Talk:Principia Moderni II (Map Game)

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

Algorithm Format
This is to make things easy for everyone since I find myself doing a heap of algorythms and its a pain in the ass to flp back and forth with the rules.

Nation X
Total:
 * Location:
 * Tactical Advantage:
 * Strength:
 * Military Development:
 * Expansion:
 * Motive:
 * Chance:
 * Edit Count:
 * UTC Time:
 * Nation Age:
 * Population:
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars:
 * Recent Wars:

Maps
Maps will be updated every 5 years.

Map Issues
''' Please address any map issues here. They will be wiped at the start of each turn the map is updated. '''
 * Montenegro is part of Naples now!!! (Also, can you give the colour of Castille, he is no longer playing, and i dont like brown, ty) Saluces merge into Savoy. And the Palatinate all of the same color pls. Also 1 pixel in Almería - Granada and 1 pixel in Querson - Crimea.
 * Ethiopia's additional claims in Eritrea are not shown.
 * um Siam has a small peice north western borneo at the moment. weve been settling it for 6 or 7 years now. Nkbeeching
 * Manchuria has been steadily expanding north for years. And yet the northern border is virtually the same.--Yank 23:05, October 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been asking for 15 turns now. Expansion is needs to be shown onto Ceatl by Chichen Itza and Ometlacatl is on Hispaniola, not Jamacia! CourageousLife (talk) 00:38, October 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * Aztec lost its player and went into civil disarray.
 * The results of the Irish wars are not shown.
 * The Inca Empire already has controlled the coast, do not know why so far not shown on the map.
 * I made a mistake in PM II. I mistakenly said I was annexing Nassau- I was confused it is actually Ansbach, not Nassau. They are next to each other and somebody told me that Nassau was closer. Any way Ansbach is supposed to be annexed by Bavaria and Thuringia becomes a vassal. Sorry.Andr3w777 (talk) 23:38, October 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * I had the Iroquois solidify as a nation years ago and yet it has been ignored.
 * Can Bengala have the first color of Chagatai Khanate, i like this color Tipakay (talk) 05:19, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

1490:
 * Why isn't my expansion up the Chishima islands seen (talking about 1490, where Japan is same size as the 1485)? Surly I should have gotten at least another few island more up the chain? -Kogasa [[Image:Symbol of Natori, Miyagi.png|23px|border]][[Image:宮城県.png|23px|border]][[Image:Flag of Japan.png|23px|border]] 2012年10月15日 19:55:23 (JST)
 * Where are those islands?--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 17:03, October 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * Chishima Islands = Kuril Islands. It's called Chishima in Japanese, while in Russian it's Kuril. -Kogasa [[Image:Symbol of Natori, Miyagi.png|23px|border]][[Image:宮城県.png|23px|border]][[Image:Flag of Japan.png|23px|border]] 2012年10月16日 02:08:57 (JST)


 * None of Ethiopia's claims from 1480 onwards are represented on the map. I'm sure I lodged a complaint regarding this for the map in 1480 which didn't show any of Ethiopia's claims from the 1470's either. I'm missing 20 years of expansion on this map. ((ლ( (ಠ益ಠ) ((ლ( 16:31, October 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * They are on the map (at least the past 5 years' ones). you just didn't notice.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 17:03, October 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * Oman let part of its northern territories succeed to form Nejd province. This is not shown on the 1490 map.
 * Because there is no indication of where it must be divided.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 17:15, October 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, well you'll see when I upload the new map then. This map will also have the expansion for Nejd taken into account too. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 17:50, October 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, i already did Nejd's expansion. you started to put on posts with Oman and Nejd expanding, so i added Nejd's expansion values, but didn't add the borders, so some pixels might be on the wrong places.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 20:57, October 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * What about Savoy colour and the Palatinate???? why is not fixed? and also montenegro and 70% of south of bosnia is now one kingdom. Quiari (talk) 17:28, October 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Savoy is anexed Saluces, Palatinate is vassal of Savoy, they are same color of Naples, ruled by the same king. Also 70% of Bosnia and all Montenegro are now a new kingdom (color of Naples, ruled by the same Royal House), the other 30% north zone is in posession of Croacia. Also i have now 1 colony Hope - OTL San Pedro, Ivory Coast, is small, no more then 10 pixels.
 * what colors?and what happened to Bosnia?--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 20:57, October 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * The Novgorod/Polish and Moscovian/Polish Borders still have not been fixed.th..and can the Russian Federation have Russia's old colour from PMI -Lx (leave me a message) 18:16, October 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no Russian federation.Without counting that you (Poland and you) didn't agree to a border.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 20:57, October 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * The Russian federation existed since 1482...it was created by the Treaty of minsk that was signed in that year...It comprises the former nations of Poland-Lituania, Novgorod, moscow and their vassals. The RF one of the only reasons Prussia no longer exists. And It was my understanding that my Counter-Map was approved by LLB(thats what I understood...I could be wrong).-Lx (leave me a message) 22:50, October 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * Korea's constant expansion into the Philippines has not been shown. Flag_of_South_Korea.png PitaKang- (But here's my number | So call me maybe) 20:28, October 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * I have been steadily expanding Manchuria north for a decade. Why is the border unchanged? Yank 22:43, October 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * It has.but you doesn't inform how many pixels it has expanded, and as it is a colony, i use any number up to 20 to expand your colony each turn.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 20:57, October 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * I am playing Bengal, and i want the color of Chagatai Khanate on the first map, tks Tipakay (talk) 23:58, October 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * I am playing Bengal, and i want the color of Chagatai Khanate on the first map, tks Tipakay (talk) 23:58, October 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * On the same note as the Iroquois I established that a stable Zapotec state was founded in Southern Mexico. It has yet to be included on the map. If you want the borders it's in the OTL Valley of Oaxaca. --Yank 21:59, October 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * Inca Empire alredy have the all the coast of OTL Perú!!! and in a few years we are gonna complete the rest of the north city-states!!!!, so you can added in the next map PLEASE (IN NOT HARD TO DO, RIGHT?) Zetsura (talk) 00:56, October 17, 2012 (UTC)


 * Same issues as last time! Mayans have been misrepresented on the map for the past 20 turns! CourageousLife (talk) 01:30, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

Colonization Order
Tada! Here is a list of nations and the year they can start colonizing away from this main continent. Australia and Oceanic islands are not open to colonies yet.


 * European nations (including Moscovy and Novgorod) can establish colonies in the Americas from the first date, then can start colonizing in the rest of Africa and Asia 30 years later
 * Middle Eastern nations + Ethiopia & India can establish colonies across the rest of Africa and Asia from the first date, then they can start colonizing the Americas 40 years later.
 * Asian nations can colonize the West Coast of America, New Guinea and the East Coast of Africa from their first date, the rest of the world is opened 40 years later.
 * Tribal nations can colonize other continents after naval tech reaches a suitable level.
 * No coastline? Bad luck. DEAL WITH IT!

Europe

 * Austria 1535 (tiny navy, terrible position)
 * Bavaria
 * Brandenburg 1512 (mid navy, bad position)
 * Burgundy 1509 (mid navy, ok position)
 * Cyprus (too small a navy and a bad position to boot)
 * Denmark 1504 (large navy, ok position)
 * England 1502 (large navy, good position)
 * Florence 1510 (mid navy, bad position)
 * Georgia (about to get owned)
 * Granada 1507 (small navy, good position)
 * Milan 1520 (vassal navy, bad position)
 * Moscovy 1560 (recently established tiny coastline)
 * Naples 1508 (mid navy, ok position)
 * Novgorod 1525 (mid navy, terrible position)
 * Ottomans 1550 (mid navy, worst ever possible position ever)
 * Papal States 1525 (small navy, bad position)
 * Poland 1515 (mid navy, bad position)
 * Portugal 1499 (large navy, prime position)
 * Saxony
 * Scotland 1506 (small navy, good position)
 * Switzerland
 * Venice 1503 (large navy, good position)

Middle East

 * Ag Qoyunlu 1522 (mid navy, ok position)
 * Ethiopia 1536 (small navy, good postion)
 * Mamluks 1511 (mid navy, good position)
 * Oman 1515 (mid navy, good position)
 * Vijayanagar 1532 (mid navy, ok position)

Asia

 * China 1527 (mid navy, ok position, retarded naval growth thanks to emperor's land focus)
 * Japan 1502 (large navy, prime position in Asia)
 * Korea 1514 (mid navy, ok postion)
 * Majapahit 1518 (large navy, ok position)
 * Manchuria 1533 (small navy, good position but new nation)
 * Siam 1528 (mid navy, bad position)

Discussion

 * And América? aztec, chiche itza, inca? we have navy too Zetsura (talk) 17:31, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * YTour navies are rowboats, sailboats with very small sail, and rowboats. No colonial power there.[[Image:IMPERIAL NY-SPQR 1.png|25px]][[Image:Regen Flag.png|30px|border]] Hasta la vista, baby. (I'll be back.) 18:08, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * im not sure about aztec and mayas, but the incas have ships, and they go to polynesia, acording the spanish cronist in 1460 aprox, the inca Tupac Yupanqui make a trip with 10,000 man to polynesia, and the Kon tiki voyague make in 1960 (in not sure the year) is an expample the this is totally real.Zetsura (talk) 20:51, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * And what about the Zulu?--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 17:56, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Austria can colonize sooner than the Papal States, despite the fact that the States have been improving military on both sides of the peninsula, have been establishing territories through with the encouragement of the navy, while Austria has a tiny sliver of coastal land and would have to go around an entire peninsula to get to the Americas? Other than that, perhaps we should make a sort of algorithm so we have a bit more reliability, not just mod assumptions. ChrisL123 (talk) 18:00, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Anybody have noticed how all complaints until now have started with the letter A?--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 18:01, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Austria, America, Aragon. XD [[Image:IMPERIAL NY-SPQR 1.png|25px]][[Image:Regen Flag.png|30px|border]] Hasta la vista, baby. (I'll be back.) 18:08, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * And Aragon? Isn't Aragon in a good position to colonize Africa as well as in an insanely perfect place to colonize America? [[Image:IMPERIAL NY-SPQR 1.png|25px]][[Image:Regen Flag.png|30px|border]] Hasta la vista, baby. (I'll be back.) 18:08, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Aragon would be in a good position, but Portugal is still the best by far. LurkerLordB (Talk) 18:16, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, but where is Aragon on the list? [[Image:IMPERIAL NY-SPQR 1.png|25px]][[Image:Regen Flag.png|30px|border]] Hasta la vista, baby. (I'll be back.) 18:42, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that it would be somewhere around 1505 and 1510.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 19:54, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyways, I changed the Papal States and Austrians around, because the Austrian position is worse than the Ottomans really, and the Papal states would have a bietter military. On the subject of having an algorithm, that seems a bit hard to make, one of the major factors is location, and that is hard to create any algorithm for. This is making me think that the position of having the first sailor to arrive in the Americas from Europe should be Portugal. Not only are they currently the ones with the earliest possible date, but Collie has had the Portugese to quite a bit of exploring already, more than many other nations with early dates. LurkerLordB (Talk) 18:16, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * I could try to make an algorithm, with all the key factors needed. Just note that tallying the results would probably be like golf, where a lower score means they get to start earlier. Sounds confusing, but hopefully I'll make it work. Stay tuned! ChrisL123 (talk) 19:06, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, but then again, most of the time, i'm just repeating here what the Portuguese explorers actually did during this period of time, and when it come to explorers, Colombo presented his exploration project to Portugal twice.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 19:48, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * well he did but i think you should make that colombus is represented by an rng with all the nations in western europe, the one with the highest score and the best points in the system in here can get being the first in reaching americas, after all i think it should be like in OTL, just a random lucky guy and a random lucky nation like spain Sine dei gloriem (talk) 19:54, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Few European nations are powerful enough to get Columbus to come to them. Moreso there was nothing lucky or random about it in OTL. [[Image:IMPERIAL NY-SPQR 1.png|25px]][[Image:Regen Flag.png|30px|border]] Hasta la vista, baby. (I'll be back.) 19:57, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * i say lucky because as far as every european the world was flat and as it seems to happen in otl colombus was rejected a few times, because no one would pay for something they didn't thought possible such as this travel, and he was lucky enough to have convinced the kings of spain of doing it as far as i know Sine dei gloriem (talk) 20:00, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the first time that Colombo presented his project to Portugal, João II refused it after consulting experts, who told him that the travel distance that Colombo had planned was too low.in the second time, in 1488, he refused because a way to India (arond Africa) had already been discovered.Then, even the Castillian experts also told their monarch, when Colombo presented his proposal there, that the distance planned was too low.However, to keep Colombo from taking his ideas elsewhere, and perhaps to keep their options open, the Catholic Monarchs gave him an annual allowance of 12,000 maravedis and in 1489 furnished him with a letter ordering all cities and towns under their domain to provide him food and lodging at no cost.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 20:07, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought China had a large navy. CrimsonAssassin (talk) 21:42, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * HAD is the crucial word. Thanks to your emperor's idea that naval exploration is a waste of time after Zheng He's voyage, the Chinese navy has suffered to the point where Japanese pirates could shut down most Chinese shipping.Scandinator (talk) 00:59, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * What about the Zulu. We have a coastline and have developed are Navy from the beginning. Enclavehunter (talk) 21:59, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Developing a navy from scratch=shitty tiny naval with no capacity even after 20 years. Your best chance is to reverse engineer a modern ship. Scandinator (talk) 00:57, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * If Muscovy gets a coastline, it can colonize, right? (hint, hint) The Royal Guns (talk) 22:42, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * look, you wont have to worry about not having colonies as long as the the Commonwealth of Great, Little, and White Russia(Commonwealth/Confederation of All the Russias)[hint-hint invasion of poland]-Lx (leave me a message) 23:28, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes you can but I would recommend via Poland, You would have to beat and take over all of Poland and Lithuania... Go through the Crimea if you can. (hinthint, nudgenudge) Scandinator (talk) 00:57, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well Novgorod has control over most of the baltic via the hanseatic league, and has de-facto control over the Hanseatic Navy, and the navy will be built up continuously as long as there are people that sign up, we will build more ships...although we do need to broker an alliance with Danemark or Sweden to pass through the baltic with warships, but we have no problem passing through the baltic with explorers or traders, all we need to do is install Hanseatic trade posts along the Kattegat strait, and we have de facto free passage, so long as the league has interest, and resources of a new continent are a strong motivator and I believe that the hasea will help a novgorodian expidition leave the baltic.-Lx (leave me a message) 23:16, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * You and what league? Burgundy has no wish to be in a trade league considering they have the largest port on the Atlantic, Friesland is Burgundian now, Denmark trades through Stockholm, Brandenburg through Venice, Poland through Venice. All you have is Prussia trading through you. Even Scotland and England with their Novgorodian trade posts still send most of their goods to Antwerp. Scandinator (talk) 00:57, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * Stockholm is a member of the Hansa, the hansa has an actual navy that patrols the baltic sea, Burgundy has trade agreements with novgorod and is still part of the league, and In northern germany, it is not venice who holds influence(eh-hem how can you control trade that far away eh?) in northern germany, but the New Hansa controled by Novgorod and the Imperial Trade Guild of the HRE(I think that is what it is called), that was formed because of the apparent demise of the Hansa...an oportunity novgorod took to take control of it. I think it was Lurker that said that it was impossible for venice's influence to reach that far north if novgorod was keeping the league alive, not to mention i spent the last 10 years at least trying to undo the dammage you did aswell as reorgonize the Hansa-Lx (leave me a message) 01:20, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * Since I now have Manchuria, do we get the "good position" perk? Thanks. Flag_of_South_Korea.png PitaKang- (But here's my number | So call me maybe) 12:22, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * You didn't take enough of Manchuria to make a difference. LurkerLordB (Talk) 17:07, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely Korea is in a better position than Manchuria, Manchuria has very few warm water ports... VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 23:10, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm planning on eventually crossing the Bering Strait to colonize the sleeper property known as Alaska. I'll just have to expand my territory until I can get to that point. Yank 02:52, October 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * We Muscovians now have a coastline. Uncross us please. (We have one on the baltic as part of the Poland treaty, and have a treaty with Novgorod allowing us to put our ships through their ports (and vice versa)). The Royal Guns (talk) 20:16, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey I think as Granada I deserve to be on this list. I have a pretty good position and my navy may be F'ing terrible but I'm working on it. Willster22 (User talk:Willster22) 21:51, October 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * Could I also have my navy updated? I've been continually expanding my navy for at least 15 years. Airlinesguy (talk) 09:51, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

Siamese-Malaccan War
can someone do the algorithm

Colonization Order Algorithm (Proposal)
As promised, I have written up an algorithm proposal that lists several key factors needed in order to successfully colonize. While it is mostly for American colonization, I have included some for south Asian nations. The algorithm works by tallying numbers that can be found through common sense, geographical details and player's turns. Unlike most algorithms, I'd assume players would want a lower score, because the algorithm determines the year by tallying up the results and adding 1500 to the total. I have included an example for Portugal and the Papal States.

Location
Add all that apply (e.g., Southern Europe and Central Mediterranean)
 * In Southern Europe (i.e., below the ): -3
 * In Eastern Asia: -2
 * In the western Mediterranean: -1
 * In Northern Europe (i.e., above the ): 0
 * In the center of the Mediterranean: +1
 * In Southern Asia: +2
 * In the eastern Mediterranean: +3
 * In Northern Africa: +4
 * In Western Asia: +5
 * Touching the Atlantic: *1.5
 * Touching the Pacific: *1.5

Travel

 * Traveling to Eastern Africa: +5
 * Traveling across the Indian Ocean: +8
 * Traveling across the Atlantic: +10
 * Traveling across the Pacific: +12
 * Traveling to Southern Africa: +15

Availability
Add all that apply
 * Ships must travel through a straight (e.g Gibraltar, Bosphorus): +5
 * Nations rely on a vassal for navy (e.g. Milan): +6
 * Ships must travel around a peninsula to colonize: +7
 * e.g., Novgorod around Scandinavia, Venice around Italy, Brandenburg around Denmark
 * Amount of coastland:
 * Miniscule coast (e.g. Austria) : +10
 * Little coast (e.g. Poland): +7
 * Nation's border halfly consists of a coast (e.g., Portugal, Papal States): +3
 * Majority coastal (e.g. England): -1

Naval establishment

 * Navy was created __ years ago:
 * 1-10: +40
 * 10-20: +30
 * 20-50: +15
 * 50-100: +5
 * 100-400: -3
 * More than 400 years: -4
 * Naval expansion: (-0.5*x), where x is the number of turns of naval expansion
 * New to colonialism: +8
 * Have a territory in the same continent: +1
 * Vassals/territories: (-0.5(x)), where x represents the number of vassals/territories
 * Islands colonized: (-0.25(x)), where x represents the number of islands (on the map?)

Navy size

 * Tiny navy: +15
 * Small navy: +10
 * Medium navy: +5
 * Large navy: -3

Motive
Add all that apply:
 * For exploration: +2
 * Religious reasons: +3
 * For profit: +3
 * For land: +4

Other
Add all that apply
 * Won a war using the navy: -1
 * Lost a war using the navy: +2
 * In economic ruin: +8
 * Lack of funding due to wars: +5
 * Economically stable: -2

Examples
Note that these examples are for colonizing the Americas, as shown by +10.


 * Portugal: 1500-(3*1.5)+10+3-3+(-0.5*8)-1+(-0.25(9))-3+3-2 = 1496.25 or 1496
 * Aragon: 1498 to 1507
 * England: 1500+(0*1.5)+10-1-4+(-0.5*11)+1+(-0.25*3)-3+3-1+2-2= 1498.75 or 1499.
 * Venice:  1500-3+1+10+5+7+3-3+(-0.5*10)+1+(-0.5*3)-3+3-1-2 = 1511.5 or 1512
 * Papal States: 1500-3+1+10+5+3+(-0.5*10)+(-0.5*3 territories)+1+10+3-1+5 = 1523.5 or 1524
 * Refer to this for a better detailed analysis.

Must say, it works out pretty well. But it's always opened to other factors. ChrisL123 (talk) 00:07, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
This needs some tweaking, We have Middle Eastern and Asian nations that need their own little algorithm for travel. Those numbers also have to separate for even the Europeans. Suggestion: BTW this is for reaching, NOT establishing colonies, you can establish a colony in an area after 40% of the number for the region in years has passed. e.g. For Europe: 4 years after reaching America, 10 years after crossing the Pacific. Rough numbers still. Scandinator (talk) 01:11, September 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * You're right, I never considered the other continents for that. Very nice. ChrisL123 (talk) 01:54, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

For Aragon, using this, I get -3.5 plus whatever the motive is, so earliest would be 1499.5 and latest would be 1501.5 for the Americas. Fascinating. Hasta la vista, baby. (I'll be back.) 01:20, September 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * Not quite, by my calculations it's 1500-3*1.5+3+10+6 (unless you want to the ships to go through Gibraltar) +3-4+(-0.5*9)+5-1-2 = 1511 for the Americas, plus the motive. Might be confusing, but if we get to accepting the algorithm, I could make a page for each nation for us to know the justification of the numbers. ChrisL123 (talk) 01:54, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do touching the Altantic and Pacific have *1.5 modifiers, if the lowest score is the best? Also, the straights and peninsulas should compound. For example, Moldova would have to go through the Bosporous, and through Gibraltar.
 * Also, I should really hope no one would get early than Portugal for Europe, with Norway and Castille's players being pretty much gone (I'm going to actually remove them from the list soon), there really isn't any serious competition. LurkerLordB (Talk) 02:46, September 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * This is what I calculate for Aragon:


 * Location: (-3)+(-1)*1.5 = -4.5
 * Travel: Across the Atlantic: +10
 * Availability: Amount of coastland: +3 (Aragon's entire southern coast is longer in pixels than the border with France and Bearn, but the puny northern coast which borders Navarre (Navarre is NOT a vassal, it is a STATE of the Crown of Aragon, just like Aragon and formerly Naples and the such, which borders the Atlantic.)
 * Naval establishment: -3 (Navy was established in the late 12th Century, although comparable to the current Chichen Itzan navy then.)
 * Naval expansion: (-0.5*9) = -4.5
 * Islands colonized: (-0.25(3))= -1 (The islands off the coast.)
 * Navy size: Medium? +5 (Navy was pretty big, conquering half of the Mediterranean coastline countries, but I'll go with 5)
 * Motive: Depends. In most cases it would be 2 or the second three.
 * Other: Economically stable, -2; have a territory in the same continent; +1
 * The "won a war with the navy" one only counts in-game. ChrisL123 (talk)
 * Total: (Motive is 2, Navy size is 5) = 1506 (Motive is 2, Navy size is large) = 1498 (Motive is three, navy size is medium) = 1507 (Motive is 3, Navy size is large) = 1499

So at best, 1498, and at worst, 1507. Not bad. Hasta la vista, baby. (I'll be back.) 03:26, September 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * Whoops, I did say military expansion, it should say naval expansion. And I counted 9 turns of naval expansion by Aragon, so (-0.5*9). I also fixed your calculations. Not bad indeed. ChrisL123 (talk) 03:54, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

Those *1.5 are multiplying numbers that are negative, so it would increase their value negatively, which would benefit them. (e.g., southern Europe [-3] touching the Atlantic [*1.5] means [-2*1.5] = -4.5) As for Portugal, they should still be the winner. I've done Venice and Aragon, two big players that I could think of, and they're over, though England will still have to be calculated. ChrisL123 (talk) 02:52, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

Note that I was referring to Portugal, assuming they don't get devestated by some war. LurkerLordB (Talk) 02:59, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

England would have...

England = 1500 + (0 x 1.5) + 10 - 1 - 4 - (1.5 x 11) - (0.25 x 3) - 3 + 3 - 1 + 2 - 2 =

1500 - 0 + 13 + 17 - 1 - 1 = 1528 I consider this algorithm brilliant, thoguh some things may be should be changed (something to make me reach America first, if possible ^^) in somethings, but I think is fair enough. --Galaguerra1 (talk) 03:59, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I expand my navy almost everyturn, I suppose it would be around 11 to 13 in the last 15 years... I calculate 11.
 * 2) I count Ireland, Man and the Dodecanesian Islands as colonized, that's 3.
 * 3) I expand for profit, to find a way to India.
 * 4) All my wars I have won with the navy, thoguh also every one that I've lost.
 * 5) I consider myself as economically stable.
 * 6) I round 16.5 (1.5 x 11) to 17.
 * 7) I round 0.75 (0.25 x 3) to 1.

You did a few things wrong. I'll show you:
 * In Northern Europe: 0
 * Touching the Atlantic: *1.5
 * Crossing Atlantic: +10
 * Majority coastal: -1
 * Naval origin: -4 (More than 400 years)
 * Naval expansion: (-0.5*11) = -5.5
 * Have a territory in the same continent: +1
 * Islands colonized: (-0.25(3)) = -0.75
 * Large navy: -3
 * For profit: +3
 * Won a war using the navy: -1
 * Lost a war using the navy: +2 (I think the English-Scottish incident counts as a loss?)
 * Economically stable: -2

-unsigned post by someone
 * Total: 1500+(0*1.5)+10-1-4+(-0.5*11)+1+(-0.25*3)-3+3-1+2-2= 1498.75 or 1499.

The English-Scottish incident never turned into a full on war. However, I wouldn't know if the English navy should be counted as lasting for more than 400 years, they didn't have a full-on, modern navy until the reign of Henry VIII in OTL. LurkerLordB (Talk) 12:46, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

Also, I think we might want to change the islands colonized thing to specify that it is islands a significant distance away from the mainland, like at least the north-south-length of Italy away, islands just off the coast shouldn't count. LurkerLordB (Talk) 12:51, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, If you control an island a few km from your main nation, its not a colony. England for example can only claim that Greek isle. Scandinator (talk) 13:36, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

Also for the Venetian calculation, Venice is a coastal state, the entire nation is based off an archipelago off the Italian Peninsula. The navy has been around since the 9th century where it was used against Dalmatian pirates. We also have vassals and islands which a located far away from the main section of Venice.. Scandinator (talk) 13:49, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I still don't really see the need for this algorithm, the people who are going to be leading the list either way are going to be the same really. Also, I think that both this algorithm and the other list might be accelerating the process too much, this would have all of Europe colonizing the New World by 1540 or so, when historically only a handful of nations were able to colonize at all. LurkerLordB (Talk) 14:55, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

Yes. look at Courland.they were pretty much as well-located as Novgorod, and only were able to colonize in the mid 17th century.and this having a large merchant fleet.and they failed eventually.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 16:39, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

The problem is if we forced players to wait months and months to expand they would not be happy. Scandinator (talk) 04:39, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

Why me?
Why are the mods targetting me with their events? This isn't fair as I shouldn't have to deal with unfair targetting while I am so busy with school. AgentMars (talk) 11:55, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if you feel this way, but it is simply luck of the draw. We're doing a Khanate-like thing and they're invading Europe. Your nation happens to be in Europe. Don't think we're unfairly targeting you. CrimsonAssassin (talk) 13:23, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

You also never told anyone if you were still playing. Inactive nations can cause a lot of problems so we're not just going to leave your nation alone while you're away cause that isn't fair to everyone else & can make things get implausible. Please let us know if you are not able to play. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 15:56, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

You were gone for 17 days, we have explicit rules stating that people gone for more than a week are counted as inactive. You got 10 days exta time when we could have been tearing your nation apart. If you can't post once a week, then I am sorry, but you are too busy to play this game. LurkerLordB (Talk) 00:53, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

LLB, we can't collapse every nation that a player leaves behind for 7 days. We left Zagoria alone for 100+ years before collapsing the AGC and even longer for DetectiveKenny and even DeanSims. I think we should give AgentMars a bit of a break with the Khanates and the Russians. I respect the fact that he is busy, we can't all have perfect lives of bliss and free time and someother users post very irregularly for no reason, and just continue to find whole intact nations. He also did in fact tell us that he was very busy: "Sorry I haven't posted much. I've been rather busy." as posted in 1461. That is better than what a lot of other players have left us.

Now since you demonstrated what could happen so kindly on Poland, I might not be able to post regularly over the next 5 weeks thanks to university examinations for entry. Collie is taking over as mapmaker over that period of time. I expect to see a whole intact Venice by the end of that period and I will be doing random posts here and there. Scandinator (talk) 04:30, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

It's to late now, we can't retcon 2 whole years of posts by him and the Russian states. He was much less active than Detective Kenny, Zagoria, and even DeanSims, all of whom had played the game for months, before his break, and a semi-warning isn't enough. Detectivekenny and Zagoria both left explicit warnings that they would be gone for an extended period of time as well. We can't declare every new player who joins for the first time, plays for 2-3 turns, then disappears as active. The Russians were planing to attack him for years before the Mongol attack, and you can't force players to leave people alone. I had been planning for the Mongols to attack Lithuania anyways, whether they had a player or not, as attacking anywhere else would have pit them against a much more dedicated player or the Dimurats. Since Yankovic explicitly asked me not to have the Dimurats invaded, that left only 1 place for the Mongols to attack without going against a player who had been active every turn. LurkerLordB (Talk) 11:11, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

True, however I believe we should leave him a way to regain some of the lost areas IF he posts more often. Scandinator (talk) 11:17, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Poland itself hasn't been hit by the Mongols, and though they've lost the war with the Russians, they aren't going to be totally annexed. Lithuania is going to be in chaos for quite some time, easy enough to pick up large pieces. LurkerLordB (Talk) 11:24, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Scandi and LLB, I can give no guarantees that I will post more with my exam period for uni entrance so soon (I am in the same grade as Scandi IRL and he brought me here after a shit-ton of persuasion lol) but I will try to post each day. AgentMars (talk) 12:36, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

There's going to be no more invasions of that nature that you would have to worry about, so now the only threat your nation would face if inactive would be other player-nations (which I can't control). Your nation won't break apart in revolts unless you are gone for like a month. LurkerLordB (Talk) 21:52, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Muscovy

 * Location: 4
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Strength: Muscovy (L), Rostov (MV), Yaroslavl (MV). Brandenburg (S), Aragon (S), Navarre (S) : 14
 * Development: 26 (didn't realize it was *2!)
 * Expansion: -5
 * Motive: 4
 * Chance: 2083/1835 * 3.1415


 * hundredth digit = 6
 * Age: Old (+5)
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: -6
 * Total: 65

Novogorod

 * Location: 4
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Strength: Novgorod (L) Brandenburg (S), Aragon (S), Navarre (S)/Pskov(MV): 12
 * Development: (9*2)=18 or (12*2)=24(if pre-kazan counts)
 * Expansion: -1
 * Motive: 4
 * Chance: 2935/1836 * 3.1415


 * hundredth digit = 9
 * Age: Ancient (-5)
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: -3
 * Total: 56-62(if pre-kazan counts)

Poland-Lithuiania

 * Location: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: 0
 * Strength: Poland (L +4), Lithuania (MV +2), Venice (S), Modena, (SV), Ferrara (SV), Mantua (SV), Siena (SV), Lacques (SV): 13
 * Development: 4
 * Expansion: -1
 * Motive: 10
 * Chance: 8
 * Edit Count: 8
 * Time: 01:07 = 7
 * 8/7*3.14 = 3.58857142857
 * Age: Average: 0 (1386)
 * Population: 9
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars:-5
 * -5 (Mongol Invasion)
 * Total: 53

Result
The allies can seize ((135/188)*2)-1 = 43.61% of P-L territory. The war will last three years: ((43.61)*(1-1/6)) = 36.34, allowing us to seize 36.34% of their territory, toppling their government and spliting it down the middle (I call coastline).

The Royal Guns (talk) 00:25, October 2, 2012 (UTC)y

That would be veru awkward and bad for novgorod trade...you can get the coastline if the Russian league is formed anyways. Poland may be a part of the Russian Confederation and there would be one naval force for the entire pact, but different fleets commanded by diffeerent nations(the Neva fleet-me, the Polish(agent's) and Moscovian(your) fleets...whatever you decide to name it) It would be much more lausible if we do a north-south split or even just have a joint occupation before reforming the state into the confederation of great russia and the poles.-Lx (leave me a message) 13:15, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Well, actually, Lithuania (as Grand Duchy) could be counted as Russian, som it would just be Federation of the Russias... See my proposal on Mars' talkpage too.

The Royal Guns (talk) 19:28, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
Novgorod is involved in this war; Lx and I had a prior agreement over that. And guys... hot damn. Does this mean we get more land outside P-L? The Royal Guns (talk) 18:55, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

I think you did the math wrong... Using Google, ((112/(123))*2)-1 = 0.82113.. or 82%. Not sure how you got over 200%. ChrisL123 (talk) 20:08, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

Actually, 67+45+21 = 133..so, it would be approximately 69% of territory.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 20:28, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

But Poland isn't helping the Muscovite/Novgorod coalition..... Aren't they? ChrisL123 (talk) 20:44, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

How about novgorod has over 2 million population at least since teh additon of Kazan and has worked on its land army or navy every year except the ones where I did not post. and developement is x2 for each turn. and ok fine I vassalized pskov with an ultimatum and bribes that and my war with kazan should be my only negatives, and much more positive...and I think that it is my algorithm result+your algorithm result to be teh total area, not both combined. And moscow does not have 10x the population of poland, at most maybe no 2x all the russian naitons and 4x Russia+kazan max population factor,-Lx (leave me a message) 20:31, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

Poland has a population of 8 million. The Russian states combined had barely 5 million. Get your numbers straight traitor. Yes I'm talking to you Lx, you posted that we had an alliance (which we do not) to get to Crimea and subvert the Venetian trade league of which Poland is a part of. Its a jolly nice surprize to get back online to PMII after working your butt off for a week and a half to finish all your homework so I can use the computer to find my nation under attack by one nation. So I ask Novgorod for help... and get invaded again. Lovely game this is.AgentMars (talk) 23:32, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

You don't even control a quarter of your nation! Just a tiny bit near Belarus! You have a population of 5 digits tops! The Royal Guns (talk) 23:57, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

Also, there was nothing wrong with my first chance calculation.

The Royal Guns (talk) 00:00, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Actually, he still controls Poland...

His population is still decimated. The Khanates attacked the WHOLE nation, and left it in ruins.

The Royal Guns (talk) 00:17, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

No... The mod event said Lithuania. I'm taking the neutral stance here people, and you guys are making the algorithm a lot lower for him than what it should be...

Also, do not omit the calculations for  anything. It makes me suspicious of cheating.

A) your algorithm has no mathematical basis I can see, and B) as shown here, attack Lithuania and you ARE attacking Poland. Attack Yaroslavl (kinda hard, yes) and you are attacking Muscovy. Attack the Falklands, and you are attacking Britain. C) I did not omit them. D) Muscovy has 67, not Novgorod. The Royal Guns (talk) 00:25, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Stop putting in the wrong algorithm! We don't use that in Principia Moderni. And you're ommiting the calculations for chance. I can see how you'd think it's just taking percentages, but that isn't so. Otherwise there would be a historical implausibility with nations annexing each other all the time. And they attacked the whole country, but never invaded it. I invade Falkland islands, does that mean I'm invading the British Isles?

WE DO USE THAT IN PM, dude. Check the rules. And sign your posts, please.

Good point. It's more like invading Scotland- still attacking England.

In anycase, the mod event says that they only now control a small corner of Poland.

The Royal Guns (talk) 00:42, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

I've seen the rules plenty of times. I see them very often, just to see if I'm right. I suggest you check the rules. Algorithm = ((y/(z+y))*2)-1.

We have a new coalition algorithm, where two nations can combine their scores against one. The algorithm results are correct. LurkerLordB (Talk) 00:57, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Uhh.. that's what I did, Saam. Confusion be occuring, methinks.

The Royal Guns (talk) 00:58, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

For a coalition algorithm, all of the nations that have declared full-on war would have their own algorithm section (with them being the leader, their nation age and military buildup, etc.). The real change is for the results. Then, all the nations on each side would be added up together, and the winning side gets to take territory from each nation. However, the nations that do better on each side would get more, while nations that did really bad may be temporarily occupied. Saamwiil, the Humble 01:04, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Since Poland and Lithuania are in personal union meaning they are ruled by the same king, the resources and population of Poland AND Lithuania should therefore be used in the algorythm. Since Lithuania has hit the dust, Poland's population will be used and the total population of Poland at this time is about 7 million which is more than the two Russian states combined. However annexing the entirety of Poland-Lithuania even in its weakened state is implausable, there will be no splitting down the middle and Poland itself is too far away for the Russian states to control at the time being. Scandinator (talk) 04:15, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

novgorod system of goernement is esentialy a direct democracy...I think we migh be able to keep some control purely because of that fact...but with some changes.-Lx (leave me a message) 12:57, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Saxony has stated they are sending military aid to Poland. 77topaz (talk) 20:23, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

I think that if that's how the algroithm is done for coalitions, that they should be redone. Say someone has war score of 60 but this guy gets 10 people whose nations are a dot compared to the other nation, they could win on participation points only, excluding everything else.

When I read the rules, I thought it would just be an adding of the percentages. Saamwiil, the Humble 21:39, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

The whole point of the coalition algorithm was to differentiate between the participation aid, which is just a few spare troops being sent, and full-on war. The coalition algorithm is totally realistic: two nations on the same side in a war combine their strength versus the combined strength of the nations on the other side of the war. How can any representation be more realistic? LurkerLordB (Talk) 21:45, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

The example I gave, a lot of very small nations (Like OTL San Marino) taking on one huge powerful nation (Say like OTL China) and win.This wouldn't be very realistic, I do not think. Saamwiil, the Humble 23:56, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Mongols
Do not worry everyone, the Mongol Khanates are collapsing for good now, so you won't have to worry about any of them again. I just wanted to give the Central Asian Turks and Mongols one last conquest, unlike in OTL. LurkerLordB (Talk) 21:50, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Where they not meant to attack the Caliphate? I mean we could always have someone rise to power similar in Timurid as the Caliphate try to annex Timurid. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 22:17, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

It was slightly short lived, no? Shouldn't it last like a decade more at least. Saamwiil, the Humble 22:35, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Oh god please no...they annoy me to no end!!!!!-Lx (leave me a message) 22:41, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but I mean. It lasted less than a decade, no. Isn't that slightly implausible? Wouldn't it last at least say 20 years, then a break up? Saamwiil, the Humble 22:44, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

They did attack the Caliphate, they took over the Crimean Khanate and drove a some Turkic tribes into Circassia I think causing them trouble. That type of empire was inherently unstable, after the death of its leaders its bound to collapse. I also asked you on the Caliphate talk page if you wanted them to invade you, and I got no response at all so I assumed no. They also lasted for about 16 years as the Dual Khanate, with the individual Neo-Oirats and Kazakh Khanates lasting a few years before that. LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:45, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

I see, but since we're player nations, should they attack us formal before getting Crimea? Saamwiil, the Humble 22:49, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Really, the NPC members of the DME should have been treated like the NPC members of the HRE from the beginning, I think it was a mistake you let a giant multinational union like that give people control over a ton of multiple nations so easily. LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:57, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

We are much more centralized than the HRE and all the provinces in it are either player nations or have been conquered/vassalized by a player nation. What is the problem? VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 23:06, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

So you are saying saamwill has 8 vassals? I recalled that as also against the rules Scandinator (talk) 23:59, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

No. The rules were changed. You just can't split off nations in times of war. Saamwiil, the Humble 00:00, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

No the vassals rule never changed. 2 vassals at most. Scandinator (talk) 00:38, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

I think we should just say that the total area and population of all vassals should not exceed more than 50% of your main nation, and then make it unlimited. Then simplify all the turn business to just say that you can either build up your military or non-colonial expand in your main nation and its vassals per turn, without this +.5 turns thing that no one really follows anyways. LurkerLordB (Talk) 00:41, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

They aren't even my current vassals, due realise. Having vassals within the empire is illegal. They are former vassals, and conquered territories. In some cases they just broke away for better administration purposes, like Circassia. Dulkadir, another example was a former vassal, but joined because it was my vassal at the time. Saamwiil, the Humble 00:44, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

Keep 'em around one more year. They've got until this turn is over where their 1.5x multiplier in wars is still valid. Huh huh. CrimsonAssassin (talk) 00:57, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah Saamwiil just had his vassals join the Caliphate as provinces. Think of it how a player nation will sometimes merge with its vassals (this was done several times last game). You are also allowed to have parts of your nation break away, which we are going to do because some of the provinces in the Caliphate are much to large (e.g. Mamluk Egypt and Qoyunlu) and some parts are separated by a fair distance too (e.g. Ottomans in OTL Turkey & Bulgaria). VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 12:39, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

How this system works? from what i'm noticing, it would be necessary for this Caliphate to be extremely decentralized.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 15:59, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

Well regional governance is enforced by the ruler of each province and their provincial government, but they are all below the general law of the Caliphate. We have to have some decentralization because the technology doesn't exist to control such a large empire with a single government yet. Plus it gives everyone a say in how their homeland is run rather than being told what to do by a bureaucrat hundreds of miles away. Have a look at the Imperial Muslim Treaty which is basically our constitution if you want to know more. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 17:48, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

Granada?
Where is my beautiful Granada? I see no wars that conquered me and I technicly am still playing just taking an extended break(school). Also never agreed with the Caliphate. I think it will be more interesting if there is at least one muslim nation that isnt part of the caliphate. Right! Right!! Willster22 (User talk:Willster22) 01:02, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

Well, Granada is still up, but you gave no warning that you was not going to play for a along time, we needed to save up colors, and, we ended up declaring you as a NPC.but you were not conquered.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 08:29, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

If your going on an extended break then leave a message so we know where you have gone. Otherwise we will have to assume your inactive & give control of your nation away. Crim's post below is a perfect example of this. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 12:41, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

K here is my post: Taking extended break have school so I will post when I can but if I don't post for a while I am not inactive. Hockey is coming up soon aswell so I will post when posibble. Willster22 (User talk:Willster22)

The Caliphate was going around annexing Muslim nations with no algorithms all over the place. I'll hit them with something. LurkerLordB (Talk) 21:40, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

That makes me oh so happy. (: Willster22 (User talk:Willster22) 21:43, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

Head's Up
I'm headed to New York City over the weekend and may be unable to post until I get back on Tuesday. Right after I watch the damn weeping angels episode of Doctor Who ;_;

CrimsonAssassin (talk) 01:03, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

I'm in the Apple Store. LOL.

-CrimsonAssassin

Nice one Crim, don't forget to log out or... you know who what will arrive happen. Scandinator (talk) 13:42, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

I made that edit as an anon. CrimsonAssassin (talk) 16:02, October 6, 2012 (UTC) (this message is from my iPad.)

Back from New York. What a trip. Found out at Ellis Island that my ancestors were some of the first people to settle in New Netherland. CrimsonAssassin (talk) 16:02, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

Kingdoms on the list
Hey i like to know if is possible that you can put your manes on the list of countrys to know what belong to who, if you have a vassal you put your name there or if you have a part of that country Quiari (talk) 04:07, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether I understand your post correctly, but if I do, that's what the list is supposed to do and is doing. 77topaz (talk) 05:20, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah put your name next to the nations you control. Also put in (brackets) whether they are a vassal, puppet, dynastic union, etc. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 12:43, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for my writing, what I meant is that the map shows that certain regions are the color of a country, but in the list of countries these regions are empty, no name of who they belong to, or if are vassals of someone. So I say it would be nice if everyone put their names there to know who belongs. And also if anyone has part of a country such as Portugal in Morocco, or Venice in Crimea, etc. Just my idea... Quiari (talk) 14:20, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

Well yeah that is already a rule that you have to put your name next to your nation, vassals and puppets on the list. However we don't have any such rule for colonies being listed on the sign-up list. If we did list colonies, then the list would be very large so instead we just shown them on the map in the same colour as ruling nation's colour and they are also then listed on the territories page. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 17:42, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

Portugal

 * Location: 4
 * Tactical Advantage: 6 (greater colonial empire [5]/Attacker's adavantage) (1)
 * Strength: Portugal (L), Naples (M): 7
 * Development: 26
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: 3
 * Chance: 1
 * Edit Count: 3001
 * Time: 18:06 = 48
 * 3001/48*pi = 196.414991
 * Age: Average: 0 (1385)
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars:0
 * Total: 64

Granada

 * Location: 4
 * Tactical Advantage: Attacker's adavantage)(1)
 * Strength: Granada (L), Naples (M):7
 * Development:0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: 3
 * Chance: 6
 * Edit Count: 384
 * Time: 2*1*3*4 = 24
 * 384/24*pi = 50.26
 * Age: Average: Old (+5)
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars:0
 * Total: 43

Castille

 * Location: 4
 * Tactical Advantage: 2 (high ground)
 * Strength: Castille (L), Austria (M), Tyrolia (M), Salzburg (MV), Bavaria (M), Baden-Wurttemberg(MV), Milan (M), Genoa (MV), D'Astri (MV), Florence (M), Piombino (MV): 29
 * Development: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: 5
 * Chance: 4
 * 3001/48*pi = 196.414991
 * Age: Old: 5 (1369 or 1230)
 * Population: 9
 * Population:7
 * Population less than five times bigger: 2
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars:0
 * Total: 66

Venice

 * Location: 3
 * Tactical Advantage: 0
 * Strength: Venice (L), Siena (MV), Ferrara (MV), Modena (MV), Mantua (MV), Lacques (MV): 14
 * Development: 30
 * Expansion: -1
 * Motive: 3
 * Chance: 2
 * 1378/5*pi = 865.822935
 * Age: Old: -5
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: Epirus War (-1) Crimean War (-1):-2
 * Total: 61

Result
Venetian-Castilian victory. ((127/(107+132)*2)-1 =6.27%

Discussion
Questions: --Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 21:17, October 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) There is a 5 point bonus for having a larger colonial empire, but i t can be used in this situation?

Yes, Portugal has a larger colonial empire. LurkerLordB (Talk) 21:54, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

The part about 1230 or 1369 is because as i see it, the change of dynasty from the Burgundians to the Trastámaras in 1369 might count as a government change, but it says on the territory page that the last govenment change was in 1230.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 22:13, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

Uh... Do I gain territory from this war as it is more of a coalition war with me and Portugal as the coalition. Naples is helping my side of the coalition. Willster22 (User talk:Willster22) 21:39, October 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * If it is a coalition war (meaning you have Portugal's agreement) then yes, though Portugal will get more land than Granada. LurkerLordB (Talk) 02:33, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

Bavaria declares support for CastilleAndr3w777 (talk) 02:27, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

Is this a coalition war or normal? Also, Bavaria really is going to have a difficult time getting anything to Castille. LurkerLordB (Talk) 02:33, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

No i won'r I am a member of the IMG and use Venice and Brandenburg for a navy. Since this is an HRE war I can send help through my allies.Andr3w777 (talk) 02:35, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

With who i must negotiate, and, can i make this war last two years?--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 07:31, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

The winning nation can decide how long the war lasts. Also, can you please look at the Map Issues section? There's quite a lot of issues :P 77topaz (talk) 07:49, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

How many years this war can last, whoever is supposed to answer me?You are winning, and this means that you can decide how many years it will last, again, with who am i supposed to negotiate? or you are not saying it intentionally?--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 17:02, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

IP 76.124.49.83 is who?--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 17:15, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

The HRE is going to have another peasant revolt if they don't stop sending troops into every single little conflict that occurs all over Europe.

Also, I need to know if Granada is fighting this as a full on coalition.

Castille is an NPC, therefore the no player nation can decide how long the war lasts. Which, based on what we did in the last game, will be an RNG from 1-9.LurkerLordB (Talk) 20:57, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

If Granada's player doesn't respond, I'm going to have to assume that he is fighting it as a coalition as that is the last thing he said, in which case this would be a Portuguese/Granadan Victory. LurkerLordB (Talk) 20:59, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, what would be this number?--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 21:03, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

And how is this afecting Naples?, i was part of the colation? or i was helping one of them? Quiari (talk) 21:29, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

The Caliphate (Led by Qoyunlu)
Total: 79*1.5 118.5
 * Location: +4
 * Tactical Advantage: +1
 * Strength: Qoyunlu (L +4), Circassia (MV +2), Dulkadir (MV +2), Ramazan (MV +2), Oman (M +3), Shaybah (MV +2), Crimea (SV +1), Ottoman Empire (M +3), Wallachia (MV +2), Egypt (M +3), Hafisids (MV +2), Zayyanids (MV +2) 28
 * Military Development: +30
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +5 (Defending Claims on Crimea)
 * Chance:
 * Edit Count: 943
 * UTC Time: 4:29 2*9 = 8
 * 943/8*3.14 = 16.8775
 * Nation Age: -10
 * Population: 7 +10 17
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: (Hafsids -8) (Crimea -1) (Georgia -3), (Epirus -1) -13

Cossacks
Total: 23
 * Location: +5
 * Tactical Advantage: 0
 * Strength: Cossacks (L +4) 4
 * Military Development: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +5 (Defending the mainland)
 * Chance: 2 (random.org)
 * Edit Count:
 * UTC Time:
 * Nation Age: -10
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Recent Wars: 0

Results
((118.5/(23+118.5))*2)-1 is 67.49%. The war will last one year (if nothing changes) (67.49)*(1-1/(2(1))) yields 33.745% allowing us to topple their government. Former Cossack land will be administred directly by the Caliphate, until stable.

Discussion
I didn't add: Granada, Yemen, Bahmani Sultanate, Koli, possibly Gujurati, Yemen and East Yemen, as I deemed them to be too far. To be involved in a minor conflict like this... Saamwiil, the Humble 21:42, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

The Moderator event was changed, the Cossack's didn't take any of the Crimean land. Are you still going to carry this out? LurkerLordB (Talk) 21:47, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

I did all of the algorithm to the war, so yeah. Also, I declared war on the Dual Khanate before their collapse, how do I treat it? Saamwiil, the Humble 21:49, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

Oh I see you did it yourself. Thanks, less work for me! I'm bloody tired, its been a busy day... VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 22:55, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

Russia still occupuies the cossack land, we just conquered Poland-Lithunia. you will be declaring war on Russia. We want kiev back!

No, I declare war on the Cossacks before you tried occupying their land. However, depending on how loyal you are to non-agression/help against orthodox, and how much land in White Russia, I might cede you a part. Saamwiil, the Humble 12:02, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Hahah. Funny. Not happening. Muscovy + Novgorod + (possibly) Poland adds up to well over 150. We'll piss over you if you do this. Plus, we have trade pacts with Bavaria and Brandenburg. That's another +10. We have the Cossack land, and we aren't giving it back. We will not declare war on you (until you collapse or look like you're about to smash through Europe) unless you try and defeat us.

The Royal Guns (talk) 20:13, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Haha, it is funny that you say that. Qoyunlu+Ottoman Empire+ Oman+ Egypt is well over 250. :) We got to the Cossacks first. You may have its people if you wish, accept who gets their first, please. Saamwiil, the Humble 23:42, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't forget Crimea, Wallachia, Circassia and the other small states in OTL Eastern Turkey! VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 12:48, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

Only the Ottomans, Qoyunlu, and maybe Egypt could possibly hope to be part of a coalition algorithm in the Cossack lands, Oman couldn't possibly get half that far. LurkerLordB (Talk) 00:54, October 5, 2012 (UTC)


 * And how come landlocked Bavaria can? 03:14, October 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * landlocked Bavaria can via Venice, We have a deal with them as well as Austria and Milan to send troops via the sea.Andr3w777 (talk) 15:32, October 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * Then Oman can march through all Caliphal territory, and if you add all the HRE nations, then we should be able to divide the Caliphate into small provinces and have all of them fight. Fed (talk) 20:01, October 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither Bavaria, nor Oman can join this as a coalition algorithm
 * Plus if you do that then we'll get the HRE interested...
 * Look all we want is little bit more coastline. from Chrimea. If Muscovy, Poland, and Novgorod alone add up to 200... imagine what half the HRE can? That's gotta be like 400+ The Royal Guns (talk) 19:31, October 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * Half the HRE is not going to be able to fight in this war. LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:44, October 5, 2012 (UTC)


 * Just accept that we got to the Cossacks first, they don't even border the coast, so I don't see the problem. Also, please stop disregarding the algorithm in your negotiations... Also, even though it would benifit the Caliphate if we didn't, I seriously think we should look over the Coalition rules. Moreover, Moscow would be hurting if it entered another war, so I son't think that would be plausible. Qoyunlu was seriously hurting before the economy became more centred on the military. Even now it needs a rest, so if you went to war with the Caliphate, your country would fall apart. Saamwiil, the Humble 22:41, October 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know.
 * But out of curiosity... when does your advantage expire?
 * And, when do you break up?
 * The Royal Guns (talk) 22:15, October 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * 120 + or - 50 years. Saamwiil, the Humble 22:20, October 8, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion from main page about Khanate successors

 * I renamed the Neo-Oirats the Western Oirats because it sounds more like the way the various Khanates and Chinese dynasties were named. Also, I was tired of having all the same names, so I switched the Nogai with the Xacitarxin Khanate, since historically Astrakhan was the state that took over much of the Nogai Territory, and I just used the Turkic spelling for more exoticness. (Somebody)
 * How about the Uzbek Khanate, which was on the first versions of the PMII map (see here)? (77topaz (me))
 * The Uzbeks would replace the Khivans if they arose (LurkerLordB)
 * There could be a "civil war". Another possibility would be for the Caliphate to attempt to establish a Turkmen Khanate (Turkmen being the most Muslim out of the Central Asian races, if I remember correctly?) (77topaz (me))

77topaz (talk) 00:44, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

A question I have, related to this, is: which of the Central Asian races (Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Turkmen, Kyrgyz, Tajiks) was/is the most Buddhism-acceptant? 77topaz (talk) 01:11, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone answer this? I'd like the answer in the next few game-years/days... 77topaz (talk) 21:12, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

If they've already gone Muslim, they aren't going to convert to Buddhism unless they're conquered. 00:51, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

Are the Khivans Muslim, then? 77topaz (talk) 01:04, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

Siamese-Malaccan War
can someone please do the algorithm ive been asking for more 4 turns. if i do it i might be biased Nkbeeching

Siam
Total: 41
 * Location: +4
 * Tactical Advantage: +1
 * Strength: Siam(L):4
 * Military Development: 4 (+8)
 * Expansion: -6
 * Motive: +3 (gaining land)
 * Chance:3
 * Edit Count: 1168
 * UTC Time:2*1*4*5 =40
 * 1168/40*pi = 91.734
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Population: 7+2=9
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: 0

Malacca
Total: 61
 * Location: +5
 * Tactical Advantage: 0
 * Strength:Malacca(L +4) Aru (M) Pasai (M) Minangkabau (M) Jambi (M) Palembang (M) Sumedang (M) and Sunda (M): 25
 * Military Development: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +10 (life or death)
 * Chance: 4
 * Nation Age: +0
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: None

Result
Malaccan Victory, Malacca can take ((61/(61+41))*2)-1=19.60% of Irish territory. The war will last 6 years, so Malacca will finally end up with (19.6)*(1-1/(2*6))=17.97% of Siamese territory

Discussion]
Sorry but I'm not that well-versed in PM algorithms to do it :( One thing I suggest that you guys do is have an excel spreadsheet where you have to just plug in numbers and all the math is done for you. I have that for AvARe PitaKang- (But here's my number | So call me maybe) 20:53, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

It won't be that biased if you do it. Just give it your best shot and do it. Us mods will then amend where necessary. That way you know for sure how to do it next time --VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 12:30, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

i actually am not good at it anyways can someone please give me a hand ill look at how to next time.-unsigned post by someone

Well there are already plenty of examples how to do it. I'm really busy tonight (flat party) so I certainly can't do it. Either get someone else to do it or just do it yourself! VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 17:50, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

either way im leaving in 20 minutes fishing trip will be back tomorrow. -unsigned post by someone

I don't see why it is so difficult for people just to copy-paste a pre-existing algorithm and then change all the data to match their nation. Everything is pretty clear on the rules page. LurkerLordB (Talk) 13:46, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

oh well i lost the land but will take it back in the future along with the rest of the peninsula.

Discussion
Just letting you guys know for the next map I have 26.37% of Manchuria. Also, Yank, when you saw these headers, did you get a heart attack? :D PitaKang- (But here's my number | So call me maybe) 20:51, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

In case anyone's confused, there is no second war. PitaKang- (But here's my number | So call me maybe) 20:51, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

I get it! Lol! Saamwiil, the Humble 00:19, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

Hehe :) PitaKang- (But here's my number | So call me maybe) 01:10, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it a little late for April Fool's jokes?

Yank 02:36, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

I would have loved to see Yank's face when that title appeared :D Scandinator (talk) 02:48, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

It's a good thing I didn't read the talk page until after Pita had said that it was a hoax.

Yank 20:02, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

I shat. CrimsonAssassin (talk) 03:35, October 8, 2012 (UTC)\

If this was just a prank, why are you talking about territorial gains like it actually happened?

Yank 02:37, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

It was just something to tell the mods how much territorial gains I got. PitaKang- (But here's my number | So call me maybe) 23:35, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

1000
I must congradulate everyone on Principia moderni II by being the second page in having over 1k talk posts, the other being the 1st PM. I think this is a record, is it not? fastest talk page to get 1000+ comments? for the Original it took up untill about 1580(or even before) to reach this point! this took us 30 days! I must say I am proud-Lx (leave me a message) 22:16, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

I think the 1983: Doomsday talk page has 12k or so posts, but this would indeed probably be the second map game talk page with over a thousand posts. 77topaz (talk) 03:29, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

77topaz is right about the 1983: DD page. I know that PM didn't get 1000 until after I had joined in 1634. LurkerLordB (Talk) 03:31, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

Yay! I helped! :D ((ლ( (ಠ益ಠ) ((ლ( 03:50, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

the Tstpf talkpage has more, I believe. 1-2k. The Royal Guns (talk) 21:09, October 8, 2012 (UTC)

Dammit, this game completely killed Axis vs Allies: Revolutions :( PitaKang- (But here's my number | So call me maybe) 21:14, October 8, 2012 (UTC)

Scotland
Total: 51
 * Location: +4
 * Tactical Advantage: +1
 * Strength: Scotland (L), England (M), Ireland (MV), Mann (MV): 11
 * Military Development: 5 (+10)
 * Expansion: -1
 * Motive: +3 (gaining land)
 * Chance:2
 * Edit Count: 5896
 * UTC Time:2*3*5 =30
 * 5896/30*pi = 617.427
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Population: 7+2=9
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: (Irish War -3)

Ireland
Total: 34
 * Location: +5
 * Tactical Advantage: 0
 * Strength:Ireland(L +4) 4
 * Military Development: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: 10 (Life or Death)
 * Chance: 7
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Population: 6
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: -3 (Scottish War)

Result
Scottish Victory, Scotland can take ((51/(34+51))*2)-1=20*1.5=30% of Irish territory. The war will last 3years, so Scotland will finally end up with (30)*(1-1/(2*4))=26.25% of Irish territory total. This, combined with the 14% from the last war, passes 33.33%. Scotland and England will divide Ireland up by their treaty.

Discussion
Here is the Scottish claims and the English claims. LurkerLordB (Talk) 00:48, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

I count the Kingdom of Ireland and the Kingdom of Mann as my vassals, but Calais is not helping. --Galaguerra1 (talk) 20:30, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

You guys need 1480 pixel sizes of Ireland? VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 23:27, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

Really, we just need the pixel sizes of the divisions of Ireland so we can add them to our existing areas on the territories page. So the pixel sizes of the two halves of Ireland in that map. LurkerLordB (Talk) 23:42, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

The map above doesn't show who controls the Isle of Man. 77topaz (talk) 22:00, October 7, 2012 (UTC)

Man is currently technically independent, but it has been vassalized by England. LurkerLordB (Talk) 01:06, October 8, 2012 (UTC)

Okay well using that map you have posted here (the one just of Ireland right there above), Scottish Ireland is 8,592 pixels, English Ireland is 24,165 pixels and the Isle of Man/Manx vassal state is 176 pixels. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 21:53, October 8, 2012 (UTC)

Are you using the main map or the zoomed-in Europe map? Because currently you have told me that the new Irish territories are more than 7 times the size of Scotland, which can't be right. The Europe map Scandinator made is zoomed in, with smaller pixels. LurkerLordB (Talk) 01:50, October 9, 2012 (UTC)

I used the map of Ireland here in this discussion thread, the one you posted Lurk to show the Irish & Scotish claims. The file name is DIvision of Ireland.png. I guess that is zoomed in map because on the normal world map 8,592 pixels is the size of Bahmani/Deccan. I did not realize that the map posted above was zoomed in, even though looking back it is blindingly obvious. Apologies for that.

Anyway those new borders aren't on the current map so I'll have to wait for the new map with these borders to be published to give you the actual pixel sizes. I'll probably do a full update of the territories sizes when this next map (1485) is made. I'm off uni 2moz afternoon so if it is posted while I have free time I'll update it. Gonna need a while to re-do the Caliphate territories too. Is it okay if I combine all of the separate nations into a single Caliphate post on the map? E.g. Instead of having separate sections for Qoyunlu, Oman, Mamluk, etc. there is just one section for the caliphate with each of the territories listed in it. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 18:53, October 9, 2012 (UTC)

Serbia?
Current state of Serbia?  Doctor261  (Talk to me!) 05:44, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

Since it became a NPC, it's getting disputed between Naples, Epirus and Byzantium, in behalf of Epirus.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 06:17, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

Understood, thanks.  Doctor261  (Talk to me!) 06:45, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

Naples? Serbia doesn't have a coast, how could Naples possibly try to get control of it? ChrisL123 (talk) 16:29, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

Seems like naples seized Montenegro already much to Scandi's annoyance. AgentMars (talk) 16:48, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

Wars
OK, I am recieving complaints from people who are claiming that large alliances like the HRE or DME are ganging up on nations and wiping them away. I looked at the algorithm, looking for something to change, when I saw an misinterpreted rule. So I am going to enforce a rule that has, prior to this, mistakenly not been enforced in most wars: e very year in which a player or one of their vassals has been in war as a leader for the past 15 years is -3. So if the war you were in lasted 3 years, all three less than 15 years ago, you get -9. Every year in which a player or one of their vassals has sent military aid is -1, so someone fighting a war in the next 15 years would get -3. This is what we had agreed upon on the old talk page and what is in the rules, but what has been ignored in all of the algorithms so far. LurkerLordB (Talk) 14:09, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

Large alliances ganging up on smaller nations? That is just what happens in life/history. Far enough about the misinterpreted rule, but still they're complaining about facts of life. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 15:14, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

I've tried my best to include them, you can look at the algorithms I've made. Saamwiil, the Humble 18:24, October 7, 2012 (UTC)

And also, the only place in which I think the DME has expanded by force or openly plans to do so thus far is the ex-Khanate areas. I don't see how we have been "ganging up". Fed (talk) 18:34, October 7, 2012 (UTC)

Not quite, somebody remembers Georgia?Anyway, i think that is not so much "smaller nations", but "nations with no alliances, or few".Georgia was one.the part of expanding every turn before also didn't help.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 19:18, October 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * So one time we attacked a weaker nation, and you come to complain eight RP years afterwards? and BTW, a group of you have, in more than a few of your posts, been acting as if we were the only ones to be "gamey" (see: Crimea and then this) when you are allying with Muslims in the XV Century and the HRE has absolute pass to send troops to wherever in the known world. Fed (talk) 21:25, October 7, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying it happened, I just got a complaint about it. So, are there no complaints about the rule? LurkerLordB (Talk) 21:20, October 7, 2012 (UTC)

I think the rule is fine, makes it more realistic. However, I'm confused. The rules say for the war as a whole. What you just mentioned seemed to be every year the war lasted. Saamwiil, the Humble 21:27, October 7, 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you are right, it is only the military aid that is compaunded each year. LurkerLordB (Talk) 21:39, October 7, 2012 (UTC)

Though actually, that makes less sense, if anything it should be the military aid penalty that is static and the war penalty that is compounded. LurkerLordB (Talk) 21:48, October 7, 2012 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. I think they should start off the same, but the more the war wages, the more leader is tolled. Because I don't think if it a one year war, one should get the -3. Saamwiil, the Humble 00:08, October 8, 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this: sending military aid to a war, you or your vassals, is -1. Being the leader in the war gets you -1 the first year, then it doubles every year from there. So fighting a war for 2 years is -2, for 3 years is -4, for 4 years is -8, for 5 years is -16. This would actually decrease the penalty from the current -3 per year situation unless the war dragged on for 5 years or more. Good? LurkerLordB (Talk) 01:46, October 9, 2012 (UTC)

Novgorod
<p style="font-size:13px;">Total: 62+other aid
 * Location: 4
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Novgorod(L), Pskov(MV), Hanseatic Navy(MV?): 8-9
 * Military Development: 26(13*2)
 * Expansion: -1(annexation of Minsk)
 * Motive: 4(attacked first?)
 * Chance:1
 * Edit Count:3025
 * UTC Time:01:42= 8
 * (3025/8)*pi = 1187.9147221386
 * Nation Age: -5(ancient)
 * Population: 17(7+10)
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: -4(Lithuanian+1 year Pskov aid)

Muscovy
<p style="font-size:13px;">Total: 84
 * Location: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Strength: Muscovy (L), Rostov (MV), Bavaria (M), Baden-Wurttemberg (M): 19
 * Military Development: 26
 * Expansion: -1
 * Motive: 4
 * Chance: 1
 * Edit Count: 2183
 * UTC Time: 23:54
 * Nation Age: Old (+5)
 * Population: 17
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: -3
 * Recent Wars: -3

Brandenburg
<p style="font-size:13px;">Total: 73
 * Location: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Strength: Brandenburg (L), Aragon (S), Navarre (S), Luxembourg (S): Total: 10
 * Military Development: 18
 * Expansion: -0
 * Motive: ?
 * Chance: 9
 * Edit Count: 6980
 * UTC Time: 13:20
 * 8.5959....
 * Nation Age: Old (+5)
 * Population: 13
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: -3

Poland(if agree)
<p style="font-size:13px;">Total:
 * Location:
 * Tactical Advantage:
 * Strength:
 * Military Development:
 * Expansion:
 * Motive:
 * Chance:
 * Edit Count:
 * UTC Time:
 * Nation Age:
 * Population:
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars:
 * Recent Wars:

Prussia
<p style="font-size:13px;">Total: 33-38+potential foreign aid.
 * Location:5
 * Tactical Advantage: 0
 * Prussia(L): 4
 * Military Development: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: 5 or 10(Novgorod just wants "retribution" for attacks)
 * Chance:6
 * Edit Count:3025
 * UTC Time:01:42= 8
 * (3025/8)*pi = 1187.9147221386
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 6
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: -3(Brandenburg)

Result
((146/184)*2)-1 = 58.695%, toppling the government... more if Agent helps. As it currently stands, the war will last 2 years, (58.695)*(1-1/4) = 44.02125% of Prussia, still anexing the nation, etc, etc. If Agent helps, he can bloody well calculate it himself.

Discussion
Bro, forget Poland. Put Brandenburg up there! I have a bone to pick with them Prussians..gallivanting off stealing my name. When are you doing this? Hasta la vista, baby. (I'll be back.) 17:50, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

Already have. Three way split, I guess, maybe leave a little for our unhelpful allies. Guess Mars isn't around. Hope he doesn't leave for a couple of weeks again. The Royal Guns (talk) 19:13, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

Reworking the Algorithm (primarily for coalitions)
This is to make things easy for everyone since I find myself doing a heap of algorythms and its a pain in the ass to flp back and forth with the rules.

Saamwiil brought up a really good point about the coalition algorithm currently putting a lot of very small states at an advantage compared to a single large one. Thus, I have come up with a new algorithm idea.

List of leader nations
Good? LurkerLordB (Talk) 02:23, October 9, 2012 (UTC)
 * Location: Works the same, (4 for close, 2 for far, etc.) in getting the numbers. Each leader has their own number. All the leader numbers are averaged (then rounded to the nearest whole number)
 * Tactical Advantage: The +5 for larger colonial empire goes to whatever side has the larger combined empire. The +1 for attacker's advantage remains. The +2 for high ground remains for whatever side has more cases of high ground
 * Strength: Remains the same
 * Military Development: Combined military development for each leader nation in the coalition for the past 15 years. 1 year is still +2
 * Expansion: Combined expansion for each leader nation over the last 15 years
 * Motive: Works the same
 * Chance: Works the same, whichever player nation declares war the first.
 * Nation Age: Average of the nation age bonuses rounded to the nearest whole number (so if one side has 2 normal nations (+0) and one old nation, they get 5/3 which is rounded to 2)
 * Population: The digits for the combined population of each side are used. The ratio bonus is the same as well.
 * Participation: Same
 * Recent Wars: Would use my proposal I have for all wars, -1 for each war you send military aid to in the last 15 years, non-compounding, -1 for the first year of a war as the leader, doubling each turn (so a 1 year war as leader gets -1, 2 years gets -2, 3 gets -4, etc.)

Sounds good. Saamwiil, the Humble 03:20, October 9, 2012 (UTC)

Awesome!  Doctor261  (Talk to me!) 03:29, October 9, 2012 (UTC)

How about we also add an economic development, and an infrastructure development, working the same as military, only 1 year= +1?

Also, about that compounding thing... won't that mean some major problems? A 6 year war would wipe out most nations... which it wouldn't OTL.

The Royal Guns (talk) 20:30, October 9, 2012 (UTC)

Economic development doesn't benefit the military though. People need to have a choice between building up their military and improving their economy. The problem is that currently we don't have any real in-game incentive for focusing on your economy instead of your military.

As for the compounding you are right, -64 for an 8 year war is bad, perhaps we should just have it be -1 for 1 year, -2 for 2 years, -3 for 3 years, then -3 for each additional year? LurkerLordB (Talk) 20:37, October 9, 2012 (UTC)

The compounding thing is more for a modern war. Back in those days, wars were fought by tiny professional armies. This is the reason America and France won their revolutionary wars - more people to zerg rush with! Scandinator (talk) 00:21, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

But having long wars always weakened people. The Byzantines and Sassanids lost to the Muslims because they were fighting for so long. LurkerLordB (Talk) 02:08, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

On the same note, wars in the earlier days lasted for decades. Wars in the modern era (the last two centuries) tend to last only a few years, and can be recovered from. Need I remind you about Japan's miraculous recover after WWII? It all depends on how long the war is.There needs to be strict punishments for wars that last over a decade or so.

Yank 02:21, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

True.. but if you're in the middle of a economic breakdown, you can't pay your soldiers, you can't afford to feed them, so you can't field an army. I like your idea with the compounding though.

Infrastructure, there should be one if you are attacked, because it's the single most important factor in getting troops to where they need to be to fight.

The Royal Guns (talk) 23:26, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

But I can't think of any incentive for people to build economy or infrastructure that would be different from military expansion. We need a way to differentiate between the three. LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:39, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

Archive
I can't see any recent years on my iPad. Someone archive 1450-1479. CrimsonAssassin (talk) 19:10, October 9, 2012 (UTC)

Gujarat
Total: 72
 * Location: +4
 * Tactical Advantage: +1
 * Larger Colonial Empire: +5
 * Strength: Gujarat (L), Koli (M), Deccan (M), Oman (M), Shaybah (M), Persia (M), East Qoyunlu (M), Hadarmaut (M), Iraq (M): 28
 * Military Development: 5 years worth (+10)
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +3 (gaining land)
 * Chance: 7
 * Edit Count: 5,188
 * UTC Time:1*3*6 = 18
 * 5188/18*pi = 905.476815935
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Population: 7+2= 9
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: 0

Sind
Total: 42
 * Location: +5
 * Tactical Advantage: 0
 * Strength: Sind (L): 4
 * Military Development: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: 10 (Life or Death)
 * Chance: 6
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 6
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: 0

Result
Gujarat/Caliphate victory following a 2 year war.

((72/(42+72))*2)-1 = 0.26315789473

Meaning that Gujarat win 26.3% of territory from Sind.

26.3*(1-1/(2*2)) = 19.725%

Meaning that Gujarat following the two year war can annex 19.725% of Sind. Seeing that Sind is 1,610 pixels large, this means Gujarat get 318 pixels of territory from Sind.

Discussion
What is my nation age score? Gujarat province is 8 years old so it isn't average nation age (20-100) but it isn't new age (under 5) so would my nation age score be -5 then or something? Also how do I do chance for an NPC again? <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 12:32, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

1 - Depends. if you annexed it, then it will be difficult to determine, and see message 3.If not, use the usual nation age.

2 - Use the number right after your chance number.

3 - Again, how you (or whoever controls the Calipahte) can annex NPC's without needing a war?

--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 16:33, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I'm using time since last government change which is 8 years but there is a gap in the scoring categories, hence I was wondering how many points 8 years would mean that I get. The rules say: So what about 6-19 years? What score do they get? The nation age categories don't cover the 6-19 year period.
 * New nation (less than 5 years since gov change)= -10 [0-5 years ago]
 * Average nation (20-100 years)= +0 [20-100 years]
 * Yes. they didn't thought this through. but, i think that it should be -5, if it is a intermediate period. if it isn't, it will be either -10 or 0.However, we will need another mod to decide on this, as my examples are too few.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 18:39, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

As for the caliphate thing, I've not annexed any NPCs without a war. Hence I'm annoyed that I'm being punished when I haven't done anything wrong. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 17:28, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

So, how you are controlling it, if it is a NPC?--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 18:31, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

Collie's -5 idea sounds good. LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:09, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I did it was -5 because it was in between the other two category values. Just making sure I did good and that this should be updated to go into the rules themselves.

I asked OBOW on his talk page if I could have his provinces join the Caliphate, and then I asked him again if I can play as his nations now seeing that he doesn't play anymore. He gave me his provinces. I didn't force him or anything, I asked & he agreed. That is why I am now playing as Bahmani & co. If he comes back then he can have his provinces back. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 23:09, October 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * However, he was apparently the user of the Bahmani sultanate.what Gujarat has to do with it?--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 07:28, October 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * Gujarat and Koli where both vassals of Bahmani. Hence I got his nation & vassals. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 12:38, October 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah.This explains this.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 14:35, October 12, 2012 (UTC)

Also the war is over, Gujarat will annex the southern-most 318 pixels from Sind into Gujarat province. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 23:31, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

Breton-Aragonese War
Just remembered something. Right before I had to leave, I declared war on Brittany, as Aragon. No algorithm was done, but I would like to see an algorithm. I had England and Naples for Ms at the time, and Brandenburg and Burgundy for supplies, if I am not mistaken. If the results are horrendous, am I allowed to pretend the war never happened? Hasta la vista, baby. (I'll be back.) 19:13, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

The Caliphate (Led by West Qoyunlu)
Total: 106
 * Location: +4
 * Tactical Advantage: +1
 * Strength: West Qoyunlu (L), East Qoyunlu (M), Iraq (M), Persia (M), Rumelia (M), Anatolia (M), Karaman (M), Dulkadir (M), Ramazan (M), Wallachia (M), Circassia (M), Georgia (M), Syria (M), Palestine (M), Candar (M), Trebizond (MV) +48
 * Military Development: +30
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +5 (Caliphate believes Crimea is revolting)
 * Chance:
 * Edit Count:
 * UTC Time: 4:29 2*9 =
 * 943/8*3.14 =
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Population: 7 +10 17
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: ((Georgia -3), (Cossacks -1) -4

Crimea
Total: 40
 * Location: +5
 * Tactical Advantage: +0
 * Strength: Crimea(L +4),
 * Military Development: +2
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +10 (Life or Death)
 * Chance: 8 (random.org)
 * Nation Age: -5 (7 years)
 * Population: 6
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: 0

Results
The Caliphate may take ((107/(107+40))*2)-1 45.20% of Crimea. War last 2 years. (45.30)*(1-1/(2(2))) 33.97% Caliphate retakes Crimea.

Discussion
Shouldn't your war against the Cossacks also be counted as a recent war? i also have my doubts as if the war with Georgia was less than 15 years ago.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 07:34, October 12, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry bout that. I added the Cossacks using the new proposed algorithm, while old wars under the old one... And the war with Georgia started 1473. I believe it ended in 74. If I declared war 3 years later, they wouldn't. Saamwiil, the Humble 10:36, October 12, 2012 (UTC)

Russia wants the Chrimean Peninsula, we wll give you aid if you let us have the Peninsula-Lx (leave me a message) 12:42, October 12, 2012 (UTC)

Why would we do that? We overthrew the Crimean government so we get it all. That wouldn't make us very rational economic subjects now would it? <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 13:21, October 12, 2012 (UTC)

Rajputana
Total: 53
 * Location: +4
 * Tactical Advantage: +1
 * Strength: Rajputana (L), Gujarat (M), Koli (M), Deccan (M): +13
 * Military Development: (4 years worth in the past 15 years) +8
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +3 (gaining land)
 * Chance: +5
 * Edit Count: 12
 * UTC Time: 2*5*3 = 30
 * 12/30*pi = 1.25663706144
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 7+2= +9
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: 0

Sind
Total: 38
 * Location: +5
 * Tactical Advantage: 0
 * Strength: Sind (L): +4
 * Military Development: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +10 (Life or Death)
 * Chance: +6
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: +6
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: (Caliphate/Gujarat) -3

Result
Rajaput victory

((53/(38+53))*2)-1 = 0.16483516483

Meaning that Rajaputana win 16.5% of territory from Sind.

16.5*(1-1/(2*3)) = 13.75

Meaning that Rajaputana following a three year war, Rajaputana can annex 13.75% of Sind.

Discussion
There you go Sawdog88, I've done most of the algorithm for you. Please fill in the blanks and learn how to use this algorithm in future. It is not difficult, just copy & past this one and ammend it for the different values. Have a look at the algorithm rules if you want to know what to do. It is not hard, and I shall not be doing this for you again as I am a busy man.

Also seeing that your victory over Sind is fairly slim, I will offer you my Indian Caliphate provinces to help you invade Sind (an extra +9 to your score) in return for you helping the Caliphate to invade the Timurids in the near-future. What you say? <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 13:52, October 12, 2012 (UTC)

I accept your proposal for aid and agree to support you against the Timurids. --Sawdog88

Nice, you have yourself a deal my friend.

How long do you intend for this war to last by the way?

Also does the victory for Rajaput & my victory with Gujarat against Sind add up to Sind's government collapsing? Because 19.725 + 12.375 = 32.1% meaning that if he has the war last for 3 years rather than 2 (so the 12.375 increases to 13.75) then our two victories would add up to the magic 33% (well 33.475 to be exact) needed to overthrow a government. So do Sind's government get overthrown then or not? <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 17:39, October 12, 2012 (UTC)

3 years sounds good especially if we can bring down all of Sind--Sawdog88

Okay 3 years it is. Can another mod just confirm if Sind will be allowed to collapse because of these two wars? We have a total of (13.75 + 19.725) 33.475 so that is enough to send Sind in disarray, I'm just checking if we can combine our scores like this. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 18:48, October 12, 2012 (UTC)

Nation power
Perhaps, as an incentive to get people to develop militarily and infrastructure wise, we should make military development count for less on military algorithm, and add a nation power algorithm, in which military power occurest not. The nation power would determine how many negative vs. positive mod events you get, which can be fleshed out later.

The Royal Guns (talk) 19:18, October 12, 2012 (UTC)

This basically would be a resurrection of the old stability thing, which ended in disaster the past two times it was tried. LurkerLordB (Talk) 20:57, October 12, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah these types of systems may be more accurate but they are very complicated. It'd just end up as just a couple of people doing all the algorithms because everyone else is so confused, and it just puts people off from starting wars. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 00:30, October 13, 2012 (UTC)

Woah, woah. The stability thing would not effect wars at all, except that you would add the # of digits in your stability score to your algorithm... or somesuch, I don't know. But I think it would work. The algorithm wouldn't really be more complicated, we could keep the stability thing on the territory page.

The Royal Guns (talk) 12:38, October 14, 2012 (UTC)

I'm going off what happened last time we had a more complicated nation power-stability system with multiple factors in PM1. It needed to be constantly updated, no one par one or two people actually understood how it worked, and because of the widespread confusion people didn't want to start wars because they didn't know how the stability system worked (i.e. if they relied on their stability score to win, if they didn't know then they wouldn't start wars because they didn't know if they had a chance of winning or not). And when people actually did do wars, only a few people were capable of actually completing the algorithm for them so wars could often drag on for ages because the stability mathematicians had too much of a work load to be able to satisfy demand in time. It was a mess, far to ineffective so we got rid of it for something simpler. Look at the talk page archives for PM1 so you can look into how it worked out in PM1 when we tried it. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 23:44, October 14, 2012 (UTC)

OK, then how about adding to the economy and infrastructure (how much you've worked on them past 20 years) onto the algorithm? Pretty simple, right?

The Royal Guns (talk) 19:12, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

How do you differentiate between economy, infrastructure, and military buildup? In the system you propose, all three would function exactly the same.

Perhaps infrastructure could be a +3 for every turn, but only for defensive wars, not offensive ones. As for the economy, I don't know how that would work. LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:25, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

For every five or so turns you don't contribute to economy, -1 or -2 from motive due to not paying your soldiers. PitaKang- (But here's my number | So call me maybe) 23:46, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

The economy isn't just about public services, paying your soldiers is a given under military expansion. Helping the economy would be promoting trade, more public services, more exports, etc. Plus then you have all the paradoxes and uncertainties of economics, I mean just because you pay for more farms to be built doesn't mean agricultural production will increase. An economic system in this game will be flawed and quite complicated so I advise we leave it be. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 00:56, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

I'm back
Hello folks! After a break, where I had to cope with increased homework and such, I'm back! I will probably be editing tons in the October holidays, but after that I might be unreliable I'm afraid. But, the fact is, the Indian sub-continent is going to be taken by storm!! :D Imp (Say Hi?!) 11:21, October 13, 2012 (UTC)

The break up of Sind
Okay so me (Gujarat) and Sawdog88 (Rajputana) have both had wars against Sind and we have reached the magical 33.33% needed to overthrow their government. Basically this post is for how me & sawdog are gonna divide Sind between ourselves.

So at before these wars Sind was 1,610 pixels large. Gujarat won the first war and got 19.725% of Sind which equivalent to 318 pixels of Sind ((1610/100)*19.725). This left Sind with 1,292 pixels of territory (1610-318). In the next war Rajputana won 13.75% of Sind which is equivalent to 178 pixels of Sind ((1292/100)*13.75).

So Gujarat got 318 pixels and Rajputana got 178 pixels. In the end this left Sind with 1,119 pixels of territory. Seeing that Sind's government has now collapsed I purpose that myself and Sawdog divide these remaining 1,119 pixels thusly: 500 pixels go to Gujarat and 619 pixels go to Rajputana.

Just to let you guys know. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 21:35, October 13, 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it doesn't work like that... The Royal Guns (talk) 19:12, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

Wiki-Breaking
ManofSteele, AgentMars and I all have our university entrance exams. These started last year and are a series of 5 exam periods over the course of the year. This coming exam period is the longest and biggest. If we do not post often then please understand. We will be in and out until the 6th of November when we finish. On another note if anyone is interested in contributing to a new community timeline in a DD world please check out Apocalypse: 2012 Scandinator (talk) 00:40, October 14, 2012 (UTC)

Discovery of America
In 1492 Columbus discovered the Americas. Who gets to discover America this round? PitaKang- (But here's my number | So call me maybe) 20:52, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

Cjest Reginsson. LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:22, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

In the Name of Novgorod!-Lx (leave me a message) 22:31, October 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * What you mean is: In the Name of Portgual! [[Image:IMPERIAL NY-SPQR 1.png|25px]][[Image:Regen Flag.png|30px|border]] Hasta la vista, baby. (I'll be back.) 04:11, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

Castilla is not ruled by any one? Quiari (talk) 23:08, October 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * In dynastic union with Austria. [[Image:IMPERIAL NY-SPQR 1.png|25px]][[Image:Regen Flag.png|30px|border]] Hasta la vista, baby. (I'll be back.) 04:11, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

Really? Cjest Reginsson? OK. I was thinking it would be someone from the Iberian or the Italian peninsula. Not Scandinavia. Meh. I just think we should all understand that we're not going to know that he found it until he gets back to Europe. I also believe that Vinland is gone, kaput, and vanished. I think he should be finding empty settlements. But I think the chances of him landing on Newfoundland are very unlikely, so I doubt he would find it.

Btw, who found the Americas in PM? Spain? Was there a Spain? Portugal?

And one more thing: the list says nothing about Aragon. When does Aragon get to destroy the New World?

Hasta la vista, baby. (I'll be back.) 04:11, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

The first person to land on the Americas in PM1 was a guy from Hanthawaddy. I don't know who the first from Europe is.

Aragon is going to become an NPC nation in 9 years.

The renewed interest in Vinland by the Scandanavians, as well as the instability of the Kalmar union states (hence their inability to fund such an expedition) had already been set up by other moderators. LurkerLordB (Talk) 10:35, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

There is a Vinland. I had an expedition reestablish it in the early years of the map game. --Yank 18:32, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

Damn. Guys, if I conquer more territory around the Black sea, can I get a faster date of colonization?

The Royal Guns (talk) 19:09, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean when you say that Aragon is going to become an NPC nation in 9 years? I thought since Brandenburg and Aragon are in union and have the same ruler they would not break up. Essentially they are one nation except that they are seperated by the HRE and France.

Speaking of which, if France "gets into" the HRE, can the Spanish states join as well?

Hasta la vista, baby. (I'll be back.) 02:13, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

Modding
I believe that Yank should not be able to mod events concerning the Middle East or the Caliphate. He obviously can't keep his feelings in check. Any little thing he can think of, he wants to put it against the Caliphate. --Saamwiil, the Humble 03:05, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

I promise that I'm done with my mod events about the Caliphate, as Tunisia was the last place I could reasonably explain why they left. I still think the Caliphate is a gross violation of the rules, but evidently I've been overruled. --Yank 03:22, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

As much as I hate the Caliphate, I have to agree with it and disagree with Yank. Hasta la vista, baby. (I'll be back.) 04:13, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

Yank, the Caliphate has already been punished for breaking the rules. Your reasons for making Tunisia break away are just ridiculous. Your saying in the course of a year, a new church springs up and gets the province to rebel away from the strongest nation-state in the world? The part where you say: "This move wasn't inspired by my feelings about the Caliphate. It was inspired because I believe that there are enough factors to justify having Tunisia declare independance." Annoys me the most: Tunisia's reasons for breaking away have just been made up there & then! I haven't seen any previous mention of the "Reformed Islamic faith" or the Papal states trying to convert Tunisians to Catholicism. Its just rubbish. I cannot agree with this and I declare a vote to overturn this event <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 17:01, October 16, 2012 (UTC).

I've already overturned it myself. I still think everything the Caliphate does breaks the rules, but I promise I'll do more to keep my thoughts to myself.--Yank 18:29, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

Is the whole idea of the Caliphate even probable? Why didn't this happen in OTL, if it was possible? I think that even though Yank may have been a little improbable, he may have a point. It is way too large and way too prone to collapse to continue without an eventual breakup or schism of some kind. CourageousLife (talk) 20:01, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

It didn't need to happen OTL to be possible in ATL. And there have been Schisms, Crimea declare independance for a few year, then the Zayyanids. (Maybe not in that order). I fthe Holy Roman Empire was possible for a faith that reached its fervour centuries prior can still hold, a religioon that's still in religious fervor can also. Saamwiil, the Humble 20:08, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

The Caliphate needs to be dismantled, not because of their strength, but because they grossly broke the rules. The Holy Roman Empire, still isn't totally united and we are much older. It isn't plausible for a bunch of small unimportant muslim states suddenly burst into one large and ''completely UNIFIED! ''It is not possible. I am okay with there being a Caliphate, but it must be done right. You can't force your will on others, especially over the large distances that the Caliphate has. Way too many differnet groups that aren't just going to step aside to let you take total control.The HRE is not in the same position, from the very begining we have been attempting unification and now finally, almost 50 years after the game began, we are unified. if it took a much older and arguable more powerful nation that long to unfy how the heck are you going to do it in a decade or two.That is rubbish. Andr3w777 (talk) 20:21, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention that one person is acting for all of the NPC provinces and boosting their military power. If they can, then why can't the HRE? CourageousLife (talk) 20:26, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

Okay now I'm confused. Am I justified in my hatred of the Caliphate or am I completely out of line? I'm still going by my opinion that the Caliphate shouldn't be possble but no one really listens to me. Yank 20:41, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

I heard you Yank, they just want to argue with me, And to call these "a bunch of small insignificant muslim states" just signifies how ignorant you are about the situation. I shall argue no further since I see there is no point. Ignoratn people usually won't listen to reason. Saamwiil, the Humble 20:53, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

oh ignorant am I? Do you have a major in history? Hmm? Before you resort to insulting sombody you don't know, and somebody that probably has a higher IQ than you, I suggest you look at HOW the Caliphate came into being. I was a little heated on the multiple weak Muslim states thing, yes there were numerous powerful nations. Do not presume to treat me like a child, and a dumb one at that. You cannot grow to the lengths your nation has grown. It is not plausable. Once again. Keep your damn comments civilised.Andr3w777 (talk) 21:02, October 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * You are the one being rude to Saamwill. You started saying we are all weak and he defended himself, and now you're raging. Don't ever do that again. Fed (talk) 22:46, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

Everything about the Caliphate says that it shouldn't exist.... in it's current form. There's nothing wrong with a united Islamic state, but the Caliphate was created effectively in the blink of an eye. The HRE took almost half a century to unify, but the Caliphate took far less to become fully grown. The HRE doesn't use NPCs that are not vassals to pad their algorithms, and yet the Caliphate feels free to do so. If the HRE is not allowed to use every state to attack someone, that means the Caliphate should be under the same limitations. Face the facts Sammy boy. you and everyone playing as the Caliphate are CHEATING. Your response boils down to sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la la la la I'm not listening la la la la". Are you a toddler? If not then why are you behaving like one? Yank 21:07, October 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * In a blink of an eye? Bavaria was unified in the "blink of an eye". The HRE was unified in the "blink of an eye". We started discussing Muslim unification since the start of the game. The HRE doesn't use NPCs that are not vassals? All of our NPCs are vassals of some sort, and BTW, a bunch of HRE states (say Ulm, Strassbourg, et cetera) were only mentioned by the French once before you guys used them and copied and pasted their names onto the unification treaty. And the same thing I said to Andrw goes to you. You are being horribly rude by calling us toddlers. And we're not doing "lala I can't hear you", you are just having a vendetta against us because it just happens to go against your ideals. Fed (talk) 22:46, October 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * I personally disagree on the Bavaria part, it took a long time for my expansion.

God, you people are difficult. I am in American Mensa, so you might not have a higher IQ than me. And if you want to look at HOW the Caliphate was formed, why don't you. Qoyunlu declared war Oman, making Oman and Shaybah vassals. Dulkadir and Ramazan were already vassals. Then Qoyunlu married the Heshimite and there the Caliphate wad formed. Then the Ottoman Empire joined because it felt betrayed by the Christians, and was in no state to be on its own, do remember the Ottoman Empire is A PC. I took it for granted that the Zayyanids and Granada would join because they wer our allies. I was wrong. I also took for granted since Crimea was completely destroyed that it too would join the Caliphate. I was wrong, again. The Bahmanis said they would join, but never came around to it because they stopped playing, so we added them. Every nation apart of the Caliphate as it is now is legitimate, and could be considered vassals of the PCs if I hadn't ruled against it. I don't think that is far off from what has happened to some nations OTL. I think it's ironic you tell me to be civilised, but you curse. :) And I don't feel the need to respond to Yank, since he's just saying what you're saying, but like a barbarian. Saamwiil, the Humble 21:19, October 16, 2012 (UTC)


 * I was going for the irony actually :)Andr3w777 (talk) 23:25, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

And congratulations, I stand corrected(blasted IQ arguements, sometimes they work, sometimes not) :) Also why is named Mensa? Mensa is a table...? That just shows that one's intelligence doesn't stop them from making bad decisions. --Yank 21:34, October 16, 2012 (UTC)


 * And this just shows you guys are just being blunt, rude and biased. Fed (talk) 22:46, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

I make loads of horrible, stupid, horrendous (if that's even a word) decisions. I'm a human being, every human does. However, that doesn't stop the Caliphate from being legitimate. Saamwiil, the Humble 21:37, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that the Caliphate can't work. On the other hand I believe that as it stands now it doesn't. The concept is good but the execution isn't so good. --Yank 21:48, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Yank for overturning it, I accept your apology on that matter. However the Caliphate doesn't just break rules, I resent that generalization.

Secondly I also resent people saying the Caliphate just magically appeared. It is the work of marriages, conquest and submission. The Caliphate was established in 1466, it has had a lot of expansion over the past 26 years but its not like that rate is going to continue for ever and its not like the Caliphate will still be around in 2012 too.

Now yes, we did have to change the execution, if it was a single unified state then only one post would be made for it. That would be no fun for 4+ players to share hence we have the fairly high amounts of autonomy for our states. The war algorithm is also biased towards large alliances of nations so if this situation did happen then we'd have complaints about the outcome of the algorithm.

Anyway, ignoring all that ugliness above, I implore you guys to use actual examples of rule breaking. Every argument made against the Caliphate has had no actual examples to back it up. Please give us examples and places where you think we've done wrong. Otherwise we can't have an informed discussion about your concerns of potential rule-breaking (as in other than the stuff we've been punished for) if we don't know what you are referring to. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 23:35, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

But that's the point that I'm trying to make. How could this be plausible? It's not rule-breaking, it's just flaws in the game. The point is that the possibility of this large of a Muslim super-state evolving is slim to none. I think that it isn't fair to other players because three or four players found a way to exploit power in the game. I'm not saying that a unified Muslim state is impossible, but one of this magnitude and power is majorly implausible. There would be divisions in the Caliphate, such as Sunni and Shi'a. There would also be the matter of the cultural and ethnical groups that they conquered resisting. And I resent the fact that people thought I was rude just for disagreeing. CourageousLife (talk) 00:03, October 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * If you were nice enough to wait, you'd notice I had plans for Sunni-Shi'ite wars. Also ethnic groups mattered nothing in politics in this date. Fed (talk) 00:46, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

Well if your going to do that, then you got to do that for every nation. Now that's just the flaw of map games, they are not the most plausible things. However we all agreed to the rules so as long as players follow them, there isn't much else we can do. So many factors are just ignored simply because if we took everything into consideration, then we'd still be stuck on turn 1. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 00:22, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

There is also the fact that, in this discussion, we have two representatives from the DME, two from the HRE, and a couple from Europe, and one from America. There could definately be some biases going on here, especially from those who feel they are being attacked. CourageousLife (talk) 00:30, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

Caliphate
Total: 181
 * Location: 3.5 -> 4 (Ramazan 4, West Qoyunlu +3)
 * Tactical Advantage: +1
 * Strength:+67 Ramazan (L), West Qoyunlu (L), Dulkadir (M), Candar (M), Karaman (M), Circassia (M), Georgia (M), East Qoyunlu (M), Iraq (M), Persia (M), Egypt (M), Syria (M), Pelestine (M), Tunisia (M), Tripolitania (M), Hijaz (M), Yemen (M), Hadramut (M),Oman (M), Shyabah (M), Nejd (M), Trebizond (MV)
 * Military Development: +60 (West Qoyunlu +30), (Ramazan +30)
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +5 (Byzantium has continuosly ignored R&A warnings)
 * Chance: 5
 * Edit Count: 1067
 * UTC Time: 8:45
 * (8*5)(1067)/3.14 = 13592.3567
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 8+6+20 =34
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: (Crimea -3) (Cossack -2)

Holy Roman Empire
Total:
 * Location:5
 * Tactical Advantage: 0
 * Strength: Byzantium (L), Austria (M), Tyrolia (M), Salzburg (MV), Golden Khanate (MV), Papal States (M), et al.
 * Military Development: A lot, I am not sure. The Imperial Army, made up from men of all states, has been expanding for decades.
 * Expansion:0
 * Motive:10
 * Chance:
 * Edit Count:
 * UTC Time:
 * Nation Age:0
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Recent Wars: 0

Discussion
How it is possible having two leaders on a war?And, you forgot your war against Sind, and the Cossacks too.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 20:52, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

It's coalition warfare. I didn't forget Sind, because none of the the leaders got involved. And I'll add the Cossacks. Sorry 'bout that. Saamwiil, the Humble 20:59, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

If it is coalition, so weren't the leaders supposed to have their own sections?And, i'm sure that some of our states at least helped on the Sind war, though not leading--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 21:10, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

Well, West Qoyunlu doesn't have vassals... And there's a new coalition algorithm. c.f. LukerLordB's post. Saamwiil, the Humble 21:35, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

I was also under the impression each nation in the coalition would have its own section. Plus the Sind war only concerned the Indian provinces who are not involved in this war. There are a couple of middle eastern provinces which are helping in both wars but they were/are only supplying aid to both conflicts.

Also Saam, what happened to invading the Timurids? We can't really have two big wars going on or else they'll take advantage of us! I mean suppose I could use Gujarat and Persia to lead the Timurid war though but what happened to one thing at a time? <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 23:45, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

I thought this was a small bit more urgent than the Timurids. They're a gigantic obsticle to Caliphate's trade dominance and have ignored warning implying that they were soon to be at war with us. So, I put this on the table first. Saamwiil, the Humble 23:49, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

Well the Timurids also hinder trade, but those Byzantines are more of a threat. Suppose I'll wait a few years longer before starting a war against them with Gujarat and (with your permission) Persia. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 23:54, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

The Possibility of a Purchase
I was wondering if Saxony might be able to buy some land with access to the sea. Such land exchanges were very common in Germany otl troughout the life of the HRE. I would like to buy the land around otl Wilhelmshafen from the duke of Oldenburg, or one/two of the East Frisian Islands from the count of East Frisia. Callumthered (talk) 20:36, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

OK, all of this buying of enclaves to the ocean is going to need to stop, at this rate half the landlocked nations in Europe are going to have an enclave so they can border a sea. To have an enclave not connected to your main nation, you need to have the permission of all of the nations in between to be able to maintain contact. This includes NPC HRE states. LurkerLordB (Talk) 21:55, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

Who owns those lands? Me? Sorry, my lands are not for sale. They are hard earned lands. Money cannot make up for all the struggling. I can scream at another state though. (Not literally.) Hasta la vista, baby. (I'll be back.) 01:54, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

Saxony really ought to focus on expanding among the small German states for now (if the HRE has banned taking over each other's states, the Reformation'll start a massive civil war in about 30-40 years in which that poor union will fall into chaos). LurkerLordB (Talk) 02:05, October 17, 2012 (UTC)