Talk:Principia Moderni (Map Game)

Labeled Map


The map will only be up-to-date for five years at a time, and I'm not planning on doing it more than every few decades. This is just a guideline to help people understand the situation of the countries. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 04:16, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't somebody updating that map above? RandomWriterGuy 06:51, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

I tried to do it, but is impossible to add those letters.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 12:34, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

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.

Discussion
Vassals no longer have an effect on war? Kunarian 20:46, September 23, 2011 (UTC)

They do. They may be used as combatants, but expansion in countries with vassals is multiplied by 1.5. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 23:20, September 29, 2011 (UTC)

Stage 1

 * Russia main nation + Livonia, Lithuania, Armenia, Kazakhstan
 * Finland main nation
 * Estonia + Sweden - only on Scandinavian peninsula

Stage 2

 * None.

Stage 3

 * None.

Stage 4

 * None

Stability for non-player nations
Just to clarify: from this point on, the population and time ruled factors in the algorithm will be replaced with bonus points for player nations. For non-player nations, it will go as follows:

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

Any problems with this system?

Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 23:25, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I tweaked it slightly just a second ago, and it is correct as above. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 01:16, October 31, 2011 (UTC)



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)

Stability for Player States
Okay, time for the new system. This should be a lot more simple and a lot fairer.

System on Stability
The new system will distinguish government stability score (GSS) from common stability score (CSS). The sum is overall stability score (OSS).

Government stability score is basically the stability curve. The formula is 10*d^1.25/1.2^d where d is the number of decades the government has been in power, rounded to the nearest year. It is rounded to the nearest 0.1.

Common stability score starts at zero, and measures the stability of the common people. This number starts at zero. Economic improvements, propaganda, and religious revivals are +0.5 per year. Expansion and war are -1 per year. Make the most out of your expansion, and choose wisely guys.

When OSS reaches 0, you get a mod rebellion, so you can always change governments before then to keep this from happening.

System on War Algorithms
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. 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. But you still lose -1 CSS for each turn you take during the war. However, it should be noted that the person who chooses how long the war is going to last is the winner. The winner may not hold the war if their OSS goes to zero. A country fighting on multiple fronts will lose twice as many OSS each turn.

If your OSS reaches zero during a war, you will have a rebellion during the war but it will not affect your overall score.

System on Rebellions
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.

Why this works:
 * The stability scores are much lower and much less variable.
 * It actually takes into account usage of resources.
 * It prevents people from accumulating huge stability scores and wielding them against blank player nations who only have the stability curve.
 * It discourages too many changes of government because countries are most vulnerable as soon as they change government.
 * Rebellions have a good chance but they won't necessarily take over the entire country or completely be annihilated.
 * It's possible to keep your stability score artificially just above zero, but if you get invaded, you're screwed.

Discussion
Please discuss here. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 05:28, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

... after all my effort... ah well i understand. Especially since Hungary was going to get 114 points if I updated now Scandinator 06:22, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

I like this system much better. The old one would have worked good in theory, but there were too many things which opinion could effect or were complicated. It would work well in a videogame or something though. LurkerLordB 21:59, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

My only question is how drastic does it have to be to be considered a change in government? LurkerLordB 22:14, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think mod rebellions should be like a civil war. CrimsonAssassin 00:01, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well, I can't think of a better way to give rebellions a chance without taking too much territory out of the nation. Got a better idea?

And a change in government would mean that the previous government wouldn't have wanted the change to happen. This is different from say, a new king that is much more well liked than his predecessor. Instead, the way you make your king more well-liked is with propaganda, which adds

One problem I am running into. Take the scenario: someone works on their economy one hundred years straight, and their stability is at 50 by the end of that period. Then, they go on a rampage, and because their stability is so high, they conquer about 20 countries with about 2 years each, and still have about 10 stability left, which makes it hard for them to be invaded. The only solution I can think of is another curve (yay). So when your Common Stability Score gets above 5 or below -5, additional quantities are square rooted. So instead of 8 stability points, it would be 5+√(3), and the person in the example would have 5+√(45) stability, which is about 11.7 instead of 50. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 02:12, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

If someone was working on their economy for a hundred years straight, they deserve a successful rampage if you ask me. CrimsonAssassin 02:30, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Crimson, both to make it fair to nations that works on their economy for a hundred years straight, and because I am tired of math. LurkerLordB 02:56, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

Independence Movements
in response to some concerns, I'll address the issue of colonial independence here. I'm giving the honor of the first independent colony to Hungary, where possibly Öböl or Újfunlandi could be the first, or he can pass the honor to someone else. This should take place between 1750 and 1800. This will set off a series of rebellions. You are not forced to give up your colonies, but you can still control your independent nations. At that point, having a lasting cultural impact is more important than just having more territory. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 02:32, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to judge whether or not a colony is old enough to break away. One question: I assume this applies just to colonies, and not to other subjugated territories. LurkerLordB 02:53, November 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It needs to be old enough to have a significant amount of people who were born in the colony and identify with it rather than the mother nation
 * 2) It needs to be big enough to pose a credible force capable of breaking away. A 10 px size colony is not going to be capable of breaking away by war, and at this time period, no peaceful break aways will work.

Anyone can have a subjugated territory declare independence at any time. I chose Hungary because they have a long colonial history and extensive settlement in Újfunlandi and Öböl. I am leaning towards Újfunlandi because it is literally the most largely settled colony in the game, but as you said, Lurker, there has to be a good reason for a break, so it is up to Collie. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 05:44, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "you can still control your independent nations."?--Collie Kaltenbrunner 07:54, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

I think what he means by that is the player has the option to control what their former colonies do even after they rebel. Question: if we made a colony out of a subjugated territory, (Aztecs, Incans, ect.) what would you say is a good time for them to rebel? CrimsonAssassin 12:34, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

I say that for colonies to rebel, they ought to have been old enough for a whole generation to have lived and died in it. LurkerLordB 21:55, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

I'd say at least a century since the establishment of the colony. CrimsonAssassin 23:33, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

Map Problems
Adal belongs to Ethiopia.Scandinator 09:32, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

No, he said on his post that he annexed 13,5% of Adal.not all of it. and Ethioipa led the war, not Sweden.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 12:34, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

And Vietnam has conquered Joseon's colonies in East Asia.

Yank 14:59, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, this was because i added on the original, and i started to edit on other file, and i thought that i'd added it.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 15:46, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

And China puchased Tibet a while ago actually. CrimsonAssassin 16:53, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

Another issue is that the new government in Itsaygahi has merged the vassals as autonomous provinces into Itsaygahi. Could this be shown on the map. Also, an autonomous province should exist for the Hurons which were a Itsaygahan protectorate under the Old Kingdom. Thanks. Mumby 14:18, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

How should a autonomous province be depicted?--Collie Kaltenbrunner 16:38, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

Karafuto/Sakhalin
I want to know who founded the outpost on Karafuto, as I want to make a deal with them.

Yank 20:18, December 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Solution A: The island is divided similar to how it was divided between Russia and Japan in OTL. The other nation (presumably Hanthawaddy) gets the northern half, and Nippon gets the southern half.
 * Solution B: Hanthawaddy gets the current area around their enclave, and the Nipponese get the remaining 95%.

I'm fine just to take the two peninsulae on the east of the island. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 21:02, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

France

 * Location: 2
 * Attacker's Advantage: 1
 * France(L)/Burgundy(MV)/Algeria(MV)/Hungary (M):11
 * Expansion:-3
 * Military Expansion:6
 * Stability: 20.8^1.25/1.25^20.8*2.5*7=7
 * Motive: (Political) 5
 * Participation: 10
 * Chance:8
 * Editcount: 417
 * 2*3*4*9=216
 * 417/216xpi =62.3830541
 * Total=42

Wolof

 * At the Location of the War: 5
 * Wolof(L): 4
 * Expansion: 0
 * Military Expansion: 0
 * Stability: 37.5^1.25/1.25^37.5*2.5*7=0.377095757=0
 * Motive (Life or Death): 10
 * Participation: 10
 * Chance: 8
 * Total= 37

Result
French Victory, France can take (42/(42+37)*2)-1=6.32% of Wolof

Discussion
I classified the expansion into Arabia and Inca and Songhai as being expansion, because it was beyond the normal limits of colonial expansion. You would think that France would need to incorporate the Songhai territory into their own for a while first before any expansion, and that they would have trouble dividing their forces between the Arabian war and this one. I used the stability curve for Wolof, but I need someone else to make the French one (aka Detectivekenny) LurkerLordB 15:31, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

Use the stability curve. The new stability will probably not be implemented until 1750 or later. And I will appreciate the war being written as Wolof War (YEAR), because it makes things a lot more convenient. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 00:30, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

Glitch
After I did my edit, a glitch occured. How did that happened? RandomWriterGuy 06:59, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

This used to happen with Zagoria and Lx.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 09:48, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

What glitch? White screen glitch? If yes, I get it very often too. Doctor261 (Talk to Doctor!) 09:53, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

No, there is a glitch where the guy edits the page, and the page turns into a mess of code, especially where the images are.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 11:26, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

Taking WikiBreak
This year I am entering 9th Grade at an early college high school, and am taking college classes in addition to a full curriculum of AP High School classes. ince I have been having insane amounts of homework, I have simply not had the time to edit posts satisfactorily. I will attempt to come back during winter break and in the spring if I get more used to my college classes. Until then, the AGC is in a period of inactivity (and please don't invade my territory).Zagoria 01:05, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, College classes can be a pain. I know your pain. Good luck with them! CrimsonAssassin 01:01, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

Hope you come back as soon as you are able! LurkerLordB 01:05, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

Ethiopia

 * Close to the location of the War: 4
 * Attacker's Advantage: 1
 * Ethiopia(L)/: 12
 * Expansion: 0
 * Military Expansion: 3
 * Stability: 7
 * Motive (Religious): 7
 * Participation: 10
 * Chance: 1
 * Editcount:144
 * Time:2*1*2*5=20
 * (144/20)*pi=22.6194671
 * Total= 43

Sennar

 * At the location of the War: 5
 * Sennae(L): 4
 * Expansion: 0
 * Military Expansion: 0
 * Stability: 200^1.25/1.25^200*2.5*6=4
 * Motive (Life or death): 10
 * Participation: 10
 * Chance:2
 * Total=35

Result
Ethiopian Victory. Ethiopia is entitled to (43/(43+35)*2)-1=10.26% of Sennar

Discussion
I changed the military expansion number to fit in with the turns I used, but I'm not sure where that factors inFlagmania 02:39, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

Industrialization
Is Joseon under the "Beijing area" thing? PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 02:39, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

Detectivekenny ruled that the Beijing area thing was no good, but Korea wasn't part of it anyways. Korea will begin industrializaton at 1775. LurkerLordB 02:45, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

When was this decided? Besides, Russia gave China a steam engine years ago and nobody spoke up until now. CrimsonAssassin 02:49, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

Read what DK posted on the last page when you did speak up:


 * The area around Beijing should be red due to a deal I had with Russia a few years back. CrimsonAssassin 13:42, November 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * That is true, it was for a "recolutionary piece of technology" to only be used in the capital, that tech is the steam engine, thus accelerating industrialization in Beijing.-Lx (leave me a message) 14:29, November 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * If everyone made a deal with Russia, then we'd all be industrialized by 1800. Sorry, but you just have to wait. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 03:55, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

He says you have to wait. LurkerLordB 03:09, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

Two things: 1. The deal has been put in the game. Sorry, but it'd be stupid to go back ten or twenty years to when I made the deal. I can't wait if it already happened. 2. It's just Beijing being the city of tomorrow. (-unsigned)

I'm sorry, but if I let this one go then everyone will want to do the same. Maybe a deal was reached twenty years ago, but back then no one "knew" exactly what would come up. Beijing can still be a city of the future, but in other ways. As players of this game, we are biased in that we usually try to do what will create the best outcome based on what occurred in real life.

We explore alternate history with given assumptions about what would happen. Many timelines create a better outcome for a particular country by using OTL. For example, take a hypothetical alternate timeline (I'm cutting out a lot of historical precision) where the US never joined the Vietnam War and instead used the money to create digital technology, and by 1990 everyone had iPhones and iPads, and the US dominates technology instead of Japan. It seems like this was right to do, because the US did end up losing the Vietnam War, but hindsight is 20/20, and it's not like anyone could have foreseen the US losing (and disgracing itself to certain people) with 20/20 accuracy.

Almost everyone wants to become a liberal democratic, industrialized, technologically advanced, and developed nation. Face it.

Same situation here. Crimson, you and the rest of the community happen to know, assuming we have a decent knowledge of history, that the industrialized nations all had huge amounts of power (and still do). We all seem to know that's what's best. But if you are to journey into this timeline and ask your average mandarin what would be the best way to make China great, you might be surprised at what you hear. Very few Chinese without a Western education during this period wanted to industrialize. Industrialization, western ideas, etc. was either "useless" or "poisonous." Maybe they put more weight on moral achievements and it bit their back in the long run when the Europeans started dividing China into spheres of influence and China lost power.

So that's why I'm putting restrictions, because even in all plausibility, I can't have it so everyone takes the direct route to being a "liberal democratic, industrialized, technologically advanced, and developed nation," because not only would that be implausible, but we would be in science fiction realm by the time we get to present-day.

The rules are there for a reason.

No saying that Beijing cannot be the city of the future. Maybe there are a lot of progressive minded individuals in the city. But maybe their idea of "city of the future" is different. Maybe their idea is to look into navigational technology, city transportation, efficient city planning or government, or anything. If the purpose of this game is to be creative, I don't see how I am stifling creativity in any way. But industrializing just to get ahead in the game, and additionally bending the rules, is a no-no. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 05:31, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

The deal was a revolutionary piece of technology. China got the steam engine, but nothing else. I do see where you're coming from though. CrimsonAssassin 15:07, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

Then let's say that Beijing found it useless until later. In Alternate History we sometimes neglect things that don't move the plot forward. By the way, I saw your nomination a little while ago, so thanks, I appreciate it. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 00:16, December 8, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that seems fair. Oh and you certainly earned that nomination! Good luck. CrimsonAssassin 21:12, December 8, 2011 (UTC)

Map Issues
Sweden's Arabian claim is not the agreed one. Sweden should get more of Saudi Arabia as shown in the map.

I assume that you are Scandinator.anyway, there are three maps proposed; this, one in which France gets OTL Qatar and the UAE area, and other one in your talk page (or it was Galaguerra's), and you and Galaguerra never agreed in which one to use, if i'm correct.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 12:32, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

I'm agree with this proposal, I will control the coast of the Persian Gulf anyway. --Galaguerra1 14:37, December 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * The image right there is the right one (it also has Jerusalem in the lighter color, which is good too. LurkerLordB 22:38, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

I will add it now that you agreed with one proposal.

Nippon has annexed the various island chains formerly owned by Japan, and has begun the process of absorbing Sakhalin/Karafuto.

Yank 15:29, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

Division of Sweden
It is my (sad) understanding that Sweden is going to be divided between France and Russia. Ethiopia would like to prevent a possible war and act as a mediator. So we have a proposal

France Gets: Russia Gets: Hungary Gets:
 * The Netherlands (Part of Sweden)
 * Scotland
 * Western Denmark
 * A little bit of Norway
 * Thorland
 * Hodland
 * New Sweden
 * Arabian part of Swedish Afrika
 * Southern two thirds of Fjordland
 * Rest of Swedish Homeland
 * Estonia
 * Asgard
 * Swedish India
 * Northern Third of Fjordland
 * African part of Swedish Afrika

I gave Hungary that coast on Libya because I'd already given enough to both France and Russia, and thought another nation close by should get that. You can use my map as a basis for negotiations.Flagmania 23:17, December 8, 2011 (UTC)

I've started a local republican regime for the express purpose of allowing the leadership of Sweden to stay in Sweden's hands. Rest assured, I have no intention of making the Republicans a vassal or puppet of Vietnam, unlike every other nation interested in Swedish affairs. I just cannot sit back while France and Russia cut themselves enormous pieces of the Swedish pie.

Yank 01:34, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

I am going to say that this will most likely be a civil war...thats right a civil war, not somebody taking over another nation but one trying to get influence over its governement, and will most likely result in the war of Swedish Succession faught over on one side by russia and the other france... and one nation will gain religious(france=Catholic, Russia=Orthodox)/some other influence on the other nation. Not annexation, we(or at least Russia) wants to keep a sovreign(or in-confederation) Sweden!-Lx (leave me a message) 02:36, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

There would be a third faction, being the Republicans funded by the Vietnamese. I promise that, if the Republicans win I will not curtail Swedish independance at all. Regardless of what either Lx or say, the fact of the matter is that Swedish independance would be infringed apon as a puppet of either Russia or France.

Yank 03:12, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

I'm strognly desagree. Finland enter in a union with Russia already and the independence of it has not be infringed. As semi-democratic state, France will give even more freedom to the swedish than they already have. Anyway, is not my intetion go to war because of it, and I want you to not go to war neither. --Galaguerra1 05:13, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

No Sweden is NOT going to be split up. An there will be a War of the Swedish Succession, like the OTL Spainish one. I am still playing so the nation need not be carved up, Flagmania.Scandinator 05:48, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Scandinator. The divison of Sweden is very unfair. RandomWriterGuy 05:56, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

I'm down with Scan. we shouldn't jump to conclusions.it's like trying to divide my nation when they got into a civil war.But, about the war; there will be only two factions?--Collie Kaltenbrunner 06:39, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

No. There will be three factions. The Pro-French Nobles, the Pro-Russian Clergy and the Nationalist Republicans I funded because Vietnam wants Sweden independant. I also agree that the division plan is unfair. It's not like what happened to the Ottoman Empire or Joseon, as Scandinator is still playing. I created the Nationalist Republicans to provide Scandinator with a "neither of the above" option.

Yank 06:45, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

If there will be a war, I'll obviously win. I have more allies and any of them will be benefited with a russian defeat. The swedish people will obviously support me. I'm a democratic state and historical ally of Sweden, I have even blood right to the swedish throne. Insted Russia is an autocratic empire under constant civil disarray and the traditional enemy of Sweden. And Vietnam, though is a powerful nation, is not so important in the swedish policy. The balance of power is on my side. Still, I must say it again... I want not to go to war But, if it's necessary, I'm gonna fight. --Galaguerra1 06:49, December 9, 2011 (UTC)