Talk:Europe 1430 (Map Game)/Archive

Henry VI
''Henry VI is only 9 years old in 1430, and considered insane. How is he concerned with absolute power?''ProfessorMcG 16:05, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Some inaccuracies
England couldn't sell their french lands because at this time they only controlled them at this time of the 100 years war, they were English occupied French lands that England claimed because of the royal line's origins as Norman noblety. But the French King legally stripped the duke or whatnot of Normandy of his lands and titles in France, so the claims aren't recognized internationally. Also, Genoa is a merchant republic, so its King can't also be King of Ukraine because it has no King. Also, Orkney and Shetland are part of Norway, not independent. Oerwinde 17:44, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

You are right on the first two parts and I was about to post something about it, but the last part is not. Orkney and Shetland were independent. I made the starting map. And as a side note Shetland and Orkney were sold to Scotland in 1468.ProfessorMcG 20:09, May 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't find any mention of them being independent. The wikipedia articles have both Orkney and Shetland as part of Norway until Christian I put them up as security against the dowry for his daughter when she was engaged to the king of Scotland. When the dowry wasn't paid, the islands became part of Scotland. The closest thing to independence was Orkney at this time was ruled by a scottish Earl who owed fealty to the King of Norway. Oerwinde 08:33, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

How do the Habsburgs lose power in a year when they eventually become the most powerful ruling house in Europe?


 * Also, the HRE isn't a centralized state, it's many duchies, bishoprics, countys, kingdoms, free cities, etc. And in fact Bohemia, Burgundy, Luxembourg, Teutonic Knights, Swiss Confed. Savoy, and Brandenburg are part of the empire. At this point the King of Luxembourg is the Holy Roman Emperor, so if the Habsburg lands are absorbed by the empire (which it already was part of), it actually means the lands were absorbed by the king of Luxembourg. Also, attacking the Teutons is also declaring war on the Holy Roman Emperor, which could bring all the aformentioned nations into the mix.Oerwinde 08:33, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Record!
It's already completely ridiculous and it only took 9 years.ProfessorMcG 00:30, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Its not completely ridiculous. We haven't got colonialism or spaceships and their is no sign of any one country becoming more vastly important than all the others. You are just being picky. Bob 08:46, May 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * Half of this stuff makes no sense.ProfessorMcG 23:45, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Bohemia
The King of Bohemia is the freaking king of HRE ProfessorMcG 20:39, May 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * The Holy Roman Emperor had no real power within the various states of the HRE. His only real power until the reforms of the late 1400s to mid 1500s was that he could levy troops to defend or war against agressors to the empire. Once the Habsburgs began to reform the empire creating the imperial courts, imperial circuits, etc. the Emperor got much more prestige and such. Until this time, the Emperor only had any real power over his own lands, which is why at the beginning of this game, the Habsburgs only had some small holdings, but by the time the Margrave of Brandenburg declared himself King in Prussia, they had established real control over much more of the HRE, and after the 30 years war it was mostly known as the Austrian empire rather than the Holy Roman Empire. In this game though, the Bohemian king has reformed the empire slightly earlier, but is still going through the process the Habsburgs did in using marriage and inheritance to build their territory. Oerwinde 08:30, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool ProfessorMcG 01:44, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

Spain + Genoa = What?
Genoa is a republic. How could Spain gain control of it through marriage? Keperry 23:38, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

Its Spain and Naples. Bob 08:34, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

Italia!!!!!!?
Naples was part of the Spanish Empire. they don't just leave for no reason!! Destroyanator 03:45, May 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * The Papal states would also not give up their authority to a secular ruler. VENEZUELA also took two turns. And the USAAR magically eliminating poverty and running around conquering things on the other side of the mediterranean was silly. Spain releasing an independent client state in the holy land only for them to revolt and rejoin Spain didn't make sense either. I'm rolling it back.Oerwinde 04:26, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

USAAR?
This is probably the most implausible thing to happen so far. How does a popular revolution with no previous mention suddenly claim portions of two nations without them doing anything about it, spur a popular revolution in a foreign country that joins the previously created nation, then collect enough troops to invade and annex the most populated area of Europe all in a year? This is about equivalent to Maine, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia all declaring themselves a new nation in January, the Cuban people rising up and handing the country over to this new nation in march, then the combined country invade Washington DC and annex Maryland and Virginia in August. Its stupid.Oerwinde 06:10, May 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * That is why we have the power to edit. Edit and DESTROY IT!!!!!! I love saying that.ProfessorMcG 13:51, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

USAAR IS POSSIBLE
1. Ukraine and Georgia are not powerful.

2. like communism in east europe the revolution in moldovia might happend.

3. They have weapons and army because they were in a war between genoa and ukraine, you can see that in the map.

4. with the help of Khanate of Golden Horde wich wasn't at war with any other countrie they are more powerful, also with the help of warrichia.

5. it's imposible that the black sea is the most populated part in Europe, they can take it easy specilly with the help of the others members of the golden alliance.

6. Genoa was already weakened because it was invaded by Autana Authenia in 1477 and the "empire" of trebizond is NOT powerful and very small.

7.with the help of the militia of the golden alliance (USAAR, khanate of golden horse, warrichia. plus ex-ukraine ex-trebizond ex-genoa and some ex-georgia) they might defeat Bulgaria.

8. they have been invading since 1479 and the last part they have invade is in 1483, in 5 years.

You forget about the religion factor. at this point in time, the accepted christian doctrine was that kings had a divine right to rule by declaring that kings don't, the USAAR would provoke a crusade from all the surrounding christian nations.

a allied or enemy crusade?

Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldovia aren't very populous. Constantinople is the largest city in Europe with a population of nearly 600 thousand. This is more than the total population of most countries, and is likely more than the total population of the entire USAAR when it invaded. Now with the only holdings being the Anatolian Genoan holdings, and Trebizond, they don't have the manpower to take anything back. The population of Moldavia is Christian, they would not ally with the muslim nomads of the Golden Horde. The dominant forces in the Black Sea are Bulgaria and Genoa, Genoa having the largest navy and a firm hold on much of Greece. A small upstart revolution wouldn't have much of a chance against the dominant navy in the Black and Aegean seas. And being a republic, their anti-royalist doctrine wouldn't have any effect on the populace.

In short. The USAAR cannot defeat Genoa.

The only thing remotely plausible is its possible existence. But it would emerge in some sort of opressive monarchy rather than a republic (which Ukraine is). And it would take a while to build, not suddenly taking the lands of like 9 countries in a year. Oerwinde 20:29, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Ukraine independence?
USAAR annexed Ukraine because the doge united, later someone put that the doge was eliminated and Ukraine gain independence. If the doge is killed Ukraine will remain part of USAAR because it's no more controled by the doge.

Plausibility is a Rule people.
Ok, the ridiculousness of the USAAR is getting bothersome. Its implausible especially considering the nations around the black sea aside from Genoa and Bulgaria at this point are extremely weak and not very populous making mass conquests extremely unlikely. Popular revolutions arising in far off countries almost simultaneously are also ridiculous especially the timeline of the revolutions. Its also turning into a back and forth between VENEZUELA and Catherine who don't play the map games right prefering to take control of one country and ignore the rest of the world, this has caused the religious war in German to pretty much halt for 10-15 years for no reason. I propose rolling back to before the USAAR was created. I apologize to Catherine for this as she has put a lot of work into whats going on with Britain, and it hasn't been disruptive like the USAAR stuff has been.Oerwinde 01:29, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Hey, the USAAR is back and forth because It was normal and for no reason Bulgaria, Hungary, Bohemia, and Genoa attack when it dind't even touch them.


 * Bohemia didn't touch them, they have enough on their plate with this TL's version of the 30 years war going on in Germany. Bulgaria responded to a threat, Genoa was invaded and fought back against the USAAR's far inferior forces along with helping their ally Ukraine, and with the USAAR obviously agressive and beligerent attitude, just letting them establish themselves wasn't an option for Hungary. The main issue I have is with popular rebellions happening in countries with no contact with the USAAR and overtaking the legitimate government almost immediately, the USAAR easily annexing Genoa's holdings on the Black Sea, despite having firm control and it being the richest and most populous area of Europe at this point, and now you have Spain, a Genoan ally, suddenly turning on Genoa and allying with the USAAR over them taking muslim lands. None of it makes any sense. If the USAAR came to this point over 30-100 years I'd be completely ok with it. Like say Ukraine starts implementing reforms making it closer to the USAAR's ideals, and after about 10 years is a full on social republic rather than a merchant republic, then begins putting agents around to spur popular rebellions resulting in a Georgian and Moldovian revolution 10-20 years later. These would be separate republics allied with Ukraine which could form a union many years later, but they would likely be allies. Then they begin building a fleet and army and invade Genoan holdings like 20 years after that. That would be plausible. Bohemia has become a powerhouse, but its taken 60 years to get to this point, not 5 and have basically replaced the Habsburgs.Oerwinde 01:59, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Should we roll back to before the USAAR is created and start over from there. Yes, its silly and makes no sense No, its completely plausible Let it exist but ensure that it remains plausible.

If the poll is still within one vote by tomorrow I'm just going to leave the decision up to ProfessorMcG, the creator of this game on whether he wants to revert it or not.Oerwinde 05:39, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Let us play 1492
Seriously unlock the 1492 section so we can play it!

-Ownerzmcown


 * Its locked until the question of the USAAR is resolved. It would be pointless to have people writing more and more history only to have it all deleted. I should have done it sooner to be honest.Oerwinde 05:12, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Rollback
I'm going to rollback the time and restart before the USAAR. And if your photo is not a .png I am automatically deleting it. ProfessorMcG 18:03, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Start playing again
You guys need to start playing Europe 1430 again!

Ok, its unlocked and reverted go for it. Catherine, sorry the reversion went too far back to really save anything, but if you check the history logs you can still find what you wrote once the years come up again so you don't have to re-write it.Oerwinde 05:44, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Bavaria and the HRE
Bavaria is already part of Bohemia. Make sure you read previous history first. The part on the map that was marked as Bavaria is actually Wurtemburg, Baden, the imperial city of Frankfurt, Elsass, Mainz, part of the Palatinate, Ansbach, and Trier .Oerwinde 17:40, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Also, you can't just arbitrarily cecede from the HRE. Even Bohemia despite its war within the empire is still a part of the empire, it just holds lands outside of it. Prussia is different as it wasn't a traditional part of the empire. Technically the French HRE lands are still a part of the empire.Oerwinde 18:09, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Come one guys, before the whole USAAR problem I had Bavaria on the map and nobody even made a fuss about it when I invaded the HRE, so why can't I own a country that doesn't want to be part of the HRE and just wants to be independent from the whole HRE, I don't see any reason why not.

-Ownerzmcown

You can't 'own a country'. In map games one doesn't own a country. if you want to own a country at least don't play on my map game. If we all owned a country, everyone would be vying for power and we would have non-stop wars for power. No country would ever fall apart and when one country became powerful another would use that to thier advantage to make their country all the more powerful. I don't see how it works.ProfessorMcG 20:47, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't understand that completely and now that I do I look forward to playing completely by the rules.

-Ownerzmcown

Also, when you were dealing with Bavaria before you were editing established history on the archive page. Which is A) Against the rules, and B) is the archive page so most of us weren't even looking at it.Oerwinde 15:37, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Well that didn't take long
Ok, so now we have the legally elected pope elected by a conclave of cardinals killed along with all the nobles of Prussia. An assassination plot headed by the church no less. An assassination ploto that large would have been discovered. A dead family becoming the most powerful in the HRE despite half the HRE including Bohemia not even acknowledging the pope. Christopher columbus arrested for something that isn't a crime (Are all the merchants heading to Britain, Portugal, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, etc. arrested as well?)

Also, multiple people editing the same year unless its spelling/grammar correction = against the rules.Oerwinde 08:33, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

The King of Naples is part of Spanish Empire. he certainly would have taken part of the purges Destroyanator 06:03, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

Turns
Seems people are having a problem understanding the rules. I already blocked Ownerzmcown for editing other people's turns despite being warned to follow the rules. 1 turn = 1 year. Each person gets a year and can't post again until another year is posted. That doesn"t mean post a year and once someone posts a new one edit their post. The history shows people posting history for 3 years in a row, this is against the rules of the game. Also, pay attention to the established history and stay plausible.

United Kingdom of Great Britain, Navarre, and Habsburg
No. We've already established Navarre as subsurvient to Britain a few times so a unification of Navarre and Great Britain is acceptible. But there is no way such a power hungry person as the King of Habsburg would just hand his kingdom over to Britain. Not going to happen. Britain would have to conquer it, and as they've established that they're allies, not going to happen. And Saxony joining? WTF? Not only are they hostile towards Habsburg, but they're a Hussite nation which would cause problems and are a part of the Brunswick Pact which was formed to counter Habsburg.Oerwinde 20:57, May 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Checking the history and it was the result of someone editing someone else's turn anyway, so its deleted.Oerwinde 21:08, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

Spread of Paganism
Scandinavia was notoriously difficult to Christianize and christianization wasn't complete until the 1200s, so with the Catholic scandal Norse Pagans could conceivably make a comeback, but Germany has been christian for like 600 years longer, Paganism was wiped out. Muscovy and Novgorod were Orthodox, they didn't suffer the crisis of faith that the Catholics did, so there would be no plausible reason for them to convert.

Also, the King of Prussia is a protestent. He started the Church of Prussia, similar to the Anglican church, it is a christian church. He is not a pagan. All these rulers converting to Paganism would cause huge unrest as the populace is like 99% christian.Oerwinde 07:06, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

Invading Germany
I think that its not plausible that every country in Europe keeps invading Germany and think that something should be done about it!

-Ownerzmcown

Its also implausible that a country that gets bitchslapped as much as Habsburg is able to conquer everything. Anyway, its a MAP GAME, and there are no maps so I'm rolling back to the last map.Oerwinde 19:02, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

Ban Catharina950
Who else here thinks Catharina950 should be banned from editing this article?

-Ownerzmcown

Rollback
So I get up this morning and I have calls to ban people, and ridiculous garbage on here. Starting with 1522 and the conversion of the King of Sardinia to Roman Paganism, a religion thats been dead for 1500 years. The king of Bohemia converting to Paganism? Bohemia is the freaking heart of Hussitism. Read the above post about the spread of Paganism. It had a viable reason for spreading in Scandinavia. And with no maps for 30 years it got confusing. So I just rolled it back until people can figure out that a Map game is about the Maps, not trying to outdo each other.Oerwinde 19:10, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry on my Behavior
Players of Europe 1430 (Map Game):

I am sorry for my behavior, or, another term to put it, my irritating or "god-modding" (writing impossible posts). Please forgive me. From now on, I will say my opinions in a civlized and organized manner, or I won't say them at all. My posts will be plausible as I can write it, and will be organized. My map-editor is not very good, so I will ask others to make the map for me, in a nice manner, such as Will somebody, please make the map for this turn, based on my post? or ''Please make a map reflecting the changes. Thank you.''

--Catherine 19:27, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology Catherine. In regards to map-making, there doesn't have to be a map for everything, such as if a year has nothing but historical changes but no map changes then that doesn't need a map. Also, if the post above yours has map changes but no map or a request for a map, then you don't need to make a map for that, then do another one for your post, you may just make one for yours that incorporates the map changes above, but no more than one year of map changes without a map.Oerwinde 20:18, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

Prussia being douchebags
Prussia invades its allies to "test its military power"? WTF. Also Bohemia is allied with Saxony so they wouldn't just let it slide because its "a test" Deleted.Oerwinde 20:56, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

Once again, Prussia is being a douche. you can't just increase your machining capacity that fast. Prussia wouldn't have enough money, or the trained workforce. their entire economy would collapse (in fact, i made their economy collapse, but Catherine deleted my post.) i think we should just role it back to 1546. if no one objects, i'll do just tha that. Destroyanator 02:02, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Prussia is not douchebags. --Catherine 02:08, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

yes, they are. you need to take REALITY into account, in addition to what YOU want. Surprisingly, there is a difference. if you want to have a TL where Prussia is very powerful, don't do it in a Map Game. it takes all the fun out of it for the rest of us. Destroyanator 02:11, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

You deleted all the fucking (excuse my language, please) posts we put great effort into, Destroyanator! You had no offical authority to do so. Why? May I ask, why? --Catherine 02:17, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

as i have already said, because of flagrant impossibility. you need to understand that you must have some element of realism in your posts. up until then, you were doing fine. to anyone else reading this, i apoligized to people who put thought into their posts. anyone else shouldn't be posting. Destroyanator 02:22, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

All right. All right, damn it. I quit my attempts. Sorry for the vulgar language I just used, but still I am mad. --Catherine 02:23, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

I give up.
Current rules being broken that I have warned people about: I have tried to keep this game on track, and its just eating too much time. So I give up.Oerwinde 23:21, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Editing other people's turns
 * 2) Implausible history
 * 3) no maps

The Importance of Reading
PEOPLE! please read the previous posts. they may help you make your current one more realistic.Destroyanator 02:25, May 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * HA! I have been literally laughing at the UKDS, the crap they are doing is why I quit this. Its ridiculous. Venice is the largest colonial power then suddenly in a year the UKDS control everything east of the mississipi despite not having a single colony anywhere near. And then magically they have the most powerful merchant fleet beating out even the Merchant Republics? And now they have steamships and railroads! You sir are a pot outraged at the blackness of the kettle!Oerwinde 03:43, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Destroyanator, you seriously need to stop this madness, you're putting up events that are clearly implausable, breech-loading rifles and artillery, steamships, and steel?! Seriously man, none of this could have existed in the 16th century.

-Ownerzmcown

And steamrollering over Bohemia, the largest and most powerful central european nation in a year? It took decades for Prussia and Russia to divide Poland between them OTL, and poland was a bunch of pussies. Bohemia not only had a network of allies including Venice, the most powerful colonial power and therefore one of the richest nations in the world, it was also a rich colonial power itself and had a massive modern professional army. If you wanted to wipe Bohemia off the map it probably would have taken about 80 years or so, and thats if they didn't have any allies.Oerwinde 04:50, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

i beg to differ. i try to be as realistic as possible. i never said that the UKDS has control of everything west of the Mississippi. i said they "claimed" everything west of the mississippi. there is a valid distinction. and they could colonize the mississippi from Canada. each of the UKDS's success had a distinct reason behind it. for example, the growth of the UKDS merchant fleet was due to the superiority of their sail design. if you would actually do research, you would know that fore-and-aft rigged sails are twice as fast as square-rigged sails, and are less man-power intensive. that allows you to transport twice as much cargo as a square-rigger in a given time, and each trip costs less. i would like to see you argue that such an advantage would not allow a merchant marine to grow quickly. and besides, for a long time, the UKSD only controlled shipping in the Baltic. in regards to the steel and breechloaders, the seeds of the Scandinavian industrial revolution were placed by me over 100 years ago. the "four-crop rotation system" was what helped propel the British Industrial Revolution. with the growth in population such a system would cause, i don't think a 40 year long industrial revolution is very unrealistic. the original lasted 50 years. the only thing i've added is the bessemer steel process. feel free to voice any factual errors in my analysis Destroyanator 05:00, May 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, and innovations in sail design would quickly be adopted by others, especially major seafaring nations such as the British, Venetians, Genoans and the Hansa, if not developed by them first. The advantage wouldn't last long, and control over the Baltic wouldn't be near as much of an advantage monetarily as Venice's colonial empire, as proved by the OTL Hanseatic League monopolizing the Baltic then losing power once resources of the New World began coming in. And after checking, fore and aft rigging was only used on small ships, which would be good for baltic trade, but wouldn't give an advantage for atlantic trade, where larger ships would be more commonly used for cargo. Also, colonizing the mississipi from the Hudson Bay would be effing difficult. As you have to travel over thousands of kilometers of tundra and mountains. Bohemia controlled the mouth of the St Lawrence so they didn't have access to the great lakes from there. Claiming everything west of the mississipi is still a long shot considering the Hanseatic Republic, Venice, and Habsburg/Kingdom of New Germania, and Bohemia all had stronger claims as they actually had colonies around there. Especially Venice, who controlled the mouth of the Mississipi. Speaking of which, why would Venice just up and sell the heart of their colonial empire? Venice is the equivalent to Spain on the road to the height of its power, not post-mexican revolution defeat of the armada we need effing money Spain. You have basically the Spanish Empire allied with the Austro-Hungarian empire in the Venetian/Bohemian alliance, but no one gives a rats ass about anything but the nation they currently want to god-mod. For Catherine it was Britain for a while, though she was actually pretty good about that, for you its Scandinavia, for Ownerzmcown it was Habsburg.


 * I was the only one on here who looked at the whole thing. Which is why we get huge wars going one then suddenly 5 years of nothing because someone doesn't care about anything but Britain. This isn't a strategy game in which we all take sides and fight each other over who gets to be more dominant, for that you have the Colonization map game or other ones where people choose nations before playing. I'm sure people might say I was favoring Bohemia, but I simply chose the next most likely nation to take Austria's place after the Habsburgs fell out of power near the beginning. I had no plans on invading Hungary or Poland, but when someone had them declare war, I looked at it and went "Poland and Hungary were large but had sissy armies at this point, Bohemia is the Holy Roman Emperor, they are going to win" And notice it took Bohemia 13 years of war to get half of Poland and about an 8th of Hungary? Because thats how long it would take. Now we have Prussia, seemingly on good enough terms with Bohemia to have Bohemia, a rich colonial empire, up and sell part of its heartland to Prussia, only to have them invade alongside Poland and Hungary, both WEAKER than they were when they first fought Bohemia, while Bohemia is probably the 2nd or 3rd most powerful nation at the time and split up the whole empire in 2 years. Without any of its allies, including Venice, the richest nation at the time and Bohemia's closest friend and ally not lifting a finger.


 * Its these implausibilites and people's lack of care that makes me sick of this, not to mention every single one of you people breaking the rules of the game over and over and over, and I don't want to seem like a jerk and just up and block you, though that had no effect on Ownerzmcown, he went right back to breaking the rules after he got back from his ban. It sucks that I've put so much time and effort in this game to see it devolve into the crapfest it has, and I want to just quit but I keep coming back because of all the time and effort I put in.


 * As for the Italian Mercantile Federation, that was my edit. It was completely plausible. Venice had the largest colonial empire and a huge fleet of merchant ships, Genoa was the major mercantile force of the mediterranean, and with their control of Greece and Asia minor, including Constantinople, they had a huge tax base from their large population, as well as the largest fleet in the mediterranean. With the UKDS threatening Venice's control of the Atlantic, and Genoa wanting a piece of the New World, both of them being Merchant Republics, it made sense to merge. It made just as much sense as the UKDS, 2 mostly insignificant nations because of low population despite their size, uniting and suddenly having all sorts of technological advancements in the same year, and the next year they become the worlds foremost mercantile power. Anyway, bring on the "Nice novel, I'm not reading that" comments. Oerwinde 09:30, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

I think this map game might have been abandoned. --Catherine 05:38, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Woohoo!
I come back after a week and this is what happened! Haha wow. ProfessorMcG 20:54, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Granted Control
ProfessorMcG, the creator of this map game, says he is tired with it, and he left a comment on my talk page, handing over the control of this map game to me, Calthrina950. I will roll it back to 1522, before all this advancement made by UKSD started, to make everything healthy again. --Catherine 21:51, June 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * Haha, "Hey guys check it out. Its a map game." "Cool let's not even leave a map, or request one. Though the whole point is to make a map."ProfessorMcG 02:24, June 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * I have created maps for the turns that don't have maps, while they involve territorial changes. I demand everybody post a map each turn that involves territorial changes. --Catherine 02:52, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

Wow, again the implausibilities come fast.
Sweden annexes Livonia despite having no relations, a different religion, and Livonia is allied with Prussia? Habsburg invades flanders unopposed despite Flanders being a member of the Brunswick Pact alliance against Habsburg? Think people think. Before you do something think "Why is this happening?" if your answer is "because I want it to to make this country more powerful" then don't do it because theres a 90% chance its implausible.Oerwinde 07:43, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

1 year = 1 turn
Since its been such a problem I will be enforcing the 1 year = 1 turn rule strictly. If I see someone editing another person's turn unless its for correcting an error, I will block that person for a day. Consider this your warning.Oerwinde 07:45, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

National Religions
Ok, we need a list of nations religions so we're not screwing up. So far I know of:

Hussite
Bohemia, Hesse, Wurzburg, Hungary, most of the IMF

Roman Catholic
Occitania, Sardinia, Tuscany, Sicily, France, New Germania, Damascus, Adana, Habsburg, Dutch Republic, Mantua, Rome, Denmark, Prussia

Toledoan Catholic
Spain, Spanish North Africa, Spanish Egypt, Portugal(King Abdicated, country wasn't converted), Anatolia, Jerusalem

Calvinist
Brunswick, Switzerland, Navarre, Lithuania, Sweden, Finland, Great Britain, Brunswick

Orthodox
Albania, Greece, Bulgaria, Poland, Livonia, Novgorod, Muscovy, Ukraine, Georgia, Cyprus, Trebizond, Wallachia, Moldavia

State Churches
Britannia

Asatru
Midgard, Norgard, Thorgard, Norway, Iceland

Islam
Hedjaz, Duchy of West Egypt(Muslim majority, Toledoan Catholic ruler), Kurdistan, Algeria, Habsburg controlled Libya, minority populations in most middle east and north african nations.

Multi-Religious
IMF - Genoan italian territory is Roman Catholic, Greek and Anatolian territory is Orthodox, Venetian italian territory is Roman Catholic and Hussite, colonial territory is Hussite.

If there is anything I missed let me know. Also, I just noticed that Calvinism is making huge gains without actually starting. It came from nowhere. And regarding Lithuania becoming Calvinist, remember that the reformation mainly affected catholic nations, as Calvinism and Lutherism were a reaction to the corruption of the Church, Lithuania was Orthodox. Realistically, Switzerland being Hussite, Calvin's reformations wouldn't have really been needed there. It likely would have arose somewhere more like Flanders, the Dutch Republic, or one of the other catholic german states with Sardinia, France and Occitania being so devoutly catholic.Oerwinde 10:02, June 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * I wrote a paper on the Protestant Reformation, mainly the Lutheran Reformation. So I know the possible reasons why a certain person or group of people would be wanting to split. ProfessorMcG 11:40, June 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Oerwinde, you are moderator of the map games, but I am owner of this one. So you cannot be punishing people on MY map game, besides it's mines. You can enforce the rules, but do not try to take over my map game. --Catherine 14:00, June 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * You forgot that Prussia was transformed into a Roman Catholic state. --Catherine 16:28, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I forgot to change that when editing the State Churches, because it followed the Church of Prussia then you switched it to Hussitism, then switched it to Catholic.Oerwinde 17:06, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

Inheritance
Inheritance wasn't a common thing, yet we have Prussia inheriting 3 nations in a decade, I don't know how the king managed to make his way to being next in line for the throne of 3 nations. Also inheritences generally had to be passed into law, they weren't automatic, first the ruler would be in Personal Union with the country, but the nobles were generally resistant to be absorbed by the larger. Mecklemburg and Anhalt would likely have had good enough relations with Prussia to accept absorbtion, though there is no way in hell that both would have been inherited in a single year, but Prussia had no claim on Saxony.Oerwinde 17:23, June 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Seriously Catherine? King of Prussia becomes first merchant of the Hanseatic REPUBLIC? How the hell does someone who is not a merchant nor a citizen of the republic become the leader, and why the hell would the other merchants agree to be absorbed by a monarchy when they are doing very well by themselves and by doing so they would be giving up their power. You make no effing sense. There is no logical or plausible explaination for this. You have just adopted Prussia as your wank nation and are doing everything in your power to make it better than every other country, logic and plausibility be damned.Oerwinde 07:09, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to point out something. It says, recently, that Prussia was hard-pressed to find allies (I think the year was 1553). In OTL, at least later in history, Prussia managed to make and break about seven alliances in just a few years with opposing powers. I can't remember exactly when, and that snippet of information may not apply to this game at all, but I just thought I'd bring it up... Fegaxeyl 17:55, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

IMF
Plausibility people. The IMF is allied with Bohemia, Wurzburg, Hesse, Hungary, and the Hanseatic Republic. They are also one of the most powerful countries in Europe, next to Prussia and Bohemia. Its fall in a couple of years is not only unrealistic, it also doesn't take into account that Bohemia, Hungary, Wurzburg, and Hesse were allies and would have steamrollered over Switzerland and Sardinia. Losing its black sea territories are plausible as well as Macedonia remaining independent especially with Habsburg assistance, although Habsburg assistance would cause Bohemia, IMF and Hanseatic forces in the New World to annihilate Habsburg's territories over there. The only plausible outcome to this war, especially after Sicily came into it is the unification of Italy under the IMF, loss of Habsburg territory in the New World, and the diminishment of IMF influence in the black and Aegean sea.Oerwinde 23:29, June 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Oerwinde, it CAN happen. Very unlikely, but it can. And besides, the IMF's glory days have long been over. --Catherine 23:36, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, its about as likely as the UK taking control of all the US territory in the world in 3 days in modern time.Oerwinde 23:39, June 5, 2010 (UTC)

Wow, not only were the IMF retards for sneak attacking an ally after just barely surviving, but the people who wrote the history afterwards completely disregarded established history and allies. First, Britain already controlled the IMF colonies in pacific north america. Second, Inca had very little contact with the Habsburg except for some merchants, while the IMF were established and important trading partners who had vastly superior technology. So the Inca would not have attacked. Third, France was an IMF ally, and wouldn't care if Habsburg, who had repeatedly sneak attacked and took advantage of wars france was involved in to steal territory, was attacked and would not have allied with Habsburg against the IMF. 4th, the map of the Americas is out of date. 5th, everyone ignored that THE IMF DIDN'T EXIST. After they had beaten back everyone but Sicily they became the Italian Republic due to the IMF's surrender and the people fighting back against all the monarchy's who were trying to steal their land. 5th, Dear effing christ. The IMF isn't alone. They were allied with France, Wurzburg, Bohemia, Hesse, Hungary and the Hanseatic Republic. 5th, I don't think Prussia's 100 year absense from foreign affairs is over yet. 6th, Britain is in no shape for a war after being bitchslapped in the colonies and then undergoing a civil war in the isles. This is why I'm beginning to hate this garbage. No one thinks about this stuff. Now the IMF was in no shape to defend against Habsburg, Spain, and Portugal, so I'm not saying the IMF should still be around after this, I'm just saying France shouldn't have any IMF territory, Inca shouldn't have any IMF territory.

And a final note, though this is just a bitch against how everyone plays map games in general, including me: Giant countries don't cease to exist after a single war. 99% of wars don't result in a transfer of territory.--Oerwinde 07:09, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

World Map
If you ask me, I think that we should start showing a world map, seriously, that way we'd still be centered in Europe, but it would let us see colonies in Asia and Africa.

- Ownerzmcown

What Do We Call It?
This is a new part of the talk page I'm creating to give names to recent wars, first up, what do we call the war that just ended and lead to the creation of the Kingdom of Italy?

-Ownerzmcown (June 11 21:59)

Well, considering the scale of the war, we could call it the Great European War, or World War I, or the Lombard Unification War, since it united all the Lombard areas of Italy.Oerwinde 22:21, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

I called it the Second Italian War in all my posts. BoredMatt 12:27, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Marseille Pact
Why would the Marseille pact choose a city outside of its members for their administrative center? Somewhere in Wurzburg or Italy makes more sense.Oerwinde 02:08, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Also, why would France prepare for war on Great Britain, when they are both in the same alliance? BoredMatt 12:28, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, i thought that was silly too. Shall we change it, remove the france part and make Piedmont the center of the Marseille pact? Or maybe... I dunno... Marseille?Oerwinde 17:10, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Its odd that the Marseille Pact went from a NATO-like organization to more like a League of NationsOerwinde 18:04, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

Yea, well, I edited it to show that it was breaking up. 16th century kings aren't very likely to want to sit down and mediate a conflict. BoredMatt 20:48, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

Commonwealth of New Albion
I have to take issue with this. I thought the idea of the provinces was that each province sends a representative to London. Therefore, this supposed Commonwealth was free before its formation. So there really isn't any point in forming this Commonwealth because the people are gaining nothing. And if anything, the British colonies in North America will be called New Albion. Bob 08:27, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

Yea, didn't make to much sense with me either. BoredMatt 10:02, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

Well the way its set up they send one representative, now they have their own government, so there is a difference. And yeah, for the name, the south American colonies were called Britannia.Oerwinde 17:57, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

No no, the South American provinces don't just send one representative. It is composed od sevaral provinces and each province sends a representative. Each province deals with problems specific to themselves so it was already in many ways self governing but much much more localised than this proposed Commonwealth. Bob 11:40, June 15, 2010 (UTC)

Grand Commonwealth of Lithuania
So the whole thing is ruled by the King of Bohemia? Otherwise how did that happen? The Commonwealth of Lithuania is a constitutional monarchy with the King of Bohemia as the monarch, but ruled by a parliament, Lithuania is a grand duchy with an absolute monarch. How would they unite? Why would they unite? Either the commonwealth gives up its freedom to the Grand Duke of Lithuania, or the Grand Duke gives up his power to the Bohemian monarch and the parliament. It doesn't make much sense.Oerwinde 10:04, June 15, 2010 (UTC)

Purchasing Land
It's sort of a cheap way to play the game if you just continue to buy large amounts of land from a nation, especially if that nation has no reason at all to sell said land.

Agreed. Small things like Bohemia buying the Falklands is one thing. France already controlled the strait of Magellan, they had no real need of the land, Bohemia did and is quite rich. Genoa early in the game controlling Corsica and Genoa proper, then taking land in the aegean, buying Malta as a waystation between their holdings makes sense. Buying up a part of Prussia just because it makes the habsburg part on the map bigger, not so much sense. Or before it was rolled back, Prussia bought Silesia from Bohemia, which was pretty much only to make the Prussia map look more like OTL, as that was pretty much the Bohemian heartland at that point. Then again, theres a lot of things on these games that make no sense. Like multiple countries joining into single nations like when the Asatru Nation was created. Oerwinde 10:58, June 15, 2010 (UTC)

USA
USA was a Sardinian colony. Its mostly Catholic Italian, a far cry from being linguistically and culturally close to the British Group, which is mostly Calvinist northern european.

Also, what kind of wealth could Habsburg offer the Incas, who have vast amounts of gold? They've been mostly culturally influenced by the Italian hussites, so if they were going to side with anyone, it would be them, but I realistically see them staying neutral, or creating a 4th faction alongside the USA.Oerwinde 08:29, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I was thinking of France and Spain, along with the Incas, creating a fourth faction. not to mention that it was Hapsburg that brought the Incas over using large amounts of money, and they just basically doubled their land by buying parts of Prussia. This is like the US buying the Maritime provences and British Columbia from the Commonwealth with 5 trillion dollars, and then bribing Brazil to jion the war in Afganistan with another 5.

Random Rebellions
So the Kingdom of Austria, which is composed of pretty much the most well established and prosperous area of Bohemia. Germanic people comprise of about 50+% of the population making them a major political force in Parliament. Bohemian unity laws have created a sense of nationalism across the country, and anyone under 20, would be "RAH RAH GO BOHEMIA" The Bohemian army is one of the most well trained, well equipped, and well manned in all of Europe. So yeah, Kingdom of Austria which is oppressed by being a major political force and prosperous land and rises up to defeat one of the biggest most advanced armies in a year.

Revolutions take longer than that, and don't just spring up magically.

Also, Goteland is the largest city in Midgard, which is an Asatru majority country. It is also logically the capital. Why would the capital of an Asatru majority nation be majority Calvinist?

K, yea the goteburg thing was a little unrealistic, but Calvinists were always extremely strong among the minor nobility and the merchant class. Goteburg historically had large populations of both. I took it out, if that's what you wanted. i think ownerzmcown put in the Austrian thingy, so i'd wait for him before pulling it.

So sorry, I see your point, I'll take Austria off the game.

- Ownerzmcown

I try to set up revolutions, like with the british Pacific colonies, having a large italian population, and the gold rush bringing in many mayan, habsburg, and incan immigrants, its britishness is in peril and would be likely to rebel at some point due to the cosmpolitan culture developing and the distance from the homeland. I mentioned this in the history early on, so it won't just come out of nowhere.

Deseret is a good example of what I mean by setting up the revolutions.It had established history setting up that there was a desire for independence.Oerwinde 16:45, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

Why would Cascadia rebel? Yes they have a cosmopolitan culture but King Erik was popular in the colonies. Cascadia is entirely made up of Provinces which attend to their internal problems themselves. Besides, wasn't any of the British colonies a long way a way in OTL. What stopped the Australians rebelling when they had a large Asian population. In fact what stopped California rebelling against the US? During the Gold Rush there were no states between it and Washington. Thats a long way and it had a cosmopolitan culture. And besides, what have the Cascadians to gain from Revolution. Bob 09:22, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

Hapsburgs in Africa
While I have no problem with Hapsburg having colonies in Libya, they are continuing to expand into what is basically the Sahara. As I typically edit against the Germanics, I have no problem with this, but it's a bit illogical to push into the Sahara, with nothing to offer except camels and sand (literally!). It is really a huge waste of capital for the Germanics, who could spend their cash better in inumerable ways. Pushing into inhospitible terrain does nothing except kill your men and make you look bigger on the map.

BoredMatt 19:59, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

China
WTF......China would never change to European style ANYTHING at this time period (even with the several European countries people helping). In-Fact if china changed the style of anything and demanded like it dose that everyone do as the European's are, then it would be a bloody revolution near immediately from the now trained military (doesn't mind the training, but would HATE the fact that EVERYONE must do as the foreigners do). And the people would hate this even more. It is impractical, NAI IMPLAUSIBLE to happen.--DaBigUn 19:56, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

Also, what would the king or the country gain from this? From all the other posts Shaung seemes to be pretty intelligent, but this just seems to go against the grain of his character. This is like the PM of India suddenly privatising much of the government, abolishing the caste system (and upholding the abolition), forcing the entire nation to dress like corporate execs, and then converting to LDS. BoredMatt 20:12, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

It also seemed like there was no resistance at all to the changes aside from a few nobles who were crushed immediately. These kind of sweeping changes are possible without mass rebellion, but they would have to be gradual over like 200 years.Oerwinde 23:56, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

Peter the Great intiated reforms in Russia in less then 20 years. Shaung intiated reforms in China in about 15-20. --Catherine 00:34, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

Well yea, but the difference between the cultures of westeern europe and Russia are alot smaller than the differences between China and Europe. And Peter wasn't pretty much liberating 80% of his population from serfdom while he made said reforms, or changing his religion to one that most Chinese would never hae heard of, much less understand. He just centralized power and modernized. BoredMatt 00:53, June 19, 2010 (UTC)