Talk:Principia Moderni III/Archive 5

Safavid Empire (Attacker)
Total: 75
 * Location: Close to location (+4)= +4
 * Tactical Advantage: High Ground (+2), Siege weapons (+5)= +7
 * Nations: = Safavid Empire (L+5) Mughal Empire (M+3) Southern Chatagai Khandate (M+3)= +11
 * Military Development: Safavids (+6), Mughals (+4), SCK (+4)= 0
 * Economic Development: Safavids (+8), Mughals (+2), SCK (+4)= +14
 * Expansion: -1
 * Motive: Safavid (Attacking to enforce Political Hegemony +7) Mughals (Aiding an Ally +3) = 10
 * Modifiers: Non Democratic Government Supported by People (+4) Troop Morale High (+5)= +9
 * Chance: 6
 * Edit count: 1065
 * UTC: 20:17 (21*17) = 357
 * Total: 1065/357*pi (3.14159265359) = 9.36722689075
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Population: +7
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: Safavids (-1), Mughals (-1), SCK (-1)= -3
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Mansurryia Caliphate (Defender)
Total: 105
 * Location: +5
 * Tactical Advantage: (City walls +4)= +4
 * Nations: Mansurryia Caliphate (L+5), Yemen (M+3), Assyria (+3), Armenia (+3), Ottoman Empire (+3)= +17
 * Military Development: Mansuriyya Caliphate (+8), Yemen (+0), Armenia (+6), Assyria (+6), Ottoman Empire (+8)= +28/14=2
 * Economic Development: Mansuriyya Caliphate (+2) Yemen (+0), Armenia (+6), Assyria (+6), Ottoman Empire (+8)= +22
 * Expansion: -1
 * Motive: Defending Core/ Heartland from possibly fatal attack (+9), Aiding Social/Moral/Ideological/Religious Kinsmen who are being oppressed (+7) Defending territory not owned by nation more than 20 years (+4), Economy (Assyria+Armenia) (+6), Aiding an ally (+3)= +29
 * Modifiers: Non-Democratic government supported by people (+4)= +4
 * Chance: 6
 * Edit count: 9899
 * UTC: 20:17 (21*17)= 357
 * Total: 9899/357*pi (3.14159265359) =87.0668347
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Population: +7
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: Ottomans (-1)
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result
Discussion Fix it if I did something wrong. PitaKang- My Life for Aiur! En Taro Tassadar 22:44, April 7, 2014 (UTC)

you did, you were only alive 5 turns, yet you somehow pgraded 7 different things, you can only upgrade once a turn.

Added Yemen, and a few others may join in. TBD. PitaKang- My Life for Aiur! En Taro Tassadar 00:30, April 8, 2014 (UTC)

How can it be a possibly fatal attack, it's not even near a possibly fatal attack. Sky Green 24 19:25, April 8, 2014 (UTC)

At this point Pita gets 18%.--Yank 23:28, April 8, 2014 (UTC)

And I remind you again, it shouldn't be defending core from possibly fatal attack, it shouldn't have ever been. Also, the Mughal Empire sent siege weaponry in 1466 so that would be a +5 aye? Sky Green 24 16:23, April 9, 2014 (UTC)

The Ottomans are sending military aid to the Mansuriyya. ChrisL123 (talk) 20:05, April 9, 2014 (UTC)

@Sky: When the Safavids invaded Mesopotamia in 1508, they sacked Baghdad and took it over for themselves. I think that qualifies as a fatal attack. Also added +5 for siege weaponry. PitaKang- My Life for Aiur! En Taro Tassadar 20:52, April 9, 2014 (UTC)

Mansuriyya and Co. takes 22.47% of Persian territory. PitaKang- My Life for Aiur! En Taro Tassadar 20:56, April 9, 2014 (UTC)

Vassalization reminders
Reminder

When it comes to major religions like Christianity or Islam, the main way to vassalize those states if your the opposite or different religion is more leaning towards war unless there are certain conditions. This applies to everyone so in all honesty do not vassalize those areas. Im looking at you Hungary

I made a new section at the bottom of this page for the mod event. Now, I would like to know how focusing on trading in the vassal would lead to muslim resentment. The high amounts of trading does bring christianity and helps it expand very quickly - but I do not see how trading can be something which the opposng religion tries to target as it would lead to many of them going hungry and stuff. Imp (Say Hi?!) 13:08, April 8, 2014 (UTC)

Padang (Attacker, ish)

 * Location: 20 (Ayutthaya: 20, Padang: 20, Kedah (LV))
 * Tactical Adv: 5 (siege equipment)
 * Nations: Padang (LV), Kedah (LV), Ayutthaya (L): 11/5 => 2
 * Mil Dev: 10 =>10
 * Padang: 1 turn: 2
 * Kedah: 1 turn:2
 * Ayutthaya: 3 turns: 6
 * Econ: 25/0 => 25
 * Padang: 1 turn: 2
 * Kedah: 1 turn: 2
 * Ayutthaya: 3 turns: 6
 * Larger Trade Empire: 5
 * Much larger economy: 10
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: 5
 * Padang: 7 (Political Hegemony)
 * Kedah: 3 (Aiding an ally)
 * Ayutthaya: 3 (Aiding an ally)
 * Modifiers: 9
 * High Morale: +5
 * Non-Dem Support: +4
 * Chance: 6
 * Edits: 7424
 * UTC time: 10:44 = 440
 * (7424/440)*3.141596 = 53.0672925091
 * Nation Age: +5
 * All Nations are Mature
 * Population: 29
 * Combined Population: 9 digits (8 mil from Ayutthaya, 1 mil each from the other two)
 * Over 10x Opponent Population: 20
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Participation: 10
 * Number of Troops: 70,000/10,000 => 7
 * Result: 134

Sri Vijaya

 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Adv: 0
 * Nations: Sri Vijaya (L): 5 => 0
 * Mil Dev: 0
 * Econ: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: 9 (defending from potentially fatal attack)
 * Modfiers: -5 (Low Morale)
 * Infra: 14
 * Chance: 7 (see above)
 * Nation Age: -15 (REALLY, REALLY, REALLY OLD!)
 * Population: 6
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Participation: 10
 * Troops: 10,000/70,000 => 0
 * Result: 56

Result
(134/(134+56))*2-1 = 41.05%

(41.05)*(1-1/(2*3)) = 34.08%

The Allies can take 34.08% of SV, 20% to go to Padang, and the rest to be made a vassal of Ayutthaya.

Koryak-Tlingit War
Koryak Confederacy

Tlingit
 * Location: far from the location of the war: 2
 * Tactical Advantage: Siege Equipment: 5
 * Nations Per Side on the War: 4 (Koryaks)
 * Military Development: +1 (8/6)
 * Economic: +14 (7 yrs)
 * Expansion: -2
 * Motive: Total: +11 +7 (hegemony) +4 (non Dem supported)
 * Chance: Chance:7
 * Edit count=85
 * 1*1*1*2=2
 * 85/2*pi=
 * NPC Bonus: N/A
 * Special NPC Bonus nations :N/A
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population:+2:
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 15,000 / 7000 =2.14 = +2
 * Total: 67


 * Location: +5
 * Tactical Advantage: High ground/Ambush 2
 * Nations per side: Haida :+5 (L) +5/1 = 5
 * Military Development: 4/2 = +0
 * Economy: +12 (6 yrs)
 * Infrastructure: 6/2 = 3
 * Expansion: -0 (no expansion)
 * Motive: Defending heartland from non fatal attack +5
 * Chance: +6
 * Edit count=
 * 1*1*1*2=2
 * 85/2*pi=
 * Nation Age: +0
 * Population: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: -0
 * Troops strength: 7000/15,000 = 0
 * Total: 48
 * ===Result ===
 * ((67/(48+67))x2)-1
 * =(0.165217)x(1-1/(2 x 2))
 * Koryaks can take 12.39% if war lasts 2 years.
 * Baranof and Chichagof islands is approx. 12%.
 *       Discussion
 * If I messed up on this, please tell me and feel free to fix it, because I'v enever done this before.
 * If I messed up on this, please tell me and feel free to fix it, because I'v enever done this before.

WTF?
Could it be explained to me why the Italian portion has christians and the Hungarian portion doesn't? Could it also be pointed out to me where Aragon took land from Banu Sulaym? Because right now this seems to be crossing a limit. Imp (Say Hi?!) 12:58, April 8, 2014 (UTC)

It was done, you vassalizing them in the first place was barely doable, they were a disorganized state and are Muslim. Also Italy controls much less than you do hence has less muslims. The area you control as well is larger and has more than likely more muslims than the Italian/Former aragonian area had. This also isnt just you so calm down. Most people are agreeing that your random vassalization of vastly differently cultured, or different religions is highly implausible and outright ridiculous Stay in your locale Imp

Just to say, it is quite ridiculous that the Hungarian area has trouble while the Italian area doesn't. Although Hungary could easily just decimate the population and kill all the Muslims, which is exactly what Castile and to some extent Venice have done in Morocco. Kunarian TALK 19:17, April 8, 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Kun. And I could say the same for Castile. Just because you were there for 30 years doesn't fix it either. And because it is on the coast and not all that big, I could do exactly what Kun said - yet I was being nice to them and focusing on trading. They want to rebel and screw their economy up - fine with me, I can kill em all and reopen trading by transporting peseants or Serbians (whichever one is the cheapest option). And it is not implausible - Hungary is transforming, and is extending its reaches - plus I am pretty sure if Banu Sulym isn't my locale - then what the hell is Castille doing in Alexandria? Banu is directly south of me - and a good trading region for my goods. Not so random now, eh? :P Imp (Say Hi?!) 22:24, April 8, 2014 (UTC)


 * And don't give me that naval superiority bullshit. You may have a good navy - but so do other powers. [[Image:1.png|23px]] Imp (Say Hi?!) 22:25, April 8, 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes it is random... It is not directly south, its a good ways south. Whereas in my case Morocco is literally in my backyard. You can Swim across the straights of Gibraltar and get into morocco. As it stands as for my involvement in alexandria im not vassalizing the area and all i did was send aid to them. Outside of Cyprus which was given to me following a minor war im next to non existant in that area. So no as much as i would love to move on the holy land with my massive navy and army i cant cause its not really doable. Same difference with Hungary which according to multiple people is not in the best situation to have an african vassal especially the Berbers who you havent been fighting for nigh on 200 years like all the spanish kingdoms have. The Castilians gained their different religious vassal through war previously and as of right now neither of those areas are led by muslims any more and in the case of Morocco they are still being chrisitianized into the minority. -Feud


 * I don't need to fight anyone - the Berbers and Arabs do not get along. All I need to do is support one side over the other in whatever situation which is going on. My situation is perfectly fine - you see Sicily has Hungary friendly ports, and the numerous local ports of Banu Sulaym help my ships stay in the region and solve any problems occuring. As long as my conversion is peaceful and through trading - most of the local citizens will not have a problem until it is too late. [[Image:1.png|23px]] Imp (Say Hi?!) 18:01, April 10, 2014 (UTC)

Thing is imp that there's a Christian invader of their lands. At this moment they wouldn't give a shit about Arabs. And you own the mostly desertic are which even harder to keep and the region with a bigger Muslim presence. And to be honest the only reason Granada is christian is due to their uprisings. And morocco like feud has said is far from being fully christian Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 18:20, April 10, 2014 (UTC)

Screw this, I'm going to war. Imp (Say Hi?!) 18:22, April 10, 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate and minor map changes
When the current map has been slightly altered - reupload it onto the old map, rather than making a new map. Where this reupload button is found is shown in the following picture. Imp (Say Hi?!) 13:25, April 8, 2014 (UTC)

Result
No one going to do this? Spartian300 (talk) 15:08, April 9, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
Bad idea...

I dont think you should follow through with this. Im not a mod but if you give me the numbers I will plug them in for you. Also you should have used the cod for the algo. Also Sine you should sign your name.What is this????Is this a signature??? (talk) 18:56, April 9, 2014 (UTC)

I agree Spar, you have seen how the mods are treating Soconusco at the moment, there is a reason I didnt take military action, even if I won i'd be crippled by the mods once again. They are organized and have bonuses to their state now, wait later, and I will attack with you, and we can split it, you can have Soconusco and i'll take Atlocuapo. SwankyJ (talk) 23:33, April 9, 2014 (UTC)

Okay Spartian300 (talk) 09:40, April 11, 2014 (UTC)

Attacker (Kingdom of Georgia)
Total: 40
 * Location: 4
 * Tactical Advantage: 2 + 5 = 7 (High Ground, Siege Equipment)
 * Nations: Georgia (L), Rani (MV), Amier-Kavkasia (MV) = 7/5 = 1.4 ~= 1
 * Military: 8/3 = 2.667 ~= 3
 * Economy: (6 + 5)/3 = 11/3 = 3.667 ~= 4 (larger economy; multiple currencies, gold reserves, trade vs. isolated Azeris)
 * Infrastructure: 0 (attacking)
 * Expansion: 0 (no recent expansion)
 * Motive: 2 (economic, non-dem government supported by people, low troop morale b/c chance = 0)
 * Chance: 0
 * Edit count=220
 * UTC: 17:54; 1*7*5*4=140
 * 220/140*pi=0.5 0 0
 * Nation Age: 0 (maturing nation - 1413)
 * Population: 9 (1,663,000 = 7 digits; superiority +2)
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Troop Strength: 20000/22500 = 0.889 ~= 1

Defender (Sultanate of Azerbaijan)

 * Location: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: 1 (plains)
 * Nations: Azerbaijan (L) = 5/7 = 0.714 ~= 1
 * Military: 3/8 = 0.375 ~= 0
 * Economy: (3 - 2)/6 =1/6 = 0.166 = 0 (smaller economy)
 * Infrastructure: 3
 * Expansion: 0 (no recent expansion)
 * Motive: 0 (defending heartland from non-fatal attack; troop morale low)
 * Chance: 0
 * Edit count=220
 * UTC: 17:54; 1*7*5*4=140
 * 220/140*pi=0.5 0 0
 * Nation Age: 0 (maturing nation - 1415)
 * Population: 7 (1,129,000 = 7 digits)
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Troop Strength: 22,500/20,000 = 1.125 ~= 1
 * Total: 27

Results
(2*(40/(40+27)))-1 = (2*(40/67))-1 = (2*0.597)-1 = 1.194 - 1 = 0.194 = 19.40%

(19.40%) * (1 - 1/(2 * 3)) = 19.40% * (1 - (1/6)) = 19.40% * (5/6) = 16.16%

Georgia should win the war, and can take up to 19.40% of Azerbaijan. Assuming the war lasts 3 years, Georgia will gain 16.16% of Azerbaijan's territory.

Discussion
I think I've done the algorithm correctly, but I could use a mod to check it over and make sure that I'm following the new format properly. TankOfMidgets (talk) 20:33, April 9, 2014 (UTC)

Georgia proposes the following cession of lands by Azerbaijan to the Principality of Rani in exchange for peace. (I've run the numbers; the dark-orange area would be the land I take, which is 16.16% of Azerbaijan's territory.) TankOfMidgets (talk) 20:44, April 11, 2014 (UTC)

Safavid-Mansuriyya Peace Treaty
Some concessions I want from the Persians:


 * No tariffs or restrictions on Caliphate exports into Persia for the next 25 years. No guarentee on Caliphate tariffs.
 * A small strip of land on Persia’s southern coast.
 * Withdrawal of Persia from Mesopotamia.
 * No expansion into Mesopotamia.

PitaKang- My Life for Aiur! En Taro Tassadar 21:50, April 9, 2014 (UTC)

Persia accepts this offer for peace Toby (talk) 21:52, April 9, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The Caliphate wishes for only the best of relations between our nations in the futuer. PitaKang- My Life for Aiur! En Taro Tassadar 21:54, April 9, 2014 (UTC)

Moderator Actions
Not trying to point fingers. But if you see something implausible point it out at that time. You cannot simply wait 20 years (days) later while the player continues to do turns off that, and then come out and say it is implausible because it screws up a whole chain reaction of turns. SwankyJ (talk) 23:31, April 9, 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Mods, unless you're a Mapmaker, don't post over the map. I have given MP permission as my parents currently have me on lock down for getting a C in english. I will be making maps soon, hopefully. My responsibilities go to Kun and MP  for now. SwankyJ (talk) 23:31, April 9, 2014 (UTC)

As it stands im trying the best i can, i can only catch so much, if some other moderators would be a bit more proactive this could be avoided much easier

I agree SwankyJ (talk) 01:50, April 10, 2014 (UTC)

Resigning
I am resigning as mapmaker, and considering to resign from this game altogether, as all people do is ignore what I say, and my new ideas. Yet I have had to continue to argue with so many. It is nothing but stress. SwankyJ (talk) 16:16, April 10, 2014 (UTC)

Personal Responsibility
Okay, guys, I've noticed a giant trend for a while and I think it's time that I spoke up. A lot of players constantly complain about various mod events or arguments about plausibility. They give mods (who are here to keep the game plausible) crap and throw tantrums like bratty children. I think it's time we grow up just a little, don't you?

Guys, if mods are telling you something's wrong, 9 times out of 10, they know what they're talking about. Try listening to them and think critically about your nation and its actions rather than argue about everything they say. If you ACTUALLY think a mod is wrong, ask the others. We WANT to help you or we wouldn't have joined the force. Keep the game plausible. Listen to constructive criticism and your nation will be the best it can be. Don't make the game a chore.

Bananananananana BAT-CRIM 16:38, April 10, 2014 (UTC)

Hungary
Result: 75
 * Location: 3
 * Tactical Advantage: 5 (Got my Seige equipment ready)
 * Strength: Hungary (L), Poland (MS), Croatia (MS): 15/3 = 5
 * Military: 20/10: +2
 * Economy: +10 +15 (Much larger economy, Larger Trading Empire): 25/10 = +3
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +6 +4 +5: +15
 * Chance: 8
 * Edit count: 10,127
 * UTC Time: 01:05 = 5
 * (10,127/5) * pi = 6362.98176
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Population: 27
 * Participation: 10
 * Number of troops: 60,000/25,000 = 2 (means nothing in the end really)

Banu Sulaym
Result: 42 x1.5 Popular revolt Bonus = 63
 * Location: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: 2
 * Strength: Banu rebels (L): 5/1 = 5
 * Military: 10/20 = 0
 * Economy: 8/25=0 (smaller economy)
 * Infrastructure: 10
 * Expansion: 0 (Govt change so I don't think it counts)
 * Motive: +5 (Premptive strike)
 * Chance: 1
 * Nation Age: -10
 * Population: 6 (no more than 500k)
 * Participation: 10
 * Number of troops: 25,000 (note not all of these are regulars its a popular revolt so their numbers can still swell to larger numbers than normal)

Result
((75/(75+63))*2) - 1 = 0.0869565

Hungarian victory. Hungary wins/retains: 8.6%, depending on how long the war lasts.

Discussion
Multiple things were wrong that have been corrected, Chance and troops needs to be done for either side but for the most part its done. Also you forgot a popular revolt bonus.

10%? That is impossible - even for a popular rebellion. Imp (Say Hi?!) 00:22, April 11, 2014 (UTC)


 * 5% is better. :P [[Image:1.png|23px]] Imp (Say Hi?!) 01:26, April 11, 2014 (UTC)

To me, the most plausible result is probably like OTL Vietnam War, Soviet-Afghan War, or the American Revolutionary War. The insurgents/natives will continue fighting for their independence in a war of attrition, something that the Hungarians will eventually find impossible to fully defeat.

In most cases of this kind of warfare, the war will grind on until it eventually becomes an economic drain on the Hungarians. At some point, the Hungarian people will get fed up with a war in which no progress is being made and would be forced to withdraw.

I am just thinking of it from their perspective, and do not deny that Imp gets 8% in the algo. I am just pondering plausibility and wondering how this would end up - I doubt "nationalistic" forces would let a bit undera tenth of their land remain under Hungarian rule. 03:46, April 12, 2014 (UTC)

Oyo (Attacker)
Total: 62
 * Location: +3
 * Tactical Advantage: +6
 * Nations: Oyo (L) = +5
 * Military Development: 20/6 = +3
 * Economic Development: 20/6 = +3
 * Economic Bonus = +5 (?)
 * Expansion: -1 (?)
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: +3 +7 +5
 * Chance: +4
 * Edit count: 4,916
 * UTC: 0*5*4*5 = 100
 * Total: 4916/100*pi = 154.4406948504844
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: +7 (9,415,548)
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 225,000/100,000 = +2.25 = +2
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Mali (Defender)
Total: 48
 * Location: +5
 * Tactical Advantage: +1
 * Nations: Mali (L) = +5
 * Military Development: 6/20 = 0
 * Economic Development: 6/20 = 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: +4
 * Motive: +9 +4
 * Chance: 0
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: +10 (20,000,000)
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 100,000/225,000 = +0.4 = 0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result

 * ((62/(48+62))*2)-1 = 0.1272727272727273
 * (12.7)*(1-1/(2*9)) = 11.9944444444444444

The war with Mali will last nine years, after which Oyo may claim 11.9% of Mali's territory.

Discussion
Wrong algo is wrong... A few things: I fixed a few of these issues, notably the ones in italics.
 * How can you field an army twice as large as the Malian Army in an invading war when the Malians have a population twice as large as you?
 * Their motive would be 10 (defending from war that will overthrow culture, etc) with non-democratic support of 4.
 * Furthermore, care to explain your motive? Is it aiding kinsmen or hegemony, in which case you never had any hegemony to enforce.
 * You messed up on economic/infrastructure/military development.
 * Assuming you posted all of the past 10 turns, you would have total of 20 points to spend in total, or about 10 in each category.
 * For Mali's development, they should have 4 infrastructure points, 6 econ and 6 mil points.
 * Do you really have a large economy? They have 2x as many people as you, which alone should give them a substantially larger economy. Of course, various development has taken place in your nation, but we cannot assume that Mali has also been stagnant. European trade with Mali would have helped it as much (if not a bit less) as it would help you.

04:08, April 12, 2014 (UTC)

Rex, I don't have time for your nonsense, yet again. Seriously, don't you have anything better to do than follow me around and bug me about my actions? And stop editing my algo. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 06:04, April 12, 2014 (UTC)

I want fair algorithims. And a state taking over a state of 2x as many people and a presumably equivalent economy is just implausible. You made a number of mistakes, and if you must be rude to me about it, I shall bring it up to the moderator staff, who I was helping out. 06:55, April 12, 2014 (UTC)

Im inclined to agree with the changes, and i think troops would be relatively equal in this situation since mali has 20,000,000 and France has that same number and is plausibly fieldng 100,000 troops tops. Regardless results i believe need to be redone, and considering they are over double your population.. that will definitely pose issues later no offence. As it stands, more unlikely things have happened but that kind of society never lasts too long anyways

Not Milanese, for a second I thought Oyo was fighting Milan! Imp (Say Hi?!) 23:54, April 12, 2014 (UTC)

I must disagree for these reasons. Even during the civil war, Mali wasn't able to field more than 100,000 men because of its vast size, lack of readily available resources, and the fact that it didn't fight wars often as it was protected by the desert on one side, and the jungles on the other. Attrition isn't factor as the Mali people have nowhere to go and only one way out: the desert. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 00:00, April 13, 2014 (UTC)
 * The Malians never fielded more than 100,000 men OTL, and their in the middle of a civil war, also OTL.
 * I stated that my reason for invading is to enforce regional hegemony, not to conquer the country. So they don't get +10.
 * Read the above.
 * I posted on every turn, and I'm aware of the rules. They get don't get infrastructure since their an NPC.
 * Oyo is smaller, but it trades with Europe and the surrounding region, while Mali's double pop is dying from famine and a civil war. Bigger nations don't mean bigger economies. China had four times the American population yet their nominal GDP is half that of the United States.

We established over chat that Mali is not in a civil war (for those who do not chat as often as others). Furthermore, we discussed the differences time and industrialization have made in warfare, refuting most of Viva's claims. And yes, NPC get infrastructure. You are mistaken. 00:13, April 13, 2014 (UTC)

We could sit here and debate into eternity, but at the end of the day, arguing will never work. I could throw sources at you all evening, but it'll never sink. I stated that I was going to be a better person, and I'm sticking to that. So congratulations Rex, you won. I mean, what was I thinking? It's not like I was ever going to win or do anything of worth in this game. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 00:46, April 13, 2014 (UTC)

Last time I checked, I am not Mali and I am not being invaded by you, Viva. Therefore, how could I have won? And its not like I have any reason to take interest in Mali but I merely want a legitimate game. I do not appreciate you calling me out because I care about making sure algorithims are proper. Please refrain from rude comments like the one you just made, or just do not direct them at me passive-aggressively. Thanks, 05:45, April 13, 2014 (UTC)

Oh my. I didn't know that saying you won was an insult. Seems like someone has a soft skin. Well when you make it a habit of basically following me around in games, on talk pages, and in chat, plus PMing about it and using terms such as "Vivempires" that you know very well would anger me deeply, and bother the mess out of me because you don't like something, don't expect anything else. That's typically the price paid for bothering someone like that. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 14:53, April 13, 2014 (UTC)

The term vivempire is pretty well acknowledged to be a "slang" term in the Principia Moderni community. Anyone who looks at this map will understand just what we are talking about when we say Vivempire. 22:32, April 13, 2014 (UTC)

And anyone who looks at that map will see my empire is far from being the largest nation on the map. Imp practically has a lands on every single continent, Collie controls half of South America, Crimson basically rules a third of Asia, and Scan rules a mega-empire which in pieces can win wars on their own. And this says nothing of Scraw controlling half of North America and Cal/Andrew ruling most of Western Europe. But no. I control a chunk of Africa, something I was repeatedly too to focus on since "Viva has land to expand on in Africa, why does he need colonies," was the most common response. And as such, the implausible empire name isn't named after Imp, Scan, Crim, Scraw, Cal, or Andre, but after me. Yeah, because that clearly makes sense. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 01:35, April 14, 2014 (UTC)


 * Impire, Scanpire, Crimpire, Scrawpire, Callumpire, Andrewpire. Callumthered (talk) 09:05, April 15, 2014 (UTC)

Because most of those empires are plausible minus the impish empire which is ASB due to conquering south america (or most of it) after what should'be been rebellion era. You on the other side wanted haldnof Africa and still be able to colonize the other half of the world... Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 17:50, April 18, 2014 (UTC)


 * I wanted the silver and resources. It made sense. [[Image:1.png|23px]] Imp (Say Hi?!) 14:06, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

So far as I know (and I could easily be wrong), Mali was fighting a guerilla war in the north and against the Songhai in the east at the time, so I doubt they would be able to field a very large army (100,000 men?) against another attack from the south. Krasnoyarsk (talk) 19:41, April 14, 2014 (UTC)

Cuzco(Attacker)
Total: 70
 * Location: 4
 * Tactical Advantage: 0
 * Nations: Cuzco (L) Wanka (MV) = 6
 * Military Development: 12
 * Economic Development: 18+5+3+1=27
 * Expansion: -1
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: 3+7=10 (Modifers) 10+4+5=19
 * Chance: 7
 * Edit count: 275
 * UTC: 21:19 = 18
 * Total: 275/18*pi (3.14159265359) = 47.972
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 2,500/1000= 3
 * Recent Wars:-1
 * Vassals and Puppets: -1

Aymara (Defender)
Total: 43
 * Location: 4
 * Tactical Advantage: 0
 * Nations:Aymara (L) = 5
 * Military Development: 4
 * Economic Development: 5-2=3
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 5
 * Motive: 7+4+4=15 (modifers included)
 * Chance: 2
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 (0) =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: +2
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 1000/2,500=0.1
 * Recent Wars:-1
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result
Cuzco will take 21% of Aymara's land. The Northern Aymara government collapses after the two wars with Cuzco.
 * ((70/(43+70))*2)-1 = 0.23
 * (0.23)*(1-1/(2*6)) = 21%

Discussion
If I understand things properly here, this applies only to the Norhtern most areas of the Aymaras, the part the centrilized. Not the enitre thing.What is this????Is this a signature??? (talk) 21:18, April 11, 2014 (UTC)

So the first time i didnt round for the number of troops thing, b.ut because i rounded in the decimal place for the maximum precent, it made no diffrence in the end. Today is the day of Reckoning sir, You screwed up... '' You screwed up... '' 00:50, April 12, 2014 (UTC)

France

 * Location: close the location of the war +3
 * Tactical Advantage: Siege equipment +5
 * Nation Per Side: France (L), Burgundy (MV), Sardinia (MV)= 7/5 = 1
 * 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:7
 * Edit count 2408
 * 2408/18: 133,77
 * 133,77*pi :420,2752
 * Nation age:+5
 * Population:+28
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of troops: 200.000/ 50.000 = 4
 * Total: 80

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 +6
 * Motive: Defending Heartland from attack that will not cripple/ destroy nation +5
 * Chance:5
 * Nation age:+0
 * Population :+6
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of troops: 50.000/200.000 = 0
 * Total:40

Discussion

 * Anything to say? Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk)
 * France annexes the entirety of tunis (doubling the score of your enemy = 33%) Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk)
 * How you can annex the whole thing when their motive is not "to defend nation from fatal attack"? g greg e   (talk)  01:18, April 15, 2014 (UTC)
 * ((80(80+40)*2)-1= 33% i'll do the rest later...

Algo changes from non mods
Thanks, Sine, I appreciate it. But, anyway, in your algo you need to change your econ/mil development scores. I know that you used the example algo made by Feud, but that is actually wrong. The rules are quite specific about a turn --
 * This is for you rex... Lol Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk)

"Each nation has one turn during which it may do one of the following actions. With that in mind, you can only do mil or econ, and not both. So, you'd have a 10 in mil dev and a 10 in econ dev.
 * Work on the nation's military
 * Work on the nation's economy
 * Work on the nation's infrastructure
 * Expand the nation
 * Start or remain in a conflict."

Other than that, I do not see any problems. 06:15, April 13, 2014 (UTC)

Welp, I have further scrutinized the algo and have noticed another couple minor flaws. Again, minor.

The first is that Sine forgot that we are doing 10 year - not 15 year - periods. So, Tunisia should have 4 infra, 6 (for 3 years) econ, and 6 (again, for 3 years) mil. This is pretty much a wash, but still should be corrected.

The second issue is that Sine forgot to add the economic bonuses. He has a much larger economy (+10) and is a larger colonial/trade power (+5).

Thanks, 06:28, April 13, 2014 (UTC)

As i stressed to you before hand the rules need to be changed and i reaffirmed with Sine that 20 years is essentially the upper limit allowing for 20 and 20 in two categories or 14 14 and 12 for any variation of the categories. This needs to be fixed but as the man that wrote the algo... i am correct. The other area regarding 10 years needs to be changed. Also if your not a mod DO NOT edit the algos of a war that does not concern you. Its annoying and uneeded. Leave it up to Mods to handle and bring it up to them to fix.

Centrlized Aymara State southern border
So a long, long time ago, a mod told me that the Ayamras in the north had centrilzed around lake titicaca. The southern border of this was never expalined or mentioned. Any mod (the one who did it is unknown to me) want to help me out here. Other wise Im going to wing it for the Land Aqired section. "Today is the day of Reckoning sir, You screwed up... '' You screwed up..." '' 19:39, April 14, 2014 (UTC)

Around lake titcaca is what youll take, further south is still disorganized

Reclaimation of Egypt (1473 - 1475)
Alexandria (Attacker)

Total: 91
 * Location: +4
 * Tactical Advantage: +5 +1
 * Nations: Alexandria (L), Aiguptia (MV), Rumania (M), Venice (S), Albion (S), Milan (S), Cyprus (M), Erie (M), Caucasian Confederation (S), Roman Empire (M) = +5 +1 +3 +2+2 + 2 + 3 +3+2+3
 * Military Development: 1 turn +2,
 * Military Bonus: 1/1 = Even
 * Economic Development: 3 turns +6
 * Economic Bonus = +2 (Alexandria) +5 (Larger Economy) +5 (Larger Trade)
 * Expansion: -3 (Alexandria) -2 (Aiguptia)
 * Infrastructure: 2 turns N/A
 * Motive: +5, +4 (modifer)
 * Chance: 6
 * Edit count: 2519
 * UTC: 1:25 1x2x5= 10
 * Total: 2519/10*pi = 790.966
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Population: 17 (4,000,000 this is a post plague conservative estimate, so could be higher ie 4.8)
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 25,000/35,000 .7 ~ 1 SUBJECT TO CHANGE
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Sultanate of Egypt (Defender)

Total: 38
 * Location: +5
 * Tactical Advantage: +2
 * Nations: Egypt (L) = +5
 * Military Development: 1 turn = 2/1 = 1
 * Military Bonus: 1/1 = EVEN
 * Economic Development: 1 turn = 2/1 = 1
 * Expansion: N/A
 * Infrastructure: 1 turns of buildup = 2
 * Motive: +9
 * Chance: 6
 * Nation Age: -10 (1470 est)
 * Population: +6 (500,000 this is a max estimate, not including the plague)
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 35,000/25,000 = 1.4 ~ 1 SUBJECT TO CHANGE
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result

 * ((91/(38+91)*2)-1 = 0.41085271317
 * (41.1)*(1-1/(2*3)) = 34.25
 * The war lasts for three years, ending just before the 1476 turn, and Alexandria is able to topple the Sultanate of Egypt.

Discussion
Firstly you do not have that level of population, and neither is theirs so low. They 100% outnumber you population wise, it's just a question of by how much. Especially as the population is not solely grouped around the north but along the Nile, unlike modern day.

Troops cannot come from an outside force in the algo so that 5000 extra is yours or Rumania must get directly involved. And considering that the population of Egypt is around 4,500,000 at this time and you probably control a quarter to just above a third of that, here's some numbers to give you an idea of what you and egypt should be able to basically raise: However considering that Egypt is a a sultanate and this war would be considered a religious one it would likely be much higher, just like the way you've raised forces. Although that's a point for the mods. Kunarian TALK 06:02, April 15, 2014 (UTC)
 * You: 1,000,000-2,000,000 = 10,000-20,000
 * Egypt: 2,500,000-3,500,000 = 25,000-35,000


 * Could you please show me some evidence that they have a larger population at all? I find it hard to believe that you believe a egypt, lacking the largest population centers of egypt (throughout most of egypts history and clearly at this time - Alexandria and Cairo). As for your claim that the population is not solely grouped around the north I agree; however, it is no where near the portion that you claim is not in the Nile Delta Region. If you could further elaborate on where you get the idea that the remained of egypt outnumbers me I would be glad to listen and learn. I look forward to you and I finding out more of the extremly limited information on Egypt's population pre 1500 AD.  g greg e   (talk)  15:28, April 15, 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all you don't have Cairo. Second of all you don't have all the Nile Delta, third of all, a massive amount of the population is spread along the Nile itself. Add on top of that the fact that they have all the coastal populations outside of the Delta and you very easily have them with a lot more. I'll draw a picture.


 * okay. Firsts first, the coloured areas are all about a similar population density, give or take. The bit in green is where Cairo roughly lays, obviously not all of it is Cairo but Cairo is in that area. That area has a higher population density than the northern coast, both historically and in the modern day. The bit in Purple and bright yellow is the populous Nile Delta area. You have the yellow bit and they have the Purple bit, you have about 3/5ths of it, they have 2/5ths and their area is historically and in modern day, more densely populated. Now add onto that the blue bit, that's the Nile and the other fertile areas it creates, all with a similar population density to the Delta. It's spread out yes, but it's still a population and historically it wasn't dwarfed by the north like it is today as all of the Nile was a great trading river. Add onto that the various coastal populations along the med and the red sea and you get a population which is easily one and half to two times bigger than yours. Kunarian TALK 18:04, April 15, 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah I can see and understand the confusion here now. The map says one thing, which is what you posted. But both my pages I've been creating, posts, and such since 1464 (almost a decade of game time now), have had Cairo as part of Aiguptia. I am going based of what has been said in turns and not a map - which no offense to the mapmakers is error prone. So now this confusion resides are part of a cartographic error. My 1464 post was as follows:
 * The Kingdom of Aiguptia is declared by the organized Chrisitians in the Nile Delta region, the border claimed by this kingdom are just east of OTL Port Faud, along the delta Region down to the Great Bitter Lakes to surrounding Cairo then northwest to the border of Alexandria. Aiguptia selects Ibrahim Girguis as its king. Troops are stationed in the Aiguptia region to prevent any revolts.
 * I discussed these borders with Fed before declaring them, and presumed the map would reflect them. I have also played with these as my borders and including the cities that are reflected based on the post.
 * In addition, could you upload a map with the rivers and lakes on it? This one of the Nile, a difficult river to chart on these maps, is a great start. Without the rivers it is also very difficult to find certain cities on the map. It would make not only my own country easier to map and to catch errors (eg this situation), but also for the age of colonialism, which mandetes that we follow rivers to colonize. I appriciate your diligence nonetheless. g greg e   (talk)  18:23, April 15, 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. I've seen a few map errors before, I understand. I don't know how easy I can map rivers, I don't have much spare time but if I do then maybe. Kunarian TALK 19:27, April 15, 2014 (UTC)

Also add in supplies from Venice to Alexandria's side. Kunarian TALK 08:29, April 15, 2014 (UTC)

Albion will support Alexandria in reclaiming Egypt. (England, Scotland, Brittany, Wales.) It is up to bfox if he wishes to allow the Eire Kingdoms.ALLONS-Y!!,Basically, RUN!! 12:00, April 15, 2014 (UTC)


 * Does Albion's support get split amoung each of those Kingdoms in the algo? Im not sure how that works, if someone could let me know that would be great g greg e   (talk)  15:30, April 15, 2014 (UTC)

You forgot to add Milan. Tr0llis (talk) 18:19, April 15, 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you  g greg e   (talk)  18:29, April 15, 2014 (UTC)

Albions support is split among tthe independent kingdoms so it would be England (which owns scotland i believe) and eire which is a seperate kingdom. Also you may add Cyprus as mil support


 * Thank you once again and for the clarification g greg e   (talk)  18:29, April 15, 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought there was a penalty for having more than two personal or dynastic union nations in an algo? And a penalty for having more than two vassals? Kunarian TALK 07:43, April 16, 2014 (UTC)
 * There is only one nation being subjugated into assisting the war. Two if you count Cyprus as a subjugated nation. The rules state a minus -1 penalty for each vassal after the third one in each L's group. g greg e   (talk)  21:54, April 16, 2014 (UTC)
 * That rule applies only for the main leading nation or in case of coalition all leaders. If Alexandria is only using Aiguptia than shes fine. If Albion is only using 2 of its PU's and 2 of its Vassals then she is also fine. My Cyprus sending mil support isnt his vassal so he cant get penalized for somebody elses vassal it would count towards me. If i had Granada, Morocco, and Cyprus all send aid then it would start to detract. 

China
Is Scan still playing as China? Because he hasn't posted for quite a while. Ozymandias2 (talk) 18:56, April 16, 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe he is...

He said I was the frontrunner for the role of China, but I have since taken another nation, so I'm out of that running.

20:08, April 16, 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we should hold it escrow?

20:09, April 16, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that could be best- fully mod-controlled?Ozymandias2 (talk) 20:50, April 16, 2014 (UTC)

Maybe collapse part of it. The part nearest Ayutthaya.

22:19, April 16, 2014 (UTC)

Just treat it as an NPC for now. Tr0llis (talk) 22:54, April 16, 2014 (UTC)

G'day. I've returned from my mid-semester exams. I'm still on the fence about staying active as a player in the game but I shall be playing again for a week to see if I can get back into the groove of things. Scandinator (talk) 02:03, April 18, 2014 (UTC)

Im Back Baby
Ill be taking over China or Egypt, not sure. Oh and Im back in the modding bussiness too -Nova  00:09, April 17, 2014 (UTC)

Pretty sure we need a Vote from what i remember discussing.. We didnt even make scraw a mod since we never voted.

I believe Geg is trying to take Egypt as Alexandria, but you can try. History Does Not Repeat Itself, Yet It Does Rhyme

Ive taken China -Nova  00:24, April 17, 2014 (UTC)

Uhh... China is not just up for grabs. We haven't even established that Scan is gone yet.

Also, you're in the middle of a giant f*cking plague. Have fun lol.

01:10, April 17, 2014 (UTC)'

Scan said he would be back in a few weeks. He had exams i beleive. So as long as Nova gives it back to scan when he gets back no problem.

Hesse (Attacker)
Total: 35
 * Location: 2
 * Hesse: 4
 * Hamburg: 3
 * Mecklenburg: 2
 * Venice: 2
 * Epirus: 2
 * Candia: 2
 * Kaffa: 2
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Open field
 * Nations: Hesse (L), Hamburg (L), Mecklenburg (L), Oldenburg (S), Venice (L), Epirus (L), Candia (LV), Kaffa (LV) = 36/24= 2
 * Military Development: 90/84 = 1
 * Hesse: 20
 * Hamburg: 14
 * Mecklenburg: 14
 * Venice: 10
 * Epirus: 14
 * Candia: 2
 * Kaffa: 16
 * Economic Development: 124/?=1 +3 (cities) +5 (larger economy) +5 (larger trade)
 * Hesse: 20
 * Hamburg: 14
 * Mecklenburg: 14
 * Venice: 20
 * Epirus: 20
 * Candia: 20
 * Kaffa: 16
 * Expansion: -2 (Several Annexations)
 * Motive: 6
 * Hesse: 13 (Recently held territory, Hegemony)
 * Hamburg: 3 (aiding ally)
 * Mecklenburg: 3 (aiding ally)
 * Venice: 3 (aiding ally
 * Epirus: 3
 * Candia: 3
 * Kaffa: 3
 * Chance:
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Hesse: -5
 * Hamburg: -5
 * Mecklenburg: -5
 * Venice: -15
 * Epirus: 0
 * Candia: 0
 * Kaffa: 0
 * Population: 9
 * Recent Wars: -4
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 50,000 (20,000 from Hesse, given that a large portion of their military has defected and that they're mid plague)/?= 1

Anti-Hessian Forces (Defender)
Total: 99 * 1.5 (Popular revolt) = 148.5
 * Location: +4
 * Münster: 4
 * Berg: 5
 * Saxony: 3
 * Thuringia: 4
 * Koln: 5
 * Westphalen: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: +2
 * Nations: Munster (L), Berg (L), Saxony (L), Thuringia (L), Koln (L), Westphalen (L) = 24/5 = 5
 * Military Development: 80, 0
 * Münster: 20
 * Berg: 10
 * Saxony: 20
 * Thuringia: 18
 * Koln: 6
 * Westphalen: 6
 * Economic Development: 84, 0
 * Münster: 20
 * Berg: 10
 * Saxony: 14
 * Thuringia: 20
 * Koln: 10
 * Westphalen: 10
 * Expansion: N/A
 * Infrastructure: 80
 * Münster: 20
 * Berg: 10
 * Saxony: 10
 * Thuringia: 12
 * Koln: 24
 * Westphalen: 24
 * Motive: 7
 * Münster: 9
 * Berg: 9
 * Saxony: 3
 * Thuringia: 3
 * Koln: 9
 * Westphalen: 9
 * Chance:
 * Nation Age: -7
 * Münster: -10
 * Berg: -10
 * Saxony: -5
 * Thuringia: -5
 * Koln: -10
 * Population: +7
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 30,000/50,000 = 0
 * Recent Wars: -4
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Discussion
I thought Infra was averaged? Imp (Say Hi?!) 14:42, April 17, 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe so. I'm also having Feud review this algorithm just to be sure. Tr0llis (talk) 17:48, April 17, 2014 (UTC)

To Guy: scores are doubled. Tr0llis (talk) 19:00, April 17, 2014 (UTC)

that doesn't change anything.

Crim already looked over this and said it was fine. Blocky858 (talk) 19:31, April 17, 2014 (UTC)
 * What? This algo is all wrong, the rebelling nations' scores were explicitly given, since when were those doubled? Our nation age scores are wrong, our development scores are wrong, our troop numbers are wrong.


 * Nation scores are doubles, meaning that if you have a score of ten, you get twenty points. For example, Munster: 10, 10, 10, means 20, 20, 20, just like how Hesse and their allies' scores are also doubled. I know Hesse is -5 for a fact since I asked Blocky and he told me the date in which he had his last government change (when he was elevated to a grand duchy); in the 1460's I believe. If you could provide me the dates for the other nations or any other information I will be happy to change any mistakes. Please just don't edit everything at once. Thanks, Tr0llis (talk) 20:05, April 17, 2014 (UTC)


 * I meant the one IATG put up was reviewd by Crim and said it was fine. Crim was in fact going to make almost the exact same edit he told me. Blocky858 (talk) 20:24, April 17, 2014 (UTC)


 * I can't believe I've only really noticed this, add Venetian support, add in Epirote support along with Kaffan and Candian support. There are no minuses due to what Feud said in the Egyptian war. We will be fully in the war although we will only be able to supply 10,000 troops from across all four of the states because of the plague. You will have assist us in feeding them also due to trade issues from the plague causing food trade to be much lower than usual. Kunarian TALK 20:34, April 17, 2014 (UTC)


 * Also please refer to the 3 royal marriages I have with Hesse for a good reason to join this war. Also I'm not even sending a proper force, more of an expedition, so please do not tell me that this is somehow damaging beyond a reasonable cost to the treasury or the -2 for my future recent wars. Kunarian TALK 22:24, April 17, 2014 (UTC)


 * Dont forget the 1.25 Popular revolt bonus...


 * Can I just say this algorithm isn't even finished. :P Kunarian TALK 08:16, April 18, 2014 (UTC)

Quick Trip
I'm going on a trip over the weekend, so I'll be gone for a few days. If anyone wants to copy-paste my turns while I'm gone, that'd be really helpful.

Thanks!

Cour *talk* 03:40, April 17, 2014 (UTC)

Moscow
Hi, I noticed that the nation of Muscovy has been inactive for a very long time. Would I be allowed to sign up as them? Thanks, Fritzmet (talk) 13:39, April 18, 2014 (UTC)

Scraw is, I believe, on a short wiki-break. He'll be back.

15:36, April 19, 2014 (UTC)

Leave of Absence
I am to be gone over the next seven days beginning this Sunday (Easter Sunday, 4/20). I MAY (big may) have the ability to only go on chat, but that is iffy. In the meantime, I believe I got Andrew to copy-post for me over that period of time. If Andrew is not willing/able to, I'll put the post here. Just copy-post and adapt to the events that happen (if needed). History Does Not Repeat Itself, Yet It Does Rhyme

Eire: Eire, having built up trade and infrastructure across the nation for years is in the process of becoming a modern European nation. Clans still remain. However, much of the new growth of the nation is in the new trade ports on the coast, settled by the Norse, or the towns at the hubs of the new roads. Indeed, many of the small towns from 50 years ago are unrecognizable compared to today. Eire seeks to show its power, and we invite monarchs from across Europe to tour the new nation. The military of Eire continues to be modernized. After years of friendship with Albion, a strange new dialect begins to emerge in coastal trade settlements. As the language divide in Albion has ended, and English becomes the tounge of all, traders from England and Eire begin to swap words in the trade settlements on the Irish Sea. The dialect, however, has not seen wide use outside of those settlements. We find that keeping the Southern Europeans away from our ports, who often carry diseases helps us prevent the spread of the strange new plague. Our vessels continue to explore and trade with our northern neighbors, however, such as Scandinavia and some of the German states that are not affected. We allow Roman Catholic churches to spring up again, after the reunification of the churches, and many reactionary Eire-folk take advantage of it, having practiced their services in secret. Tales of Celtic myths continue to become popular amongst the nobles, and old aspects of pre-Norman Hiberno-Roman culture begin to be rediscovered.

Minor Wikibreak
I'm sorry for the unexpected wikibreak; I am on a trip, and I am avoiding the wiki during the period. I'll be back on Monday; in the meantime, if someone were to write a quick post stating the Plague is getting better and that econ and military are improved (alternating), that would be spiffing. Thanks in advance! Fed (talk) 04:31, April 19, 2014 (UTC)

Aztec Empire - Requests
Not sure if this is allowed. But id like for Atotonilco (the 20 px of the northern and north eastern land of the Aztecs) to be gifted to Zapotec, as well as Cihuatlan (the coastal region of 15px on the most southern coastline) to also be gifted to the Zapotec. The regions of Texcoco and Tlacopan will be merged in to one into Tenochtitlan. And will be 25-35px. Zacatollan will remain under the Aztec Empire. I am resigning as the Aztecs. I do not care if these things go through with or not. But just an update for whomever takes my spot as the Aztecs, just so you do not have to read all my turns. SwankyJ (talk) 21:24, April 20, 2014 (UTC)

Aztec Empire Information
Player who plays as Aztecs, this for you, so you don't need to read all my turns. SwankyJ (talk) 21:24, April 20, 2014 (UTC)

1. I joined in 1429. I did 18 Infrastructure turns. 10 economic turns, and got +2 economic in events. And I did 20 military turns.

2. The regions owned by the Aztecs:

Atlocuapo (lost in 1474), Soconusco (lost in 1472), Atotonilco (20px of the NorthEast), Zacatollan (20px of the NorthWest), Texcoco, Tlacopan, and Tenochtitlan (35px of the Central Eastern area), Cihuatlan (15px of the south-southwestern coastline)

3. Emperor Itzual I (died 1432 I believe), Emperor Montezuma II (died 1474), Emperor Cuachtemoc (as of 1475, he is 50 yrs old)

As of 1475, Cuachtemoc had four children: Tezcacoatl (male, 20 yrs old), Quatzecoatl (male, 16 yrs old), Xochitl (female, 14 yrs old), Toltecatl (male, 13 yrs old). Wife: Icnoyotl 45 yrs old.

Total Population of Aztec Empire: ~4.5 million. Total Population of Tenochtitlan(city): ~350,000. Total Population of Xilopolco (capital of Atotonilco and Zacatollan) : ~200,000. Total Population of Cihuatlan: ~500,000 Total Population of Texcoco: ~550,000 Total Population of Tlacopan: ~600,000 Total Population of Atotonilco: ~500,000 Total Population of Zacatollan: ~500,000 Total Population of Tenochtitlan(region): ~900,000 Total Population of Other (small outlying tribes, islands, military, traders, allies): ~400,000

4. You have canals, acqueducts, wells, schools, hospitals, extravagant roads, throughout the empire. Kind of got a quarantine thing going on. Your are allies with the Mayans, and have very good relations with the Zapotec. Your people are not fond of sacrificial paganism anymore, and look to worshipping the one almighty god: Quatzelta. This could be used to a gateway to christianity if you deem that as a smart decision. You have a low technologically advanced navy numbering in 400 ships as of 1475. You have a military of 75,000 as of 1475, and a population nearing 5 million. Which is very plausible for the land you own.

5. The Aztecs have trade routes with the people of Moundville in the north, although they are not very exquisite. You have iron weaponry and armor. You have big money making in mining gold, silver, obsidian, and iron. You have a large amount of fishing ships.

Please leave this up for the player who takes the Aztecs. SwankyJ (talk) 21:23, April 20, 2014 (UTC)

See, dammit? I said, didn't I? It'll be another Hail, I said. Give them at least 6 months to prove themselves. But no, you all voted for him, made him a mod- learn your lesson. Stop making Flash Players mods.

21:05, April 21, 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't made a mod. I was attacked with events, making my turns a prison, it's a joke. SwankyJ (talk) 21:14, April 21, 2014 (UTC)

You were the Aztecs. Despite the fact that historically 100% of your neighbors hated you and periodcally tried to overthrow you, you somehow conquered a giant area way, way larger than the Aztecs could have plausibly done.

Hail did something similar.

My bad, mapmaker. I still said that you would flash off.

21:19, April 21, 2014 (UTC)

Treaty Of OTL Sudan Land
I'm not sure how comfortable Venice feels with this expansiveness nor do I think it is possible. I know I'm not a primary participant in this treaty but you won't be able to hold the Muslim populations in Egypt, Judea et al. They threw off the yolk of an army of crusaders way more powerful than you and will almost certainly not be converting any time soon. Kunarian TALK 22:04, April 21, 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) We split the city 50/50
 * 2) Ethiopia gets White Nile and Blue Nile
 * 3) Alaxandria gets the regular Nile
 * 4) We both name our parts of the city different names
 * 5) We are allowed free access into each others land.
 * 6) Treaty_map_3.0.png

I didnt make this, not is it plausible to agree to anything in such a treaty...this could be a partition of lands that Alexandria and Ethiopia could agree to but neither nation controls anything like this at the moment. g greg e  (talk)  01:21, April 22, 2014 (UTC)

G Greg if you want to fix the map do so and I will see if I like the way you make the map and how we divide things up ok. If you want to add something to the treaty by all means do so and I will talk to you about it on the chat.- Scarlet

Two things: The first is that you should make a treaty page for things like this. The second is that I am opposed to any settlement of the East African coast south of Puntland. This includes Mogadishu, so please keep that in mind. Respectfully, 06:18, April 24, 2014 (UTC)

Prussia (Attacker)
Total: 36
 * Location: 3
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations: Prussia (L), Ossel-Wiek(MV), Courland (MV) = 6, 0
 * Military Development: 80/38 = 2
 * Prussia: 40
 * Ossel_Wiek: 20
 * Courland: 20
 * Economic Development: 40, 0+5 (Larger economy) = 5
 * Prussia: 0
 * Ossel-Wiek: 20
 * Courland: 20
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: 7
 * Chance:
 * Nation Age:
 * Population: 8
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 30,000, 0

Hesse (Defender)
Total: 110 + Bavarian score
 * Location: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations: Hesse (L), Hamburg (L), Mecklenburg (L), Trier (L), Bavaria (L) Munchen (MV) Straubing (MV) Ingolstadt (MV) Burgau (MV) Burggrafschaft (MV) Wurzburg (MV) Nurnburg (MV) Bamberg (MV) Zweibrücken (LV), Julich (LV) = 26/6 + Bavaria & vassals
 * Military Development: 38, 0
 * Hesse: 12
 * Hamburg: 12
 * Mecklenburg: 14
 * Bavaria: 12
 * Trier: 0
 * Zweibrücken : 0
 * Julich : 0
 * Economic Development: 50/40+5 (Larger empire) = 6
 * Hesse: 12
 * Hamburg: 12
 * Mecklenburg: 14
 * Bavaria: 12
 * Trier: 4
 * Zweibrücken : 4
 * Julich : 4
 * Infrastructure: 78
 * Hesse: 8
 * Hamburg: 8
 * Mecklenburg: 8
 * Bavaria: 8
 * Trier: 18
 * Zweibrücken : 18
 * Julich : 18
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: 6
 * Hesse: 9
 * Hamburg: 3 (aiding ally)
 * Mecklenburg: 3 (aiding ally)
 * Bavaria: 3 (aiding ally)
 * Trier: 3
 * Zweibrücken : 3
 * Julich : 3
 * Chance:
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Hesse: -5
 * Hamburg: -5
 * Mecklenburg: -5
 * Bavaria: 0
 * Trier: -15
 * Zweibrücken : 0
 * Julich : 0
 * Population: 8
 * Recent Wars: -4
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 35,000, 1

Venice and allies

 * Location: 3 (11/4=~2.7=3)
 * Venice - 4
 * Epirus - 3
 * Candia - 2
 * Kaffa - 2
 * Tactical Advantage: 6
 * Open Field - 1 (it's all the Po valley)
 * Siege Equipment - 5
 * Nations per side: 16
 * Venice (L), Epirus (L), Candia (LV), Kaffa (LV)
 * Military Development: (58/?=~?=?)
 * Venice - 20
 * Epirus - 8
 * Candia - 10
 * Kaffa - 20
 * Economic Development: (72/?=~?=?+3(trade cities)+10(larger eco, larger trade)=?)
 * Venice - 18 (also Venice)
 * Epirus - 20
 * Candia - 20
 * Kaffa - 14 (also Kaffa)
 * Expansion: 0
 * Venice - 0
 * Epirus - 0
 * Candia - 0
 * Kaffa - 0
 * Motive: 10 (16/4=4+6(dem-sup)=10)
 * Venice - 7 (hegemony)
 * Epirus - 3 (aiding ally)
 * Candia - 3 (aiding ally)
 * Kaffa - 3 (aiding ally)
 * Chance: ?
 * Nation Age: -3 (-15+5=-10/4=-2.5=-3)
 * Venice - -15
 * Epirus - 5
 * Candia - 0
 * Kaffa - 0
 * Population: 7 (seven digits)
 * Recent Wars: -8
 * Venice - -2
 * Epirus - -2
 * Candia - -2
 * Kaffa - -2
 * Participation: 10
 * Number of troops: ? (52,500/?=?)
 * Venice - 26,000
 * Epirus - 14,000
 * Candia - 7000
 * Kaffa - 5500

Total: 41? (need to have Milanese input)

Milan

 * Location: 4
 * Milan - 5
 * Padua - 5
 * Trier - 3
 * Zweibrücken - 3
 * Julich - 3
 * Swabia - 4
 * Augsburg - 4
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Open field - 1 (Venetian territory is on the edges of the Po Valley)
 * Nations per side: 8
 * Milan (L), Padua (LV), Trier (L), Zweibrücken (LV), Julich (LV), Swabia (L), Augsburg (L)
 * Military Development: 14
 * Milan: 0
 * Padua: 0
 * Trier: 0
 * Zweibrücken : 0
 * Julich : 0
 * Swabia: 7?
 * Augsburg: 7 ?
 * Economic Development: 26
 * Milan - 0
 * Padua - 0
 * Trier: 4?
 * Zweibrücken : 4?
 * Julich : 4?
 * Swabia: 7?
 * Augsburg: 7 ?
 * Infrastructure: 106
 * Milan - 20?
 * Padua - 20?
 * Trier - 18?
 * Zweibrücken - 18?
 * Julich - 18?
 * Swabia - 6?
 * Augsburg: 6?
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: 27+4 = 31/7 = 4
 * Milan - 9 (fatal attack)
 * Padua - 3
 * Trier: 3
 * Zweibrücken : 3
 * Julich : 3
 * Swabia: 3
 * Augsburg: 3
 * Chance: ?
 * Nation Age: -1
 * Milan: 5
 * Padua: 0
 * Trier: -15
 * Zweibrücken : 0
 * Julich : 0
 * Swabia: 0
 * Augsburg: 5
 * Population: 7
 * Recent Wars: -6
 * Milan: 0
 * Padua: 0
 * Trier: -2
 * Zweibrücken : -2
 * Julich : -2
 * Swabia: 0
 * Augsburg: 0
 * Participation: 10
 * Number of troops: ? (?/52,500=?)
 * Milan - 0
 * Padua - 0

Total: 37? (need to have Milanese input)

Discussion
NEED SOME MAJOR MOD INPUT ON CHECKING THE VALIDITY OF SOME OF THE MILANESE AND ALLIES SCORES DUE TO ISSUES WITH WORDING OF TURNS. Kunarian TALK 16:24, April 22, 2014 (UTC)

Good golly. Disputing the language of someone's turn is probably the most petty way to dispute an algo. My scores for one are canon considering they were acceptable in the last algorithm. NonEuclidean ツ (Talk)

Trier shouldnt be in this war Northern europe is their theatre and they cant supply a long distance defence like that. Their distance is a bit of a march. Same with Swabia most of the states you have involved are a bit too small to be able to fund this kind of war. Also Milans motive is not a fatal attack, hes not collapsing your or outright conquering you its defending some territory thats it. Those states that mad a trade off, Infra for no attacking means marching down south into italy to deal with that is a problem. So yeah no Trier or its vassals, any state not in the locale with a large infr cant make an appearance down in Milan. the distance is a bit too great considering you have to march through mountains and crap. Also after realizing how Infrastructure is kind of rigged yesterday in dealing with Prussia this has been changed to reflect only the main defender and in the case of certain bordering nations (only if they are going to be taken too) It makes alot more sense for the infra of the home defending nation to be considered and not every nations unless every nation in the coalition is being invaded. So yeah 108 on Infra isnt happening

Kunarian put the 9 motive himself. As for Trier and Swabia, they're my personal allies, and I've been improving relations since long before the war. Trier isn't even in Northern Germany, just the Rhine area. I'm only calling those two allies, nothing more. As for changes to the algorithm, any changes would probably need to take place after the war. It's not fair to change the algorithm to change the results. I'm probably not taking anything anyway, I just want peace. Tr0llis (talk) 20:05, April 22, 2014 (UTC)

You would need the offensive algo anyways so this is just a rebuffed invasion.

I see it is time. Imp (Say Hi?!) 11:44, April 23, 2014 (UTC)

Ayutthaya (Attacker)
Total: 203
 * Location: 20
 * Tactical Advantage: 5 (siege equipment)
 * Nations: Ayutthaya (L), Aceh (LV), Sri Vijaya (LV) = 13
 * Military Development: 46/0 => 46
 * Ayutthaya: 10 years (20)
 * Aceh: 6 years (12)
 * Sri Vijaya: 7 years (14)
 * Economic Development: 46 + 10 (larger econ) = > 56
 * Ayutthaya: 20
 * Aceh: 12
 * Sri Vijaya: 14
 * Expansion: 0 (last war was >15 years ago.
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: 5 (preemptive strike)
 * Modifiers: 9 (support, high morale)
 * Chance: 9
 * Edit count: 7541
 * UTC: 10:24 =
 * Total: 7541/7*(3.14159265359) = 3384.39288582
 * Nation Age: -2
 * Aceh: Mature
 * Ayutthaya: Mature
 * Sri Vijaya: Ancient
 * Population: 8 + 20 => 28
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 60,000/15,000 => 4
 * Recent Wars: 0

Majapahit (Defender)
Total: 68
 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage: +2 (invading from Coast, partially)
 * Nations: Majapahit (L) = 5
 * Military Development:
 * Economic Development: - 2 (smaller econ)
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 6
 * Motive: 9 (defending possibly fatal attack)
 * Modifiers: -1 (low Morale, support)
 * Chance: 2 (see above)
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 (0) =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: + 5 (mature)
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 60000/15000 = 0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result

 * ((203/(62+203))*2)-1 = 53.2%
 * (53.2%)*(1-1/(2*2)) = 39.9%

Discussion
It's not really plausible to take the whole Majapahit, even though they're in the mother of all declines, so instead this will annex the Western part to me while making the rest a vassal.

22:30, April 23, 2014 (UTC)

Question: Shouldn't location be averaged? Kind of seems weird like this. Sky Green 24 19:29, April 24, 2014 (UTC)

All 3 nations on the attacker side border the defender. It is averaged, but since they're all at 20 I saw no reason to list every single one.

21:18, April 24, 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the defender should get 20, since I'm not invading all of it, but what ever.

21:19, April 24, 2014 (UTC)

Somali Trade Dispute (1482 - ???)
Alexandria Merchants (Attacker)

Total: 67
 * Location: +3
 * Tactical Advantage: +1
 * Nations: Alexandria (L), Aiguptia (MV), Hungary (M)= +5 +1 +3 = 9
 * Military Development: 6 turns=12
 * Military Bonus: 12/6 = +2
 * Economic Development: 3 turns = +6
 * Economic Bonus = +2 (Alexandria) +10 (Much Larger Economy) +5 (Larger Trade)
 * Expansion: -4 (Alexandria)
 * Infrastructure: 4 turns N/A
 * Motive: +3 (economic)
 * Chance: 7
 * Edit count: 2519
 * UTC: 5:26 = 60
 * Total: 2595/60*pi = 135.873882268
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Population: +7 (4,100,000) +10 (eight times population)
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 11,000/10,000 1.1 ~ 1
 * Recent Wars: -2 (L in Reclamation of Egypt)
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Somali Nation (Defender)

Total: 55
 * Location: +4
 * Tactical Advantage: +2
 * Nations: Somalia (L) = +5
 * Military Development: 6 turn = 12/2 = 6
 * Military Bonus: 6/12 = Less
 * Economic Development: 7 turns = 14/2 = +7 -2 (smaller Economy)
 * Expansion: N/A
 * Infrastructure: 7 turns of buildup = +14
 * Motive: +5
 * Chance: 135.873882268
 * Nation Age: -0
 * Population: +6 (500,000)
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 10,000/11,000 = .8999 ~1 SUBJECT TO CHANGE
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result

 * ((67/(55+67)*2)-1 = 0.0984
 * (9.8)*(1-1/(2*1)) = 4.9%
 * The war lasts for 1 years, ending just during the 1482 turn, and Alexandria takes 56px (max) from Somalia (Somalia is 1140pxs) (without Somalia nation being from the 40s it would be 83px)

Discussion
I can only see a few fixes. Firstly, does Alexandria proper have 4.1 million inhabitants? Modern day Alexandria has 4.8 million, so I find this highly doubtful. I also do not think Somalia gets a -5 on nations age, since their form of government has not changed since the fall of the Mashriq. Additionally, Somalia's location should be a 5, since they are defending their homeland. I also think that their motive would be higher. 07:44, April 24, 2014 (UTC)


 * In response to population it includes Aiguptuia as well as they are a vassal and in the war. As for the age of Somalia I could not find anything so i used the year 1458 which is Alexandria's independence and establishment from the Mashriq collapse as well. As for motive my goal is not to take huge swathes of land but rather enclaves to ensure trade safety and long term prosperity, thus the reasoning for thier motive being defending a non-fatal attack. Thank you for looking it over. g greg e  (talk)  15:18, April 24, 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of the Egyptian states became independent in the 1440's I think, with the exception of al-Swahili, formed in 1435. Tr0llis (talk) 21:38, April 24, 2014 (UTC)
 * Evidence? Ill give it the benifit of the doubt for now as im not planning on taking 80pxs anyway as that is implausible g greg e   (talk)  00:58, April 25, 2014 (UTC)



As a side note, in a trade dispute the victory typically doesn't take any land, just a ton of money and maybe future revenue. For plausibility I'd think you couldn't take any land, but you'd have a reason to come back and attack for lands at a later date. Tr0llis (talk) 14:38, April 24, 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree to the fact of not taking large pieces of land. Provided I am victorious I plan on taking a few small enclaves (10px-15px each) along the coast. I completly agree that anything more than that would need to change my motive as well as thiers. If these enclaves are threatend it may be a reason for further armed conflict. Thanks for your dilligence.  g greg e   (talk)  15:18, April 24, 2014 (UTC)

Hungary will be sending 3,000 soldiers to fight for Alexandria too. -- Imp (Say Hi?!) 21:57, April 24, 2014 (UTC)

Colonization List
Major:


 * Spain (Early 1490s)


 * Portugal (Late 1490s)


 * Albion (1500s)


 * France (1500s)


 * Scandinavia (1510's)

Minor:


 * Netherlands (1520-30)


 * Italy (1520s)


 * Prussia (1540-1550)


 * Oldenburg (1540s)


 * Hamburg (1540s)

Discussion
Pskov is a likely candidate for early colonization. It is a trade power, and thus has an interest in finding a cheap route to get the spices, silks, and whatnot from china and India WITHOUT having to deal with the Mongolo-tatars), thus giving way for exploreres to try and seek out new lands, and relative small size and lack of expansion possibilities push for colonization as a good method of moving excess population to develop resources, that will then be sold, lessening reliance on foreign powers for goods to transform, allowing Pskov to save money.-Lx (leave me a message) 01:21, April 25, 2014 (UTC)

Why am I listed for the 40s? I have expanded the navy constantly, I have explored just as much, if not more, than many of these others. I'm a heavy trade-based nation, so the prospect of new trade routes alone should allow me to push forward after the major nations. Not to mention I have the wealth to back it up.

I realize Georgia isn't on the list, but can I get an official estimate for when I'll be allowed to colonize, even if it's not as a major/minor power? I recognize that I don't have a major naval tradition, and that "American" colonization would likely be infeasible given my location. That said, I would like to get in on the age of colonization, even if it's only as a bit player outside the Americas, and would appreciate knowing when/if I can start moving into the few markets I can reach through the Philadelphi Canal and my port of the Persian Gulf. Thanks a bunch! TankOfMidgets (talk) 05:09, April 25, 2014 (UTC)

May I point something out?

OTL, almost no nations not directly connected to the Atlantic colonized, and the few that did, colonized much, much later.

Just saying. Pskov, the Romans, Hungarry etc actually should have no chance of colonization for a long time.

BTW, I"m in South-East Asia, I'm a fairly big power, when can I colonize Australia? 1550? Bit later? Bit earlier?

21:47, April 25, 2014 (UTC)

Well that was largely due to the fact that the nations on the Atlantic were more stable and had larger navies, while those away from it had smaller navies which were geared toward fighting neighboring enemies. Many OTL actions led to the colonization of the Americas, not the oversimplified list we've been given. I mean, Scandinavia had a tiny navy and an even tinier colonial empire in OTL, yet it's listed as one of the major colonizers. The Netherlands on the other hand, though tiny, had a massive fleet and economy, and historically maintained a massive colonial empire, yet is listed as a minor colonial power. I feel the entire system is screwed to pieces, though I'm honestly not surprised by the development. From the comments, it seems that people don't seem to be concerned about factoring history, economy, neccessity, or prior development, and just go on opinion. I mean, if Italy could build a colonial empire, why not Hungary, which has a large coast, navy, and economy? People should stop using their opinion and feelings to justify who can do what and when (such as I thnk/feel that X cannot do Y, and therefore cannot into America). I mean, Japan industrialized in less than 30 years, the fastest of any Western nation ever, yet it lacked the experience, will, or unity to make it happen when it did. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 22:00, April 25, 2014 (UTC)

As it Stands Australia is uncolonizable until 1700 thats not changing sorry. As for what viva said ive taken that into account and switched a few around Particularly Scandinavia and Netherlands since it does in fact make a bit more sense considering location etc etc. As for the minor colonizers, Italy has a bit better position and is essentially all coastal it would make sense their navy is well enough to go colonize something. Hungary had another country build all its ships that does not make a good colonizer if someone else builds all your ships. -Feud

Pskov is a trade power with a storng(albeit merchant) navy, and a growing military navy, now undergoing overhaul, previously based in Novgorod, now based in Nizhnigorodsk-Na-Narve, a city founded for the sole purpose of being pskov's chief shipyard and the base port of the Pskovain Navy. Pskov, as a trade power, has an interst to try and find a sea route to the orient without going around africa...and unfortunately they don't know that there is a bit of a continent in the way. Pskov has the motivation, it has a small size, and growing population, with no possibilities to grow, surrounded in all sides by other larger staes, and as soon as all those untapped resources that are the Americas, Pskov would have trade intersts in exploiting them for cash, and colonies seem a perfect place to send excess population. Colonies could provide raw good, and, due to mercantilism(a zero-sum economic ideology), the prevailing economic policy of the time when it comes to international trade, pskov getting raw resources to transform from territory it controls certainly does it good. Motivations to send explorers: yes Motivations for colonization: yes; Resources to colonize: more than enough; conclusion: Pskov is a viable colonial power.-Lx (leave me a message) 01:26, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

When looking at the colonisation rules it has a section which states the number of turns naval development has been stated. I have more than 50. The conservative date I received using the colonisation algo was 1506. And as for my ships, Venice helped to provide the initial technology and support when building the shipyards. After that Hungary built its own ships with only occasional help from Venice, therefore making that comment unfounded. Imp (Say Hi?!) 01:33, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

Same. I have more 65+ years of straight naval development (though don't expect me to jump into the colonization game for a bit for OOC reasons). In regards to Hungary, Venice was one of the greatest naval powers in history, and was only defeated by sheer luck (and the Ottomans). If anything, getting ships from Venice is akin to getting life advice from God himself (for those of us who believe of course). So even if Hungary got its ships from Venice, who it uses them is more imporant. Remember, for a good period of time, Japan, one of the greatest naval powers in recent history, got most of its warships from Britain and France, and yet it stomp major tail for nearly half a century with them. By your logic, Japan wouldn't be allowed to have its empire on account of it, not knowing how to use the ships, but on account of it purchasing its ships from overseas (lol, the irony). Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 02:02, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

To Lx and Imp. Feud had an internal conflict with himself over adding Austria, and now they're gone, so I doubt Hungary or Pskov would be added when Austria is in a better position, and has a larger fleet (larger fleet than Hungary and larger war fleet than Pskov). They have also been expanding naval stuff since the beginning of the game, but I believe only the last few years are taken into account anyway, And lastly I'm pretty sure we don't even use the colonization algorithm. Tr0llis (talk) 12:50, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? Larger fleet than Hungary? I really think not. Not only did they not have a vassal or such on the coast at the start of the game - the laying down of Austria's navy commenced my later than Hungary's. Run the numbers and Austria would still probably not equal me - my date would be earlier. Imp (Say Hi?!) 16:25, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

Pskov is a TINY nation with a SINGLE port. Furthermore, you have no method to reach America- the Oresund is controlled exclusively by Scandanavia.

Impo, same for you, only with Castille and Gibraltar rather than Scandanavia and the Oresund.

Feud, dammit, I'm right fricking next to Australia. It's not even a fortnight's journey.

16:46, April 26, 2014 (UTC)


 * No your not Guns. Australia exists on the edge of the world beyond the Gates of Eternity near the Waterfalls of Despire, where the almighty moduardians Feudtastic, Fedilious, and Crim the Crumstoppable stand guard against any plausible actions no matter how capable you are. ALL PRAISE MS THE SAVIOR! Flag of the Hurian Federation.png Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 17:48, April 26, 2014 (UTC)


 * I hope you haven't been reading the Book of Ms too much Viva... [[Image:1.png|23px]] Imp (Say Hi?!) 17:51, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
 * Watch out moduardians- here comes a battering...umm... Guns... uhh... 17:52, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

Imp at the start of the game Austria had ports (not vassals but personal ones) on the sea, and a small, OTL private navy. You on the other hand have never touched the sea personally, and continue not to, therefore you're not even eligible, and all your naval development is basically null thus far. Tr0llis (talk) 17:01, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

Tells me how much you were paying attention to my turns. 1465 Hungary gets direct sea coast - as shown on the Map Complaints map. Early 1400 Venice agrees to assist Hungary with the construction of ships - giving me a large advantage. And Guns, so what? I pay my dues and get to go through. Imp (Say Hi?!) 17:08, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

Foreign ports don't count toward colonization. As for any land you may have acquired, you'll have to forgive me for not ready every turn. I was going off the map, which to be fair as you said isn't up to date. Tr0llis (talk) 17:11, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

My nation is the second biggest sea power in Asia, and controls the Straits of Malacca, as well as almost all sea-based trade to and from China. I have posted every single turn about my sea-based trade, and my ships exploring.

Uhh... do you actually know what nation I play as?

I'll concede Hungary then- but Pskov?

17:13, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Scandanavia isn't exactly a friendly power to Pskov. If they ever went to war, Crim cuts off all access to the colony without a problem. And keep in mind that most colonies required a LOT of support for the first 100 or so years of existence.

There is a reason Russia never colonized via the Atlantic.

17:15, April 26, 2014 (UTC)


 * That reason being lack of navy and the lack of motivation to colonized due to the overabundance of land and resources in a place now known as: Siberia. Siberia is the reason Russia never colonized America, why waste so much resources to explore lands far away when there is plenty to be done right next door? At this point, Siberia is Something unreachable to pskov, and independant state with a stronger navy than any of the other russian states had OTL(proportional to population) and I have motivation to colonize(resources for trade),, I have motivation to explore, because I am a trade republic, and a faster trade route to nations such as...say...India or China are in my best interests. Early colonies had minimal support from the Mother country, relying on private corporations to try and supply them, and Colonists were expected to be self-sufficient. At least when the goal was simply to send people over(for set ammount of time), have them work the land, gather resources, and have those resources ship back home for profit. For that type of early colony, Minimal governement aid is required, also, Pskov should have both a larger military and economyt han oldenrburg.-Lx (leave me a message)Azarath Flag.png 18:05, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
 * And how would those ships come back for trade? Scandanavia has basically a say on whether or not you get a colony.
 * Secondly, you have a SINGLE PORT, in a fairly minor sea. Your population is about 25-50,000 (today, the population of the Pskov Oblast is 200,000, and is actually kinda larger than your nation). Most of those people are farmers etc. You're not Russia. You're a minor backwater nation. You shouldn't even be able to trade with Castille- proportional to population, you no doubt have a large navy but given the size of your population, you're still a speck. You're not particularly rich- most of the trade would be taken by your larger neighbors, Novgorod, Scandanavia, and Prussia- and frankly speaking that motive for colonization is far outweighed by the need to eke a living out of the frozen ground 9 months of the year.
 * So in conclusion, if we're allowing you to trade, then we should allow EVERYONE to trade.
 * Finally, let me point this out once more; no state not bordering the Atlantic colonized the Americas OTL before 1800 and those reasons remain.
 * 18:26, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
 * Actualy, let me correct your facts: 1. Pskov oblast's popultaion OTL is about 700 000, not 200 000. 2. Pskov's ATL population is now about 250 000 due to influx of immigrants from the Jochids after the Karelian war trying to flee persecution after the "rape of Perm", and Pskov the city's popuilation alone is above 60 000, having reached that point in the mid 13th century I believe.3. Most of that population, are, in fact, not farmers, and Pskov is one of the rare instances of Urban population beating Rural population, or them being about equal, 4. Pskov is no backwater, it is the center of the cultural and scientific revolution called the renaissance in Russia, having p[rinting presses and books and reaserch stations and arabic medicine and all sorts of other goodies, and has substancial trading power, esentuialy exherting control over the production of currency in Russia, the Zolotnik, by being the head of the moscow mint, and by having a permanent seat in the Moscovian Grand Duke's council. Pskov at this time was one of the centers of handicraft in Russia, and its blacksmithing, jewlery, and weaponsmithing, and agricultural industries being very well developed. Pskov is a member of the Hansa(although the good that does it now), and is the Wealthiest Russian nation besides Novgorod, having acquired much gold because of currency reform and foreign trade. Pskov's merchant and military navies have Koch ships, primitive icebreakers if you will, allowing shipping nerarly any time of year, within the baltic sea. Also, Pskov is not a land in permafrost, it actualy has a well-developed and self-sufficient agriculture industry.
 * TL;DR 1. Pskov population is about 10x what you put, 2. OTL population is about 3x what you put, 3. Pskov has substancial urban population, 4, Pskov is a wealthy nation with storng trade relations. 5. Pskov's industries, where it gets most of its money, is one of the most developed in Russia, 6. Pskov has tremendous ammounts of money, muscovy owes it a substancial debt, and due to its creation of the Zolotnik currency(currency used throuhgout russia and Georgia), has a huge say in that market, having a seat in Moscow's Grand Ducal council and being the head of the Moscow mint, 7. Pskov has many trade connections around the world, and is fully capable of trading with Castille, and land beyond. 5. Pskov has icebreakers and therefore can trade during the winter.9. Pskov has good land for agriculture.-Lx (leave me a message)Azarath Flag.png 19:27, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
 * Although I agree with Lx on most of the things he's said, Fed has insisted that there wasn't any destruction in Perm or Siberia. Also if there was I'd imagine they'd mostly flee into Muscovy, a state they immediately border and/or were/are apart of. Tr0llis (talk) 19:32, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
 * What I tried to do with that point is that Pskov used its printing presses to spin the narrative that russians are not safe in the Jochids, and due to said presses, they could also go: look! Muscovy is Bankrupt and Novgorod just lost a war! But pskov only had victories in that war, and only retreated because they needed to save its allies from destruction! Pskov is safe, and Pskov is strong, and has a better economy than Moscow, which we had to save from distruction! Come! Come to Pskov! Pskov is better than Muscovy! Come to Pskov Instead of going there, and you have to leave, or the Mongols will rape you just like they did with all the Russians women and children of Perm! Understad what I was saying? Just propaganda to try and get people to come to Pskov to get more people to have more money and more military potential and whatnot. and since was the only one with printing, they could get a message around better, and literate people tell illiterate etc...so more books/information bulletins/immigration recuritmenet things can be pro0duced by Pskov, so more peopel think of going there to try and get a better life than they would have in a struggling post-war moscow-Lx (leave me a message)Azarath Flag.png 00:16, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
 * You understand the people being "persecuted" in the Jochid Ulus amounted to about two thousand people, don't you? Of which 500 at most were murdered/raped/maimed? The Ukrainian population was heavily relocated to the East, and would not be allowed to move to Pskov of all places. Fed (talk) 00:20, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
 * Wasn't there an article in that treaty of St Patriksburg that said you wouldn't stop people from moving to Russia? so they would have been allowed to move, unless you violated the treaty. And if that ukraine was independant, there would be nothing you could do to stop that. Also, I had an impression from your posts that all russians were enslaved/murdered/raped/etc.. but since when does propaganda have to be 100% true or even acurate, that's why its propaganda. 1 part true to 5 parts false. Pskov tried to get people to move, and to do so they paintied the picture that the Tatars will kill all russians eventyaly as they did with pskov. News travels slowly in these times, so people are likely to believe what they read(just like the early days of the internet). If we say all russians died, they might as well have for these people. Its propaganda, and if propaganda were true, all people on the Maidan would be neo-nazis and members of right sector or svoboda, the east Ukrainians can do no wrong, and the jews realy need to be irradicated because they are the worst plight mankind will ever face. Propaganda doesn't need to be true, it just needs to be believed.-Lx (leave me a message)Azarath Flag.png 02:13, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

I have ports in the Atlantic although they are currently for trade. Whaling and furs is good money. And its ok Trollis - lets just blame the map makers for that one. SINE GODDAMIT! ;) Imp (Say Hi?!) 17:29, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

Wait though seriously- Tr0ll- who were you addressing when you said "You on the other hand have never touched the sea personally, and continue not to, therefore you're not even eligible, and all your naval development is basically null thus far."?

17:30, April 26, 2014 (UTC)


 * Hungary and Croatia. [[Image:1.png|23px]] Imp (Say Hi?!) 17:50, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
 * I was addressing Imp, who on the most current map does not personally touch the sea. Tr0llis (talk) 17:59, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

Why the heck can Oldenburg and Hamburg colonize, but Eire, as a regional trade power with FULL access to the UKGA's navy and the myths and legends to propel it onwards cannot? Bfoxius (talk)

You already are on the list. You're included in Albion. Tr0llis (talk) 20:06, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I often confuse Albion the nation with Albion the organization (which I refer to as the UKGA to differentiate). Thank you for clarifying. Bfoxius (talk) 20:10, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

Gwalior
I feel I should bring this to mod attention... Now, there are a couple of problems with this.
 * Kingdom of Gwalior: The small Kingdom at the center of the Indian Subcontinent looked anxiously towards it neighbors, fearing that the Gwalior Defense Forces would certainly fail to halt an attack. The army had already brought developments into the artillery and an envoy had been sent to the Oirats to purchase approximately 5000 Muskets. The new law that had been passed by Raja Vikram stated that all soldiers had to be equipped with an iron body armour and a sword. War Elephants had too been introduced to the GDF who were instructed with training the elephants for war. Meanwhile, Gwalior exported large amount of iron ore to its neighbours who were desperately in need for it and imported wheat, corn, spices etc as well as weaponry. TheKingdom of Gwalior expanded 500 px South into the Deccan, overrunning Nagpur, Gondia, Wardha and Bandara [OTL districts of Maharashtra, India] with ease but suffering a major defeat when the army attempted to invade the Kingdom of Chandrapur [OTL Chandrapur district of Maharashtra]. The newly conquered territory was quickly part of the Kingdom of Gwalior [Did not annex] and reinforcements were sent to the area once the King confirmed the success of the expedition. Population of Gwalior rises to 125,000 while the Gwaliori Army has a total of 15,000 troops [15,000 equally divided amongst GDF and GOF]

Firstly, India no longer has any disorganized states, and he cannot expand into those states sans algorithm, and I do not see one.

Secondly, there is no possibly way he can have an army of over 10% of his population in a pre-industrial nation. 2-3% would be the absolute upper limit even for the the most advanced nations at this time period. I think around 1500 troops would be more likely.

21:38, April 25, 2014 (UTC)

What is the current state of India that he would not be able to do this? If they are stable states, you are right, he needs an algorithm. The army is also too high. I'm not sure there has ever been an army that made up 10% of a country's population. What year is this, so it can be fixed? Cour *talk* 14:27, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

That was 1483.

I believe during WWII, Germany did have an army of over 10% of their population. But that was a heavily industrialized, modern nation fighting a total war for, basically, existence.

There are no longer any disorganized states in India. He needs an algorithm.

14:35, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

Right. I'll notify him. Cour *talk* 16:48, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

Except Feud beat me to the punch. Thanks Feud! Cour *talk* 16:50, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

Germany had a large army during WW2 as Guns said, but to get there by the end they had to enlist children and old men, most of whom were meth addicts or extremely fatigued. Tr0llis (talk) 17:03, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

... Meth addicts... 17:07, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

Labelled Map- SE Asia
I got bored, so I made a labelled map for SE Asia in 1485.



Here it is. Tell me if I got anything wrong, and what that thing in Australia is. 23:34, April 25, 2014 (UTC)

It looks good. The thing in Australia is the Marrikuwuyanga Empire. Callumthered (talk) 23:28, April 25, 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks.

23:34, April 25, 2014 (UTC)

I've added it.

It's kinda fun being almost alone in a region.

23:37, April 25, 2014 (UTC)

It really is... 06:11, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

I (Oman) control Banda Island if you want to add that. - FP - YNWA 11:32, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, FP, they're too small to appear here.

Though I am curious as to exactly how that happened...

Also, for some reason, even though I have uploaded a new version showing Dai Viet, the Marrikuwuyanga, and Sukhothai, the map isn;t showing them...

15:11, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

Wiki tends to do that some times. It shows up on the image at least when you click on it fully. Tr0llis (talk) 17:02, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

Oman controlled Banda before the start of the game in OTL and a quick check shows no one else has laid claim to it so in theory it is still under control of Oman. FP - YNWA 19:40, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

Please show me when Oman ruled the Banda Islands. I've never seen this before. Scandinator (talk) 14:41, May 1, 2014 (UTC)

Ethiopia

 * Location: 4
 * Nations Per Side: Ethiopia (L) = 5
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Military Development: 4 turns 8/12 = 0
 * Economic Development: = 5 turns 10
 * Economic Bonus: = +5 Larger Economy
 * Infrastructure: 5 turns 0
 * Motive: 3 (economic) 3
 * Chance: 838/(3*3*9) = 10.345679*3.14 = 32.485432098
 * Nation Age: 0 (1270 last change of gov)
 * Population: 9 (2,000,000)
 * Participation: 10
 * Number of Troops: EVEN
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Expansion: -6
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0
 * Total: 49

Eritrea

 * Location: 5
 * Nations Per Side: Eritrea (L) = 5
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Military Development : 6 turns 12/4 = 3
 * Economic Development: 6 turns = 12
 * Economic Bonus: -2 Smaller economy
 * Infrastructure: 7 turns = 14/2 = 7
 * Motive: 9 = 9
 * Chance: 5
 * Nation age: -5
 * Population: 6 (500,000)
 * Participation: 10
 * Number Of Troops: EVEN
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Vassals And Puppets: 0
 * Total: 56

Results

 * (56/(56+49))*2-1= 6.66%

Discussion
This algorithm probably needs to be redone by someone who actually knows what they're doing. Tr0llis (talk) 22:43, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

Fixed what I know how to fix. "This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 22:49, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so there is a ton wrong with this algo, and I will try to fix it to the best of my abilities. Now, lets start with the scores for the NPC. Infrastructure would be 7 (7 years) for the NPC, Econ would be 14 (7 years) and mil would be 12 (6 years). Now for your turns, you posted first in 1477 (mil), then in '78 you expanded, as with '79, '80, '81, '82, '83 before war in '84.

So, youa total of 20 years prior to the war (so from '64 to '83) and 13 NPC turns. This comes out to be 5 infrastructure (which do you no good), 8 econ (4 years), and 8 mil (4 years). Add in the one year of mil you did and we get 10 mil (5 years).

Now, for Tact Adv. You did not state the use of siege equipment when you declared war. I'll give that they propbably have little to no defensive measures because I am nice and do not want to argue. The defender gets highground. Asmara (the ancient Eritrean capital) is located on an escarpment. (see Wikipedia).

You totally skipped nations per side. You have a larger economy. Your motive is economic. Added motive modifiers. Iritriya's population would be much less. In 1960 Eritrea was at 1.5 million. I'd say (random guess) maybe 500,000. Your population would also be slightly less. Populstat puts Ethiopia at 7.6 million in 1890, so lets go with 2 million (still 4x bigger).

Defending, Iritriya can field about 1/6 of their total population while you can field maybe 1/18 when attacking. Fixed that. Just need to add chance. I would suggest an Eritrean counter offensive considering how much they won by. 08:08, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

The algo is all wrong. I worked on my infrastructure each turn. My motive should be higher. I want their coastal lands. My military should be higher I upgrade it and increase it each turn. I have a stronger military. My population is 5 million. I do not have a l low morale. (mods please fix the algo you did it all wrong) - Shadow

This is sitll not well done. Also remember that when you expand (which you've done the past few years). you cannot upgrade anything when you expand or are in conflict. g greg e  (talk)  16:49, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

Infra only applies to the defender. Your motive is economic- you want land. Your military is the number of turns you have developed it.

Permission to help with algo, mods?

17:03, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

Far as I can see, everything is correct save for the chance.

17:05, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

Greg's Version (Ethiopian Conquest of Eritrea 1484-???)
Greg, I do not think your algo is quite right. As Guns has stated (and he is pretty much the mod's official algo checker while I do it unofficially) the algo I revised is proper. Your algo is off in a number of ways (Nations per side, Tactical adv., Econ dev., motive modifiers). As such, I would advise not using Greg's algo but rather using the above algo. 06:29, April 28, 2014 (UTC)

Rex you added it wrong I fix it. For chance you forgot to add the 32 points for Ethiopia. - Scarlet

Chance doesn't work like that Scar, as far as I've noticed, it's the 2nd decimal digit of z. I took the liberty of fixing it. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 14:01, April 28, 2014 (UTC)

Please explain Rex? Mine is far superior than what was previously up there. In fact, anyone ever know the location scale only goes from 1 to 5? and its not divided by 5. There were horrendous errors with the previous one. If you have further corrections please let me know what you honestly think they are. Motive is dead on, Tactical advantage? Whats wrong with the 1 and 1? Nations per side .. explain. Please rerain from making such claims when you have not provided detail on how they are actually incorrect. In addition, the previous algo had the nation age wrong, didnt even bother doing chance, and lacked an accurate plausible number of troops for either side (although to be honest idk what the correct numbers should be, but i do know that 100,000+ to 83,000+ is no where near that). g greg e  (talk)  16:38, April 28, 2014 (UTC)

Pskov
Sorry, it was getting kinda crowded over there, so I'll make a new section of it's own.

Could Pskov colonize?

I say no. Firstly, Lx thinks that the population of Pskov is 700,000 in the modern day OTL. This is false, as any simple wikipedia search would reveal. It's 200,000. And that Oblast is in fact slightly larger than Pskov as it is ATL in 1485. Basically, population of Pskov should be around 25,000, not 250,000 as Lx thinks it is.

Secondly, Pskov has a single port. I cannot stress how important this is. This severely limits the size of the fleet he can plausibly have, and the amount of trade he would get. Keep in mind that at this tim, Russia isn't much more than a frozen backwater. Most of the trade is to Germany and Scandanavia, not the Russian states. Novgorod, Prussia, Hamburg, and Scandanavia would take almost all the trade in the Baltic. Pskov, plausibly, gets jackshit.

Third, Pskov has almost no reason to colonize. Trade? I think not. The only way that Pskov would be able to trade with it's colonies is on Scandanavia's say-so (they control the Oresund). As we've established, it's not like Pskov has much excess population.

Lastly- and I'll repeat this- no state no directly bordering the Atlantic colonized before 1700.

Basically, there is no way for Pskov to plausibly colonize in the 1500s, unless there is a massive change in status. For instance, if the Russian states united into a single federation (like in last game), I could see some limited colonization occuring. But even then, limited.

13:16, April 27, 2014 (UTC)


 * Courland had no reason to colonize either, and it had but one port too. However, since Courland didn't have someone telling them they had no reason to colonize (you know who you are), Courland established colonies in West Africa and South America since it had its own reasons to do so, not someone dictating what reasons they could have. Sweden had no connection to the Atlantic Ocean (Norway was still under Danish control), but it established its own colonies, and managed to maintain them until they were lost to their enemies. Seriously, everyone has an opinion and believe their opinion is the best one, leading to one side claiming ASB and the other side claiming plausbility. This is why the wiki is having so many problems. Flag of the Hurian Federation.png Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 18:46, April 28, 2014 (UTC)

I agree, although I too found closer to 700,000 when looking it up on Wikipedia. Tr0llis (talk) 13:32, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

Also Pskov ATL is bigger than OTL Pskov. I assume you're looking at Wikipedia's projection, which fits in all of Russia and looks kind of distorted. Tr0llis (talk) 13:42, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia says 203,000.

And actually, if you look at the area of that and the area here, you'll find that the modern Pskov Oblast is larger.

14:45, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

Whoops nvm, I was looking at the city. 650,000 is closer.

Doesn't change my point. So 70,000 rather than 25,000. Shouldn't be more than around one tenth OTL modern population.

14:53, April 27, 2014 (UTC)


 * Unless there is historical precidence for it. Such as in most countries of Europe (barring Russia). [[Image:1.png|23px]] Imp (Say Hi?!) 14:58, April 27, 2014 (UTC)


 * Lot more than Russia. Britain's population in this time period was less than 1% of it's modern population. Almost all of Europe. There are some exceptions, especially in Southern Europe, but generally speaking for European nations, at this time period between 1-10% of their population OTL modern day would be around.
 * 15:01, April 27, 2014 (UTC)


 * Guns I believe the population of the UK in this time period was higher than 600k. France for example has a population 1/3 its modern day numbers, while statistics for England at least point the nation having a population between 2.5 million to 3 million - around 5% of its modern day population. [[Image:1.png|23px]] Imp (Say Hi?!) 15:19, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
 * 660k. Around 1%. That's the population of England. 15:25, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
 * IN Russia during 1602-1603 66% of ALL russian population was killed off during a famine, leaving the population at less than 6 million, and since most resources were shipped to that capital, Moscow...beacuse, well, its the capita, 90% of the population of pskov in particular was killed off by a famine, leaving the population at less than 25 000 for the entire pskov oblast region. No such famine has yet occured. FOr russia, this famine was more destructive than the black plague was for europe. Also, another reason for the lack of growth is the fact that Pskov was overshadowed by its larger russian cities, namely Novgorod and then St Petersburg once it became part of russia, not being independant, people would rather move to the capital instead of stay in pskov, hampering growth etc... Pskov Got overshadowed once it lost its independace, which, for all intents in purposes never happened ATL, so I do believ ethe current estimate of 250 000 is accurate, accounting for the diaspora that fled the Tatars after the Karelian war, which pskov made sure get panflets saying how much better pskov is than moscow, and how they should move there. FIne, maybe 200 000 if you're being conservative. Also, on the "Russia is frozen backwater" part, completely false, Pskov is one of two centers for the Cultural and scientific revolution known as the renaissance, and one of the inventors of the Printing press, able to disseminate ideas, the Pskov university being one of the most presteious at least in russia if not in the baltic region. Russia, I believe, was at least moderately on-par with Europe before the renaissance, especialy in 1400, but it was lack of interaction with the west(the one thing Pskov always had as a "Frontier region" of russia) that the renassance never got to russia really and russia only modernized OTL because Peter the Gerat forced it onto Russia. This isnt happening ATL. ATL Russia has muich more contact witht he west, and Russia is advancing technologicaly along with the west, and since it was happening. Pskov is the center of the renaissance in Russia, and has one of the only armies comletely armed with guns(only possible due to its size, since it's not very large, and pskov has lots of money throguh trade, it can afford to arm a small force with advanced firearms). Another last thing, Despite me only having "one port", I believe that the most limiting factor would be population. Most of my ships are trade ships, and are out, well, trading, and they are away, and stop by periodicaly, the port is supposed to be growing with more people moving to the shipyards, and the war fleet is the largest compared to population of all Russina staes, although it is pretty small. small enough to be based in one port, and the Gulf of Finland.-Lx (leave me a message)Azarath Flag.png 19:13, April 27, 2014 (UTC)


 * Im just going to put it out there that you will not be colonizing. Trade city or not, your location is probably one of the worst in the game. Your stretch of coast is small enough i can personally turn it into a early morning Jog. Your fleet is nowhere on par with the nations that are actually colonizing and could not support a colonial venture. Pskov is not this amazing nation your claiming it to be and your essentially asking us to let you do something not is not just out of your scope, but so deep in the realms of ASB that we might as well hatch dragons and go conquer Westeros. Pskov is not colonizing case closed.
 * SO you do multiple marathons as a morning jog? good for you, I could count on my fingers the ammount of people that do that. Also, My fleet is if not at par but superior to Hamburg's and Oldenburgs. If you are excluyding me form colonizing, you better be consistent. My fleet could support a colonial venture, although the arguments on the against side all boil down to at this point: I believe pskov is so backwater compared to the rest of europe, despite being a center of the renaissance, that having it muscle up the money to sail abroad would ammount to magic comming into the world, and we dont realy care about any arguments form the other side because we'll let our predetermined points of view guide us unwaiveringly. I built up pskov to support the economy, and to support the navy, and if you are going to tell me my coast is insignificant, -Lx (leave me a message)Azarath Flag.png 22:54, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense. Pskov has had 80 years to do what Hamburg has done in 400. If you were larger in anyway, I can understand something like that- but you're tiny. Your fleet could barely support my sig. 00:47, April 28, 2014 (UTC)


 * Doesn't matter. It's 10% practically everywhere else, and there is no reason why that shouldn't be true in Russia.
 * 20:29, April 27, 2014 (UTC)]
 * What about a famine that killed off 2/3 of russia in the early 1600s, that ook 100 years to recover from? think black death but only in russia and worse percentagewise-Lx (leave me a message)Azarath Flag.png 22:54, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
 * Look up some stats. The population of ALL Russia after the Time of Troubles was approx 2% OTL modern. Rules still stands; 70,000. My capital city is almost 3x the population of your entire nation. 23:07, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
 * I did, and Pskov's population was well into the mid-to-high 100 000s y that point.-Lx (leave me a message)Azarath Flag.png 02:15, April 28, 2014 (UTC)

According to several different sources, the population of England alone at this time hovered around the 2 million mark, Scotland, a mere 500,000 Wales was also a small population. It is actually quite difficult to get accurate data due the the fact the UK didn't have a census till the late 1800s in OTL. regardless of this fact, several things in ATL have led to a larger increase in population, the total of all Albion( including Eire) is hovering at around 4-5 million. Still much smaller than otl France or Castile.ALLONS-Y!!,Basically, RUN!! 00:00, April 28, 2014 (UTC)


 * My bad, in that case.


 * Nevertheless- the 10% rule still holds true, for every nation in Europe except France.


 * 00:04, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * Pskov republic population was estimated in modern times to be about 150-160 K in 1500. Due to certain policies that led to increase in population and increase in urbanization, my numbers of 250K, fine, 200K if you want to be conservative. Pskov alone had a pop. of 60K in the early 15th century. I only found in all my serches only 2 sources that could give me a population of Pskov or Russia in general...and I can't find the second one (abouyt city) but I could point you to another one. So far, I have an actual estimate that puts population, you have a generalization.-Lx (leave me a message)Azarath Flag.png 01:02, April 28, 2014 (UTC)


 * The Only person that thinks you can colonize is yourself. Lx, get off the high horse and realize you lost the arguement. You dont have the fleet to support it. Your fleet is not Superior to Hamburg and is probably on par with Oldenburg (who is much much closer than you and doesnt have a ton of hostile waters to go through) This is really no longer about population. Your Ability to colonize is essentially non existant. Why would Pskov waste the money on colonization when its position sucks, and it has a hostile power recognized as one of Europes great powers practically on its doorstep. Thats literally like asking Great Britain to go invade the United States in the middle of the Blitz. The General consensus is that you cant colonize. You would have to conquer all the current Russian states and then we might consider it. But outside of that your stretchng plausibility a bit

Calm down, the whole lot of you.

Lx is, roughly, correct about the otl population of the area and the historical population. And here, it would not doubt be higher. And, with activities not being able to be directed towards the east, there will be other ways, in theory, done to mitigate that lack.

Colonization on a limited scale is not only logical for this version of Pskov, but probable.

Lordganon (talk) 20:45, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

So you think a tiny nation with a SINGLE port, a small fleet, surrounded by nations that are way more powerful that it, unable to access the Atlantic without the agreement of a hostile power which it has fought (and lost) against several time before in the last 30 years alone, could somehow colonize North America?

LG, much as I respect your opinion, I don't think you're looking at this knowing all the facts in the situation. Also, I doubt that the population of Pskov is 300,000 (nealry 1/2 OTL modern day population). The total population of Russia OTL in 1500 was 6 million. This includes Moscow, Novgorod, the remanants of the Golden Horde, and other smaller Eastern Europe states.

ALL of them were larger than Pskov.

21:15, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

Guns I do not trust your population specs anymore, when I have clearly stated the English population at this time period was 2.5 - 3 mil and you stated it was 660k. Here is the reason I said the population of England was around 5% of its current population. As you can see clearly, you were grossly wrong. Please, do not use population specs and focus on other aspects instead. Imp (Say Hi?!) 21:22, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

In any case, even if the population was 2.5 million, they still would not be able to colonize. They're horrendously weak, they don't have much trade, they're surrounded by larger powers, the most powerful of which is extremely hostile and ALSO controls their path into the Atlantic.

Pskov colonizing America... 12/10 would ask Michael Bay to direct.

They wouldn't be able to colonize before 1700 at the earliest, and even then probably only on a very limited scale.

21:30, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

As much as he made an interesting point i really dont see who we can take off the list in Favor of Pskov... Oldenburg already has experience colonizing greenland and whatnot so we cant really remove him when he technically already has colonies. Hamburg is really the only other one and hes either greater or on par with pskov and is closer even.... I mean i guess Hamburg could be replaced but this isnt a decision i would be allowed to make Alone. Another thing i heard was that hes just the earliest "Other" colonizer around.

Well frankly speaking, no one denies that Pskov can colonize eventually- it'll just be in the distant future, around 1700-1750.

Also, seriously, I'm bordering Australia. Small colony?

21:38, April 30, 2014 (UTC)

No sorry rules are 1700 for ALL were not altering that


 * I'm inclined to agree with Guns, he can literally see Australia from his land.
 * I'm LITERALLY 100 miles away from a large, barely inhabited land, which, in certain parts is extremely lush (such as the Kakadu national park, just a 100 miles south of my territory). I have a fricking gigantic navy, maybe 4th or 5th best in the world. Possibly higher. I guess you, China, England, maybe Scandanavia might have larger.
 * I have a large, trade-based economy.
 * I'm basically the superpower in the region of SE Asia.
 * Like, what? Why would I NOT be able to colonize? One reason beyond "thems the rules"?
 * 23:56, April 30, 2014 (UTC)

Caucasian Confederation (Attacker)

 * Location: [3 (Georgia) + 4 (Rani) + 4 (Amier-Kavkasia)]/3 = 11/3 = 3.667... ~= 4
 * Nations Involved: Georgia (L), Rani (LV), Amier-Kavkasia (LV), Armenia (MV), Assyria (MV) = 13/5 = 2.6 ~= 3
 * Tactical Advantage: 7 (high ground, siege equipment)
 * Military Development: (7 + 7 + 7)/6 = 21/6 = 3.5 ~= 4
 * Georgia, Rani, Amier-Kavkasia: 7 each (1465, 1470, 1473, 1475, 1477, 1480, 1483)
 * Economic Development: (7 + 7 + 7 + 5)/5 = 26/5 ~= 5.2 ~= 5
 * Georgia, Rani, Amier-Kavkasia: 7 each (1471, 1472, 1476, 1478, 1481, 1482, 1484)
 * Larger economy (trade network, currency exchange, highways, ports): 5
 * Infrastructure: 0 (attacking)
 * Motive: 3 (economic) + 4 (popular non-dem. gov.) + 5 (high morale) = 12
 * Chance: 5
 * Edit Count: 263
 * UTC: 22:10 = 2 * 2 * 1 * 0 = 4
 * Edits/UTC * pi = (263/4) * pi = 206.5 5 9
 * Nation Age: 0 (1413 - 72 years = maturing nation)
 * Population: 9 (2,033,000 > 1,267,000)
 * Participation: 10
 * Number of Troops: 22,000/38,000 = 0.578 ~= 1
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Vassals/Puppets: -4 (Armenia, Assyria, Rani, Amier-Kavkasia)
 * Total: 56

Sultanate of Azerbaijan (Defender)

 * Location: 5
 * Nations Involved: Azerbaijan (L) = 5/13 = 0.384 ~= 0
 * Tactical Advantage: 1 (open field)
 * Military Development: 6/21 = 0
 * NPC: 20 turns, round down = 6
 * Economic Development: 5/26= 0
 * NPC: 20 turns, round up = 7 - 2 (smaller economy) = 5
 * Infrastructure: 7
 * NPC: 20 turns, round up = 7
 * Motive: 9 (defending heartland from potentially fatal attack)
 * Chance: 9
 * Edit Count: 263
 * UTC: 22:10 = 2 * 2 * 1 * 0 = 4
 * Edits/UTC * pi = (263/4) * pi = 206.55 9
 * Nation Age: 0 (1415 - 70 years = maturing nation)
 * Population: 7 (1,267,000)
 * Participation: 10
 * Number of Troops: 38,000/22,000 = 1.727 ~= 2
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0
 * Total: 48

Results
[(56/[48+56])*2]-1 = [(56/104)*2] - 1 = [0.5385 * 2] - 1 = 1.0769 = 7.69%

(7.69%)*(1-1/(2[3])) = 7.69% * (1 - 1/6) = 7.69% * (5/6) = 7.69% * .833 = 6.41%

Georgia and its allies should eke out a minor victory, winning by a margin of 7.69%. Assuming the war lasts 3 years, Georgia and its allies will gain 6.41% of Azerbaijan's territory.

Discussion
This is the first draft, so let me know if anything's wrong with my calculations. I assumed 3% of Azerbaijan's population would be available for military service, as compared to 2% of Georgia and its committed allies. Other nations may join in, so this isn't a finalized version, though it is accurate for the current situation as far as I'm aware. TankOfMidgets (talk) 22:35, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

Cuzco (Attacker)
Total: 92
 * Location: +5
 * Tactical Advantage: +1
 * Nations: Cuzco (L) Qullasuyu =+7
 * Military Development: 20/5=+4
 * Economic Development: (13 years *2)+5+5+3+1=40 ( I have a larger trade empire than him.)
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: 3+7+4+5= 19
 * Chance: 5
 * Edit count: 334
 * UTC: 0:55 (25) = 25 (Time i started)
 * Total: 334/25*pi (3.14159265359) = 41.9504
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 6000/3000=+2
 * Recent Wars: -1
 * Vassals and Puppets: -1

Ica-Nazca (Defender)
Total: 41.5
 * Location: +4 (he moved his capital away from me)
 * Tactical Advantage: 0
 * Nations: Ica Nazca (L) X (LV) X (LV) X(LV) X (LV)= 17
 * Military Development: 4
 * Economic Development: 4-3 ( they have stopped trade with Cuzco, meaning their economy would be shrinking)= 1
 * Expansion: -2
 * Infrastructure: 5
 * Motive: 9+4-5= 8
 * Chance: 0
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 (0) =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: +2
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 3000/6000=.5
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 4 vassals particapting= -8

Result

 * ((92/(41.5+92)))-1 = 0.37
 * (..37)*(1-1/(2*5)) = ..33= 33% of the Ica-Nazca
 * Cuzco topples the Ica-Nazca

Discussion
X represents things that need to be plugged in (only the names of his vassals at this point)

So from what i understand, the NPC's don't get plus 2 for every year of development, only +1, which makes no sense to me but whatever ill take it.

Also, I recounted my development, I have 10 years for the military and 13 years for the economy. mulltiply both by 2 and i get 20 and 26 "Today is the day of Reckoning sir, You screwed up... '' You screwed up..." '' 02:22, April 28, 2014 (UTC)

THIS is the final version, unless a mod tells me i messed something up roally, this is a done algorithm. "Today is the day of Reckoning sir, You screwed up... '' You screwed up..." '' 02:29, April 28, 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, language. There is a difference between chat-speak and the type of language that you use on the talk page of the most-editted page on the wiki. Please, do not curse again on the talk page as it is quite unbecoming of a map game of this caliber. I *'d the "u" 06:32, April 28, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. At the time of doing this, I had been awake for 30 hours straight and my mind was a bit numb.Ive changed it to messed up. "Today is the day of Reckoning sir, You screwed up... '' You screwed up..." '' 10:38, April 28, 2014 (UTC)

Map Making
Now that I'm unbanned I'd like to get back to map making. This is just a general reminder to everyone to leave their changes in the map issues section and I will add it. Mscoree (talk) 18:06, April 28, 2014 (UTC)

Thank god. Swanky had a temper tantrum and flashed out, Scraw's kinda AWOL, and my nation has, in that last 20 years, taken a lot of territory with the map doesn't show.

Oh, and I'm back.

21:12, April 28, 2014 (UTC)

Exams
Me (and probably FP) will only be able to sparsly post throughout May and early June due to exams. I may still be around althistory to post and stuff but not much. Just as a note to the mods to tell them I'm not going AWOL. Imp (Say Hi?!) 21:25, April 28, 2014 (UTC)

That's true for me too- I'll mainly be copy pasting if I have time Ozymandias2 (talk) 22:36, April 28, 2014 (UTC)

Imp. I haven't slept more than 5 hours in WEEKS. Get on my level.

00:32, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

Lack of sleep tends to decrease your ability to memorize, so you'd be much better off getting a full nights rest each night while studying before. Sounds like Imp is already a level above you. Mscoree (talk) 00:35, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

Mhm.

You know how they say "Good Grades, Social Life, Sleep; Pick two?"

Let me give you a hint; I didn't choose the third one.

01:04, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

How about 90% in one and 55% in the other two? That adds up to 200%.

01:07, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

How about "I've had multiple girlfriends?"

01:12, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

I have all 3. Then again Im taking A level classes in 2 subjects so grades aren't an issue. "Today is the day of Reckoning sir, You screwed up... '' You screwed up..." '' 01:43, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

Well, its only the first one for me. I rarely get more than 5 hours, apart from the last few days where I have managed 8. Social life - Facebook counts yea? ;) Imp (Say Hi?!) 13:52, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

Wow, you'd fit in at my HS. 100% of the students have the first. 25% have the second. 0% have the last.

21:57, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

Batman
Can we please shut up about the goddamn Batman? It used to quaint but now it's just annoying. --Yank 01:46, April 29, 2014 (UTC)
 * I second that
 * Whoever is posting that, you are neither funny nor plausible. If you wanted to bring down Hans Hendriks or whatever, you'd make legit mod events, not these pathetic, implausible excuses for mod events. Shut up. 01:53, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

What was once a clever breaking of the fourth wall has become a bloated series of unfunny excuses for the mods not to write real events. Bfoxius (talk)

As was said above:

I don't think they're being made to be funny or implausible, they're just creative/original events. Gotham, from what Andrew tells me, if a plausible name for an English town. Keep in mind though that Gotham has nothing to do with Balthasar, and he just made that in his turn, not a moderator event. From what I've seen they've actually contributed a lot to the game, progressing actual major events, like wars.

Events aren't made to amuse you. If you don't like them just don't read them, but the events themselves serve a purpose in the area. You can't remove an event just because it affects your area and you don't like it.

Also, they never once broke the fourth wall. NonEuclidean ツ (Talk) 02:10, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

No. If events have an actual purpose they DO NOT INVOLVE FUCKING BATMAN. Any "purpose" here is just smoke and mirrors, it doesn't actually exist. This is not just unfunny, it's downright implausible.

Events are made to move the game forward, not crack bad jokes while being derivative.

Four users here, Cookie above, and others elsewhere have stated that they think these are stupid, implausible, unfunny, and should be taken down.

02:15, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

I keep asking this and no one tells me (Yank basically ignored me when I asked him), how are they implausible? I honestly just want to know. Also if you've read any you'd see they actually are heavily advancing the plot in Germany, creating multiple problems and situations in the Reichstag. NonEuclidean ツ (Talk)

How is Batman, the Joker, Robin, and Gotham implausible in ATL 1500...

Non, I have a suggestion. Before you write out a sentence, THINK about it first.

02:31, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

Balthasar was a real person, although he is changed considerably, as is his lineage. Note he's not actually called "Batman" widely, most people would refer to him as (Prince) Balthasar von Habsburg, or Balthasar the Vespertilio. The Joker is a German term, so it makes sense as a German nickname. Robin is a name used in Europe from the Old Germanic word for "Fame". And lastly Gotham wasn't even made in moderator events, so that one is irrelevent. It sounds like you have no actual complaints about the plausibility, you just dislike the coincidental names. Mscoree (talk) 02:36, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

It seems we have reached a compromise on these events, so please consider the matter closed. Mscoree (talk) 13:48, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

Before anyone jumps down my throat. Gotham is AN ACTUAL TOWN IN ENGLAND! Just south of Nottinghamshire and was founded near 1500. So back off, my event was not a mod event but was a player decision that just happened to coincide with to those events, they were not even really related.ALLONS-Y!!,Basically, RUN!! 22:30, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, did not realize that at the time.

22:31, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

Improved labelled map(s)
I've made a new map of india, since the previous one was heavily outdated.

I might make more new labelled maps if needed. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 09:55, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

If I am not wrong, isn't Delhi part of the Mughal Empire according to the map we use on the main page? Causes there is no state next to Jaunpur on the main page. - User talk:HeiligReich 17:07, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

Ya, seems so. Will fix it then. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 18:22, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

Here's what Delhi is: http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Treaty_of_Delhi_(Principia_Moderni_III_Map_Game)#Terms

Map oversight, kind of like the thing the Mughal's faced with Bahamani as a vassal, but not represented on the main page. If we are going to ignore the treaty of Delhi, then we may as well say Bahamani was never a vassal of the Mughals because of it not being shown on the main page. Eiplec - ಠ_ಠ (talk) 00:29, April 30, 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, but in the treaty map, some lands which hadn't been otl Jaunpur had gone to Jaunpur, and parts of Delhi have gone to Jaunpur too, therefore I suggest we use Heilig's version of the map and I will adapt the labeled one according to his one. (Heilig0s is correct with the land division and has delhi on it) <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 07:54, April 30, 2014 (UTC)

Tibet
Is Jbwncster still playing as Tibet?Ozymandias2 (talk) 21:47, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

He hasn't been around for a while. I think Tibet is considered npc now.

Ava (Attacker)
Total: 52
 * Location: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations: Ava (LM) = 8
 * Military Development: 7/2 = 3.5
 * Economic Development: 7/2 = 3.5
 * Economic Bonus: Smaller Economy (-2) = -2
 * Expansion:
 * Infrastructure: 6/2 = 3
 * Motive: Defending Core/Heartland from possibly fatal attack = 9
 * Chance: 6
 * Edit count: 1,629
 * UTC: Same as below
 * Total: Same as below
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Population: Something around 4-5,000,000 = 7
 * Participation: 10
 * Number of Troops: 40,000/45,000 = 0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Bengal (Defender)
Total: 113.925
 * Location: 4
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations: Bengal (LM), Orissa (LMV), Kamarumpa (LMV) = 20
 * Military Development: 40/3.5 = 11.4
 * Economic Development: 40/3.5 = 11.4
 * Economic Bonus = 10
 * Expansion:
 * Infrastructure:
 * Motive: Aiding Social/Religious Kinsmen who are being oppressed (7) + Non-democratic government supported by people (4) + Morale (5) = 16
 * Chance: 6
 * Edit count: 1,629
 * UTC: 4:21 = 4*1*2*1 = 8
 * Total: 1629/8*pi=639.7068040872
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Population: 10 (Five to ten times larger), over 10,000,000 = 8, so = 18
 * Participation: 10
 * Number of Troops: 45,000/ 40,000 = 1.125
 * Recent Wars: 0

Result
((114/(52+114))*2)-1 = 0.3734939759 = 37.34%

(37.34939)*(1-1/(2*3)) = 31.12449%

Discussion
You do realize that since you are defending you must make a counter offensive algo in order to actually win over one to two percent. Otherwise you just repel the attack. 05:45, May 3, 2014 (UTC)

Gwalior to Madinah
I've noticed that the gwalior player, HeiligReich switched to Mecca... Was he allowed to do so? <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 17:10, May 1, 2014 (UTC)

'''As far as I am aware you cannot switch nations because you don't like something, but only if your nation is destroyed, conquered, or subjugated. Secondly, if you can switch, you signed up as the Caliphate of Mecca (which was in dissary)and you are posting as the Caliphate of Madinah... they are two different nations so you cannot be both nor claim to own one with the other ''' g greg e   (talk)

'''War would've started at Gwalior anyway because Raja Vikram would've never accepted the Indian Leagues resolution to bring an end to the Gwalior-Mughal alliance. Instead of waiting for 2-3 days for the war to end with Gwalior's defeat, I came to the conclusion as to why not instead join as Caliphate of Madinah and have my nation (finally) added to the map.. In case I broke the rule, I would like to apologize .-.'''

Probably wouldn't, actually going to war inside the League is hard (as you've seen). You still have a lot of options and honestly, mods won't let you leave. And sign your posts <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 18:01, May 1, 2014 (UTC)

'''I mean Gwalior would've refused to accept the resolution. Then the League would certainly be forced to either lay complete economic sanctions on Gwalior or use force to make Vikram abdicate the throne.''' I'll be honest, I seriously do not want to be Gwalior because being part of the Indian League restricts your ability to align with some nations or expand at all. When I had originally joined as Gwalior, I was unaware of the Treaty of Delhi and Indian League. Now I know exactly how this game works and realized I was better off as Arabia. BTW I switched to Caliphate of Madinah - HeiligReich

OOC: In case I need a mods permission, then I would like to have one atm.

Mate, Oman and Yemen are near, and soon to be allied, so you watch your back, you're not necessarily better off... - FP(problem?) 18:17, May 1, 2014 (UTC)

'''Well, I certainly won't be in the same situation as I was in Gwalior where I was forced to act like Bengals vassal. Besides, I am not waging war against Yemen or Oman.'''

You get 1 switch, that is your final one 

Peasant Uprising (Attacker)

 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage: Open field +1
 * Nations: Peasants (L) (no organization, it's just a peasant revolt, but whatever)= 5
 * Military Development: 0
 * Economic Development: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 7 (I'll give them aiding kinsmen, though I'm not sure why since I'm not really oppressing anyone)
 * Modifiers: 4 (popular support)
 * Chance: 8 see below

Total: 55
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 (0) =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: -10 (newborn, I guess)
 * Population: Since it's just an uprising, I guess I'll just give them the people who are behind the revolt. +5
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 5,000/50,000 = 0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

The Kingdoms of Ayutthaya (Defender)

 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage: Open field +1
 * Nations: Ayutthaya (L) = 5
 * Military Development: 20/0 => 20
 * Economic Development: 20/0 => 20
 * Expansion: -2 (The war in the Majapahit, like 7 years ago)
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: +4 Defending territory held for less than 20 years
 * Modifiers: 9 (Support, high morale)
 * Chance: 6

Total: 139
 * Edit count: 7709
 * UTC: 9:18 = 72
 * Total: 7709/72*(3.14159265359) = 336.368580091
 * Nation Age: +5 (mature)
 * Population: 8+20(more than 10x opposing population) = 28
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 50,000/5000 => 10
 * Recent Wars: -2 (Majapahit)
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result

 * ((139/(55+139))*2)-1 = 43.299
 * Who gives a flying **** I own all this territory anyway. REVOLT PUT DOWN AFTER ONE YEAR OF FIGHTING.

Discussion
You did location waaaaaay wrong. You can only go to +5 with location. also you dont decide their troops numbers thats done by a mod. as for oppression you did conquer them so that goes a long way. Their motive is +9. not to mention their population would be +6 or +7 and they get a bonus for popular revolt. i will fix here soon -Feud

'''Wait, what? Who changed that back? The location has done in multiples of five for quite some time, after that idiotic war last game when Viva conquered a nation halfway across the world in a single turn. Location is HUGE. Can I see where that was changed? Who decided to change it?'''

Why would their population be 6 or 7? Are you seriously suggesting that every single Majapahitan is taking part in a peasant uprising?

Their troop numbers, fine. But if that's more than 10,000, I'm calling BS. This is a peasant uprising.

Oppression gives 7, not 9.

22:17, May 1, 2014 (UTC)

Guns location goes from 0-5 for the time being and has for months... As it stands 12,000 was the number i was thinking of. As for the people going in an uprising yeah +6 is easily doable if they are fighting to liberate themselves and since its a popular revolt they can and extra 1.5 i believe too. -Feud

In seccessionist revolts the rebels are the defenders. Mscoree (talk) 23:16, May 1, 2014 (UTC)

Why was that location thing changed, and can we change it back? Literally, locationally implausible war rank right up there next to the Great Caliphial Clusterfuck as reasons the last game died.

Are you high? You think an un-organized revolt in a nation of a little over than a million people is going to raise up hundreds of thousands of people? Remember- this is an UPRISING. It's not an state trying to become independent, it's a bunch of farmers protesting the Ayutthayan takeover. The population of this revolt won't be more than 50-100,000.

An organized rebellion is quite implausible, too, since the children of all nobles are sent to the city of Ayutthaya in order to be educated- it's an all round benefit, as the King doesn't get uprisings from his lesser kings and lords, and their kids get to make connections in the capital, and get to be educated.

Basically, the only people who can rebel are the farmers, who are illiterate and basically not capable of launching a legit rebellion.

But I can deal with the rest. THE LOCATION THING. We need to discuss this. Who changed that, and what were they smoking?

23:20, May 1, 2014 (UTC)

Also Ms it's not a secessionist revolt it's only a peasant uprising the mod event was pretty clear about that.

23:21, May 1, 2014 (UTC)

The Algo is not being changed back to that. the location is fine, sorry this isnt your run of the mill algorithm. Location remains the same. No more complaints

Guns, why the fuck are you complaining about location? You still win by a huge margin. Guns, seriously, you seem to want to fuck logic - can't you see removing the location from the rebels helps you too? *facepalm* Imp (Say Hi?!) 14:34, May 2, 2014 (UTC)

'''Guns when I wrote this event it was a revolt that did not require an algorithm at all. '''The fact that you made an algorithm anyway is basically stating that this is a seccessionist revolt considering that to make an algorithm you need to be combating some sort of nation. For a regular revolt there is no algorithm, you just need to deal with it in your turns. Mscoree (talk) 14:38, May 2, 2014 (UTC)

My bad, whatever, I'll cross this out. My bad, guys.

21:28, May 2, 2014 (UTC)

Kafta's Claim for Ethiopia (1490-????)
Alexandrian Coalition (Attacker)
 * Location: +4 +4 +4 + 3 + 4 + 3 + 3 +3 = 3.5 ~ +4
 * Tactical Advantage: +6 (Siege and Open Fields)
 * Nations: Alexandria (L), Aiguptia (MV), Oman (M), Hungary (M), Madinah (M), Netherlands (M), Mughal (M), Caucasian Confederation (M) = 5+ 2 +3 +3 +3 +3+3 +3 ~ +3
 * Military Development: 10 turns=20 20/8 = 2.5 ~ +3
 * Economic Development: 5 turns = +10
 * Economic Bonus = +2 (Alexandria) +10 (Much Larger Economy) +5 (Larger Trade)
 * Expansion: -1
 * Infrastructure: 2 turns N/A
 * Motive: +7 Political Hegemony
 * Modifier: +6 Coalition Troop Morale high (requires motive over 5, chance over 4, and stronger development scores in at least one category)
 * Chance:


 * Edit count: 907
 * UTC: 6:55 = 150
 * Total: 907/150*pi = 18.9865333
 * Nation Age Average: +5 Mature.
 * Population: 8+20 = +28 (4,300,000 which is Alexandria and Aiguptia + all other involved nations)
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 60/15 +4

Total: 103
 * 10k Hungary
 * 1k Caliphate of Madinah
 * 2k Mughal
 * 10k Netherlands
 * 15k Alexandria
 * 5k Aiguptia
 * 9k Caucasian Confederation
 * 8k Yemen
 * Recent Wars: -7 (-2 Alexandria, -1 Aiguptia, -2 Caucasian Confederation, -2 Hungary)
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Ethiopian Pretenders (Defender) Total: 46
 * Location: +5
 * Tactical Advantage: +2 (High ground)
 * Nations: Ethiopia (L) = +5
 * Military Development: 4 turns = 8/20 = .4 ~ 0
 * Economic Development: 5 turns = +10
 * Economic Bonus = -2 (smaller Economy)+ -2 Receding Economy (trade cut off and blockaded) -4
 * Expansion: -10
 * Infrastructure: 4 turns of buildup = +8
 * Motive: +9 Defending fatal attack
 * Chance: 18.9865333
 * Nation Age: +0
 * Population: +7 (2,150,000)
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops:15k/55k
 * Recent Wars: -2 (L in Conquest of Eritrea)
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result

 * ((103/(46+103)*2)-1 = 0.3825503
 * (38.3)*(1-1/(2*4)) = 33.5125
 * The war lasts for 4 years and Kafta takes control of full control of Ethiopia. This algo is still subjuct to nation additions.
 * War Ended at the end of 1490 by the Treaty of Addis Ababa

Nations to be added and other things i need to do:
The exact troop numbers for Netherlands and Yemen are plausible estimates.

Discussion
This war is ASB because we were allies at once and I told him not to touch my throne. - Scarlet

We were never allies because we never came to terms on any of your agreements. This war is not asb at all. Kafta has a claim to the throne. Also I am not opposed to you continueing to play as Ethiopia if we can come to an agreement about it. g greg e  (talk)  19:30, May 2, 2014 (UTC)

Milan is sending supplies to this war. Tr0llis (talk) 21:14, May 3, 2014 (UTC)

Australia
Ok, now as the rules go, Australia is offlimits to colonization prior to 1700.

I fully understand this limit for European nations, but I'm legitmately 100 miles away from Australia. I have a large navy, a large population (approx 16+ million if you count vassals too), and a trade based economy. I talk about my trade or navy every single turn.

Is it really impossible for me to establish a small colony in Australia? Is there any reason apart from "RULES FTW"?

23:13, May 2, 2014 (UTC)

Whole I think Gun's nation colonizing early or even before 1650, I feel that once he starts to colonize Australia is clearly his best bet, it is much closer to him geographically and culturally.

What's more, the rule is to serve for a check on plausibility but forcing him into the Americas is even MORE implausible. 05:53, May 3, 2014 (UTC)

No no stop. I want to be Australia. BTW can someone explain the rules to me a bit, I mean like the basics only. I know about developing military/economy etc but explain to me how do we fight (algorithm). Also, will I be Maori Australia and how do I join? - RexImperio

Firstly: RexImperio, I have no idea what you mean by "Maori Australia". The maoris are from New Zealand, and never even visited Australia. Australia is inhabited by hundreds of groups of Aborigines, two of which have been centralised into proto-states by mod events in-game (in the real world, this did not occur). If you were to play as either maoris or aborigines, you would have to pick one group and, due to the technological limitations of those groups, you would not be able to do very much.

Secondly: Guns, I can understand why you would want to colonise Australia, and on the whole, I am not opposed to the idea. However, I think you should wait before you do any colonising. Now, in OTL there were also countries which were "legitimately 100 miles away from Australia" but none of them colonised (or even really had much contact at all) with Australia. The reason? In short (and making a broad generalisation) Northern Australia isn't really the most inviting place for explorers/colonisers. The environment's not very good, there's little water, nothing of any real value (except for eucalyptus trees and some exotic animals) and the population is not that keen on meeting other people. I mean, it took the British three attempts in the 19th Century before they succeeded in establishing the settlement which grew into Darwin. However, it must also be said that your situation is a bit different from otl. As you said, you have been talking about your trade and navy a lot. And unlike in otl, there is the Marrikuwuyanga "Empire" in Arnhem Land. So this is what I propose: you establish trade relations with the Marrikuwuyanga which steadily increase over a thirty year period. Then you establish a very small outpost/colony outside of Marrikuwuyanga territory (I'd say either in the Joseph Bonaparte Gulf or on Cape York) which slowly and gradually -over the course of centuries- grows into a fully-fledged, colony. I think your activities should be limited to the Northern coast (which I will define arbitratily as between otl Broome and the very tip of Cape York) until 1700, when other countries are allowed to colonise. I also think that the territorial integrity of the Marrikuwuyanga should be respected.

So that is my opinion as a mod and as someone who knows a thing or two about the history of my own country. Callumthered (talk) 11:59, May 3, 2014 (UTC)

Omg sorry, I meant Aborigines. Also can I be this Marrikuwuyanga Empire? I just edited in Mareikuwuyanga into the Sign Up place in Australia - RexImperio

It looks like they are open, so feel free to sign up as them. As for the basic rules you were asking for, I recommend you read through the Rules Page a bit. Good luck and welcome to the game! Mscoree (talk) 14:51, May 3, 2014 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting now, but I mean around 1550-1600. It'll take me that long to get to Eastern Australia, and from there I can go forth. But I don't think that a "one-size-fits-all" rule would be plausible here.

15:19, May 3, 2014 (UTC)

'''Can one of you guys create a page for the Marrikuwuyanga Empire for me? I can do the rest but I am having some problem in creating a page •-•'''

-- RexImperio

I don't think you need one, but whatever. Go to the top of your page, and click the button that says "contribute", then "add page".

BTW, that name of yours seems very interesting as related to two of our current users, Imperium Guy and Reximus555, lol.

21:00, May 3, 2014 (UTC)

It's going to be hard to give him a nickname which will avoid confusion!

RexImperio, in terms of information about the Marrikuwuyanga, just go through previous turns, (including the archived turns) and Ctrl+F for the Marrikuwuyanga. The various mod events should give you a good idea of roughly what you're dealing with. Good luck, if you need any more help just ask!

As for you Guns, as I said, I think you should be limited to my arbitrarily defined Northern coast until 1700 (maybe we can cut some slack and say 1600). I reckon you could establish your first little tiny colony on the Northern coast in 1525 even. Just so long as you're plausible about the expansion and population (and I have no reason to expect you wouldn't). Callumthered (talk) 21:45, May 3, 2014 (UTC)

'''I know how to make a page, but I find it impossible to do so whilst I use a phone. That's why I requested if someone else could just make it and I would edit and do the rest. BTW @GusnadGlory, the Marrikuwuyanga would definitely NOT want a seige gun. Rather medicines? Some food? And maybe a little help in proving Emperor Yada Gulpilils divinity to the other tribes - RexImperio'''

RexImperio, having a nation page is not a requisite for playing, if you really want one, just wait until you have access to a computer/tablet. And, just quietly, what better way to prove one's divinity than through a massive cannon? And why "some food"? The Marrikuwuyanga are perfectly capable of feeding themselves, thay have been doing so for thousands upon thousands of years. Callumthered (talk) 10:04, May 4, 2014 (UTC)

I meant food that the Marrukuwuyanga have never tasted before for it would certainly impress the Emperor and I don't think the Aborigines even know how to utilize siege artillery. When the British first arrived, the Aborigines thought the ships were actually animals and when at night, the British would keep their boats together with the ships; the Aborigines assumed the larger ships were breast feeding the boats.. .-. '''I thought country profile was necessary. By the way, according to the Mod Events the Sunda traded with the Marrikuwuyanga. So it should be quite safe to assume that the Marrikuwuyanga believe that the Ayutthaya are the same people (Sunda) that had traded with them before '''

--Reximperio

They aren't necessary, just recommended.

Fair enough, I've sent over medicines. Actually the thing with the Sunda works perfectly as now your people view mine with awe, and mine don't have any problem with the fact that you killed the Sunda, as we have nothing to do with them.

Ayutthaya has landed in the Marrikuwuyanga previously but not really done much- I focused more on the Malay and Indonesian isles.

23:44, May 4, 2014 (UTC)

Mayan Empire (Attacker)

 * Location: +15
 * Tactical Advantage: +1
 * Nations in side of the war: Mayan Empire (L) +5
 * Military Development: +14
 * Economic: +14
 * Infastrucre: N/A
 * Expasion: -1
 * Motive: +19
 * Chance: +6
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Population: +10
 * Particapation: +10

Disscusion
C'mon people. LET ME CONQUER THIS PLACE!!! Spartian300 (talk) 14:42, May 3, 2014 (UTC)

SPAR! Do the algo yourself, at least start it so someone can help you. Two wrongs may not make a right, '' but it makes me feel a lot better in the end! '' 14:46, May 3, 2014 (UTC)

could you then? Spartian300 (talk) 15:48, May 3, 2014 (UTC)

Spar, the algorithm is put as simply as possible on the rules page. It's not that you don't understand it, because it's put really simply, it's that you can't be bothered, in which case, alas, guess you can't attack Sosnusco. The accepted tradition is, do the algo, and if/when you screw up, a mod helps.

15:51, May 3, 2014 (UTC)

Do the other one, cause i don't know about them. Spartian300 (talk) 16:44, May 3, 2014 (UTC)

Really want to smack you for A) not reading the rules for how to handle NPC nations B) Not using the code for the algo and C) Not trying.  Two wrongs may not make a right,  but it makes me feel a lot better in the end!  18:11, May 3, 2014 (UTC)

When i tried to use the code, IT WAS NOTHING BUT CODE! Some one fix it. Spartian300 (talk) 18:17, May 3, 2014 (UTC)

This algo is moot you dont even border Itzapam (thats what its called now) so yeah not only can you not be bothered to make it right, you cant even plausibly invade them

For future refrence Spar, use source mode for placing in the code. Two wrongs may not make a right, '' but it makes me feel a lot better in the end! '' 18:34, May 3, 2014 (UTC)

Oh. My bad. What can I invade? Spartian300 (talk) 19:13, May 3, 2014 (UTC)

Map games are not about constantly invading other nations, or constantly getting land. The biggest nation landwise is rarely also the most powerful. Trade, infrastructure, economy; these matter more than the military.

Not that you could tell, of course, looking at this algo.

21:47, May 3, 2014 (UTC)

Haitus
I will be unavailable till Monday of next week, perhaps Tuesday. The semester here has ended and I am moving out and will be quite busy. i would like a fellow mod or a player of good standing to copy my posts on my behalf till my return. i am much abliged. ALLONS-Y!!,Basically, RUN!! 21:43, May 3, 2014 (UTC)