EAGLE" - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk) (Me)
 * Gondwana: Agree (Third sister to the Raja married previous Sultan, benefitted from increased trade and tech, sovereign rights defended by Bengal, and desire to have a free India that is not threatened with hostile takeover by the Mughals)
 * Bastar: Agree (benefitted from increased trade and tech, sovereign rights defended by Bengal, and desire to have a free India that is not threatened with hostile takeover by the Mughals)
 * Vijaynagar: Agree (Princess married Bengali Sultan, specifically allied, fought non-League wars together, verbally defended many times in their actions, benefitted from increased trade and tech, sovereign rights defended by Bengal, and desire to have a free India that is not threatened with hostile takeover by the Mughals)
 * Khandesh: Agree (benefitted from increased trade and tech, sovereign rights defended by Bengal, and desire to have a free India that is not threatened with hostile takeover by the Mughals)
 * Malwa: Agree (benefitted from increased trade and tech, sovereign rights defended by Bengal, and desire to have a free India that is not threatened with hostile takeover by the Mughals)
 * Mewar: Agree (benefitted from increased trade and tech, sovereign rights defended by Bengal, and desire to have a free India that is not threatened with hostile takeover by the Mughals)
 * Gujarat: Agree (benefitted from increased trade and tech, sovereign rights defended by Bengal, and desire to have a free India that is not threatened with hostile takeover by the Mughals)
 * Jaunpur: Agree (Freed by Bengal, nobles put in power by Bengal, financially supported by Bengal, benefitted from increased trade and tech, sovereign rights defended by Bengal, and desire to have a free India that is not threatened with hostile takeover by the Mughals)
 * Delhi: Agree (Freed by Bengal, financially supported by Bengal, benefitted from increased trade and tech, sovereign rights defended by Bengal, and desire to have a free India that is not threatened with hostile takeover by the Mughals)
 * Bahamani Agree (Freed by Bengal, financially supported by Bengal, benefitted from increased trade and tech, sovereign rights defended by Bengal, and desire to have a free India that is not threatened with hostile takeover by the Mughals)
 * Marwar: Disagree (Obvious)
 * Jaisalmer: Agree (Was vassalized and sovereign rights were infrindged upon, benefitted from increased trade and tech, sovereign rights defended by Bengal, and desire to have a free India that is not threatened with hostile takeover by the Mughals)
 * Gwailor: Disagree (Disputes between Bengal and Gwailor)
 * Dhundhra: Agree (benefitted from increased trade and tech, sovereign rights defended by Bengal, and desire to have a free India that is not threatened with hostile takeover by the Mughals)
 * Kathaiwar: Agree (Defended by Bengal numerous times when the ruler of Gwailor refused to acknowledge it's existence, benefitted from increased trade and tech, sovereign rights defended by Bengal, and desire to have a free India that is not threatened with hostile takeover by the Mughals)
 * Venad: Disagree (Unknown why)
 * Orissa: Agree "SO SAYETH THE EAGLE" - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk) (Me)
 * Kamarumpa: Agree "SO SAYETH THE EAGLE" - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk) (Me)
 * Andamana: Agree "SO SAYETH THE EAGLE" - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk) (Me)


 * Now, please, stop the sarcastic tone and speak like a normal, and respective map gamer. &#34;SO SAYETH THE EAGLE&#34; - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk)


 * I'm sorry, Jaisalmer, although a vassal benefits from it. It might be more influenced by Mughals but on the other hand it can freely trade with both Mughals and Marwar. Furthermore, the Mughals had not expanded in India for the last fifty years. Not only that, they also tried to improve their relations with Indian nations (Gwalior, Kathiawar marriage, Marwar gaining control over the Mughals). Moreover, this desire to have a free India that is not threatened with hostile takeover by the Mughals is kind of nonsense. No matter how much you say it, the Marwari ruler controls the Mughals, And I don't see any attempts of hostile takeover, as the Mughals haven't waged a single war against any Indian nation. About the Alexandrian Port of Katrina, althogh Greg's nation and mine are allies, the Rao of the nation of Marwar is a bit more of an Indiaphile than since he is Indian and Hindu. He prefers his allies to stay out of League business. And as to being lied to, unless I have somehow instantly annexed Jaisalmer after vassalizing it, it's still a somewhat sovereign nation. If it isn't, tell me what's the difference between it and your vassals? I understand that some have a history of relations with you and a whatnot, but having Bengal control them still, or does it not count if it's Bengal controling them. And the Marwari-Mughali union is just short for the personal union between the nation of Marwar and the Mughal Empire.


 * TL;DR You constantly keep mentioning the Mughals only. However, the Mughals didn't vassalize Jaisalmer, it was Marwar, neither did the Mughals lie to you, nor did Marwar as Jaisalmer is only a vassal, not annexed. Also, sure, the Bengali cannons have been given to all nations of the Indian League, however, even though the trade rights have been proposed by Bengal, it's not like trade wouldn't continue without Bengal. Also, even though you state that Jaunpur, Delhi and Bahmani were freed by Bengal, you seem to keep forgetting the other +10 nations that helped. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 14:54, May 23, 2014 (UTC)


 * P.S. As for me asking Feud to fill in a League proposal is wrong, MP filled in the Repeal and I think he also filled in the Port of Katrina thing <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 14:58, May 23, 2014 (UTC)


 * Sky you asked me to deal with the Marwar Mughal thing as well as MP we both looked at it and had a conversation about it all. As it stands Eip is correct in saying the Marwar at this point is under Mughal influence and vice versa. As for the current issue i believe Fed was consulted as well as myself and i dictated under plausibility who would accept and considering they fought a united war against you before with mass results then its safe to say they would do it again against Mughal proxies like Marwar. As for you complaining it was Marwar that vassalized them it has no bearing. You and the Mughals are in a Personal union under the same monarch. Anything one nation does is considered an action of the other. For Example if Castile and morocco invade Algiers but Aragon doesnt its still going to be considered actions of the same ruler because right now Queen Alexis rules in a Personal union over Aragon and Morocco. the Blame is spread between the entire PU Realms really. Its your rulers word, works, and Prestige. All the actions of Marwars monarch are the actions of the mughal monarch as well.


 * While it is true that the Marwarian Mughals have attempted to improve relations with other Indian states, isn't that what they did with Jaisalmer. The argument of improving relations, while you have just vassalized one state you improved relations with is rendered invalid because it can and has been seen by those Indian states as a Mughali attempt to build up enough influence to vassalize them as it has just done to Jaisalmer. Actually, by vassalizing Jaisalmer, you would end up with worse relations since they would be angry for your false pretenses for friendly relations. (In a moderately related note, I thought you said your Rao was Sunni Muslim?). Also, as for being lied to, your ruler said, in full view of the entire world, the League, and it's people, that You CANNOT control India, as in, you cannot vassalize League nations, or as some would say "control them". By simply saying "Somewhat sovereign nation" you acknowledge the fact that it is not completely sovereign, as my argument is stipulating that it must be. And thank you for oddly having the exact same argument against Bengal having vassal states in the League as your former Gwailor friend, so I shall dispprove it in the same manner. When Bengal took over Ahom and Koch, they were not Indian states, they were more associated with Tibet. Andamana was unpopulated, and Bengal simply brought India to the unpopulated Andamana islands. Orissa was vassalized by Bengal before the creation of the League because the line of succession of the Orissan throne fell to the Bengali Sultan through some strategic marriages, and Orissa only remains a vassal state and not fully integrated because it would prevent Hinduist anger over being fully, and suddenly controlled by an Islamic state. It "doesn't count" because there was no way of avoiding it, by not vassalizing Orissa, it would've pushed them into a large succession war that would've decimated their economy and culture. In all actuality, the personal union between Bengal and Orissa is extremely similar to the Marwarian-Mughal personal union you are arguing for. The only difference is that Orissa simply didn't have any other possible and legitimate leaders other than Bengal, and the Mughal ruler suddenly decided to abandon his throne for unknown purposes for his unproven brother. Now, the reason I say the Mughals only is because of the royal family of the Marwarian ruler. He proclaimed himself Emperor of the Mughals, and is in the Mughal Royal family, enough to warrant Marwar being called "Mughal", just as England was called "Norman" after the invasion of Duke William of Normandy. The cannons given to all the Indian states are not "Bengali", and they weren't developed by Bengal solely. They were developed by scholars from all the agreeing states that came together in Vijaynagar to develop a siege gun, each taking home blueprints. The only thing "Bengali" about these cannons is that Bengal proposed the idea. Jaunpur, Delhi and Bahmani were freed by Bengal, and it is you that seems to forget my first post in argument against you where I stated that the Indian states gained excessive amounts of spoils of war, such as gold, elephants, armor, weapons, statues, jewels, etc., unless you wish to warrant excessive spoils that bolster economies, royal family status, and furnish palaces "Nothing". Finally, I was speaking of when you asked Feud to stop my League Proposal that jeopardized your Marwar-Mughali union, which I linked previously so that you would remember it and understand my argument, the same argument that called into question whether you want mods who you believe will have some chance of favoring your interests, or mods that you have trusted before? The reason I specifically ask Feud or MP in many cases on Indian League proposals is because they are active. Most all mods I ask on chat are "too busy at the moment, I'll look at it later", and fail to look at it later, while Feud and MP will actually say something more like "Link me so I can read it", and then actually respond to my requests for their opinions. &#34;SO SAYETH THE EAGLE&#34; - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk)


 * I will have to say this, Feud never talked to me regarding India, at least as specific as the Mughals and Marwar. The last time we talked was two days ago and was about Cyprus, not India, so I would like to know why he said he talked to me about it.


 * "<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 16:01, May 24, 2014 (UTC)


 * So, Eip and I have been discussing and the main reason for the war is that the Marwari-Mughali union broke a law of the Indian League.


 * According to Eiplec, the law has banned vassalization. The part of the Indian league issue that banned it is this


 * This proposal also proposes to from henceforth ban upon the threat of war all domestic war against our brothers, and to stop petty feuds from destroying the unity of the Indian peoples.

1.3 Domestic belligerence and an Upset to the Balance of Power
 * Indian League


 * I myself honestly don't think that could be considered anything near to making vassalization illegal. So this puts in question the whole casus belli or atleast the effect it has on the nations of the League.


 * Another argument is that I stated that I, In character as Rao Raja Singh, cannot control India. But if the archive is checked, (Year 1496 or 1497 not sure), this is the actual argument


 * Let it be known, the Mughals cannot control Bharata, as they are controlled by Marwar.


 * As seen here, it is said the Marwari control the Mughals. Now, if we take another look at it, it doesn't say Marwar cannot control India (Bharata) since Marwar is in India.


 * To end it with what I think should be done: Either the war is rendered invalid, or Bengal heavily loses support from nations of the Indian League, as the Rao of Marwar has neither violated any Indian League law nor any unofficial contract he has made. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 18:33, May 25, 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, if you visit the Treaty of Pandua page you'll notice that Jaisalmer was one of the nations that rejected the initial alliance which would later become the Indian League. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 19:14, May 25, 2014 (UTC)


 * Moreover, I seem to have left out that Eip considers that the Marwari-Mughali union has a feud with the idea of Indian sovereignity. And I really wonder how this feud would destroy Indian unity. Even if Jaisalmer were to be annexed anytime soon, it would still be united with its Indian brethren, as it would be subjugated by an Indian nation, Marwar. And since the league is specifically designed to oppose foreign AGRESSION against any nations of India. I don't believe Marwar is foreign, nor is it an agressor.


 * Also, since the issue "In the Common Interest of Sovereignity" was repealed we have the following statements coming from Bengal.


 * The Mughal Empire is now controlled by a full blooded Indian, and one of our own League members to boot. Half of their population is now Indian


 * The time to stop living in the dark and with fears of powers that are non-existent is nigh.


 * This proposal is created by the Sultan of Bengal to dismiss the previous League proposal upon the basis that the Mughal Empire is no longer a threat, and that withdrawing ourselves from our brothers upon our borders only destroys us, for if India is to remain strong, it must unite all of their children together under a banner of peace, prosperity, sovreignity, and freedom.


 * By agreeing to this proposal, the states of India agree to recognize Marwar's rule over the Mughal Empire.


 * Let it be known that the greatest of the Mughal's enemies have conjured the strength to forgive them and offer them their Indian population the chance to be considered Indian once more, for these are not the same rulers and people that so mercilessly slaughtered and sought to control our homelands as before, because while we cannot forgive their forefathers for their crimes, we cannot punish the children for acts they had no part in. 


 * This is also a proposal that passed, a proposal to which not one, not two, nay, sixteen nations agreed to.


 * I rest my case. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 09:20, May 26, 2014 (UTC)


 * P.S. Also here is what the Bengali Sultan has said during a discussion with the Marwari Rao


 * For now that India's greatest enemy is now controlled by an Indian, we need not be angered, nor troubled by their existence. The Sultan of Bengal announces his forgivness, not of those that slaughtered the Indian people, but of their sons who had no part  in their horrid crimes and should not be punished as a result. In order to fix relations between the Mughal Empire and the rest of India, the Bengali Sultan has created a Indian League Proposal to be voted upon by all of India to determine if India shares the same thoughts of forgivness,  restablishment of contact, and peace, as the Sultan of Bengal.


 * I took the liberty of bolding and underlining some of the more important parts of the argument. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 09:31, May 26, 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm joining late to this so I may not have all the information, but just a note, if it says "ban upon the threat of war" that would seem to indicate that Eip's actions are actually illegal, not Sky's, unless there is a clause I am not aware of. Furthermore, you may remember from the war against Scandinavia that Feud said the German states couldn't possibly enforce or force upon a NAP with some of the supporting nations like Albion. In the same way I believe Eip can't possibly enforce a treaty in which the Mughals/whoever can't inflence NPCs around it. It was stated many times that the Indian League is like an Indian HRE, and thus we should treat it as such. At this point it has been more than half a century on a treaty that they would have a hard time enforcing anyway, and I'd expect spheres to be forming within the subcontinent. As said for the real one, the HRE cannot always unite so it goes. We need to actually think plausibly here as to the states that would join (maybe even do a random.org). Maybe Bengal can claim that their causus belli is the breaking of this agreement, but considering that someone has even taken the time to dispute it, there are obvious states who would feel differently. And now that Bengal is seemingly breaking the Indian League's agreements, you'd think it would be a lot less one sided. At this point the fair thing would probably be to just have a one versus one, which would be a lot more realistic and sensical anyway. Mscoree (talk) 13:49, May 26, 2014 (UTC)


 * I've edited the algo from the premise that none of us gets support from any Indian nation that isn't subordinate to either player. Fed stated Spain could have sent only 1k max troops. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 14:54, May 26, 2014 (UTC)


 * I have also gained 40k troops from Liao, 100k from Safavids and 20,000 from the Manchu Empire. MP approved my 300k initial troops <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 15:24, May 26, 2014 (UTC)


 * Does no one understand what the League protects? It protects sovereignity. There would be no obvious spheres forming because nobody can control a sovereign nation without it loosing sovereignity. If we are to continue along with your supposed ideas, then we may as well retcon the whole Gwalior decision because it was to protect sovereignity. If this League does not protect sovereignity, then why would it have been created to protect India from Timurid vassalization? Sky, I'm glad you brought out what Bengal said because that's exactly why India should feel betrayed. Rao makes a case that the Mughals should be forgiven for past crimes of trying to control India, and so everyone forgives him. Then, suddenly, the Mughals go back to the same tricks that one attempted to subjugate India, making it seem as though the Mughals were forgiven just so they would have an easier time to subjugate India, not because they had changed. Yes, I understand the Mughals and the Timurids are not the same things, but let me explain for the fifth time:
 * The Timurids attempted to control India through vassalization and subjugation.
 * The Mughals declared themselves the successors of the Timurids, with the former capital of the Timurid Empire in their lands, as well as the leader being an almost direct descendant of Timur.
 * The Indian League is created to protect sovereignity, then declares war to protect the sovereignity of Jaunpur, Delhi, and Bahamani.
 * The Mughals then end up controlled by an Indian for two successive successions.
 * The Mughals are forgiven
 * The Mughals begin to vassalize states just as the Timurids used to. Since it was declared they succeded the Timurid Empire, were warred against for the crimes of Timur, and every Indian nation went against them because of the crimes of Timur, it can be said that many Indian nations believe them one and the same.
 * Now, remember how Bengal made that case that the Mughals were to be forgiven. I see that statement being made, then the Mughali actions that show they have not changed as being more like someone making a false statement without the knowledge that it is false, then learning it was a lie and a ploy to begin subjugation of India. It hurts the unity of the League because the League is a union of sovereign states, which is hurt when some nation begins to vassalize without reason, and it becomes one nation stronger than all the others, not united, but dominated. Are you seriously making the case that you can perfectly plausibly just vassalize the League? Did you not see what caused the League to be created, when the Timurids tried vassalizing Indian nations, nor did you see how many times its been discussed that any nation gaining too much power within the League and attempting to publicly assert themselves as greatest of all with no precedent will make them a threat to the League? Do you understand what those public statements look like now that the Mughals have begun vassalizing League nations? A lie, that the Indian nations believed whole-heartidly before the rug was pulled out from under them, so it can be said they'd feel a little upset about believing lies about the Mughal Empire. Yes, foreign aggression, but if the League was to remain united without a foreign threat, the need for something, for the third time, like protecting sovereignity of states, which has been a focus for decades. Think of the Mughals lies being believed, then the truth coming forth about their true intentions as Commissioner Gordon making the public statement that Harvey Dent was a hero, then Bane pulling out the true statement about Harvey Dent. One was false, and made everyone believe he was a hero, the next one exposed the truth and then showed everyone that what they believed was a lie. You don't need to be a warmonger to be an aggressor, just start vassalizing nations that are part of a League that protects sovereignity of member states. Again, if the League wasn't created to protect sovereignity, then why would it have been created to stop the Timurids from taking it?


 * The reason my actions are not illegal, because this war, against the Mughals for breaking League law and League code. It is justifiable that Bengal be able to break this with the support of all the Indian nations because it punishes one nation for breaking League law first, otherwise, there'd be no way to punish a nation for breaking League law and the reason for the foundation of the League, sovereignity. The League was supposed to be like the HRE, but unlike the HRE, it cannot have one nation over them as Emperor, nor do the proposals only favor the Emperor and grant him more power, so the League in current operation is more like the European Union, or the German Confederation. I'm sorry you were not able to carry out your goals of attacking Albion, but I don't understand how Europeans fighting petty wars for economic gains can be compared to Indian wars, fighting for sovereign rights and an opposition to treachery. It's been 50 years since the creation of the League, but if you were to glance once at the League page, you'd understand that there have been numerous proposals in the League so that its not a stagnant alliance. Spheres cannot develop because, as I've stipulated many times, the League protects and gurantees sovereignity of member states. You all seem to act like the Indian nations would just accept being the vassal of another nation, especially a League nation through simple influence and no other ties, despite having been part of a large history of fighting a war and numerous proposals to protect sovereignity. The HRE cannot unite because it never has a good reason to. Protecting the trade of, or gaining a city for economic purposes doesn't inspire the other HRE nations to join a war that will benefit one nation. However, protecting the sovereignity of, and stopping a process of vassaliziation, domination, and subjugation of League nations before it can fully begin (Even though one is vassalized) inspires the League nations to join because they would have their own sovereignity protected by this war, so in essence, this war guarantees they'd be able to continue ruling their own nation without having the fear of being vassalized by a nation that has throughout history shown it wishes to vassalize Indian nations. Random.org ignores that many Indian nations would like to rule themselves, rather than accept being a vassal state of another. Nobody in this time period, or after it, willingly gives up power for some "greater good". Using Random.org would actually make who joins the war implausible because it would ignore such factors as being a border nation to a state that may vassalize it, with evidence said nation they border is not above vassalization, causing fears of being vassalized, as well as ignoring close diplomatic ties to many nations that Bengal has, which can all suddenly be thrown away with the click of a button and a randomly generated number. Bengal is punishing a nation that would break an agreement. A nation that has been the enemy of the League in the past, and is back to its old tricks of violating League members sovereign rights. I assumed the League nations would be upset if their sovereignity is threatened, but yet there can be nothing done about it. At this point, the fair thing to do is let the war continue since the Mughals have lied to the Indian people and gotten the Indian people to believe it, vassalized a nation that is a member of a League that is designed to protect sovereignity, and because it's the same action the Mughals are taking, that was taken by a nation that controlled their exact same area, held the same capital, the same groups of ethnicities, the same royal dynasties, and was said to be the nation that the Mughals are succeding, therefore setting the precedent that more vassalizations and subjugations are to come. Actually, I'm the only one to explain why the Indian nations would support my side, rather than saying "They can't cause they are like the HRE, so therefore everything that happens to the HRE happens to the League" &#34;SO SAYETH THE EAGLE&#34; - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk)


 * Also, don't chastaise me for "playing to a moderator" then play to Ms, and then act solely on his support, without anything from any other mods. Are you seriously acting on the decision of one moderator that you've been Skype friends with for months, and assuming yourselves to be in the right without so much as reading my arugments? &#34;SO SAYETH THE EAGLE&#34; - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk)


 * As requested I have fixed up the algorithm. All that needs to be added is one side's scores, and whatever nations the moderators approve. Also I have yet to read Eip's above message. Mscoree (talk) 15:42, May 26, 2014 (UTC)


 * Since this war is being declared over suddenly, I'd like to depart on this:
 * I still don't understand why we suddenly change everything about the algo, then try to ban me for not being up to date on dramatic changes haha
 * Because this is the way I see it right now (Let me vent haha)
 * The war is brought before the League, and the League approves it
 * We deliberate for several turns on the plausibility of the war
 * Sky wants it declared implausible and retconned
 * Then, the entire bit of the war changes to one-on-one so I can't ask any nation for aid, then the war is suddenly deemed plausible when I can't ask any nation to aid me
 * Because I didn't post or ask about nations aiding me because I assumed that since it was a League proposal, and the League nations agreed to it, then they would be on my side
 * Suddenly switching it to One-on-One made it impossible to simply ask any nation to aid me, but allowed Sky to continue with all these allies.
 * If I was to deem this war fair, I would ask that I at least be given the chance to ask some nations since the entire bit of the war has been dramatically changed &#34;SO SAYETH THE EAGLE&#34; - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk)

I don't understand why did we remove the Indian League? I thought we had deemed it plausible yesterday night? Fed (talk) 00:40, May 27, 2014 (UTC)


 * Now, I can understand not having the WHOLE League like from the the League proposal, but I just believe that it's unfair to deliberate about the war for several turns under the guise that it's deciding if the League can support Bengal or not, then, during the 1514-1515 turn, call the war over at 1513, and give me no chance to actually ask for allies after the League joining is suddenly declared implausible. If I had known that I wouldn't have the support of the League from the League proposal, I feel as though I would've asked for nations to help. Wait, I'm reading it now. You gave Sky an NPC (Gwalior), but I'm not allowed to even ask? Seriously? If Gwalior was joining, I feel as though the two nations that Gwalior tried to war against/control would join against Gwalior. Also, I feel if Bengal was given the fair chance to ask Delhi, Jaunpur, and Bahmani for support, this would have a different outcome, because I still see it as unfair to take away all of Bengal's modded support of the League in 1514-1515, declare the war over in 1513, and not give Bengal the chance to go back and ask for allies.


 * Even if the nations I've financially supported and propped up for decades (Delhi, Jaunpur, and Bahamni), the two nations Gwalior tried to attack/annex/control would at least join to oppose Gwalior. I would think
 * At this point, I don't care about League support, I care about not being given a fair chance to ask for aid, while it's freely modded to my opposition AFTER the wars end date


 * &#34;SO SAYETH THE EAGLE&#34; - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk)


 * You're still breaking league law if you declare war to another Leauge nation <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 05:28, May 27, 2014 (UTC)


 * I am pleased to see that that is your only argument and that there is no disputing of my case anymore. Now, finally, as with the Gwalior issue on the League page, the reasons for disputing the actions of Gwalior was sovereignity of the nation Gwalior attempted to war against. It has been accepted that sovereignity is "is the quality of having an independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory" . Now, sovereignity is named specifically as a League focus, and not merely stated with actions and not words with the creation of the League, but with arguments and ideals that all of the Indian League agreed with. Therefore, by vassalizing Jaisalmer, Marwar has violated the sovereign rights of Jaisalmer to have independent authority over it's geographic area/territory, the idea of sovereignity being a focus of the League, and generally supported by League states through their specific agreement with the arguments of Bengal that presented sovereignity as being the right to independently rule one's borders without the threat/fear/possibility of losing one's right to govern themselves, without being forced to accept policies that are not their own, and without losing their status as a nation to exist freely and independent of rule by another. &#34;SO SAYETH THE EAGLE&#34; - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk)


 * I'm sorry for giving such a short argument, but after that I quickly took up a few law books and read through them (Let the fact that I have law books not surprise you, I am after all, the son of a judge). Now I'm going to explain a few things:


 * Firstly, here are a few arguments from the proposal you made.


 * That is why I am proposing that we remove the trade barriers between our nations and allow each of our nations merchants to travel across India to strengthen our economics, share ideas, and promote the unity of a common people. - The Free Travel of Merchants


 * So, unity, not sovereignity. Next one.

- Domestic belligerence and an upset to the balance of power
 * The League has been created to protect against foreign aggression , but it is time we look towards domestic aggression.


 * Agression seems to be the keyword here. And let's see who waged wars since the creation of the first Indian war and the second one. Gwalior attempted, Bengal conquered Ava. Marwar however, did nothing.

- Domestic belligerence and an upset to the balance of power
 * To allow the League to function, we must not war against each other, lest we leave ourselves open to the new threats such as those from the land of Europe.


 * So, no inter-Indian wars. Yet we have Castile aiding Bengal. And if we can have a European have such good relations with Bengal that would allow him to aid him with 15,000 soldiers who were, by the way, according to Feud, Vijaynagari and Bengali mercenaries. So the nation that has greatest suffered from an external threat and the nation that constantly presents itself as the keeper of India freedom allow their people to risk their lives for a foreigner for money?

- Domestic belligerence and an upset to the balance of power
 * We are not petty kingdoms who fight for power and control, no, we are a united people who fight for  our collective interests and we will not tolerate the belligerance of one kingdom against all its brothers.


 * As you can see, there is a collective interest which according to the preaching of Bengal is the unity of Indian people. If Bengal has in fact swayed the other Indian nations towards the idea of unity, it would mean that atleast the people of India wish to be united under one banner, not 19. So any act that brings them closer would be meet with acceptance. And according to dictionaries, belligerence is a warlike of agressively hostile nature, condition or attitude. Therefore, the only one who has been belligerent was Bengal, as it has waged war without even attempting to resolve the issue through diplomatic attempts, although it has tried that with Gwalior.

- Domestic belligerence and an upset to the balance of power
 * For these reasons, the Sultan of Bengal proposes that the League immediately condemn and threaten with force the Kingdom of Gwailor, in order to stop it, for attacking a fellow League member and killing the people of India, not unlike the Mughal threat that this League was originally created to stop.


 * So, before the law was passed, Gwalior was first threatened with force before it was attacked, yet Bengal was somehow able to immediately wage war against another League nation without any simillar actions.


 * This proposal also proposes to from henceforth ban upon the threat of war all domestic war against  our brothers, and to stop petty feuds from destroying the unity of the Indian peoples. - Domestic belligerence and an upset to the balance of power


 * I really had to think where to start from this one, because it's going to be quite long. Firstly, war is banned against "our brothers" which we can obviously conclude are Indians. However, you are indeed correct that some problems can only be solved through war, so let's say it is alright to wage war against someone who has started said war.


 * Moreover, here comes into use the reading of law books. So, there are a lot of ways to interpret a law (historical, social, cultural, etc.), however I believe the best interpretation of this was is axiomatic ergo, what the goal of the law was. It was to stop Gwalior who had been waging war, this is also the predestined interpretation . Another logical interpretation would be golden one, literal interpretation without holding onto the text in an absurd way. This would especially be logical with the and to stop petty feuds from destroying the unity of the India peoples part. You see, petty feuds can also be small-scale battles, battles which aren't officially considered a war. In medieval times, such feuds happened often and would in fact destroy the unity of people. However your interpretation is that of mischief, an erroneous, free, arbitrary and ambulatory (dynamic) interpretation. Had it not been for the vassalization, the interpretation that it also bans vassalization wouldn't even exist. Moreover, you seemingly keep on using the term unity, or unity of Indians or Indian peoples. Nobody seems to be talking about the sovereignity of rulers and their dynasties. As long as the Indian people are under a Indian ruler, they are free, and united.


 * And let's end it with the title: Domestic belligerence and an upset to the balance of power


 * I believe this one speaks for itself


 * Onto a repealed law (In the Common interest of sovereignity):


 * Not only did we prove that as one people, we are mighty, but we also proved that the only tolerable influence of Indian states were the Indian states themselves


 * So, Indian states can influence eachother. Marwar is Indian, therefore it hasn't done anything wrong.


 * This why the Sultan of Bengal has proposed to following to the Indian League in order to preserve the sovereignity of smaller border states more suceseptible to influence, and to end a threat as soon as it begins:


 * Smaller border states: Delhi, Jaisalmer, Kathiawar, Dhundhar and of course Marwar. At the time of the vassalization Marwar was a small border state. Although this was all in order to stop Mughal influence not Marwari.


 * Now onto the A formal appeal of "In the Common interest of Sovereignity"


 * The Mughal Empire is now controlled by a full blooded Indian, and one of our own League members to boot.


 * Half of their population is now Indian. 


 * The time to stop living in the dark and with fears of powers that are non-existent is nigh.


 * This proposal is created by the Sultan of Bengal to dismiss the previous League proposal upon the basis that the Mughal Empire is no longer a threat, and that withdrawing ourselves from our brothers upon our borders only destroys us, for if India is to remain strong, it must unite all of their children together under a banner of peace, prosperity, sovreignity, and freedom.


 * Peace - Bengal seems to be destroying it


 * Prosperity - It's there


 * Sovereignity - Strictly technnically, the "children" of India are in fact sovereign even though some nations have power over others.


 * Freedom - We have it


 * By agreeing to this proposal, the states of India agree to recognize Marwar's rule over the Mughal Empire.


 * As seen here, it is commonly accepted among the League memebers that Marwar rules over the Mughal Empire


 * Let it be known that the greatest of the Mughal's enemies have conjured the strength to forgive them and offer them their Indian population the chance to be considered Indian once more, for these are not the same rulers and people that so mercilessly slaughtered and sought to control our homelands as before, because while we cannot forgive their forefathers for their crimes, we cannot punish the children for acts they had no part in.


 * To end this argument:
 * Marwar has broken no laws, as influence over other nations is allowed, or not even Bengal would be allow to influence any nation
 * Bengal has rapidly attempted to declare a war even though they had banned doing the exact act years ago when Gwalior had attempted to conquer Mewar
 * If India is united as stated, it should be against the Bengali actions, since they are breaking Indian law. If we are to follow Bengal's example, the actions should be condemned and Bengal should be threatened with war.
 * Bengal itself has no case against the nation of Marwar so we obviously have a situation of Actor non probante reus absolvitur combined with Bengali attempts to change Indian laws ad hoc
 * <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 08:29, May 27, 2014 (UTC)


 * Sources: Indian League page (and archive), general dictionary of law (Opći pravni rječnik) by Marta Vidaković Mukić, English-Croatian dictionary of law (Englesko hrvatski rječnik prava) by Milica Gačić, the Merriam-Webster online dictionary and the Oxford wordpower dictionary edited by Miriam Steel


 * Another thing Eip. Most of your arguments include that you can interpret it freely because you were the one who created them. Just to inform you, you can't actually interpret anything as you like just because you created the law. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 09:56, May 27, 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, where exactly is Kamarumpa? I know Orissa is right below Bengal, Andamana is the island one and Ahom and Koch are the ones north of Bengal <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 12:28, May 27, 2014 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, I noticed that it's actually Kamarupa and Kamarupa=Ahom. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 12:47, May 27, 2014 (UTC)


 * Another thing, the Marwari-Mughali side is miscalculated, it should be 65 (63 if I don't have a larger population). And Bengal's should be 60. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 12:58, May 27, 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for using modern law to attempt to prove yourself, while I'm using a definition of sovereignity that has stood since the medieval ages. Secondly, do you realize that why the Common Interest of Sovereignity was repealled? It wasn't because sovereignity suddenly didn't become an issue, it was because of its strict laws against the Mughal Empire. And guess what? The Indian nations agreed with Bengal's sentiments about sovereignity, and what was the repeal geared towards? While it repealed the whole of the In The Common Interest, it only mentions repealing the strict laws against the Mughals, but it NEVER mentions the issue of sovereignity of the Indian states as being invalid. So, in a recap.
 * 1) Indian nations agree to both strict laws against Mughals, and to remove the threat of being controlled by any nation that seeks to remove their sovereign rights.
 * 2) Less than 15-20 years later, those Indian nations agree to repeal it on the basis that it was strict against the Mughals who were percieved to not be a threat anymore, but never was it said that sovereignity suddenly did not become an issue, and that the Indian nations did not disagree with Bengal on sovereignity.
 * 3) Less than 30 years later, while sovereignity is still an issue with no opposition, Jaisalmer's sovereignity is infringed upon while it's still very much clear that when the In the Common Interest was repealed, it was because the Mughals were no longer a threat, not because sovereignity didn't become an issue. The Indian nations don't suddenly forget what they voted for originally.
 * Now, on the issue of Castile using Bengali and Vijaynagari mercs...Those are  mercs. I don't control those. I don't control whether or not 15,000 citizens of Bengal or Vijaynagara decide to throw their lives away for coin. I've actually stated this many times when speaking to all European nations interested in trading with Bengal, specifically saying that I don't control whether or not their advertisements for buying mercinaries who are not part of the Bengali army are successful.


 * The mere existence of the League shows an Indian interest in unity, but you misunderstand what unity is in this case. India was not united as one nation until the 1800s, correct? Even today, a singular India has problems with unity. In the case of the League, unity means each Indian nation unites around a goal, be it trade, be it sovereignity, be it war. The mere creation of the League was to combat a foreign threat, the Timurids. But for what reason did India unite against that threat? I believe that it was because the Timurids were infringing upon the right of Indian nations to govern themselves, and for their attempts to subjugate Indian nations. Simply being in the League shows that the Indian nations hate foreign aggression because: Foreign aggressors take control of Indian states and attempt to subjugate them, which, while not being foreign, Marwar did to a fellow Indian state.
 * The Rao of Marwar holds the title of the Mughal Emperor.
 * The Mughal Empire declared itself the successor to the Timurids, and its rulers were blood descendants of Timur.
 * The Mughal Empire retained the same capital as the Timurids until very recently.
 * By declaring itself the successor to the Timurids, having blood descendants of Timur rule it, and by keeping the same political institutions, same taxes, same almost everything, it will be said that the Mughal Empire is seen as not a completely different nation, but as the remnant of the Timurid Empire after an unsuccessful civil war where the Timurids changed their name to save face.
 * Now, because the Rao holds the title of the Mughal Emperor, while not being a blood descedant to Timur, and being an Indian, by holding the title of the Mughal Emperor, he inherits all the history of the Timurids and previous Mughals. Since his brother was declared part of the Mughal bloodline and adopted by whoever, his brother is also in the Mughal royal line, which is considered a part of the Timurid line.
 * You believe that your vassalization is THE thing that makes me use that sentence to be against vassalization of Indian states and secure my own interests. Don't you find it odd that since the creation of that law, Bengal hasn't vassalized any Indian nation, and hasn't even said "Influence turn one of blank" at all? Your ideas of my hypocrisy would only make sense if Bengal had vassalized an Indian nation, or even ATTEMPT to vassalize an Indian nation after the creation of that law, but as I understood the law I created, I did not vassalize any Indian states because I followed the law. Now, as numerous sources say, a feud is not simply small-scale battles but: "<span class="hwc" id="hotword" name="hotword" style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana;font-size:small;line-height:normal;">continuous <span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana;font-size:small;line-height:normal;"> <span class="hwc" id="hotword" name="hotword" style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana;font-size:small;line-height:normal;">hostility", and " <span class="hwc" id="hotword" name="hotword" style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana;font-size:small;line-height:normal;">a <span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana;font-size:small;line-height:normal;"> <span class="hwc" id="hotword" name="hotword" style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana;font-size:small;line-height:normal;">bitter <span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana;font-size:small;line-height:normal;"> <span class="hwc" id="hotword" name="hotword" style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana;font-size:small;line-height:normal;">quarrel <span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana;font-size:small;line-height:normal;"> <span class="hwc" id="hotword" name="hotword" style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana;font-size:small;line-height:normal;">or contention". When I speak of the unity of the Indian peoples, do I speak of them being united under one leader, or one banner? Do I say united to fight for similar interests, or do I say united to serve under one ruler? The simple fact that the League has NO singular ruler, and NO accepted leadership, means that they are united for goals, not for serving. The Holy Roman Empire, even with accepted leadership, accepted singular ruler, and many nations agreeing with the singular ruler/leadership, couldn't unite as a singular entity to be ruled because number one, people don't give up positions of power, such as ruling a nation without orders, willingly. Number two, it's because they have their own goals which would go ignored if they were controlled. Number three, the goals of another nation would be imposed upon them, meaning their own goals are unheard of.


 * Of course influence is fine. Building alliances, treaties, and trade through influence is fine. Violating sovereignity is influence too far. If we were to accept that it wasn't too far, then the whole reason for the League existence would be for naught. Smaller border states: Jaisalmer. Nations sovereignity violated: Jaisalmer.


 * See, those are the reasons the League feels betrayed. They forgive an age old enemy, let them in, and assume that their will to control India is gone. In fact, that's why the first war was begun, to counter the Mughali will to dominate and subjugate India. However, by vassalizing an Indian nation, they show that they have not changed, not even with an Indian in power. With an Indian in power, and continuing the same goals of controlling India, it's a betrayal of India by an Indian, an India that wishes to not be dominated and subjugated, and an Indian that wishes to dominate and subjugate them.


 * "On the basis that the Mughal Empire is no longer a threat" speaks for itself. It does not say "On the basis that sovereignity is no longer an issue".


 * Peace - A traitor and a liar is being removed, agreed upon by all of the Indian nations (And Fed, and Feud, and last night, Ms).

Freedom - Meh, everyone owns slaves, indentured servants, and has a caste system, but "free". Unless you account for the reasons for not having sovereignity above.
 * Prosperity - It's there.
 * 1) Sovereignity (Legal Definition) : <span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;line-height:normal;"> it is a combination of all power; it is the power to do everything in a state without accountability; <span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;line-height:normal;">to make war or peace. We
 * By the rules of the game, the power to make war and peace reside within the liege state. The ruler of Jaisalmer is accountable to the Rao of Marwar, and therefore not free.
 * 1) Sovereignity (Wikipedia): The quality of having an independent authority over a geographic area. We
 * The Raja of Jaisalmer is not independent, and does not hold independent authority of Jaisalmer.
 * 1) Sovereignity (Merriam-Webster): Unlimited power over a country; a country's independent authority and the right to govern itself. We
 * The Raja of Jaisalmer is not the ultimate power over Jaisalmer, the Mughali Emperor is. The Raja of Jaisalmer does not have the right to govern himself and must accept all decisions of the Mughali Emperor.
 * 1) Sovereignity (Apparently numerous law books, etc.): <span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'TimesNewRoman';font-size:medium;line-height:normal;">The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any independent state is governed; supreme political authority; <span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'TimesNewRoman';font-size:medium;line-height:normal;">One which governs itself independently of any foreign power; <span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'TimesNewRoman';font-size:medium;line-height:normal;"> it is the power to do everything in a state without accountability. We
 * The Raja of Jaisalmer is not the supreme, absolute, or uncontrollable power that governs an independent sate. He is not the supreme political authority. He is not independent of a foreign power (Foreign in this sense being any nation that isn't Jaisalmer.). Must account to the Mughali Emperor.
 * 1) Sovereignity (Britannica):<span style="color:rgb(68,68,68);font-family:'OpenSans',sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:22.399999618530273px;"> the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the <span href="http://semantic.britannica.com/accepted_headword/core/563762/state" property="about" style="font-size:14px;font-family:'OpenSans',sans-serif;line-height:22.399999618530273px;outline:none!important;background-image:initial;background-attachment:initial;background-size:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-position:initial;background-repeat:initial;">state. We
 * The Raja of Jaisalmer is not the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of his state.

Again, more reasons as to why the Indian nations feel betrayed, as previously stated.

To end this argument:  Also, Ms said that he made a mistake in (let him explain, I'm not going to post it on talk page, too much respect), and will recalculate the algo to reflect other moderator decisions, which will be accomplished by the end of today. &#34;SO SAYETH THE EAGLE&#34; - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk)
 * 1) Marwar has violated the sovereignity of Jaisalmer, a commonly agreed upon staple of the League. If we are interpret influence within the law, I believe the best interpretation is axiomatic ergo, or what the goal of the law was. It was to stop the Mughals from influencing Indian states, especially small border state, to the point that they become vassals without sovereign rights under Mughali leadership. (Or in some cases, extremely devout new players that ignore game history, wish to become vassals of states they warred against recently, and then disappear suddenly when goals don't work out).
 * 2) Bengal only "rapidly" declared war once a majority of the Indian states (Approved by Fed and Feud, apparently approved by Ms last night) agreed to war against Marwar in their attempt to violate a League principle that is sovereignity, a principle they have agreed with before. Being approved by apparently three moderators, I would assume that the League decision is completely valid, and therefore you are trying to stipulate that all of the League has broken their own laws trying to punish a treacherous League member with no other available punishment other than war for lying to the Indian people and violated principles.
 * 3) Read above, mods and such. Also, Gwalior was threatened with war because they were trying to control a (two wasn't it?) League state. Marwar was threatened with war for controlling a League state, and for refusing to, and trying to state that vassalization, and violating the sovereignity of a League state is completely valid, has been warred against. You are trying to say that Bengal should be threatened with war for attempt to ensure that all League nations are free and independent of unjust vassalization?
 * 4) Read above, case proven and such.


 * Short argument, the common interest of sovereignity was created to protect smaller border states' sovereignity, as seen here


 * This why the Sultan of Bengal has proposed to following to the Indian League in order to preserve the sovereignity of smaller border states more suceseptible to influence, and to end a threat as soon as it begins:


 * Might look like I'm proving your point, but just this shows that sovereignity isn't a principle of the Leauge, only the sovereignity of those that currently serve as meat shields. But since there is no external threat, even this seems obsolete. And your table is wrong. Jaisalmer is under total control of the Raja without Marwar and under control of the Raja and the Rao with Marwar. Even if you consider Marwar a threat, it's still not a foreign threat. Just like, for example, Castile and Aragon have separate colonies, so can Marwar and Mughal have separate influence over other nations and separate vassals.


 * That is all <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 14:28, May 27, 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh and I believe Feud's decisions don't count since he has interest in said region. MP told me that Feud and him came to that conclusion during chat the other day -Sky

As an fyi - going by that "Treaty," a move by the Mughals/Whatever would not be in violation of it - not that they are held by it at all. Nor would one of the signatories be any of the things it is stated as a problem to incur the treaty if they were vassalized willingly, especially by the Mughals. Sky has a good point.

Next time take some time before leaving notes on my page, and go with mods first.

FYI - Paragraphs. Dear god, use paragraphs.

Lordganon (talk) 15:10, May 27, 2014 (UTC)

Yes I'd like to excuse myself for doing that and I'll try to organize any further arguments better. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 15:18, May 27, 2014 (UTC)

Note, I have yet to read the replies above, aside from Lordganon's. I agree highly with him, as what Lordganon said is essentially what I was trying to say with my initial comment. I couldn't find anything that actually binded the Mughals, and even if there was it's not like it could be accurately enforced. Just to be clear though, Bengal is surely still able to invade. and with allies too, just not in the same manner really. Mscoree (talk) 17:56, May 27, 2014 (UTC)

Sky just because i have expressed interest in a region doesnt make it biased especially when directly moderating to help a specific side hinders me either way. All in All i have no stake in this war whatsoever and it doesnt hinder me nor advance me in any way. There is literally no bias to be had in a region for myself when neither victor can benefit me in any way possible.


 * Firstly, I don't know what "Treaty" we are speaking of, but I will assume it's the Treaty of Delhi because it specifically states that Mughals will renounce their claims to Indian lands. There was no end date for this treaty to suddenly become invalid. All that ended was the treaty-mandated peace. Now, the fact that the ruler of Marwar can and will be considered a Mughal (I don't think that the Treaty of Delhi was a part of any of these arguments, but meh), necessitates that:


 * Marwar can be considered a Mughal for holding the title of Mughali Emperor, therefore, without having "Mughal Blood", or specific Mughal ties (Which I've proven without dispute that they do), by holding the title of Mughali Emperor, the Marwarian ruler allows himself to be considered a Mughal, just as while Queen Victoria was Queen of Great Britain, she held the title of Empress of India without having Indian blood, or specific Indian ties. Just as while King Vladislaus was not of Hungarian blood, or had specific ties to Hungary other than a strategic marriage, he was still considered a Hungarian. You cannot pick and choose what titles you say count and what do not count. If you say you're the Emperor of the Mughals, it doesn't matter if they're seperate realms and in a personal union, your Marwarian man is still Emperor of the Mughals, and a Mughal by title.


 * A perfect example is Charles XIV of Sweden, the adopted son of Charles XIII. Charles XIV (A frenchman if I'm not mistaken), was adopted by Charles XIII. Charles XIII dies, and then you have the current ruling family in Sweden. Tell me, is he considered French, or Swedish? Your world would have him considered French and unable to ascend to the throne even through election, while truly, he was considered both a Swedish man because of his policies (Like Marwar's) that forgoed his previous near-leadership in a war ( against Denmark AND Sweden, just like the war that pitted Marwar AGAINST the Mughals) against the nation he now controlled and attempted to harmonize Swedish and French (Mughal and Indian relations), and his overall leadership of the nation of Sweden (Mughals), as well as his blood heritage to France (Marwar).


 * The reason being those border states are specifically mentioned is because they are, well, border states. There is not risk of the Mughals influencing and vassalizing states they do not border because they'd have to get past, the border states. Actually, save for your Gwalior friend, the implausogasm he created, making the same arguments for the Mughals as you have, making the same case against Bengal you have previously, ignoring the previously friendly Bengali relations of specific trade and military access, and ignoring League/game history even when specifically told why what he was doing was both implausible, and not worth it, and then suddenly disappearing a few turns after that didn't work out for him.


 * Finally, while I understand that Feud cannot mod in India because of his interests there (I've stipulated (God I love that word) many times that mods shouldn't be able to mod anywhere near their area of interest), I have yet to understand how Bengal defeating the Mughals would result in the Spanish magically being able to make a Spanish Raj. In fact, Bengal has been more anti-foreigner than the Mughals, because while we both trade with them, you've given up whole land to them.


 * The real finally: This war and everything about it was changed overnight after DAYS of deliberation, and the overriding of two mods by another, then declared over within the hour of it suddenly favoring the Mughals. Notice anything else? Like how the algo was finished DURING the 1514-1515 turn, and was declared finished in 1513? How about how with the support of two mods, the League decision was suddenly declared implausible and retconned, and Bengal was given no chance to ask for allies once the whole bit of the war was changed. Explain how Gwalior is able to freely join the Mughali side without the Mughals asking, during the 1514-1515 turn, after the wars endyear of 1513. Also explain how Ms was supposed to go line by line on the Indian nations that would plausibly support Bengal, and decided that the three nations that Bengal has financially and militarily supported for decades would not attempt to even aid Bengal, as well as the two nations that Gwalior tried to control, who decided they would not oppose Gwalior again. &#34;SO SAYETH THE EAGLE&#34; - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk)

I myself am done stating any arguments, although I did organize the existant ones in order to make it easier for people to read. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 21:51, May 27, 2014 (UTC)

Also, finally, I would like to ask why you suddenly dislike Feud as a moderator. When your Marwar-Mughal personal union was threatened with being destroyed by the In The Common Interest of Sovereignity, Feud was THE first and THE only Moderator you went to for support. Now that Feud does not support you, you wish his support of me to be declared moot? For this reason, I believe that you, Sky, don't want non-biased mods, you don't want non-bias at all. You only want mods that have some chance of agreeing with you, like Feud in the In the Common Interest proposal, and as soon as they don't support you, you want to attempt to declare them as biased so that they may not be against you. So please, stop with this claim of wanting non-bias, and attacking Feud's ability to moderate, simply because he doesn't agree with you, despite you going specifically TO him FIRST and ONLY when it suited you. &#34;SO SAYETH THE EAGLE&#34; - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk)

PARAGRAPHS. Simple concept. Use them.

Treaty of Pandua, actually. Since the Treaty of Delhi does nothing like that.

Mughals gain a state through peaceful means - does not violate either treaty.

Lordganon (talk) 08:30, May 29, 2014 (UTC)

Explanation
Hello guys,

For the next two months, I will be working at a summer camp. I won't be as active as I am currently, but it does have internet, and I will try to make my posts. It isn't the best internet in the world though, so I don't know if I'll be able to hop on chat for more than a few minutes, if at all. But, this is my job, and it will come first before this, so I might have to miss a day or two here and there. Do not worry, I'll be more active when I come home for a day off every two-three weeks until my time is up, then I will return to my normal activity. If I miss a day or two, please don't just assume I quit.

Thanks for the understanding,


 * Guy

Tribes
Upon my attempts to fight/vassalize several tribes in the area near my nation (the Natigosteg L'nu), I was told that "'''No. i said stop doing tribes that do not exist on the map. It's not okay." '''

At the same time, the Marrikuwuyanga have vassalized two tribes that definitely didn't exist on the map (ie Yalngu and Jawoyn) and invaded Timor, also black on the map. Why are the mods talking out of both sides of their mouths here? Can you fight/vassalize tribes that don't exist on the map, or not? Or can some players do this, but not others? Krasnoyarsk (talk) 22:26, May 23, 2014 (UTC)

Nothing in the rules says its not allowed, just to clear that up. Krasnoyarsk (talk) 22:27, May 23, 2014 (UTC)

Jawoyn and Yalngu were both otl Aboriginal tribes living in Northern Australia and are present on the map of Aboriginal Australia. Calliburner [Forgot The Name] had allowed me to use the map when I had asked for it, although I usually don't.

I never vassalized any state at all. Yalngu was invaded and Jawoyn entered into a union with Marrikuwuyanga.

While it is indeed true that I add 'We continue to spread our influence into neighboring tribes', I'm afraid I do NOT do it so I can vassalize them. I do it so the tribes in Australia know about the Marrikuwuyanga Empire, that there is an Empire that has suddenly become a regional power. Obviously, people will migrate to my lands, acquire modern weaponry which I gained from Ayutthaya and soon these weapons would spread into much of Australia strengthening it, although at the cost of a war between the barbaric tribes who would use the weapons for revenge or territorial gain

You spread your influence to vassalize states. You see, I use the states just for role play so I can trade with them etc. I never have vassalized a state and never will [Takes too long]

Finally, Timor was semi- vassalized by Marrikuwuyanga when I invaded it and even at the moment I do not completely control it. If you look at my posts, you'd notice the religion 'Yadaism' isn't preached in Timor for fear of rebellion by natives [Well they do consider Emperor Yada Gulpilil as God but not the only or strongest God]. In fact, the tribal chiefs still control their specific tribes and I still have very little power over the island except control of the navy. The tribal chiefs of Timor are still being granted gifts to please them so you may refer to my invasion of Timor as a 'War on a Semi-Vassalized State' who's complete vassalization still will take some 10 more years. RexImperio (talk) 01:27, May 24, 2014 (UTC)

Plus, if I am told to stop using the Aboriginal Map.. I will stop although till now it seems no moderator has ever complained about it RexImperio (talk) 01:27, May 24, 2014 (UTC)

The point is, either interaction with tribes that don't exist on the PMIII map is allowed, as you were told, or its not, as I was told. I was told I couldn't fight a tribe not visible on the map either, so (well, actually, I was told I couldn't "do" them, whatever that means) those differences don't really apply. I have no issue with what you're doing. Could a mod clear this up? Krasnoyarsk (talk) 11:56, May 24, 2014 (UTC)

Its allowed it certain degrees. Trade and limited contact is possible as is trying to make then friendlier so when you expand into them they are okay with your expansion. However vassalizing these tribes in order to facilitate faster expansion is not. Earlier in the game we had NA players creating new vassals like this left and right and used them to implausibly and massively expand. so yeah i believe that in these situtations you could expand into them and then make a vassal out of the territory you expanded into but not just vassalizing a tribe not on the map like has been done too much. As for trade and limited contact this is no issue as this happened OTL relatively easily with small and medium sized friendly tribes.

Madagasikara (Attacker)
Total: 97
 * Location: 4
 * Tactical Advantage: 5
 * Nations: Madagasikara (L), Sofala (MV), Mozambika (MV), Pembara (MV) 11/5= 2
 * Military Development: 20/0 =20
 * Economic Development: 20/0 = 20+10 = 30
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 7
 * Modifiers: 9
 * Chance: 5
 * Edit count: <span style="color:rgb(45,45,45);text-align:right;">6,402
 * UTC: 9:44 = 17
 * Total: 6402/17*pi (3.14159265359) = 1,183.0519
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 7 digits = 17
 * Participation: 10
 * Number of Troops: 60,000/25,000 = 2
 * Recent Wars: 0

Great Zimbabwe (Defender)
Total: 16
 * Location: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: 0
 * Nations: Great Zimbabwe (L) 5 = 0
 * Military Development: 0
 * Economic Development: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 9 (defending core from fatal attack)
 * Modifiers: -5
 * Chance: 1
 * Nation Age: -10
 * Population: 6 digits = 6
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Number of Troops: 25,000 = 0

Result
Great Zimbabwe is split into 6 smaller states after 2 years of combat, and thousands of Zimbabweans are massacred in the third year, before the remaining states are forced to be tributaries.

Discussion
Here are a few notes as to why Zimbabwe's scores are so low... they were in disarray for most of the past 20 years, and since then they have been expanding militarily (recent wars), which has led to no development scores.

For military size, I took 3% of my estimated population (2 million) and I took 5% of the Zimbabwean population (500,000). 21:47, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

1% is more accurate, at this time period.

22:41, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

Actually, a much higher number is accurate, since only Europe was plagued with the inability to raise large armies. Nations in Africa, the Middle East, India, and the Far East were able to raise tens of thousands of soldiers for a single battle alone since they didn't rely on the feudalistic systems of Europe. This is why the relatively small vassals states in Japan were able to raise as many as many as 25-50,000 men each, while massive nations such as Franch and Poland could push about 15-20,000 men each without destroying their economies. This is also the reason why the almost all of the Sultans of the Middle East could field armies as large as 250,000 men for a single campaign, while the Holy Roman Empire at its height and under the strong rulership of Barbarossa was able to raise 100,000 once time in its history during the Crusades, and later only never raised more than 35-50,000 man afterward. The tiny army syndrome is only relative to Europe, not the rest of the world. Fun fact. Even though the Zulu Kingdom had no more than 500,000 people, it routinuely fielded armies of 10-25,000, about the same as medieval France, which possessed a population of some 15 million people. That's sad. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 23:05, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

Wait, seriously? Then why was I limited to 1% of my population? I wasn't even remotely European... And I had sources showing my nation raised armies of about 300,000 routinely...

23:37, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

That is actually cool.

I have refrained from putting Zimbabwe as tribal. Is it a tribal nation, I know the technology for both sides should have a large gap between them. Saamwiil, the Humble 02:07, May 22, 2014 (UTC)

Please do not change the algo. All of the points have legitimate reasons. Firstly, the Zimbabweans have been around for only 3 years, all 3 of which they have been in a war and therefore they have not been developing infrastructure, economy, or military. They do not get a 1.5 multiplier because they did not have a popular revolt. Our men are convinced that it is a crusade, as our rhetoric has intensified in recent years and the priests have urged King Esteban to declare the war. The vassals penalty was already levied in the nations age section, as it should be according to precedent. 02:39, May 22, 2014 (UTC)

They have not been in a war. They've been expanding, declaring "war" on smaller kingdoms, none of which are on the map. They do, in fact, get the 1.5* multiplier, as they had a significant change of government. And it does not matter what the clergy feels, the war is for purely economic reasons. There is no way to convince a populace that in three years, a nation centralised only three years ago has found a way to seriously oppress its negligible Christian minority, and out enough propoganda out there to support such a claim as "defending oppressed Christians." Sorry, I do not stand for biased algorithms. Algorithms are algorithms for a reason, if you truly want to implausibly conquer a nation, ask for mod permission, and you can disreard the algoritm, or make it however biased you wish. Saamwiil, the Humble 14:21, May 22, 2014 (UTC)

Safavid Empire

 * Location: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: +2 Ambush
 * Nations Per Side: (L) Safavids = 5
 * Military Development: 8*2=16/14=1
 * Economic Development: 9*2=16/14=1
 * Economic Bonus: Much larger economy (10), Larger trade (5)= +15
 * Motive: 7 (Enforcing political hegemony)
 * Modifiers: +5
 * Nation Age: +0
 * Chance: 7

Total: 75
 * Edit count: 1061
 * UTC Time: 19:04=1*9*1*4=36
 * 1061/26=29.472222222222...
 * Population: 7,500,000 = 7
 * Participation: +10
 * Expansion: -1*4=-4
 * Number of Troops: 149,100/30,000=5

Shahdom Of Verkana
Total: 45
 * Location: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations Per Side: (L) Verkana = 5
 * Military Development: 7*2=14 = 0
 * Economic Development: 7*2=14 = 0
 * Economic Bonus: Smaller economy -2
 * Infrastructure: 4
 * Motive: +9 (Defending from possibly fatal attack)
 * Nation Age: +0
 * Chance: 6
 * Edit count: 834
 * UTC Time: 19:04=1*9*1*4=36
 * 834/36=23.166666666...
 * Population: 1,000,000 = 7
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 30,000 = 0

Results
(75/(75+45))*2-1=25%

25*(1-1/(2*3))=20.83%

Discussion
I have done this, there might be some mistakes. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 18:50, May 26, 2014 (UTC)

Oyo Empire (Attacker)

 * Location: +4
 * Tactical Advantage: +6
 * Nations: Oyo (L), Benin (L), Burkina (L), Ife (L) = 20/4 = +5
 * Military Development: 50/4 = +13
 * Economic Development: 30/4 = +8
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: +7 +3 +3 +3
 * Modifiers: +6 +4 +10 +5 (Trade with Europe, India, and Middle East)
 * Chance: +8

Total: 99
 * Edit count: 5,055
 * UTC: 2*1*2*0 = 4
 * Total: 5055/4*pi = 3970.187715974363
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Population: +8 (18,400,000)
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 425,000/100,000 = +4
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Songhai (Defender)
Total: 37
 * Location: +5
 * Tactical Advantage: +1
 * Nations: Songhai (L) = 4/20 = 0
 * Military Development: 4/50 = 0
 * Economic Development: 4/30 = 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: +5
 * Modifiers: +4 -3 (Recent civil war)
 * Chance: +7
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: +8 (25,000,000)
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 100,000/425,000 = 0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result

 * ((99/(37+99))*2)-1 = 0.4558823529411765%
 * (45.5)*(1-1/(2*2)) = 34.125%

Oyo and its allies may claim 34.1% of Songhai within the next two years, toppling the government of Songhai.

Discussion
For those wondering why I went with two years instead of five, in OTL, it only took Morocco one year to conquer Songhai at its height, all because it had firearms. Mind you, Morocco had to trek through the desert with only 10,000 men. I have the luxury of a border with Songhai and a much larger combined military force. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 02:27, May 25, 2014 (UTC)

Retconned for BS Causus Belli, controlling another Nation (Songhai) to fabricate said BS Causus Belli, and multiple other issues with this.

The CB isn't BS. I can invade since the foreign relations you forced on Songhai led to them naturally killing Oyo citizens. The rules state that a player can plausibly push an NPC nation into making certain choices in their lands; "Encourage the government of that country to make certain choices." By you making them hate me unconditionally (even though relations can be repaired), I can have their people kill my own, and then invade them on those grounds. So what I did was plausibly and realistic, and saying it's BS is nothing more than your opinion than a grounded fact. And stop saying "multiple other issues" when there ain't any. You make it sound as if the entire algo is corrupt, and when your finally pushed on the matter of what's actually wrong, it's only one our two minor issues. And sign your posts darn it! Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 13:07, May 25, 2014 (UTC)

I believe the agreement yesterday was that both Oyo and France would be allowed to go to war, with the best nation winning. Let Viva invade, and he will have to fight against France. Mscoree (talk) 13:12, May 25, 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 15:23, May 25, 2014 (UTC)

Mods have permitted the uncrossing of the algo. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 18:32, May 26, 2014 (UTC)

Implausibility
Without pointing fingers, it seems as though the game is getting more and more implausible. I suggest that there are some more damaging mod events in response to implasibility to try to control mod events and stop this going any further. Ozymandias2 (talk) 17:28, May 25, 2014 (UTC)

Ozy, to be honest, you should be pointing fingers. On the other hand, mods watch over the game, but this doesn't mean all implausible players will get instantly punished. Moreover, mod events cannot totally get rid of implausibility, which is why the best way to counter implausibility is by playing the game. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 09:52, May 26, 2014 (UTC)

And playing it well.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 11:00, May 26, 2014 (UTC)

Eurasian Invasion of China
===Eurasian Collation (Attacker)=== ​Total: 82
 * Location: 3
 * Manchu (4)
 * Marwar (3)
 * SCK (4)
 * Mughals (3)
 * Dai Veit (4)
 * Safavids (2)
 * Fusahito (4)
 * Liao (4)
 * Roman Empire (2)
 * Jaisalmer (3)
 * Castille (2)
 * Aragon (2)
 * Oyo (2)
 * Tactical Advantage: + 5 (Siege Equipment) 2 (High Ground/ Ambush) = 7
 * Nations Per Side: Manchu (L), Liao (L), Tibet (L), Fusahito (L) Marwar (L), Mughals (L) SCK (LV) Roman Empire (L) Safavids (M), Jaisalmer (LV) Castille (L) Aragon (L) Oyo (M) = 55/18=3
 * Military Development = Marwar-Mughal-Chagatai (5*3*2), Japan (10*2), Manchu (9*2), Liao (8*2), Roman Empire (10*2), Jaisalmer (5*2) Castille (10*2) Aragon (10*2) Oyo (8*2) = 170/84=2
 * Economic Development = Marwar-Mughal-Chagatai (11*3*2), Japan (8*2), Manchu (7*2), Liao (6*2), Roman Empire (10*2), Jaisalmer (5*2) Castille (10*2) Aragon (10*2) Oyo (9*2) = 196/98=2
 * Economic Bonus: Much larger economy (10), Larger trade (5) = 15
 * Expansion; -2*3, -1*3 = -9
 * Motive: 39
 * Aiding social/moral/ideological/religious kinsmen who are being opressed (+7)
 * Aiding Ally (+3)
 * Aiding Ally (+3)
 * Aiding Ally (+3)
 * Aiding Ally (+3)
 * Aiding Ally (+3)
 * Aiding Ally (+3)
 * Aiding Ally (+3)
 * Economic (+3)
 * Aiding Ally (+3)
 * Aiding ally (+3)
 * Aiding Ally (+3)
 * Aiding Ally (+3)
 * Mostly non-democratic nations: -3
 * Chance: +2
 * ​Edit Count: 2069
 * UTC Time: 18:33 = 1*8*3*3 = 249
 * 2069/249*3.14=24.9277108
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Manchu: -5
 * Mughals: 0
 * Marwar: 0
 * SCK: -5
 * Fuschatio: 0
 * Liao: 5
 * Dai Veit: 5
 * Safavids: 0
 * Jaisalmer: +5
 * Roman Empire: 0
 * Castile: 0
 * Aragon: 0
 * Population:  +8 (26,000,000)
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 490,000/1,000,000 = 0

China (Defender)
​Total: 63
 * Location: 4
 * China (5)
 * Korea (4)
 * Haixi (4)
 * Mongol Khandate (4)
 * Pegu (3)
 * Lan Xang (4)
 * Khmer (3)
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations Per Side: China (L), Korea (LV), Haixi (LV), Mongol (LV), Pegu (LV), Lan Zang (LV), Khmer (LV) More than 3 vassals -2 =18/36=0
 * Military Development: 6*7*2=84
 * Economic Development: 7*7*2=98
 * Infrastructure: 7
 * Economic Bonus: +4 (various locations) Smaller economy -2 = 2
 * Motive: 23
 * China : Defending Heartland from attack that will not cripple/ destroy nation: (+ 5)
 * Korea: Aiding an Ally (+3)
 * Hiaxi: Aiding an Ally (+3)
 * Mongol: Aiding an Ally (+3)
 * Pegu: Aiding an Ally (+3)
 * Lan Xang: Aiding an Ally (+3)
 * Khmer: Aiding an Ally (+3)
 * Chance:4
 * Edit count: 4921
 * UTC Time: 19:12 = 18
 * 4921/18 * 3.14 = 858.44111
 * Nation Age: China (5), Korea (5), mongol (0), Hiaxi (0) Lan Xang (0) Khmer (0)= 1
 * Population: 100,000,000 (+9)
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 1000/490,000= 2

Result
((82/(63+82))*2)-1=0.1310344827586207

(0.1310344827586207)*(1-1/(2*3)) = 0.1091954022988505833

The Basque Terrorist organization and allies can take 10.9195 % of china

Discussion
Forgive my absence I had family matters.ALLONS-Y!!,Basically, RUN!! 22:23, May 26, 2014 (UTC)

The fact that this coallition is occurring in 1500 is ridiculous. I'm calling lockdown and potential mod retcon if other non-affiliated mods agree with me. Fed (talk) 22:39, May 26, 2014 (UTC)

Much as it pains me to agree with Feddy Bear, who not long ago killed my nation (would have happened anyway, true, since I have basically no time to edit anymore due to exams), may I enquire what you're all smoking? And, more importantly, can I get some?

Barring that, does anyone know where I can get adderol?

lel, 22:55, May 26, 2014 (UTC)

Reasons For national involvment WHY seriously why???!!! 23:04, May 26, 2014 (UTC)
 * Manchu: liberation of other manchus
 * Japan: Treaty of Kyoto
 * Mughals: fr helping in India.
 * Liao and Safavds. Allies and trade partners
 * Rome and Spain: trying to get both land and trade (Think Opium War and The US forcing Japan to drop Isolationisim.
 * Oyo: to get better trade from the orient y aiding its allies.

Manchu: Fair.

Japan: I mean I guess but why?

Dai Viet: Fair.

Those are fair, but would get their asses pwned in any war so uh no.

Mughals, Safavids: Too far, too removed, wouldn't plausibly give a shit.

Rome and Spain: Both of those occurred in the 1800s. We're in the 1500s. I doubt either can send more than 2 or three ships there, and would anyway get far more trade off China than the other nations.

Oyo: Viva, like, actually? Why do you think the largest, richest, most populous, most powerful nation on the planet will give you less trade than a bunch of surrounding titches?

23:08, May 26, 2014 (UTC)

I support Fed's idea of mod locking to determine the legitamcy of this. it is the 1500's not 1800, these large scale coalitions do not seem plausible to me.ALLONS-Y!!,Basically, RUN!! 23:47, May 26, 2014 (UTC)

Japan's motive is also to stop continued Chinese interference in Japan- I didn't realise that Oyo was involved... seriously? I know Viva will probably get really annoyed and go on a rant, but Oyo shouldn't be in East Asia. I don't really see the East Indies happening, but whatever. Ozymandias2 (talk) 09:43, May 27, 2014 (UTC)

One thing about the --Marwar-Mughal union tho. All nations involved (Marwar, Mughal, Chagatai, Jaisalmer) are connected to the Eurasian Trade Agreement. Seeing as how China is a possible ally of Bengal in any possible future conflicts and seeing as how the Chinese being controlled by an ally would benefit the union greatly and seeing as how according to the Eurasian Trade Agreement nations are not obliged to aid any other nation in the war however they can if they wish to do so (for any ulterior motives). And Chagatai borders Chinese-controlled Qara Del. So depending on the outcome of the second war for Indian (read: Bengali) hegemony the union might actually not only be able to attack, but also to pull a large portion of its army in. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 09:52, May 27, 2014 (UTC)

Oyo may be a stretch and can be taken out. But Considering The portugese were conquering Malaysia at the same time, and that Feudals nation is more technilogically advanced, he should be allowed. And for rome, dont forget that now we have the Philadelphi Canal. WHY seriously why???!!! 19:38, May 27, 2014 (UTC)

Large-scale coalitions have been common throughout history, such as the Holy League in the1400s and 1500s, which was made up of nine nations the first time it was formed, and eleven states further into the 1500s. Then there was the Protestant Union which was made up of countless German states needing to fighting against the Catholic states in the HRE. So large scale coalitions were and have always been common in this period of time. And I'm no more annoying that any of the others when they try to defend their actions. In any case, I've purchased modern ships from Portugal many turns ago, and I have access to ports in India (Kochi to be exact) and Zanzibar. Also, since I trade with the Safavids, an ETA member, I have access to other ETA ports near China. Plus, I trade with Bengal, so I'm already based out of their ports. So Oyo reaching China is not an issue. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 20:14, May 27, 2014 (UTC)

Oyo makes more sense than Rome or Spain. And Oyo makes no sense at all. Any of those nations could probably reach China... but why would they attack? If they can reach the Chinese, they know that the Chinese are a god damn gold mine! They can provide the Euros and the Oyo with so much money, they'll get inflation! (Not joking; silver actually underwent severe devaluation in Spain OTL; it would cost several bars of silver to pay for a loaf of bread).

Never forget, no European nation attacked the Asians in their zenith. The Mughals under Aurangzeb or Akbar would have smashed all of Europe combined without a sweat; they controlled 25% of the world's trade, had the world's largest population (they slightly edged out China under Aurangzeb, but lost that immediately after his rule), the world's best trained army (with the possible exception of China).

Point is, only the neighboring nations would attack, and since they all knew they'd get their asses smashed back to the Stone Age if they did attack, they'd get off too.

Where the hell is Scan? Doesn't he have anything to say about this? Is he inactive?

22:40, May 27, 2014 (UTC)

What Spain was trying to do was something. They are trying to seize a port city while China is busy fighting a war elsewhere. As for the others I am not sure what they are doing. Mscoree (talk) 22:45, May 27, 2014 (UTC)

Coalition wars this early on are never really plausible. I second (or third, whatever...) the motion to lock the algo for checking. Cour *talk* 02:25, May 28, 2014 (UTC)

My official resignation
Now, some people will see this as me being a some spoilt player who can't accept losing, but I really can't change how people think. However, here's my story.

Since friday, a lot of my time has been consumed by this game, specifically the discussion of the overall plausibility of the Indian war and simillar Indian war-related topics. And I noticed, that's just too much of my time.

I joined this wiki to contribute with my own articles, yet I have been so fascinated by map games that I comepletely forgot about that.

Therefore, I am leaving this map game, as well as any other map game I'm currently playing in, in order to focus on actual work on timelines.

Some might be disappointed, some might be glad and some might just not care.

To end this, I hope you all have fun playing this game, as it really is a great one, just don't ruin it. But don't worry, I'll drop by ocassionally to annoy you guys. Best of luck to everyone in achieving their goals.
 * To Eip, my dear frenemy, I wish you the best of luck with creating the sense of Indian nationalism and later on a fascist nation in India. (Azad Hind stronk)
 * To Feud, may the sun never set in the Spanish Empire.
 * To Ms, may Austria not be screwed over by Castile.
 * To Sine, may you unite France
 * To Andy and Bfox, Éire stronk, Albion stronk.
 * To Scar, may you atleast not make Safavids fall apart in less then a month
 * To Toby, may the Qing rule over China
 * To Ozy, may you unite Japan under the Fusahito theocracy
 * To Viva, keep Oyo alive, I got your back buddy.
 * To MP, may the Roman Empire be glorious once more
 * To Fed, may you unite all Turks as MP wishes you to
 * To Crim, let's just hope your nation doesn't fall apart once you're gone
 * To Nk, may Netherlands stay neutral
 * To Greg, you're doing good, keep calm and carry on.
 * To Yank, I kind of lost track on Prussia, so I'll just say... Go get 'em!
 * To Imp, I really do hope our plans for Hungary work out

<font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 22:10, May 27, 2014 (UTC)

I am saddened to see you go, but I understand the need to get back to basics so to speak. Good luck on your timeline work, I am sure it will be fantastic.ALLONS-Y!!,Basically, RUN!! 22:29, May 27, 2014 (UTC)

Hey bud, I hope you know none of this is personal, it's only part of a map game. I didn't mean to make you want to leave or anything, I just wanted to secure my own future within the early days of the game, without the fear of it all crashing down come the 1700s or 1800s. I'm real sad to see you go, honestly. You're a great player, you're a good friend, a very plausible man (Far more plausible than the last Timurid/Mughali player ;)). To be honest, I was nearly in the same boat as you, leaving because of this map game taking far more of my time than it should, but then I came back to it, because, unlike you, I don't have any real good ideas for timelines or articles, nor do I actually hold the ability to put forth the effort to create good timelines or articles, which you do. Best of luck to you brother in all that you contribute, and I can't wait to read your great articles and timelines in the near future. To finish off, here's a hopefully correct table: &#34;SO SAYETH THE EAGLE&#34; - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk)

God speed, Sky. God speed... T-T Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 04:08, May 28, 2014 (UTC)

Eip you shouldn't really blame yourself since I had really given this a thought. PMIII was fun, and you're a good player. In my life I have often tried to do a ton of things at once, which never worked out. I abandoned a ton of projects (non wikia connected) and I believe I'm having some good ideas and I don't want them to go to waste. Would I have resigned if you weren't playing as Bengal? Probably, but much later. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 06:41, May 28, 2014 (UTC)

Woah Sky, that is a bombshell. Hope it works out though. Imp (Say Hi?!) 22:56, May 29, 2014 (UTC)

Spain and Friends
Location: +3 Tactical Advantage: Nations Per Side: +4
 * Castile: 2
 * Aragon: 2
 * Morocco: 2
 * Zapotec: 5
 * Maya: 4
 * Itzapam: 4
 * High ground/ambush: 2
 * Castile, Aragon, Morocco, Maya, Zapotec, Itzapam

Military Development: 90/6 = +15
 * Castile: +20
 * Aragon: +20
 * Morocco: +20
 * Mayans: +14
 * Zapotec: +20
 * Itzapam: +4 (Same as below Cour)

Economic: 105/3 = +35


 * Castile: +20
 * Aragon: +20
 * Morocco: +20
 * Mayans: +20
 * Zapotec: +20
 * Itzapam: +4 (not sure how long youve had them cour)
 * Economic Bonus: Larger economy, Larger Colonial Empire +15

Locations Bonus: +10 Economic Bonus:
 * Straits of Gibraltar +5
 * Cape of Good Hope +3
 * Seville +1
 * Barcelona +1
 * Much larger Economy: +10
 * Larger Economy: +5
 * Equally matched economy: +2 (to both nations)
 * Smaller Economy: -2
 * Receding Economy: -3
 * In Golden economic age: +3
 * Larger Trade/Colonial Empire: +5

Infrastructure: N/A
 * N/A

Expansion: N/A


 * N/A

Motive: +24
 * Zapotec: +9 (fatal attack) (+4)
 * Itzapam: +3 (Aiding Ally)
 * Castile: +3 (Aiding Ally) (+4)
 * Aragon: +3 (Aiding Ally)
 * Morocco: +3 (Aiding Ally)
 * Maya: +3 (Aiding Ally)

Chance


 * Edit count=x
 * nonzero digit in time*nonzero digit in time=y
 * x/y*pi=z
 * Chance=Hundredth place of z

NPC Bonus: N/A
 * N/A

Nation Age: -4.1
 * Castile: -5
 * Aragon: -5
 * Morocco: -5
 * Mayans: +0
 * Zapotec: -5
 * Itzapam: -5

Population: +8 +10 = +18 (population is about 16-17 mil of total forces, and Aztecs is 2.2 mil)


 * +10 if the larger nation is between five and ten times the population of the smaller

Recent Wars
 * -1(Castilian support in a Bengali War)

Participation: +10

Number of Troops: 61,000/47,000 = 1.2 = +1 Total: 116.9
 * Castile: 15,000 (10,000 of these are indian Auxiliaries recruited from various local populace
 * Aragon: 500
 * Morocco: 1000
 * Maya: 20,000
 * Zapotec: 20,000
 * Itzapam: 5,000

Aztec Empire
Location: Tactical Advantage: Nations Per Side: +5
 * Next to war +4
 * +2 (ambush)
 * Aztecs

Military Development: 
 * 6 ~+6

Economic: 


 * 3

Locations Bonus: +1 Economic Bonus:
 * Tenochtitlan +1
 * Smaller Economy: -2

Infrastructure: 
 * 4 ~+4

Expansion: 


 * 0

Motive: +7 +4
 * Political hegemony

Chance


 * 1130=x
 * 5*3=y
 * x/y*pi=z
 * Chance=Hundredth place of z

Nation Age: 
 * -5 (government changes)

Population: 


 * 2.6 million

Recent Wars:
 * none

Participation: +10

Number of Troops:  Total: 37
 * 47,000 +?

Discussion
I think this is open and shut

A Mil/Eco Turn Program?
As we all know, some people like me and IATG will be gone for some time over the summer. I was wondering if there could be a program where someone could post for you very single day a Mil or Eco turn until you return, so the plausibility of the game stays up to date. For example, what if France stopped posting because they had to go somewhere over the summer? The plausibility would go down and France would miss out on OTL opprotunities to colonize the "New World". I think this is nessisary for some people, as it would keep them up and ready for when they return and not to come back to a s***** nation. Saturn (Talk) 13:52, May 29, 2014 (UTC)

You can already ask someone to post in your name during summer, there is no special program you just ask someone. Guess someone would be willing to do so if you gave them guidelines on what to do <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 13:57, May 29, 2014 (UTC)

In response to moderator aggression, a defense
Now, in my defense, I, Vivaporius, will state the reasons why Feud and Fed's statement is BS topped with Ratc-level stupidity.

Some may argue that I'm the source of the game's woes. Well, I can certainly understand that narrow-point of view, but it's a bit more complex than that, and I shall guide you through this explaination like a parent taking a child through a homeless shelter in a bad neighborhood in Detriot filled with murderous pedophile serial rapists from Somalia.

First, in regards to the act that just got me temp-banned, there was no prior warning dictating that I cannot vassalize the Akan state. In fact, I brought the matter up with MP, and he stated that there was no reason I vassalize the Akan. Now, this follows a warning Feud gave me, albeit a vague one, that the mods were planning to permaban me from the game for reasons unknown (though I can guess it's because I refused to kiss their rings and wipe their behinds). For the last week, Feud, who appearently reads ALL of the turns, allowed me to vassalize the Akan under his nose, and waited only until the vassalization was completed to act. Fed, who's just as "observent" as Feud, did the same, completely complacient with the act only until it had been finished. Now, Feud states that I was warned that no peaceful expansion can take place under the Oyo, though this wouldn't make any human sense given that governments have always been able to mend relations. To say that two nations cannot peaceful work together is like saying the EU can't exist because everyone is still bent up over WWII and Germany. It's stupid to say the least, and there is much more I could say about that.

Now, this also comes on the hills of Sine's stated desire to annex Mali and control West Africa. I've recieved numerous threats of players stating they want to invade and annex my land, among them being Nk, Sine, Feud, and even Guns (though I don't know how China will reach me according to the mods). So naturally, I decided to use that age-old thing we humans like to call "diplomacy" (with a "d"), to expand and strengthen my empire to prevent any acts of aggression against me. Thus, I target Songhai for aggressive expansion, and the Akan for peaceful expansion. Well, according to the mods, Oyo can't expand peacefully because I was the only state to wage war in that region. And? it's not the first or last time a nation that was aggressive managed to peacefully annex a nation, Rome and Great Britain begin prime examples of that. Now, some of you might say "well Rome and Britain were more advanced than their neighbors, and could get away with that." Well, nobody expect Oyo have guns, cannon, steel, ships, and cavalry. Just Oyo. So, but that very same logic, Oyo should be able to annex the Akan without issue.

On to the third part. Feud has stated that I don't like being contradicted. Well, that has never been the case, and I'm often the first person in chat and on the talk page to admit I was wrong, as I have been on numerous occasions. However, in order for me to be contradicted, Feud, Fed, Sine, or one of the other players/mods would need something to contradict me with. That has not happened. For example, it was stated that West Africa wasn't urbanized, and wasn't very populous. Well, I smashed that claim to pieces when I provided information from a research team from the University of Tokyo that showed, along with sources, that West Africa was by far, one of the most urbanized places on Earth, and it had a population of ten million in 1400. That argument, though sourced by numerous organizations, was discounted by the all-knowing Feud and his "three deans" since it was a paper...from Princeton University. The paper may not have been good enough for Feud and his Texan deans, but it was good enough for an ivy League university and several NGOs and the University of Tokyo to be accepted and archived by them all.

Forth point. The same mods who allowed PMII to descend into the clusterf***ery it became last time, moderate PMIII this time. Yup. The same mods who created such "lovable", one-sided events such as the hurricane that destroyed all Mayan development in the Guld of Mexico, an earthquake that destroyed entire Mayan cities except for that one Italian colony that got a token "tremor", and magically united entire regions that hated one another to fight a nation the mods didn't want to expand. Those mods. Yet, said mods state that my actions were "incompetent, stupid, and biased", created events in this game that created a storm in a region that rarely, rarely recieves them, that magically transported several metric tons of sand into the Alexandrian Canal; yes, a canal that is several hundred meters wide and 125 miles long, and god knows how many meters deep, to clog it with material that would take decades to remove, just to punish a nation for a minor infraction. Yes. Those very same mods. Now I argue in favor of protecting players, as well as myself, from those retarded events. And yes, they very are retarded. Yet, I'm being implausible.

But, how pray tell does one argue against that? Well, that brings me to point six. How in god's name do you counter numerous attacks against your nation without being regarded as aggressive? Simple answer: I don't know! You see, a while back, I was punished and banned from the wiki for a day for participating in a discussion some mods, LG amoungst them, regarded as an argument. Now, Guns was the one who brought the subject up, and I polietfully responded to each and every question, using sources from all across the internet. Now, since I don't have the luxury of going to some C-list university in Texas because I neither the money nor to resources to attend one, I have to stick with Google and books I have at home. Thus, I do my very best to source all of my claims. Now, Guns came to this discussion with no sources whatsoever, while I did. However, LG and company said I was wrong, never said why, never showed me why, but they sided with Guns, and blamed me for what they called an argument. It's very easy to gang up on a single fellow when its four or five of you in positions of authority, and said fellow is attacking your credibility.

Now, the greatest issue I'm confronted with game-wise and chat-wise, is which trumps which? OTL or ATL? Well, I don't have the answer to that. But appearently, neither do the mods either. You see, when I came to this wiki about, two years ago, I wanted to play a map game. That game was Triple Entente vs Central Powers. Now, I was told while playing Liberia, that OTL trumps ATL, and as such, I tried to use Liberia's extremely valuable OTL rubber resources to industrialize. I was basically told to go f*** off, and I was banned for the game for not three, but two infractions, one of which didn't even take place on the game page, but in a discussion I had with a very insulting and disrespectful user by the name of Scrawland Scribblescratch. Yup. I got banned for a game, not for doing in-game, but because of a statement I said off-hand on the supposed safety of my very own talk page. Yet, the mods insist they are biased. Later on when dealing with Turkey, I tried to use the OTL resources and development of Turkey to expand, but the mods countered and stated that this time, ATL, not OTL, was the rule of game.

Flabberghasted, I complained, and I was shut down and told to deal with it, which I did. Recently, I was told by Feud the Almighty in chat not two days ago, that OTL trumped ATL, and he went on to further state I should stop "flip-flopping", when it was his peers who said differently. Now, in PMII, I was told that ATL trumped OTL early in the game, and I went along with that, leading to Ethiopia colonizing cold regions. However, the mods stated that in OTL, Ethiopians were living in cold climates (though I fail to see why they can't adapt to a new one like the rest of humanity, especially when offered incentives to move there), and they used that as the basis of their argument against me. Yet, when I used OTL to state that the Chinese would have no reason to be in Britain given that their possessions were in the Pacific, and historically, empires didn't really care what happened outside of their sphere of influence, the mods once again flip-flopped, and stated that empires can involve themselves anywhere they want, yet that was not the case for me, as I wasn't allowed to do anything outside of Africa and the Indian Ocean until I posted a passionate response detailing the problems with that.

On the the seventh issue. The mods are incredibly biased (not all, but enough of them), and they will often exploit their modship to get what they want. One example of this is when they barred many nations from taking part in an attack on AP's abandoned empire, rather than just say a revolt took place in his lands and they power went to the natives. They also exploited their power in Axis vs Allies 3, when I played as Turkey. When I developed nukes, I wanted to use them in an invasion of Egypt en mass. I was told I couldn't because it was ASB. Well, when the mods wanted to weaken/destroy Turkey, they not only made nations I was allies with and gained peacefully hate me for no reason, but they used a ton of nukes to invade me, since a convential invasion wouldn't have succedded. So not only did they flip-flop on their own rules, but they lied to users who they prevented from using their aresnals properly. Yet, these very same mods have stated that I have been biased, and I have misused or outright ignored rules for my own personal benefit, and my actions in-game from that point onward, have always been called into question.

Now, in conclusion, let me just say this. I have been called a racist, simply because I work a lot with African nations (though I don't see NuclearVacuum being called a racist because he works with Russian TLs, or Kogasa for working with Japanese ones, or Imp for liking Indian ones). I have been called a retard, even though Fed himself complained when I justifibly called him ignorant, and he banned me for being "insensitive" (though he regularly calls Oct retarded himself). I have have been scapegoated for every, stupid argument in PMII and PMIII, even though I rarely started them, or there was a geniune issue with their comments. I have had my reputation called into question, and my name villified countless times. The simple-minded may say that it's because I can't take criticism, and the outright foolish because I'm an Africa-wank. But this is about my name, and the way it has been used on this wiki.

Implausible empires have been labelled "Vivempires" simply because I had a large nation in PMII, even though it was far from being the largest, and when there were far more implausible empires in the game (such as Cyprus and magical Wales). I have Fed, Feud, and Ms against me, and the latter even had the gall to say "what if Guns' argument about Mali was correct", even though we both knew it was wrong (that's like asking if Hitler was a murderer or not, we all know he was), almost as if to say I may have been wrong about the topic even though the sources I brought proved Guns was wrong. The point is, whenever I or any of us call into question the moderators' judgement, especially when we know what they did was wrong, they either overreact, punish, complain, or insult the user. They've done this all of the time from the time I joined this site down to today. I have been told by too many users leaving this wiki that the administrators and the moderators are biased, and every single time I come here, their words are proved right day by day. There wouldn't be rival wikis to Althistory if there wasn't a legitimate concern with the way things are run here. If PMII isn't an example of that, then your either blind, stupid, or too ignorant of the truth to accept that.

I'm not saying this because I'm angry (even though I have a right to be), I'm jealous, or because I don't like to be "contradicted". I enjoy this wiki alot, and I want to do what I can for it. But I certainly won't stand by and allow my name and actions to be attacked, nor those of other users to be attacked and maligned, simply because they have some beef with the brass. I'm done. I close my argument. And is this a longa** defense? You bet my sweet chocolate behind it is. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 11:22, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

"You bet my sweet chocolate behind it is." I love you, but let's get serious now.

Although I somewhat agree that you're being limited among other things, you must admit that you not rarely but often take on a passive-agressive "stance" and a sarcastic attitude. No matter how correct you are, nobody likes a d**khead.

That's all you'll hear (read: read) from me. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 13:04, May 30, 2014 (UTC)


 * True. Nobody likes a d***head. But I'm rarely the only one on chat or the talk pages. Feud acts all high and mighty and above the rabble when moderating, but when comes right down to it, he and the other mods are just as bad if not worse than everyone else. Fed is a good example, using the same language that he banned me from chat for. You know me very well. I rarely use insults unless I'm directly attacked, and just barely. Contrast that with the aggressive behavior of the mods and admins on chat, and you see a very different picture.


 * And pray tell, how exactly does one act sarcastic on the internet? In order for that to be the case, one would have to read the comments a certain why, and if you only read it in a way that you want too, then anything could be rendered aggressive or obsense, meaning that the fact that the mods constantly paint me as an aggressive person, shows you just how they read my comments and my actions, not taking any other views or thoughts of my comments. The only reason someone would say my comments are aggressive, is because that's how their reading them. Flag of the Hurian Federation.png Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 19:32, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

You raise some interesting points, Viva.

When was your last war? Sixty, seventy years ago? In that time, the increased presence of European nation in the area certainly helps your case. I'm sure they would become more concerned about them, than the Oyo, especially if the Oyo is offering an alliance and protection.

The late timing and apparent inconsistency of some of the mods is disturbing, too. I believe part of the issue rests with that many of the mods have interests in the area (as apparent with Sines attempted vassalization of the Songhai), and naturally wouldn't want strong competition around. And, I fear, as well go deeper into the colonial age, the number of truly unbiased mods will decrease rapidly, as many will have interests in most parts of the world.

I also disagree with the treatment you've been receiving, Viva. I've witnessed it personally on chat. I believe most of this is uncalled for (everyone deserves some amount of criticism), and only alienates you and others.

I am that guy (talk) 17:26, May 30, 2014 (UTC)


 * His last war was three years ago. Mscoree (talk) 17:47, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

I believe he meant excluding that. As his last war ended in 1478, which was 40 years ago. His last two wars were against Mali and then Songhai. The question is what relations did Akan have with Songhai (if they had any, I can't really determine where Akan is). <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 17:54, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

Akan formed as a direct result of aggressive behaviour in the area. They wouldnt be vassalized period. This isnt negotiable and remains a moderator consensus since it was brought up to mods that have no interest in the region who agree with the ruling


 * There was more to the creation of the Akan, Feud, and you know it. Both you and Sine had a stake in the region, and the subject only came up when there were only about three mods in chat: you, Fed, and Ms. There was no war at the time, just me expanding peacefully at the normal rates the rules showed. However, you and others said the expansion was too fast, even though I was expanding no faster than anyone else. An argument took place over Oyo's expansion, and the topic of African tribes was brought up, with one of you stating that there were too many tribes in the region for Oyo to peacefully expand. However, I provided sources stating otherwise, and rather than objectively look at the facts and accept them as such, you decided that heeming my expansion in by creating a giant, hostile state on my border would be best, and that's where the Akan came from. Flag of the Hurian Federation.png Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 19:26, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

Can we please end this "Everyone Hates Viva" nonsense? There is absolutely no reason to continue to treat Viva like the whipping boy of the wiki. And we need to figure out once and for all what is more important in a map game: OTL or ATL. Because flip-flopping for the sole reason of screwing over a player specifically is extremely disgusting. I personally believe ATL is more important, as a lot can change as a game goes on. First you screwed Oyo out of their rightful expansion, and then you created a large angry neighbor solely to flip him off when he argued. In defending Viva I've probably killed any chance of me returning as a mod in this or the next game, because apparently in this game defending Viva is like defending the Devil himself. Though given how he has been treated I'd think a few mods would sooner support the Devil than ever side with Viva.--Yank 20:15, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

I believe, ATL should top OTL, apart from things that cannot be changed like natural disasters, disease spreading when the barbaric tribes begin spreading onto the new world (an act which I as an Illyrian don't approve of). Moreover, OTL would probably top ATL in the first decade or two, given there hadn't been any massive changes. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 20:40, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

Not true Yank, no one hates Viva, the thing is none of us wants this to go all Ethiopia/India/Wales, because at the eyes of all of us that's what killed PM2, and don't bullshit me Viva, i never said i wanted to annex you or to invade you, I SAID THAT I WANTED TO VASSALIZE MALI (as annexing itself is ASB for the next two centuries atleast) and that of most of what i said was in order to avoid a confrontation (by implying there would be an unnecessary war with a shitstorm of crap between france and oyo and that i had the more chances of winning as there would be a bandwagon of nations seeking to gain land out of you lol) but france itself nor i myself have implied or mention a desire of annexing Oyo, and mali is only if i can actually achieve it (which means that if you got it in a war from me i couldn't do much nor would try much) on the other side, the main reason i see you are Eternally and seemingly targetted is because you start empires that tend to be rather big and threatening to other nations and that for the nations you take tend to be ASB (Turkey dominating the middle east is plausible yes but the dominance over the balkans was not, Ethiopia dominating africa, maybe arabia and part of australia is within plausible in PM2, yet you went to conquer the world, even environments the ethiopian populations was never really prepared for across the world E.g Ethiopia greenland and Ethiopia canada). In the end my conclusion is that you are probably one of the best users in the wiki, and a really good mapgamer, but that your seemingly dickhead attitude (lol) and your rather exaggerated insistence that your empires aren't ASB even when they are obviously ASB is what has got you on the crosshairs of most mods in games. and for the record i've only used the term Viviempire for Ethiopia,:v my unique advice is to focus on one region at the time and asking mods if something is plausible and or how it could be plausible. Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk)

In some points I must agree with Sine, Viva. You do have an attitude. Nothing wrong with defending yourself, but doing it in the way you do creates more tension than one would expect. I'm not going into the Vivimpire thing, as I wasn't here for PMII. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 20:57, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

Sine, please. I didn't go on to conquer the world in PMII. That was Scan, Imp, Rex, Crim, and Andrew, all of whom had bigger empires than myself. Scraw came close, and AP was neigh invincible for most of the game during the 1500-1600s. The Scandinavians were never prepared to extremely hot climates, yet they controlled entir swaths of South America. British soldiers and colonists who lived in mild weather (and thus "prepared"), frequently dying of heat stroke throughout the 1700-1800s, in 70-80 degree tempuratures most people today would find mild. How on earth then would the Scandinavians of all people maintain an empire in sweltering Peru? And the vast, vast majority of the Chinese population never had to deal with -40 to -60 degree weather, yet they somehow, they magically took over all of Alaska. Being prepared for a particular weather doesn't mean that you can't adapt when you finally get there (like the Somalis moving to Minnesota, Toronto, and other primarily cold places), as has been the case throughout history, so your point is invalid. As for Turkey, Turkey controlled the Balkans for centuries, and why they magically wouldn't be able to conquer it made no sense. I peacefully expanded into the Mid-East, and conquered the Balkans. So once again, that point is moot.

As for the dickhead behavior, we have had Crim, Scraw, AP, Von, Fed, Feud, Guns, Rex, Imp, and countless others who have been just as bad, such as when Imp went on a rant about not being able to colonize South America, or when Scraw whined about losing Scandinavia, so don't try to say I'm the only one. On the "exaggerated insistence" of my empires' actions, I always provided sources proving that my claims were not "exaggerated" at all. You make the claim that most of my actions are ASB, but I have always provided sources countering those claims, while the mods have not, and frequently make ASB choices. And when I focus on one region at a time, the mods complain about the expansion saying I'm expanding to fast (while they themselves were taking over whole continents, i.e. South America and Australia). So how do you expect me to ask the same people making ASB moves to tell me what is ASB or not? Especially when you factor in the fact that ASB is an opinion of what a person thinks is plausible. To the mods, it seemed entirely plausible for superpower China to trade with Europe, but invade it thanks to the "invisible barrier" that prevents invasion of Europe, unless its the other way around that is.

And Sky, I did lower the additude, but that got me banned for a day simply because I disagreed with Guns over Mali. The issue is that the mods cross two actions, one on chat and the other from the talk page together, and say your being aggressive. I called LG out for his actions on chat, and when LG got involved on the talk page, I was punished, not for what I said on the talk page, but for what I said in chat which had nothing to do with the argument at that time. This was the same manner in which I was banned from TEvCP. I didn't even say or do anything on the game page, but because I refused let Scraw and AP talk down to me on my talk page, I was banned from the game for actions I hadn't even done (mind you, it was a three-strike thing, and I only had two, the second had nothing to do with the game, but for a comment/joke I made outside of it). Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 22:25, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

I never said you weren't the only Dickhead, China's first colonies were on mild weather regions and he went there after he got manchuria which as far as i have been told and read is preatty cold, Comparing China and Ethiopia is just plain Stupid. Scan had the chance of conquering the world because he was supposed to be OTL british empire, Imp conquered the world and i don't deny that, and so did Rex attempted to and Crim didn't conquered much land, he took just half of canada and alaska and most of OTL china, Andrew took just germany england poland part of north africa and northern australia, YOU ENDED UP WITH HALF OF AFRICA HALF OF NORTHERN CANADA, GREENLAND AND A THIRD OF AUSTRALIA, AND YET YOU ARE TREATING EVERYONE LIKE AN IDIOT BY ACTUALLY TRYING TO SAY "MY EMPIRE WAS NOT THE BIGGEST" Bullshit, Bull shit i declared, the only empire to surpass your size were Russia and India. Another thing, we didn't said it that you couldn't colonize cold weathers, we just said that you wouldn't get a huge part of it, not for a while, specially if there were still close to ethiopia's temp weather regions, and you and IMP were deemed as the most ASB nations in the game for one reason. HE CONQUERED THE OTHER HALF OF AFRICA YOU DIDN'T RULED (more the other 1/4 as you owned maybe 1/4) AND YOU TRIED TO CONQUER SCRAW ACROSS THE ATLANTIC ON YOUR OWN. we don't deem you and block you out of your actions, we block you out of the fact that you just don't know where to stop and that everytime you get a bit of power you run to conquer or subdue the rest of the world. Everytime a mod proves you wrong, you just leave or change the subject so you don't have to recognize you were proven wrong, or overturned and you claimed that you haven't done wrong. you don't hear mods, You could probably be the best player in any given map game, if you just didn't went on going "I'm targetted by the mods" when you do something that was clearly told by you or that has been left implicit you can't do and you just deflect the issues to others hoping to be left alone, if you just stopped acting like that you could actually be less targetted and more of an actual empire. and TURKEY COULDN'T POSSIBLE HOLD THE BALKANS WITHOUT CONSTANT REVOLTS. nuff said  Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk)

Ok Viva, I absolutely resent these accusations you are hurling about. You play implausibly, That is that.ALLONS-Y!!,Basically, RUN!! 01:24, May 31, 2014 (UTC)

I had a good defense about three hours ago, but my internet cut out. Gotta start over.

Manchuria isn't as cold as Alaska, and only sees snow a few days during the winter. The lowest the temp gets there is -20 degrees max, far above the -40 and -60 in Alaska, and the constant snow and thunderstorms, meaning that the Chinese could not possibly have been prepared for that kind of weather, way beyond their comfort zone or anything they had even had to deal with. So comparing Manchuria to Alaska is just as stupid as comparing China to Ethiopia, which I didn't do. The Chinese were just as unprepared for the cold as Ethiopia was. Your accusation that I was the third largest empire in the game is false, since the list I made for OOC purposes shows that I was fifth, behind Scan, Imp, Scraw, and Crim. If you take only Ethiopian Africa, my territory there was the exact same size as Scraw's Amerika. So why so much fuss about me controlling Africa, the region you told me to expand it, but not a peep about Scraw controlling most of America? So no, my empire was not as big as your saying it was. As for my invasion, I had the resources and the means to make it happen, and I had the ports on the Atlantic to reach Scraw. It was plausible and possible, and in a time where massive invasions were possible. I even gave you the sources which proved that, a source that explained how the US moved one million troops into France in a single year, and half a million every other year.

Most of the time a mod "proves me wrong", their same source proves me correct, as they overlook the very same information that destroys their own argument. Case in point, the location of Ethiopia and the lack of my nation's ability to reach America. I brought up a map of the wind and ocean currents of the world, which not only proved my ability to reach the Americas, but the fact that those very same currents hendered European abilities to expand into Asia by sea. On the few occasions you are right, I don't ignore it or change the subject, I say I'm wrong, and I said that many times. So your accusation is incorrect. In fact, the mods themselves have often refused to accept any information contrary to their own claims. Feud himself refused to accept information which proved my information on West Africa was correct, simply because some "dean" at Texas Tech (mind you, one of the worst universities in the world), and two other "deans", as two of the worst universities in America (both in Dallas), said that the paper prepared for Princeton University (yes, the Ivy League university), paid for by several NGOs and the University of Tokyo, for a convention on the population of medieval Africa, was unacceptable for them. Nuff said.

And I only play the bias card when there is actual bias. For instance, like I mentioned with Scraw's nation, Ethiopian Africa and German America were the same size, yet Scraw's nation was allowed to control two-thirds of North America, not because of any plausible reasons, but because Scraw and the mods agreed that he would be allowed to expand as much as he wanted in America. That means a backroom deal was made, one of which the mods admitted too themselves, that they would not enforce the overexpansion rules with Scraw out of pity for destroying his last implausible empire. However, the other players who weren't tight with the mods, like myself, Rex, and Imp, were attacked over and over again over the one-sided events of the mods. As for Turkey, I never said that the Balkans wouldn't revolt, in fact I expected that. However, whenever I crushed one rebellion, five more popped up. Meanwhile, the mods crushed one rebellion, and no talk of rebellion ever appeared in their nations. Yet again a biased move when their own nations were involved.

And Andrew, resent it all you want, but the truth is the truth. Everyone plays implausibly, but implausibility is a person's opinion, since there is no proof that a certain action would have not been possible in OTL, since it never happened. Plausibility is what one believes could happen, not what could actually happen. For all we know, had Abraham Lincoln survived to serve a second term, Booth's plan might have been viewed as implausible today simply because it didn't happen. No one expected Ethiopia to defeat Italy in the 1890s, but they did. Up until that point, it was believed that an Ethiopian victory would have been implausible, since no other African nation had been able to defeat a European one. But when it did happen, it was deemed plausible by historians that such an event could happen. Case. Closed. And Sine, using CAPS won't help push your argument into victory, nor make it any more readable than it already is. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 04:50, May 31, 2014 (UTC)


 * See here, Imp was the mod who made the decision that I would be allowed to expand double time, because the people who were already expanding were expanding slow as balls. Also, I was the most advanced nation in the region, as all the other nations in North America were colonies. Colonies were one industrial step below mother nations. Also, let's not forget that you invaded and conquered Normandy, whereas Ethiopia beat Italy in Ethiopia, not in Italy, and they didn't go gallivanting around naming themselves the rulers of Italy. Winning a war does not always mean you can annex the defeated nation.


 * 23:23, June 1, 2014 (UTC)

...Wow. So many things about that, Viva, are at best inaccurate.

You were blocked because you were acting like a jackass, and when warned, did not stop. No one else was acting in such a manner. And now you're basically doing it again.

Viva, a lot of that comes across as a rant, and not in a good way. Reeks of the usual biases you have, too.

Fyi - Africa has/had people. Lots of them. North America, not so much, after the diseases. Much better environment too.

Paragraphs. Dear god, people, use them.

Lordganon (talk) 07:29, May 31, 2014 (UTC)

Rather than say I'm wrong, why don't you tell my why I'm wrong. Saying something and proving something are two different things, and would help lend your statement some validity. And regardless of your statement about "bias", with the exception of the mods, a consider number of the players and users agree with my statements. Also, your last explaination doesn't make much sense, given that a people breed in a particular environment, naturally thrive in the same environment, the same way the Inuit thrive in the Artic, and the Tuaregs thrive in the Sahara. Africa had a horrible environment, but was one of the most urbanized places on Earth, while North America had a great environment, but with the exception of the Aztecs, Mayans, and Incas (and perhaps the Cahokians), there were no urban environments of worthy note that thrived on such a level that they still exist today. So the point is rather moot. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 09:34, May 31, 2014 (UTC)

Well id say with with LG giving his 2 cents our point is lawyered. If there is not a change in attitude and in game behaviour this will not be the final time we do this.

As it stands you trying to argue the point that civilizations of worthy note did not develop these massive urban centers, and that is for good reason. Keeping a centralized urban nation together without horses must have been an absolute pain in the Ass. Not to mention having no animals to easily domesticate for food really makes your point moot. the Fact the Aztecs, Mayans and whatnot developed at all is a miracle purely off the fact they had built off the architectual and other accomplishment of the previous urbanized cultures. And outside of the Inca empire who had an amazingly efficient system in dealing with communication the Aztecs, Mayans, and Zapotec were never extremely large and were still just an alliance of city states or grouping of city states lumped together because they were the same culture.

Considering there are the Olmecs, Mixtecs, and a host of previous civilizations its very obvious there is a pattern for civilization in that area that could have potentially spread just as it happened OTL in Europe. The Americas was considerably behind in terms of development and with the lack of Domesticatable animals, quick transport, and ability to form a normal centralized state. with these two major pillars every other culture took for granted literally non-existence it surprises me that these eras manages to form centralized societies at all (of which only the Aztecs and Incas truly were) but to even reach the scale they did (in this case only the Incas). Its safe to say that without European discovery these civilizations would have just reached their bronze ages and the culture of civilization would have just spread and eventually formed centralized societies through both continents. The General idea/vibe ive gotten from nearly all my supremely intensice research on this was that the lack of populace for a long time, no beasts of burden, and no faster way of communication left the American civilizations developmentally stuck in a stone age period in which they were just getting their Equivalents of late Stone and early Bronze age Empires like the Akkadian empire was for Mesopotamia.

On the other Hand Africa had developed reasonably well but the most dynamic civilizations and population centers were stuck to rivers and hence didnt get very large for the very reasons moving away from water was a really bad idea. Not to mention the conflicts which happened pretty regularly put down any sort of massive spanning empire (which Songhai was somewhat becomming) when Morocco put them down. Songhai and Mali are literally the two only major accounts of any decently large empires forming in the empire which did well due to gold and fell from various reasons. As it Stands in this period (and still even today) West Africa was an overpopulated area, with too many people to support on the water and food sources available making any large standing empire nearly impossible to maintain. These states being populous did not mean prosperity and regardless of a moderate amount of economic strength were constantly being warred by comparitively weaker states and being cut down to size for decades, and in Oyos case 100's of years until the 1700's where she did somewhat alright and then got colonized.

Your thought process on how one region of the planet specifically applies to another is really not true especially when you try to compare Americas vs Africa. The Americas were just breaching the bronze age at the arrival of Spain and friends, and the North American tribes had not made any seriously culture shifting contact with the Aztecs. The Africans had all sorts of cultural shifting contact, most of it detrimental to the area. Invasions from eachother, then from Morocc, then europe rolling around and dominating trade did nothing for the development of these people and your actions in game essentially reflect that except that you were left too long and were not overpowered by a more militarily powerful state yet. Of which considering recent actions and aggressive nature would not surprise me if European forces rolled around to knock you down from West African Hegemon to out of the game, or a shadow of your former national power.

As it stands its widely recognized alot of what you do is getting further and further out there including your want to colonize. You even complained when we made the list and said something along the lines how it wasnt fair that you were working up to colonization all game and yet France and England get to go before you. They get to go before you because they play plausibly, have legitimate reason (of which Oyo has none since your essentially treating yourself like the West African Hegemon) to even attempt colonialism. You have loads of territory around you which you could have gone about trying to conquer or take differently but you opted to Conquer it all militarily and wipe out huge swaths of the conquered peoples populations. The Hostility you say you can fix really cant be fixed. Thats like saying the United States can go back and apologize to mexico for taking over half its territory, burning its capital, and treating it like its Red headed step brother for the next 130 years. Mexico still resents us to this day, and captures americans on their side of the border for BS. Their people still resent us for everything weve done to that country. its been more than the amount of time currently than youve given OTL, and youve done much worse things. You went beyond the point of reconciliation with these states, and your aggressive attitude in the region essentially left you with a crappy situation no matter which way its presented. Which is not the mods fault. Its your own. So dont complain that you cant do anything or the mods are targeting you when YOU were the idiotically aggressive one in the Area. That honestly shows a lack of planning and strategy. What you did in PMII does not fly with this game period.

The Americas aside (not a disregard for you statement which i accept), I didn't bring up the topic of PMII, Sine did. My response was geared toward him, not for you. As for colonization, I did not complain about any of the pwoers colonizing before me. Selective memory on your part, Feud. In fact, I never stated that I wanted to colonize first at all. My only statement was that I thought it was unfair that other European powers (Hungary, Venice, and Byzantine Rome), who had been developing their navies for decades, were sidelined simply because the mods wanted to control colonization because of post-PMII issues. Your point on Mexico is also invalid, as the reason Mexico truly despises us is because we continue to screw them over into the modern-day. Look at Britain. They did the same thing, yet we came to their rescue twice, and formed a "special relationship" with them, proving that old wrongs and be forgiven. Thus, your point is moot. By the way, my actions never harmed the Akan in any of the ways you just mentioned, so you cannot make a comparison between the US and Oyo. If was the mods who made any form of reconciliation impossible. So that was the fault of the mods, not my own. And fighting two wars 30 years apart is not "idiotically aggressive", despite what you want to believe. The fact that I restrained my war plans for so proves planning and stretagy (hence the reason I waited to invade Mali), and only shows a lack of research on your part yet again.

As for Africa, there was no "cultural shifting" until the Europeans entered the region. That has been documented in countless history books and historical researchers. Oyo only collapsed due to an invasion by the Nupe, which was encouraged by the fact that there was so much peace in the region, the Oyo ruler actually decreased the sie of the army to focus on something else. So West Africa was incrediably stable. And I am the hegemon since none of the other nations have either the guns, the wealth, or the development Oyo has. So I treat myself as nothing more than what I already am. On the topic of expansion, though I have loads of territory around me, whenever I expanded there, you and the peanut gallery blocked it, called my regular expansion, "overexpansion", and incited numerous tribal revolts in the region to prevent me from expanding. You can't tell someone to do something, then make it impossible to do it. The fact that you hemmed my nation in, and made the nations around me hate me to the point where I cannot conquer them effectively, only prevents me for expanding in Africa. When I tried to expand on the continent, you stated that I wanted to "conquer all of Africa", even though you were the one that told me too. So once again, you've flip-flopped on an issue and pinned the blame on me instead of owning up to the fact that you screwed up. I expand in Africa. You complain. I don't expand in Africa, you still complain. "Conquer the lands around you, you don't need to colonize." "Why are you taking over everything in Africa? Are you retarded?!" "You have plenty of land in Africa. You don't need colonies." "Why are you invading Madagascar? What's wrong with you and your African Union schemes?"

You and the mods have no backbone and flip-flop on everything. You did it this year, last year, and the year before that. You can't stick to whether or not OTL or ATL should be the primary sources for information in a game. You say a player can do one thing, then you flip out when they do it. You abuse your powers and create implausible events to screw other players over, or use your powers to gain extra allies in a war you would have otherwise lost. You demand sources then refuse to accept them because they either prove the other user right, or they don't have exactly what you wanted in it. You skirt the rules when you can, but then you clamp down on other players who do the same thing. You say you read all of the posts, but then you argue over topics that were resolved in the last turn that you didn't read. Your a godd***, self-defeating paradox. You can try all you want to say otherwise, but the proof on the talk pages, chat, PMII and PMIII only prove you wrong time and time again. Scapegoating me for your own incompetence and ignorance of the facts for the crappy performance of this game and the last will only get you so far. And you needed take my word for it, because you left plenty of your own all across the wiki.

Calling me stupid, incompetent, retarded, racist, aggressive, dickhead, ignorant, implausible, biased, and hypocritical and a host of other things you wouldn't stand from anyone else when directed against you, doesn't absolve you of the acts you commited that resulted in the departure of numerous players, gridlock in the game, in-fighting, and general lack of plausibility that have taken place under your watch. Heck, I've seen players driven from the wiki for less. I say nothing that cannot be proved by a simple look through of your past actions. The fact that many players have thus far agreed with me, and the fact that only the mods have stood against my defense, only serves to prove how wide of a gap between the brass and the users has grown. You say I'm the source of most if not all of the drama, but even when I'm not here, and before I was here, there was nothing but drama. Whether or not you want to accept it, or continue complaining and saying this is all because I can't "conquer Africa", isn't my problem. But the fact that other users have voiced their concern over the state of the wiki and the "dog-eat-dog" atmosphere here, will only ruin the image of the site. But given that you still believe that this is over a game and not a wider behavioral issue, is something that I find disappointing and frankly stomach-wrenching. I don't expect you to magically accept my defense, and as such, I'm not going to argue any further with you over this nonsense. Extend the ban, lower ban, or end it now. Doesn't matter to me. I've made my point, and I'm sticking to it. I've got a life to live, and I certainly don't need the stress of a game on the internet weighing me down. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 09:42, June 1, 2014 (UTC)

Well, as for the Behavioural issue, that should be focus on the administration page not here... hence the why the people thinks its about the game... you are posting it in the game talpage... so its kinda naive, to think that people will understand that, but i see your point, there's indeed that issue of exaggerated "GIVE KEBAB/ CLAY" crap on this wiki already... and to Answer a few things that as a mod i think should be said, OTL is the frame we want to stand by (as in our mission is to do something that remains within the frame of OTL history like dominant powers being a few and colonization being rather closed to a few nations only) yet with the ATL characteristics (Such as there being alternate empires, where Europe may not dominate Like in PMI and PM2 where Asia and Africa dominated) Although in this game it is more likely than europe dominates due to the obvious fact that the most succesfull players are in Europe ( the only exceptions being Viva, Scan and Rex right now) and Feud I'm being Honest, He's being "targeted" because of his empire in PMII, before that there was no such "discrimination". and to be honest, Oyo had a chance at conquering africa if it tried to stay away from west africa and rather attempted to go to central africa to his east. and wait until he either got a coast on south africa or east africa to try anything in Madagascar, after all spain is the only nation to have influence on them right now, and even that is somewhat barely. Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 17:49, June 1, 2014 (UTC)

I hate when people pull the "I have better things to do" card. You started this thread Viva.

23:23, June 1, 2014 (UTC)

I can also end my participation in this thread if it goes nowhere. I reserve the right not to waste my time pushing a point no one wants to accept. But given that some headway has been made by Sine's comment, I feel my time wasn't entirely wasted. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 02:28, June 2, 2014 (UTC)

Just some things people should know
Exams, for most people, including me, have already started, and, somepeople may have already noticed, but I did not post every day for the past while due to said exams. So, due to exams, and subsequent loss of internet because of summer vacation, my edditing may become irregular and surpass 7 days without editing untill say august 1st maybe even later. So untill summer's over my editing may be sporadic, and, well, please dont kill my nation because of my non-editing or have me considered inactive untill some time in august...just to let people know.-Lx (leave me a message) 21:01, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you officially join Russia, then you wouldn't have to worry. Tr0llis (talk) 21:14, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

Yemen invasion of Mecca
(1519 - 1520)

Yemen (Attacker)
Total: 58
 * Location: +4
 * Tactical Advantage: +1
 * Nations: Yemen [L] = +5
 * Military Development: +14/12 = 1.1 ~ 1
 * Economic Development: +14
 * Economic Bonus: -2 [Smaller Economy]
 * Location Bonus: +3 [Red Sea Opening]
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +3 [Gain Lands] +5 [Similar Culture]
 * Modifiers: +4 [Non-Demo Government] -5 [Guerilla War]
 * Chance: +2
 * Edit count: 906
 * UTC: 0 (0) = 09:21
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) = 157.42
 * Nation Age: +0
 * Population: 1,562,979 [+7]
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 46,889/9,733 = 4.8 ~ +5
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Mecca (Defender)
Total: 78
 * Location: +5
 * Tactical Advantage: +2
 * Nations: Makkah [L] = +5
 * Military Development: +12/14 = 0.8 ~ 1
 * Economic Development: +16
 * Economic Bonus: +5 [Larger Economy]
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: +8
 * Motive: +9 [Fatal Attack]
 * Modifiers: +4 [Non-Demo Goverment] +1 [Possibily Guerilla War] +5 [Troop Morale High]
 * Chance: +6
 * Edit count: 1292
 * UTC: 0 (0) = 07:40
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) = 144.96
 * Nation Age: -5 [Tribal State United A While Ago]
 * Population: 324,441 [+6]
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 9,733/46,899 = 0.2 ~ 0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result
0.1470588235294118
 * ((78/(58+78))*2)-1 =

So basically Yemenis offense is pushed and Mecca can conquer upto 14% of Yemenis land but because the war was a defensive one for Mecca, it will only be able to take 5% of Yemenis land IF I AM NOT WRONG


 * (0.1470588235294118)*(1-1/(2*0)) = 0.07

so basically I believe war lasts for one year in which Mecca will be able to take away 5% of Yemenis land

If I made any mistakes, I am sorry [BTW I am not Yemen or Mecca XD] RexImperio (talk) 10:08, June 1, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion:
could someone do this? Spartian300 (talk) 15:57, May 31, 2014 (UTC)

I hardly believe your casus belli is plausible, as this "prophet" of yours seems to have been active, for what, two-three years and according to your posts he is trying to force you to attack a nation that controlls the religious center of the islamic world

also, this

<font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 16:17, May 31, 2014 (UTC)

So? Who says he is even telling the truth, or is REAL, for that matter? LET'S DO THIS!!!! Motive: Gains land and stuff. Spartian300 (talk) 17:10, May 31, 2014 (UTC)

Motive gain lands would work but I don't you can make up any 'Prophet' calling for war because it would make no sense... I'll make an algorithm for both of you but Troops and Population must be filled by a mod or you people yourself RexImperio (talk) 07:43, June 1, 2014 (UTC)

Dr Cow Andrew (talk) 12:41, June 1, 2014 (UTC) WILL THIS END?' NEVER.  ' I mean WHAT THE

Safavid Empire
Total: 69
 * Location: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: +5 Siege weapons
 * Nations Per Side: (L) Safavids, (LV) Khanate of Khiva = 8/5=1.6~2
 * Military Development: 10*2=20/10=2
 * Economic Development: 7*2=14/12=1
 * Economic Bonus: Much larger economy (10), Larger trade (5)= +15
 * Motive: 7 (Enforcing political hegemony), 3 (Aiding ally) =10
 * Modifiers: +4 (Non democratic), Morale low -5
 * Nation Age: +0
 * Chance: 6
 * Edit count: 1096
 * UTC Time: 12:43=1*2*4*3=24
 * 1096/24=45.6666666666
 * Population: approx. 7,500,000, Population between five and ten times larger +10 =17
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent war: -1*4, -2*3=-10
 * Number of Troops: 200,000/30,000=6.66~7

Shahdom Of Verkana
Total: 40
 * Location: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations Per Side: (L) Verkana = 5
 * Military Development: 5*2=10 = 0
 * Economic Development: 6*2=12 = 0
 * Economic Bonus: Smaller economy -2
 * Infrastructure: 6
 * Motive: +10 (Defending from attack that will wipe out nation and culture)
 * Modifiers: +4 Non dem. -5 (Low morale)
 * Nation Age: +0
 * Chance: 5
 * Edit count: 834
 * UTC Time: 12:43=1*2*4*3=24
 * 834/24=34.75
 * Population: 1,000,000 = 7
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent wars: -2*3=-6
 * Number of Troops: 30,000 = 0

Results
(69/(69+40))*2-1=26.61%

26.61*(1-1/(2*2))=19.9575

With the previous war being less than 15 years ago (around 20% win I believe), the Safavid Empire topples the government of the Shahdom and annexes it.

Discussion
I do believe I've done it correctly, if not, feel free to correct.

I think it is somewhat wrong too but the result would still remain the same which would be the collapse of the Shahdom of Verkana, I believe... RexImperio (talk) 14:03, June 1, 2014 (UTC)

Apart from the population, I believe everything else is more or less correct as I've asked Scar what he had developed and with Will's inactivity I went with the infra>eco>mil thing. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 14:52, June 1, 2014 (UTC)

Bfoxius' Official Retirement From Principia Moderni III
Hello. Recently I have found it harder and harder to post in PMIII, and most of my posts are copy-posts of older posts I have written. When I first started this game, I was worried that I would not make it a month (30 turns) in the game, due to my erratic on-wiki schedule. Thanks to me setting aside time to work on PMIII and other projects, I have amazed myself in the amount of time I have put into the game, and what I have got out of it.

That being said, the time I have put aside for PMIII is coming to an end. Life is catching up with me. Rather than fading away gradually from the game, I have decided to burn out. That is why I am officially retiring from the Principia Moderni III Map Game.

Before I do so, however, I will try to get my nation (Eire) adopted by a good map gamer before I leave it to the harsh city streets of abandonment and eventual destruction. I will post for Eire until I get it adopted by another map gamer. If Eire does not get adopted, I will give it to Andr3w777 if he accepts. If you would like to "adopt" Eire, please state below. I would be immensely grateful if someone did so.

Once I decide on an adoptor (if any), I will send them a message to their talk page detailing my plans for the nation. Feel free to follow them or disregard them as you will but be aware that those plans are what I was planning for the game.

This game really is a special place. Without trying to sound too cheesy, I will say that it really helped me out and gave me something to do through the tough times I am experiencing at the moment. I hope Principia Moderni III continues to grow and blossom.

'''Postscript: This does not mean that I will become less active and abandon my other projects. On the contrary, I will try to contribute to 1983: Doomsday, Days After Chaos, The Oregon Country, Principia Nevermind, et cetera more often.'''

--Bfoxius (talk)

Because of the stability of Éire (STRONK) and the fact that exams end for me next week I'll be willing to take upon Éire <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 16:39, June 1, 2014 (UTC)

BAAAAHAWWAWAWWAAA why does everyone resign! I am sorry to see you go bfox. I wish you well in your other endeavors. *sniff *sniff ( what? I'm not crying..) ALLONS-Y!!,Basically, RUN!! 17:16, June 1, 2014 (UTC)

I will be willing to take Eriè and make it as stronk as ever. <font color=Purple face="Algerian">OCT MARIUS, HAIL HIM  20:05, June 1, 2014 (UTC)

Bééfáwkśíśhmúśh, ćáń Í óffíćíáĺĺý táké Éire ńów? <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 15:51, June 2, 2014 (UTC)

I grant you (Sky) Eire. Bfoxius (talk). I may check in with you every now and then about the nation if you are okay.

Toby's Turn To Resign
Well, Due to IRL reasons I resign. I am starting College real soon, and i would be lucky to be able to post every other week.

That could be possible for an extremely stable and isolated nation, but for a nation like Manchu more likely than not it will be destroyed the next time i look at the page.

If anyone would like Manchu. Take it.

Happy PMIIing :) WHY seriously why???!!! 16:43, June 1, 2014 (UTC)

I see that resign disease is spreading. Tis that time of the year again.

23:24, June 1, 2014 (UTC)

Spain and Friends

 * Location: +4 Castile (4),Aragon (4)Morocco (4)France (4),Burgundy (3),Roman Albania (3), Milan (4), Austria (4)
 * Tactical Advantage: +5 (siege equipment)
 * Nations Per Side: +4 Castile(L) Aragon (L) Morocco (L) France (L) Burgundy (L) French Africa (S) Bourbon (S) Roman Albania (L) Milan (L) Austria (L)


 * Military Development: 160/10 +16 Castile (+20), Aragon (+20), Morocco (+20), France (+20), Burgundy (+20), Milan: +20, Austria: +20, Albania: +20
 * Economic: 175/10 = +18 Castile (+20),Aragon (+20), Morocco (+20), France (+20), Burgundy (+20), Milan (+20), Austria (+20), Albania (+20)
 * Economic Bonus: Larger economy, Larger Colonial Empire +15


 * Locations Bonus: +5 (Straits of Gibraltar), +3 (Cape of Good Hope), +2 (Venice),+1 (Seville), +1(Barcelona)= 12
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Expansion: N/A
 * Motive: +37 Castile +7 (Hegemony) +4, Aragon +3 (All Below are aiding ally), Morocco +3, France +3 +4, Burgundy: +3, Milan +3 +4, Austria +3 +4, Albania +3
 * Chance
 * Edit count=x
 * nonzero digit in time*nonzero digit in time=y
 * x/y*pi=z
 * Chance=Hundredth place of z


 * NPC Bonus: N/A
 * Nation Age: -6 Castile (-5), Aragon (-5), Morocco (-5), France (-5), Burgundy (-5), Milan (-10), Austria (-5), Albania (-5)
 * Population: +8 +10 = +18 (population is about 16-17 mil of total forces, and Aztecs is 2.2 mil, +10 if the larger nation is between five and ten times the population of the smaller)
 * Recent Wars: -6(Castilian War with Aztecs, includes Morocco and Aragon)
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 200,000/120,000 = +2
 * Total: 104

Kingdom of Italy

 * Location: +4
 * Tactical Advantage: +2 (defender)
 * Nations Per Side: +5 Florence, Italy, Savoy
 * Military Development:+0
 * Economic: +0
 * Locations Bonus:0
 * Economic Bonus:-2 (smaller economy)
 * Infrastructure: +10
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +9 +4 -6 (Defending heartland, Supported govt, Low Morale)
 * Chance 4
 * 1130=x
 * 5*3=y
 * x/y*pi=z
 * Chance=Hundredth place of z
 * Nation Age:0
 * Population: +8 (13 million people)
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 120,000/200,000= 0

Total: 44

Results
Open and Shut as well ((104/(104+44)*2)-1= 40.1

3 year war gives me what i need

Discussion
I changed it back to the traditional, more human-friendly format. Saamwiil, the Humble 01:07, June 2, 2014 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that the nation age looks awfully wrong to me (not that I'm informed about recent government changes in Yurop) but I think Spain and Friends are to be considered a coalition and as such would get -3 for no democracy (absolutism ftw) and the coalition itself would then get +6 as morale and not +5.

<font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 10:45, June 2, 2014 (UTC) What sky said France last change g Of government would had been in 1390 or 1409 and Burgundy's was in 1379 so both should have +5 Africa would have 0 though Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 14:48, June 2, 2014 (UTC) Also france's motive should be 7 as it wants to exert its hegemony over Anjou and Provence so still hegemony Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk)

Yeah but only one nation can have a heavy-hitter motive (over 5) <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 15:29, June 2, 2014 (UTC)

Italy is NPC. <font color=Purple face="Algerian">OCT MARIUS, HAIL HIM

Not that this should affect the war any, but I don't think that Aragon, Castille, and Morocco should be set as different leaders in th war. Saamwiil, the Humble 23:17, June 2, 2014 (UTC)

@Saam they are all different states under a Peronal Union and its allowed by the rules Weve always allowed this. Also by change of government changes ive been using things such as aceding of new monarchial Family (Trastamara switched to Habsburg) And ill change the nation ages for France and whatnot but the war is essentially over so i think well just keep it in mind for later algos

So.... Who gets what lol... cause we kinda kicked his ass already niggas. lol Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 01:42, June 3, 2014 (UTC)

Write up a treaty page I guess, and I really couldn't do anything to prevent (or protect against) the attack lol. Saturn (Talk) 01:53, June 3, 2014 (UTC)

China
Now, as many of you know, I'll be coming back from a period of inactivity on Thursday.

Due to exams, I was unable to post for a couple of weeks (today is one of a couple of days I might have been able to). As a result, I decided not a wage a giant shitstorm over the collapsing of Ayutthaya, and instead came to an agreement that the whole nation would be collapsed and that I would get to pick another upon coming back.

Not sure why the map still shows Ayutthaya as being around, cuz Ms knows about that.

Anyway, my eyes alighted upon China.

Now, China is currently under the control of Scan, an exemplary player who no doubt is one of the best in the game. However, he hasn't posted in WEEKS, including during a nasty incident in which China nearly lost a giant war (it was retconned). Given the size of China- and the game's rules- the nation needs a new player.

I humbly (ish) suggest myself for that role. Scan did say in the past that I was the frontrunner for the role if he left. Furthermore, I am quite an experienced player.

If someone objects before Wednesday- or if Scan comes back- I will withdraw this request and choose something minor in Germany.

Sincerely, 00:51, June 2, 2014 (UTC)

I do not believe it is allowed to switch nations, correct me if I am wrong. Saamwiil, the Humble 01:26, June 2, 2014 (UTC)

His nation technically collapsed, and everyone gets 1 switch.

Someone more plausible, less biased. <font color=Purple face="Algerian">OCT MARIUS, HAIL HIM

Sure! How about, say, LG?

All joking aside, Oct, hush.

@Saam part of the agreement was that Ayutthaya collapsed and that I would get to choose a new nation after coming back from exams.

21:39, June 2, 2014 (UTC)

If no one has any real objections, I'll change out the names tomorrow.

23:58, June 2, 2014 (UTC)

Nope. No objections. Two wrongs may not make a right, '' but it makes me feel a lot better in the end! '' 01:55, June 3, 2014 (UTC)

Guns has my blessings with this endevour. Uni has simply become too busy for me to post consistently. Scandinator (talk) 08:44, June 5, 2014 (UTC)

Summer
As all of you people know, I will be gone for the summer. Sadly, this means I can post in PM3. So, i'm asking my fellow Érie member, Sky, to post for me until I return. Will you accept Sky? Saturn (Talk) 20:01, June 5, 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and I hope you learn how to spell Éire during the summer. Although not even Bfox did it correctly...

<font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 20:02, June 5, 2014 (UTC)

... - Bfoxius (talk)

Naijirian Conquest of the Cahokian Civilization
=== Honorable Union of Naijiria ===
 * Location: +2
 * Tactical Advantage: +5
 * Nations Per Side: Oyo (L), Mali (L), Benin (L) = 12/16 = +1
 * Military Development: 14/10 = +1
 * Economic: 12/8 = +2
 * Economic Bonus: +15
 * Locations Bonus: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +3 +3 +3
 * Modifier: +4
 * Chance: +3
 * Edit count=5,163
 * 2*3*5*2=60
 * 5163/60*pi=270.3340478414195
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Population: +18 (41,902,671)
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 525,000/50,000 = +11
 * Total: 86

Cahokian Civilization
Total: 35
 * Location: +5
 * Tactical Advantage: +3 (Tribal)
 * Nations Per Side: Mid. Mississippi (L), Oneota (L), Caddoan Mississippi (L), Plaquemine (L) = 16/12 = +1
 * Military Development: 10/14 = +1
 * Economic: 8/12 = +1
 * Locations Bonus: 0
 * Economic Bonus: -3
 * Infrastructure: +4
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +10 +3 +3 +3
 * Chance: +4
 * Nation Age: -15 (500 years before Columbus)
 * Population: +7 (2,500,000)
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 50,000/525,000 = 0

Results
Naijiria may take 35.1% of the Cahokian civilization, enough to topple the government.
 * ((86/(35+86)*2)-1 = 0.4214876033057851%
 * (42.14)*(1-1/(2*3)) = 35.1166666666666667%

Discussion
Could someone explain to me what the hell just happened?

1) What the hell is Oyo Empire doing in South America? Did it just sail to South America, find out that people live there and decide to invade it? And all this happened in two years.. wow

2) Why does Oyo Empire have a +15 in in Economic Bonus despite the fact that the highest score a player can get in Economic Bonus is +10 and Oyo doesn't even deserve that +10 because both Oyo and Cahokian ended up with the same score (+1) so it would be safe to say that Oyo should get +2 for Equally Matched Economy, not +15 for who knows what

3) In number of troops, why is 525,000 divided by 50,000 for Oyo but 120,000 divided by 200,000 for Cahokian? Makes no sense.. I would also like to remind you that if the entire Oyo military has 525,000 troops; if we plausibily think.. It would make absolutely no sense for the entire Oyo military to invade an land Oyo just found out about and has to travel an entire ocean to reach (Plus leave mainland <span id="cke_bm_56S" style="display:none;">  Oyo unguarded)

4) 500 years since Columbus? I would like to remind you that Nation Age is not decided by when it was discovered or it formed but rather by the last major government change 

5) I have no idea why there is a +3 for Cahokian infrastructure.. 

'''Instead of 'Honourable Union of Najiria, you should've just wrote 'Oyo Empire' to make it less confusing.. And if by any chance you were referring to Nigeria, then grammatical mistake I guess? Or maybe they called Nigeria 'Najiria' in 1500s? Anyways, your algo is messed up so fix it '''

To begin, I don't have to fix anything, and I'm certainly not going to with that awful and disrespectful tone.

First, Oyo has been sailing for the last 100 years, and it has traded from Europe to Asia and back. The Americas have been a recent destination of the Oyo traders, so they've known about the region for quite some time now. It's state and population were known to the Oyo for a while, but only now have the Oyo had the resources and shown enough interest in invading it. Second, the max total a player can get in the bonus is +15, I'd suggest you read up on the rules before basing you arguments off of misunderstandings. Cahokia has a smaller population, not united, and lacks cities and industrial centers, unlike Oyo and much of West Africa in general. So its economy is leagues above the Cahokians period. Third, its the entire empire versus Cahokia, not just Oyo, so its 525,000 troops versus the few warriors of Cahokia. The algo goes by the size of the military, not the size of the invasion force. If you read the rules, you'd know that. Fourth, nation age goes by the nation's age. The Cahokain civilization existed approximately 500 years before the arrival of Columbus, and thereforth is 500 years old. Also, the government age is a modifier. It only effects the nation if it had a government change, which it has not since the beginning of the game or before it. And finally, that's the rule for NPCs. Nothing else to it.

In all, my algorithm is perfectly fine and follows the rules as it's support to. I used information based on facts and events in the game. Maybe if you read the rules and the turns of the game, you'd know all of that before you started posting information that doesn't even make any sense. I mean, since when were the Cahokians in South America? And I don't have to change the name because you find it confusing. I like it the way it is, and that's something you'll have to deal with. Also, your attitude is messed up, so fix it and maybe we'll talk again. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 06:25, June 6, 2014 (UTC)

Viva, out of curiosity, how exactly did you get +15? Is it much larger economy and larger colonial empire?Ozymandias2 (talk) 06:34, June 6, 2014 (UTC)

It's both. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 06:56, June 6, 2014 (UTC)

Mods, this needs to be stopped, unless we want PM2 all over again. May I remind us all of the intro to the game -- "...the second game, instead of being a worthy successor to the first, was marred by over-expansionism, feuds between players, ambiguity in the rules, which often caused controversy on wars between player nations, over-competitiveness..."

Do we want over-expansionism? I think that Nigeria going to N. America with only 120 years of divergence is the UTMOST of ridiculousness. I could cate less about what Viva writes in his long walls of text, but this is ASB to the max.

Additionally, Mods can disregard the results of an algo if it is implausible. As another Africa player, I realize that colonial expansion for us cannot be allowed to happen, and I am content with sticking to my side of the continent. Viva, you have all of West Africa left to conquer. Quite simply, this must be fixed. 07:17, June 6, 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? You shouldn't be saying anything about plausibility. I honestly cannot take any advice from a guy who played the Mamluks implausibly, and then whined about it when the mods blasted your nation to pieces as punishment, even after everyone told you what you were doing wrong and you ignored us, myself included. And all that talk about PMII implausibility says nothing of when you turned tiny, broke-poor Wales into a trans-Atlantic superpower after vassalizing England. I play more plausibly than you even did, so you shouldn't have anything to say to me. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 07:25, June 6, 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this algorithm is plausible. Any objections to retconning it? Mscoree (talk) 10:35, June 6, 2014 (UTC)

Please explain why. I'd be happy to give you three reasons why it is. Not now of course, but in about four hours I'd be happy too. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 11:49, June 6, 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I think this is ridiculous. I've never been opposed to African nations becoming powerful, and even colonising. But even if Spain took Cahokia at the moment I would be extremely skeptical. Sure, they've been known to your nation for while. I'm not seeing how it thus becomes imperative to invade and conquer a place so far away when whatever resources you could gain from it (and I'm not entirely sure what they would be [this could just be my lack of knowledge about the region]) could be got by trade with Cahokia (if it must be got from there) or from places much closer to home. Like the Congo. Or even some of that disorganised South American land. ''Why invade an organised country when there's an entire continent of disorganised tribes? ''I'm just not convinced about the motives behind this. Callumthered (talk) 12:38, June 6, 2014 (UTC)

There are three million people spread across a gigantic piece of land, and all of it is accessible from a single river which I can access directly from the ocean. This is a strategic gain that is simply open for the taking. Three million people living with pre-industrial society spread across several thousands of miles can't possibly support an empire of fourty million residing in huge cities in a densely packed region. The conquest has more to do with the fact that Naijiria cannot support its current population with the little land that it has, especially when the surrounding lands are filled with hostile neighbors and an environment which is not friendly to settlements out of the blue. The temperate and mild climate of North America is perfect for reliving the nation of its densely populated lands, and given the large amounts of land which can be farmed and settled with little issue, and the added fact that the natives aren't using all of it (like in OTL), only serves to push Naijiria's desire to take that land for itself, especially since no one else has.

And to Cal, Spain took over two-thirds of South America and a forth of North America, so Spain doing anything of the sort is pretty much logical given that the natives simply didn't have the means to fight back. The Aztecs had a chance and lost, and they were the most powerful civilization in the Americas. If that's the case, comparing the Cahokians to the Aztecs, the Cahokians simply stand no chance. OTL Spain and ATL Spain are two different beasts. ATL Spain is infinitely more powerful that OTL Spain, so if Feud wanted to steamroll through the Cahokians, then he could very well do so. As for Naijiria, the incentive has been explained above. Too many people, not enough food, room, or safe areas. I kill three birds with one very big stone, and best of all, the Cahokians simply don't have the resources of the organization to fight back against a much larger and better equipped foe. And as I already mentioned beforehand, I can reach every part of their nations with the aid of a single river, from the Bayou to Lake Michigan, all in one stroke. Honestly, the water from Lake Michigan drains into the Gul of Mexico, so it's not like I'm flying across North America to reach them.

So to be concise, my invasion is plausible, has good grounds for such an action, and I have the resources and the manpower to make it work. Like I said, I wouldn't risk invading such a large territory if I hadn't made darn sure it was plausible. I thought this action through for a good week, and double-checked just to make sure my action would be cleared by sourced facts and plausibility. I already got banned one time, and I just cleared my name a bit. I'm not risking another round of arguments over misconceptions and lack of facts. That you can be sure of. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 13:53, June 6, 2014 (UTC)

Ya did infrastructure wrong, since it's an NPC nation it should have upgraded in the manner of infra>eco>mil.

So infrastructure should be 7 I believe.

<font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 14:40, June 6, 2014 (UTC)

And I think you get some negative points since your 3 nations are in some kind of union. And even if Infrastructure gets divided by 2 for some (stupid) reason, If you're using river's to attack, I think the infrastructure of not only one, but more nations should count.

<font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 14:43, June 6, 2014 (UTC)

+10 is the max for multiple nations in infrastructure, while the mil/econ is combined. The infrastructure points are indeed divided by two, not my rules. As for the points itself, it should actually be +4 due to poor reading on my part with the rules (trying to remember what Feud told me in chat about the new rules behind it). As for Naijiria, the penalty doesn't apply, since it was mentioned that you can bring your main nation (Oyo), and two other nations under its control (Mali and Benin). So I wouldn't recieve any penalties. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 15:19, June 6, 2014 (UTC)

Fixed motive. Only the main aggressor's motive should be taken into account, not that of all vassals involved. 17:32, June 6, 2014 (UTC)

Also, you've forgot to add the recent wars thing, as you've been in a war with Songhai only a few years ago.

And shouldn't your nation age be -10 since you have a governmental change literally this turn?

I mean I expect it should I just want to see what argument you have. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 18:07, June 6, 2014 (UTC)

Wow this is really implausible. i read Viva's message, he just explained why he would want to take the land (obviously everyone wants free land), not how it is possible in any way. Tr0llis (talk) 18:17, June 6, 2014 (UTC)

Troll, I thought I did. Well, here's how. Naijiria can indeed reach the Americas (or else I wouldn't be colonizing it), and thus I can send troops there if I wish. That much isn't disputed. The natives of southern America didn't really fish that much given all of the wild game in the interior, and thus opposition there would be nil. Given that the Mississippi River is massive, and runs through all of Cahokia, the Naijirian troops can sail north through the river, and move onto shore to conquer the land. I don't need a massive invasion force to do the, as large chunks of the Americas were conquered, not be massive armies, but by a small group of men, enough to fill one medium-sized ship (a single carrack could hold all of Cortez's men, horses, and supplies from Spain to Vera Cruz if he wanted too).

That I could do from OTL New Orleans to OTL Chicago without problem since both are connected to the same river (actually Chicago's on an off-shoot of it, the Illinois, but you get the point). All I would need to do is wipe out the areas of resistance in Cahokia, a task that would be quite easy given that at this point in time, the Cahokians were undergoing their dark ages, with increased fighting and lack of food. The Cahokia mound city itself on the MIssissippi, so an attack from the river would make the most sense to destroy their government. The same applied to the Aztecs, who were attacked by the Spaniards in the middle of an uprising, which ultimately divided their forces and resulted in their defeat. Therefore, my invasion, as I've stated already, is quite possible and entirely plausible, with a good reason for doing so.

Also, Sky, my government hasn't changed. The structure and everything remains the same as it was, but simply redressing of the names. The Oyo Empire is now Naijiria, and the member nations are now states. Nothing inside of their governments have been altered. As for Guns, PUs get have a motive, just like they have in every single algo before this one. Honestly, you should really read the rules before you start presenting your statements as fact. And Guns or Rex, whichever one of you is editting the algo, please stop. Your not mods, and you don't have the right to do that. You've both been warned aganist doing so in the past, and today is no exception. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 21:23, June 6, 2014 (UTC)

What? Guns hasn't said anything so far. And I have NEVER been warned against editing it- I've been brought in more than once to help, ffs.

Viva, like, actually?

If the fucking Castillians can barely take out some minor shits in central America, how will you, a nation of no real importance, do something of the sort? Castille is the second most powerful nation on the planet.

Furthermore, you're not on the colonization list. Means no colonization prior to 1600. This looks like the MOTHER of all colonies, cuz you just conquered HALF OF FUCKING AMERICA.

You've had 120 years of seafaring. Nations like Castille, England, France, Holland, etc, have had in excess of 500; and only two of those have even REACHED North America yet.

Viva, you're normally a good player, but do you ACTUALLY just see nothing wrong with this?

Also, *ahem* FEUD. I WARNED you this would happen. I said, Location is a HUGE part of warfare. I said, Location should done in Powers of 2 or even 3. I said, this is IMPORTANT to prevent what happened in PM2.

smh, 22:09, June 6, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, no. Not happening. Fed (talk) 22:39, June 6, 2014 (UTC)

Not even going to hesitate, this just deserves getting crossed out. you are too far to straight going behind this. Seriously viva, you know better than this. Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 00:45, June 7, 2014 (UTC)

Well I can still attack one of the territories no? Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 01:16, June 7, 2014 (UTC)

I'm just going to say this. Cortez and the Aztecs was a UNIQUE case in World history. A TOTAL ANOMALY. The Aztec Empire had rapidly expanded and had many enemies around them andeven within their borders. Cortez decided to improve his standing with the king by attempting to seize power and did so by getting the native populations that were against the Aztecs to rise up and conquer the Aztec capital. It then took over a century for Spain to swallow what would become Mexico. The Incas too, the Spanish caught them in the midst of a civil war, they played off the factions against one another and eventually wiped them both out when they were weak enough. Your level of tech and power will allow you to attack them, but to hold land? No. Scandinator (talk) 15:03, June 7, 2014 (UTC)

Uesugi
I'd like to point out to the moderators that Uesugi's turn for 1525 is implausible. The player had wrote "Meanwhile, Shinto temples are built to fair our belonged character Minty Sakura." Minty Sakura, is actually a fictional character from a film called "Wreck-It Ralph". It's implausible that there be shrines based around a character from some film, and even more so as the film in question didn't exist at this time.

Could something be done about this? -Seiga  2014 June 07, 01:00 (CET)

Koga, aren't you a mod?

23:21, June 6, 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not, and I don't plan to. I was last game though, but didn't really do anything. -Seiga  2014 June 07, 01:22 (CET)

Oh.

Yeah, this should be crossed out.

23:26, June 6, 2014 (UTC)

Ok, all Minty Sakura texts in Uesugi are removed due to this character don't exits in this time.

Eric von Schweetz, You Young and Sweet Boy! 18:09, June 6, 2014 (UTC)

Naijiria

 * Location: +4
 * Tactical Advantage: +5
 * Nations Per Side: Oyo (L), Mali (L), Benin (L) = 12/8 = +2
 * Military Development: 14/10 = +1
 * Economic: 12/8 = +2
 * Economic Bonus: +15
 * Locations Bonus: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +3 +3 +7
 * Modifier: +4 +5
 * Chance: +3
 * Edit count=5,163
 * 2*3*5*2=60
 * 5163/60*pi=270.3340478414195
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Population: +18 (41,902,671)
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 525,000/100,000 = +5
 * Total: 92

Salum and Igboland
Total: 38
 * Location: +5
 * Tactical Advantage: +2
 * Nations Per Side: Salum (L), Igboland (L) = 8/12 = +1
 * Military Development: 10/14 = +1
 * Economic: 8/12 = +1
 * Locations Bonus: 0
 * Economic Bonus: -2
 * Infrastructure: +5
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +9 +9
 * Chance: +4
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: +7 (6,750,000)
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 100,000/525,000 = 0

Results
Naijiria may take 34.6% of Salum and Igboland, enough to topple their governments.
 * ((92/(38+92)*2)-1 = 0.4153846153846154%
 * (41.53)*(1-1/(2*3)) = 34.6083333333333333%

Discussion
Locations is now in multiples of 5 for future reference. what was once +5 would now be +25, and such down the line

Okay. Thank you for the heads up. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 04:17, June 7, 2014 (UTC)

Offer
While I no longer play an active role in the game. I will be more than happy to help solve major disputes and also answer any general history questions. Please leave a message in my talk page if you ever need me. Scandinator (talk) 12:26, June 7, 2014 (UTC)

China
I'm sorry guys, but due to a family emergency, I can't post till the 20th at least.

In the meantime, I'm asking Koga to post for me, since he anyway plays one of my vassals.

17:46, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

Austria

 * Location: 4
 * Austria: 5
 * Strassburg: 5
 * Swabia: 4
 * Luxembourg: 5
 * Bavaria: 4
 * Bohemia: 4
 * Saxony: 4
 * Thuringia: 4
 * Lombardy: 4
 * Wallis: 4
 * Modena: 4
 * Hamburg: 4
 * Tactical Advantage: +5 (siege equipment)
 * Nations Per Side: Austria (L), Strassburg (LV), Swabia (LV), Luxembourg (L), Bavaria (L), Bohemia (L), Saxony (LV), Thuringia (LV), Lombardy (L), Wallis (LV), Modena (LV), Hamburg (L), Mecklenburg (L), Stade (LV) = 56/20 = 3
 * Military Development: 293/247 = 1
 * Has not lost any of the previous three wars: +10
 * Nation has a moderately sized armed forces: +3 (60,000 to 20,000)
 * Austria: 20
 * Strassburg: 20
 * Swabia: 20
 * Luxembourg: 20
 * Bavaria: 20
 * Bohemia: 20
 * Saxony: 20
 * Thuringia: 20
 * Lombardy: 20
 * Wallis: 20
 * Modena: 20
 * Hamburg: 20
 * Mecklenburg: 20
 * Stade: 20
 * Economic: 280/237 = 1
 * Austria: 20
 * Strassburg: 20
 * Swabia: 20
 * Luxembourg: 20
 * Bavaria: 20
 * Bohemia: 20
 * Saxony: 20
 * Thuringia: 20
 * Lombardy: 20
 * Wallis: 20
 * Modena: 20
 * Hamburg: 20
 * Mecklenburg: 20
 * Stade: 20
 * Locations Bonus: +4 (Venice, Lubeck)
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Expansion: N/A
 * Motive: 70
 * Austria: 7+4
 * Strassburg: 5
 * Swabia: 5
 * Luxembourg: 5
 * Bavaria: 3+4
 * Bohemia: 5
 * Saxony: 3
 * Thuringia: 3
 * Lombardy: 3+4
 * Wallis: 3
 * Modena: 3
 * Hamburg: 3+4
 * Mecklenburg: 3
 * Stade: 3
 * Chance
 * Edit count=x
 * nonzero digit in time*nonzero digit in time=y
 * x/y*pi=z
 * Chance=Hundredth place of z
 * NPC Bonus: N/A
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Austria: 0
 * Strassburg: 5
 * Swabia: 5
 * Luxembourg: 5
 * Bavaria: 0
 * Bohemia: 5
 * Saxony: -5
 * Thuringia: -5
 * Lombardy: -5
 * Wallis: 0
 * Modena: 0
 * Hamburg: -5
 * Mecklenburg: 0
 * Stade: 0
 * Population: +8
 * Recent Wars: -4
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 265, 000
 * Austria: 30,000
 * Strassburg: 15,000
 * Swabia: 35,000
 * Luxembourg: 20,000
 * Bavaria: 35,000
 * Bohemia: 20,000
 * Saxony: 20,000
 * Thuringia: 20,000
 * Lombardy: 20,000
 * Wallis: 5,000
 * Modena: 5,000
 * Hamburg: 20,000
 * Mecklenburg: 10,000
 * Stade: 5,000
 * Reichsarmee: 25,000


 * Total: 102

France
Total: 63.5
 * Location: +5
 * Tactical Advantage: +2 (defender)
 * Nations Per Side: France (L), Burgundy (L), Bourbon (LV) Lorraine (LV),Verdun (LV),Alencon (LV), Anjou(LV), Africa (LV),Sardinia(LV), Trier (LV), Zweibrucken (LV), Aargau(LV), Julich (MV), Guaxirenne (MV), Aurienne (MV), Provence (MV) = 44-24=20, 0
 * Military Development: 247, 0
 * Has not lost any of the previous three wars: +10
 * More total troops than enemy: +5
 * France: 20
 * Burgundy: 20
 * Bourbon: 20
 * Lorraine: 20
 * Verdun: 20
 * Alencon: 16
 * Anjou: 16
 * Africa: 20
 * Sardinia: 20
 * Trier: 20
 * Zweibrucken: 20
 * Aargau: 20
 * Economic: 237, 0
 * Colonial Empire +5
 * France: 20
 * Burgundy: 20
 * Bourbon: 20
 * Lorraine: 20
 * Verdun: 20
 * Alencon: 16
 * Anjou: 16
 * Africa: 20
 * Sardinia: 20
 * Trier: 20
 * Zweibrucken: 20
 * Aargau: 20
 * Expansion:
 * Motive: 38
 * France: (Defending territory not part of heartland but held for more than 20 years: + 5
 * Burgundy: 3
 * Bourbon: 3
 * Lorraine: 3
 * Verdun: 3
 * Alencon: 3
 * Anjou: 3
 * Africa: 3
 * Sardinia: 3
 * Trier: 3
 * Zweibrucken: 3
 * Aargau: 3
 * Chance
 * Nation Age:0
 * Population: +8
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 610, 000/240, 000 = 2.5

Results
0.417417417*(1-1/(6))=0.347847848

Discussion
Due to the scale of the war, and the fact France is alone, its been dictated that it would be plausible for france to use all her vassals without Penalty (as allowed by the rules)

Sine and I talked about this and this has since been revoked. Mscoree (talk) 01:20, June 12, 2014 (UTC)

Austria

 * Location: 4
 * Austria: 4
 * Strassburg: 4
 * Swabia: 4
 * Luxembourg: 4
 * Bavaria: 4
 * Bohemia: 4
 * Saxony: 4
 * Thuringia: 4
 * Milan: 4
 * Wallis: 4
 * Modena: 4
 * Tactical Advantage: +5 (siege equipment)
 * Nations Per Side:Austria (L), Strassburg (LV), Swabia (LV), Luxembourg (L), Bavaria (L), Bohemia (L), Saxony (LV), Thuringia (LV), Milan (L), Wallis (LV), Modena (LV) = 43/44 = 0
 * Military Development: 220/232= 0
 * Has not lost any of the previous three wars: +10
 * Nation has a moderately sized armed forces: +3 (60,000 to 20,000)
 * Austria: 20
 * Strassburg: 20
 * Swabia: 20
 * Luxembourg: 20
 * Bavaria: 20
 * Bohemia: 20
 * Saxony: 20
 * Thuringia: 20
 * Milan: 20
 * Wallis: 20
 * Modena: 20
 * Economic: 220/232 = 0
 * Austria: 20
 * Strassburg: 20
 * Swabia: 20
 * Luxembourg: 20
 * Bavaria: 20
 * Bohemia: 20
 * Saxony: 20
 * Thuringia: 20
 * Milan: 20
 * Wallis: 20
 * Modena: 20
 * Locations Bonus: 0
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Expansion: N/A
 * Motive: 43
 * Austria: 5
 * Strassburg: 5
 * Swabia: 5
 * Luxembourg: 5
 * Bavaria: 3
 * Bohemia: 5
 * Saxony: 3
 * Thuringia: 3
 * Milan: 3
 * Wallis: 3
 * Modena: 3
 * Chance
 * Edit count=x
 * nonzero digit in time*nonzero digit in time=y
 * x/y*pi=z
 * Chance=Hundredth place of z
 * NPC Bonus: N/A
 * Nation Age: +0
 * Austria: -10
 * Strassburg: 5
 * Swabia: 5
 * Luxembourg: 5
 * Bavaria: 0
 * Bohemia: 5
 * Saxony: -5
 * Thuringia: -5
 * Milan: -5
 * Wallis: 0
 * Modena: 0
 * Population: +8
 * Recent Wars: -4
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 225, 000
 * Austria: 30,000
 * Strassburg: 15,000
 * Swabia: 35,000
 * Luxembourg: 20,000
 * Bavaria: 35,000
 * Bohemia: 20,000
 * Saxony: 20,000
 * Thuringia: 20,000
 * Milan: 20,000
 * Wallis: 5,000
 * Modena: 5,000


 * Total:79

France
Total: 110
 * Location: +5
 * Tactical Advantage: +2 (defender)
 * Nations Per Side: France (L), Burgundy (L), Bourbon (LV) Lorraine (LV),Verdun (LV),Alencon (LV)
 * Anjou(LV), Africa (LV),Sardinia(LV), Trier (LV), Zweibrucken (LV), Aargau(LV), Julich (MV), Guaxirenne (MV), Aurienne (MV), Provence (MV) = 44/43 = 1
 * Military Development:232/220 =1
 * Has not lost any of the previous three wars: +10
 * More total troops than enemy: +5
 * France: 20
 * Burgundy: 20
 * Bourbon: 20
 * Lorraine: 20
 * Verdun: 20
 * Alencon: 16
 * Anjou: 16
 * Africa: 20
 * Sardinia: 20
 * Trier: 20
 * Zweibrucken: 20
 * Aargau: 20
 * Economic: 232/220 = 1
 * Much larger Economy +10
 * Colonial Empire +5
 * France: 20
 * Burgundy: 20
 * Bourbon: 20
 * Lorraine: 20
 * Verdun: 20
 * Alencon: 16
 * Anjou: 16
 * Africa: 20
 * Sardinia: 20
 * Trier: 20
 * Zweibrucken: 20
 * Aargau: 20
 * Locations Bonus:0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: 46
 * France: +5
 * Burgundy: +5
 * Bourbon: +3
 * Lorraine: +5
 * Verdun: +3
 * Alencon: +3
 * Anjou: +3
 * Africa: +3
 * Sardinia: +3
 * Trier: +5
 * Zweibrucken: +5
 * Aargau: +3
 * Chance
 * Nation Age:+5
 * France: +5
 * Burgundy: +5
 * Bourbon: +5
 * Lorraine: +5
 * Verdun: +5
 * Alencon: -5
 * Anjou: -5
 * Africa: +0
 * Sardinia: +0
 * Trier: -5
 * Zweibrucken: -5
 * Aargau: +0
 * Population: +8
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops:610.000/225.000 = +3

Results

 * Trier's and Zweibrucken's french governments yay! Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 05:08, June 11, 2014 (UTC) also in order to avoid the obvious implausibility of annexing 17% of austria or any nation i may get luxembourg and strassburg as "For now claims" else may be said when the algo is either fixed or choosen etc etc.

Discussion

 * Only mods and or the algo makers edit anything here (Ms to his version, me to mine) Else may post in the non mod area Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 05:14, June 11, 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey MS i realize Venice is/might be going back to you after the union split but as of right now the city is held by the Spanish. which means the locations bonus does not go to austria as of late.
 * According to the map, Venice is Austrian clay...
 * Since i was misinformed by BOTH sides ive elected to retract my previous ruling on Vassal rules with no penalties. Vassals may all still be used (since its not prohibited) but penalties will in fact be involved.
 * Hamburg is coming in on the side of the HRE, it'll be Hamburg (L), Mecklenburg (L), and Stade (LV). Maximum Econ and Military development, a -5 nation age for Stade, +5 for Hamburg, and 0 for Mecklenburg. Troops are 35,000 from Hamburg proper, 20,000 from Mecklenburg, and 15,000 from Stade.


 * Also with my entry, I believe Frances larger colonial empire bonus needs to be removed, and France doesn't have a "much larger" economy than the involved HRE states.

Non Mod Algo revision

 * Post here :v

Naijiria

 * Location: +4
 * Tactical Advantage: +6
 * Nations Per Side: Oyo (L), Benin (L) = 8/4 = +2
 * Military Development: 14/5 = +10
 * Military Bonus: +33
 * Economic: 12/5 = +2
 * Economic Bonus: +15
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Expansion: -2
 * Motive: +7 +3
 * Modifier: +5 +4 +6 -5
 * Chance: +7
 * Edit count=5,163
 * 2*0*3*6=36
 * 5240/60*pi=457.2762640225444
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Population: +8 (24,010,993)
 * Recent Wars: -3
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 305,000/180,000 = +3
 * Total: 85

Songhai
Total: 28*1.5 = 42
 * Location: +5
 * Tactical Advantage: +2
 * Nations Per Side: Songhai (L) = 4/8 = +1
 * Military Development: 5/14 = +1
 * Economic: 8/12 = +1
 * Economic Bonus: -2
 * Infrastructure: +3
 * Expansion: -10
 * Motive: +9
 * Chance: +6
 * Nation Age: -10
 * Population: +8 (26,445,887)
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 100,000/305,000 = 0

Results
Naijiria may take 25.5% of Songhai
 * ((76/(42+76)*2)-1 = 0.3385826771653543
 * (34)*(1-1/(2*2)) = 21.6075%

Discussion
Seeing how this is a secessionist war, he still takes over the country. The Aiguptian war of independence confirmed this.

Proposed changes to colonization and expansion rules
Given that in OTL the claiming of islands and deserts were much easier, faster, and more frequent than we have them in ATL, I wanted to propose the following changes to the rules. Tell me what you think. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 03:10, June 12, 2014 (UTC)
 * Islands between 1-50 pixels can be claimed once every ten years. Two for major colonizers, and one for minor and other colonizers. The rationale behind this is that smaller territories were much easier for small nations to colonize and protect, and bigger nations could easily claim them and settle them with no problem.
 * Expansion into desert and tundra would be between 7,500 and 10,000 km. The rationale behind this is that even lowly-population lands were able to claim unpopulated territories in the blink of an eye, or at the very least, faced very little resistance to their expansion given the few natives in the region. Look at French Algeria for example. The French moved into the region, set up some forts, and fought the Tuaregs a few times with only a couple dozen men on one side, and about a hundred on the other. After that, there was no more fighting. The same could be applied to the British and American expansion into Canada and Alaska. Too few people and lots of unsettled land. Much easier to colonize.

Really depends upon how powerful the nation is. France and GB were both world powers when they were conquering extremely under-developed people in the Sahara, or the Indians who had been decimated and didn't even have horses.

I also think that, if applied to you (which I assume this was intended to be), this would allow creation of a HUGE African empire of implausibility, sort of like Ethiopia was. I think yes to European powers, no to other nations, like Nigeria or Eastern Nations. Africa should still be quite open near 1800. 20:09, June 13, 2014 (UTC)

Tawatinsuyu (Attacker)
Total: 102
 * Location: +15
 * Tactical Advantage: +1
 * Nations: Tawatinsuyu (L)= 5
 * Military Development: 10*2=20+15=35
 * Modifiers:Has not lost any of the previous 3 wars (+10) More troops: (+5)
 * Total:35/2=18
 * Economic Development: 10*2=20+16=36/4=9
 * Modifiers: Cuzco (+1), Much larger Eco (+10) Larger Trade (+5)=+16
 * Total:36/1=36
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: Taking Territory of similar culture=+5
 * Modifiers: Gov not Supported (-10), War not supported (-2)
 * Total:-7
 * Chance: 8
 * Edit count: 484
 * UTC: 19:51 (9*5) =35
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =33.789
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: +10 (no way Chiribaya has more than 150,000 people)
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 23,000/3,600 (3% of 120,00)=6
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Chiribaya (Defender)
Total: 58
 * Location: +25
 * Tactical Advantage: +2
 * Nations: Chiribaya(L) = 5
 * Military Development: 6/2=3,
 * Modifiers: Much smaller armed forces (-5)
 * Total: -2, 0
 * Economic Development: 7/2=4, +0
 * Modifiers: Smaller Economy (-2), Receding Economy (-3).
 * Total: -1,0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 7/2=4
 * Motive: +9
 * Modifiers: Gov Supported (+4)
 * Total:+13
 * Chance: 9
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 (0) =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: +0 (1250 AD)
 * Population: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result

 * ((102/(58+102))*2)-1 = .275
 * (.275)*(1-1/(2*2)) = 20.9~21%
 * 2 years, 21 precent.

Discussion
Well Negitives prove to be an issue in the algo. For my sanities sake, I did not use the "troops no mobilized" penelety, otherwise i would have had -12 instead of -2 for military. Two wrongs may not make a right, '' but it makes me feel a lot better in the end! '' 20:56, June 12, 2014 (UTC)

Naijiria

 * Location: +4
 * Tactical Advantage: +6
 * Nations Per Side: Oyo (L), Benin (L) = 8/4 = +2
 * Military Development: 6/2 = +3
 * Military Bonus: +30
 * Economic: 2/2 = +2
 * Economic Bonus: +15
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Expansion: -3
 * Motive: +3 +3
 * Modifier: +4
 * Chance: +7
 * Edit count=5,163
 * 2*0*1*2=4
 * 5261/4*pi=4131.979737634248
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Population: +20 (24,010,993)
 * Recent Wars: -5
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 300,000/25,000 = +12
 * Total: 118

Ghana
Total: 52
 * Location: +5
 * Tactical Advantage: +3
 * Nations Per Side: Ghana (L) = 4/8 = +1
 * Military Development: 2/6 = 0
 * Military Bonus: +3 -5
 * Economic: 2/2 = +1
 * Economic Bonus: -2
 * Infrastructure: +3
 * Expansion: -1
 * Motive: +9
 * Motive Modifier: +4
 * Chance: +9
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Population: +7 (1,500,000)
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 25,000/300,000 = 0

Results
Naijiria may take 33.9% of Ghana in the next four, enough to topple its government.
 * ((118/(52+118)*2)-1 = 0.3882352941176471%
 * (38.82)*(1-1/(2*4)) = 33.9675%

Discussion
May I ask, why you attack us when we wanted to stay neutral Alt History since the dawn of time 01:36, June 13, 2014 (UTC)

Uh, imperialism? Dang it, now I fell bad. :( Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 01:40, June 13, 2014 (UTC)

I can't do it. T-T Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 01:41, June 13, 2014 (UTC)

So then...
Hey guys! Imp here (as if you don't know me already).

I have had fun with this game, I really have. But I realise I have lost the will to keep playing it, it seems to have become too tedious. Many of you are excellent players - and it was fun playing with you guys through the highs and lows of the game. And the plans I had for Hungary - boy I was really wanting to make the nation timeline worthy but I realise that in a map game that is exceptionally hard to do and me having left Hungary for so long over this break would have been hard to explain in historical perspective. So I have decided to devote my energies into other projects needing my attention. I'll make it clear though - I ain't pulling a Guns. I could return to the game later on if I desire to do so but for now, its goodbye to the game.

May all of you play well and continue to make PMIII an interesting game.

Imp (Say Hi?!) 19:05, June 13, 2014 (UTC)

Bye Imp! You are a great player and I understand the difficulty of making some explanation for your absence is quite hard. (I had to do it after I was banned.) I hope you continue to work on your TLs and making the TSPTF a happier place. 20:16, June 13, 2014 (UTC)

Now that's just offensive. "Pulling a Guns", he says.

Fite me irl, Impo.

22:19, June 13, 2014 (UTC)

I was under the impression that "Pulling a Guns" was an official term. 173.61.82.5

It is. It involves causing a giant shitstorm and not shutting up until either I am conclusively proved wrong or I am conclusively proved right.

22:35, June 13, 2014 (UTC)

Someone else is leaving the game *sigh* ... Cour *talk* 17:28, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

China (Attacker)
Total: 230
 * Location: 20
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations: China (L), Mongol Khanate (LV) = 9/5 = 2
 * Military Development: 40/0 => 40
 * China: 10 turns = 20
 * Mongols: 10 turns = 20
 * Economic Development: 65/0 => 65
 * China: 10 turns = 20
 * Mongols: 10 turns = 20
 * Larger Econ: +10
 * Location: +10 (Shanghai, Nanjing, Hangzhou, Hong Kong, Guangzhou
 * Larger Trade Empire: +5
 * Mil Modifiers:
 * has not lost last three wars: +10
 * Naval dominance: +10
 * More total troops: +5
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: Taking back territory: +6
 * Modifiers: +9 (support, high morale)
 * Chance: 8
 * Edit count: 8061
 * UTC: 2:44 = 32
 * Total: 8061/32* (3.14159265359) = 791.386824393
 * Nation Age: +5 Mature
 * Population: 9+20 = 29
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 350,000/35,000 = 10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Liao (Defender)
Total: 38
 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations: Liao (L)= 0
 * Military Development: 0
 * Economic Development: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: Defending from fatal attack: +9
 * Modifiers: Multiple Concurrent wars: -15 Low morale: -5 = -20
 * Chance: 6
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 (0) =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: +0
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 35,000/350,000
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result

 * ((230/(230+38))*2)-1 = 71.64%
 * (71.64)*(1-1/(2*1)) = 35.82%
 * China Nation annexes. The Tartary gets 10% of the land if they invade, or 0% if they don't, it's up to Feddy.

Tartary (Attacker)
Total: 199
 * Location: 20
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations: China (L), Kazakhstan (LV), Emirate of Bukhara (MV) = 9/5 = 2
 * Military Development: 30/0 => 30
 * Tartary: 5 turns = 10
 * Mongol Khanate: 10 turns = 20
 * Economic Development: 65/0 => 65
 * China: 15 turns = 30
 * Mongols: 10 turns = 20
 * Larger Econ: +10
 * Location: +1 (Samarkand)
 * Larger Trade Empire: +5
 * Mil Modifiers:
 * has not lost last three wars: +10
 * Naval dominance: +10
 * More total troops: +5
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: Economic: +3
 * Modifiers: +9 (support, high morale)
 * Chance: 9
 * Edit count: 6852
 * UTC: 22:17 = 28
 * Total: 6852/28 * (3.14159265359) = 768.792602229
 * Nation Age: +5 Mature
 * Population: 7+10 = 19
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 50,000/35,000 = 1
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Liao (Defender)
Total: 34
 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations: Liao (L)= 0
 * Military Development: 0
 * Economic Development: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: Defending from fatal attack: +9
 * Modifiers: Multiple Concurrent wars: -15 Low morale: -5 = -20
 * Chance: 2
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 (0) =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: +0
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 35,000/50,000
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result

 * ((199/(199+34))*2)-1 = 0.70815450643
 * (70.68)*(1-1/(2*1)) = 35.34%

Dammit, 20% of Liao!

Discussion
Yeah uh, Liao still gets the usual NPC development as it is in fact an NPC nation. So 7 Infrastructure, 7 economy and 6 military if we're going by the infra>eco>mil thing

There are some other things, but I'm not sure, so I'll leave the checking up to mods like Feud and Ms

<font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green <font color="A00000">24 - Join the party  12:05, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

Mm, right, forgot. I'll add that.

13:12, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

10%? Agh. Can't it be a bit more? Fed (talk) 22:17, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

20% if you make your own damn algo.

22:31, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

Kay. Here's a twenty-eighty division of the Liao. I'd like this to be the division between myself and Guns. Fed (talk) 01:05, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking you get the West, I get the East...

01:18, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

Farewell
Welp, I've had my fun, or at the very least, I've tried. I've tried to play plausibly, but general ignorance, personal agendas, people's opinions, and attempts to maintain a certain kind of timeline (as well as a level of corruption), have pretty much destroy every attempt I've made (even with facts and sources). I'm going to pursue a less a stressful line of work on the wiki, like fininshing my TLs. Oh well. Cya. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 21:38, June 14, 2014 (UTC)


 * ( Bye Viva -Ashlee  21:55, June 14, 2014 (UTC)
 * Adios, amigo. I hope you continue to fare well on the wiki. How many players of PM2 remain? The number dwindles every passing day, it seems... 02:54, June 15, 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, i remember him joining very late in PMI.I think that from the original game, me, Yank, Lx (is he even active?), Fed, Kunarian (same question as Lx.) and Scraw are still there.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 10:13, June 15, 2014 (UTC)
 * Out of the ones you listed Kunarian and Scraw no longer play the game. Mscoree (talk) 13:45, June 15, 2014 (UTC)
 * Lx is active, yeah.
 * I actually joined around the time of PM, but decided not to join, because my first sight of it was the Great Northern War :D
 * 18:29, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

Viva, you still have Mali, only need to win the algo to hold it.

Coalition (Attacker): Rumania, Rome, Poland
Total: 94
 * Location: (20+20+15)/3=18
 * Tactical Advantage: 2
 * Nations: Rumania (L), Poland (L), Rome(L), Ragusa(LV)=18/26=0
 * Military Development:76=76/86=0+10(No defeats)+10(naval Superiority)+5(More total troops)=25
 * Rumania: 5*2=10
 * Poland: 13*2=26
 * Rome:10*2=20
 * Ragusa:10*2=20
 * Economic Development:86/112=0+5(larger Trade)+5(larger eco.)+3(Sea of Marmara)+1(Kaffa)=14
 * Rumania: 14*2=28
 * Poland: 9*2=18
 * Rome: 10*2=20
 * Ragusa: 10*2=20
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive:16
 * Rumania: +7(Kinsmen) =
 * Poland:+3(eco.)=3
 * Rome:+3(ally) =3
 * Ragusa:+3(eco.)=3
 * Modifiers: -3 (Non-Demo. Coalition), High Morale +6=3
 * Chance: 5
 * Edit count: 497
 * UTC: 0 (0) = 1:38
 * Total: 497/24*pi (3.14159265359) = 65.0571478681
 * Nation Age: (0-10+0)/3=-3
 * Population: 8, +2=10
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops:60,000 /30,000=6/3=2
 * Recent Wars: -8
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Hungary (Defender)
Total: 34
 * Location: (25+20+20+20+25+20+20+15)/8=21
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations: Hungary (L)+5, Cilli (LV)+3, Croatia(LV)+3, Garay(LV)+3, Serbia(LV)+3, Split(LV)+3, Zachlumia(LV)+3, Hungarian Banu Sulaym(LV)+3 = 26/18=1
 * Military Development:96/76=1-10(not initially mobilized)=-9
 * Hungary:6*2=12
 * Cilli:6*2=12
 * Croatia:6*2=12
 * Garay:6*2=12
 * Serbia:6*2=12
 * Split:6*2=12
 * Zachlumia:6*2=12
 * Banu Sulaym:6*2=12
 * Economic Development: 7*2*8=112/86=1-2(smaller economy)=-1
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: +7
 * Motive: +5(Defence) +3*7 (aiding ally)=26
 * Modifiers: -3(non-demo. support) -5(Low Moral) -7(Three Fronts)= -15
 * Chance:7
 * Edit count:
 * UTC: 0 (0) =
 * Total: /12*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 30,000/60,000=1/2=0
 * Recent Wars: -8
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result

 * ((94/(34+94))*2)-1 =0.46875
 * (46.875)*(1-1/(2*2))=35.15625

Discussion
This is a test algo for the war, it WILL need to be changed. Please do not go crazy on me for presenting it, thank you! Stephanus rex (talk) 02:26, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

The coalition can collapse Hungary, if they wish. However I for one am in favor of just taking the lands we want and leaving the rest alone. Stephanus rex (talk) 02:56, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion as to the division of Hungarian lands will take place on the Treaty of Cluj-Napoca page. Stephanus rex (talk) 03:14, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

You've done the algo so wrong... Could someone either correct this or give me the permission to do it myself?

<font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green <font color="A00000">24 - Join the party  07:18, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, although the war now lasts 3 2 years in case the attackers wish to collapse the government..

<font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green <font color="A00000">24 - Join the party  13:15, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

...If they are invading Hungary then you should put Pskov down as "supplies aid"... We kind of gave them a bunch of money when poland started out as rebels and gave them a bunch of guns and whatnot in exchange for them blowing up poland...in turn financning most of their armies...so supplies aid ya? at least for historical-plausibility purposes?(Im not going to ask for territory or anything, just want to be up there for arming the Polish)-Lx (leave me a message) 22:18, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

Lx I see where your coming from, however I think that allies more for the polish war of independece. Also I doubt it realy changes the algo. Stephanus rex (talk) 22:55, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

Oh I know that it won't change a thing, Hungary is screwed wether or not you put Pskov, all I want is a sort of historical akgnowledgement that one of the reasons Poland is able to fight in the first place and didnt go through tough economic times and putting social progress on the backburner is becuase of Pskov...adding a Pskov (S) to the algo wont hurt, would it? All I want is for that algo to say:well, pskov helped Poland get an army when it started in return for it harassing Hungary(which if you read my posts is part of the deal that I made with Poland prior to its player-takeover)...right...I just noticed that I put "in exchange for them blowing up poland", I meant Hungary, I meant I wanted them to plow up hungary(well, more like hoped the mods would say, look, somebody is financing the Polish rebels, let's have them take over more of hungary, but that didnt work out so this is the next best thing), so can you?-Lx (leave me a message) 00:05, June 17, 2014 (UTC)

To Ragusa or Not to Ragusa that is the Question?
Ok MS and MP you need to sort out the Ragusa mess once and for all. I am tired of it being on the treaty page so do it here. Stephanus rex (talk) 13:42, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

Solved. "<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 23:36, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

Byzantine Vassalization of Egypt: Is it even plausible?
I've seen that Byzantium somehow vassalized something of twice his size, Egypt. I believe i'm not the only one to believe that it is hardly possible, and that its only way to do it is through war as any other than that is ASB leaning. And yes, half of egypt is sand but land is still land and AFAIK no nation can vassalize a nation of similar size or bigger, Protectorate yes, Dynastic and Personal union yes, Vassalization no. Furthermore its a nation that would be in a severe internal crisis between muslims and christians, even by now the muslims should be a huge majority or atleast half of the population. I hereby ask other mods Such as feud, fed and ms to give their opinions on Byzantine Egypt and players may give their opinions if they desire to as well

Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 21:57, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
To offer a counter, I technically did not vassalize Aiguptia. I vassalized Alexandria, which is in dynastic union with Aiguptia. Then, after vassalizing Alexandria, I had the King of Alexandria issue a call to answer if the Ethiopians and Aiguptians were still loyal. A mod answered, saying Ethiopia wasn't and Aiguptia was. After that, since they were already close and this was what Greg was doing before he left, I merged the two nations together at last. Hope that clears up any confusion.
 * Just saying

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 23:40, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

Still think it may be a bit too large for MP to do as of late but id like some more input

AFAIK, it took Greg only a dynastic union to control Egypt, so I don't see why it's ASB. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green <font color="A00000">24 - Join the party  17:32, June 17, 2014 (UTC)

Sure, Alexandria itself is small, but its realm is huge. I believe the size of the country in questions sphere should be taken into account. Countries who have a larger realm most likely have more prestige (haven't seen anything in Alexandria to suggest otherwise) and thus, are harder to vassalize peacefully. Put simply, I don't think an empire the size of Alexandria's  can be vassalized peacefully.

Egypt at this time only had a population in the realm one or two million, in contrast to the ten million of Antolia. The part controlled by MP has able twice the population of Egypt. Byzantium was also fantastically wealthy, while Egypt was incredibly poor following the collapse of the Caliphates well into the 20th century. And Byzantium was still an influential power even before its collapse, while Egypt was never anything more than a regional power. As for religion, the Ottomans vassalized dozens of Christian nations which didn't rebel for at least three centuries, proving that religion itself cannot be used as a cause to stop or hinder vassalization. So MP can indeed vassalize Egypt through weight of wealth, influence, and military strength, which it still possessed for a time. So there should be no dispute as to whether or not MP can take over Egypt peacefully. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 16:56, June 18, 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, Alexandria isn't poor. Greg took it and turned it into a huge trade nation, in both size and strength. Heck, its grown rich from the Philiadelphi canal alone. And MP only owns portions of the coast of Anatolia, not Anatolia itself.

China (Attacker)
Total: 184
 * Location: 20
 * Tactical Advantage: 6
 * Nations: China (L), Mongol Khanate (LV) Korea (M) = 12/5 = 3
 * Military Development: 40/6 => 7
 * China: 10 turns = 20
 * Mongols: 10 turns = 20
 * Economic Development: 40/7 => 6
 * China: 10 turns = 20
 * Mongols: 10 turns = 20
 * Econ Modifiers: 25
 * Larger Econ: +10
 * Location: +10 (Shanghai, Nanjing, Hangzhou, Hong Kong, Guangzhou)
 * Larger Trade Empire: +5
 * Mil Modifiers: 25
 * has not lost last three wars: +10
 * Naval dominance: +10
 * More total troops: +5
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: Taking back territory: +6
 * Modifiers: +9 (support, high morale)
 * Chance: 9
 * Edit count: 8121
 * UTC: 9:04 = 36
 * Total: 8121/36* (3.14159265359) = 708.690942772
 * Nation Age: +5 Mature
 * Population: 9+20 = 29
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 350,000/15,000 = 24
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Manchu Empire (Defender)
Total: 10
 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations: Manchu (L)= 0
 * Military Development: 7/40
 * Economic Development: 7/40
 * Econ Modifiers: Smaller econ: -2
 * Mil modifiers: not mobilized, much smaller military: -15
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 7
 * Motive: Defending from fatal attack: +9
 * Modifiers: Low morale: -5 = -5
 * Chance: 0 (see above)
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 (0) =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: - 5 (old)
 * Population: 5
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 15,000/350,000
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result
(184/(184+10))*2-1= 89.69%

Do I even NEED to do the second calculation? (If I do, it comes out to 89.69/2 = ~45%)

Note to the mods; this is now two wars against nations with a combined population around 1% of my own. There will not be any others for quite some time. Cool yourselves.

I'm going to resist the temptation to make a Fu Manchu joke here.

Too late.

If I could...
Due to recent events (Treaty of Gwadar) I have come to the conclusion that Éire is, plainly said, limited by Albion. I cannot expand without Albion allowing it nor could I secede from the UKGA without a bloody war that would crush the Kingdom of Éire. And although ÉIRE STRONK, I would like to request a switch to another nation in order for this fiasco in the British Isles to stop. I discussed this with Andy last night and he agreed with me, albeit adding that it's a bit hard to admit that this is true.

Thank you for your attention, <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green <font color="A00000">24 - Join the party  07:54, June 19, 2014 (UTC)

In case you get permission from moderators, pick Suri Empire and get your revenge at Bengal >_>

I was wondering, according to the new moderator events, Muslims and Hindus are divided.. Would this not affect the alliance between Bengal and Vijaynagar [Some Marriage?] ?

So where does Bengal stand in all of this? Bengal appears to be a Muslim state with strong ties with Hindu Indian States so the moderator event needs to clear our some of these problems .-. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green <font color="A00000">24 - Join the party  10:01, June 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) I won't be picking Suri, nor will I try to recreate the Mughal Empire or the Timurid Empire
 * 2) I have no idea to be honest. They do have a royal marriage although I myself have no idea what's the current status of it.
 * 3) I don't understand what you mean by in all of this, Rimp

Ignore the Suri part RexImperio (talk) 10:47, June 19, 2014 (UTC)

Croatia? XD <font color="#D7DF01">Saturn (Talk) 12:44, June 19, 2014 (UTC)

If you do leave Eire, I will not allow any more players, instead I will just roll Eire in as a vassal state, it is ion hard to reasonably manage two player nations in a union so close together, especially when one of them much more powerful than the other. So if sky does leave Eire, he will be the last secondary player in the UKGA.ALLONS-Y!!,Basically, RUN!! 18:42, June 19, 2014 (UTC)

European Nations (Attacker)
Locations Bonus: +5 (Straits of Gibraltar), +3 (Cape of Good Hope), +2 (Venice),+1 (Seville), +1 (Barcelona), +3 (English Channel), +2 (Genoa) +2 (Antwerp), +1 (London) = 20 Total: 196
 * Location: 20
 * Netherlands: 20
 * Spain: 20
 * Austria: 20
 * Albion: 20
 * Tactical Advantage: 5
 * Nations: Netherlands (L), Spain (L), Austria (L), Albion (L) = 20/8 = 3
 * Military Development: 90/6 = 15
 * Netherlands: 20
 * Spain: 20
 * Austria: 20
 * Albion: 20
 * Naval Dominance: 10
 * Economic Development: 95/2 = 48
 * Economic Bonus: Larger economy, Larger Colonial Empire +15
 * Netherlands: 20
 * Spain: 20
 * Austria: 20
 * Albion: 20
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: 41
 * Netherlands: 7 +4
 * Spain: 3 +4
 * Austria: 3 +4
 * Albion: 3 +4
 * Modifiers: +9 (support, high morale)
 * Chance:
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Population: 9+20 = 29
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 105,000, 0
 * Netherlands: 10,000
 * Spain: 65,000
 * Austria: 10,000
 * Albion: 20,000
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Oyo (Defender)

 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations Per Side: Oyo (L), Benin (L) = 8, 0
 * Military Development: 6, 0
 * Economic: 2, 0
 * Infrastructure: +10
 * Expansion: -3 (Benin)
 * Motive: 9 (oyo) +3 (benin)
 * Modifier: +4
 * Chance:
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Population: +8
 * Recent Wars: -5
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 300,000/105,000 = 3
 * Total: 70

Result
0.473684211*(1-1/(4))=0.355263158

Discussion
Oyo is fallen... They are finally dead..

~IDK

YO. DUMBSHITS. Motive is AVERAGED, not ADDED.

Fix that.

19:12, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

Ignore what Guns said, it is false. Motive is not averaged. Guns, a quick glance at the rules might be beneficial for you. Mscoree (talk) 19:24, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

I wrote the motive rules, Ms. Shit, before Feud edited it, I wrote damn near all of the algo.

Now, firstly, until recently, that was true. Feud changed it recently; I'm not sure why.

Secondly, there have been previous arguments about this, in which I seem to recall Scan and Feddy accusing you of cheating for doing the exact same thing.

Hmm.

I'd also like to say that this current rule makes no sense, cuz right now one nation afraid of getting wiped out has less motive to fight a war than 5 nations invading for the heck of it.

19:53, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

They aren't new, they were created in February and March, after a lot of time in development. I do not recall Scan or Fed ever accusing me of cheating, in fact Scan even approved the rule changes. Mscoree (talk) 20:01, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

Scan fully endorsed the algo changes... also the algo you wrote was ridiculously defender biased and allowed Tunisia to collapse the french government somehow. As it stands Motive in this algo is Added together and not averaged and this has been so for MONTHS. As it stands if you dont like it i cant help you.. It works, and outside of a few outright ridiculous wars, represents the plausible outcome of a coalition war wanting to dismantle something. Honestly 5 great powers vs a single power never ended up extremely well in any TL referencing the coalition against China in OTL. it worked and it escalated euro involvement significantly. So yeah the algo is fine. -Feud

The game started in Febuary, and that accusation came after your first war on Venice. Funny how certain things seem to slip your mind, Ms.

France vs Prussia, Britain, Russia, Austria. Hmm. France won three wars until Waterloo.

20:12, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

A just checked and February and March is correct. Mscoree (talk) 20:14, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

You clearly aren't looking at the correct edits. As far as I can see, the answer to that is "May".

20:20, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

The rules may have been edited later, but if you'd recall, the edits were first proposed on this talk page before that, and before that they were discussed by Feud back when the game was first starting. Mscoree (talk) 12:36, June 22, 2014 (UTC)

About the Motive? No. Those discussions were different, and were not changed until AFTER the Second Karelian war; as I said, there were multiple people censured for adding up the motives rather than averaging early on; among them you.

13:56, June 22, 2014 (UTC)

Fusahito Theocracy (Attacker)

 * Location: 20
 * Tactical Advantage: 5
 * Nations: Fusahito Theocracy (L) = 5/10 = 0
 * Military: 20
 * Military Development: 14/22=0
 * Mil Modifiers: +20

Total: 124
 * ​Naval dominance +10
 * More total troops +5
 * Fully mobilised +5
 * Economy: 15
 * Economic Development: 22/28=0
 * Economic modifiers: 15
 * Much larger Economy: +10
 * Larger Trade/Colonial Empire: +5
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: +12
 * Attacking to enforce political hegemony: +7
 * ​Troop morale high: +5
 * Modifiers: Non dem supported gov +4
 * Chance: 7
 * Edit count: 469
 * UTC: 19:03 = 27
 * Total: (469/27)*pi = 54.5706
 * ​ Nation Age: = 0
 * Population: 7 +20 = 27
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 120,000 / 30,000 = 4
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

<span class="mw-headline" id="Liao_.28Defender.29" style="font-size:17px;">Rogue Daimyos (Defender) Total: 51
 * Location: 23
 * Ouchi: 25
 * Shoni: 20
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations: Ouchi (L), Shoni (L) = 10/5 = 2
 * Military: -15
 * Military Development: 2*6*2=22/14=2
 * Mil modifiers: -17
 * Nation has a small armed forces (20,000 or below) -2
 * Much Smaller armed forces: -5
 * Nation was not initially mobilized: -10
 * Economy: -1
 * Economic Development: 2*7*2=28/22=1
 * Economic modifiers: -2
 * Smaller Economy: -2
 * Location bonus: Nagasaki +1
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 7
 * Motive: Defending Core/heartland from possibly fatal attack + 9, Aiding Ally (+3)
 * Modifiers: N/A
 * Chance: 0
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Population: 6
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 30,000 / 120,000 = 0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result

 * ((124/(51+124))*2)-1 = 41.7142857
 * (p)*(1-1/(2x)) = 46.79*(1-1/(2*3)) = 34.76% in three turns
 * The Daimyos collapse in three turns.

<span class="mw-headline" id="Discussion_35" style="border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-weight:inherit;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;">Discussion
<span class="mw-headline" id="Discussion_35" style="border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-weight:inherit;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;">You've done some of this wrong, may I aid you in fixing it? <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green <font color="A00000">24 - Join the party  09:28, June 22, 2014 (UTC)

<span class="mw-headline" id="Discussion_35" style="border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-weight:inherit;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;">Please, if you would Ozymandias2 (talk) 10:32, June 22, 2014 (UTC)

Done <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green <font color="A00000">24 - Join the party  11:52, June 22, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ozymandias2 (talk) 12:03, June 22, 2014 (UTC)

Austria
chalk me down for M from Hamburg, Mecklenburg and Holstein


 * Location: 20
 * Austria: 20
 * Bohemia: 20
 * Moravia: 20
 * Brandenburg: 20
 * Silesia: 20
 * Bavaria: 20
 * Saxony: 20
 * Thuringia: 20
 * Hamburg: 15
 * Mecklenburg: 20
 * Tactical Advantage: +5 (siege equipment)
 * Nations Per Side: Austria (L), Bohemia (L), Moravia (L), Brandenburg (LV), Silesia (LV), Bavaria (L), Saxony (LV), Thuringia (LV), Hamburg (L), Mecklenburg (LV), Holstein (LV) = 43
 * Military Development: 233
 * Has not lost any of the previous three wars: +10
 * Nation has a moderately sized armed forces: +3 (60,000 to 20,000)
 * Austria: 20
 * Bohemia: 20
 * Moravia: 20
 * Brandenburg: 20
 * Silesia: 20
 * Bavaria: 20
 * Saxony: 20
 * Thuringia: 20
 * Hamburg: 15
 * Mecklenburg: 20
 * Holstein: 20
 * Economic: 225
 * Much larger Economy: +10
 * Larger Trade/Colonial Empire: +5
 * Austria: 20
 * Bohemia: 20
 * Moravia: 20
 * Brandenburg: 20
 * Silesia: 20
 * Bavaria: 20
 * Saxony: 20
 * Thuringia: 20
 * Hamburg: 15
 * Mecklenburg: 20
 * Holstein: 20
 * Locations Bonus: +4 (Venice, Lubeck)
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Expansion: N/A
 * Motive: 67
 * Austria: 7
 * Bohemia: 5+4
 * Moravia: 5+4
 * Brandenburg: 3
 * Silesia: 5+4
 * Bavaria: 3
 * Saxony: 3
 * Thuringia: 3
 * Hamburg: 3+4
 * Mecklenburg: 3+4
 * Holstein: 3+4
 * Chance
 * Edit count=x
 * nonzero digit in time*nonzero digit in time=y
 * x/y*pi=z
 * Chance=Hundredth place of z
 * NPC Bonus: N/A
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Austria: 0
 * Bohemia: 0
 * Moravia: 0
 * Brandenburg: +5
 * Silesia: 0
 * Bavaria: 0
 * Saxony: 0
 * Thuringia: 0
 * Hamburg: 0
 * Mecklenburg: 0
 * Holstein: -5
 * Population: +8
 * Recent Wars: -6
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops:
 * Total:

Poland
Total:
 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage: +2 (defender)
 * Nations Per Side: Poland (L)
 * Military Development: 0
 * Economic: 0
 * Expansion:
 * Motive: 9
 * Chance
 * Nation Age: -10
 * Population: +8
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops:

Discussion
These extremely crazy HRE wars with super-maxed out scores really just point that reform is needed for supernational confederations, such as the HRE (which has become the Caliphate Lite) or even Russia (multiple users acting as one).

Sine and Feud were talking a bit about this, and I really feel that this is important so that the Caliphate Lite does not become the Caliphate 2.0. This is the first real expansionistic war undertaken by the HRE outside of its initial boundaries, and really demonstrates the power the algo gives to the smallish states of the HRE.

Their population has 6 digits, so it can be anywhere from 1,000,000 to 9,999,999. If their population is 1 million, each of the leaders have an average population of 100,000 citizens, not really enough to be counted individually. (As much as 1,000,000 apiece on average if their population is 9.99 million.) 06:44, June 23, 2014 (UTC)

Also, not that it would make any difference, but motive should be averaged for a coalition Ozymandias2 (talk) 15:35, June 23, 2014 (UTC)

Absence
Due to an extended 2-week road trip, I will not be on the wiki for about 14 days. I have asked Feud to post for me, but if you notice he doesn't, please go ahead and remind him. I'll let you all know how it went when I get back, but you will not be seeing me anytime soon.

07:05, June 23, 2014 (UTC)

Ooh, also means you need to archive your own stuff for once.

<badum-tss>

21:27, June 23, 2014 (UTC)

I will also be away for two weeks, and have authorized Cookiedamage to post for me in this time. Mscoree (talk) 21:41, June 23, 2014 (UTC)

I also will be away. Can my scores be left as they are until I return? Harvenard2 (talk) 20:19, June 24, 2014 (UTC)

Namibia
I've been noticing a Madagasikaran colony called Namibia. I looked at the post of its founding, and it was said that it was started "in order to maximise economic potential." That quoted, no-one starts a colony in the desert for economic potential. I can think of two reason why this might be meta-gaming, however, I'm open to hear why this wouldn't be BS. Saamwiil, the Humble 10:14, June 23, 2014 (UTC)

If I'm denouncing implausability, I also have to say that Sofala and Maputo both revolted in 1517. Now, twenty some years later, they want to be Madagasikara's vassal again? I believe that if Madagasikara wants anything to do with the Continent, it will have to be through war, plausible, I mean. Saamwiil, the Humble 18:28, June 23, 2014 (UTC)

I agree to that second point, however MP randomly made an event giving one of the states back. The other, despite Rex's refusal to recognize the fact that it revolted, will stay separate unless he invades it. I would also like to mention that the parts of the coast of Namibia are called the "Skeleton Coast". This is because the area is quite unforgiving, so I question the plausibility of colonizing the area. Mscoree (talk) 21:39, June 23, 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Finally someone said it. I find it too unbelievable that two provinces that revolted and forced the Malagasy invaders out, now look to Madagascar for patronage simply because a Malagsy lord told them too. Though if MP was involved and not Feud, then I have nothing to say on the matter. Wouldn't be a conflict of interests. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 09:09, June 24, 2014 (UTC)

Large Army Bonus?
There is currently a Medium Army Bonus in the algo, which I believe is currently fine. However the number of men defined as a medium sized army does not apply to many armies in europe, and abroad, notably China. Also the lack of a large army bonus is also less than stellar. I propose we creat a large army bonus, which adds maybe 5 points to your side. Otherwise nations with medium sized armies could recieve the advantage over armies of a larger size. Stephanus rex (talk) 22:23, June 24, 2014 (UTC)

Formal Request
During a chat discussion which happened before I posted this, I have come to a conclusion. The PMIII player Scarlet Outlaw from here on known as Scar, has been playing as Safavid Persia for a long time now. And in my honest opinion too long.

Scar has a infamous history in the map game, starting out as the Ashikaga Shogunate and nearly allowing China to influence its way into Japan because of his actions.

Then he switched to Andorra, in a personal union with Foix at the time. It is then when he somehow invented medieval french terrorism.

Next came Ethiopia, and his reputation followed him. During a discussion with Greg, former Alexandria player, he informed be that the main reason the Alexandrian king was claiming the Ethiopian throne was because of Scar's general implausibility and bad reputation.

Finally, his last nation became the Safavid Empire. Albeit surviving for a time because of his size and the lack of any actual threats in the region, he stil somehow managed to completely ignore the persistent ethnic and religious issues in Safavid Persia as well as importing slaves from Oyo, then convering them to Islam and freeing them.

He is not much better out of game. Harsh words, ad hominem attacks on numerous users.

Conclusion
Because of Scar's general implausibility, bad temper, and obvious lack of knowledge about history, I request that he is removed from a powerful nation such as the Safavids because I believe it's a disgrace for PMIII to have a player of his caliber to control such a powerful nation.

Vote
I'd like to thank you for your time, sincerely,
 * Mods:
 * Aye
 * ​Fed (talk) 22:59, June 24, 2014 (UTC)
 * Tardis.pngS-Y!!,Basically, RUN!!Tardis.png 23:29, June 24, 2014 (UTC)
 * Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 14:25, June 25, 2014 (UTC)
 * Cour *talk* PMII_Mayan_Flag.pngCaborr_Flag.png 14:39, June 25, 2014 (UTC)
 * Nay
 * Players:
 * Aye
 * ​&#34;SO SAYETH THE EAGLE&#34; - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk) 23:27, June 24, 2014 (UTC)
 * SwankyJ (talk) 00:22, June 25, 2014 (UTC)
 * After listening to him complain on chat- Stephanus rex (talk) 14:55, June 25, 2014 (UTC)
 * 14:57, June 25, 2014 (UTC)
 * WHY seriously why???!!! 14:57, June 25, 2014 (UTC)
 * Nay

<font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green <font color="A00000">24 - Join the party  22:55, June 24, 2014 (UTC)

Note: This is merely to force Scar to switch to a less powerful nation, not to completely remove him from the game. yet

<font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green <font color="A00000">24 - Join the party

The Oyo were already Muslim long before the slave trade, so I don't see how the religion would be of any concern. Also, Oyo had been trading slaves with the Persians as much as we had with the Dutch and the French. So that trade too isn't anything I can find fault with. That's all. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 23:40, June 24, 2014 (UTC)

If we didn't want Scar taking a poweful nation, then we should have had an entry requirment, I have been bus as of late, but has he been implausable as Perisa, or do you think he will become implausable? -Edge, who rushed this post
 * The text already said that he was being implausible right now.I will take that you wanted to ask us a question in the end of your phrase, whoever you are.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 14:25, June 25, 2014 (UTC)

We do have a policy on switching nations. Unless every nation he played as got destroyed, he should not have been able to switch at all. Cour *talk* 14:39, June 25, 2014 (UTC) <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green <font color="A00000">24 - Join the party  14:54, June 25, 2014 (UTC)
 * Ashikaga->Andorra & Foix
 * According to Scar's own words, he couldn't do anything as 'stupid ashikaga'. Nonetheless his successor Ozymandias is on the verge of controlling all of Japan.
 * Andorra & Foix->Ethiopia
 * The nation was I quote 'sh*t' and Mscoree 'tricked' Scar into choosing it.
 * Ethiopia->Aleppo Sultanate
 * A Alexandrian prince claimed the throne (note: done because of Scar's reputation).
 * Aleppo Sultante->Safavid Empire (this one is the funniest)
 * 'King' (Sultan) attempts to become Christian Orthodox, somehow the people are able to refine tungsten
 * The Sultan of Aleppo is assassinated by his advisors and nobles, horrified by his sudden adoption of Christianity. The effort is done in wake of a popular revolt forming, with many across the country threatening to taking up arms against the government if policies are not changed. (event from 1497)
 * With the new sultan of Aleppo refusing to denounce Christianity, Muslim zealots rise up in a popular revolt. The revolt is led by Abdulaziz al-Shamsi, who organizes an attack to besiege Aleppo. (Scores undoubled: Military: 10, Economy: 5, Infrastructure: 2.) (event from 1498)
 * The Aleppo Sultanate fell apart in 9 years, maybe less. He was granted a switch.

Hold on this ain't fair! I want to continue to play as the safavid empire. I only got into one war in 50 years as the safavid empire. Let me continue to play on I have no wars planned as the safavid empire for 200 years. So quiet down please this ain't anything to argue over just go back to work all of you. No more riots please.- Scarlet Outlaw

To be fair Scarlet, you have posted as the Mansurryian Caliphate as your vassal since 1541, while I have been playing as them since 1532. This is UglyTurtle, Signing off. 23:52, June 25, 2014 (UTC)

After looking through the archives, I found that the Savafid Empire and the Mansurryian Caliphate have been in a personal union since 1505 with mod apporval, but only since 1541 has Scarlet actually posted them as a vassal. This is UglyTurtle, Signing off. 00:23, June 26, 2014 (UTC)

i could take over the savids if scar is impeached, but id have to have someone post for me. -Saturn

Did it go through then? Will Scar be removed from Safavids? <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green <font color="A00000">24 - Join the party  15:50, June 26, 2014 (UTC)

No ones dissaggreing -Sat

As a result of the Personal Union between the Savafid Empire and the Mansurryian Caliphate in 1505 I think the most plausible take over would be for me to control Savafids. The other option is for surrounding nations to invade the Savafids and split up the Empire accordingly. This is UglyTurtle, Signing off. 23:54, June 26, 2014 (UTC)

An invasion I don think is plausible. They are a powerful nation, and cannot hearken over easily. (Plus the savids are powerful at this time, and should be kept for a player that could handle them if I can't get them.) -Saturn

Is scar removed? -Saturn

Coalition (Attacker)
Total: 166
 * Location: 110/6=18
 * Scandinavia:20
 * Finland: 20
 * Iceland: 10
 * Tartary:20
 * Rome:15
 * Pskov:20
 * Perm:20
 * Azov:20
 * Tactical Advantage: +5 Siege Equipment
 * Nations: Scandinavia (L), Finland (L), Iceland (L), Tartary (L), Rome(L), Pskov(L),Perm(LV),Azov(LV) = 26
 * Military Development:114/114=0+10+3+10=24
 * Scandinavia: 20
 * Finland: 20
 * Iceland: 20
 * Tartary:4
 * Rome:18
 * Pskov:8
 * Perm:16
 * Azov:8
 * Economic Development: 126/96=1+10+5+3+3+2+1+1=26
 * Scandinavia: 20
 * Finland: 20
 * Iceland: 20
 * Tartary:16
 * Rome:18
 * Pskov:22
 * Azov:4
 * Perm:6
 * Expansion: -9
 * Infrastructure: n/a
 * Motive: 50
 * Tartary: 7+4
 * Rome: 3
 * Scandinavia: 13+4
 * Finland: 7+4
 * Iceland: 3
 * Pskov: 5
 * Modifiers: 3
 * High Moral:+6
 * Majority Non-Demo:-3
 * Chance: 9
 * Edit count: 110
 * UTC: 2:04 (2*4) =8
 * Total: 110/8*pi (3.14159265359) =43.19648648686
 * Nation Age: 10/8=1
 * Scandinavia: 5
 * Finland: 0
 * Iceland: -5
 * Tartary:5
 * Rome:0
 * Pskov:0
 * Azov: 0
 * Perm:0
 * Population: 9
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 150,000/300,000=0
 * Recent Wars: -6
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Russia (Defender)
Total: 109
 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage: 2
 * Nations: Moscow (L), Lithuania(LV), Kiev(LV), Novgorod (L), Rostov(LV), Karelia(LV), = 22
 * Military Development: 114/114=0-10-3+3+5=-5
 * Moscow:18
 * Lithuania:18
 * Kiev:18
 * Novgorod:20
 * Rostov:20
 * Karelia:20
 * Economic Development: 108/126=0-2+1=-1
 * Moscow:16
 * Lithuania:16
 * Kiev:16
 * Novgorod:20
 * Rostov:20
 * Karelia:20
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 9
 * Moscow:3
 * Lithuania:3
 * Kiev:3
 * Novgorod:0
 * Rostov:0
 * Karelia:0
 * Motive: 44 (Added support since they are fighting for survival)
 * Moscow:10
 * Lithuania:5
 * Kiev:5
 * Novgorod:10
 * Rostov:5
 * Karelia:5
 * Modifiers: -13
 * Guerilla Warfare: -2
 * 3 Front War:-7
 * Majority Non-Demo:-3
 * Chance: 6
 * Edit count: 471
 * UTC: 2:04 (2*4) =8
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) = 184.961267
 * Nation Age: ⅚=1
 * Moscow:5
 * Lithuania:-5
 * Kiev:0
 * Novgorod:0
 * Rostov:5
 * Karelia:0
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 300,000/150,000=2
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result

 * ((166/(109+166))*2)-1 = .2072727
 * (20.72)*(1-1/(2*y)) = 18.648

Discussion
There are waaay too many leaders to this war. It disrupts the purpose of the algorithm. Saamwiil, the Humble 02:06, June 25, 2014 (UTC)

Saam what would you suggest? Stephanus rex (talk) 02:53, June 25, 2014 (UTC)

Taking out vassals, for sure, and to try limiting the number of leaders to a small number per side being combatted. E.g. If OTL Mexico were to states, and they both declared war on OTL USA, it would be preferable to only have one leader. However, if they declared war on the USA with Canada (lol) then that would be two leaders. Saamwiil, the Humble 04:46, June 25, 2014 (UTC)

I am working on a slimmed down algorithm, it will be done later today. The decision to use either algorithm should be made by a mod. Stephanus rex (talk) 11:43, June 25, 2014 (UTC)

Coalition (Attacker)
Total: 81
 * Location: 115/6=19
 * Scandinavia:20
 * Finland: 20
 * Tartary:20
 * Rome:15
 * Pskov:20
 * Perm:20
 * Tactical Advantage: +5 Siege Equipment
 * Nations: Scandinavia (L), Finland (LV), Tartary (L), Rome(L), Pskov(L),Perm(LV) = 26
 * Military Development:106/52=2
 * Mil Bonus:20
 * Has not lost any of the previous three wars: +10
 * Has Naval dominance: +10
 * Scandinavia: 20
 * Finland: 20
 * Tartary:4
 * Rome:18
 * Pskov:8
 * Perm:16
 * Economic Development:127/53=2
 * Eco Bonus: 25
 * Much larger Economy: +10
 * Larger Trade/Colonial Empire: +5
 * Location Bonus: +10
 * Scandinavia: 20
 * Finland: 20
 * Tartary:16
 * Rome:18
 * Pskov:22
 * Perm:6
 * Expansion: -9
 * Infrastructure: n/a
 * Motive:55 /6=9
 * Tartary: 7+4
 * Rome: 6
 * Scandinavia: 13+4
 * Finland: 7+4
 * Pskov: 5
 * Perm: 5
 * Modifiers: 3
 * High Moral:+6
 * Majority Non-Demo:-3
 * Chance: 9
 * Edit count: 110
 * UTC: 2:04 (2*4) =8
 * Total: 110/8*pi (3.14159265359) =43.19648648686
 * Nation Age: 10/6=2
 * Scandinavia: 5
 * Finland: 0
 * Tartary:5
 * Rome:0
 * Pskov:0
 * Perm:0
 * Population: 9
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 150,000/300,000=0
 * Recent Wars: -6
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Russia (Defender)
Russia:-5 Vologda:0 Karelia:0 Total: 66
 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage: 2
 * Nations: Russia(L), Vologda (LV), Karelia (LV)=11
 * Military Development: 52/106=0
 * Mil Bonuses:-5
 * Nation was not initially mobilized: -10
 * More total troops than enemy: +5
 * Russia:19
 * Vologda:18
 * Karelia:20
 * Economic Development: 53/127=0
 * Econ Bonuses:-1
 * Smaller Economy: -2
 * Location Bonuses:1
 * Russia:18
 * Vologda:16
 * Karelia:20
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 5
 * Russia:2
 * Vologda:3
 * Karelia:0
 * Motive:27/3=9
 * Russia:9+4
 * Vologda:5+4
 * Karelia:5
 * Modifiers: -10
 * 3 Front War:-7
 * Majority Non-Demo:-3
 * Chance: 6
 * Edit count: 471
 * UTC: 2:04 (2*4) =8
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) = 184.961267
 * Nation Age:-5/3=-1
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 300,000/150,000=2
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result

 * ((87/(66+87))*2)-1 = 0.1372549019607843
 * (13.73)*(1-1/(2*3)) = 11.4416666666666667%

Tawatinsuyu (Attacker)
Total:88
 * Location: +15
 * Tactical Advantage: +1
 * Nations: Tawatinsuyu (L)= 5/5=1
 * Military Development: 9*2=18/3=6
 * Modifiers:Has not lost any of the previous 3 wars (+10) More troops: (+5)
 * Total:20
 * Economic Development: 8*2=16/3=5
 * Modifiers: Cuzco (+1), Much larger Eco (+10) Larger Trade (+5)=+16
 * Total:21
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: Taking Territory of similar culture=+5
 * Modifiers: Gov not Supported (-10), War not supported (-2)
 * Total:-7
 * Chance:
 * Edit count:813
 * UTC: =2:15
 * Total: 813/10*pi (3.14159265359) = 255.282
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: +10
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 21,000/1,880=11
 * Recent Wars:-2
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Chiribaya (Defender)
Total: 47
 * Location: +25
 * Tactical Advantage: +2
 * Nations: Chiribaya(L) = 5/5=1
 * Military Development: 5/2=3, 0
 * Modifiers: Much smaller armed forces (-5)
 * Total: -5
 * Economic Development: 6/2=3, +0
 * Modifiers: Smaller Economy (-2), Receding Economy (-3).
 * Total: -5
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 7/2=4
 * Motive: +9
 * Modifiers: Gov Supported (+4)
 * Total:+13
 * Chance: 2
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 (0) =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: +0 (1250 AD)
 * Population: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 1,880/21,000=0
 * Recent Wars:-2
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result

 * (y/(z+y))*2)-1=0.3037037037037037
 * (.30)*(1-1/2*1)=15%
 * After a year, the Inca Army topples the government of Chiribaya after 2 wars.

Indian League
​Total: 117 
 * Location: Bengal +20, Vijaynagar +20, Jaisalmer +20, Sindh +20, Delhi +20, Marwar +20, Dhundhar +20, Orissa +20, Kamarumpa +20, Multan +20, Jaunpur +20, Ladakh +20, Kashmir +20, Bahamani +20, Suri Empire +20, Emirate of Afghanistan +15, Hispania +10, Netherlands +10, Britannia +5, = 17.89 + 24 = 42
 * Location Bonuses: Gibralter +5, Cape of Good Hope +3, Cuba +3, Genoa +2, Venice +2, Antwerp +2, Samarkland +1, Delhi +1 London +1, Seville +1, Barcelona +1, Tenochtitlan +1, Cuzco +1 = 24
 * Tactical Advantage (Attacker): Siege Equipment +5 = 5
 * Nations Per Side: Bengal (L), Vijaynagar (L), Jaisalmer (L), Sindh (L), Dhundar (L), Orissa (LV), Kamarumpa (LV), Multan (L), Jaunpur (L), Ladakh (L), Bahamani (L), Suri Empire (L), Emirate of Afghanistan (LV), Delhi (LV), Marwar (LV), Kashmir (L), Hispania (L), Netherlands (L), Britannia (L), Croatia (L) = 4.5
 * Military Development: 320+30=350/125 = 2.8
 * ​Bengal: 20
 * Suri Empire: 20
 * Emirate of Afghanistan: 20
 * Marwar: 20
 * Delhi: 20
 * Vijaynagar: 14
 * Jaisalmer: 14
 * Sindh: 14
 * Dhundar: 14
 * Bahamani:
 * Orissa: 20
 * Kamarumpa: 14
 * Multan: 14
 * Jaunpur: 14
 * Ladakh: 14
 * Kashmir: 14
 * Hispania: 20
 * Netherlands: 20
 * Britannia: 20
 * ​Military Modifiers: 30
 * Has not lost any of the previous three wars +10, Has Naval Dominance +10, More total troops than enemy +5, Nation is fully mobilized for war +5
 * Economic Development: 332+15 = 347/138 = 2.51
 * ​Bengal: 20
 * Suri Empire: 20
 * Emirate of Afghanistan: 20
 * Marwar: 20
 * Delhi: 20
 * Vijaynagar: 14
 * Jaisalmer: 14
 * Sindh: 14
 * Dhundar: 14
 * Jaunpur: 14
 * Orissa: 20
 * Kamarumpa: 26
 * Multan: 14
 * Bahamani:
 * Ladakh: 14
 * Kashmir: 14
 * Hispania: 20
 * Netherlands: 20
 * Britannia: 20
 * ​Economic Bonuses: 15
 * ​Much Larger Economy +10, Larger Trade +5
 * ​Expansion: 0
 * Motive: 4.95+3 = 7.95
 * Bengal: Asserting Political Hegemony +7
 * Suri Empire: Taking territory of similar culture +5
 * Emirate of Afghanistan: Taking territory of similar culture +5
 * Delhi: Taking territory of similar culture +5
 * Marwar: Taking territory of similar culture +5
 * Vijaynagar: Taking territory of similar culture +5
 * Jaisalmer: Taking territory of similar culture +5
 * Sindh: Taking territory of similar culture +5
 * Dhundar: Taking territory of similar culture +5
 * Orissa: Taking territory of similar culture +5
 * Bahamani: Taking territory of similar culture +5
 * Kamarumpa: Taking territory of similar culture +5
 * Multan: Taking territory of similar culture +5
 * Jaunpur: Taking territory of similar culture +5
 * Ladakh: Taking territory of similar culture +5
 * Kashmir: Taking territory of similar culture +5
 * Hispania: Aiding Ally/Economic +3
 * Netherlands: Aiding Ally/Economic +3
 * Britannia: Aiding Ally/Economic +3
 * ​Modifiers: +3
 * ​Mostly non-democratic nations -3, High Morale +6
 * ​Chance: 7
 * ​Edit Count: 1,945
 * UTC Time: 1*5*1*1=5
 * ???: 1,222.0795422464
 * Profit: 7
 * ​Nation Age: ​2.63
 * ​Bengal: 5
 * Suri Empire: 0
 * Emirate of Afghanistan: 0
 * Delhi: 5
 * Marwar: 0
 * Vijaynagar: 5
 * Jaisalmer: 0
 * Sindh: 0
 * Dhundar: 5
 * Orissa: 5
 * Kamarumpa: 5
 * Bahamani: 5
 * Jaunpur: 5
 * Multan: 0
 * Ladakh: 0
 * Kashmir: 0
 * Hispania: 5
 * Netherlands: 5
 * Britannia: 0<span id="cke_bm_568E" style="display: none;">
 * Population: >150,000,000 = 9+20 = 29
 * ​More than ten times the population: 20
 * Participation: 10
 * Number of Troops: 4,541,500/1,920,000 = 2.36
 * ​Bengal (15.5 million pop, 4.5% of pop): 697,500 (Opium for the marching, good pay, etc.)
 * Suri Empire: (15 mil pop, 4% of pop): 600,000
 * Delhi: (4 mil pop, 4% of pop): 160,000
 * Emirate of Afghanistan: (5 mil pop, 4%): 200,000
 * Marwar: (3 mil, 4%): 120,000
 * Vijaynagar (13 million pop?, 4.5% of pop): 585,000
 * Orissa (6 million pop, 4.5% of pop) = 270,000
 * Kamarumpa (3 million pop, 4.5% of pop) = 135,000
 * Jaisalmer: (2.5 million, 4% of pop) = 100,000
 * Jaunpur: (8 million pop, 4% of pop) = 320,000
 * Sindh: (7 million pop, 4% of pop) = 280,000
 * Dhundar: (2.5 million, 4% of pop) = 100,000
 * Bahamani: (8 million pop, 4% of pop) = 320,000
 * Multan: (10 million pop, 4% of pop) = 400,000
 * Ladakh: (3 million, 4% of pop) = 120,000
 * Kashmir: (2.5 million, 4% of pop) = 100,000
 * Hispania: 20,000
 * Netherlands: 7,000
 * Britannia: 7,000
 * Number of Ships: 360/130 = 2
 * ​Bengal: 100
 * Vijaynagar: 75
 * Orissa: 25
 * Bahamani: 25
 * Hispania: 50
 * Netherlands: 45
 * Britannia: 40

​Secessionist League
​Total: 55
 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations Per Side: Gwalior (L), Gondwana (L), Bastar (L), Khandesh (L), Malwa (L), Mewar (L), Gujarat (L), Kozhikode (L), Venead (L), Kathiawar (L) = 5
 * Military Development: 125 = 0
 * ​Gwalior: 14
 * Gondwana: 14
 * Bastar: 14
 * Khandesh: 14
 * Malwa: 14
 * Mewar: 14
 * Gujarat: 14
 * Kozhikode: 14
 * Venead: 14
 * Kathiawar: 14
 * ​Military Modifiers: -15
 * ​Much smaller armed forces, Nation not mobilized
 * Economic Development: 138 = 0
 * ​Gwalior: 14
 * Gondwana: 14
 * Bastar: 14
 * Khandesh: 14
 * Malwa: 14
 * Mewar: 14
 * Gujarat: 14
 * Kozhikode: 14
 * Venead: 14
 * Kathiawar: 14
 * Economic Bonuses: -2
 * ​Smaller Economy
 * ​Expansion: 0
 * Motive: 9-8=1
 * ​Gwalior: 9
 * Gondwana: 9
 * Bastar: 9
 * Khandesh: 9
 * Malwa: 9
 * Mewar: 9
 * Gujarat: 9
 * Kozhikode: 9
 * Venead: 9
 * Kathiawar: 9
 * Modifiers: -8
 * Low Morale, Mostly Non-Democratic Nations
 * ​Chance: 0
 * ​Edit Count: 1945
 * UTC Time: 1*4*5*5 = 100
 * ???: 61.1039771123
 * No-Profit: 0
 * ​Nation Age: 5
 * Population: <50,000,000 = 8
 * Participation: 10
 * Number of Troops: 1,920,000/Abunch = 0
 * ​48 million pop, 4% of pop = 1,920,000
 * Number of Ships: 130/Abunch = 0
 * Gujarat: 50
 * Kozhikode: 25
 * Venead: 30
 * Kathiawar: 25

((117/(55+117))*2)-1 = 0.3604651163

(0.3604651163)*(1-1/(2*6)) = 0.334717608 = 33.47%

Discussion
Nations per side are divide as well iirc. And, sadly, Croatia's nation age is -5, not 0. This war won't be as successful as it seems.

<font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green <font color="A00000">24 - Join the party  06:34, June 25, 2014 (UTC)

Not much difference, but it gets better once all the troops are added. &#34;SO SAYETH THE EAGLE&#34; - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk) 07:09, June 25, 2014 (UTC)

Motive should be averaged too, that'll drop the scores of both sides Ozymandias2 (talk) 11:01, June 25, 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, defenders would have 63, and attackers would have 108. Although, if my math is correct (who am I kidding? Of course it's correct), in order for the win to be over 33.33% we'd need over 126 if the defender's total stays 63.

<font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green <font color="A00000">24 - Join the party  11:32, June 25, 2014 (UTC)

I thought we used whole numbers? Also, couldn't you add Cuzco to your Location Bonuses?

Two wrongs may not make a right, '' but it makes me feel a lot better in the end! '' 11:44, June 25, 2014 (UTC)

Still waiting on the troops to be decided for the overkill &#34;SO SAYETH THE EAGLE&#34; - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk) 15:55, June 25, 2014 (UTC)

Feud asked me to remove Croatia since it somehow cannot wage war in India. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green <font color="A00000">24 - Join the party  20:10, June 25, 2014 (UTC)

Wait, if I am not wrong; the Secessionist League are the Defenders being invaded by the Indian League, correct? If that is the case, then infrastructure must be added for the Defenders as well and since there are 10 states in the Secessionist League, it will give them a 60+ for Infrastructure. That pretty much changes everything for the war .-. RexImperio (talk) 08:01, June 26, 2014 (UTC)

WAIT. 90% of these nations could never summon up such armies OTL; just look at their wikipedia pages, and those of their wars. This is plausible for a few, like Bengal, but 4.5% IS A GIGANTIC AMOUNT. That is NOT plausible for ANY BUT THE MOST POWERFUL NATIONS before the Industrial Era. More like 2%. Even China, a single state with the same population of your entire side, would not be able to summon up 5 million troops. That's just, like, no, except for Bengal and Vijaynagara.

~G

OTL India never waged wars this massive because OTL India was OTL. This is ATL India, and circumstances have changed. It is much easier for several states to raise one very large army than it is for a single state to raise anything of the sort. The reason behind it is that that one nation is supporting a massive force on the back of a single economic system. However, the former is much mor likely since the military is backed by several economies, which can draw upon a larger pool of recruits in times of need. In this case, there is power in numbers. Also, please refrain from using all CAPS. It is extremely unprofessional. Also, 4.5% is not a gigantic amount of land. 45% is. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 13:58, June 26, 2014 (UTC)

Viva, I am not talking about OTL India; I'm talking about the plausibility of mobilizing 5% of your nation in a preindustrial era. Let me give you the number of times over 2% of a nation's population was mobilized, OTL, for an offensive war, before 1750: 0. Not even ONCE. Even with a defensive war, it's EXTREMELY implausible.

When I said 4.5% I was talking about population, not land.

Seriously, can a mod who is NOT involved take a dekko at this?

16:42, June 26, 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you are looking at this link for the percentage of population mobilized before 1750? May I point out that it only mentions the Confederate States of America, the Kingdom of Prussia, and Sweden between 1709 (Yes, Sweden mobilized 7.7% of it's population before 1750, for years), before suddenly jumping into World War One, World War Two, and the Cold War, while neglecting to mention any sort of conflict where people were mobilized for war besides those examples (I assumed that some degree of mobilization of a population for war occurred before these examples given by the article). I would also like to point out that it mentions to Romans as mobilizing anywhere from 6 to 10 percent of their population, when in 210 BC, invaded by Carthage, with a territory smaller than PMIII Bengal, mobilized 10% of their population for their defensive war. My goal is this: The lack of sources does not bode well for your argument, and the only source I've found, compiled of 6 other sources, neglects to mention any sort of mobilization of any population for war from the end of the Roman Empire, to the Swedish Empire, and should not be taken as the notion that no mobilization of a population more than 2% occurred until after 1750, when I've already pointed out that the idea of mobilizing over 5% of a persons nation was done before we started using AD. &#34;SO SAYETH THE EAGLE&#34; - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk) 01:07, June 27, 2014 (UTC)

1) Why is infrastructure not added for the Secessionist League? 2) Why is Vijaynagar supporting the Indian League despite the fact that an Indian League victory would lead to the complete collapse of Hinduism in Central India 

1) I've seen many algos on here with infrastructure for NPC's be 0, or +4, so I just went with the lowest, since we are as good as our weakest (Or something like that), 2) Vijaynagar is helping because of decades long alliance with Bengal, as well as a royal marriage, and because they've fought three (Technically 4 now), wars with Bengal on their side that have always led to victory. Now, where is this notion that Hinduism will collapse? Is it from the Hindu nations of Marwar, Dhundar, (Apparently) Jaunpur, and Vijaynagar, and (Probably) Sindh, that will gain land, riches, and people, and joined on the goal of ending the disunity of the Indian League? I didn't start this war to "Remove the Hindu menance", I did it to "remove those from power who seek to see the League disunited and broken in the wake of exceptional foreign presence". How does four major Hindu states, gaining from more land, more cities, larger trade, and more people, lead to the complete collapse of Hinduism in central India, when in fact, it's only the Hindu states helping me that are getting anything from central India? &#34;SO SAYETH THE EAGLE&#34; - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk) 16:27, June 28, 2014 (UTC)

Leaders per Side
I've seen a lot of wars in the last 60 or so years, and I've noticed a trend that has become epidemic: overcrowding both sides with leaders, and it ruins the purpose of the algorithm. Leaders of a war are precisely that, leaders, not every member going to war with a nation.

I hope that it can be an un-written rule that one side can't have too many leaders, but if necessary, I have two ways I can think of to change this problem: Your's truly, Saamwiil, the Humble 16:45, June 25, 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Limiting the number of leaders per Front/Theatre on each side to one nation.
 * 2) Have a penalty that takes off points for having to many leaders. This will simulate the disorganisation of having too many factions trying to be leaders.
 * 3) Possibly both

Involved Mod Rule
Can I suggest a rule wherein a mod who is involved in a disputed war may not exercise his mod powers over said war? A neutral mod must be brought in, that is to say. Since we have 10 mods, some of which have not yet actually fought a war yet and aren't looking likely to, I find it unlikely that there will ever not be a neutral mod, so...

I mean, it seems commonsensical.

(That's a word, right?)

17:12, June 26, 2014 (UTC)

We have ten mods, but only about half are still active or involved in the game. To be honest, the only mods that could be considered neutral don't even know how to work the algos, and dread having to deal with wars (case in point, Collie and Kogasa in PMII). I'd say hold your breath. Getting a non-biased mod would be as miraculous as getting LG to speak in chat. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 18:54, June 26, 2014 (UTC)

You have a non-biased mod right here. Scandinator (talk) 04:55, June 27, 2014 (UTC)

Invasion of Mogadishu
=== Hamburg (attacker) === Total: ~101
 * Location: 10
 * Tactical Advantage: 5
 * Nations: Hamburg (L), Mecklenburg (L) = 10/2 = 5
 * Military Dev: 40/12 = 3
 * Moderately sized forces: +3
 * Has Naval Dominance: +10
 * Economic Dev: 40/14 = 3
 * Location bonus: +2 Lübeck
 * Larger colonial empire: +5
 * Much larger economy: +10
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: 20 + 5
 * Hamburg: 9 + 4 = 13
 * Mecklenburg: 3 + 4 = 7
 * Chance:
 * Nation age: 5
 * Population: 7
 * Recent wars: -2
 * Participation: 10
 * troops: 20,000

al-Sumal (Defender)
Total: ~50
 * location: 25
 * Tactical advantage: 1
 * Nations: al-Sumal (L) = 5/1 = 5
 * Military dev: 12/20 = 0
 * Economic dev: 14/20 = 0
 * Smaller economy: -2
 * Infrastructure: 7
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: 9 -5 (low morale) = 4
 * Chance:
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population:
 * Participation: 10
 * Troops:

Discussion
Like, actually, though? Did HAMBURG just invade Mogadishu?

I feel like NOT. They should not be able to reach here; just the big 3 (Spain, Holland, Britannia) and Rome (cuz Philidelphi).


 * 17:47, June 26, 2014 (UTC)


 * Correction guns, the Big three are Spain, France and Brittania, Holland is probably after me, that or Scandinavia

You should read more turns, Guns. I've been in the area for decades. -Guy

It depends on their resources and willpower. Unless you have a precise reason as to why they cannot invade Mogadishu, then I'd suggest backing off the subject. If you do, I'd love to read it. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 18:34, June 26, 2014 (UTC)

As per the Philadelphi Compact, nations must alert Alexandria (or its succesor Egypt) of any war and the transfer of military troops from one side of the Canal to the other. Because this was not done, Egypt will not allow Hamburg troops to pass.

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 21:32, June 26, 2014 (UTC)
 * settled, Mp will let me through so long as I pay the canal toll.


 * This is being brought up in chat right now. I don't like Imperial colonialism ocurring 300 years early at all. Fed (talk) 01:38, June 30, 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry to tell you this isn't going to fly the only few nations that can conquer a nation are the big three i mentioned to guns and or Holland (He being out of his trading empire more than anything) but he's not pulling, and on the long run you couldn't hold it as of yet Sorry bro Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 02:51, June 30, 2014 (UTC)

Away
I'll be away for a few days, I should be able to post again on tuesdayOzymandias2 (talk) 10:25, June 27, 2014 (UTC)

Three Questions
Safavid Empire

1) A few weeks ago, SkyGreen had requested Scarlet Outlaw to no longer be allowed to roleplay as the Safavid Empire due to his implausible actions and generally being more prone to getting nations collapsed. After it was edited into the Talk page under the title 'Formal Request', 4 Moderators and 5 Players supported Scarlet's removal while no player disagreed with it [Edgeofnight removed his name from Naye later on]. For this reason, may I ask when will this 'request' be implemented because I have noticed that Scarlet has still been playing as Safavid for the past 3-4 turns. I would also like to mention that Scarlet apparently threatened to get LordGanon into this if he was 'unfairly removed' and he would get the 4 moderators and 5 players banned

2) I have also noticed that Mazandarani people at OTL Mazandaran Province, Iran have rebelled against the Safavids but the Safavids have showed very little concern regarding this rebellion. I have not seen Scarlet mentioning the rebellion in any of his posts and I am not aware whether he does not know about the rebellion or he simply ignored it. Another thing is that Safavid have completely ignored the fact that the Ottomon have established themselves as a strong state by vassalizing numerous Middle Eastern states. In OTL Safavid tried its very best to remain an equal to the Ottomon and make sure it did not become too strong due to fear of becoming an Ottomon vassal. Whatever the case maybe, he needs to start reading Moderator Events

War

(1) I have a question. If for example, China/Japan/Vietnam declares war upon Spain and invades Phillipines; then in the algorithm should it not be that the population of Phillipines and troops present at Phillipines be written. What I mean is, if all the troops in the Spanish Army are written in the algorithm, it would not make any sense because it would be impossible for the entire Spanish Army deployed at different places to defend Phillipines as well as leave their own lands undefended. So will Spanish vassals present near Phillipines be added to the algorithm or will the entire Spanish Empire be added? I also believe that during wars, a plausible amount of soldiers should be sent for the defense of vassals. For example, if Dutch Colonies in SE Asia are under attack; it would make very little sense if the entire Dutch military present at Europe somehow reaches SE Asia to defend Dutch colonies

i only put my name in Naye to begin with cuz I misunderstood the post: I thought they where removing him before he was implausable. ~Edge

I'm staying out of that Safavid thing except on chat, simply because I understand it, and agree with it, but still dislike it for some reason. Other than that, the War question I completely agree with. This is why I HATE algorithms for entire wars, because it neglects many things. For one, the China/Japan/Vietnam could win many early battles, humiliate the Spanish/Dutch/Europes. But then, a full Spanish/Dutch/Europes force comes and fights with the China/Japan/Vietnam, possibly still facing defeat or a war of attrition, or simple victory. An algorithm by battle would add immensely to detail, planning, and strategy, making players seriously consider how they move their soldiers, the details of their turns ("While we advance, we leave a force behind to block a counter-attack" becomes "Our 40,000 man army is victorous at the first offensive, and we continue to advance towards the city of (Insert) to siege it, leaving behind 8,000 soldiers to secure supply lines, etc.") The way the algo is set up, means that a European country can use all it's navy, all its economy, and all it's military, for a ten pixel island, when in reality, it was gurellia warfare, and distance that hurt European expansionism. (Though as a counterargument, you could say that Europe really wasn't stopped at colonialism, till, really, between the ends of WWI and WWII, meaning that not everytime there was a gurellia resistance/distance wasn't always a problem). But again, it only points out how subjective an algo and situations must be, and therefore, algorithms by battle for an entire war would reduce the subjectivity significantly by allowing for more detail in turns, which leads to different strategies, battles, counter-offensives, etc. that could change an entire war, rather than simply doing one algo for an entire war, and assuming the winning country was victorious in every engagement. (I literally just said I agreed with the war thing, and went off on a tangent about something moderately related). &#34;SO SAYETH THE EAGLE&#34; - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk) 20:30, June 28, 2014 (UTC)

I whole heartedly agree with Eip on the Algo. The problem I see is implementation, as many people would not be willing or able to correctly do a multi-algo war.Stephanus rex (talk) 21:27, June 28, 2014 (UTC)

One way to really help, but not completely solve that problem would be updating the algorithm template, because while it's great right now, the multi-algo war would most likely need different categories for some score thingys (Or maybe not, who knows, that's the fun). But multi-algo wars would definitely be a hassle for many players who already hate having to do algos...Heck, I'll volunteer myself to do most multi-algo's for war for players, just to have it implimented for the sake of more detailed and plausible wars (And maybe for le coveted algo mod title ha ha). &#34;SO SAYETH THE EAGLE&#34; - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk) 22:42, June 28, 2014 (UTC)

A Fourth Question
Why is vassalization based solely on territory size?

Many nations have no chance to vassalize other less powerful nations due only to a small territory. Meanwhile nations with much less density and a huge territory are capable of vassalizing other nations very easily, even if they have an extremely low population. Should population not be the main factor? A switch to population would more accuately reflect the amount of influence a nation could afford to press a potentail vassal with. Stephanus rex (talk) 03:02, July 3, 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. I believe that vassalization should be based on influence. Right now, with it's base on size of territory, you can literally vassalize any nation with "We begin vassalizing the nation of (X), turn one of four". The reason this has failed, is clearly evident by the Timurids, played by NovaSims, who went about vassalizing a third of northern India, and part of Central India, with only "We begin vassalizing the nation of (X), turn one of four". There were no alliances with the nations they vassalized and annex, there was no royal marriages, they didn't fight military conflicts with them, they didn't even get trade agreements with said Indian nations, just "We begin vassalizing the nation of (X), turn one of four", and in thirty turns, controlled a third of northern India, which easily could've turned into some implausigasm empire within another thirty. That is the reason why I believe vassalization should be based upon influence and other factors, rather than simply size. &#34;SO SAYETH THE EAGLE&#34; - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk) 23:43, June 30, 2014 (UTC)

Ottoman Sultanate (Attacker)
Total: 141
 * Location: +15
 * Tactical Advantage: +6
 * Siege Artillery: 5
 * No Defenses: 1
 * Nations: Ottoman Sultanate (L), Damascan Sultanate (MV), Medina (MV), Levant (MV) = +6/+5 = 1.2 ~ +1
 * Military Development: 58/12 = 4.8 ~ +5
 * Ottoman Sultanate: 22
 * Damascan Sultanate: 12
 * Levant: 12
 * Medina: 12
 * Mil Modifiers: +33
 * has not lost last three wars: 10
 * Naval dominance: 10
 * More total troops: 5
 * Fully mobilized: 5
 * Moderately Sized Forces: 3
 * Economic Development: 56/14 = +4
 * Ottoman Sultanate: 14
 * Damascan Sultanate: 14
 * Levant: 14
 * Medina: 14
 * Econ Modifiers: +15
 * Larger Econ: 10
 * Larger Trade Empire: 5
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +12
 * Similar Culture: 5
 * Enforce political hegemony: 7
 * Modifiers: +4
 * Non-democratic: 4
 * High morale: 5
 * Guerilla War: -5
 * Chance: +9
 * Edit count: 1265
 * UTC: 8:57= 8*5*7
 * Total: 14.19
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Mature: 5
 * Population: 23.4 million = +8
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: +22 **230,000/10,000 = 22
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: -8

Mecca Caliphate
Infrastructure: +14 Total: 54
 * Location: +25
 * Tactical Advantage: +5
 * Tribal Ambush: 3
 * High Ground: 2
 * Nations: Mecca Caliphate (L) = 5/6 = 0.8 ~ +1
 * Military Development: 12/58 = 0.2 ~ 0
 * Mil Modifiers: -2
 * Small armed forces: -2
 * Much smaller military than enemy: -5
 * Fully mobilized: 5
 * Economic Development: 14/56 = 0.25 ~ 0
 * Econ Modifiers: -2
 * Smaller economy; -2
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +9
 * Fatal attack: 9
 * Modifiers: 0
 * Non-democratic: 4
 * Low Morale: -5
 * Guerilla War: +1
 * Chance: +9
 * Edit count: 1490
 * UTC: 10:41= 1*4*1
 * Total: 1170.39
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Old: -5
 * Population: 350,000 = +6
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 0 **10,500/230,000 = 0.04 ~ 0
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Vassals and Puppets:

Result
(141/(54+141))*2-1= 0.446

Ottomon conquer 44% of Mecca land and topple the caliphate.

(0.446153)*(1-1/(2x2)) = 0.3346

War lasts for two years

Levant and Medina were added to the algorithm because it would make very little sense for the states closest to Mecca and being part of the Turkish route into Hejaz to not fight

This algorithm has been done by RexImperio (talk) 10:38, June 30, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
Caliphate of Mecca isn't old and is in fact much younger than the Ottomon

The Caliphate of Mecca was created in the 7th century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_7th-century_Muslim_history. The Ottoman Sultanate/Empire was founded in the 14th century. SwankyJ (talk) 03:41, June 30, 2014 (UTC)

What you're talking about is the Rashidun Caliphate. I believe in PMIII, the area currently known as 'Caliphate of Mecca' was first under control of Rashidun, then Mamluks and then virtually collapsed until it was united when CaptainJohnRex started playing as it.

No, it was shown as united on the map around the time john started playing as mecca. However, I'm guessing most post-Mamluke lands became organized a decade or so after the fall of the Mamlukes.

<font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green <font color="A00000">24 - Join the party  10:14, June 30, 2014 (UTC)

SwankyJ
Lately, our friend swankyj has been playing as the ottoman s, I have seen some problems with his playing and map making thought I would bring them to the mods attention.

It seems that swanky has been vassalizing land quickly, then annexing his land almost 2-3 years after he's done. The rules specifically state "you can annex vassals after a couple decades". I also saw on a couple of maps he vassalised a state next to Georgia, by the Caspian sea. He does not border the nation, so he can't vassalise it

Swanks official maps that hes made for the game has only focused on his expansion and/or vassalation, not anything else. He forgot to add colonies and expansion. I do not think he's 100% suitable for the position of map maker, due to this.

71.225.14.232 15:41, July 1, 2014 (UTC) Aka Saturn 120

The rules (As per MP's post above the map thingy) says that "As a note to everyone, do not edit the map unless you are authorized as a mapmaker. Inability to follow this rule will be met with action. "This is not your grave but you are welcome in it." 00:00, April 10, 2014 (UTC)"

So there's that. &#34;SO SAYETH THE EAGLE&#34; - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk) 20:06, July 1, 2014 (UTC)

Sat, your back.

Anyway, I don't know about the annexing thing, but I did tell him in chat that Azerbaijan was not an option right now.

I thought he was authorized to be a mapmaker, or at least was at one point.

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 20:38, July 1, 2014 (UTC)

Now let's not forget that neither Ms nor Feud have done their jobs as mapmakers, either forgetting or outright refusing to add certain expansion to the map, especially in Fued's case when other nations threaten his own expansion. Ms will see that certain expansion should be added to the map, but won't do it. Also, Feud has vassalized several nations in the space of one hundred years, far more than what is allowed. Jumping on Swanky is rather pointless if two mods are doing exactly the same thing the accused is. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 21:10, July 1, 2014 (UTC)

Jumping on someone doing something wrong/agains the rules/contradictory/other things is never pointless. However, we must stop these individual accusations everyday, and rather just make a list of every player/mod who has done something wrong/agains the rules/contradictory/other things, that way everyone's in the limelight, and we don't dismiss these issues two days after we bring them up because we forget about them. Really, there should be discussion on players and mod rule breaking/implausibilities until they are solved, rather than giving up and turning it into arguements based on length of text until one side simply doesn't want to create walls of text anymore. Punishments need to be dealt out, rules need to be enforced across the board, and let's bring back some Draconian plausibilities rules/laws. &#34;SO SAYETH THE EAGLE&#34; - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk) 21:20, July 2, 2014 (UTC)

Eip has a point. I've seen many an important discussion simply die, as this one might. There must be a place where they can be discussed, and solved, without being drowned out by algorithms. Saamwiil, the Humble 00:34, July 3, 2014 (UTC)

A little confused
"These rebels declare all foreign influence intolerable and both states turn independent..."

That is the excerpt from the 1547 mod event where Pomerania and Brandenburg declared their independence. The mod event also stated they will not tolerate any more foreign influence. Yet, Crim somehow peacefully vassalized Pomerania, despite this event. He says he has permission, but this contridicts the whole point of the event. Also, why would they reject a defensive pact with a nation (me, Hamburg), whom they are closer to, geographically, politically and culturally, but then allow themselves to be subdued by someone like Scandinavia? This give the perception of specail treatment among certain player.

I am that guy (talk) 01:43, July 2, 2014 (UTC)