Talk:Principia Moderni (Map Game)

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

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

Tactical Advantage

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strength

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

Motive

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

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

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

Other

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

Stage 3 - huge factories near cities, massive urbanization, mass use of railways, steam powered ships common, electricial experimentation

 * Japan
 * Naples
 * Austria
 * Hungarian puppets/independent colonies/colonies/vassals
 * Napolitan puppets/colonies/independent colonies/vassals
 * Vietnamese puppets/colonies/vassals
 * French puppets/independent colonies/colonies/vassals
 * Chinese puppets/colonies/vassals
 * Labrador
 * Japanese puppets/colonies/vassals/independent colonies
 * USA
 * Hanthawaddy
 * Hanthawaddian colnies/vassals/independent colonies/puppets
 * Manoa
 * Brunei
 * Afghanistan

Stage 4 - airplanes and cars, decrease in the factories near cities, more urbanization but focused on towns, electricity used in cities

 * Russia
 * Hungary
 * Egypt
 * Finland
 * Finnish colonies/independent colonies
 * Northern and littoranean China
 * Caliphate
 * United Principalities
 * Greece
 * Persia
 * Russian puppets/colonies/indeoendent colonies/vassals
 * Swedish former colonies
 * Bharat/puppets/colonies/vassals

Discussion
I have one complaint: according to the list of what you need to do to advance, to get to stage 3 you need to open a rail link. However, for Naples, a nation with large amounts of its territory in islands, and with a significant portion in Africa, and the land being primarily a peninsula, it makes more sense for them to invest in steamships prior to investing in steam trains. So making the first functioning steamships should count as well as making the first rail link. LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:30, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah Nippon is in a similar situation due to all the islands, but I'm just going to do both but with more focus on steamships than trains. Of course I'll do some train lines but steamships are more relevant for Nippon, VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 23:11, February 14, 2012 (UTC).

I see your point. For Nippon and Naples ONLY, I accept a sea route operated by steam-powered ships.Scandinator (talk) 08:39, February 18, 2012 (UTC)

What about electricity? we have to assume that something like the voltaic pile eventually was discovered?i mean, already is 1818 and nothing about it.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 07:58, February 23, 2012 (UTC)

Stability
2.5*Number of digits of population*Time

Time is:


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

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



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

Due to the vote, in which every voting player agreed, this system will now be used for all nations (however, some changes have been proposed based upon industrialization) LurkerLordB (Talk) 01:54, April 12, 2012 (UTC)

Algorithm Results and Moderator Revolts
The new equation for gains from war algorithms is (p)*(1-1/(2x)), where x is the number of the years the war goes on and p is the amount of territory determined by the algorithm ((y/(z+y))*2)-1 where y is the winner's score and z is the losers). So if your war lasts one year, you only get 50% of the territory, but if you let the war last five years, you get 90% of the territory.

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

Early Planning/Nation Calling/Map Making
Seeing as Principia Moderni is entering it's final century, would any of you sign on to play on a hypothetical Principia Moderni Mark II? Especially if we take the effort to iron out the flaws in the colonization system? I would play as Japan, which was going to be my first choice.

Yank 16:56, May 21, 2012 (UTC)

might play as a nation in north america maybe Canada? Andr3w777 16:44, June 2, 2012 (UTC)

I would, and I'd be playing as a Thai kingdom if there will be a PM Mark II. -Kogasa 17:00, May 21, 2012 (UTC)

Me too.i would be playing as Portugal.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 17:05, May 21, 2012 (UTC)

It shouldn't be made until after this one is done, but I'll play. Probably as Ireland, Scotland, or one of the native American nations (like Tsalagi or Muscogee). LurkerLordB (Talk) 17:11, May 21, 2012 (UTC)

Also I have a map of about 1450 I made for another game, which can easily have a few things changed to be 1450 in real life. LurkerLordB (Talk) 17:11, May 21, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with only making it after this one is complete.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 17:16, May 21, 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have a map, I only have a few questions first: LurkerLordB (Talk) 18:00, May 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) How should city-states or small states be portrayed? Nations like the Mayas, the Irish, and the Swahili are not unified nations, but are "civilized". Currently I have them the same as civil disarray, but I want to know if they should be kept as the dark grey, made black (like other tribes), or given some other designation.
 * 2) Should there be labels on the main map? Currently I have labels, but I could make a version labelless if needed. Labels do look messy and can interfere with coastlines, but currently we have a lot of "X nation invades the small country under it". Should we have both labelled and unlabelled versions (labelled being updated less frequently)?
 * 3) (assuming that we will have a labelled version) Should major unorganized tribes have labels on the map?
 * 4) What constitutes an organized, developed nation or small states? Would the various North American natives be counted, or not?

Definitely, though I am debating whether to be China or England.

I will be Korea again, and I won't let my colonial empire be taken apart by *others* cough cough Vietnam hehe. PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 19:58, May 21, 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to play as Venice, England or even some spanish or arabian state like Castille or Aragon. I think not-unified nations should ave a different border than unified nations and colonies, so we disitnguish them. On alabelled map, we should put the name of major uncivilized tribes to make them "civilizable and playable". Obviously a developed nation is a group of peoples that have somehow a centralized system. The european nations have mostly king and comon institutions. Others like the irish just have periodic alliances during time of crisis. Others, like the League of Mayapan, the mpauche Wallmapu, some asian khanates, are simply permanent or periodic confederations of civilzied tribes that unify under a common institution of even a person during times of crisis. May be not-confederated but civilized tribes should be distinguished from the confederated ones. Such as the League of Mayapan should be distinguished from the rest of not-unified maya tribes.--Galaguerra1 21:55, May 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * So what should the difference be between Civil Disarray, Loose Confederations, Civilized Tribes, City-States, etc.? Specifically. LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:05, May 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll have fun with Making the Novgorodian State dominate moscow in this new one.-Lx (leave me a message) 22:20, May 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes I would love to Play a Second Principia, Im sad I missed out on all the fun.-Althistoryman11


 * A state in civil disarray is that state that is, in theory, organized, but in civil war, as warlords are struggling for the dominion; Africa is full of examples, a state in civil war would be the same, a state in a succesion war, a state with a provisional unestable government. A confederation is a group of tribes that unite in case of war or share some common institution, like a parliament, and example is the Rouran Khanate in Asia, the mapuche Wallmapu in South America, maybe the Iroquois Confederacy even. City-states and civilized tribes are cgroups of people that are culturaly and ethnicly alike, but are not confederated, usually they have conflcit with each other, the difference is that; while tribes are contered in a cultural core (tribe, family, clan, etc...) and primitive; city-state are just organized states, but smaller, and centered around a geographical/political core, and they have an orgnaized government, a capital and could have colonies and form city-state confederations (like the Aetolian League in OTL Greece). --Galaguerra1 01:12, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * But how would they be on the map? (currently Confederations are marked the same as unified nation-states, and city-states and civil disarray are the same). LurkerLordB (Talk) 01:32, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe different borders. Confederaitons wouldm have a blue borde ror something like that and the city-states and tribes would have golden borders? I don't know, something like that whould work. --Galaguerra1 01:37, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Different borders worked for colonies here, that is true. The unsettled tribes I currently just have as their names in the middle of the black areas. I'll upload the current map as it stands, for 1450.
 * Principia_Moderni_2_1450.png added Manoa and Onguayal for tradition's sake, the first moderator event can be made by them.
 * Also, I suggest we use the format of this game, instead of the Fractured America format that almost all other games currently use, simply because it annoys me. LurkerLordB (Talk) 01:43, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact I've invented a system that I think would work, be cause so many times I've seen people arguing about who invented what weapon, or that obtain 500 thousand kilos of gold is a plausible benefit but it doesn't have any benefit in the system. My system bases on points and its used in Orbis Terrarum, the Map Game I currently run with Jaeden CC (previously Burgundy) in the spanish Althist wiki. We have economic points (denarii, though I supose they should be called ducats in this gam, or somethng like that) that are equal to a specific cuantity of gold, and we use them for build up military, trade, aument our expansion rate, fund independent explorers of scientifics (moderator events), fund rebellions abroad, or trade them for investigation points, that we use to develop technology. Does some of you undestarnd spanish? So you could read the system in the page "Puntuación (Orbis Terrarum)". If you don't I'll graldy traduce the system to show you how it works. --Galaguerra1 01:52, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I also think the Holy Roman Empire should have different borders, as it's composed by many different states and those state could striggle the crown. --Galaguerra1 01:53, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand Spanish enough to figure the system out, I hope it won't be overly complicated (then again, a complicated game could have fewer and more competent players). I'll read up on it. On the HRE, I am going to think of a way, maybe I'll go with your idea with the different colored border, or use dotted borders or thinner borders for the states inside it. LurkerLordB (Talk) 02:03, May 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll end up reprising my role as China. Trying to kill the Mongols will be a challenge with the algorithm, but it can be done. I'd like to go more in-depth with China's interior. CrimsonAssassin 03:43, May 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll play as France. Making a huge worldwide empire can be a challenge, but may be worth it. BTW, for the HRE, is it possible you can take the position (you know, like Charles V)? RandomWriterGuy 04:16, May 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * I, as you all know, am an India fanatic so I'll take the Dehli sultanate. However, things won't be like what they seem, and I don't plan to have a mughal empire! ;D [[Image:1.png|23px]] Imperium Guy 08:10, May 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll be Oman in the next game, but whatever happened to making this game into a timeline? VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 10:20, May 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * Did you know that Oman actually had an empire in the 18th/19th Century but stupid emperors led to its downfall. It was so bad that there was a communist rebellion in the early 70s. Read the to get what I mean. :P --[[Image:1.png|23px]] Imperium Guy 10:34, May 22, 2012 (UTC)

OK, for the new map, I gave the HRE borders which were blue and grey mixed, and the smaller states inside I gave thinner borders than normal. On the subject of the HRE, would people play as the individual states, or the empire itself? LurkerLordB (Talk) 14:37, May 22, 2012 (UTC)

Individual states. In the vidogame Europa Universalis III In Nomine, the member sof the HRE are independent, but electors can appoint an Emperor and these EMperros can make laws that affect the whole empire, intervene somehow in politics, accept new members of the Empire and appoint new electors. I'm considering to play as England an ghet the throne of the HRE, or even make Venice a members of the Empire. I don't know. But I think I'll decide soon. --Galaguerra1 16:48, May 22, 2012 (UTC)

I read the system on the Spanish wiki, and it seems good, so if you could translate that when we actually make the game, that would be good. LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:00, May 22, 2012 (UTC)

I'd be glad to do so. Thank you. --Galaguerra1 22:27, May 22, 2012 (UTC)

I think I should play as China instead. RandomWriterGuy 22:32, May 22, 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if you're trolling me or being serious. I already called China. CrimsonAssassin 22:47, May 22, 2012 (UTC)

I made a draft of a first post in my userspace: Principia Moderni II. I will make a draft of the rules later so that we can work out all the new colonization and whatnot. Also I am going to update the map (again). LurkerLordB (Talk) 01:20, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

I've decided for England, and Jaeden says me that he'll join as Castille. I'll make a draft for my system. There are some things I need to ask you about it. --Galaguerra1 01:24, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

On the map you missed the iroquois civilization, as it did technicaly have one "Parliment" consisting of the top chieftains of each of the 5(and later 6) nations-Lx (leave me a message) 01:29, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

I will add them, for some reason I thought they had formed later, but I checked and they had definately formed by 1450, though their origins before that are indeed unknown. LurkerLordB (Talk) 01:59, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

Colonial Expansion/Independent Colonies Debate
We should have it where expansion doubles in 1650, triples in 1700, quadruples in 1800, and quintuples in 1850. CrimsonAssassin 03:06, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have a draft of the rules up: Rules (Principia Moderni II) We will need to add and change a lot of stuff. As for the expansion, here is an idea I had: With several extra modifiers: Is this good? LurkerLordB (Talk) 13:06, May 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are using a half-turn, you get half the expansion
 * If the colony itself is younger than 5 years, it can only expand by 200 square kilometers, regardless of any bonuses
 * If a colony itself is older than 50 years, a bonus +100 square km is given for expansion in that colony
 * If a colony is older than 150 years, a bonus +500 square km is given for expansion in that colony
 * When areas of the Americas are first contacted by people from Eurasia or Africa, that region that is contacted will have double the colonial expansion rates from those outside nations. Regions contacted in the first 50 years since first contact will have trippled expansion.
 * Additional bonuses will be recieved with industrialization, and other bonuses may arrive later.
 * Expansion into areas which are fragmented (in civil disarray or small states) can be done through colonial expansions, at half the normal rates. Expansion into gray areas requires an algorithm

Also, another idea I had was restricting players to only being able to control one of their former colonies, thus the former colony would get its own, new color instead of using the part nation's color, as that was sort of confusing with having independent nations the same colors as others. LurkerLordB (Talk) 19:50, May 23, 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree with this policy of only controlling one of your former colonies, but agree with the new colour change though. Basically because we lack an AI to control non-player nations (which is usually present in video games for stuff like this). So in order to make the game be as perfectly competitive as possible we shouldn't bother with this rule, otherwise we just risk having NPC nations dominating the game, and leading us to the same problems as we have in this game --VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 23:08, May 23, 2012 (UTC).

I've amde the proposal for my additions to the system here:. It's based on Orbis Terrarum's, but not the same. I hope you'll find it to be useful for this game. --Galaguerra1 20:34, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the spelling (it's liberator, not libertier, English is a messed-up language). For the proposal, my main concern is with the popularity thing, how can we determine how popular a nation's actions are with its people? Because everyone will say that their people all love the system to get the most popularity. LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:37, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I agree, english is messed-up, and sometimes I just confuse. Anyway, for the popularity and loyalty things, we should have a single mode to that, so the mod could decide based on the system of government, recent actions of the government, etc... And a second mod who would wield the main moderator's powers when the first one is involved in the war or absent. If both are involved or absent, people should vote. Also, I trust in the player's plausibility on this matters. --Galaguerra1 01:19, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

Are there no complaints about the colonization system? LurkerLordB (Talk) 01:36, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

I think it's good. --Galaguerra1 02:42, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

I like this new system and I find it easier to understand. Hope to play the next game as Russia, unless that's already taken. Maybe Brandenburg then. Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 02:55, May 24, 2012 (UTC)


 * I already claimed russia...sorry...I want to reprise my role, but this time have it dominated by Novgorod instead of Moscow.-Lx (leave me a message) 11:54, May 24, 2012 (UTC)


 * You guys could always have 2 Russian states fighting over control of OTL Russia like Novogorod vs Moscow, but continue it for ages. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 12:25, May 24, 2012 (UTC).

Also, I had one question that I have pondered over for a while. In the rules for chance it says: "Factors will be the opponent's edit count (on Althist's main articles) and the precise time when the country declares war or acknowledges the other's declaration of war. The product of the non-zero digits of the time by UTC (0:00 yields 1) will be written as a percentage of the opponent's edit count at the exact time of the declaration. The result is multiplied by pi and the hundredths digit is the amount of points that person gets (e.g. 123.8377% yields 3)." Why would there be such a strange rule? Yes, I understand that it produces a very random number. Really one of the strangest things I've ever seen, yet it is very ingenious. Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 03:05, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

The rule is so that people cannot complain that the Random Number Generator is unfair, like they do in many other games. LurkerLordB (Talk) 11:08, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

I gree with changing the colour of newly independnt colonies, but, if we just leave them to be NPC nations, being sincere, the nearby player nations will devour them. Also, I want to make it clear: The traveling system I propose only applies to 1450's technology, so, at 1800, you could travel more distance for less money, is the technology is invented.

I think economic points should allow a nation to aument its territorial or military expansion rate. --Galaguerra1 16:11, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

If the second game works like the first, we should have no problem. Romainia and Moldova have sat for centuries undisturbed and unconquered. Nations that fought for their freedom from colonialism are going to be less likely to allow themselves to be subjugated again, and having to deal with constant revolts of your annexed territory will cause a nation so much problems it wouldn't be worth it. We cannot allow everyone to control every single independent colony and still give them all a new color. There aren't enough distinct colors. LurkerLordB (Talk) 16:44, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

So, is it concluded that you will only be able to control one former colony at a time? LurkerLordB (Talk) 20:56, May 26, 2012 (UTC)


 * Personally, I would like it if we get to control all our former colonies, and them being a lighter colour from the original nation. I liked it better with former colonies having a lighter colour from the original nation and I understand it would get confusing and complex. I don't know, kinda would discourage having colonies a bit, maybe. -Kogasa [[Image:Symbol of Natori, Miyagi.png|23px|border]][[Image:宮城県.png|23px|border]][[Image:Flag of Japan.png|23px|border]] 21:42, May 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * It's just plain confusing though, especially once the former colonies start building colonial empires of themselves and having their own vassals and whatnot. Plus it makes posts really long, and in the end people have 7 nations or more. I am thinking of adding a colonial empire bonus to the algorithm to encourage more colonization. The problem with the lighter color was that it is also the same color as puppet states. Having only 1 former colony to be controlled at a time could then let that colony have its own color, so no confusion, and would result in shorter posts, which would probably make it easier to make maps and would definately make it easier to make algorithms. And it would give more opportunity for new players to join. LurkerLordB (Talk) 13:00, May 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * We could make it so that the colonies that declared independence won't have their own colonial empires (but they can only hold on/take care of the mother nations colonies if the mother nation is in trouble or something.) While it may make posts really long, at least it can prevent from unexpected events happening to them (ie Satori gives independence to Rin and Utsuho. Rin is still controlled by the player but Utsuho isn't. Since Satori had undergone a transition from Buddhist to Hindu for years and two of her former colonies, Rin and Utsuho are both Hindu. But then an event happens where Utsuho is all slowly converted back to Buddhist all of a sudden, and Hindu becomes minority. Or, after Utsuho is taken by another player then the new player turns Utsuho into a Confucianist state, etc.). And I see, well if we allow the new players to ask permission from a person who happens to control two of their former colonies, the new player can always ask for said person if it's okay to control one of their former colony, and the player can agree. We have that system here, so I personally think it would be good if we could have it in the new game as well. Like I said, I understand that it's all confusing and takes up much space and causes problems for the map makers; but at least the players who play their colonies can ensure that random events (ie the example I gave above) won't happen: and they can always give a new player their colony to control if they want. -Kogasa [[Image:Symbol of Natori, Miyagi.png|23px|border]][[Image:宮城県.png|23px|border]][[Image:Flag of Japan.png|23px|border]] 13:31, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

We do need something like a colony bonus, because at it stands colonies don't contribute anything to the mother country's war effort. However we should keep the system of players controlling former colonies until a new player comes in to take them over, otherwise we risk having too many NPCs, which is a worse problem than having former states controlled by past players, as their is reduced game play. Plus I think that we should be able to have more colonies too. On the point of having too many countries with the same colour, we could always just add a numerical reference on the map rather than just relying on colours. The way I see it, people use independent states as a means of boosting their scores in the algorithms (hence they're aren't too many countries which don't get on with their former masters) so we need to encourage players to keep colonies opposed to giving them independence & being pally with the former rulers. Hence I rate we treat colonies like we do vassals in the algorithm VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 14:03, May 27, 2012 (UTC).

How are NPCs a problem? The number of players would stay the same. And I do not understand what you are talking about Kogasa with unexpected events happening. Players can and have done just as many random events with their own nations. If the new players come on and do something random and implausible, their actions will be crossed out. Moderators should not cause random moderator events that are implausible. Furthermore, voluntarily giving another player control of your former colony that you now have no influence over does nothing to prevent them from making those same events happen. With numerous nations all being the same color as puppet states or colonies they would be and have been in this game times when there has been confusion among the players as to who controls what area. There have quite literally been wars on this map game that have been mistakenly caused or escalated due to the fact that people did not know who was independent and who was not. Confusion damages the gameplay. Labels work, but to do a label system that could fix that, massive amounts of parentheses would be needed to label nations such as "The Phillipines (Vassal of the United States (former colony of Britain))". Plus, the question of what former colonies of former colonies will look like, and puppet states of former colonies, has not been determined. Numerous other successful map games have had the rule in which a player can control no former colonies. Encouraging people to keep colonies instead of granting them independence creates and implausible game like Axis vs. Allies 2 where colonization never ended, or it would otherwise result in everyone granting all their colonies independence at the very last moment. Finally, it is implausible to state that a nation will be weaker in a war and unable to establish any colonies simply because it was once a colony itself. LurkerLordB (Talk) 18:51, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

Do we really need each player controlling 8 different nations anyways? I know that it is hard for me to divide my time and attention between all of my nations, and a lot are neglected because it is hard to roleplay that many nations. 2 long quality posts is better than 6 short ones Plus, you all don't know how hard it is to count up all of the times of expansion and military development and who is helping who in the war when there are hundreds and hundreds of lines by people with 5 nations each all posting stuff. Poor Collie has to count up every single nation's colonial expansion for the past 5 years for each map. That is probably at least a thousand lines to go through, and even more are being made every day as more nations become independent. We moderators are only humans after all. LurkerLordB (Talk) 20:05, May 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, as long as a player gives a new player permission to play as their former colony, then they can do whatever they want with it. Sorry if I wasn't being too clear. Also I never said that a mother nation would be able to keep all colonies, of course most of colonies would be given independence (and mod events could enforce that too if needed) and they can only keep a few colonies that are about the size of OTL French Guiana or less. Also the colours of former colonies of former colonies can remain the same, and so on...
 * Anyway, I just though that having people control former colonies would be able to ensure that their way they made the nation would stay the same and if they wanted to give a nation to a new player, they can do so and let them do what they want with the nation that was given to them. And while personally I'm against being able to control only one, instead of all, of my former colony, I'm fine with whatever the desition comes to be. -Kogasa [[Image:Symbol of Natori, Miyagi.png|23px|border]][[Image:宮城県.png|23px|border]][[Image:Flag of Japan.png|23px|border]] 20:07, May 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * I had been responding to Von Glusenberg, who stated that we should try and encourage people to keep colonies for longer instead of having a bunch be independent to boost the algorithm. Nations do change slowly over time, but massive changes would be implausible without a good reason. LurkerLordB (Talk) 21:22, May 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * It is well if you don't want to play all your former coolonies, so don't play them, but I really enjoy controlling every nation, giving them all a different history. --Galaguerra1 20:48, May 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what I meant. I meant that I preferred to play all my former colonies, and I liked that better. However I then said that I don't mind what the desition would come out to be, even though I don't really like the idea of controlling only one colony. Sorry for my unclear English... -Kogasa [[Image:Symbol of Natori, Miyagi.png|23px|border]][[Image:宮城県.png|23px|border]][[Image:Flag of Japan.png|23px|border]] 20:58, May 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * I still say that it is confusing to play the game with so many player-controlled nations, and it is very difficult to moderate and most likely to mapmake for all of that as well. Perhaps we could say that you could only play as one former colony at a time. So, for example, in real life the British player could play as America and Britain until the 1920s, then drop America and play as Egypt until the 1940s when they start playing as India. So you could still have variety and give your nations more history, but only 2 would be played as and have colors at the same time, so it would be easier to moderate and mapmake. This would also encourage people to make the independence process gradual instead of all at once, so they could have equal time with each former colony. Having each player control 7 nations is very complicated though. If the game was like real life, the player of Britain would end up controlling 20 nations by the end! LurkerLordB (Talk) 21:22, May 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * I like the idea, controlling a former colony one at a time. Good enough for me, I accept. -Kogasa [[Image:Symbol of Natori, Miyagi.png|23px|border]][[Image:宮城県.png|23px|border]][[Image:Flag of Japan.png|23px|border]] 21:39, May 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know, I'm not convinced, but, If you aren't disposed to yield, well, I accept that. But I'd still prefer to play all of them, or, at least, the ones I'd like to play with. --Galaguerra1 22:03, May 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll put it in the rules for now. We have about a year until colonies would become independent in the second game anyways, so if we decide to change something or someone has a new idea, we can come up with it then. LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:17, May 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * When I say we should encourage colonization, I means as opposed to making loads of vassal & puppet states and independent nations because at the end of the day colonies contribute nothing to algorithm scores at the moment, so people are less inclined to make colonies. And too many NPCs is a problem. For example think about how many countries would be NPCs in the current game if we made all former colonies NPCs? We'd lose so much creativity and content, which has gone from these former colonies. If they'd become NPCs then we would not have the world we have in 1912. I'd estimate nearly half of the past 50 year's content has involved former colonies controlled by their former master's player. And you want to throw that away? VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 23:39, May 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * I am thinking of further reducing the amount of action of puppet states. Plus, if there were less independent colonies, people could concentrate on their main nations more. And you are ignoring my massive arguments about how it is extremely difficult to moderate, make maps, make algorithms, and the various other actions necessary for the game to function, actions which you do not need to perform. Add in the confusion that this has caused and will cause in the future. And add in the fact that these problems are only going to get worse. I think that these problems outweigh the benefits, and we can get by with still having twice the number of nations on most map games. LurkerLordB (Talk) 01:33, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I have the solution for this vassals/puppets problem. In my new map game, players have to play as their colonies and vassals, however, it is all supposed to be compiled into one long post. That avoids the confusion for colonies and vassals. However, puppet nations should be played seperately since they are not really controlled by that nation.


 * Example: I intend to/ will  play as Brandenburg in Mk II, so let's say I have a colony, New Leipzig, a vassal state, Lesser Germany, and a puppet state, Hohenzollernia. I write something like this: "Brandenburg: The New Leipzig colony is expanded by x sq km in directions y and z. Meanwhile the vassal state of Lesser Germany continues to help in the fight against Bohemia, respecting their vassalism. Also, the emperor instructs the Hohenzollernians to invade Southern Bohemia and take the crucial city of w. He also learns that around Hohenzollernia's colony of Wihelmland there is a large deposit of gold. He tells them to expand." Under that should be: "Hohenzollernia: Receiving orders from Brandenburg, Hohenzollernia invades southern Bohemia and takes the crucial city of w. Also, the colony of v is expanded by Brandenburgian order since the emperor learned that there was valauble gold in the surrounding areas."


 * That should fix it all up. [[Image:IMPERIAL NY-SPQR 1.png|25px]][[Image:Regen Flag.png|30px|border]] Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 04:09, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that people shouldn't have seperate lines for each of their vassals. But that wasn't really my point, I was talking about what Von mentioned earlier about how people made a ton of vassals and puppet states to boost their algorithm points. But, honestly, I've thought about it and decided the -1 on algorithms would be enough. LurkerLordB (Talk) 14:40, May 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * I offered to be a mod after Scan quit remember? If you guys want to ignore my offers of help and then ruin the game because you can't be bothered to do the job you signed up to do, then your just making your own problems. If there is a lot to moderate, which there is, then add more moderators to spread out the workload rather than reducing the workload. You have people who'd be willing to help you moderate. Map making I'll take Collie's word on the difficulty of that as he is the map maker, but he does a great job, and if he has problem with the map making then again, there are plenty of people willing to help him & we amend the map were necessary. Algorithms are tough to make anyway, people make their own algorithms but yeah looking back to find out what you need to do in an algorithm is always going to be a ball ache, but thats the price we pay for a fairer war resolution system. As for having twice the number of countries than other games, that's what makes this game the best! Other map games just end up having one or two big nations ruling the world, whereas our game is delightfully spread out. As for confusion, that's always going to persist, but unless you're going to stand behind everyone & make sure they read everything then there isn't much of a solution other than reducing content, but that then makes the game less interesting as there is less going on. Besides if anyone is confused they can always just post something on the talk page and someone can enlighten them VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 13:25, May 28, 2012 (UTC).
 * Having 20+ nations per player in a map game is going to be confusing regardless of who is playing. There is no way that a game will be easy to play when each year has hundreds, maybe even thousands of lines of text to go through. People will miss things. This game isn't being changed at all, we are talking about the next game. If you can't be willing to compromise like Kogasa did and still have more nations under your control than you are allowed anywhere else, I am sorry. A ton of confusion is worse than a little less content. This game was the most active map game, and fun for more than a year prior to the advent of massive decolonization, and it was less confusing then as well. You appear to play other map games with only one nation per player and enjoy them, so you should really enjoy having two nations. But this argument is about something that will happen in a year or more. I'll put the compromise me and Kogasa made together in the rules now.LurkerLordB (Talk) 14:40, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * I know this game isn't being changed, I'm just showing you that a lot of the success of this game has been due to the wide array of nations interacting with one another. But I must disagree with you, content is more important than confusion, because confusion can be solved by asking questions, whereas if we added more content, it'd ruin the established cannon. We're holding the game back because of our own short comings.
 * Want to know why I think we should have lots of player controlled nations? Because I find it highly implausible that we have half of the countries in the world not reacting to events going on in player nations, expanding, founding colonies or starting wars. Its not a good enough simulation of history to have half the world sitting around on their thumbs barely reacting to any global events. To solve this we either need to have more player controlled nations or a heck of a lot more mod events to show the rest of the NP world reacting to the player controlled world. That's my fundamental issue with the game, heck all map games. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 00:25, May 29, 2012 (UTC)

Changes to the Algorithm
So, on the subject of subjects that would be pertinent to all points of the game, I was thinking of adding another bonus for population to the algorithm, beyond just the stability one. I know that Lx has been pushing for this for quite some time. Does anyone have any ideas?LurkerLordB (Talk) 14:49, May 28, 2012 (UTC)

I think we should have three things: Population, Population in favor of the war/militar engagement, and Population against. Nation with larger population = +1, in favor = +1, against = -1. Then again, in three map game I have employed the use of "the League of Mathematicians," mod who do algorithm for other people unless they are involved in the war. As for using the vassals/puppets in the algorithm, I think two things: A, drop that, or B, use an insane formula like the one for chance. Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 16:43, May 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * Population in favor/against seems very easy to manipulate. I think that the "motive" points factor in that, as the people will be more in support of the action if it is life or death versus political. A "League of Mathematicians" sounds strange to me. Scandinator was the war moderator before he quit, but that didn't do anything. I think people should all make their own algorithms and then have them approved by the moderators, that is what I did on this game before becoming a moderator. LurkerLordB (Talk) 17:50, May 28, 2012 (UTC)

I proposed a bonus on my proposal page. This is: The number of population based on historical censes on the place or moderator aprooved stadistics: The bonus equals the number of zeros of the popualtion rounded off and the numbers of millions. So, a country with 9.000.000 inhabitants gets a 9 + 6 = 15 points bonus. BTW, what do you thinka bout my proposal? I mean, Lurker already told me, but I want to know what the rest thinks aobut it. --Galaguerra1 16:48, May 28, 2012 (UTC)

Colonies should be providing something to the war effort too -- VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 00:25, May 29, 2012 (UTC).

I added that the nation with the larger colonial empire in the war gets a +5 bonus. LurkerLordB (Talk) 03:00, May 29, 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I decided to be Scotland for the game. LurkerLordB (Talk) 03:29, May 29, 2012 (UTC)

Galaguerra, your system for population has some problems. For example, a nation with 9,000,000 inhabitants would have (9+6)15 bonus points, while a nation with 10,000,000 would have (1+7)8 bonus points, which makes no sense. For the moral and the popularity of the war, again that sounds fairly easy to be rigged by players to always have their troops have high moral and the war be popular. I think motivation would cover that. Speaking of motivation, I have some ideas to how to overhaul that system: This is because most conflicts just used the political motive as "trying to gain territory" motive, when the real purpose behind that would be economic. Also, I decided to split Social/Moral to differentiate between trying to help others versus trying to help your own people. For example, if Britain is oppressing the Northern Irish, and France goes to war to help them, it would be Social/Moral Friend, +5. However, if it is Ireland trying to help the Irish in Northern Ireland, it would be Social/Moral Kinsmen, +7.
 * Economic: Fighting for resources= +3
 * Defending: Fighting to defend territory you already own=+5
 * Social/Moral Friend:Fighting for social/moral reasons to help an ethnicity/race in the nation=+5
 * Social/Moral Kinsmen:Fighting for social/moral reasons to help a minority of your nation's main ethnicity/race in another nation:+7
 * Religious: Fighting for religious beliefs=+7
 * Life or Death:Opponents purpose is to destroy your nation=+10

Also, to clarify for the religious motivation: you can't just use this because your nation is a different religion. Furthermore, the religion you are supporting has to be the dominant religion of your nation, if you are helping a religious minority being persecuted in another nation that isn't the main religion of your nation, it is just Social/Moral Friend. Note that by main religion, it can either be denominational (Protestant vs. Catholic, Shi'a vs. Sunni) or religious (Christian vs. Muslim, Hindu vs. Sikh). A Catholic Spain can use this to help Orthodox Greeks being massacred by Muslim Ottomans, for example.

Potential causes of this motivation: If there are other instances you want to add to the list, or other motivations, please suggest them below. LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:08, May 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The nation you are fighting is severely increasing religious persecution or conversion of members of your nation's main religion. Almost all nations in the beginning of the game will have favored or official religions and some level of persecution against minorities. However, if a nation starts implementing new, much more severe actions, such as forced conversions or deaths, that they did not have before against members of your nation's main religion, you can use this.
 * 2) The nation you are fighting against has some holy site(s) for your nation's main religion, and has cut off or severely restricted access to those sites, or damaged, converted, or destroyed them.
 * 3) The government of the nation you are fighting against has opposed numerous conversion attempts by your nation. For example, over the past several decades, your nation has been sending missionaries into the other nation, but that nation's government has banned such activity and stopped the missionaries. The government needs to do this. If the government allows the missionaries by the people of the nation don't convert, you can't use this.
 * 4) The nation you are fighting against has either changed its official religion, which was once your main nation, or is allowing large amounts of converts recently. For example, if Britain suddenly breaks away from the Catholic Church and becomes Protestant, Spain can use this. Also, if for example Korea is still officially Buddhist, but they have recently permitted vast amounts of Christian converts in their nation to the extent that the status of Buddhism as the dominant religion in Korea is threatened, China can use this motivation.

Sorry, but you're wrong. A nation with 10.000.000 inhabitants would have 10 + 6 = 16 bonus, as the number counted in million equals 10, and it has 6 non-million zeros. I think it is more than plausible, as 1 million more population is 1 more bonus point.

Also, I think your causality system is very well. I'd like to be the mod for moral (popularity and loyalty).--Galaguerra1 00:16, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, so it's millions, not just the first digit. OK then. My main question is with the motives, is there any need for popularity or loyalty? I assumed that the higher motives were the ones the people thought strongest about, and the lower motives were the ones that the people were less enthused about. LurkerLordB (Talk) 01:06, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

Also, I added in all the names of people who had already called nations to the sign-up area, but you can change yours until the game begins. Kogasa, you said a Thai kingdom, and there are two, so I gave you Siam since the other is Sukhothai and tiny and landlocked. LurkerLordB (Talk) 01:11, June 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * It's good, I meant the Ayutthaya Kingdom (Siam) anyway. -Kogasa [[Image:Symbol of Natori, Miyagi.png|23px|border]][[Image:宮城県.png|23px|border]][[Image:Flag of Japan.png|23px|border]] 03:48, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

It was just a suggestion, as I consider the people's support to the ones invading/defending their country would be an important factor in a war, as the loyalty of the troops also influences the result. --Galaguerra1 01:18, June 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * But what I am saying is that the support of the people and troops goes under motivation already. They are going to be less enthused to fight and support the war if they are just fighting over resources, versus if they are fighting for their religion or fighting to defend their home nation. I can make the motive more important in the war if you want.


 * In fact, I was looking at the wars in this game, and I saw that currently, the two main factors in the wars are the stability and the number of allies. Only in close wars has military build up, motive, chance, or location mattered. Usually those things only matter in cases of whether or not the losing gov can be toppled. Due to this, the two factors that matter most in a war are allies and the length of government reign.


 * Now, one solution I had to this was the make military build up count as +2 for every year, which would make it count twice as more. Also, I was considering making a penalty for being in a lot of wars just as an ally, but I need ideas. Another idea I had was overhauling or removing the stability curve, as I am starting to find a system which would make the modern day USA a weak nation to be faulty, perhaps just making a system of Newly formed nation (less than 5 years since gov change (-10)), New nation ( 5-30 years since gov change (-5)), Average nation (20-100 years since gov change (+))), Old nation (100-300 years (+5)), Ancient nation (past 300 years (-5)).


 * Also there would be an industrialization bonus. In addition, I am planning to give a few moderator event bonuses to nations that sometimes take a year off from military build up or full expansion or war or anything to work on their economy, infrastructure, agriculture (or later) industrialization as a reward. LurkerLordB (Talk) 03:10, June 3, 2012 (UTC)

It's still larger than the number of a country such as argenitna, with See, it's a it complicated, even in bullet form. Plus, it does have some implausibilities. For example, someone with 60,000,000 population would get ((60+6)/2)=33 points, while someone with 40,000,000, like argentina, gets 46 points, a sizable advantage despite being only 2/3 of the size of the 60,000,000 nation's population.
 * (39 + 6) + 13 = 45 + 13 = 58.
 * If your nation is less than a million, it is the first digit of the population plus the number of the remaining digits
 * If your nation has less than 50 million inhabitants but above 1 million, its population bonus is determined by the number of millions +6. I
 * If your nation is between 50 and 100 million, it is the same as above, but with the end result divided in two, unless the first two digits add up to be more than fifty, in which case it is divided by four instead.
 * If your nation is above 100 million but less than 1 billion, the first digit is multiplied by the number made by the second and third digits, then added to six.
 * If the nation is above one billion, the result is made from six, plus the ten and one millions digits, plus the billions and hundred millions digits multiplied by two.

Here is an alternate idea: the initial population bonus is for the number of digits in the population. However, the nation with the larger population gets an additional +2. If the nation with the larger population is more than five times the size of the smaller nation, it gets a +10 bonus instead. If it is more than 10 times the population of the other nation, it gets a +20. Thoughts? LurkerLordB (Talk) 00:59, June 5, 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand your point, but I consider that the cause of the war is the motivation only for the government, not the people. An example: France is a dictature and Naples is a monarchy, but the people is actually more lbieral than the king. Then, Naples invades France, as France is commiting some acts they cosnider to be heretic, such as allying with a muslim nation, for example. Then, France would have the motive Life or Death, as Naples attemtps to topple the government, and the Life or Death cuase means 10 points in the algorythm., is the government's cause. But the people doesn't want to ahve this dictature anymore, so they would support this war, and not fight with a 10-points-motivation for their government. Also, the troops could be actually loyal to the dictator, but also they could be jsut interested in money, and let's suppsoe Naples has more money and actual possibilities of win the war. Now, Naples would have a religious cause, 7 points. But the people of Naples is not as conservative and religious as the King, so they surely wouldn't fight with a 7-points-motivation only for religious motives. But the troops of Naples could be religious, but be disposed to sell themselves to the enemy if France offers them enough money. This is way I consider the cause of the war doesn't reflect the whole support that the people and troops in general gives to the war, but the government's.
 * Also, I think the system for the government's antiquity is good. I think that, if we finally use the point system I proposed, we could have some extra points in the war if invest money in it, or in the military build ups. If not, the system of 1 build up equals +2 points is good enough for me. --Galaguerra1 03:34, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with the moral thing is that that just seems too manipulatable by the people. Then everyone would say all their people and armies were totally behind all their wars, or the moderators would be forced to control how every single nation's people felt in every single war, whether it fit the player's vision of their nation or not.
 * I will check your system again to see if it would work right, I might do both regardless. LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:35, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about your population system Galaguerra, and I have found a flaw: by this system, nations like China or India would get a thousand points on the algorithm, basically making them totally unstoppable. I know that nations with high populations are stronger, but I fear that the system you have makes them too strong. LurkerLordB (Talk) 16:02, June 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * May be those overpopulated countries could have a negative modification as they have to many people and that makes them much more susceptible to revolts, illness, hungry, pooverty, etc... An overpopulated country would be any country with a population larger than eight characters. Maybe if we calculate the number of million just counting the first eight digits, and then add up the extra characters duplicated. So, China, rounded off, has 1.353.000.000 inhabitants. 6 zeros, 39 as the first two characters of the number counted in millions. The formula would be: 53 + 6 + 13 x 2 = 95 points. India, with 1.258.000.000 inhabitants, gets an 84 poitns bonus.
 * A country with nine characters would have the first two digits multiplicated the extra one, plus the six zeros, plus the extra digit duplicated. USA's popualtion is 315.000.000 = 15 x 3 + 6 + 3 x 2 = 57.
 * If the first non-extra digits are more than 50, then the number is divided four times. a Country with 490.000.000 inhabitants would have (90 x 4 + 6 + 4 x 2) : 6 = 62 points as bonus.
 * If the country doesn't have eight characters, but the population is larger than 50.000.000, then we just divid it two times. So, for example, Vietnam with 89.000.000 inhabitants has a (89 + 6) : 2 = 52 bonus.
 * It's still larger than a country with less than eight characters, for example, Argentina, with 40.000.000, would have just 46.
 * This system could have some mistakes, but I tried to addapt it two current countries. I supose it would work, for now. If there's any msitake, please let me know. The results are big, I know, but, fi we're having so many bonuses, making the military build up equivalent 2 points, then we're having a large number based algorythm anyway. --Galaguerra1 20:46, June 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * That system is a little bit complicated, but it might be the way you worded it. To recap, this is what I would post on the page:

Hetalia (Principia Moderni)
There's a show that I absolutely adore. And that show is known as Hetalia. For all those unaware of it, Hetalia is a show that depicts history by utitizing national personifications. In other words it tells the tale of history by making each nation a human character. There would be differences in each nation's personality and appearance. Naples (and later Italy) has never been "useless" (the title effectively means "useless Italy" in Japanese), and Russia would be a saner character than depicted on the show. It would provide a wonderful opportunity not presented in the actual map game. The ability to role-play as your country. And when the map game becomes a timeline it can become that world's equivilent of Hetalia. I think it'd be fun to do. What do you say?

Yank 02:04, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

That seems quite fun, but what would Bharat's character be like? :D Imperium Guy 08:22, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

Sweden, Russia and Vietnam would hate each other.-Lx (leave me a message) 15:14, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

Finland would be in love/best friends with Japan :P also, Finland would be friends with Vietnam and France as well; and secretly hates Sweden too. -Kogasa 15:23, May 23, 2012 (UTC)


 * Russia would have a love-hate relationship with Finland, At times, Finland Living in Russia's House then going into Sweden's, Causing much rift between them. then Russia helps finland get her own house away from Sweden(or kick sweden away from his own house) when Sweden Mistreats finalnd.-Lx (leave me a message) 16:27, May 23, 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. And to add to what I said previous, Finland, is a female (as Finland has mostly had a female in charge during the unions/confederations and has Empresses and female Shoguns since independence). For Finland's looks, she looks similar to OTL Kogasa Tatara (minus the umbrella, and both eyes are blue) and her personality would be silly/friendly, though can easily fall under someone's control at times (ie, Sweden had forced Finland to be a province of them). -Kogasa [[Image:Symbol of Natori, Miyagi.png|23px|border]][[Image:宮城県.png|23px|border]][[Image:Flag of Japan.png|23px|border]] 16:48, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

I would also like the defining personality and physical traita of your nation as well as relationships. For instance my Vietnam has medium length black hair in a pony tail and green eyes. She usually (but not always) wears a green Áo Dài (traditional Vietnamese dress) and she always wears a Nón lá (conical straw hat). She usually carries around a rice paddle, which she uses to whack those who displease her. SHe is a confidant and irrepressible woman who always looks out for her friends. What I was saying is that could we make a page for this? {C --Yank 16:20, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

France would bea changin character, sometimes friend of Sweden, then Russia. Having both Sweden and Finland in his house for a while, then letting them go, disputing Sweden for the privilege of be Finland's friend. Then stay at Russia's house, taking control and making a mess. Finally becoming independent and friendly with almost everyone. Physicaly, France would be a tall, blond guy, with a french mustache, always wearing his blue and white uniform. Trying to be friendly, but, when angry, getting mad and troubeling everyone around.


 * For the Napoleonic Wars Russia Could go into a coma when He was experimenting with new technology while France was living with him(death of Emperor Paul I), Leaving France in charge, who then made a mess of things, and when Russia woke up, he quickly kicked france out.-Lx (leave me a message) 21:18, May 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * France quickly became a repuyblic when they first saw Russia was regaining independence. So the french would flee from Russia's hose and eventually reconcile with him. --Galaguerra1 16:41, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

Arabia would be like Osama bin Laden, at first being friend of France and his friends, but becoming more mad and selfish with the time and wanting everyone to obey him and do what he thinks is correct. Attacking everyone who opposes to him. He'd be an enemy of Bharat and Itsaygahi, a friend of Egypt, and consider Persia to be his son with some attention deficit. Persia, I think, should be unable to hear.

Haiti is a black guy who can't decide if he's a friend or an enemy of France, but he's a friend of his neighbors, Ricasolia, Isolaque, Mixxixxipi, Vietnam even.

The "Napoleonic War" we had could be a struggle between France and Vietnam because France did something wrong with Italy. The Northern Wars should be a endless struggle between Russia and Sweden. --Galaguerra1 17:08, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

To add alongside Finland, her sisters & brothers:

The Shogunate of Kōshi would look similar to OTL Satori Komeiji though without the third eye, and she wear a business suit. She is mostly a serious and friendly person and gets worried whenever something goes wrong. She is friendly with Japan, and helps out her sister Finland whenever she is in need of help.

Käwäshiro, he looks similar to OTL and is usually mean and greedy, and is always going for the money. Dislikes practicality anyone he meets, save for a few.

And Moriyää, she would like with long dark hair. She is mostly shy and would usually go to Kōshi or Finland for help or protection. -Kogasa 17:36, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

How would Italy uniting work? Italy is closer to Naples than it is to Venice. Naples/Italy would be a good friend to Anglo-Germany and to Vietnam, and would be friendly with France for the most part, and would be going back and forth between Sweden and Russia. Naples/Italy wouldn't like any of the Muslim nations and probably would be very religious, friends with any Papal States character. Venice on the other hand would hate Vietnam irrationally and be a sort of bitter character always wanting to become involved with everything that is going on.LurkerLordB (Talk) 19:49, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

Russia would be a very proud(perhaps too proud) and very obsessed with new guns and technology, and figuring out how to use it to destroy its enemies(as Russia is the driving force behind much of the world's military technology, and technology in general (ex. Industrialization, Aviation, Icebreakers, etc...)). He always likes wearing elequant outfits, although his house can get messy at times, and sometimes likes to slack up rules for people living in it so that they dont move out and be happy, but does not tolerate violence in his house. Russia is always getting himself into fights hating when somebody even treatens to take something of his or take people living with him away, and has gotten good at it. the only time the others got close to bringing him down is when they all teamed up against him. Russia has grey-blue eyes. He can be the Son of Moscow and Novgorod, with Grandfather Byzantine Empire, Grandmother Kievan Rus. His other family would include Uncle Greece(Son of Byzantium), other Slavic countries can be his cousins. His little Sibblings Ukraine(fond of Swords)and Belarus, Cousin Poland, Married to Lithuania, and Lithuania's little Brother Latvia are living in his house. Poland and Lithuania had a divorce, in witch hungary took Maiden Poland's side and Russia Lithuania's. Russia tried many times to try to convince Poland and Lithuania to come back together and live with him, witch they after about 4 or 5 attempts, although Poland is often complaining about the agreement, as Belarus is often popping into their affairs.-Lx (leave me a message) 21:16, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

Bharat would be a youngish character who often feels unsure on who to support when someone goes to war with another. Bharat would be a male in military uniform with normal length black hair who also likes weapons (hey Russia hasn't always got there first, we built the dreadnought first). Dravidia is his brother and Afganistan is his wife, which he had to fight Persia to get as Persia wasn't allowing the marriage. He would live in a bigish house which he has extended to be able to fit 3 people into. Persia would be something of a distant relative who with relations have soured. :D Imperium Guy 07:14, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

New Lithuania (Gabrielė Laurinaitienė) is a soft-spoken introvert who welcomes new friends into her heart after she gets to know them. She has shoulder-length dark brown hair tied in a ponytail and green eyes. She is afraid that Russia will come to take her away, as he did with her father Lithuania.


 * Hey. "Laurinaitis" is a male name in lithuanian. You should use "" or "Laurinaitytė". :) Doctor261  (Talk to Doctor261) 15:03, May 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry. As an Ango-Candian I am unused to male and female varients to last names.
 * Yank 23:34, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

Taiwan (Mei Xiao) is a a strong-willed, fashionable young woman who has moments where she can't stop worrying about things. She has long brown hair with a wild curly strand sticking out on the right side of her head and amber eyes. She always wears pink flowers in her hair, and typically wears a pink qipao to match.

Myanmar (U Aung Paing) is a traditonal and optimistic young man, whose belief in local superstitions can often reach near-comical levels. He has short black hair and has dark brown eyes.

Britain (Angus Wallace) is a friendly and brave gentleman with an appreciation for fine culture. He has bright red hair, extremely bushy eyebrows and bright blue eyes. He is never seen not wearing a kilt or balmoral hat.

Hungary: I don't have a idea for the personality of Hungary.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 17:23, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

You could look up the personality of Hetalia's Hungary and use that.

Yank 18:24, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

{C {C {C By using this site I edited a bit the looks and designs of Finland, Shogunate of Kōshi, and Moriyää (seen on right.) off from the OTL 東方Project characters of Kogasa Tatara, Satori Komeiji, and Reimu Hakurei. Just though I'd share the looks I had in mind. -Kogasa 05:19, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

I named my cat Satori :3 CrimsonAssassin 21:06, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

That's cute. :D, lol. -Kogasa 21:19, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

Erm, not too sure how I would like Nippon to be, I guess he is sort of quiet but then once he has an interest in something he never shuts up about it. He'd also be very powerful and enjoy sailing/sumo/profit-making. He also likes to try and solve other people's problems but secretly its for his own gain. He's also very protective of Finland, and envious of the large empires of China, Russia and France. Very good friends with Finland, Vietnam, China, the commonwealth & USA. He also has a love of food, art and martial arts.

The Commonwealth of Eetoria and Ngainkeha I'm not sure how to be. I'll come back to them at a later date...

The USA would be quite bold and rash, he would also be quite philosophical and righteous but also a bit of a bully to his weaker neighbours. However he is always looking out for numero uno, and will do whatever is best for him, (doesn't care too much about friendships cause he thinks everyone should be his friend because he's so great.) A bit arrogant too. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 10:40, May 29, 2012 (UTC)

Kenia

 * Location:4
 * Tactical Advantage:2
 * Strength:Kenia (M)
 * Motive:3
 * Expansion:
 * Military Expansion:
 * Puppet States:
 * Chance:
 * Stability:
 * Total:

Bale

 * Location: 1
 * Tactical Advantage: 0
 * Strength:Bale (L):4
 * Puppet States:0
 * Motive:10
 * Expansion:0
 * Military Expansion:0
 * Chance:3
 * Stability:
 * Total:

Discussion
This is for the war between Kenia and Bale.

Yank 01:36, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

Map problem (1910)
Where's Toyosaari, Finnish colony that's located on OTL Azores islands established in 1907? It's under another nation for some reason, or is there something I'm missing and I didn't notice? -Kogasa 22:21, May 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * exactly. Azores is Portuguese. i forgot to color it grey, so still is dark green. i think that you thought that it was black.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 09:59, May 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing its the same for Maderia and Nippon then? Dammit I knew it was a bit too good to be true VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 10:45, May 26, 2012 (UTC).
 * Yes.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 21:26, May 26, 2012 (UTC)

In 1905, South Africa Expanded into the rest of the Black territory via direct expansion. INstead of that, Hugary's colony expanded into that territory. Also, THe Russian Colony in New Zealand became a country a while back.-Lx (leave me a message) 22:34, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

There's still two itsaygahian states not annexed to itsayghai in the map, thoguh I did annex them, and they're shown light-blue. Ricasolia should also be in blue as it is a province of the Caribbean Federation. The Frre Republic of New Tsalagi (former guinean colony of Itsaygahi) is still not shown. The territory I sold to Bharat is also not shown. And, again, Adal is not shown in its fulle xtension, that is, all the black territory beneath it. --Galaguerra1 23:54, May 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * Which territory?--Collie Kaltenbrunner 09:59, May 26, 2012 (UTC)

The Commonwealth of Eetoria and Ngainkeha hasn't been expanded again! Please stop forgetting about my precious commonwealth Collie. Oh and for the record how much can the commonwealth actually expand in 1 year? Cause I can start posting pixel amounts of expansion for commonwealth so it stands out more on the page for you VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 11:03, May 26, 2012 (UTC).

Could you add colour to Berlin too. EzraNYC 13:39, May 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * I need to invent a new one, and i need to wait until i'm convinced that i won't waste that color (as in if you go to inactivity in a short period of time afetr entering.)--Collie Kaltenbrunner 21:28, May 26, 2012 (UTC)


 * Totally understand EzraNYC 21:41, May 26, 2012 (UTC)

Persia

 * Location:1
 * Tactical Advantage:2
 * Strength:Persia (L):4
 * Motive:5
 * Expansion:0
 * Military Expansion:1
 * Puppet States:0
 * Chance:4
 * 4*4=16
 * Editcount=5111
 * 5111/16*pi=1003.54
 * Stability:1.9^1.25/1.25^1.9*2.5*8=29
 * Total:46

Caribbean Federation

 * Location: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: 1 (invasion by sea, high ground)
 * Strength: Isolque (L), Haiti (MV), Ricasolia (M), Mixxixxippi (MV), USA (M), Muisca Confederation (MV), UKKnAnF (M), Dongfang (M), Nouvelle-Patagonie (M), Nouvelle-Champagne (M), Itsaygahi (M), New Tsalagi (MV), Malouinas (M)=36
 * Puppet States:0
 * Motive:10
 * Expansion:-2
 * Military Expansion: 7
 * Chance:7
 * 2*2*6=24
 * Editcount=1009
 * 1009/24*pi=132.07
 * Stability:2.8^1.25/1.25^2.8*2.5*8=38
 * Total:102

Result
A huge Caribbean Federation victory. The CF can take ((102/(102+46))*2)-1=37.83% of Persia at most, depending on how long the war lasts. If the war lasts at least 5 years, the Caribbean Federation will be able to topple the Persian government with (37.83)*(1-1/(2*5))=34.05% of Persian territory taken.

Discussion
I might have missed some of the military buildup for the Caribbean Federation, as we have so many nations now! (another reason so that players can only play as one former colony at a time in the next game). LurkerLordB (Talk) 02:22, May 26, 2012 (UTC)

So, Caribbean Federation... what will be done to Persia? LurkerLordB (Talk) 18:24, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

The war will last until 1913, this is five years. Then I'll occupy Persia, making it a vassal/colony of the Caribbean Federation. Itsaygahi will make the brazilian colony a vassal called the Free Republic of Persepolis. And the former Vicia will become an independent nation under my control, the Republic of Vicia.

If RWG wants to keep playing, fine, but not Persia. He could play this new Iraq sultanate, but I'd prefer him to not, as he just messes my plans for the muslim world.--Galaguerra1 20:53, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

Break
I'm going to be gone again for a while, because my dad just died, so please don't mess with Korea. I will be neutral in all wars (if I can) and technology and learning will still flourish. Thanks, PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs)

(Moved to the talk page)
I quit this game! It's been a crap ton load on me and I can't take it anymore! I really hope the next one to come out so I would not have a bad start! THE END! RandomWriterGuy 01:34, May 28, 2012 (UTC)

Extracted from the Main Page

 * Denmark is pissed that Norway, above all, left Denmark and meanwhile says something to Berlin: If we give you Denmark, this nation would be renamed, into Sweden, do you see? Meanwhile, a man from the southernmost part of Denmark acquires the designs for a Berlin tank and sells these to the government, who begin producing some, though not many. The Prime Minister order a naval blockade on Norway and troops are sent to Greenland to secure the area. The National Football (European football) Tournament, a nationwide famous sporting event, is cancelled until the global economy recovers and to accomplish the same goal, Denmark asks all nations to hold off war and other things of the such until the Depression is over.
 * France supports Denmark in this hard times, as France is a long time ally of Sweden and hates to see the countyr falling apart.
 * Berlin declares war on Denmark. Berlin ask Russia to follow suit. Berlin mobilizes its military and rolls out more tanks.
 * Wales asks that a cease fire can be reached between Denmark and Berlin. Wales states that war will only harm both nations and they should wait until the global economy stabilizes. Wales will claim neutrality, unless otherwise provoked. Mean while Wales requests an alliance with France to help insure European peace
 * The USG condem this war as unecessary and imeprialist, but the Franfurt Treaty proposal is still on.
 * What the hell? That's completely retarded! This is retarded because: A: Berlin is extremely weak now, especially with the Depression, B: You have no reason to invade, do you see again? C: We were offering you help! D: You agreed to help us if Russia invades! D: Now Wales will definitely not help you, because Wales has agreed to send help to Denmark in case of invasion/war and Denmark has offered Wales help against Vietnamese Britain. You are the one who will fall in this war.
 * Denmark asks France for help against Berlin and declares war.
 * France won't help you. They are under a 10 year non agression treaty with Berlin. Also, BERLIN never agreed to help you with anything.
 * Wales states that if France joins the war, so to then must Wales, as Wales is now in an alliance with France. Also Wales offers to sell 100 Thunderbolt 109's to France and Denmark to help keep the peace. (the Thunderbolt 109 is modeled after the Messerschmitt b109)
 * Wales sends financial and food aid to BOTH Berlin and Denmark as a gesture of good will and a hope that the conflict can be resolved. Wales cannot attack Berlin do to a non aggression pact signed last turn, however Wales wishes to remain neutral in ALL THREATRES OF WAR.
 * Ahem France To quote your own forgetful self: "France supports Denmark in this hard times, as France is a long time ally of Sweden and hates to see the country falling apart." BUT THE POINT IS, I DIDN'T SAY YOU AGREED TO ANYTHING, ALL I ASKED FOR WAS HELP. IS THAT TOO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?
 * THIS WAS ME (BERLIN) TALKING! NOT FRANCE!
 * Denmark accepts Thunderbolt 109s gratefully.
 * I didn't psot, Berlin's player was who posted that about France not going to war with Berlin. If Berlin invades Denmark, then I'll have to intervene, as it's too near my country and it will affect the whole Europe in crisis. Really, the last very year Berlin and Denmark were allies,a s far as I know, and now you Tare invading Denmark? In the middle of a crisis? I would be glad if you think on this and decide to not go to war and sign the treaty I propsoed you below.
 * If you intervene then that would be a breach of our treaty. Berlin will sign your treaty proposed as long as you do not intervene in Denmark.
 * Wales asks that you please reconsider your position. Both our nations are small and a war of this magnitude could ruin the world economy even more than what has happened already. Do you want to collapse? Because that is what will happen. Wales will grant economic aid as the nation was not hit as hard as the rest of Europe if you'll simply BACK DOWN!
 * Berlin refuses this offer. We ask Wales to please stay neutral in this war as they have alliances with Denmark AND Berlin. 
 * I (Wales) made a mistake earlier on, I am new to Map Games and did not understand certain aspects, now I have unintentionally back-stabbed an ally over this stupid war. I will remain neutral and apologize to Berlin, my ally, it will not happen again. Also Denmark, I am sorry for messing up by allying myself to you AND Berlin. I was thinking last night that you two might become allies(at least temporarily). So I made a mistake that has harmed both your nations, I apologize sincerely to the both of you and hope this war ends soon.
 * 'Attention, I just think what is happening recently is retarded: Just last year Berlin and Denmark allied, this year Berlin is invading. This year, Denmark is allied with Wales. Meanwhile, France offered aid to Denmark, but then Berlin jumps in making people think France was writing when it was really Berlin talking. You're supposed to write like this: Berlin: XYZ. Meanwhile, the whole world has fallen into a economic depression/recession, but Berlin takes the time to INVADE AN ALLY. Meanwhile Berlin says France will not intervene, but France says it will if Berlin goes to war with Denmark.'
 * Of course you think its retarded, because your the one who's getting invaded!!! Also I was not your ally last year! Thirdly, I DID NOT PRETEND TO BE FRANCE!!!!! I EVEN CLARIFIED SAYING "THIS IS BERLIN, NOT FRANCE" AFTERWORDS when there was confusion. Now your freaking out because your scared of loosing the war.
 * Okay, if that's what you think (even if you spelled most of it wrong), I'll let the others fight. You fight against Wales, Finland's puppets, vassals, whatever, and France. You fight against Andrew, and Galeguerra. Then, keyword: "Afterwards." And we were allies! I promised to be your ally if need came for you to fight against the UGS! Anyways, I quit until this issue is resolved. I'm on strike.
 * News flash but I am not fighting with Wales (we are allys), Finland (never even spoken to them or mentioned ANYTHING about them ever), nor France (we have a effing peace treaty. No! Its just you!! But quiting; yeah thats the mature way of handeling it! And FYI I am on a mobile device which makes things a little freaking hard!!
 * Non of you is quitting. Berlin, this is stupid. You did accept the danish offer last year in case you declared war on me, and then you're invading it during a global recession. France will side with Denmark if you insist in this. Also, if you're getting Austria into this, and Denmark is involving Wales and Finland, not to mention its vassals, we're having a huge war that only will make the economical situation of Europe worse. If you still plan on make war, then we're all doomed. I ask you deeply, sign a non-agression pact with Denmark, become allies again, sign the German Cooperation Treaty (Denmark is welcome to sign it too). We'll help you conquering the two remaining german state wouth of you.
 * Denmark agrees to a cooperation treaty. And I'll not quit, for everyone's sake. Denmark will also help take Czechland and that other nation.
 * That other nation is Silesia, and Bohemia/Czechland is not a German state.
 * Wales requests that a European Council be formed by Wales, France and anybody else in Europe that will help prevent things like this from happening in the future (sort of like OTL European Union) 
 * I DID NOT ACCEPT ANYTHING!!! SHOW ME WHERE I ACCEPTED ANYTHING FROM DENMARK! Show me!!! Also, Austria has already declared war on Denmark with me. And if you declare war on me then your breaching our treaty. I WILL NOT BACK DOWN.
 * 'God this reminds me of...well...me during war...and people bashing me for it...and me franticaly trying to persuadew others not to go to war with me, scared to loose. Although, I do think I was a bit more controlled, but whatdo I know, when i am desperate I dont know what i'll do. I propose we just move this to the talk page. its realy clotting up the main page, and thats always kind of annoying.
 * Ok then. To the talk!

Russia

 * Location: 3
 * Tactical Advantage:1
 * Russia(L)/Poland-Lithuania-Belarus(M)/Novorossiya(MV)/South Africa(MV)/Iroquois(SV)/South-Pacifica(MV)/Armenia(MV): 16
 * Motive:3(Economic)
 * Expansion:0
 * Military Expansion:11
 * Puppet States:-4
 * Chance:2495/4*pi=959.56
 * Stability:4.1^1.25/1.25^4.1*2.5*9=52
 * Total:88

Moldovia

 * Location: 5
 * Tactical Advantage:0
 * Moldovia(L): 4
 * Puppet States:0
 * Motive:10
 * Expansion:0
 * Military Expansion: 0
 * Chance:1
 * Stability:55.5^1.25/1.25^55.5*2.5*7=0
 * Total:20

Result
Russia demolishes Moldova, they can take ((88/(88+20))*2)-1=62.96% of Moldova, enough to capture their government and take all their territory in one year.

Discussion
This may be the easiest war yet. LurkerLordB (Talk) 19:10, May 29, 2012 (UTC)

Berlin

 * Location: 4
 * Tactical Advantage: 2
 * Berlin (L), Austria (M), Dravidia (S), Keralans (SV), Sri Lanka (SV), Bharat (M), Onguayal (MV), Bihar (MV): 18
 * Puppet States: 0
 * Motive: 5
 * Expansion: 0
 * Military Expansion: 5
 * Chance: 1
 * Editcount=230
 * Time=2*3*5*5=150
 * Chance=230/150*pi=4.81
 * Stability: 4.3^1.25/1.25^4.3*2.5*7=41
 * Total: 76

Denmark

 * Location: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: 0
 * Denmark (L), Shogunate of Kōshi (M), Republic of Kazami (MV), Eesti Vabariik (MV), Wales (M), France (S), Flanders (MV), USG (MV), Nubia (S): 23
 * Puppet States: 0
 * Motive: 10
 * Expansion: 0
 * Military Expansion: 2
 * Chance: 1
 * Editcount=4516
 * Time=2*1=2
 * Chance=4516/2*pi=7093.71
 * Stability: 2.5^1.25/1.25^2.5*2.5*7=31
 * Total: 69

Result
Berlin win.

Discussion
This is obviously not finished yet but so far I think I got it all correct. Could someone please try to finish it and then review it. ALSO, this war may be just beginning and could drag in all of Europe. This is just the preliminary algorithim and is very likely to change.

France said they were joining the war on Denmark's side as well as USG and Flanders. Nubia is also aiding Denmark

In northern Africa, they are sending supplies to France via Italy (and some military aid I think)

Where the heck is Nubia? LurkerLordB (Talk) 00:11, May 30, 2012 (UTC)

Ancient Sudan.-Althistoryman11.

Vietnam may soon side with Denmark.

'''There is no need to post speculation on this page. Especially before the player has yet to respond to you at all. That's misrepresenting.'''

Where is Eesti Vabariik??

Eesti Vabariik is Estonian for Estonia Republic and thus it's roughly OTL Estonia. It is just under Finland and borders the Gulf of Finland, and is bordered by Russia. -Kogasa 14:06, May 30, 2012 (UTC)

This is probably the wrong place to put this, but Wales and Nubia invaded Ethiopia and plan to split the nation. Do you need an algorithm? Andr3w777 19:29, May 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 22:25, May 30, 2012 (UTC)

To end the war Berlin proposes the Treaty of Cardiff (Principia Moderni).

No. Now Finland has joined the war, quote: "Prime Minister Katriin Mägi accepts the Danish alliance and continues helping the Danish in their war against Berlin" You see? 'Tis now the Danes, France, Finland, Eesti Vabariik, Koshi, Wales I think, I also believe UGS joined unless I am misinterpreting the game. This war is far from over. Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 22:35, May 30, 2012 (UTC)

The USG did join. They're already listed and in the algorithm. And Finland has not declared war. That country is not controlled by you.

Did you read what I quoted? "Prime Minister Katriin Mägi accepts the Danish alliance and continues helping the Danish in their war against Berlin " Finland is sending aid, see? Just ask Kogasa. Kogasa, it is indeed military aid, is it not? Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 22:47, May 30, 2012 (UTC)

Ah wait, pardon me, that was Finland talking for EV. 'Scuse me. Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 22:49, May 30, 2012 (UTC)

Question: Could one of the mods check when Berlin and Denmark declared war? I recall doing it just minutes after the Berlin declaration. Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 22:59, May 30, 2012 (UTC)

That wouldn't change anything.

Berlin, Denmark, France, and Wales all sign the Treaty of Cardiff. The war offically ends.

France

 * Location: 4
 * Attacker's adventage: 1
 * Tactical Advantage: 0
 * Strength:France (L), Germany (MV), Flanders (MV), Castille (MV): 10
 * Motive: 5
 * Expansion: -1
 * Military Expansion: 14
 * Puppet States: -1
 * Chance: ?
 * Stability: ?
 * Total: 32 + S + C

Spanish Coallition

 * Location: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Strength: Aragon (L), Navarra (M), Catalonia (M) 10
 * Puppet States:0
 * Motive: 10
 * Expansion: 0
 * Military Expansion: 0
 * Chance: 7
 * Stability: 24 (2.2^1,25/1,25^2,2x6x2,5)
 * Total: 57

Result
Still to be determined

Discussion
I ask for vietnamese help, as they promised me to support my claims on Spain if I suppported their claims on Morocco ( think its Morocco, I remember we made this pact). --Galaguerra1 19:17, May 29, 2012 (UTC)

Tangiers will join in the next turn as long as France promises to join the planned invasion of Morocco in 1920. Also can someone please help mefinish the algorithms for the two wars I started?

Yank 20:17, May 29, 2012 (UTC)

France will help you in your war, then. --Galaguerra1 21:22, May 29, 2012 (UTC)

The population number for Aragon is six because i think that is unlikely that a small territory like that contain more than 1 million people.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 21:32, May 29, 2012 (UTC)

Well, since nobody's doing the stability, the most optimist result would be a slight French victory.not enough to annex them.maybe some border territory.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 21:52, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

No, France needs 26 points to win. They might not even get that. Gal just do your chance and stability scores like the rest of us have to.

Also since when did we do coalition wars? VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 21:59, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to say that since nobody was doing the stability (because i don't have any idea of when was the last government change on France), i guessed through what i think that are average stability numbers (somewhere between 21 and 26), that the most optimistic result would be a narrow French victory.

Yeah I know that, I'm just against Gal being let off because he ain't done this algorithm. Not fair to the rest of us who do our algorithms. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 17:27, June 2, 2012 (UTC)

What year was it that France broke their coalition with Russia and overthrow the son of the guy who conquered all those places? LurkerLordB (Talk) 01:33, June 3, 2012 (UTC)

Somewhere between 1874 and 1885.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 21:53, June 4, 2012 (UTC)

Joining?
Hello, I was wondering if I could join Principa Moderni (late I know). Can anyone suggest any free nations and details about them, because I haven't really been keeping track of what happened in the game, other than most of Northern Europe seems to be Japanese-inflluenced. If anyone could help me here, that would be great.

Monster Pumpkin 21:42, May 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * Nothing's realy japanese-influenced, that's just Finland-Lx (leave me a message) 23:05, May 29, 2012 (UTC)

If you are looking for a european nation, you could be one of the Spanish States or Portugal, other than that...well, there are african states available.-Lx (leave me a message) 23:05, May 29, 2012 (UTC)

The Netherlands and Prussia are Japanese-influenced as well. We have a ton of nations in Europe now, it would be nice if you were somewhere else. You could ask if anyone has any vassals or former colonies or something which they are willing to let you play as. I could give you Pahang (the yellow area where Malaysia and parts of Indonesia are) next year if you want. LurkerLordB (Talk) 23:29, May 29, 2012 (UTC)

I have a lot of vassals, puppets and former colonies if you want some of them. Iran, Itsaygahi, Malouinas, the United Kingdom of Kanada, Novo-Armannak and Nova-Frankía, etc... If you're interested in the MIddle East, then you could join as the recntly independent Sultanate of Iraq. --Galaguerra1 01:13, May 30, 2012 (UTC) {C The same as Lx.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 05:35, May 30, 2012 (UTC)

I could be Iraq, if someone could fill me in on what is going on over there. Also, Spain seems to have been taken and all the other states were conquered, is that correct? Monster Pumpkin 19:42, May 30, 2012 (UTC)

Iraq was a part of Persia a couple years ago. When Persia attacked the Republic of Mixxixxipi, which is a vassal of the Caribbean Federation, they obviously lost, and Iraq became independent while the rest of Persia became a caribbean vassal. Since then, the Caliphate of Arabia have tried to protect Iraq from the influence of Bharat and the Federation. So you would be an ally of Arabia and, if you want, the new government of Iran. --Galaguerra1 19:57, May 30, 2012 (UTC)

So I am free to join as Iraq then? Monster Pumpkin 00:44, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

Nippon

 * Location: 2


 * Attacker's advantage: 1


 * Motive(Social): 6


 * Expansion: 0


 * Military Update: 14


 * Nippon(L)/Chamoru(MV)/Brunei(MV)/Sunda(M)/Commonwealth of Eetoria and Ngainkeha(M)/USA(M)/Muisca(MV)/Finland(M)/Eesti Vabariik(MV)/Shogunate of Kōshi(M)/Republic of Kazami(MV), Bharat (M), Bihar (MV): 34


 * Chance: 4
 * Time:1x2x2 = 2
 * Editcount: 3,844
 * 3,844/2 x pi = 6,038.14108


 * Participation: 10


 * Stability: 4.1^1.25/1.25^4.1*2.5*8 = 47


 * Total: 118

Republic of Malaya

 * Location: 5


 * Motive(Life or death): 10


 * Expansion: 0


 * Military update: 0


 * Republic of Malaya(L): 4


 * Chance: 8 (RNG)


 * Participation: 10


 * Stability: 1


 * Total: 38

Result
((113/(113+38))*2)-1 = 0.496688742

Nipponese victory. Nippon has right to 50% of Malayan territory, thus causing the Malayan government to collapse.

Discussion
I can make Malaya a puppet state right? Then I take over Dayak next turn, and then combine them all into the Sultanate of Brunei. I claim Dayak, and will be invading next turn. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 12:31, May 30, 2012 (UTC)

You can't exactly make it into a "sultanate" as it is 85%+ hindu. The player of Brunei stated that when he played the game. It could be more like the Brunei Raj. :P Imperium Guy 11:41, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

I thought it already was a sultanate, as OTL Brunei is Muslim & it was in this game, so when did it change to a raj? <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 11:47, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

I just had a look threw Brunei's past posts, they are majority Hindu, but the royal family is Muslim. As in 1836 Brunei is concerned with the war against Muslims (as the royal family is Muslim) and in 1823 it talks about the white peace between Hindu nobles and Muslim royal family. The country is split up by religion (from largest to smallest): Hindu, Muslim, Christian, other religions. There is no mention of 85% hindu though, I'd say more like 61% Hindu, 25% Muslim, 5% Christain, and 9% other (buddists, schistists, etc.) I also assume its quite a secular nation since there is such a diverse range of religion. Anyway Brunei is a sultanate, <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 12:19, May 31, 2012 (UTC).

If the royals are Muslim, they might still use the Sultan title for themselves. LurkerLordB (Talk) 14:34, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

Tbh, I thought that I saw one of Brunei's post saying that they were *)% hindu etc but oh well. I'll invade Dayak and hand it over to you in a year or two (even Bharat has redone its army and needs to test it somewhere!!). :P Imperium Guy 18:00, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

Don't you worry, I'm invading Dayak myself! Feel free to send military aid/forces to back me up though. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 22:40, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

I kinda declared war on them in '16, after your post. :/ Imperium Guy 11:02, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

How to Vassal a country?
I wan't to vassal Czechland(The Nation above me) but do I have to go to war or do what I'm doing Diplomatic marriage?-Althistoryman11

I was currently planning on vassalizing that country since it's modern and traditional Germany land. EzraNYC 20:57, May 30, 2012 (UTC)

Ah.

Sorry man. Since you helped me so much in the war I'd like to make a pact with you saying that if your ever attacked, Berlin will immediatly declare war on the attacker with you.

Alright thanks.-Althistoryman11.

Who put this up here?--Collie Kaltenbrunner 07:04, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

Willster22. I've removed it. Lordganon 07:52, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I will remove it if you want it. I was just wondering how to.-Althistoryman11.

LOL, Czechland is not traditional German land whatsoever, they are not German or even Germanic, and were not ever ruled over by Germany in this map game. Religiously they are closer to Austria than Berlin. LurkerLordB (Talk) 14:33, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

I have plans to vassal South Ireland, how would I go about doing that? Andr3w777 17:41, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

Russia

 * Location: 3
 * Tactical Advantage:1
 * Russia(L)/Poland-Lithuania-Belarus(M)/Novorossiya(MV)/South Africa(MV)/Iroquois(SV)/South-Pacifica(MV)/Armenia(MV): 16
 * Motive:3(Economic)
 * Expansion:-1
 * Military Expansion:0
 * Puppet States:-4
 * Chance: 0
 * 2*2*3*1= 12
 * 2505/12 *pi= 655.8 0 74
 * Stability: 4.2^1.25/1.25^4.2*2.5*9= 52.99 ~ 53
 * Total: 71

Danubia

 * Location: 5
 * Tactical Advantage:0
 * Danubia(L): 4
 * Puppet States:0
 * Motive:10
 * Expansion:0
 * Military Expansion: 0
 * Chance:9 (random)
 * Stability: 0.1^1.25/1.25^0.1*2.5*7=1
 * Total: 29

Result
Crushing Russian Victory. Russia is able to take ((71/(71+26)) -0.5) *2=42% of Danubia, Enough to Topple the Governement. Russia Annexes Bessarabia.

Discussion
Bessarabia? when you annexed Moldavia you already obtained it. it makes no sense fight for Bessarabia when you already control it.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 07:28, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

The Rest of Bessarabia controlled by wallacia, and I wanted the part that bordered the black sea, Moldavia only had part of Bessarabia, and DAnubia had the rest. And also, I didnt like how their border lookd with that little part bordering russia and the black sea.-Lx (leave me a message) 12:50, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

Nippon

 * Location: 2
 * Attacker's advantage: 1
 * Motive (Social): 6
 * Expansion: 0
 * Military Update: 2
 * Nippon(L)/Chamoru(MV)/Brunei(MV)/Sunda(M)/Commonwealth of Eetoria and Ngainkeha(M)/USA(M)/Muisca(MV)/Finland(M)/Eesti Vabariik(MV)/Shogunate of Kōshi(M)/Republic of Kazami(MV), Bharat (M), Bihar (MV) & Wales (M): 37
 * Chance: 4
 * Time:1x2x5x3 = 30
 * Editcount: 3,861
 * 3,861/30 x pi = 404.3’’’2’’’29745
 * Participation: 10
 * Stability: 4.3^1.25/1.25^4.3*2.5*8 = 47
 * Total: 109

Dayak Confederacy

 * Location: 5
 * Motive(Life or death): 10
 * Expansion: 0
 * Military update: 0
 * Republic of Malaya(L): 4
 * Chance: 4 (RNG)
 * Participation: 10
 * Stability: 0.3^1.25/1.25^0.3*2.5*6 = 3
 * Total: 36

Result
((109 / (109 + 36))* 2)-1 = 0.503448276 {C Nipponese victory. Nippon has right to 50% of Dayak territory, thus causing the Dayak government to collapse.

Discussion
I just did it myself Imp. I just said that a small Bharati force was already attacking the Dayaks, and then the army which just invaded Malaya came and joined in. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 13:05, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

Tbh, I have no problem with that as I would have given it to you anyway. :D Imperium Guy 13:51, June 4, 2012 (UTC)

Wales

 * Location: 4


 * Tactical Advantage: 2


 * Wales (L), German Union (M), Denmark (MS): 12


 * Puppet States: 0


 * Motive: 5


 * Expansion: 0


 * Military Expansion: 7


 * Chance: 0


 * Editcount=515


 * Time=02:52:34=16


 * Chance=515*16*3.14=25873.60


 * Stability: 4.3^1.25/1.25^4.3*2.5*7=41
 * Total: 72

South Ireland

 * Location: 5


 * Tactical Advantage: 0


 * South Ireland (L): 4


 * Puppet States: 0


 * Motive: 10


 * Expansion: 0


 * Military Expansion: 0


 * Chance: 6


 * Stability: 0.3^1.25/1.25^0.3*2.5*7=4


 * Total: 28

Result
Welsh victory, at most Wales can take ((72/(72+28))* 2)-1=44.00% of the Southern Irish, enough to take over the South Irish government if the war lasts at least 2 years, as (44%)*(1-1/(2*2))=33.00%.

Discussion
The basic alogrithm is complete. If somebody could compute the stability and Total that would be swell. Andr3w777 04:32, June 2, 2012 (UTC)

Wales' stability should be higher, as they have been independent since they broke away from Itsaygahi without any stability change, when the player takes over the nation doesn't matter for stability unless their first turn is to found the nation or change its government. I will find the year and recalculate it. LurkerLordB (Talk) 17:46, June 2, 2012 (UTC)

Good job on doing your algorithm yourself. :) LurkerLordB (Talk) 18:21, June 2, 2012 (UTC)

I actually did it. EzraNYC 19:17, June 2, 2012 (UTC)

Good job then, it annoys me when people come begging to make the algorithm and no wars are made. The problem is with the chance though, it is the tenths digit, even if that digit is 0. Doesn't change anything though really. LurkerLordB (Talk) 19:20, June 2, 2012 (UTC)

Denmark
Location: close to the location of the war: 3

Tactical Advantage: 1

Denmark (L,+4), Wales (M,+3), Koshi (M,+3), Eesti Vabariik (M,+2), Nippon (M,+3), Kazami (M,+2)

Military Developement: 1

Expansion:0?

Motive: 5(political)

Chance: 8 Total: 71
 * Time UTC: 1x7x5x5=175
 * Edit Count: 4647
 * Chance = 175x4647x3.14=83.380454
 * Stability:26
 * Participation:10

Norway
Stability:8
 * Location: 3
 * Tactical: 0
 * Strength: Norway (L, +4)
 * Motive: 10
 * Chance: RNG (1-10, 10)
 * Participation:10
 * Total: 45

Result
71/116 -0,5x2 = 0,224137932 Danish victory: Denmark has right to 22,4 % of Norwegian territory.

Discussion
I think I did it right, but no one has responded to my call of war yet. If one of the mods could check it over, it would be appreciated. Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 17:15, June 3, 2012 (UTC)

Ok, allies have joined me. Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 20:40, June 3, 2012 (UTC)

The Best Way to actualy do an Algorithm is to Take one from an actual war that you know has been faught. Copy-Paste that onto a Word Document, then Delete all the Info about the actual war, leaving only a template. then Copy-Paste the Template you have for each Nation(the nation names, result and discussion are the only things that should be heading 3), and then fill in the blanks.-Lx (leave me a message) 20:51, June 3, 2012 (UTC)

NPC's have chances too.they are determined by Random Number generators.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 22:11, June 3, 2012 (UTC)

Ok I did one. Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 22:13, June 3, 2012 (UTC)

And i 've finished the algorythm.except for the results.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 22:26, June 3, 2012 (UTC)

How long do you want the war to last, Scrawland? As that determines how much territory you can take. I think it would be more plausible to take the Canadian territory and not the mainland Norweigan territory, as you would have to have toppled the government of Norway to do that. LurkerLordB (Talk) 13:54, June 4, 2012 (UTC)

Until 1921. I'm taking Greenland -- is that an appropriate size compared to the results? Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 23:06, June 4, 2012 (UTC)

Map Issues of 1920
The Finnish colony of Toyosaari on OTL Réunion is missing (was established in 1916). -Kogasa 22:08, June 4, 2012 (UTC)

And Georgia is kind of Wierd, and too big. The borders for Russia and Transcaucassia are roughly OTL(They are based on the Caucassus mountain range), and Abkhazia and South ossetia are not part of georgia(they arent actualy geortian nationalities). Also, I had made a map for transcaucassia for reference. I know that its very hard(and it took me about an hour or so to actualy do the borders properly, but you can...nevermind i'll try to do it myself on photoshop.-Lx (leave me a message) 22:16, June 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * I used as base the proposal of the Division of the ottoman Empire.this was when you annexed them.and, the creation of Transcaucasia intrinsically means that Georgia can't be independent.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 07:27, June 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * The Borders of "Georgia" were not there before. At fist Transcaucasia was a way to kind of get around Georgia ecoming grey, but now I realixze that ist a more plausible way for tehm to get their borders and form a governement. I owverlayed the borders on photoshop. mission accomp;lished-Lx (leave me a message) 12:07, June 5, 2012 (UTC)

Wales controls the whole of southern Ireland as the war ended this year with the toplling of the Collectivist gov't(see algorithm) Andr3w777 22:18, June 4, 2012 (UTC)

Brunei is once again in control of all of Borneo, minus the Russian colony. Brunei is a Nipponese vassal state now too. Plus Nippon gained Mauritius from Brunei as payment for saving Brunei. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 22:23, June 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * That isn't a Russian colony.is a Bruneian puppet called Dayak confederacy.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 07:27, June 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * The light blue colony on Borneo is a Bruneian puppet? <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 11:17, June 5, 2012 (UTC)

I also noticed a mod event in 1916 that united the Romanian and Bulgarians into one nation, Union of Danubia. On the map it shows Romania and Bulgaria separate. Unless they are shown to be subdivided with-in a nation, then never mind. -Kogasa 05:04, June 5, 2012 (UTC)


 * I forgot to do it.

Czechland is now a vassal of the German Union. EzraNYC 12:26, June 5, 2012 (UTC)



Denmark
Location: close to the location of the war: 3

Tactical Advantage: 1

Denmark (L,+4), Wales (M,+3), Koshi (M,+3), Eesti Vabariik (M,+2), Nippon (M,+3), Kazami (M,+2)

Military Developement: 1

Expansion:0?

Motive: 5 (political)

Chance: 4 Total: 67
 * Time UTC: 0*0*2*3=6
 * Edit Count: 4660
 * Chance = 6x4661x3.14=87813.24
 * Stability:
 * Participation: 10

Norway
Stability: Result:
 * Location: 3
 * Tactical: 0
 * Strength: Norway (L, +4)
 * Motive: 10
 * Chance: RNG (1-10, 10)
 * Participation:
 * Total: 45

Denmark takes X% of Norway, enough/not enough to take the Arctic islands.

Discussion
Could one of the mods finish it? Stability and the such? Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 23:28, June 4, 2012 (UTC)