Talk:Principia Moderni III (Map Game)

=Resources=

Archives

 * Archive 1
 * Archive 2
 * Archive 3

Algorithm Template
Because the current algorithm looks like s***, I've taken it upon myself to do the players a favor and create an algo template that is more becoming of a map game of PMIII's caliber. Enjoy. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 18:40, February 3, 2014 (UTC)

Nation One (Attacker)
Total: 0
 * Location: 0
 * Tactical Advantage: 0
 * Nations: 0 = 0
 * Military Development: 0
 * Economic Development: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 0
 * Chance: 0
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 (0) =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Nation Two (Defender)
Total: 0
 * Location: 0
 * Tactical Advantage: 0
 * Nations: 0 = 0
 * Military Development: 0
 * Economic Development: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 0
 * Chance: 0
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 (0) =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result

 * ((Winner/(Loser+Winner))*2)-1 = 0
 * (0)*(1-1/(2*0)) = 0

Maps
Land Acquired (post year, then your nation, then what has changed)

1450 - 1459

 * 1450 - Novogrod - vassalize Tver
 * 1450 - Ica-Nazca - vassalize Chancay
 * 1450 - Tibet - annexs Confederation of Shan States
 * 1451 - Timurid Empire annexed Jaunpur after a decade and a half of vassalization and the leader dying while the nobles of Jaunpur supported Draka as their new Sultan.
 * 1451 - Ica-Nazca - expand into Chimor, making it a vassal
 * 1452 - Aztecs - annex Soconusco
 * 1452 - Italy - vassalize Sicily
 * 1453 - Aztecs - annex Zacatollan and Atotonilco

1450 - 1459

 * 1446 - 1449 - Cuzco - take 12% of Aymara's land in the north
 * 1450 - 1454 - Roman Empire (+ALLIES) - take Ottoman Empire's land in Europe Treaty of Adrianople
 * 1454 - Duchy Of Hesse occupies Western Bremen

1450 - 1459

 * 1450-1454 - Sanafah (Mashriqi Madagascar) - expands 12500 sq km in total
 * 1450-1454 - Iritriya (OTL Eritrea, Somalia) - expands 25000 sq km in total
 * 1450 - Chiribaya - expands km southeast, along the coast
 * 1450 - Portugal - Açores expands 200 sq km
 * 1450 - Bengal Sultanate - Emirate of Adamana expands 500 km into the island
 * 1450 - Eire - expand into the Mayo, and reach the north coast
 * 1450 - Jochid Ulus - expand 1500 sq km
 * 1450 - Cahokia - expands 5px north
 * 1450 - Cahokia - Moundville expand 15px east/southwest
 * 1450 - Cahokia - Parkin expand 10px west
 * 1450 - Novogrod - expands 80px north into undiscovered land
 * 1450 - Zapotec - expands south, along the Atlantic Coast
 * 1450 - Banu Sulaym - expands 2500 km inland
 * 1451 - Portugal - Açores expands 600 sq km
 * 1451 - Bengal Sultanate - Emirate of Andamana expands 500 km into the island
 * 1451 - Koryak Confederacy - Chukchis expand 100px east along arctic coast
 * 1451 - Koryak Confederacy - Kolmya Evenks expand 100px northwest
 * 1451 - Zapotec - expands south along Atlantic Coast
 * 1451 - Cahokia - Etowah expands 5px into mountains
 * 1451 - Cahokia - Parkin expands 10px west
 * 1451 - Banu Sulaym - expands 2500 km inland
 * 1451 - Jochid Ulus - expands 150 km
 * 1451 - Oirats - expands 50px to the north
 * 1452 - Chiribaya - expands 20 km southeast, along the coast
 * 1452 - Oirats - expands 50px to the north
 * 1452 - Bengal Sultanate - Emirate of Andamana expands 500 km into the island
 * 1452 - Castile expands 5000 sq km into Granada and established the kingdom of Granada in the disorganized territory.
 * 1453 - Portugal: Açores expands 600 sq km.
 * 1438-1455-Oirats: expanded for 850 px through 17 years.

1450 - 1459

 * I think Oldenburg's 1449/1450 acquisition of Neu Baltrum (otl Jan Mayen) fits into this category. Callumthered (talk) 12:05, March 23, 2014 (UTC)
 * 1451 - Ashikaga (Japan) - Unites the state of Date under their rule
 * 1454 - All independent Irish states join Eire/Munster due to a mod event. Macedon_Shield.pngBow To Your Sensei. BOW TO YOUR SENSEI!!! Rome_Shield.png

Map Issues
''' The issues of the previous map shall be cleared after each map to save up space, unless a discussion is still going on. '''

Part of the Treaty of Weimar was that Hamburg acquired southeastern Bremen. And Hamburg has since annexed Saxe-Lauenburg. I am that guy (talk) 00:14, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

For whatever reason Sicily has been taken out of the Aragonese color.

03:31, March 23, 2014 (UTC)


 * Because is not under your rule, long time ago Aragon and Sicily take separate ways. Quashi (talk) 16:24, March 23, 2014 (UTC)
 * Amd why is venice taking land from Zeta??????Quashi (talk) 16:34, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

United Ulster and Munster via Personal Union with Local's permission. Bow To Your Sensei. BOW TO YOUR SENSEI!!!

Munster/Eire fully expanded to hold all of Mayo (Western Ireland disunited clans). Bow To Your Sensei. BOW TO YOUR SENSEI!!!

The Koryak Confederacy isn't on the map. Krasnoyarsk (talk) 19:09, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

China holds the outlying islands of Japan... Taibei is annexed by Tainan. The Champa are annexed by Dai Viet. Scandinator (talk) 03:37, March 24, 2014 (UTC)

As of 1451, the Ashikaga are in personal union with the Date Ozymandias2 (talk) 16:38, March 24, 2014 (UTC)

Tibet has Taungoo as a vassal as of 1447 or 8  Jbwncster  (Talk)

Banu Sulym does not belong to Aragon. It is Hungarian was was Hungarian before Aragon began to "influence" it in the 1410s - check 1410 map. So could this please be reverted and given back to Hungary? Imp (Say Hi?!) 00:32, March 25, 2014 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it be easier for the both of you if you just tried to come to a agreement between yourselves about that?--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 15:36, March 25, 2014 (UTC)


 * What do you mean? It is mine by right. I had it since the 1410 map and all of a sudden it is in Argonese colours? [[Image:1.png|23px]]Imp (Say Hi?!) 19:54, March 26, 2014 (UTC)
 * You both have been trying to claim the region ever since the 1410s.When it was your colour, Scraw made a point of asserting that it was his everytime he was here.Now that you've been inactive lately, the new mapmaker resolved to address his insistent claims by giving it to him.And from what i know, you both started to vassalize them around the same time.There is no way to decide between the both of you.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 21:59, March 27, 2014 (UTC)

Not to be antagonistic my most loverly mapmakers. But my nation as well as Cahokia's updates, were not posted. Although I havent expanded anymore, but I cant say the same for Cahokia, My land isnt fully updateed. Ny southern old vassal, Soconusco. and My wrapping around of the northern Zapotec border by Aotonilco were not added. I now am one unified clor with no inside lines, as I am fully unified. SwankyJ (talk) 14:02, March 26, 2014 (UTC) not trying to cheat of overexpand, but my legal old expansions werent updated.



Ok, a few edits are in order in order to make the Mashriqi map accurate. Here is the short form. If you have inquiries, catch me on chat, please.


 * 1) Mamluks and Jalayirids merged
 * 2) Ramazan is still Mashriqi, as is Tekke (Karaman is disputed - See me in chat?)
 * 3) Tunisia is in a Personal Union with the Mashriqi Sultanate
 * 4) Expansion, which had been greatly neglected, should reflect this map --> See Kunarians post below

Thank you, wonderful map-makers. I look forward to 1455's revisions, after which I will use the proper means (newly established) to keep you nice and up to date in the Middle East! Thanks, 08:09, March 27, 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) The exception would be that Malindi, al-Sumal, and al-Swahili are not disorganized

Please also note the expansion of Sanafah and Iritriya from 1450-54, which is addressed in the more recent category. The map above of the Near East is what the map should've been (expanion-wise) in 1445. 08:34, March 27, 2014 (UTC)
 * PLEASE NOTE: Rex's map above is wrong, as it suggests he has integrated Karaman and a few other nations including Tekke which is as so far as i know is disputed. Please see the Treaty of Arianople for the resolution and the actual end map. Concerning his expansion, I am not challenging that. Kunarian TALK 13:07, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

Marrikuwuyanga is not pictured on map (controls the Tiwi Islands off north Australia). Also it doesn't look like Mangut Nivkhgu's expansion has been logged for a while. 198.187.147.254 17:53, March 27, 2014 (UTC)

The Oirats has expanded 850 px in 17 years and we have built a small settlement next to lake Baikal.Ninjasvswarriors (talk) 12:06, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

Labelled


These great and wonderful maps have been made and labelled by Scandinator. Please be sure to thank him for his intense dedication and deep-level research that he put into these maps.

Religious Map
I've updated the religious map to reflect the 1450 situation. If you want to update the map, please list the changes you've made in the Notes section, along with your signature; this enables me to update the color key and change log accordingly, preventing confusion for readers. TankOfMidgets (talk) 19:58, March 24, 2014 (UTC)

Color Key

All regions are shown according to the plurality religion in the province.

Catholicism is yellow; the Western Church nations are shown in gold, and Sedevacantist states are shown in pale yellow. Eastern Orthodoxy is orange; Oriental Orthodox sub-branches are burnt orange. *Reformism is red. Sunni Islam is lime green; Ibadiyya Islam is dark green. Hinduism is sky blue, while Buddhism is dark blue; the Bon religion is pale blue, and Mongolian Buddhism is grey-blue. Confucianism is purple, while Shintoism is violet. Other "pagan" religions are pink; the Mesoamerican pantheon is light pink, the South American pantheon is hot pink, the North American pantheon is fuchsia, and the African pantheons are all dark pink. Other religions will be added as needed.

Notes


 * The UNC is now listed as Western Church. TankOfMidgets (talk) 19:53, March 24, 2014 (UTC)
 * Bavaria is now correctly Western Church; Swabia is now properly Catholic. TankOfMidgets (talk) 19:53, March 24, 2014 (UTC)
 * Oyo is now Islamic. TankOfMidgets (talk) 19:53, March 24, 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure what to do with Sedevacantism; I've left it up there for now, but can easily switch it to Catholic if need be. TankOfMidgets (talk) 19:53, March 24, 2014 (UTC)
 * I think keep it. I mean, if the Western Church gets its own colour (and the Western Church, like Sedevacantism, is basically Catholicism) then it sorta makes sense to have a separate Sedevacantist colour. Callumthered (talk) 21:24, March 24, 2014 (UTC)

Issues and Discussion
 * Right then, Sedevacantism stays. TankOfMidgets (talk) 05:18, March 26, 2014 (UTC)
 * Bahmani and Jaunpur are Muslim. I've left Chatagai as-is until one of the people trying to vassalize it "wins," at which point I imagine either the winner can dictate its religion or it will break into multiple smaller entities that I'll update in the next map. TankOfMidgets (talk) 05:18, March 26, 2014 (UTC)


 * I updated a few mistakes and issues people were having and did a few countries new additions for 1445-46. You're welcome to use it.  SwankyJ (talk) 21:16, March 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * um the reformed church als oneeds its own colour. With Blood and Iron (talk) 11:07, March 23, 2014 (UTC)
 * Bavaria is Sedevacantist for now. My duke officially converted in 1436, while most of the Bavarian population belong to Reformed (gold colored) groups.
 * For the millionth time, Sedevacantist  isn't a religion. You can't convert to it, so that will be retconned. Mscoree (talk) 22:27, March 23, 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, then Bavaria is reformed/Western church.
 * Reformed and western are too different things. I think you mean western. Mscoree (talk) 22:31, March 23, 2014 (UTC)
 * I've allowed Dutch reformists (as named by Nk) to preach in Bavaria years ago, but I've also followed France's example of distancing myself from Rome and constructing a unique state religion, so I guess it would be Western.


 * Dang, you'd got my hopes up saying you were Sedevacantist. And although you can't convert to it, you can alter your Catholic church to become Sedevacantist (ie by officially denying the legitimacy of all current papal claimants)Callumthered (talk)
 * Bahmani, Jaunpur and Chagatai should all be Muslim I think. Although I'm not sure about Chagatai that much.
 * The Aragonians are converting to the the Western/Consuete church FYI. also Capo Verde is not portuguese or Catholic, its Castilian/ Western/Consuete church

=General Discussion=



Ocean Currents and Discovery
Hello Fellow Voyagers! Like most of you, I am intersted in the Age of Exploration, but I would like this pivotal era to be tackled plausibly.

Note: I do not intend to harrass Viva, but he has just given me the reason needed to propse this idea which would help the game a ton.

Now, as some of you may have experienced with me, Viva claims to have sailed around Africa (over 150 years before progressive Europeans under Dias sailed to the Cape of Good Hope.) He also claims to have reached India (about 160 years earlier than De Gama's famed voyage).

Now, Viva will tell you that he has European technology. He will tell you that he has been trading (both overland and via sea) with Castille. I do not doubt that he has been trading and has some European technology. But lets be frank, he doesn't have 1500s era ships.

Now, we are also experiencing a little bit of fun with the Chinese voyage which has already taken place. This can trigger exploration by other people (like my Mamluks), and this is actually plausible. Lets look at ocean currents, shall we? (Those of you from PM2 may recognize these arguments - Viva made them frequently when defending his Vivempire.)



I do not pretend to fully understand this map, but I assume that the arrows indicate which direction the currents go. So, from China, for instance, the treasure fleet can go via the South Equatorial, then down the Aguinas, to the Benguela, and then just do some hard sailing the rest of the way. And from the Mamluks, we were in line when we sailed from the Aguinas to the Benguela, stopping at Kongo, and then going to Benin.

But as for Viva? He would have to sail against the Benguela, and then against the Aguinas, and then against the N. Equatorial. '''Plausible for war canoes? No.'''

How can we counter this problem in the future? Good question. I propose use of this page: Discoveries ; which will be laid out so that a player proposes a discovery (tech or geographical) and then a mod procedes to say aye or nay. A successful proposal would include:

Thanks! (TL;DR We need a better system of discovery in order to prevent Viva from sailing to the moon. JK Viva, you are just the example, no hard feeling intended.)  07:31, March 7, 2014 (UTC)
 * Achievement/Discovery
 * OTL Date of Discovery
 * ATL Proposed Date
 * ATL vs OTL facts which Change Things
 * Proof of plausibility (Use of maps, diagrams, Wikipedia, etc.)

One an ENTIRELY unrelated note, I will be really busy this weekend, and out of town, and camping, so I have asked MP to post for me. Please, mods, do not go to harsh on me/him since it'd be hard to handle any issues as I'll be out of town. 08:12, March 7, 2014 (UTC)

I would have to agree some people do seem to be doing exploration and naval technology unrealistically. Kunarian TALK 08:25, March 8, 2014 (UTC)

I really like the Discoveries page proposal, sounds like a great idea. Fed (talk) 15:22, March 9, 2014 (UTC)

Time to handle stuff. Trade between Africa and Europe had been commonplace for centuries before anyone bothered to sail around West Africa, chiefly through the Sahara Desert. I've stated this on multiple occassions, but appearently it isn't sinking into your heads (not directed at Rex). Unrelated note, Rex, this is like the 500th time you've brought this up. What's your deal?

If you would be so kind as to direct your attention to the right, you'll there is a map showing the trade routes between West Africa and North Africa. Three of those trade routes land smack dab on top of Oyo territory (once the mapmakers correct the map, you'll see Oyo controls the entire coastline of West Africa), meaning that I can and always have had the ability to trade with Europe, just as Ghana, Mali, and Songhai did in OTL. Also, when I began trading with Feud, I requested missionaries as well, which he sent, meaning that Catholicism would have plausibly reached Oyo. Additionally, like Ethiopia, Oyo would have accepted the belief because of their leader. Most historical conversations failed when the leader, the person to whom the looked too for guidance, refuted the belief. King Ezana of Axum accepted it, and converted, leading to his people embracing Christianity. Oranyan was baptized, and embraced the belief, as did his nobles, but for some reason that was deemed ASB. I don't know why, but I think some of the mods better pick up a book and understand it IS plausible.

Now on the matter of the ships. Early in the game, my nation had large canoes much greater in size than a Viking longship (about 60 feet long and carrying 120 men according to OTL examples regarding African military technology). These ships were not sailing against the current as the current is most powerful away from the coast. The canoes I used were used to reach Angola, and stuck to the coast, not away from it. Nowhere did I ever use the canoes to reach Europe or the Middle East, and only made my move to South Africa in a prolonged voyage, but aways had my men stop to forage for supplies and food, since these were professional warriors trained to survive away from home (like in OTL West Africa).

On the matter of the "15th century vessels", they aren't "15th century vessels". Their indigenous craft built by the Oyo for long-distance trade, not European ships. The Oyo sent a trade delegation to Castille in the early 1400s after Mali tried to hike up the toll for trade (in-game post), forcing the Oyo to search for a way away the Mali. Given the importance of the gold trade to OTL West African economies, Oyo had a plausible reason to search for another way. This resulted in them reaching Morocco on their own through the desert (as the Tuaregs would support anyone with enough money though the desert), and seeing how trade was conducted aboard actual ships. Given that Oyo possessed an OTL industry Mali did not (as Oyo and West Africa in general, were historically more urbanized that the rest of Africa), and possessed a natural port for shipbuilding, which the Oyo had engaged in, but not on a seriously level.

Thus, when need to get around the hostile desert arose, as well as need to trade with someone other than the Mali to sustain the economy, the Oyo turned to the sea. Since Oyo and Castille were trading by land, there were many members of the Oyo nation working in Castille (as would be normal for trading missions). Thus, many had much time to observe the workings of ships from their locations, and could give that information to the men heading back to Oyo. Over the next thirty odd years, Oyo spent that time working to build their own ships, not copies of European ships. In the same manner in which the Japanese had the atakebune, the Chinese having the junks, the Arabs the dhow, and the Indians the boita, the Oyo had the yanyan and the nlanla, ships built out of neccessity. They saw the wealth of Europe and North Africa, and needed that wealth to sustain their own. Rather than allow themselves to lose that window of opprotunity, the Oyo made the jump to build ships by trial and error, and got these two classes of ship.

Now onto the currents. The currents would present a problem for manpowered ships such as canoes, but for sailing vessels, no. Being heavier and powered by wind, sailing ships, especially those situtated near the equator, would have an easier time rounding the Cape of Good Hope as opposed to one coming straight north, such as those from Europe. So if anything, an Oyo ship would be able to make the trip as opposed to one from say, England. Now you say "progressive Europeans" in such a way as to indicate that Oyo is neither progressive nor able to do anything seaworthy as it is not European. For the last thirty years, Oyo had a progressive emperor who focused on modernization, and traveled frequently so as to understand as much about his world to help his people advance. If anything, Oyo is just as progressive as any European nation. You speak of fame and progression, but you forget one simple fact. Europe was far removed from South Africa and didn't know about the Cape of Good Hope.

Europe had no reason to round the cape of Africa as it traded through the Byzantine Empire for centuries. Only when the Ottoman Empire took over and threatened the European trade routes did the latter make attempts to get around the Cape, which they only discovered after the fall of Constantinople. Note how Columbus only made his trip fourty years after the city's fall, and only when it became appearent that the Turks wouldn't be good partners. That's the only reason Europe turned to the sea. Before that, all trade went through the East. When the East turned red, the Europeans turned West. Unlike the Europeans who had no logical reason to round the cape, the Oyo are in a position of strength, as they had knowledge of the cape (which Europe did not as they hadn't explored the area yet), and they have good relations with the Arabs and the Europeans. Since the Oyo are located far from Arabia with whom they trade greatly, they have a reason to turn to the sea to reach them, and a monetary reason at that.

So my reasons are perfectly plausible and grounded in fact rather than fiction. Recap time. Europe only turned to Africa after the Turks refused them access to the East, prompting the attempt to find a way to reach the then fabled India. Oyo turned to the Cape out of necessity as it needs to trade with Arabia and Castille without making long trips through the desert, and thus turned to the sea. Since Oyo knows about Europe, it has a reason to trade with Europe. Since Europe has no reason to go around the cape (as the East is still accessible), and most of Africa remains unexplored by Europe, they have no reason to go so far south unless they are trading with Oyo.

Now, I'm sorry about the wall of text, but it was important for my explaination. I think I've explained my point nicely enough Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 18:39, March 9, 2014 (UTC)

All in 35 years. 10/10 would ask Michael Bay to direct.

18:45, March 9, 2014 (UTC)

Yes Scraw. 35 years, just like Japan. Like Japan, Oyo had both an incentive and foundation to do so. Oyo possessed the economic capital to pay for the modernization, the government stability and popularity to push through reforms, and many of the required industries already existed in Oyo (iron foundries, as well as advanced woodworking and stonecutting). Oranyan made education compulsory early in his reign long before the modernization efforts came, and like Japan, sent scholars, experts, and merchants throughout the world (known world) to learn what they could and return with that knowledge. Like Japan's Charter Oath with legalized the pursuit of modernization (effectively demanding Japan modernize), Oranyan decreed that modernization would be the sole focus of his government from the beginning of the game. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 19:50, March 9, 2014 (UTC)


 * But why would he do that? Also, why would he make education compulsory? Even Europe's not doing that.


 * 20:19, March 9, 2014 (UTC)

Viva. There are over 30,000 distinct tribes and ethnicities in Africa. The idea that one nation could actually hold that much land, and keep it from the massive civil wars you should be experiencing, without a significant advantage over the other tribes is RIDICULOUS. When the British invaded, they had the Maxim Machine Gun and the Rifle against assagai spears.

You have nothing, unless you count alien space bats.

20:11, March 9, 2014 (UTC)

The number of tribes that were actually a threat are small, since most of those 30,000 tribes were very small, number only a few thousand members at the most. The Yoruba who make up the majority in the Oyo Empire, a heavily centralized empire OTL and ATL, numbered in the millions for centuries. Only the Akan are a threat, and I've mostly pacified them. Plus, most of the Akan lived in the interior since they had no reason to live on the coast. Most of the food they act was grown or hunted in the interior. Only when the Europeans arrived did the Akan move toward the coast due to the presence the coastal "factories", where the slave trade and Afro-European trade took place. And back to the tribes issue, most of the tribes are related, and OTL didn't fight one another because of that. Their tribal status had more to due with location rather than ethnicity, something any person would be to look up on the internet.

Plus, because of the Oyo and Castille trade agreement, Oyo gets weapons (non-gunpower) and armor, meaning Oyo is leagues above any of the tribes that they out-number and out-tech. Fun fact by the way, most of the 30,000 tribal groups appeared when empires such as Oyo, Benin, Songhai, and Mali, broke up into mini-empires, which the modern ethnic groups of Africa were formed. That only took place in the late-1500s and mid-1600s, far from where I am now. Those tribes also broke up even further with differences in language and belief, another result of the collapse of West African kingdoms during the Colonization era. So there are no massive tribal groups as you and others would like to believe. So you, Scraw, have nothing to fight with, since OTL invalidates everything you have claimed. Your argument has been invalidated. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 20:28, March 9, 2014 (UTC)

Listen here you little shit, where the hell do you get off talking to me? Let's go back and review what I said so far:

"All in 35 years. 10/10 would ask Michael Bay to direct.

18:45, March 9, 2014 (UTC)"

"But why would he do that? Also, why would he make education compulsory? Even Europe's not doing that.

20:19, March 9, 2014 (UTC)"

I would like to ask when and where I "claimed" anything. I merely asked a few questions which you didn't even answer. So please, get your facts straight.

20:41, March 9, 2014 (UTC)

Oh. Insults. Classy. When that is your only fallback, you've lost all credibility. You asked me only question, a question I couldn't see since my internet is derpy. Oranyan made education compulsory because he needed as many thinkers as possible as he knew he couldn't rely on Europe for all of his knowledge. If he wanted to advance, he needs to have people who can read, write, and record all of the information needed to make it happen. Another fun fact if you didn't notice (which I suppose you didn't), in Judea, all parents were required to teach their children. The Aztecs (as I suspected), are regarded as the first nation to formally make acquiring an education compulsory throughout the social ladder, as well as create an entire system for it. This took place nearly a hundred years before Scotland passed the Education Act of 1496, the first European nation to do so. And Scraw, just because EUROPE isn't doing something doesn't mean the BIG, VAST, HIGHLY DIVERSE WORLD isn't doing something they aren't. China was the most advanced nation on the planet, and Europe wasn't doing a thing the Chinese were. Does that now mean that China can't do any of the stuff they did because Europe isn't? That belief is ignorant and ludicrous.

You claimed that Oyo couldn't control the land it has because there are, according to your own words, 30,000 tribes (ethnic groups to be exact) in Africa. This is 1436, not 2014. There are not 30,000 tribes in Africa because the nations they hailed from are still intacted. You also claimed that Oyo would have to suffer numerous civil wars and that not having them would be "RIDICULOUS" (your words, caps maintained). So get your facts straight and do your research before stating something that is clearly incorrect. And maybe when your manners improve, I'll change my tone. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 21:05, March 9, 2014 (UTC)


 * On the note of insults. Viva, lately in chat and elsewhere you have been quite aggressive, calling people names on the chat who are simply asking about your nation. Now we even have you attacking Scraw for something he didn't even say. It seems like any time someone brings up your nation you go into a fit of roid rage. Mscoree (talk)

"You claimed that Oyo couldn't control the land it has because there are, according to your own words, 30,000 tribes (ethnic groups to be exact) in Africa. This is 1436, not 2014. There are not 30,000 tribes in Africa because the nations they hailed from are still intacted. You also claimed that Oyo would have to suffer numerous civil wars and that not having them would be "RIDICULOUS" (your words, caps maintained)."

Let's re-read what I've said so far.

"Listen here you little shit, where the hell do you get off talking to me? Let's go back and review what I said so far:

"All in 35 years. 10/10 would ask Michael Bay to direct.

18:45, March 9, 2014 (UTC)"

"But why would he do that? Also, why would he make education compulsory? Even Europe's not doing that.

20:19, March 9, 2014 (UTC)"

I would like to ask when and where I "claimed" anything. I merely asked a few questions which you didn't even answer. So please, get your facts straight.

20:41, March 9, 2014 (UTC)"

Now where in all those statements did I say that Africa had 30,000 tribes?

Let's go over what Guns said.

"Viva. There are over 30,000 distinct tribes and ethnicities in Africa. The idea that one nation could actually hold that much land, and keep it from the massive civil wars you should be experiencing, without a significant advantage over the other tribes is RIDICULOUS. When the British invaded, they had the Maxim Machine Gun and the Rifle against assagai spears.

You have nothing, unless you count alien space bats.

20:11, March 9, 2014 (UTC)"

As you can see, you have confused me for the more ignorant Guns.

21:20, March 9, 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed I have. I apologise for the mix-up. Your lightsabers confused me. Scraw, go back to black and white, its easier and cooler that way.

Ignorant, my ass.

Let's look at the statistics from 1800, shall we? That's the earliest we can really get.

There were 10,000 distinct kingdoms or other such groups, and approximately 3,000 ethnicities (sorry, I accidentally added an extra zero earlier).

Now, even assuming there were half as many groups- and I see no reason why that would be so- then you should STILL have massive issues.

You currently control large parts of Nigeria and Benin. These two areas historically had about 400 ethincities between them. Nowadays, there are only really three major ones left.

You made a trade agreement with Castille... seriously? That IS ASB.

In conclusion; there is a REASON that the biggest African empires OTL were Muslim ones in North Africa.
 * 1) You underestimate the racism of this time. People in Europe considered people from the next town over 'untrustworthy foriegners'. Keep in mind that these are people of the same culture, religion, superstitions, skin colour, and general geogrpahic area as them. You have NONE of those in common.
 * 2) There is very little you could offer them. You do not have the capacity to actually send shipments of gold over to them, and in any case, they have no reason to trade. They have steel and guns. You have wooden spears and war chants.
 * 3) The Oyo were heavily centralized OTL because they were very small. If you only rule over people of your own tribe- as the Oyo did, OTL, over the Yoruba- then that's fine. You, however, also control the lands of Hausa and Igbo.
 * 4) Also note that Gunpowder is not a big advantage at this point. Steel and etc is more important.

I'm not even going into your ridiculous conversion to Catholicism.

In conclusion, I think you were railing against the correct idiot in the first place. I completely agree with you over education- in most of Mali, for instance, people are extremely literate, partly due to the effects of the Songhai or Mali empires (and please note that the second of those was Muslim, and the first declined due to them- kind of like Axum).

21:54, March 9, 2014 (UTC)

Once again, this is 1436, the height of the Sub-Saharan African empires. Not 1800 during their great declines (and long after the point I stated many collapsed into mini-empires). You say 1800 is the earliest you can get when countless history books state that there were only a handful of ethnic groups in Africa as a whole, and only by the 1600s did that number increase. Historically, most of the empires in West Africa were highly contained ethnic groups, which were large and possessed a signle language, hence the reason they succeded as empires. However, after their collapses, they broke up, and their people began speaking dialects of the original language, leading to the formation of the numerous tribes. So I have no issues as most of the people in West Africa are either Yoruba, Igbo, Akan, Hausa, or Mandinka. I only have three of them in my empire and the Yoruba outnumber them all.

Now, having a trade pact with Castille isn't ASB as you want to believe.

The reason the Muslin ones were bigger is because they were the most aggressive and controlled nearly all of the trade routes in Africa. Henceforth the reason Oyo turned to the seas. And please, tell me why the conversion makes no since. Don't bring it up and say its stupid without giving a reason. If that's all you've got, then your argument makes no sense and only reinforces the stance that Oyo can convert (as you haven't provided a reason why they cannot).
 * 1) Castille traded with Mali and Songhai for centuries, as did many other European empires, and numerous maps of the era showed Mali under Mansa Musa on the same tier of power and respect as European kings (one such map showing him the same size as European kings north of his lands).
 * 2) You don't know that. For all you know I could have thrown them to Castille. There was a clear route to the north (as I just put on page not more than an hour ago), and Oyo being the dominant power in the region, can enforce its trade hegemony on these routes. If you read the posts between me and Feud, I have been trading ivory, gold, diamonds, and exotic fruit with him, things the Europeans literally killed each other over during the time. I have both the capacity and power to trade with them. Also, your statement of Oyo only having "wooden spears and war chants" is incorrect in the highest degree. Benin, Oyo, and Ife all possessed iron age weapons of the same quality as the Europeans (in fact if you did the research you'd see that Oyo and Benin warriors wore and wielded iron armor and weapons). And FYI, the Europeans also wooden spears (wooden shaffs with pikes, spears, and glaives attached to them) and war chants (taunts and drums to frieghten and provoke the enemy). And only a few people have guns right now, not all of Europe.
 * 3) So were half of the European natons Guns. The Yoruba are the largest ethnic group in West Africa right now (OTL and ATL), and make up most of the population in Oyo. There's a good reason it has traditionally been called Yorubaland. Also, the Igbo are to the east of Oyo in Benin, and the Hausa are far north of Oyo. Only the Akan and the Mandinka are in my lands, and their far smaller than the Yoruba (as they have been historically).
 * 4) I don't think I traded for gunpowder yet. Where did you read that? If anything, all I asked from Feud were armour, weapons, and missionaries.


 * One question: What happen to tiny oyo-man ship when big venetian trade lords decide they no like oyo-man trade monopoly in the western coast of Africa? Kunarian TALK 22:49, March 9, 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't matter- there were still THOUSANDS of ethnic groups. The kingdoms were caused by the falls- because the ethnic groups previously subjugated rebelled and broke off!

Exactly. Large, and possessing a single langauge and group. You're large, but have lands of 4 tribes. Not one. Each has a different language. Yes, the Yoruba outnumber them- but not enough to actually subjugate them.

Trading with Castille and actually having an agreement with them are two different things.

Yeah, and that still applies. The Muslims nations are more advanced than you, they still control all the land trade routes, and the Oyo don't have the technology to enforce hegemony on them, certainly not over Mali- which, please note, is still SIGNIFICANTLY stronger than you. As for the sea, please. Canoes? Over open sea? I think not.
 * Yes, they did- but they never formalized anything. Mansa Musa, by the way, was a MALIAN king, not one of the Oyo. He was a Northern African Muslim power with basically the same technology as many of them- no gunpowder, but steel and etc. Which the Oyo did NOT possess OTL, and there is no conceivable reason for that to change. Note that I said Steel, NOT iron. There is a SIGNIFICANT difference there- if you do some research, you'll see why. Iron is much softer and weaker than steel.
 * No, you cannot enforce those land based trade routes. You're the dominant power in OTL Nigeria and Benin. You do not have the power to punch through the lands of the Mali empire, which, FYI, is much stronger than your little titch empire. And I said STEEL, not Iron. SIGNIFICANT difference. The Spanish won in the Americas because they had STEEL. The Incan and Aztecs had other metals. Steel was much stronger.
 * 1) Actually, no. At this point in history, most European nations only control their own ethnicities. That changed over the next few hundred years, after they new technologies of the time made it easier to move information and people. Your lands DO infringe on some of Igbo territories, and while you outnumber the other three, it's not enough of a majority to subjugate them. You WILL lose those lands, if the mods ever get their act together.
 * 2) My bad. I was wrong there- I misread your post- missed the non-gunpowder part.

Why the honest fuck would they convert? They have NO reason! It's like Britain suddenly deciding to convert to Islam in the 12th century. Contrary to what you seem to think, most of the powers in your region are either Muslim or Animist.

22:41, March 9, 2014 (UTC)

You continue to say thousands as if there were thousands when there were not. These thousands of ethnic groups only popped up during the 17th and 18th centuries after the African empires broke up and isolation took effect. So hundreds in the 1400s is the correct estimate, but nowhere near thousands. And even so, the Yoruba still outnumber them hundreds to one. Most of the population as I already told you, resided in West Africa, which was the most urbanized region in Africa, period. Those numerous tribes resided int he Central African interior where isolation broke up the populations into tiny groups, which broke up further as new settlements were established. So the ethnic group issues would only persist in Central Africa, not the develop regions of West Africa.

On Castille:

The Muslims are on the same tier as Oyo, if not below. The Oyo and Benin empires were considerably more advanced that Mali, Mali only considered the most advanced as there is more information on them. However, recent discoveries have shown that the African empires south of Mali were more advanced than previously thought, and possessed better city building skills than even the Mali. And if you read my post on the African war canoes, in spite of their name, they were as big and deep as a Viking longship, which we all know sailed over over water. Also, I made very clear that the vessels stuck to the coast, where they would be safe. I also stated that they landed regularly to forage for supplies. Go back a few paragraphs and you'll see that very statement.
 * 1) Regardless, the Mali were black, just like the Oyo. So the point is moot, as the Castillians still traded with the man regardless of his ethnicity. Even if the Castillians were racist (a phenomenon that only emerged during colonization and their history with the Moors), you can't control what two players do as the action, ethnicities aside, is plausible in spite of your opposition to it. And Oyo and Mali are right next to each other, they share a border. Oyo and Benin were in fact more advanced than Mali in that they utilized more technologies than Mali, and had more cities (Mali only had three large cities as opposed to the dozens that existed in Oyo and Benin). And I believe iron and steel is where I got mixed up. The West Africans did have steel swords, as evidenced by the Akan akrafene sword, which was made of steel.
 * 2) You have no idea what I'm capable of, and the idea you can dictate what i can and can't is is hilarious. Mali is less populous than all of Oyo, and nowhere near as urbanized or militarized as Oyo. OTL, Oyo could mobilized 180,000-250,000 men. Mali could only mobilize 100,000 men. Mali wouldn't be able to make a dent into West Africa. And my empire is much larger than Mali on the map, do in no small part to the fact that the mapmakers didn't expand Oyo to its proper size (as has been the case with many other players' nations).
 * 3) Your statement on the size of the Yoruba is once against incorrect. Though I control three ethnic groups, the Yoruba expanded into land that neither the Akan nor the Mandinka resided in. The latter two groups lived in the interior where food and water were more accessible given their technologies, but the Yoruba and the Igbo resided on the coast as they had greater knowledge and technology needed to harness the ocean's foods and resources. Remember, the Yoruba and the Igbo lived along the rivers where they built their cities. The Akan and the Mandinka resided in the interior far from rivers and the ocean, and had no interest in it. I expanded along the coastline for a reason Guns. So I do outnumber the other tribes significantly given the spread of the populations of the time. Fun fact, Mali is the Mandinka homeland, meaning I have yet to expand considerably into their lands yet.
 * 4) Understood.

Ethiopia had no reason to convert either. But they did. Men came in and the preached to the people. The people liked what they heard, and converted, like the Ethiopians did. So your point once again is moot. And have you ever thought for a moment that Oyo wants to be set apart from the other nations around them? Your replacing plausibility with your own feelings of what you think is right or wrong. The missionaries can reach Oyo, and the Oyo can choose if they want to convert. I made sure that they did, like the Ethiopians did OTL. For every example you give, there is an OTL example that proves it wrong.

Wow, wrong on so many counts.


 * 1) Hundreds or thousands, the Yoruba did not outnumber the Igbo and the others enough to subjugate them. I don't know where you got your statistics from- mine say that the Yoruba were the most populous- but outnumbered the Igbo only about 4:3, and the Madinka 2:1.
 * 2) Mali WAS stronger- that's not even a question. Larger population, similar technology- less centralized, but FAR richer. I have NO CLUE where you are getting your stats from, but they are totally incorrect.
 * 3) Even if they were not they would still be strong enough that you CANNOT force a land route through their territory OR dominate it. And as for sea routes, the opposing navies- like that of Venice- are way more advanced. Again; CANOES.
 * 4) I don't know what you mean here- I said that some of your land had a Igbo, Madinka, and Akan ethnicites. Then I said that you could not subjugate them.
 * 5) Mali isn't the Madinka homeland in 1400. It was AFTER they caused the FALL of the Mali Empire- in some 150 years- that they moved into that area. Currently, they are much closer to you (not directly on your lands but certainly a sizable portion of their population).
 * 6) Far above, actually. Please note again- Bonoman, Oyo, Axum, Songhai- they all fell OTL for ONE reason. The Muslims. Until the 1800s, when the Europeans came in- your lands were Muslim. Same shit's happening ATL, without some serious cataclysm, because like or not they ARE stronger than you overall.
 * 7) Which, by the way, is an EXCELLENT reason why converting to Catholicism is stupid!


 * 1) No missionaries from Europe yet.
 * 2) The more powerful Muslims are on your borders and ARE trying to convert you.
 * 3) Ethiopia was different- they converted under Axum, before the foundation of Islam. It spread south via the Byzantines. There are NO major Christian, forget Catholic, powers near Oyo- THERE ARE Muslim ones.
 * 4) Basically, my point is, if you open your nation to Islam more, your nation is perfectly plausible- so far, eventually, with your expansion, the other tribes will revolt. But a Catholic nation in West Africa?

00:17, March 10, 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Annoys the Muslims.
 * 2) Has no reason to occur.
 * 3) And makes it impossible to have a proper land trade route North.

Let's begin.


 * 1) Historically, the Yoruba were the largest, and the Igbo were contained within the area of Benin, which is OTL Igboland. ATL, the Yoruba expanded farther west to expand their settlements, while the NPC Igbo remained in their location. So ATL-wise, the Yoruba are bigger than the Igbo. Plus, Oyo is located on the western end of Igboland, meaning that there are either a handful or no Igbo in my lands, making them a minority if that. As for the Mandinka, they moved further south OTL after the fall of Mali, since at the time, the region wasn't heavily settled. However, a map by the Brits only goes to prove that the Mandinka reside in the fringes of my empire, and are thus a minority. Your using modern statistics which have no bearing on a time before the disruption of the demographics of the time.
 * 2) I believe I told you in chat that I was wrong. You were there but you didn't respond. But Mali got its gold from southern West Africa, where it was mined. The West Africans sold the gold to Mali, who exchanged it salt. From there, the gold went north to Europe and the Middle East. So in reality, all Mali has too its name is salt (still very valuable), but I control the flow of gold.
 * 3) You completely ignored my earier points. I stopped building canoes when I started building larger (read, NON-EUROPEAN) ships with sails. I have canoes (war canoes at that) which are still larger than those used by Mali's river canoes. The may be canoes, but for the third time, they were (OTL and ATL) as big and as deep as longships. Again; LONGSHIPS.
 * 4) I don't even know what is going on, but all I can say is that this map shows that only the Akan lay in my way. And unlike the unified Oyo, the Akan were divided into numerous petty kingdoms, and aren't even shown on the map because none formed a major empire with the exception of inland Bonoman, and the recent Ashanti Empire. The Ashanti only gained a coastline after defeating the petty kingdom of Denkyira, which itself was not that powerful. So I have Akan in my lands, but they aren't a major threat. If they did arise, then they'd be shut down swiftly.
 * 5) Once again I would direct you to the map I brought up. They moved south only after Mali's fall (as you and I already mentioned), but that only proves my point that the Mandinka aren't the numerous in my lands since most of them still reside within Mali, which is still intact.
 * 6) Oyo fell because the neighboring Nupe (fellow Yoruba) took over the kingdom. Bonoman fell because the Ashanti rose in their place and took over. Axum fell because Queen Yodit (Jewish) invaded and cut Axum off from the world leading to a dark age (she is directly responsible for Ethiopia's backwardness). Songhai fell because Morocco sought to control the lucrutive gold trade, and Songhai was already Muslim.
 * 7) I already made the decision to convert to Islam since its safer and closer to Oyo. Plus, Oyo was never converted by the Muslims, nor did they ever try even though Oyo was close to Mali. This was something I already explained two weeks ago, and which the French even recorded in the 1600s when the visited the universities of Oyo-Ile. They stated only a handful Muslims were in Oyo, and they only served to teach the people algebra, nothing more.
 * 8) Converting to Islam will only aid my nation (henceforth my late and admitted needed decision). It'll permit me to justify my expansion to sate the mods, and allow me to expand violently if needed.

Even if you think converting to Christianity is possible, which it may barely be, the fact that Oyo would even want to is implausible and ASB. Why would a nation dominated by another religion, and surrounded by that religion, convert to another, other then to distinguish themselves but inadvertently make their lives harder. You stated that states like Mali traded with Castile for years, and notice how Mali never converted to Christianity during their brief encounters. Your contact is even less, having just created a sea route to Castile, so you would have very little reason to convert to Christianity. It may be possible, but it's also implausible and a bad move as a player anyway. Mscoree (talk) 01:02, March 10, 2014 (UTC)

Oyo had several religions, none of them very dominant. In fact, the Yoruba religion was highly diverse, and as Wikipedia put it plainly, had no one founder. People worshipped as they went, and who they worshipped was their own deal. The belief varied from region to region, and thus, no one party dominated the other. Mali never converted because it was already Muslim. Where do you ever read of a Muslim nation converting to Christianity? Nowhere. Only animist nations, such as Oyo, ever did. In any case, I've made the decision to convert to Islam for plausibility's sake. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 01:32, March 10, 2014 (UTC)

I read these rants in PMII, so I really don't want to read them again. Two things:

1. No one should even be thinking of new world exploration right now, save the Chinese Voyage spinoff. Not the Malmuks, not the Africans. No one. Last time I checked, the rules only allow for OTL events/discoveries to happen at max 5 years prior to OTL.

2. If this is going to cause problems, the mods can do do new world exploration just like nuclear weapons and space ships - they pick the nations. Which would, frankly, work better and more smoothly.

Cour *talk* 20:14, March 10, 2014 (UTC)

21:20, March 10, 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) The Yoruba did outnumber the other tribes but, again, not so significantly that a general uprising could be contained. You've got maybe 75% of the population (my other stats were for the total population, this is just the Oyo population itself) in the Yoruba- 25% is still a sizable and significantly destabilzing minority. What's more, the Madinka moved NORTH after the fall of Mali- they caused it, by encroaching on Malian territory. But that was 150 years after the POD- hasn't happened yet. As of the 1450s, the Madinka are square bang on your territory.
 * 2) My bad there- didn't see that.
 * 3) STILL not a match for the traders of Venice or England, who made such switches hundreds of years ago. So regardless, your ships are slower and would lose in an actual fight. Don't piss off the English.
 * No, because a combined general uprising is beyond the power of any pre-modern government to contain. Before we had the ability to kill hundreds of people in a few minutes, it would be impossible for a revolt of even 5% of the population to be properly contained.
 * 1) All of those nations were weakened before the actual fall due to Islam. The Oyo are the only ones where the fall, too, was not directly orchestrated by the Muslims. The Songhai were NOT Muslim- that was the Mali, which came after them- and the Morrocans who attacked were MUSLIMS, who had been encroaching on their territory for some time. Axum fell after a long series of border wars with the Muslims from Arabia. Bonoman was weak from wars the Muslims first.
 * No, they moved NORTH after the fall of the Mali- the Mali fell OTL due to the raids from the Madinka moving north!
 * 1) Yeah, education in Africa was historically a lot better than it is currently.
 * 2) Good.

Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 14:53, March 11, 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) At this time, most of the region (once again it was called Yorubaland for a reason) was unsettled, or setted by the Yoruba. The Mandinka live farther to the northwest, and are nowhere near my lands with the exception of my small border with Mali. And the Mali ARE Mandinka. Most of their population was Mandinka, and only the lands to the southwest of Mali are Mandinka. Everything south of them is Akan (OTL Ghana).
 * 2) Understood.
 * 3) I never said they were the same strength as European ships. And once again, you don't know what my ships are capable of, and are going solely on personal opinion rather than fact. I never published any details of the ships, so you have nothing to compare my ships to other than the fact that they are the same size as carracks and galleons. And speed is entirely dependent on size and the number of sails. As for England, their navy was garbage in the 1450s, and wasn't a match to anyone OTL. In fact, the English only began to build better ships in thr 1500s, but even then they were constained purely due to the fact they were destitute as a nation because Europe isolated them after Henry VIII split from the Catholic Church. Everyone hated them. Even in ATL, England's navy is still no match for any of the other nations despite the growth. Too be honest, both Oyo and England are on the same level navy-wise purely because the Castillians burned down the English navy before the game's start, forcing the English to start from the beginning, long before they established a true shipbuilding industry (which only emerged under Henry VIII and Elizabeth I).
 * 4) There have been countless uprisings throughout medieval history, and none of them turned out well for the peasents. The last man to stand up to the English king was actually killed when he and the King of England came close to "negotiate" the terms for peace. Even the Hussites who put up a good fight were eventually massacured to a man by the Germans and the Austrians. There has never (as for as I know) been a successful uprising by the serfs in any medieval nation, with the first such to succede taking place in France. In 1783. Containing a rebellion, especially when I have most of the population on my side, is well within my means.
 * 5) Bonoman was never attacked by the Muslims. Ever. It was destroyed by the Ashanti, who themselves weren't even Muslim. Oyo was destroyed by a fellow Yoruba kingdom which wasn't Muslim, and that nation in turn was destroyed by the British, not the Muslims. Like I said before, the Muslims never advanced south of Sokoto, which was the capital of the Sokoto Caliphate, and itself located in northern Nigeria, removed from the animist nations of southern Nigeria. On Songhai, it was indeed Muslim. Askia the Great was a Muslim, and though he didn't force his people to convert to Islam, he did enforce its protection in Songhai. The upper classes of Songhai were Muslims, while a considerable portion of the lower classes stuck to their traditional beliefs. But for the most part, Songhai was a Muslim nation. In fact, the second sentence in Songhai's Wikipedia page states, and I quote: "From the mid-15th to the late 16th century, Songhai was one of the largest Islamic empires in history."
 * 6) I'm not trying to be rude Guns, but I don't know where your getting your information from. Mali didn't collapse from Mandinka raids north, as its population was Mandinka. The British maps of the region in the 1800s that I showed not to long ago even call the land of Mali "Mandingo", showing that it was the Mandinka homeland. Mali collapsed because the last Emperor of Mali had three sons who fought amoungst themselves, and allowed the city of Gao (the capital of Songhai) to break away, and eventually invade and conquer Mali as it descended into civil war. Mali fell from the inside, not from the outside.
 * 7) True that.
 * 8) I suppose so.


 * I agree, I even suggested a method of doing such things, which was simple. However it was not taken onboard in any manner. Kunarian TALK 20:43, March 10, 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't ranting, stating my defense. As for new world exploration, I don't think that was the goal of anyone until 1500. And finally, the latter suggestion would be rather unfair to the players who have spent their time developing their navies for that purpose. For instance, the mods would most likely select Collie because his nation is Portugal (and a fellow mod), even though Collie hasn't focused on developing his navy. On the other hand, Feud would probably be passed over even though making his navy a first-class force was his goal. I believe that the mods should stay out of the matter of who discovers what, since most explorations were by mistake, and many nations are better placed to find these new lands as opposed to the ones the mods may pick (most of whom I have a strong feeling would be European like the last game). Flag of the Hurian Federation.pngorius: "I don't need a slogan" 21:09, March 10, 2014 (UTC)


 * One by one.
 * One by one.


 * There's a reason that some nations are more likely to discover the new world than others. And mod intervention would help prevent everyone from discovering and colonizing within a year or two of each other. It goes unspoken that this would lead to chaos and a 'Scramble for America' (which would no doubt be riddled with ASB claims). - Guns 02:49, March 11, 2014 (UTC)

Viva, you are not only advocating ASB on this talk page, again, but are making an ass of yourself. Cut it out. Lordganon (talk) 10:32, March 11, 2014 (UTC)

I didn't start the argument so I don't know why your pinning this on me, plus, let's just be honest here, your claim of ASB is tenious at best. All I'm advocating is the actual usage of existing edvidance to back my claims. I don't see whats wrong with that. And I don't know why you and the others fear looking at the links which say your wrong (seriously Guns just said Songhai wasn't Muslim, when the very second sentence of its Wikipedia page says it was one of the largest ISLAMIC empires in history). Don't call it ASB unless you have proof its ASB. Everything I've said is backed by proof. Most of what Guns said I've just disproved. I've proven everything I've said is both plausible and accurate. You have not. And please tell me LG, since your so intelligent (not an insult), why is it when the others provide information with no sources and routinuely proven they are wrong (as Guns just did), called plausible and creditable, but when I provide sources, and regularly research the regions I'm working in, I'm called ASB and making an a** out of myself? I mean, what are you guys afraid of? Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 14:45, March 11, 2014 (UTC)

I quoted multiple sources, actually, and you disproved nothing.

Unfortunately, a large part of my argument was somehow deleted?

See where it says " One by one."?That was me, actually, not LG.

I had a bunch of sources in there too, but I can't undo that without deleting his post, so...

About the Songhai- meant Ghana. My bad there. Still in the original Malian territory, so it makes no difference. Their fall WAS caused by Muslims. Not even a question...

Actually, no. Very little you said was plausible OR accurate.

And it's "you're", not "your".

We're afraid of you saying idiotic things like that. We've all quoted a number of sources, no one else agrees with you- generally, in this situation, it means that you're wrong. Stop with the Africawank.

21:38, March 11, 2014 (UTC)

Guns, if your post was accidently deleted, just go into the page history, open that edition of the page, and copy it back to where it was I can do it for you if you want. Mscoree (talk) 22:16, March 11, 2014 (UTC)

Actually it looks like it might still be there, although you signed with five tildes instead of four. Mscoree (talk) 22:21, March 11, 2014 (UTC)

What sources did you use? All of the sources I used I linked you too. I didn't ask about the One by one thing. I thought it was a troll so I ignored it. I thought you meant in the context that the nations were destroyed by crusading Muslims, but that point is moot now. Everything I said came from a history book, research site, or publication on the continent, all from people who study Africa for a living. So what I said was plausible and accurate, unless you can prove otherwise. I don't care about grammar right now, so the point is moot. The people who don't agree with me are the same ones who say Songhai wasn't Muslim (even though it was), or that there were 3,000 tribes in Africa in the 1400s (even though there weren't as those were formed in the 1600s). So in the situation, the guy who study's Africa routinuely and actually links his sources is generally correct, unless of course, you can prove otherwise. I'll be an Africawank because I can prove said wank is plausible. You cannot. I mean, you said Mali wasn't Mandinka even though from its own medieval constitution, the people referred to themselves as the Mande. They were Mandinka. When you make such a massive assertion that a major empire wasn't what it says it was, even though historians say they were, how on earth can you tell me anything about a continent you just proved you know nothing about? That, Guns, was idiotic, far from anything I've said thus far. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 00:02, March 13, 2014 (UTC)

Overall, Viva, you haven't proven Guns wrong on anything - more or less the opposite is true, actually. Your bias on the matter is so incredibly obvious that it disturbs me. And here I thought you had gotten better about it. Guess not.

You're trying to get a "wank" in without plausibility. ASB.

And, you're still acting like an ass here. Cut it out. Final warning.

Lordganon (talk) 12:13, March 13, 2014 (UTC)

I Have a Question
If I quit as the Ashikaga state can I come back and pick a new nation to play as in pm3 - Scarlet (aka Shadow)

Umm... not really. Cour *talk* 20:05, March 10, 2014 (UTC)

Venetian Empire

 * Location: 10


 * 10 (Venice) + 10 (Epirus) + 10 (Aegina) + 10 (Athens) + 10 (Candia) + 10 (Corfu) + 10 (Kaffa) + 10 (Ragusa) = 80/8 = 10
 * Tactical Advantage: 2


 * 1 (Attackers) + 1 (Co-ordination) = 2
 * Nations: 28


 * 4 (Venice, L) + 4 (Epirus, L) + 3 (Aegina, LV) + 3 (Athens, LV) + 3 (Candia, LV) + 3 (Corfu, LV) + 3 (Kaffa, LV) + 3 (Ragusa, LV) + 1 (Naxos, SV) + 1 (Negroponte, SV) = 28
 * Military Development: 9


 * 16 (Venice) + 10 (Epirus) + 8 (Aegina) + 8 (Athens) + 0 (Candia) + 20 (Corfu) + 8 (Kaffa) + 8 (Ragusa) = 88/10 = 8.8 = ~9
 * Economic Development: 10


 * 6 (Venice) + 12 (Epirus) + 14 (Aegina) + 14 (Athens) + 12 (Candia) + 2 (Corfu) + 14 (Kaffa) + 12 (Ragusa) = 74/10 = 7.4 = ~7 +3 (Venice, Kaffa) = 10
 * Expansion: 0


 * 0
 * Infrastructure: 0 (Defenders only)


 * 5 (Ragusa)
 * Motive: 13


 * 3 (Economic) + 5 (Democratic Support) + 5 (High Morale) = 13
 * Chance: 5


 * Edit count: 1632
 * UTC: 10:26 = 1*2*6 = 12
 * Total: 1632/12*pi (3.14159265359) = 427.25660088824
 * Nation Age: -1


 * -15 (Venice, Antique) + 0 (Epirus, Maturing) + 5 (Aegina, Mature) + 0 (Athens, Maturing) + -5 (Candia, Young) + 5 (Corfu, Mature) + 0 (Kaffa, Maturing) + 5 (Ragusa, Mature) = -5/8 = -0.625 = ~-1
 * Population: 7


 * 7 (7 digits) = 7
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: 0


 * 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: -6

Total: 91
 * -6 (6 vassals)

Morocco

 * Location: 25


 * 25 (Morocco) = 25
 * Tactical Advantage: 2


 * 2 (Co-ordination) = 2
 * Nations: 4


 * 4 (Morocco, L) = 4
 * Military Development: 0


 * 10 (Morocco) = 10/88 = 0
 * Economic Development: 0


 * 10 (Morocco) = 10/74 = 0
 * Expansion: 0


 * 0
 * Infrastructure: 5


 * 5 (Morocco)
 * Motive: -7


 * 8 (Defend, not cripple) + -10 (Government not supported) + -5 (Low morale) = -7
 * Chance: 6
 * Nation Age: 5


 * 5 (Morocco, Mature) = 5
 * Population: 9

Total: 59 x 1.25 = 73.75
 * 7 (7 digits) + 2 (larger by less than 5) = 9
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result
Venetian Victory


 * ((91/(73.75+91))*2)-1 = 0.1047040971168437
 * (0.1047040971168437)*(1-1/(2*1)) = 0.0523520485584219 = 5% (one year)
 * (0.1047040971168437)*(1-1/(2*2)) = 0.0785280728376328 = 8% (two years)
 * (0.1047040971168437)*(1-1/(2*3)) = 0.0872534142640364 = 9% (three years)

Discussion
DO NOT EDIT. I or an agreed mod shall edit the algorithm. Please comment if you wish to be added in some form. Kunarian TALK 12:07, March 8, 2014 (UTC)

Im sure you have more population Quashi (talk) 16:41, March 8, 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know I only have around 2 and a half million over my whole empire, as my page says. The Moroccans were powerful and able to resist Castile before they entered a period of civil unrest (they are in it now, as with OTL) and if Castile has around 4,500,000 just in Castile and they were able to resist that for a while then surely Morocco has something close to that. I'm pretty sure that they have more in simple terms. Kunarian TALK 17:28, March 8, 2014 (UTC)

Alteration to Expansion Rates
Hey, I wanted to suggest the alteration of the expansion rules, to all you to take territory in the black through military campaigns, you know, like in OTL. I don't recall reading anywhere where nations peacefully expanded into unknown lands by tiny amounts, taking hundreds of years to grow to the size of Texas. That just doesn't make any sense. Most of the large empire in history expanded to conquests (like Russia, the Mongols, Rome, China, United States, Ethiopia, Egypt, so on and so on), and did so in short amounts of time. You could slap a greater penalty onto the expansion rates, such as -2 or -3 for every armed expansion. The expansion rate would be double or triple that of the peaceful expansion, but you'd suffer more issues since you just conquered a chunk of some tribe's land. Just a thought. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 17:50, March 8, 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the expansion stuff is not that easily solved. We have to take into account the power of the nation doing the expansion, the population of the land being expanded into, and what kind of land it is. For example, if a very powerful nation expands into a desert with a zero population and owned all the habitable land around it (ex: Australia) it would be fairly easy to take the remainder in a short period of time. However, if a mediocre nation with little to no present influence in the area attempted to do the same, it would be harder.

18:27, March 8, 2014 (UTC)

Understandable. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 19:04, March 8, 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Viva, when the Tsardom of Russia was established they expanded an average of 35,000 square kilometers per year into Siberia. Also, I calculated how many square kilometers one pixel on the map is equivalent to, it's ~72 square kilometers. Toţi în unu; Nihil Sine Deo

Ottoman-Georgian Land Transfer
Chris - as I couldn't find a user page for you, I'll just post a map of the "land corridor" I'm asking for here. The area I'd like to purchase is in burnt orange; it roughly corresponds to the area east of Lake Van. I imagine the area is sparsely populated at this point in time, but I would of course be willing to repatriate any Turks in the corridor to the western side of the border line at my own expense, and would grant your merchants trade access through the corridor. TankOfMidgets (talk) 18:52, March 10, 2014 (UTC)

Yes that looks fair (after all, the Empire probably wouldn't have won if it wasn't for the Georgians in the coalition; we owe you something). Agreed. ChrisL123 (talk) 23:43, March 10, 2014 (UTC)

Spread of movable type printing
Okay I think we need to manage this carefully, especially as in PM3 there seems to be a habit of everyone suddenly getting all the technology.

In OTL, the spread of Movable type printing was SLOW. I mean so slow that by 1890, it still wasn't present in Brazil, most of Africa, a lot of Asia and hadn't even spread to most of the Balkans or Ukraine, Belarus and such.

Considering how slowly it spreads, the country of origin ( which it looks like there might be two atm, both Venice and Pskov, fun things happen ) would have a monopoly for about 20 years as it spreads around their nation (NOT THEIR VASSALS).


 * Was invented in Mainz, followed by another independent design in Venice. Mscoree (talk)
 * ummm...are you guys forgetting somebody here? Pskov invented the press aswell...-Lx (leave me a message)Azarath Flag.png 16:27, March 12, 2014 (UTC)
 * No you didn't. It's been retconned, as I've said many times. Mscoree (talk) 18:11, March 12, 2014 (UTC)
 * I was told that Hesse was getting the Printing Press. Blocky858 (talk) 20:50, March 12, 2014 (UTC)

After the 20 year start-up period, just like in OTL, it'd spread to about 3 nations adjascent to the country of origin (again not to their vassals), these would be the most technologically advanced and liberated neighbours too. During this time the country of origin can spread the technology to its vassals that share a land border with it.

After this it would take about 10 more years to spread to 6 more nations, these would be the most technologically advanced and liberated nations within the trade range of the current holders of the technology. During this period the country of origin can spread it to all their vassals and the first takers can spread it to their vassals that share a land border with them.

Then another 10 years later, it spreads again. Then there's a period of stagnation in the spread. And so on and so forth.

I'll make a table because I really think this needs to be managed carefully so we can enjoy the realism and constraints that do actually come with such developing technologies.

Keep in mind the spread might not be to player nations, but to relavently advanced nations

I really suggest we adopt this or we'll miss out on the interesting situations that arise out of such constraints rather than having every nation doing everything itself. This will also encourage players to work together to make interesting history.

Of course the decision upon where printing spread should happen upon reaching the next stage, because players may be able to change their policies to get the technology. We should not decide eveyrthing for all the stages immediately as that removes part of the fun. Kunarian TALK 10:12, March 11, 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Kunarian that technology needs to be regulated to some degree. Maybe not just for printing presses, but for all major technologies. I think this system might be more of a guideline then a set-in-stone system, regulated by the moderators for implausibility, but it is definitely a start. Mscoree (talk) 19:59, March 11, 2014 (UTC)


 * True, however this system is simple and makes life easy without being annoyingly fiddly. Kunarian TALK 20:04, March 11, 2014 (UTC)

I also think this would be a great idea, however in a map game, there is a fine line between overregulating and having too many rules, and having too few rules on this. When it comes to technologies, discoveries, etc, I think there should be a system of this sort where it is simple and easy to work with, but prevents loads of ASBdom. Bow To Your Sensei. BOW TO YOUR SENSEI!!!


 * Exactly, this doesn't have a million special rules or a group of requirements that everyone will work towards (breaking the RP and making the game more about min-maxing). It is just a case of regulating the spread of technology so that it spreads in a similar fashion to how it did in real life, rather than the rather predictable "1440: one nation has a printing press, 1450: every nation on earth has one!" that Principia Moderni can sometimes fall ill to. Kunarian TALK 21:23, March 11, 2014 (UTC)

My main problem is with the inital spread. You see, what if it is a great mighty nations surrounded by a bunch of nations of peasants and weak economies? I think it should spread to major trade partners and powerful nations after leaving the mother nation. Trade can take things really far, y'know?

21:30, March 11, 2014 (UTC)

I kind of agree with Scraw, althought the above model makes sense in general. For Mainz for example, they are surrounded by small states of the Holy Roman Empire, so it would take decades for the printing press to leave central Germany. In this specific case you'd think it might spread to Austria, given that Mainz is one of their biggest allies and nearly a vassal at this point, or at least to some of the major states of Germany. I think we should use this model, but also consider spreading the invention manually through moderator events at times, following any OTL trends. Mscoree (talk) 22:43, March 11, 2014 (UTC)

Um, sorry, but the The printing press didn't spread slowly, it was only limited by the travelling technology of the time. So I don't think this idea makes much sense, Fed (talk) 23:08, March 11, 2014 (UTC)


 * So it spread slowly. As it was limited by the travelling technology of the time. So it makes perfect sense. Kunarian TALK 23:12, March 11, 2014 (UTC)
 * Also can I just say that if you don't have any system in place soon, then it'll become unmanageable. If you won't accept a perfectly logical and reasonable system then at least present one of your own. Kunarian TALK 23:14, March 11, 2014 (UTC)
 * A system can still be useful. Perhaps this GIF will help us adjust it. Mscoree (talk) 23:23, March 11, 2014 (UTC)


 * I used the gif to make it. This is the closest you can get to it. Kunarian TALK 06:38, March 12, 2014 (UTC)

You're giving 15 HRE states and Austria a press by 1500, while IOTL all of the capitals of Western Europe had aress by this time. Fed (talk) 12:09, March 12, 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm getting the feeling you haven't read any of this. If we look at the two origins that are appearing ATL (from Mainz and Venice) then we end up with something (assuming nothing changes in game, which it will almost certainly) like this:


 * 1440: Mainz, Venice
 * 1460: Mainz, Venice (and adjacent vassals), Austria, Byzantine Empire, Milan
 * 1470: Mainz, Venice (and vassals), Austria (and adjacent vassals), Byzantine Empire (and adjacent vassals), Milan (and adjacent vassals), Hungary, Italy, Castile, England, UNC, Brabrant-Holland
 * 1480: Mainz, Venice (and vassals), Austria (and vassals), Byzantine Empire (and vassals), Milan (and vassals), Hungary (and adjacent vassals), Italy (and adjacent vassals), Castile (and adjacent vassals), England (and adjacent vassals), UNC (and adjacent vassals), Brabrant-Holland (and adjacent vassals), Bavaria, Prussia, Aragon, Portugal, France, Provence
 * 1490: Mainz, Venice (and vassals), Austria (and vassals), Byzantine Empire (and vassals), Milan (and vassals), Hungary (and vassals), Italy (and vassals), Castile (and vassals), England (and vassals), UNC (and vassals), Brabrant-Holland (and vassals), Bavaria (and adjacent vassals), Prussia (and adjacent vassals), Aragon (and adjacent vassals), Portugal (and adjacent vassals), France (and adjacent vassals), Provence (and adjacent vassals)
 * 1500: Mainz, Venice (and vassals), Austria (and vassals), Byzantine Empire (and vassals), Milan (and vassals), Hungary (and vassals), Italy (and vassals), Castile (and vassals), England (and vassals), UNC (and vassals), Brabrant-Holland (and vassals), Bavaria (and vassals), Prussia (and vassals), Aragon (and vassals), Portugal (and vassals), France (and vassals), Provence (and vassals)
 * If I remember Fed, England, Castile, France and the UNC aren't 15 HRE states, so there goes that theory of yours. AND LOOK! Practically all of Western Europe has printing presses, shock. and. horror. It spreads not to the person next to them like some dead snail being kicked along as slowly as possible like you suggest, but along logical lines of trade and vassalage. Obviously the mods should make minor changes (such as filling in all the minor states that are unconnected to players so that they get them) but shouldn't be throwing the printing press around as they see fit nor planning a very long OTL based line of nations that shall and shall not get it when and where.


 * Further the spread is gradual and easy to track. Compared to what a adhoc on the go player spread will be, which is everyone has one in their back garden before the end of the year. And a completed mod iron fisted direction destroys player creativity and means that we might as well not play and just go get out a game of Risk, because removing player influence on the soft side of the game (technology and culture) turns this into a war game only with mods telling you what you'll be doing outside of wars. I can play a war game anytime, and I won't waste time on a war game online where I might get f'd over because OTL or a mod says so. Kunarian TALK 12:52, March 12, 2014 (UTC)


 * Forgive me if I sound a bit sharp but I get a bit fed up when I present a system that does exactly what OTL does and then someone doesn't read or look at what I've done and blurts out falacies. That sort of thing really rubs me up the wrong way. Kunarian TALK 13:00, March 12, 2014 (UTC)
 * Now adjusted as Fed recommended, I think this system will work very well and be very plausible. We can try out it out on the printing press and see how it goes. Mscoree (talk) 18:15, March 12, 2014 (UTC)

No need to be rude. I did a mistake, so sorry, Your Almighty Highness. May I apologise or are you preparing the execution? Fed (talk) 18:46, March 12, 2014 (UTC)


 * Look I'm sorry I don't want to have an issue, I just got riled up and didn't control myself. Kunarian TALK 22:09, March 12, 2014 (UTC)
 * You should check this out, especially since it shows which areas already had the printing press by 1500.

Oyo (Attacker)

 * Location: +20
 * Tactical Advantage: +3
 * Nations: Oyo (L) = +4
 * Military Development: +16
 * Economic Development: +14
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: +16 (+7 +4 +5)
 * Chance: +8

Total: 100*125
 * Edit count: 4,755
 * UTC: 2*2*1*2 = 8
 * Total: 4755/8*pi = 1867.284133477556
 * Nation Age: 0 (1400)
 * Population: +9 (5,710,442)
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Benin (Defender)
Total: 63
 * Location: +25
 * Tactical Advantage: 0
 * Nations: Benin (L) = +4
 * Military Development: +3
 * Economic Development: +3
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: +9
 * Chance: +2
 * Nation Age: 0 (1180)
 * Population: +7 (2,000,000)
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result



 * (125/(63+125)*2)-1 = 0.3297872340425532
 * (32.9)*(1-1/(2*7)) = 30.55%

Oyo can claim 30.55% of Benin.

Georgian-Jochid Coalition (Attacker)

 * Location: 17


 * 20 (Georgia) + 20 (Armenia) + 15 (Gordyene) + 15 (Adiabene) + 15 (Ardalan) + 15 (Golden Horde) = 100/6 = 16.667 ~= 17
 * Tactical Advantage: 5


 * 1 (attacking) + 2 (central coordination) + 2 (high ground)
 * Nations: 4 (Georgia, L) + 3 (Armenia, LV) + 3 (Gordyene, LV) + 3 (Adiabene, LV) + 3 (Ardalan, LV) + 4 (Golden Horde, L) + 1 (Adyghea, SV) = 21/4 = 5.25 ~= 5
 * Military Development: 62/5 = 12.4 ~= 12


 * 12 (Georgia) + 14 (Armenia) + 10 (Gordyene) + 10 (Adiabene) + 10 (Ardalan) + 6 (Jochid Ulus) = 62
 * Economic Development: 72/5 = 14.4 ~= 14


 * 10 (Georgia) + 10 (Armenia) + 10 (Gordyene) + 10 (Adiabene) + 10 (Ardalan) + 16 (Jochid Ulus) + 6 (Mamluk aid per Treaty of Adana) = 72
 * Expansion: -15 (Georgia: 1426, 1427, 1433, 1434; Jochid Ulus: 11 turns over past 15 years)
 * Infrastructure: 0 (defender only)
 * Motive: 7 (economic + non-democratic governments supported by people)
 * Chance: 6


 * Edit count: 116
 * UTC: 0:17 (1* 7) = 7
 * Total: 116/7*pi (3.14159265359) = 52.0 6 0
 * Nation Age: -2

Total: 69
 * 0 (Georgia: maturing nation, 1412) + 0 (Armenia: maturing nation, 1412) - 5 (Gordyene: young nation, 1427) - 5 (Adiabene: young nation, 1427) - 5 (Ardalan: young nation, 1427) + 5 (Jochid Ulus: mature nation, 1440s) = -10/6 = 1.667 ~= 2
 * Population: 17 (7 digits + 10 for 5x superiority: Georgian coalition has 1.35M, Jochid Ulus should have ~4.6M, Azerbaijan has 1.175M)
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: -2 (Georgia and Armenia - 1426)
 * Vassals and Puppets: -5 (2 vassals and 1 puppet)

Sultanate of Azerbaijan (Defender)

 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage: 2 (central coordination)
 * Nations: 4 (Azerbaijan, L) = 4/21 = 0.2 ~= 0
 * Military Development: 5/62 ~= 0
 * Economic Development: 5/72 ~= 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 5
 * Motive: 7


 * 8 (defending heartland from non-fatal attack) + 4 (non-democratic government supported by people) - 5 (low troop morale: lower development numbers on all fronts and chance below 1)
 * Chance: 0

Total: 54
 * Edit count: 116
 * UTC: 0:17 (1* 7) = 7
 * Total: 116/7*pi (3.14159265359) = 52.06 0
 * Nation Age: 0 (maturing nation - 1414)
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result
If my calculations are correct, the Georgian-Jochid Ulus coalition should win the war and can take up to 12.20% of Azerbaijan, depending on the war's duration. Assuming the war takes 3 years, the Georgia-Jochid coalition can take 10.17% of Azerbaijan.
 * ((69/(54+69))*2)-1 = [(69/123)*2]-1 = (.5610 * 2) - 1 = 1.1220 - 1 = .1220 = 12.20%
 * (12.20%)*(1-1/(2*3)) = 12.20% * (1-[1/6]) = 12.20% * (5/6) = 10.17%

Discussion
Mods - I went ahead and constructed the algorithm for my war to give you a starting point. Depending on who else joins the conflict, the numbers here may change. TankOfMidgets (talk) 00:41, March 12, 2014 (UTC)

Adjusted for Jochid Ulus' entry into the war and for provisions of the Treaty of Adana. TankOfMidgets (talk) 00:29, March 14, 2014 (UTC)

So, given that my coalition will have fought for 3 years, here's my proposed territory change. The burnt orange portion of Azerbaijan will be ceded to Georgia, while the dark yellow portion of Azerbaijan will be ceded to the Jochid Ulus. You can count pixels if you're curious - 10.17% of Azerbaijan is 267 pixels, which I've split evenly between myself and the Ulus (and yes, I'm OCD enough that I actually counted pixels). If I can get a mod's approval for this, we can wrap the war up quickly and easily. TankOfMidgets (talk) 17:53, March 14, 2014 (UTC)

Castile (Attacker)

 * Location: 20
 * Tactical Advantage: 3
 * Nations: Castile (L), Granada (MV), Cyprus (MV), Austria (L), Luxembourg (M), Brandenburg (M), Bohemia (M), Moravia (M), Venice (L), Aegina (MV), Athens (MV), Candia (MV), Corfu (MV), Kaffa(MV), Ragusa (MV), Naxos (MV), Negroponte (MV) 62/4 = 16
 * Military Development: 116/10 =12


 * Castile: 15
 * Granada: 15
 * Cyprus: 4
 * Austria: 15
 * Venice: 16
 * Aegina: 8
 * Athens: 8
 * Candia: 0
 * Corfu: 20
 * Kaffa: 8
 * Ragusa: 8
 * Economic Development: 121/10 = 12


 * Castile: 15
 * Granada: 15
 * Cyprus: 4
 * Austria: 15
 * Venice: 6
 * Aegina: 14
 * Athens: 14
 * Candia: 12
 * Corfu: 2
 * Kaffa: 12
 * Ragusa: 12
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: 7
 * Chance: 0


 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 (0) =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: 5

Total: 133
 * Castile: 5
 * Granada: 5
 * Cyprus: -5
 * Population: +27
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: -6
 * Vassals and Puppets: *1.25

Morocco (Defender)

 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations: Morocco (L) = 4, 0
 * Military Development: 10, 0
 * Economic Development: 10, 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 10
 * Motive: 9
 * Chance: 0

Total: 79
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 (0) =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Population: +6
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: -3
 * Vassals and Puppets: 1.25

Discussion
'''Somebody check this please?? -Feud'''

You need to add in Venice. Kunarian TALK 06:51, March 12, 2014 (UTC)

I will add Venice soon, but just so you know, Feud and I agreed I will be granted the city of Melilla as a Gibraltar-sized port city on the coast of Morocco. Any other acquisitions you wish can be granted. Mscoree (talk) 10:33, March 12, 2014 (UTC)


 * You can't because if you look at my earlier war with morocco I conquered it already. Kunarian TALK 12:24, March 12, 2014 (UTC)

Here's a map of land you can and cannot take from Morocco because of the war I fought with them before this one:

Sorry if this causes issues but I won't be giving up any of that land. Kunarian TALK 12:28, March 12, 2014 (UTC)

Kun we agreed Morocco is mine, and taking away large portions of Morocco which are originally is mine isnt okay. Undercutting my influence in the Area isny okay in the slightest.

Also we didnt take the whole country but Kun i hope you realize that the land near Tangiers i enumerated before that i wanted that land... your seriously making it ridiculously hard for me to take jack shit When ive led 2 out of the three wars against morocco.

I'm not wanting to cause conflict but I declared war prior to this war and took those lands. As of that war they are mine, end of. But I am willing to do is exchange those lands for something of equal worth, I don't want to undercut your influence but I can't give them up for nothing. I won't hold them against you or refuse a reasonable exchange, but I'm not giving up lands that took me three years to take without at least equal compensation. Kunarian TALK 15:54, March 12, 2014 (UTC)

Ive Resolved to take the nice long segement next to your two areas on the atlantic. I Would be willing to purchase the areas under Tangiers though.


 * Purchase it for what? if soft play such as money was worth anything in the hard aspects of the game I would consent but I need some land in exchange, or assistance in taking land. Kunarian TALK 18:00, March 12, 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind exchanging Melilla for an area of equal size on the coast? Mscoree (talk) 17:47, March 12, 2014 (UTC)


 * I might exchange it for that, it depends on the division of Morocco and the lands you offer. Kunarian TALK 18:00, March 12, 2014 (UTC)
 * You can pick any area of equal size to replace the one I'm taking, plus some more lands depending on what we obtain now in this third war. Mscoree (talk) 18:06, March 12, 2014 (UTC)

On a side note, Venice still needs to be added, we could have 20% of the land or more. Kunarian TALK 18:00, March 12, 2014 (UTC)

Final division, including the lands gained in Venices war, asuming we get 20% or more with the addition of Venice with vassal support. Kunarian TALK 20:26, March 12, 2014 (UTC)

Moscow Land Purchase
We offer to purchase this plot of land (Land wanted is in green). We offer 5,000 Zolotnik coins for the purchase. Toţi în unu; Nihil Sine Deo

I agree with your offer, since I do not need that land.  ...  Razor   -  the Razor    01:49, March 12, 2014 (UTC)

Feud called this implausible on chat, and I'm inclined to agree. You're not selling half of your nation. Fed (talk) 12:07, March 12, 2014 (UTC)


 * Also 5000 Zolotniks is equivalent in modern worth to about 1,000,000 dollars. That's how much you might buy a very expensive house for. Not half a nation. Kunarian TALK 12:25, March 12, 2014 (UTC)


 * To be fair, he's selling an area that I estimate at first glance is probably around 500,000 square miles maximum, for about one dollar per square mile. This area is a sparsely inhabited section of northern Siberia of little to no use at the moment. In OTL the Louisiana Puchase was more than 800,000 square miles, and sold for only three cents per acre (forty two cents in modern dollars roughly), so about nineteen dollars per square mile. Adjusted to 1800's dollars, and factoring in the vast resources and significance in the central united States, as opposed to northern Siberia, I'd say it's not that bad of a deal. Mscoree (talk) 18:04, March 12, 2014 (UTC)


 * The Louisiana territory was sold to get rid of a financial burden on the French. It was colonized, then determined it wasn't worth keeping, whereas this is  half  the actual country.
 * But also while Louisiana was colonized to some degree, the area in question is basically just abandoned, aside from maybe a few towns and some natives. Perhaps Razor and Ed can adjust the borders slightly to a more plausible level if there are disagreements. Mscoree (talk) 18:16, March 12, 2014 (UTC)

I knew the Louisiana purchase would be brought up.

Louisiana was a colony, with under 10,000 inhabitants of white nature, that was going to be lost one way ornanother in the next ten years, served absolutely no economic or military purpose after the fall of Haiti and was, all in all, useless.

IIRC, the territory you're selling holds several cities (Ustyug, Vologda), is relatively populated (today that area holds a few million inhabitants), and it's part of Novgorod's heartland; it's been Novgorodan since Kievian Rus'. Very different from Louisiana. Fed (talk) 18:45, March 12, 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. To be honest when Ed came to me with this original idea I had no idea he was taking so much, which is why I'd recommend he takes less. As for the concept itself, I think it's fine. Mscoree (talk) 19:16, March 12, 2014 (UTC)

I edited the map so there is less land in the purchase. Toţi în unu; Nihil Sine Deo

Also I own Ustyug and Vologda and they both belonged to Muscovy prior to this purchase. Toţi în unu; Nihil Sine Deo

So is this thing actually happening? Mscoree (talk) 01:34, March 16, 2014 (UTC)

So Moscow is now in Africa? ok. SwankyJ (talk) 23:41, March 16, 2014 (UTC)

No you are looking at the wrong map,here this is the correct map, <span style="background-color:silver; border:4px ridge grey; -webkit-border-radius:2em 0em 0em 0em; padding-left:8px; padding-right:0px;"> ... <span style="background:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(red), to(aqua));border:6px outset yellow; -webkit-border-radius:0em 0em 0em 0em;"> <span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 2px yellow, 0 0 1em #0FF, 0 0 0.2em #0FF; color: white; font: 1.8em Cambria, serif; text-align: center; font-variant: small-caps;">Razor  <span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 2px yellow, 0 0 1em #0FF, 0 0 0.2em #0FF; color: white; font: 1.8em Cambria, serif; text-align: center; font-variant: small-caps;"> -  <span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 2px yellow, 0 0 1em #0FF, 0 0 0.2em #0FF; color: white; font: 1.4em Cambria, serif; text-align: center; font-variant: small-caps;">the Razor

Future plans
On a completely unrelated note to everything, I hope I can prove to people in this game that I would be Mod material. I love PM, and would happily mod for the next PM4 (although I would probably not play due to time commitment issues I see in the future combined with being able to be a better unbiased mod), I would have tried to put myself forwards to mod for this if I felt well enough at the time but I didn't.

However on a side note, I would just say that if I ever decide to leave as Venice, I would almost certainly act as an informal mod or put myself forwards to mod because I think that I would be able to do a pretty good job. The effort I put into Venice would go into making mod events and replying to players and I would not want to leave this game (co-operative timeline as I call it) with one less contributer. However i don't think I could do it atm because I'd not have enough time and Venice, being a main nation in history, could cause me problems with accusations of bias. So for the now I'll do Venice only.

I just want to put this out there because to be honest, a statement of intent helps people mull the thoughts over before it happens and so people can be aware of it and assess me before anything does occur. So reply or not, or just read. I'm just speaking my mind. Kunarian TALK 13:27, March 12, 2014 (UTC)


 * On the topic of Kun as mod, I'd have to agree. Kun has quite helpful, friendly, kind, etc. while pointing out implausibility and sharing my goal of making this game balanced between power-gaming and role-playing, not an easy task. The posts he posts as Venice are very detailed and plausible and he shows a great understanding of history at the time. However, I believe this is his first game, and we'd need to wait and see if Kun is truly mod material over the next batch of turns. Mod events are some of my favorite parts of a Map Game, and I believe Kun will excel in that category. If a vote comes out when Kun has been active in-game for longer, I'd definately support him. Macedon_Shield.png<font color="#29AB87">Bow To Your Sensei. <font color="#002366">BOW TO YOUR SENSEI!!! Rome_Shield.png
 * On a quick fact check, this is my third Principia Moderni nation, I've played Venice in PM1, Prussia in PM2 and Venice again. Thanks for your support. Kunarian TALK 14:59, March 12, 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Kunarian is a very helpful and friendly player. he shows initiative by thinking through systems for inventions, and it seems he would be a nice addition. Mscoree (talk) 14:10, March 12, 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your support. Kunarian TALK 14:59, March 12, 2014 (UTC)

I support Kun as a mod. He's plausible and tries to ensure everyone else is without bias. He uses facts and potential exceptions to adhere to OTL while also making way for the possibility for ATL to take place. I vote for Kun as mod. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 16:08, March 12, 2014 (UTC)

I approve. 9/10 would vote for.

20:40, March 12, 2014 (UTC)

I think Kun would be a very good mod too, but after today's debate about Morocco I think the mod system should be reorganised in order to avoid any Nova-like cases again.

Unable to post
I will be offline due to an unforeseen commitment, so will be unable to post until at least Easter. Local Mafia Boss (Talk) (Blog)

I may be able to take charge of your nation until that time. <font color="#29AB87">Bow To Your Sensei. <font color="#002366">BOW TO YOUR SENSEI!!!

About A Mod Event I Want To Happen
Can you make a mod event where all the other states of japan attack me and I lose. I want toswitch my nation to Munster in Germany. - Scarlet (A.K.A Shadow)

Timurid Vassalization and what's wrong with it
With both Timurid players, I have noticed a problem with their vassalizations. They are all literally "We influence x for x turns of three". To me, this seems like a very implausible way to vassalize nations left and right. They do not even state what this influence is, so it's entirely possible that the "influence" is unrelated to the "vassalization". But rather than make that the main point, here is my main point. The Timurids, for both players and every turn, have implausibly expanded through vassalizing nations on their borders. They have not built alliances, not gained royal marriages, they do not even had trade rights in any of the nations, yet they are able to sway the Kings and Sultans and Rajas to become their vassals through "influence"? I believe some rules need to be established on vassalizing criteria that is a little more strict than allowing "We influence x for x turns out of x" to pass as plausible vassalization, and to punish those who have been doing this knowing fully well how unfair and implausible it is to players who actively seek to build relations with nations before they attempt to vassalize them. Eiplec - ಠ_ಠ (talk) 00:08, March 14, 2014 (UTC)

I do agree, specifics are good. "<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 00:26, March 14, 2014 (UTC)

I could try and argue with this, but due to recent private events I won't bother with it. I'm just going to say that if we are going to make vassalization actually plausible and fair, we shouldn't take in just the ratio of teritory between the one vassalizing and the one being vassalized. We should also take into consideration the difference in population and the difference in religion and culture. Now I know that this will hurt my plans, but I really do think we should do this in a fair way. Although I do have a question... If this was such a problem why didn't you say anything earlier?

I've tried with earlier talk page posts, and some of the very early vassalizations were fair, but many of the recent ones have not been at all (Some of Nova's too). When I've tried to talk to mods about it on chat without having to make a talk page, all I've gotten before was "Yeah, that's not right" and no follow up. Eiplec - ಠ_ಠ (talk) 12:10, March 14, 2014 (UTC)

I see, the problem of mod inactivity is familiar. Although I will try to make my posts more detailed and plausible in order to both make the game fair and to make it more interesting.

That still ignores the fact that the Timurids vassalized most of Northern India in 30 years... Eiplec - ಠ_ಠ (talk) 13:02, March 14, 2014 (UTC)

It took the effing British Empire at least two hundred years to solidify their control over India. And that was the entire flipping subcontinent. We should drive them back to their border. --Yank 22:37, March 15, 2014 (UTC)

France (Attacker)

 * Location: 15
 * Tactical Advantage: 2
 * Nations:France(L),Burgundy (LV),Bourbon (MV), Lorraine (MV), Berry (MV) = 13/4 = 3.25 = +3
 * Military Development: +30/10 = +3
 * Economic Development: 0
 * Expansion: -3
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: +7
 * Chance: 4

Total: 65
 * Edit count: 3909
 * UTC: 6:31 (10)
 * Total: 3909/10*pi (3.14159265359) = 1228.0485
 * Nation Age: +0
 * Population: +28 (16.900.000 - 18.000.000 Pop here Demographics of France 1400-1450)
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: -4

Tunisia (Defender)
Total: 77 *1.25 = 96.25
 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage: 0
 * Nations: Tunisia (L) = 4
 * Military Development: 10/30 = 0
 * Economic Development: 10/0 = 10
 * Expansion: 5
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: +8
 * Chance: 8
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: +7 (A few people told me that tunis had 1 million to 1.5 million so whatdahell lol)
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: *1.25

Result
The Tunisians can take up to 19.254 of France and Co., presumably along the French coast of the Mediterranean.
 * ((96/(65+96))*2)-1 = 0.19254
 * (0)*(1-1/(2*0)) = 0

Discussion

 * Only other mods may fix this, However if you are an user and want to point out a mistake please post it in user corrections. STILL NOT FINAL Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk)

User corrections

 * Anything you may wanna say
 * Well, Tunisia is an NPC, and has not been to war in the past 15 years, so it had 15 years of development. This means (as per the rules) 5 years of Infrastructure, 5 of Mil., and 5 of Econ. I have gone ahead and reflected this in the algo. I also added the *1.25 bonus for Tunisia. Thanks, 06:34, March 15, 2014 (UTC)
 * So essentially i don't take anything nor the tunisians do (I mean they have a million and a half population in comparision to france near 18 millions it would be stupid or ASB for them to take even the smallest part for longer than a few years). Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk)
 * If you had made Burgundy not a leader your score would go up by about twenty points. Mscoree (talk) 03:31, March 16, 2014 (UTC)

Ashikaga

 * Location: 20
 * Tactical Advantage : 1 (attacker)
 * Nations: Ashikaga (L): 4/4 = 1
 * Military: 8/10 = 0
 * Economy: 8/8 = 1
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Chance: 2


 * Edit Count: 654
 * EST time: 9:13=9
 * Chance: 460/12*3.14159268 = 120.4277194
 * Expansion: -6
 * Motive: 3 (economic)
 * Age: -5
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Participation: 10
 * Population: 7 (5 + larger)
 * Vassals & Puppets: *1.25
 * Total: 32*1.25= 40

Hatekeyama

 * Location: 20
 * Tactical Advantage : 0
 * Nations: Hatekeyama (L): 4/4 = 1
 * Military: 10/8 = 1
 * Economy: 8/8 = 1
 * Infrastructure: 5
 * Chance: 7
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: 13 (Defending Core/heartland from possibly fatal attack, High Morale)
 * Age: -5
 * Recent Wars: -1
 * Participation: 10
 * Population: 5
 * Vassals & Puppets: *1.25
 * Total: 57*1.25 = 71.25

Results
If the war lasts one year (the minimum), Hatekeyama will take 13.9% of the Ashikaga lands.
 * (71/(40+71))*2-1 = 0.27927
 * (0.27927)*(1-1/(2*1))= 0.139

Discussion
Ummm.... I don't even..... how...? But seriously, this algo needs a massive revamp. Here are a few fun facts about what your algo states:

Well, jokes aside, I guess I will fix this algo also. 06:54, March 15, 2014 (UTC)
 * Hatekeyema has a population between 10 and 99.
 * You have a population between 10,000 and 99,999, but it is also less than 5 times as great as the population of Hatekeyema (10-99)
 * You state that Hatekeyema has not done anything in the past 15 years. Comeone, lets get some scores for infra., mil., and econ. dev.
 * Hatekeyema's location is not where it is being invaded!?! Raise it to 25.
 * A new tactical advantage is +1 for being defender?
 * The thousandths place of 120.4277194 is apparently 2, not 7.
 * 20+1+1+2+9-5-1+10 (37) times 1.25 is equal to 149, not 46.25
 * How does an attacker get an infrastructure bonus, when this is prohibited?
 * How do you have Econ./Mil. scores that high...???? I would love to know, so I can win my next algo!

Mamluks

 * Location: 20
 * Tactical Advantage: 3
 * Nations: Mamluks (L), Venice (S), Epirus (S), Roman Empire (S), Aegina (SV), Athens (SV), Candia (SV), Corfu (SV), Kaffa (SV), Naxos (SV), Negroponte (SV), Ragusa (SV)= 18/8 =>1
 * Military Development: 14/10 = 1
 * Economical Development: 17/10 = 1
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: 8 (Hegemony, High Morale, Guerilla)
 * Chance: 8

Total: 64*1.25 = 80
 * Edits: 3311
 * UTC: 11:39 = 13
 * 3311/14*pi (3.14159265359)
 * Total: 742.9866
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Population: 10
 * Participation: 9 (7 digits, larger)
 * Recent Wars: -2

Rebels

 * Location:25
 * Tactical Advantage: 0
 * Nations: Oman (L +4),  Yemen (L+4) = 8/18 => 0
 * Military Development: 10/14 = 0


 * Oman: 5
 * Yemen: 5
 * Economical Development: 10/14 = 0


 * Oman: 5
 * Yemen: 5
 * Infrastructure: 10


 * Oman: 5
 * Yemen: 5
 * Expansion: -20 (They still expanded, which would drain resources/population, etc.)
 * Motive: 14 (Fighting for survival, Guerilla, Support)
 * Chance:6

Total: 62*1.5 (Bonus given by mod event) 93 = 93*1.25 (No vassals) = 116
 * Total: 742.9866
 * Nation Age: -10
 * Population: 6 (6 digits)
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: -10

Results
(116/(116+80))*2-1 = 18.3%

(18.3)*(1-1/(2*12) = 17.5% if the war lasts for 12 years (Ms told me 10+)

Discussion
Why exactly did you split all the rebelling nations into separate algorithms? They're all fighting together against you. You also need to add recent wars for yourself, as well as several other things. Mscoree (talk) 00:08, March 15, 2014 (UTC)

Also you forgot a few rebelling states, and all of which have a x1.5 bonus. Mscoree (talk) 00:11, March 15, 2014 (UTC)

wrong motive bro, theirs is atleast 10 and for yemen and oman their nation score is 4 as both are allies. Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk)

Alright, i tried to correct this.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 07:27, March 15, 2014 (UTC)

Collie, I do not think you understand the way this war is being fought. There are 3 different wars going on. One in Nubia (which already ended, the algo. was a bit late in coming). There is one in Yemen, and there is one in Oman. All of these wars are independent of each other. Also, Nubia never declared independence. (Check the mod events, if you'd please.) The worst it can be is in partial disarray, but I have taken care of that. The inclusion of Nubia was done prior to me finding it out they never were truly independent. Come on chat if you care. 07:33, March 15, 2014 (UTC)

You know what, now that I look back, I can see a better picture of events. So, Nubia never declared independence, so we can rule them out. I declared war (well, invaded, because I do not recognize them as independent states, so I did not "declare" war, but am still waging it) the very year that those states rebelled - 1438. This gives them 0 turns for development. As for expansion, Yemen expanded 10 turns of the 15 turns prior to the war, as did Oman. So, that is a -20 on their expansion. 09:05, March 15, 2014 (UTC)

U only have -1 in recent wars? really? Quashi (talk) 17:50, March 15, 2014 (UTC)

Just because they expanded under your leadership does not mean that they get a penalty. If anything you get the penalty since you were technically the one expanding, or just not at all.They are all also fighting in one war, not separate. Also -1 for recent wars is way off. Mscoree (talk) 20:12, March 15, 2014 (UTC)

Also again they all have a x1.5 bonus. You didn't even include all of them, plus they are NPC's, so they get NPC values, not just zero. This algorith, still requires heavy work. Mscoree (talk) 20:14, March 15, 2014 (UTC)

At this point all you get is 14%.--Yank 22:28, March 15, 2014 (UTC)

And now it's 8%. I doubt it's worth it now.--Yank 23:28, March 15, 2014 (UTC)

Plus half the stuff still needs to be added. Mscoree (talk) 01:21, March 16, 2014 (UTC)

Okay I finally got around to fixing some of the stuff. May still be some errors, but definitely a lot closer.Mscoree (talk) 03:11, March 16, 2014 (UTC)

There are disputes upon whether either side should have any development. One fair thing to do would be to just have both sides be zero. This algorithm is currently locked until more moderators can view it. Mscoree (talk) 04:13, March 16, 2014 (UTC)

To account for a giant loophole in the NPC rule, the mods have decided to set the rebel scores all at five, which should have been done in a moderator event anyway, according to Rex. Mscoree (talk) 04:31, March 16, 2014 (UTC)

Because of both the stubbornness of the mods in dealing with this algo and the unilateral decision to add +5 points to each of the defending nations (including Swahili, which was not invaded, but again, the mods are being stubborn). To be specific, by the mods I mostly mean Ms, but Sine and Fed were also there. Anyhow, by your adding of these +5 development scores, which was approved by three mods in a spontaneous move on chat, the results of the algorithim are irrevocably changed.

When I declared war, I knew that their development scores would be reset to 0, and since no mod event stated that their economies/militaries/infrastructures had increased, I assumed that the only real different would be the *1.5. Furthermore, the declaration of war took place when MP was taking care of my nation, and I went along with the intervention. Since then, and having made an algo to resolve the problem of who won the war, I have gained better understanding of how the mods planned to break up my nation.

So, I apologize for the huge debate on chat. My points were mostly accepted until the mods decided to add the +5s. I feel that this algo is reall improper, for a number of reasons (Expansion, Recent Wars on the attacker side and Development Scores, Expansion, and Motive on defender side), and on top of that, the stubbornness and resistance to initial perceptions, coupled with the decision to add +5 to each Development Score has really made it so that the situation when my nation declared war (1438) is completely different from when I originally declared war.

The decision to declare war was very tactical, based largely on the fact that the defending states (Oman and Yemen) would be fighting separate wars and based on the fact that they would have 0s for their developments, as well as having -10s for expansion each.

I would like to bring up a few issues with the way in which the revolutions in Oman and Yemen took place. Prior to the revolutions, Oman and Yemen had expanded huge amounts. This expansion was made up of settlers from Medinan/Meccan Arabia, Mesopotamia, Syria, Egpyt, and Iraq. These peoples are culturally, religiously, and linguistically the same as the Mamluk Sultanate. As such, I would like to suggest that those states decided not to secede from my empire, and remained, annexed by the Sultanate (the Mamluks get Yemeni expansion and Mesopotamians get Omani expansion).

As a result of this retcon the following actions will take place:

I also feel that this retcon is important because many of my previous turns said that I made amazing gains, when this algo (proper or not) states that I clearly lost.
 * In 1438, the Mamluks recognized the independence of the Omani and Yemeni states.
 * I will be able to change the Mamluks posts from 1438 onwards in order to make them more accurate and reflect this retcon.
 * Yemen and Oman will grow friendly with the Sultanate following the decision by the Sultan to allow them to peaceably leave.

TL;DR - A last minute change to "fix a loophole" changed the situation so badly that the war conditions were completely different from when I initiated the war. In order to correct the issues caused by both the stubbornness of mods in correcting the algo and the +5's added by three mods spontaneously on chat over 5 years after the war began, the war should be retconned.

Thanks, 05:51, March 16, 2014 (UTC)

Just one last thought, the retcon will also give exactly what would have happened otherwise (I lose Yemen and Oman). So, the retcon merely eliminates the war. 06:03, March 16, 2014 (UTC)

These states definitely fought a war for independence, so removing this algorithm doesn't really make sense. As for stubborness, I'm the one who listened to you for several hours in PM, and afterword I had to go. I am still open to fixing some things if need be. Keep in mind though that you get the penalty for expansion, since you expanded. While independent Oman and Yemen have not expanded. The recent wars may not be correct if we go bck to 1438 and do fifteen years before that, so that can be corrected. As for the fives, that was decided by all the mods, but it can be adjusted if need be. Five is actually less in some cases than what it was before, and from what you told me, was the standard amount. Mscoree (talk) 12:56, March 16, 2014 (UTC)

Honestly its not the mods fault you didnt think through a war which regardless you were going to lose.... it seems your hasty actions should not be retconned particularly because youll learn nothing about being overexpansionist unless you actually lose this war. Not to mention youll set a precedent that everyone can request a for retcon a hastily entered war with which you entered with pretty much minimal knowledge of the situation and no consultation on scores, status of the states etc etc. Considering if a player of my caliber had done it mods would have let me burn and die i figure that we shouldnt be coddling you and striking these kinds of deals especially when you gained Oman Implausibly, and attempted to say you did an entire demographical replacement of Nubia in 3 decades ( which is wholly ridiculous) Nothing against you rex but if we let you off were gonna have newer guys begging to be let off left and right cause of their inability to judge wars correctly.

No. Just no. As Feud said allowing you to retching this war would create a precedent where people can charge into a war and undo it when they get their ass kicked. You can't take it back after you do your Leeroy Jenkins routine. You should count your blessings that all they can do is kick you out of their nations.--Yank 19:18, March 16, 2014 (UTC)

Can I just say that the Roman Empire and Venice and all their vassals just sent aid to the Mamluks. Kunarian TALK 21:16, March 16, 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so if it seems that a retcon is not going to work, then I will fight this algo. Firstly, I still think it is unfair to add a +5 bonus five years after the war began. The mods have just decided to add five points to each state. Furthermore, I am not invading Swahili. So, they need to be dropped. As for expansion, the Mamluk Sultanate did not expand for 20 years of the past 15 (that isn't even possible). In fact, Oman and Yemen expanded for 10 years of the past 15, so they should each get a -10. You say it depends on them being independent, but I feel that their expansion would have the same toll on the economies/militaries.

In addition, I think that the states should not have a +5 for military. In our nations, furusiyya is a big thing. It is a code of ethics which all soldiers/warriors/Mamluks uphold. It is much like OTL Chivalry or Bushido, and demands loyallty to the Emir. When the Emir was deposed, the military would actually attack the locals. So there is that... 22:21, March 16, 2014 (UTC)

Rex please stop randomly changing things in the algorith,. You're just causing an edit war, so please discuss them first. Mscoree (talk) 22:51, March 16, 2014 (UTC)

MP asked me, as a neutral person who thinks you're all implausible assholes, to solve this algo for you guys. However, I would like to have it written out here- would any one object?

23:09, March 16, 2014 (UTC)

Ms agreed with him, too, so I'm editing this algo.

23:15, March 16, 2014 (UTC)

Guns has been granted permission to fix this algorithm. All others should refrain from editing (notice the "Locked"). Any unauthorized edits will be removed. If Rex continues to edit he will likely be banned, as at this point he has been openly defying numerous moderators.

Now to Guns, here is the correct nations per side for the Mamluks:

My population is incorrect. I have around 10,000,000 people on my side (between Egypt, Cicilia, and Mesopotamia). This would give me a score of 8. The population of Yemen and Oman, if you include only those under the new revolutionary governments (remember, this is people under the new govt.'s in 1438, not this year), it would be about 500,000. This is about the population of Sana'a and Muscat and the surrounding region, all that they would control after 1438. 23:36, March 16, 2014 (UTC)
 * Mamluks (L), Venice (S), Epirus (S), Roman Empire (S), Aegina (SV), Athens (SV), Candia (SV), Corfu (SV), Kaffa (SV), Naxos (SV), Negroponte (SV), Ragusa (SV). Mscoree (talk) 23:34, March 16, 2014 (UTC)

Rex edited the algo again despite warnings from no less than 4 mods not to do so. And he did it twice. At this point, some punitive action might be called for.

00:03, March 17, 2014 (UTC)

Guns, I was trying to put the end date on the war. 00:16, March 17, 2014 (UTC)

That's what you did the fourth time, yes. The first three times, you edited the algo. If you want something changed, put it in the discussion section, get a mod's approval, and then I'll add it.

00:25, March 17, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your patience and ongoing assistance. I was stubborn. I demanded that the algo be perfomed my way. I would like to especially apologize to:

I am sorry, 01:12, March 17, 2014 (UTC)
 * Ms - You were much more patient than I gave credit to you for being
 * Guns - I made you get upset, so I am sorry
 * Sine - I am sorry that I had to clash heads with you, mi amigo :D
 * Fed - I am sorry for also fighting with you, amigo
 * Others - If I did not list you and I took it out on you, please accept my apology.

It's okay, I'm just glad that it's all over. I accept your apology. Mscoree (talk) 01:14, March 17, 2014 (UTC)

Ryukyu and China
in OTL Ryukyu is a Vassal state of the Ming Empire(1429-1644) if no one realized, they paid tribute to china in exchange for knowledge and ships. <span style="background:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#B8860B), to(#DEB887)); border:4px ridge grey; -webkit-border-radius:0em 0em 0em 0em;"> <span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 2px brown, 0 0 1em #000, 0 0 0.2em #0FF; color: white; font: 1.5em Cambria, serif; text-align: center; font-variant: small-caps;">Jbwncster  <span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 2px brown, 0 0 1em #000, 0 0 0.2em #0FF; color: white; font: 1.0em Cambria, serif; text-align: center; font-variant: small-caps;">(Talk)

Ming China does not have them as a vassal at the present. But it is within our sphere of influence and also a tributary state (but not a vassal). Scandinator (talk) 00:27, March 17, 2014 (UTC)

Ashikaga Shogunate
On the Japan talk page for Principia Moderni III, it says that the Shogun controls "t he state of Toki (...) Also the state of Shiba has been taken over" as well as the home state of Ashikaga. Is this the case? If so, does this mean I can add them as my vassals on the country list? Ozymandias2 (talk) 22:36, March 15, 2014 (UTC)

No they don't. Shadow (now Scarlet) attacked them but only took small parts. 23:50, March 15, 2014 (UTC)

Who is the country in blue in Japan on the world map? Ozymandias2 (talk) 13:08, March 16, 2014 (UTC)

That was my former nation, the Hosokawa Clan. They are, apart from you one of the most influential clans as they more or less led the war against the Ashikaga shogunate alongside China.

Ozy, who is the Yamana clan? SwankyJ (talk) 17:54, March 16, 2014 (UTC)  someone is posting as them but no one is listed, I think they should be crossed out if more turns come out. B/C we dont know whom is posting as that clan.

I've no idea... I was wondering the same. Do you think their turns should be taken in to account? Also, does anybody have any knowledge of Japanese naval capacity in this period? I can't find anything online and have just avoided the subject for fear of implausability. Ozymandias2 (talk) 18:16, March 16, 2014 (UTC)

Japanese navy was negligible and wasnt really a force to be reckoned with until they westernized.

Wilster plays as the Yamana from what I understand. Mscoree (talk) 19:31, March 16, 2014 (UTC) f

The Japanese had a fairly significant navy as early as 1590s. This even included early warships clad in iron plates! Krasnoyarsk (talk) 11:18, March 17, 2014 (UTC)

With military support from the Ashikaga, could a mod suggest how many years would it realistically take to cement Ainu control over Hokkaido? Ozymandias2 (talk) 00:28, March 18, 2014 (UTC)

<span style="font-size:28px;font-family:'TrebuchetMS';color:#000000;font-weight:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;">Algorithm reformation
<span style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);white-space:pre-wrap;">There’s a need for reformation in this algo, i’m not the only one to know that it is too defender biased, which is quite obvious for the fact of Tunis getting nearly 20% of france algo wise in a war in which france would’ve probably broke tunis twice in real life, i believe that the algo should be reviewed and that we should be the ones to avoid ASB empire from working instead of blocking any sort of bellic expansion which is caused by this algo. I hereby open a poll to see if any of you agree with me on this points.- Sine

<span style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);white-space:pre-wrap;">Aye

 * Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 04:40, March 17, 2014 (UTC)
 * compared to the algorithm of PM2 or PM1, this algorithm is not user friendly and a nightmare and a half when it comes to realism. Kunarian TALK 06:54, March 17, 2014 (UTC)
 * Mscoree (talk) 12:08, March 17, 2014 (UTC)
 * part of the reason I've abstained from any wars is this algorithm is not user friendly. I support I revamping of the system.ALLONS-Y! (Basically, RUN!) 19:07, March 17, 2014 (UTC)

<span style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);white-space:pre-wrap;">Nay

 * <span style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);white-space:pre-wrap;">Scandinator (talk) 07:41, March 18, 2014 (UTC) (It slowly gets more tilted to the attacker as time goes by. That was a deliberate move and the harshness of the algorithm is meant to discourage wars in general as at the time they were costly and one nation would be attacked by opportunitic nations very often)
 * <span style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);white-space:pre-wrap;">Macedon_Shield.png<font color="#29AB87">Bow To Your Sensei. <font color="#002366">BOW TO YOUR SENSEI!!! Rome_Shield.png Despite the fact that the algorithm is biased toward the defender quite obviously, the rapid rate of vassalization/expansion into unclaimed territory balances it out. Besides, we already have a couple ASBempires, making wars easier will only create more problems, not less, given that major wars were not super prevalent at this time in history, with history being biased toward the defender at this point in time. Maybe once we get to that era.
 * <span style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);white-space:pre-wrap;">Banner_of_the_Holy_Roman_Emperor_with_haloes_(1400-1806).svgLabarum.jpgCrimsonAssassin- I have special eyes 19:41, March 20, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
I'm currently working on a algorithm that should be much more realistic and usable, if people wish I could finish it up quickly so that it can be a candidate for the reforming of the algo. Kunarian TALK 06:54, March 17, 2014 (UTC)

I made a bunch of suggestions earlier. Everyone ignored it.

20:52, March 17, 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey I made suggestions too, we all got ignored. Too many of the mods are doing nothing, either that or they're doing a lot very secretly. Kunarian TALK 21:15, March 17, 2014 (UTC)


 * I've listened to a lot of the suggestions but rather than go, "This needs an overhaul becuase I lost to Tunisia which is African and therefore poor (tech was on par with Europe at the time)" It should be, "Here is a suggestion to an improvement. Is it suitable?" If it is possible since I'm the main mod working with the algorithm, any major reform be discussed with me and then posted here for a vote? I do have some small issues I wish to fix including the ease of use and I do welcome suggestions. And rather than "This is what I think should be done" I believe that PM3 users and mods can work together to make this game great! Scandinator (talk) 07:41, March 18, 2014 (UTC)


 * First off all, i never said i would have implicitly win and completely annex them i meant that by their population size they should've lost, I mean, I'm almost 10 to 15 times their population size, and its just plainly implausible for them to (algo wise) gain 20% of france, I mean i would have said nothing if they had gained 5% or 10% because is relatively plausible, but 20% is essentially implausible, especially if we compare their populations. its like mexico defeating the USA if the USA had invaded them during Pancho villa's and Zapata's era. and I could believe it if i had a depleted nation from another war or anything, but this essentially implausible. How can a nation smaller in population with the same technology beat someone bigger when if it had happened in OTL it would have either been a truce or a defeat. that's my logic, and i didn't knew you were the main mod with algo's, i just wanted to throw this into the view of other mods. and i don't have any suggestions outside fixing that, I'm not an algo expert like Guns lol. but i knew that the result was just implausible, and that i wasn't the only one to have pointed some things of the algo (others requesting the reformation or alteration of some parts of it such as feudal, Swanky and guns) and i know africa has the same tech at this time, but same tech with less people is always going to be inneffective against bigger nations. Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk)


 * Just to say that all of OTL France has a population of about 13,300,000 at this time. You control probably about 80% of that so 10,640,000 directly and indirectly. Tunisia has a population of about 1,000,000. So yeah, 10 times their numbers but not 16 times. Also consider that you would only have an army of around 100,000 men maximum but a fleet that would at max (and I really mean squeezing people in) only be able to carry 50,000 at a time and even then they'd be ridden with disease. Tunisia would easily be able to muster a force of up to 20,000 men and they'd have the advantage on their home ground, being well supplied, not to mention that their forces would be augmented with religion fervour. I'd say that it would be a close one really. But France losing by about 20% is a bit out of reach. Also the USA and Mexico are bad comparisons, Mexico is not on the same tech level and not across a sea where it would be hard to get supplies easily. But yes... there is an issue but I think in different places to what you think. Kunarian TALK 18:26, March 19, 2014 (UTC)


 * There's no sea between them but indeed a huge desert (minus texas which is relatively nice) and Mexico and the USA aren't on the same level but indeed on the same technological path (at the moment the only real difference being the massive capability of the USA to make the guns while mexico's lack of that and off resources to purchase enough of them to defend if needed) and the were both modern gunpowder able nations. but we all know that if it had happened mexico would had been utterly beated. and kunarian, i never implied to take over all of Tunisia (It would have been cool though lol) but i'm more than certain that i would probably have kept a few cities or atleat 5% of the region if it had happened in OTL (With some luck offcourse) and I'm confused now about the population of france right know, I took the near 16 - 18 million from Wikipedia and it says this population so i used it. 1400 - 16.600.000 - 1457 - 19.700.000, well either way, there's just no plausible way that in a war Tunisia would have defeated france in such way, I mean, anything from 5% to 10% is plausible, 15% is believable but 20% just points that there's something wrong going on here.

Venetian Morocco
Is there any good reason why my expansion in Morocco was crossed out. I've unstruck it but I thought I'd ask Moderators as well to settle this. Kunarian TALK 09:07, March 17, 2014 (UTC)

Although I'm not the one who crossed it, nor do I think it's necessarily implausible, I have to say that as Venice you're not really supposed to be expanding into Africa. Venice historically had trade posts all over the Mediterranean, but didn't feel the need to conquer large areas off them. Doing so would require a lot of resources and that generally goes against the Venetian principles of trade. Also, where exactly are you expanding into? Along the West African coast? That area isn't easily colonized. You can't just say "We expand x pixels". For example, I have spent several turns sending expeditions and establishing trade companies, just to explore a future area, never mind colonize it. Aside from trade posts really, randomly settling Africa is somewhat implausible for this time. Mscoree (talk) 12:07, March 17, 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not for Mods to decide what players can and can't do. Give realistic reactions yes but nto to tell them they can't do an action that is plausible. I have the resources and the motivation (gold, ivory and slave trade).
 * I'm not randomly settling Africa, I find it rather unfair that Castile and France should be allowed to do so and I'm not, yet I am not just doing it "for the empire". The OTL principles of Venetian trade (as vague and meaningless a term as that is after 50 years or so of a completely different history) have changed in ATL quite a bit and I want to establish my control over that part of the coast for the various economic reasons that I have.
 * Also I am not Austria, I have territory right next to it. I have ports right next to it. So that is not a good reason for trying to write this off.
 * So after a mini-rant let's list the issues and deal with them:


 * Not supposed to be doing it: Not a reason I will take seriously, you could use that for anything that goes astray from OTL. Austria's defence and centralisation of the HRE in this game was something that was "not supposed to happen" but it did because the right circumstances were present nor "should" Austria have got involved in Morocco but you did because this isn't OTL and things have changed and you are allowed to make your own decisions as a player.
 * Venice historically had trade posts all over the Mediterranean, but didn't feel the need to conquer large areas off them: True, historically, expect for the bit where they tried to take over northern italy and greece. What I am doing is establishing my control over the west african coastline, that is all, building port settlements to act as hopping stones of trade and to ensure that I can have access to various goods in Africa.
 * Doing so would require a lot of resources and that generally goes against the Venetian principles of trade: Venice spent 10% of all of its revenue on its fleet and arsenal. That is a lot of resources, I think that this argument falls flat as Venice was (and why am I even having to argue from an OTL point of view here, it's been 50 years almost of completelty different history!) very ready to invest in expanding its trade influence.
 * Also, where exactly are you expanding into? Along the West African coast? YUP!
 * That area isn't easily colonized: Then apply a penalty! but don't just go "nope cause Venice!" because to be honest that just stinks of double-standards and people being held back in the future because at some point they'll do something that a mod decides is against the OTL equivalent of their nations OTL philosophy as the mod understands it.
 * You can't just say "We expand x pixels": I haven't, I've been establishing my control over the coast using my fleet and by sending Venetian expiditions. I've put more effort into my attempts to expand along my nations borders than some people have put into their entire nation.
 * I have spent several turns sending expeditions and establishing trade companies, just to explore a future area, never mind colonize it: Well good for you. I'm not Austria, I have a fleet of thousands whereas you do not and I have a trade empire, never mind companies, that has been around longer than the HRE has been a thing. On top of that I have ports and settlements and people right next to the land. I think that the capabilities of Austria are shadowed massively in this regard by the capabilities of Venice and other Sea based nations like Britain or Spain or Portugal.
 * Aside from trade posts really, randomly settling Africa is somewhat implausible for this time: why? because spain was doing just that at this time OTL! Also this isn't random, it's to secure trade! I'm not building puny little trade posts either, I'm building hopping stones (aka small ports) to better control said trade that I am interested in. Venice did this all along the eastern Adriatic coast OTL! Give me a penalty if you really think its hard to do so, I think there's something in the rules about 75% off for difficult areas for colonisation.
 * So please stop trying to bind players rigidly to OTL, firstly because its illogical in what is supposed to be both a game and an ATL and secondly because you can't micro manage the game to that scale and so it'll produce too many difficult double standards. Simply react realistically to their actions. Venice expands along the African coast to secure trade and you consider it difficult for Venice to do so? 75% penalty! not "Nope never happened". The former makes the player feel that it is a difficult task and wonder whether turns are better spent elsewhere (you could say realistic), the latter makes players feel like they do not truly get to make the decisions and makes the game less meaningful. Kunarian TALK 13:21, March 17, 2014 (UTC)


 * god someone give me a sedative, I know this is a game but it activates a part of my brain that just produces stress sometimes. :L Kunarian TALK 13:34, March 17, 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe the main issue at hand is the idea that colonies on the mainland should not generally be established until 1500, as the rules states. You and Castile have land there because you won it off Morocco in a war, but further expansion south would pretty much be a colony, is what the mods are thinking, I think.
 * France should not have a colony there, either.
 * "<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 22:50, March 17, 2014 (UTC)


 * Well as long as the restriction is universal. Kunarian TALK 23:40, March 17, 2014 (UTC)

Again, I started off my statement by saying, "nor do I think it's necessarily implausible." I was just noting the fact that it would be difficult for Venice to expand regularly into Africa. Mscoree (talk) 10:36, March 18, 2014 (UTC)

I think I'll just say this again. And LG and Guns can't say I'm wrong, because unless they can prove the did the research, they can't say anything. European colonization was a result of necessity, not a point in time where they could travel beyond their own seas. The territories Genoa held in the Black Sea were the same distance from that as Mauritania is from Venice. And given that the Venetians were better sailors, they could reach those lands faster and safer than the Genoans ever could. As for Europe as a whole, when the friendly Byzantine Empire was destroyed, and the more hostile Turks in control of the lucrutive Silk Road that began at Constantinople, the Europeans now found themselves cut off from the East by the Turks. Thus, when Columbus showed up, he was seeking aid in finding a sea route to the East by sailing West (thinking he would show up in China).

The colonization of the New World didn't begin because the Europeans or the other nations didn't have the technology, it didn't happen because there wasn't a big enough reason to do so. Why sail into a vast and empty ocean you know nothing about and see no profit in exploring, when you could simply trade with the people you on the trade routes you know to be highly productive? When that question was answered by "because there be angry Turks out there", the Europeans turned west with the hope of finding a way to China. The ships Columbus used to reach America were the very same ones the Europeans were using at this point in the game. They can reach any part of the known world because the Europeans know were their destination is, not because there's some mystical cloud floating over Africa blocking any attempts to sail around it. In closing, the Europeans didn't sail around Africa because they didn't know if it had an end, and crossing land to reach India was faster and safer.

Thus, to say Castille or Venince can't go certain places when they routinely travelled to place much farther away, and much more primitive nations such as the Phoenicians travelled greater distances in poorer vessels regularly, is both unrealistically and restrictive to the umpth degree. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 15:16, March 20, 2014 (UTC)

FYI
Due to outside circumstances I will have an extended absence from PMIII, plus my account is acting up. Daeseunglim

Cuzco.
Hello. I know i have been absent for a while due to a combination of internet and personal troubles, but Cuzco has expanded greatly beyond what is shown on the map. Cuzco expanded into Aymara territory while they where still decenterlized. I did not use an algo because I was told i would not need one. I was not told otherwise while I did that, so I'm assuming that my expansion still stands. Could it be added to the next map?What is this????Is this a signature??? (talk) 22:13, March 17, 2014 (UTC)

The northern portion of the Aymara's have centralized and are resisting your expansion. Scandinator (talk) 07:18, March 18, 2014 (UTC)

I expanded before that, but for the sake of things, I will re-do it.What is this????Is this a signature??? (talk) 18:58, March 18, 2014 (UTC)

Overexpansionism
A warning to the North and Central American States. You are overexpanding into hostile terriotry without algorithms. Mods have noted this and unless you wish to fix the issue. Mods will take action. Scandinator (talk) 07:42, March 18, 2014 (UTC)

Cuzco war of expansion. (Cuzco vs Aymaras)
==N/A War (Year Begin-Year End)== ===Nation One (Attacker)=== *Location: 0 *Tactical Advantage: 0 *Nations: 0 = 0 *Military Development: 0 *Economic Development: 0 *Expansion: 0 *Infrastructure: 0 *Motive: 0 *Chance: 0 **Edit count: 0 **UTC: 0 (0) = **Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) = *Nation Age: 0 *Population: 0 *Participation: +10 *Recent Wars: 0 *Vassals and Puppets: 0 Total: 0 ===Nation Two (Defender)=== *Location: 0 *Tactical Advantage: 0 *Nations: 0 = 0 *Military Development: 0 *Economic Development: 0 *Expansion: 0 *Infrastructure: 0 *Motive: 0 *Chance: 0 **Edit count: 0 **UTC: 0 (0) = **Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) = *Nation Age: 0 *Population: 0 *Participation: +10 *Recent Wars: 0 *Vassals and Puppets: 0 Total: 0 ===Result=== *((Winner/(Loser+Winner))*2)-1 = 0 *(0)*(1-1/(2*0)) = 0 ===Discussion===

So I may seem like a dumbass right now, but I can't find the algorithim information. Also if I'm doing this wrong I aplogize.What is this????Is this a signature??? (talk) 19:12, March 18, 2014 (UTC)

You're supposed to copy the above code (not while editing, just viewing), then paste it here in source and add the relevant information. Mscoree (talk) 20:33, March 18, 2014 (UTC)

Note: Cuzco player will receive no help from the Ica-Nazca, as they have cut relations with them. SwankyJ (talk) 02:01, March 20, 2014 (UTC)

Chagatai concern
For the last few turns, we all have noticed that the Chagatai have been influenced by multiple nations. Me, the Timurids, Fedelede, the Jochid Ulus and of course Ninjasvswarriors, the Alliance of the Four Oirats. Now due to reasons which I do not feel the need of saying, I think it would be wiser to split up the Chagatai khanate through some means, since I don't really need all of it. I have made a map of not one, not two, but  THREE  different splitting I would easily approve. Although each might be negotiated, my primary concern is that I get a belt which allows me to have a border with China, and by belt I don't mean a tiny little corridor.

Although the first option would be the more realistic one, I am willing to accept the second option with ease. I will of course, leave this open for discussion.

Discussion
Ow. My eyes. T-T Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 04:05, March 19, 2014 (UTC)

Still don't know if the Timurids even have trade rights in the Khante, so theres that.

Yes they do, and let's not ignore the fact that the khan who ruled 'till 1402 was chosen by Timur in OTL (in the 1380s, not sure exactly when). Anyways, even though the relations have been damaged a bit I don't see why I shouldn't have trade rights. And sign your stuff

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagatai_Khanate#Chagatayid_rule_continued_in_East_Turkestan Here is something I have learned. ] While a khan was installed in the 1380s by Timur (After several decades of having Khans that fought Timur), the rival khan family that fought against Timur before he reinstalled some devout Timur-lover still maintained a high position within the Chagatai Khanate, and chose all the successive Khans after the 1380s Timur one, which I would assume would be an unfavorable, Timur hating Khans. This cycle was broken OTL in the 1420s when a different Khan rose to power that wasn't part of the rival Dughlats. However, I don't remember a mod event stating otherise, so for all intents and purposes, the Chatagatai was still ruled by the Timur-hating (Cause ya know, he took half their lands) Dughlats. Eiplec - ಠ_ಠ (talk) 02:24, March 20, 2014 (UTC) (<--- There's the sig, by the way)

Georgian Vassal Consolidation
Mods - assuming my vassalizations all proceed as planned, I'm going to have a total of 10 nations to run by 1448 (Georgia, Armenia, Gordyene, Adiabene, Rani, Van, Ossetia, Dido, the Avars, and the Leks). Given that half of these "states" have fewer thab 50,000 people, I doubt they can really contribute effectively to a war, and I don't want to "cheat" the algorithm by adding loads of small states to my wars. So, with your permission, I'd like to consolidate the smaller ones along cultural lines; I tend to do exactly the same thing for each of the "mini-states" anyway, so it really just saves me a lot of flavor text writing.

What I'm thinking is this:

Let me know if this is plausible - if it is, it would let me spend more time actually contributing to the game and less time thinking up local variations of doing exactly the same thing. TankOfMidgets (talk) 23:04, March 18, 2014 (UTC)
 * Archduchy of Assyria: Would include Gordyene, Adiabene, and Van, all of which would be plurality "Assyrian" culture when combined; Van is exclusively Turkish at present, but as it only has 25K people, that's not saying much. I'd establish this state through a dynastic/personal union between Gordyene and Adiabene, and would add Van to it as a vassal; for simplicity's sake, I'd like to enact the same policies across all three. Given that I have
 * Principality of Vladikavkaz: Would include Ossetia, Dido, the Avars, and the Leks, all of which are/were small, disorganized chiefdoms along my northern border. Given how small these chiefdoms are (Ossetia, the largest, has 45K), I'd really like to just combine them into one overarching polity.

I find both of these moves to be entirely plausible. The only objection I would express is that "Vladikavkaz" is a Russian word meaning "King of the Caucasus." From my brief search, the Ossetian term is a secondary term. Furthermore, the city was build in the 1700s. I think that the name needs a bit of a redo, at the very least because the Russian influence would simply not exist. Thanks, 00:37, March 20, 2014 (UTC)

Fair point - the absence of Russians in the Volga is something I haven't yet adjusted to. I've decided to go with "Amier-Kavkasiis" - Georgian for "trans-Caucasus," if it's a plausible name. Hopefully I'll come up with a better name that actually relates to local cultural traditions, but in the meantime geography is a decent enough stopgap for my purposes. TankOfMidgets (talk) 18:43, March 20, 2014 (UTC)

Seems plausible enough. My only objection is that you change Archduchy to Duchy or Grand Duchy, since Archduchy is a term made up by the Habsburgs and is unique to their nation. It doesn't really have any meaning beyond that. Grand Duchy would probably make more sense for your nation. Mscoree (talk) 18:46, March 20, 2014 (UTC)

Fair point. Grand Principality would work - it's a Slavic title, and Georgia has enough contacts with Moscow and the Ukraine that it fits better than the Western-inspired Grand Duchy. I'll amend the title in this year's orders. TankOfMidgets (talk) 20:30, March 20, 2014 (UTC)

Cuzco(Attacker)

 * Location: 25 (Capital close to location)
 * Tactical Advantage: 3 (attacker's advantage and co-ordination)
 * Nations: Cuzco (L)  = 4
 * Military Development: 12
 * Economic Development: 18+1=19
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 9
 * Motive: 3+4=7
 * Chance: 7

Total: 87*1.25= 108.75
 * Edit count: 220
 * UTC: 0 (0) = 8
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) = 86.3775
 * Nation Age: 0 (300 years old)
 * Population:
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Aymara Defender)

 * Location: 20
 * Tactical Advantage: 0
 * Nations: Aymara (L) = 0
 * Military Development: 5
 * Economic Development: 5
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 6
 * Motive: 5+9=14
 * Chance: 7

Total: 64*1.25=80
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 (0) =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Population: +2
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: *1.25

Result

 * ((108.75/(80+108.75))*2)-1 = .15
 * (.15)*(1-1/(2*1)) = .07
 * (.15)*(1-1/(2*2))= .11
 * (.15)*(1-1/(2*3))= .12

If the war lasts 1 year, 7% will be gained, then 11% then 12%. What is this????Is this a signature??? (talk) 16:27, March 21, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
So I tried to do this in the other section, but it went all screwy like on me, so i made a new one. Also where do I find the information I plug in? How long does development last. I suck at this I know.What is this????Is this a signature??? (talk) 20:09, March 19, 2014 (UTC)

Alright so I filled in my information, but I don't know anything about the Aymaras, so I could use some help there.What is this????Is this a signature??? (talk) 01:49, March 20, 2014 (UTC)

So you're attacking and your location is 25? And the defender has 20? Idk about that. SwankyJ (talk) 02:47, March 20, 2014 (UTC)

It goes by capital I thought. Since Cuzco is just a city with a few outlying districts, It would be 25 for me. I was unsure where the Aymara Capital was.What is this????Is this a signature??? (talk) 19:36, March 20, 2014 (UTC)

Infrastructure is only applicable to defenders. Not sure on the rest, looking in to it.

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 19:59, March 20, 2014 (UTC)

I Know, I includeded it there because it was in the code, but I did not count it in my addition. Also I did my math wrong on the adding, I will double check my math on the chance (I did it by hand...)What is this????Is this a signature??? (talk) 20:10, March 20, 2014 (UTC)

I gave them a 2 for popoulation, figured that the Aymara's had more than me, but only part of them centrilized so Im just going to assume that they would get 2. What is this????Is this a signature??? (talk) 01:13, March 21, 2014 (UTC)

Bahamani bickering
Now, although the Vijaynagar thing was deemed invalid for the Timurids during Nova's stay here, I do have to add that I had Bahamani as a vassal when I took Timurids up. Now, even though I annexed them, and even though I asked Mscoree two times to fix the map, they are still not on it. Now, the Bahamani Sultanate's territory was north of Vijaynagar (the extremely light green-yellowish nation in south India). As far as I've been informed by Fed, it is okay I annex it. And if one wishes to question if I could hold that territory I have worked on my navy so I could maintain stability in said region.That would be all for now, thank you for your precious time.

Sincerely,

Sorry, wasn't sure which part you were talking about. I will add it. Mscoree (talk) 23:21, March 19, 2014 (UTC)

There is a section for this kinda thing... Eiplec - ಠ_ಠ (talk) 05:29, March 20, 2014 (UTC)

http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140130191806/althistory/images/0/03/India_labelled.png you can see Bahmani on the map. Also Eip, I know there's a section for this, but since this also puts in question my ability to even have it as a vassal I thought it'd be better to put it here. -Sky

Mod Nominations
Hello everyone. Given that Nova is no longer actively contributing to the wiki, I believe that it is fit to establish elections to choose a replacement fourteenth moderator. I personally am nominating Feud, but I am doing a more general election thing so that the democratic tradition is upheld or somesuch. I believe that I got approval from other mods to do this in mod page. Here it goes:

Feudalplague
Feud has consistently proven himself as an ASB detector extraordinaire, as well as offering to help several users in doing disting things, relating to either ideas for plausible decisions, graphic work (maps) or moderation of disputes. Henceforth, I believe he deserves to be a mod.

All those in favour

 * Fed (talk) 01:23, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
 * Mscoree (talk) 01:27, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
 * ALLONS-Y! (Basically, RUN!) 01:33, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
 * Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 01:55, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
 * 02:01, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
 * SwankyJ (talk) 02:44, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
 * Banner_of_the_Holy_Roman_Emperor_with_haloes_(1400-1806).svgLabarum.jpgCrimsonAssassin- I have special eyes 02:45, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
 * 06:53, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
 * Scandinator (talk) 14:50, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
 * TankOfMidgets (talk) 18:33, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
 * Macedon_Shield.png<font color="#29AB87">Bow To Your Sensei. <font color="#002366">BOW TO YOUR SENSEI!!! Rome_Shield.png
 * Cookiedamage (talk) 20:04, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
 * Cour *talk* PMII_Mayan_Flag.pngCaborr_Flag.png 21:44, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
 * Quashi (talk) 02:09, March 21, 2014 (UTC)
 * Kunarian TALK 08:52, March 21, 2014 (UTC)
 * Eiplec - ಠ_ಠ (talk) 15:07, March 21, 2014 (UTC)
 * Flag of the Hurian Federation.pngorius: "I don't need a slogan" 06:48, March 22, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
Feud has shown immense interest in the subject of PMIII modhood, and frankly, has done a better job without modhood than many mods are doing at the moment (no offense). He has my vote. <font color="#29AB87">Bow To Your Sensei. <font color="#002366">BOW TO YOUR SENSEI!!!


 * I support Feud mainly because he puts other mods to shame for inactivity and despite that sometimes he can be rigid and inflexible in his view of how things should be in the heat of the moment, once he's calm he's very level headed. I want more active mods and more mods that actually READ players posts, not just copy paste from OTL. Kunarian TALK 08:52, March 21, 2014 (UTC)

Population Statistics
If you want any about your nation or cities please don't be a stranger. Just hit me up here or on my talk page with a message. I have several sources and can give you a good idea of your nations population, its spread and growth. Kunarian TALK 07:07, March 20, 2014 (UTC)

My short absence (SOLVED)
From Friday, (tomorrow) untill Sunday/Monday I will be in Germany and thus I shan't be able to post. Now, I am asking for someone to post for me for those few turns (I will give instructions about it once someone accepts). I hope someone helps, thank you

Swanky agreed to help.

Religious Map
Sine - with your permission, I'd like to take over the religious map-making position. I know you said you'd update the map for 1435, but it's 1447 and we're working off a map that's 20 years out of date. I'm perfectly willing to do the job, and I imagine you're busy enough modding the game as-is; I just don't want to "steal" your job without letting you know what's going on. TankOfMidgets (talk) 23:54, March 20, 2014 (UTC)

Mod inactivity
For the past two years, I've asked for a mod response for a marriage between the Ashikaga Shogunate and the Date clan. So far there has been no response, either negative or affirmative. Any chance of something being done...? Ozymandias2 (talk) 00:08, March 21, 2014 (UTC)

We have a bunch of requests coming it at all times, it often takes years for something to be verified. There should be no issue with the marriage as far as I can see, but I defer to other mods just to make sure[http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/User:Andr3w777 ALLONS-Y! ] (Basically, RUN!) 00:26, March 21, 2014 (UTC)

Seems fine to me as well. Sorry for the delay in answering. There are usually a lot of posts to sort through and sometimes requests can get lost. Mscoree (talk) 00:37, March 21, 2014 (UTC)

Wait- this game has active mods?

Huh! I played for half a month, and I only ever noticed one. :)

20:31, March 21, 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of inactive mods, shouldn't we remove the mods who don't care enough to do their jobs?--Yank 20:38, March 22, 2014 (UTC)

Emergency Absence
I need to take a week long leave of absence, a close family member is dying and I have to see her before she goes. This is not how I planned spending my spring break. i won't be able to post until my return next Monday or Teusday. I have placed a request on the mod page for a mod to post for my nation in my absence. Thank You all in advance.[http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/User:Andr3w777 ALLONS-Y! ] (Basically, RUN!) 20:12, March 21, 2014 (UTC)

Monaco Issue (SOLVED) or Can Vassals Vassalise?
I would like several unbiased mods to deal with the Monaco issue. Quashi claims to have annexed it despite the fact that he used Genoa (a vassal) to vassalise and then annex it. My logic says that a vassal cannot vassalise.

Also Monaco was never a colony of Genoa as Feud has claimed.

Further I do not trust Feuds judgement on this, no offence to him, Quashi is too close of an in-game ally to him and unfortunately Feud is not averse to bias like we have seen other mods be in the past.

So considering this has some effect on the games rules I think that the issue should be considered by various mods and a decision should be made and added to the rules page so that issues like this in the future can be cleared up in a similar manner. Kunarian TALK 10:44, March 22, 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why he would even want to annex Monaco in the first place. It's supposed to be neutral. Unless someone says otherwise, I don't believe vassals are allowed to vassalize, else nations would expand exponentially. Mscoree (talk) 12:54, March 22, 2014 (UTC)

From this, I would say the Monaco was part of Genoa. However, it seemed more like basically family property under the sovereignity of Genoa at this point. From that link, it seems as if Genoa held substantial interests in Monaco since at least 1191. Eiplec - ಠ_ಠ (talk) 14:30, March 22, 2014 (UTC)

Honestly I think it depends on the situation. The fact that Monaco is a small city state compared to Genoa makes it seem rather easy for Genoa to vassalize it, whether it is a vassal or not. Vassal states have their own interests and actions as well, and I don't think the rules forbid it, but I could be wrong.

That being said, this obviously cannot apply everywhere, and it makes logical sense that the vassal can only vassalize states smaller or weaker than itself, otherwise it may drag itself and its lord nation into a war that they may not want.

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 14:49, March 22, 2014 (UTC)


 * To note: when Genoa "started vassalising" they were a destroyed nation. Having it decided on soft factors like weakness/strength or misleading factors like pixel size will only cause problems. For instance, if Athens was independent and I wanted to use my vassal of Naxos to vassalise them and we went by if your vassal is bigger in pixels you can then I could despite that Athens is bigger in population and no way would ever plausibly submit to Naxos. If Athens was independent and I decided to vassalise them with Attica, a more populous vassal than naxos and with land abilities, and we go by strength then how do we decide if Athens is weaker? if I claim enough that they are? this would be less of an issue with a nation of several million population however you can argue for ages about whether someone is technically weaker or not.


 * I already think the current vassalise system is shaky but at least it is definitive and clear cut. We need clarity here. Kunarian TALK 15:44, March 22, 2014 (UTC)


 * To clarify, I did say "smaller or weaker," which in the case of Athens it would be weaker and therefore still be legitimate. On whether it is weaker or not, since that was your vassal in the first place, you have the say in the matter, but if it wasn't, then I am sure mods can examine the situation and determine the stronger.


 * On the issue of Genoa, yes it was destroyed by war, but I do believe Naples invested heavily in its reconstruction. And to be fair, even in its destroyed/partially reconstructed state, I find it unlikely that Genoa would be weaker than Monaco, which has little to commend it in terms of military power.


 * "<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 15:49, March 22, 2014 (UTC)


 * Athens isn't weaker though. Athens has a local population that rivals Attica and many city with walls and fortifications, along with money due to trade revenues. while Attica lacks this, having a sparse population that may be large once brought together but is also poor. So you can already see the issues with using soft factors especially using "weaker". Also leaving it to mods isn't the best idea, especially as we've already seen the issues of mod bias damage the game and reputation of mods and have already seen how easy it is to accuse a mod of bias.


 * If you do it on soft factors still, Genoa had no right to vassalise and annex Monaco (it didn't even do it when it was weakened in OTL) because Monaco was a neutral trading territory. So will that be taken into account? It is a perfectly reasonable point about the implausibility of annexation.


 * Once again I prove from the above that we cannot rely on soft factors and must have a clear rule else we end up with enternal arguments taking up mod time as well as game breaking abilities to vassalise exponentially. Kunarian TALK 16:06, March 22, 2014 (UTC)


 * Its personal property the same principal applies with Castile and Morocco since the Prince of Morocco is a Castilian noble, he still owns the territory in castile since it wasnt stripped from him when he was given the ability to rule morocco. If the Grimaldis were not stripped of their personal property in Monaco (and it wasnt picked up by Italy) then its part of Genoa proper because it was personal property. Nuff Said -Feud


 * It was never part of Genoa on the map. Retroactively changing it because a mistake was made on behalf of the mods is a bit much. By that logic we should give all the islands that are Ottoman in the Aegean to the Romans, because they were supposed to be Genoan and the Romans planned to conquer them as reward for their part in the Genoan war. They were OTL supposed to be part of Genoa so why not? Kunarian TALK 20:50, March 22, 2014 (UTC)

Okay the Monaco issue is solved. Although it might be worth continuing to pursue a clear line on vassals vassalising. Kunarian TALK 12:18, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

Yo dawg, I heard you like vassals, so mods let your vassals have vassals so you can vassalize while you vassalize. <font color="#29AB87">Bow To Your Sensei. <font color="#002366">BOW TO YOUR SENSEI!!!

Dialogue for peace between the Netherlands and the HRE
Karl formally wishes to open up peace talks with the Holy Roman Emperor, and offers the following terms:

 1. the concession of Liege to the Kingdom of the Netherlands in return for Dutch forces withdrawing from Munster, 

2. The HRE recognize the seperation of the Lowlands from the Empire, inexchange the Netherlands will cease all actions against the HRE and respect the territorial integraty of the Empire,

3. The Emperor will recognize Karl van Nassau and the house of Nassau as the legitimate soviergn of the Netherlands, 

4. The HRE will grant trading rights to the North Sea Trade League in the Northern German States in exchange for a promise of ceasing all blockades on North German Ports, 

5. no monatery compensation will be demanded by either side of the conflict,

'''6. the strongholds in Luxemburg, and Cleves are to be dismantled in exchange for a promise that the Netherlands will not militarize their eastern border for a period of 20 years, unless provoked ot do so by German aggression. '''

Albert II likewise would like to pursue peace, but disagrees witht he sixth point, stating that any fortifications there are serving for those states protection, just as they had during the war, and just as they had years prior. In that regard he asks that this point be removed, and in exchange offers a non aggression pact for twenty years to ensure that these fortifications are not used to continue hostilities. Mscoree (talk) 15:36, March 22, 2014 (UTC)

As a compromise Karl offers the following point, That no Austrian or german coalition forces be stationed at the fortifications for a period of 50 years, along with the non aggression pact. With Blood and Iron (talk) 16:19, March 22, 2014 (UTC)

Albert II agrees to this term, stating that garrisons in the above nations shall be limited to that particular state's personal garrison. and that Austrian and German coalition forces shall not use these forticiations as agreed. Mscoree (talk) 16:25, March 22, 2014 (UTC)

With Albert agreeing to terms Karl van Nassau proposes that the peace talks end with the Treaty of Brussels stipulating the above clauses. - NK

Albert II signs the Treaty of Brussels. Mscoree (talk) 18:24, March 22, 2014 (UTC)

Spring Cleaning
I think we need to remove the mods who have no interest in actually using their mod powers for anything. The abuser Dean/Nova may be gone, but I think apathy is only a step above outright abuse. For better or for worse Ms has been working his ass off, and he's pretty much one of the few mods actually using his power. --Yank 00:55, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

We are, but you won't see it. Ms is a big part of the go-between. Cour *talk* 21:52, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

Attacking Coalition (Attacker)
Total: 919
 * Location: 19
 * Roman Empire: 25
 * Albanian (Rebels): 25
 * Venice: 25
 * Georgia: 20
 * Armenia: 20
 * Assyria: 20
 * Rumania (Wallachia/Moldavia): 25
 * Austria: 10
 * Grand Duchy of Moscow: 20
 * Grand Duchy of Lithuania: 20
 * Luxembourg: 10
 * Brandenburg: 10
 * Bohemia: 15
 * Moravia: 15
 * Trier: 10
 * Hungary : 25
 * Mashriqi Sultanate: 25
 * Hafsids: 20
 * Tactical Advantage: 8
 * Nations: Roman Empire (L), Venice (L), Epirus (L), Aegina (MV), Athens (MV), Candia (MV), Corfu (MV), Kaffa (MV), Naxos (MV), Negroponte (MV), Ragusa (MV), Valona (MV), Georgia (L), Armenia (LV), Assyria (LV), Rani (MV), Amier-Kavkasia (MV), Austria (L), Rumania (L), Albania (Rebels) (L), Luxembourg (L), Brandenburg (L), Bohemia (L), Moravia (L), Silesia (MV), Lusatia (MV), Trier (L), Muscovy (L), Lithuania (MV), Netherlands (S), Hamburg (S), Hungary (L), Croatia (MV), Bosnia (MV), Mashriq (L), Hafsids (L), Cicilia (MV), Iritriya (MV) = 110/14 = 8
 * Military Development: 428/(0) = 428
 * Roman Empire: 16
 * Albania (Rebels): 2
 * Venice: 4
 * Epirus: 8
 * Georgia: 12
 * Armenia: 8
 * Assyria: 10
 * Rumania (Wallachia/Moldavia): 3
 * Austria: 16
 * Grand Duchy of Moscow: 30
 * Grand Duchy of Lithuania: 2
 * Luxembourg: 16
 * Brandenburg: 16
 * Bohemia: 16
 * Moravia: 16
 * Silesia: 16
 * Lusatia: 16
 * Trier: 16
 * Hungary: 10
 * Mashriqi: 10
 * Hafsids: 10
 * Economic Development: 400/(0) + city scores (9 = Antwerp, Kaffa, Venice, Aleppo, Alexandria, Baghdad) = 409
 * Roman Empire: 14
 * Albania (Rebels): 2
 * Venice: 14
 * Epirus: 14
 * Georgia: 8
 * Armenia: 12
 * Assyria: 10
 * Rumania (Wallachia/Moldavia): 12
 * Austria: 14
 * Grand Duchy of Moscow: 0
 * Grand Duchy of Lithuania: 0
 * Luxembourg: 14
 * Brandenburg: 14
 * Bohemia: 14
 * Moravia: 14
 * Silesia: 14
 * Lusatia: 14
 * Trier: 14
 * Hungary: 8
 * Mashriqi: 10
 * Hafsids: 10
 * Expansion: -4 (Georgia)
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 16 (Religious, support, morale) May I argue another thing? The Romans are also fighting to liberate their people as well, so would kinsmen under distress work as well?
 * Chance: 8
 * Edit count: 3736
 * UTC: 22:42 = 32
 * Total: (3736/32)*pi = 366.7809423
 * Nation Age: -30/21 = -1
 * Roman Empire: 5
 * Albania (Rebels): -5
 * Venice: -15
 * Epirus: 0
 * Georgia: 0
 * Armenia: 0
 * Assyria: -5
 * Rumania (Wallachia/Moldavia): 5
 * Austria: 0
 * Grand Duchy of Moscow:
 * Grand Duchy of Lithuania:
 * Luxembourg: 0
 * Brandenburg:
 * Bohemia: 0
 * Moravia: 0
 * Trier: -15
 * Hungary: -5
 * Hafsids: 5
 * Mashriq: 0
 * Population: 29
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: -9 (-3 Georgia, -3 Armenia, -3 Assyria)
 * Vassals and Puppets: -2

Ottoman Sultanate/Empire (Defender)
Total: 59*1.25 = ~74
 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage: 0
 * Nations: Ottoman Empire (L), Serbia (MV), Erzincan (MV), Mardin (MV), Black Sheep (MV), Dulkadir (MV) = 14 = 0
 * Military Development: 0
 * Economic Development: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 2
 * Motive: 4 (defending, low morale)
 * Chance: 6
 * Edit count: 6,427
 * UTC: 22:42  = 32
 * Total: (6427/32)*pi (3.14159265359) = 630.96925
 * Nation Age: +5 (151 years)
 * Population: +7
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: *1.25

Result

 * ((919/(74+919))*2)-1 = 0.85
 * (85)*(1-1/(2*4)) = 74.4% = 74%

The Ottoman Empire is totally overthrown.

See: Treaty of Adrianople 

Discussion
This is a work in progress. Mscoree (talk) 02:12, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

If the Christians are going to use vassals, they don't get *1.25, they get -1 for EACH vassal. Also, a wide-scale crusade like this hasn't happened since the 1200s. I'm not really sure how plausible it is to have all of these countries against the Ottomans at this point in time. I mean, to my recollection, there was barely a response to the Fall of Constantinople; would there really be this much response here? ChrisL123 (talk) 05:07, March 23, 2014 (UTC)


 * We get the bonus since none of them are a leader. Also the plausibility of this algorithm is being question. Mscoree (talk) 13:09, March 23, 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey if its considered implausible that everyone else is involved, I'll happily take the Ottos on alone or with Roman help. Kunarian TALK 14:27, March 23, 2014 (UTC)


 * ATL is different, people rallied behind the Romans. Also concerning the *1.25 and -1, you only get the penalty if you have vassals as leaders. Kunarian TALK 12:17, March 23, 2014 (UTC)


 * From the rules: "x 1.25 if only your main nation is fighting," and "-1 for every vassal involved." ChrisL123 (talk) 19:14, March 23, 2014 (UTC)


 * I added the -28 for the vassals. I mean, unless the rules were changed recently, in which case please change it back. ChrisL123 (talk) 19:52, March 23, 2014 (UTC)


 * Chris the minus only applies when vassals are leaders. Kunarian TALK 20:52, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

We had quite a heated argument both in chat and in the moderator page, and this algo and the war are represented are retconned and in lockdown until further notice. Fed (talk) 05:08, March 23, 2014 (UTC)


 * Any update in status? Kunarian TALK 12:17, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

I'd just like to ask something here since I couldn't get a good answer on the moderator page. How should we adjust this algorithm so that it is plausible, in terms of changing nations. It has been said that it is implausible because of the number of leaders, but I'd like to point out that there are only three independent (de jure) realms (four if you count Trier as independent) that are leaders and are answering the so called crusade. You'll notice that all three are personal allies, so it's basically just a small, private crusade, not one in which all of Europe, including people who hate each other get involved. They are also supported by the pope, who has the incentive to call such action considering he has personal interest in the Albania area, and would most likely want that pacified. In addition to those three nations there are three eastern nations (four if you include Albania which is fighting for independence basically) who are attacking the Ottomans for their own reasons, independent of this crusade or the western nations. Note, they are not allied, but rather co belligerents. Just like how in the Invasion of Muscovy the UNC and the Golden Horde were co belligerents not allies. The remaining nations that are leaders are nations in personal union with some of the others. For example, Bohemia, Luxembourg, Brandenburg, and Moravia are the same ruler as Austria, as are Venice and Epirus. Again, just like the Invasion of Muscovy, these nations are counted independently, just like how the nations of the UNC were and the nations of Poland and Lithuania were. With that said, what exactly is the limit that would make this plausible? I know that in some wars against the Ottomans in the 1500's there was basically this amount of states and more (although some at differing points). Also, it should be noted that having this many nations actually brings down our scores, but we chose to keep them and not have only the high ranking people as to not give ourselves a big advantage. I am also aware that this so called coalition will likely collapse. People will drown in the river, armies will get drunk and accidentally kill the other. I think we were all going to play around with this, and generally have some crazy crusader high jinks not seen since the third and fourth crusade. Anyway, I hoped that cleared some stuff, and my original question still remains. What do the sides need to be changed to? Mscoree (talk) 13:24, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

Could I be apart of this cursades please. - Scarlet

As a means of comparison:


 * Third Crusade: 9 leaders
 * Ottoman–Habsburg wars (as a whole): 12 leaders
 * Little War in Hungary: 6 leaders
 * Ottoman–Venetian War: 10 leaders
 * Great Turkish War: 12 leaders

NonEuclidean ツ (Talk) 13:35, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

Also we should have something a bit closer to 140 rather than 119. There are calculation issues. Kunarian TALK 14:26, March 23, 2014 (UTC)


 * When I first calculated the algorithm we were missing several pieces of information. Several nations didn't have their scores in for example. Mscoree (talk) 14:53, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

I added a war to that list. Granted for the most part those wars against the Ottomans are defensive, but the point still remains that a large quantity of states could contest the Ottomans. Mscoree (talk) 14:59, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

The military and the economy are wrong, you must only count leaders Quashi (talk) 16:34, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

Could Foix and Andorra send some troops for the cursades please. - Scarlet

I realize the war is in lockdown at present, but Georgian numbers are now accurate, in the event that it does occur. TankOfMidgets (talk) 20:04, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

I posted this on the mod page, and I will now post it here for the benefit of the non-mods.

So I hear there is some talk of retconning this war, and reducing the power of the Venetians and Romans in Greece. To counter, I do point out that every nation involved in the war both had a legitimate reason to get involved.

Venice wants to help the Albanians. The Roman Empire wants to help its ally Venice as well as reclaim its lost territory. Austria has found a convenient time to finally fulfill the crusading obligations that the Pope has been continuously agitating for. Romania sees an excuse to gain land in Bulgaria. Muscovy and Georgia both want to support their Orthodox brethren, and the latter also has the added incentive for more land for either itself or its vassals. All the states have a legitimate reason to get involved in this war, and even though they have different goals, they still have a major incentive to cooperate. Likewise, there is a major incentive for all members involved to start the war. Also, the retcon of the war goes against the rules, as it is clearly stated that “Wars can only be retconned if all players involved agree to do so.

On the other side regarding the control of Venice and the Romans in Greece and other areas, both of these areas have been under their control for quite some time. For the last 200 hundred years, Greece has been under either Roman or Western control. While there have been revolts on both sides, the increasing economic power of the two states helps offset that. Furthermore, both Venice and the Roman Empire have had revolts in that part of their Empires as well. There was the Latin Revolt in Roman Greece and the Venetian Civil War that also took place in Greece. Both of these were player-created, and I at least figured the Latin Revolt into my calculations as a recent war. And looking towards the other parts of the Roman Empire, the other ethnic groups are not a major factor. Sinope has a significant Greek population that helps the Empire maintain control there. Also, most of the Turks would likely have fled the area once the Romans came in. The Crimean Goths are not a major issue either, as they are Orthodox and have been granted citizenship just like the Latins in Greece. In addition, I have spent over two decades integrating new territories to the Empire. Taxes have been lowered, and the Empire is more economically active than it has been in many years. Not much breeding ground for major revolts, at least on my end. -MP

<p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.15;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;">"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 21:17, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

I want to second what MP has said. But I will say that if it is such a big issue that some of the people aren't directly next to the Ottomans then we can remove them from the Algo, reduce it to the original four coalition members of Venice, Rome, Wallachia/Moldavia and Georgia. I don't want to do this because it is perfectly plausible that many nations would join this war, as many nations supported Constantinople when the Ottomans besieged it at the beginning of the game.

Also may I say those styling this as a holy war are wrong. As the declarant I, Venice, never spoke of anything holy. This is a war to assist in the creation of an independent Albania and to weaken the Ottoman grip in Europe.

I'll argue further that the reduced coalition is completely plausible. Venice and the Romans at least should not be told they can't fight the Ottomans, OTL we fought a dozen wars against them and we have no plans to absorb the Ottomans into a Roman-Venetian super state. The only places we are targeting are Greek or non-Turk.

So could the mods please give a good detailed explanation as to why they think COMPLETELY retconning this war is logical or even fair or bound by the rules. Reducing to the four player coalition is logical and agreeable.

Also I have heard various arguments, such as this being illogical as the Ottos are a buffer against the Mamluks. If you honestly think that the Ottos are a buffer between me and my ally, then you are very very wrong. And frankly it sounds like an attack on Rex at the expense of Venice, Rome and all the other logical participants. Kunarian TALK 21:32, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I don't have a problem with the war itself. The Ottomans had been challenged military-wise for centuries. If it wasn't called a "Crusade," I could see it as a logical part of history. I would be against its retcon. However, what I do have to bring up is the plausibility of some of these nations being involved in the war. Can we say that, for example, Austria's many tiny vassals in the HRE could plausibly give a relevant amount of manpower and military might to influence the outcome of the war? Could they even realistically travel hundreds of miles to get even close to Ottomans? That was my biggest beef with this war. But that's just my thoughts. ChrisL123 (talk) 22:00, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

The name should probably be changed since this isn't primarily for religious reasons, and crusade is used very loosely. As for the states in Germany, keep in mind that during the 1100's these states contributed significantly especially in the Swabia area where most of my vassals are. In 1146 a diet at Speyer under Conrad III caused the entire HRE to get involved in the Second Crusade, while in the Third Germany personally sent 100,000 men. We also are using Venice's ships, so if in the 1100's we were able to send that many men, we should have the ability to now. Plus, it seems they are being removed from the military development section, so in most cases they hardly add to the algo, and even decrease from it a bit. Mscoree (talk) 22:09, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

I could agree to a reduced coalition. Reduce it to only the nations under a direct threat from Ottoman influence. Cour *talk* 22:11, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

I do respectfully point out that the Normans were not in the line of fire from the Seljuk Turks yet they still went on the First Crusade anyway. Simply not being close to the problemd does not mean one cannot try to solve it firsthand.

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 22:17, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

Difference being that the Normans also controlled England, and large populations, and could travel via sea. Austria's many vassals can only travel through land, and don't have large populations.

22:59, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

Venice is shipping all of the German soldiers via sea, just like how Venice shipped 100,000 Germans in previous wars. Mscoree (talk) 23:02, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

100,000! Hot damn, that's a lot! I think everything Ms is saying makes sense. *stifles giggle*

23:03, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if you are serious or not, but I'm trying to illustrate that previously Venice shipped 100,000 German soldiers, so they can do so again, especially since they have way more ships, and I'm not even sending that many men. Mscoree (talk) 23:09, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

Ok, no seriously.

Here are the arguments I've heard in favor of letting this war continue:

And here are the ones against:
 * It's logical, because that many troops can and, historically, have been moved through Europe to attack the Mid East.
 * It works, because some of those Crusades did actually succeed (The first three especially).
 * It's somewhat strange, yes, as the Muslims have kicked the Christians out of their last city in the Holy Land, but it still works as this is there to save a Christian force, ie the Romans. Note that the Genoese and the Venetians did attempt something like this in OTL- they failed. However, with more men, it is plausible.

Which I particulary have a problem with because it's the same type of thing that caused the GCC and every other kind of shit that ended PM2.
 * "GOD AND ALIEN SPACE BATS AND DEAATH TO MSCOVITES!"

In conclusion, Fed, you're reverting to your Caliphial self.

23:10, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

In defense of my vassals, they hardly contribute to the algorithm, and in some cases even hurt our side. If you really want me to remove them I will though. Most of them are also from Swabia too, an area that historically supported crusades and efforts into the Middle East. Anyway, for the sake of ending the arguing, we have agreed to remove all Austrian/German vassals except the two belonging to Bohemia. Mscoree (talk) 23:26, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

My points against:

To summarise, the idea that a Crusade can be called just for the lolz 200 years after the last real Crusade is completely and absolutely ludicruous; there is no reason to do it, there is little true incentive to anybody but Venice and Byzantium, and all in all, it would put together wayy too many enemies.
 * 1) It is implausible for nations to send troops in a crusade 200 years after the last crusade with little incentive (except OMIGOD THEY EBUL MOZLEMZ KILL and an island in the Ionian Isles as if that was a legitimate incentive ever), with nations whose inhabitants have not seen a Muslim since 1099 (Brandenburg for one) sending troops just because Ms controls them.
 * 2) All of Europe unifying against a common threat when half of it was at the other halve's throat just five years before; especially when, unlike the OTL Turkish wars Ms and his  puppets  friends with the exact same arguments that all act in perpect coordination were after a series of extremely offensive manouevres by the Ottomans; meanwhile, IATL the Ottoman Empire has not only been peaceful but rather cooperative with the Christians.
 * 3) A magical pan-European crusade, when after the fall of Acre every single Crusade was extremely small and localised.
 * 4) There is no particular reason for Christian states to want to weaken the Ottomans, given that they are not a current threat to anybody at all (they opened to negotiations with the Byzantines) ffs

Am I really the one "reverting to Caliphal self"? Because last time I checked, I'm not the one painting his colour across the land implausibly fast, nor am I the one vassalspamming in order to win a war...Fed (talk) 23:41, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

Well...

Fed. That's "lulz". Spell it right, God...
 * 1) Actually, it was just 175 years. Also. EBUL MOZLEMZ KILLL.
 * 2) That's  sockpuppets . Make it clear.
 * 3) Was it Acre?
 * 4) For the shit and giggles.

You're right.

REX! STOP EMULATING THE CALIPHATE!

01:29, March 24, 2014 (UTC)

Fed this isn't even a crusade in the sense you think. It's basically just called that here for lack of a better name. Brandenburg is in a personal union with me, so naturely I would have them send aid, just like how Poland and Lithuania both sent aid against Muscovy. This isn't all of Europe, it's three independent de jure realms, as I said above. Also we definitely do have reasons, as we heavily detailed. It has nothing to do with "OMIGOD THEY EBUL MOZLEMZ KILL", in fact they're hardly religious reasons at all. Also if you want to report me for sockpuppeting go ahead on the TSPTF talk page. Seems you finally have enough proof to do so. Mscoree (talk) 01:39, March 24, 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion this war is fine. However, the sheer number of Austrian and Venetian vassals needs to be lessened slightly. Hence the recent event. Its also about time Gorz and Salzburg unite with Austria. - unsigned

How many times do I have to say, this isn't a crusade! That name was slapped on by the German members and has nothing to do with the actual central members of the coalition who are acting to defend their territorial integrity and preserve themselves in the long run. That list of nations is the reduced coalition of Venice, the Roman Empire, Wallachia/Moldavia and Georgia. I've proposed reducing the sides to just this reduced coalition however it would seem that my posts are skipped in favour of arguing a point that is completely irrelevant, namely that which people are upset this is religious (WHICH IT ISN'T). Kunarian TALK 07:00, March 24, 2014 (UTC)

Could I please be added into the war? Thank you. :) Imp (Say Hi?!) 12:54, March 24, 2014 (UTC)

If memory serves Gorz wasn't united with Austria until around 1500, while Salzburg wasn't united until 1805. Also I don't want to come off as unifying too quickly for fear of being destroyed through moderator events. Not sure what the best course of action is to be honest, since people are destroyed for annexing their vassals, and for not annexing their vassals, so I will probably wait a bit before I begin to annex them just to be safe. As for Imp, I will add Hungary, although we may need to provide you a bonus or something. since Imp is heavily weakened from being away for an extended period of time. A neutral mod should probably do so, but would anyone be opposed to adding Imp some basic scores? Even if we just treat him as a vassal and base his scores off that. Mscoree (talk) 18:06, March 24, 2014 (UTC)

I think I will be stronger than that - that would be too weak. I think I am not at full strength but I am not completely weak either I don't think. Imp (Say Hi?!) 12:59, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

Fine! I'll add myself... later. :P Imp (Say Hi?!) 12:59, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

Well, due to me, our side has gained... a whole three points. Did we multiply 103 like we are ought to? Otherwise it would not be fair on our side. :L Imp (Say Hi?!) 19:44, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

Add up the scores properly the next time. Imp (Say Hi?!) 20:52, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

Imp... You don't get the *1.25, because you have vassals. Should be 126 to 76, not 158 to 76.

20:54, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

Added my nations, so now we have the 33% for full annexation. 02:10, March 27, 2014 (UTC)

1) The war has been over for two years. I really doubt you can join the algorithm now. 2) Your calculation was wrong. ((144/(76+144))*2)-1 = 31%, and will decrease when I get my chance. So nope, I'm still alive. ChrisL123 (talk) 02:20, March 27, 2014 (UTC)

Ermm.... the war goes until 1454 according to all sources I have contacted. 08:04, March 27, 2014 (UTC)

Wrong chance is wrong.... The UTC time used is the time you recognized that you were being invaded, or more realistically, the same as the time when the attackers declared war. So, I went ahead and fixed your chance. 02:01, March 28, 2014 (UT C)

...The UTC time is the time of the post... Fed (talk) 02:03, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

Note: I just noticed my vassals were never added, which they should have been considering they were attacked along with the Empire (also considering many of them are being cut off from the Empire due to the war). Results adjusted accordingly. 18% now. ChrisL123 (talk) 03:13, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

Ok, and I just noticed something else. Acc. to the algo, you have 32 econ. points and 32. mil. points and 4 infrastructure points. This is impossible. This is the same as spending 16 years on econ, 16 on mil, and 4 on infrastructure, for a total of 36 years in the past 15 years.

A large mistake. Furthermore, you did not post all of the past 15 years, so I dug up your posts.... So, he should have 2 infrastructure points, but no other development scores. Furthermore, he should have a -2 recent wars penalty. This changes the results immensely. 03:54, March 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * 1435 - No development mentioned
 * 1436 - No post
 * 1437 - No post
 * 1438 - No post
 * 1439 - No post
 * 1440 - Infrastructure (assumed)
 * 1441 - No post
 * 1442 - No post
 * 1443 - No post
 * 1444 - No post
 * 1445 - Infrastructure
 * 1446 - Infrastructure/War
 * 1447 - No post
 * 1448 - No post
 * 1449 - War

LOL... no.

The development points are averaged between all leaders. Then, that would be further divided by how many development points I got. The /32 would have been there because there were 16 leaders, and I had 2 development points. For example, (400/16)/2 = 13. However, considering there are now 21 leaders, this will have to be changed.

I know you're hellbent on destroying me Rex, but it's unlikely to happen. ChrisL123 (talk) 04:31, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

Wrong.

"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 build up, etc.) but because it is a coalition some of the scores for each side are worked out differently than in the usual algorithm.

These differences are that location, motive and nation age scores are done as an average of the coalition e.g. Nation A has a location score of 4 and Nation B has a location score of 2. Thus (4+2)/2 = 3, meaning the location score for the coalition of Nations A and B is 3.

All other scores in '''the coalition war is a total of each nation's individual score e.g. Nation A has a military development of +5 and Nation B has a military development of +3. Thus the coalition of A & B has a military development of +8. Also strength, military development and economic development scores are still divided by the other side's score for that category'''. Chance is a single score done using the data from the player that started the war in the first place and the player who they declared war against. Ergo the first players on each side."

As you see in the highlighted sections, you are wrong. It nowhere states that development scores are averaged. Your logic only applies to location, motive, and nation age. Not development scores. Thanks,

04:37, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

Come on chat to argue if you wish. Secondly, do not undo my edits, please. I will report mod abuse if you use rollback or something like that. Finally, we are still leaving you with a shell nation. 04:40, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

And, technically, we should also have the *1.25 bonus. According to a later section in the Coalition rules, bonuses apply if it applies to 75% of states. Since we have 18 leaders, and only 3 don't qualify for the 1.25 bonus, then 15/18=83.3%>75%, and we get the 1.25, but that is nigh on overkill, eh? 04:43, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

Also, where are your two years in which you developed econ/mil? (1 year in each category). As I proved earlier, you have not posted in 10 of the 15 turns prior to this war, and 2 of the years were war, and the other were either no development or infrastructure. 04:46, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

Look, we're going to go back and forth forever if we do this. Neither of us are mods. The mods who wrote the algorithm wrote it for a reason, and we cannot just rewrite the entire thing. How about we leave it until the Karelian War dispute sizzles down so the mods can reevaluate this algorithm. (Also, probably a typo). ChrisL123 (talk) 04:48, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

Actually, take a look at the Karelian War algo, as with the Venetian-Moroccan War algo, and you'll see that the developments are also averaged there. ChrisL123 (talk) 04:55, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

That is not true, Chris. I think you merely do not understand that aspect of the algo. Also, this is slightly different since only half of the war is a coalition, and other half is a single nation. So, lets allow the mods to pass a ruling upon this issue. And either way, you do not have any development in econ/mil, so if you were right, it'd be (400/21)/0, which would undefined, and therefore revert to 400. Quite simply, by not posting, you lost your state. 07:41, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

This algorithm seems to have been cannibalised (900 v 70 is just ludicrous). I believe a lockdown might be necessary. Fed (talk) 12:15, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

My African outpost and conflicting mods
As some May or may not be aware, I, as Hamburg, have been investing in exploration down the African coast for years, finally setting up an outpost in otl Monrovia, Liberia in 1444. For the past few years it has served as a stop for my ships to and from the Oyo. Just now, Ms has decided to retcon it. I immediately got on chat to ask him about.

When I did, I was asked by Feud to talk. He was concerned by my posts of mapping the Kongo, saying only Castile has the ability at the moment to reach said region. We agreed and I wasn't going to make any more mention of it until years from now when it becomes more viable to reach the area.

I then contacted Ms, who appeared to be in a pm with feud as well, about it. He told me that I couldn't set up an outpost "at this time" and he and Feud both agreed that its implausible. I then reached Feud, and he replied he never said yes or no. Please note: Feud did later say an outpost further north might make everyone happy.

Meanwhile, Oldenburg has an outpost in Greenland.





What I want is a solution.

Firstly, please stop using Oldenburg as some sort of evidence backing up your claims in Africa. Oldenburg has ONE small whaling post in Greenland, which consists of one warehouse, one customs house and a few actual houses; all made with the permission of the UNC. There is a fundamental difference between Oldenburg's whaling post in Greenland and your alleged post in Africa, namely, the length of time that Europeans have known about and visited it. The Norse settled Greenland in the 980s: over four hundred years before the game even started. Europeans have only been exploring that far south down the coast of Africa for a very short while, therefore knowledge of it is still quite limited (not necessarily in terms of who knows it, but in terms of how much is known about it).

I agree that for now, only Castille should be able to build trading posts that far south. Naturally, this will change with time. I think if your outpost was North of that band of grey countries, then it would be more acceptable. Callumthered (talk) 06:20, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

And what about Portugal? i have been doing pretty much what the Portuguese have done in OTL more or less on schedule, and the Portuguese already had trading posts in Africa of 1445.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 08:37, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

You're right, Portugal should probably also be allowed to have outposts south of the grey band at this time. So in my opinion, Castille and Portugal should be the only two nations allowed to have trading posts south of the grey band of nations until 1460 ish. Maybe sooner. Although I don't think those posts should expand to encompass large territory. Callumthered (talk) 08:49, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry guy, when I was responding to you I was in the middle of a conversation on the moderator page. When I asked Feud on there he said no, so I'm not sure what's going on. Mscoree (talk) 13:08, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, Cal. Oldenburg has one small outpost in Greenland (yes, I also know of the Norse settling there.) just as Hamburg has one small outpost in Africa. I have worked to expand Hamburgs reach via sending explorations (some in conjunction with Venice) down the coast for years, and with the African market proving it can be a worthwhile investment. I chose otl Monrovia, Liberia because it was situated about midway between the Oyo and those northern nations, and had no intentions of expanding it until we get further into the colonial age.

So what's going on? Any other mods care to input, as here one says no and another says he doesn't mind?

I only have an issue with how far south it is. In my humble opinion, you could probably have as many as three outposts (North of the grey band) so long as you're sensible about them (and you sound like you would be). I think the best course of action is to have your outpost north of the grey band, wait a decade, continue exploring, and then establish one in Liberia. (By the way, I only stressed the "one"ness of my Greenlandic outpost because I thought you were questioning its legitimacy). I don't think ten years could have that much impact. It's not like all the land in Africa will be gone by then. Callumthered (talk) 01:07, March 24, 2014 (UTC)

Sicily
Is Sicily a part of Aragon or independent? It seems everyone I ask says something different, and I can already see an argument forming in the map issues section. So I ask here for everyone's thoughts on the matter. Mscoree (talk) 16:28, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

Well long time ago they split, and also Aragon never post as Sicily because he does not own that island, and fyi i stat the vassalization of Sicily in 1417, 33 years ago!!!!! Quashi (talk) 16:41, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

I do post as Sicily. It is an integrated nation in the Crown of Aragon, which includes Navarre, Aragon, Sardinia, and Sicily. Sicily and Aragon have been in personal union since the death of Martin of Aragon and the accession of Martin of Sicily to the combined thrones of Aragon and Sicily. Therefore whenever I post as Aragon I also post as Sicily. Anyway I don't want to start a war so if you could kindly stop infringing on Aragon's rights as a sovereign state that would be great. Also I'd like to point out that Sicily is culturally closer to Aragon at this point in time as Sicily and Italy have always had their differences due to Sicilian isolation and ancient Greek influence over Sicily. tl;dr Sicily and Aragon have been one nation for nearly half a century and I don't want a war.

17:01, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

No, you post this and kill ur king Martin of Aragon in 1402:

§    <span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;">Aragon expands military and infrastructure. Martin of Aragon dies and he is succeeded by his son Martin of Sicily. Sicily and Aragon are now in personal union. Martin II announces that he will be succeeded by whatever monarch of Navarre, since he does not have a successor. This resolves the succession crisis. Aragon continues to influence the islands of Corsica and Sardinia, now having established proper control over half of each island. <span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;">Aragon also expands north into unorganized Basque territory.

 § <span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;border:1ptnonewindowtext;padding:0cm;">(*Hang on. How can Martin of Aragon just fall down dead? In the real life timeline he didn't die until 1409? And he died while at Sardinia. Additionally, he has a heir, Peter, as he didn't die because the game starts at beginning of 1400 right?  <span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;border:1ptnonewindowtext;padding:0cm;">ASB?*) 

§   '<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;border:1ptnonewindowtext;padding:0cm;">Well, this is not OTL. He could have very well have died in 1402. ''<span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;border:1ptnonewindowtext;padding:0cm;">Still, Martin has a successor. '''

§    '''<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;border:1ptnonewindowtext;padding:0cm;">Fun fact, Aragon is now ruled by the King of Sicily. Scraw has eliminated himself from the game! '''

§    '''<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;border:1ptnonewindowtext;padding:0cm;">Well, he can stay, but he is going to have to share his monarchy with DatStar. '''

And then in 1407:

This is Sicily's post in 1411:
 * Aragon and Navarre expand military. Sardinia is fully stabilized. Expansion into Libya continues. Economic influence over Carthage continues to expand. Trade arrangements are signed with the leader of Carthage. The navy begins to be improved. I have found a way to resolve my whole succession nonsense with Sicily. So, here's how it'll work. Peter is currently nine (ten?) years old. His regent will be Charles III of Navarre. Once he comes of age (15), he will become the king of Sicily and Charles of Navarre and Aragon. Sicily will just be Sicily and Aragon will cease claiming Sicily. May God damn European succession problems and other users messing your shit up to hell. That is all.

So is no way that Aragon rule over Sicily, and in the year of 1417 DatStar stop posting, so i start the vassalization of Sicily that same year, and im doing that for 33 years, i belive is fair the mods let me complete the process. Quashi (talk) 20:14, March 23, 2014 (UTC)
 * Sicily expands its naval forces. Due to the cultural differences with Aragon, it is decided to re-split the two nations after the heir comes of age. However, Sicily would like to maintain close relations with Aragon.

Taken out of context much? Dynastic union is the key word here. Now again, I don't want to fight you and I don't think you want a war either, so I think it's best if both of us let it go and recognize Sicily as a nation independent of both our nations. It seems like a fair compromise since neither of us will control it.

20:21, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

The dynastic unions do not mean much, for example, in a few turns I'll be in dynastic union with Castile, that does not mean s that it if I stop posting he will control my country. I certainly do not want to fight you, as well as you either want to fight me. In fact I recognize Sicily as an independent nation and that is why I am turning it into my vassal. Certainly none of the 2 controls the island, but I've already invested 34 turns in the process of vassalage, and if there is no response from the mods I will complete on turn 35. Quashi (talk) 04:19, March 24, 2014 (UTC)

It really is the key word, because the Houses of Évreux (the one who rules your nation) and Barcelona (the one that rules Sicily) are completely different royal houses.what you have with Sicily is not a dynastic union neither here or in China.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 07:02, March 24, 2014 (UTC)

lol. It is somesort of political union rather than dynastic as both nations were essentially ruled by one before dividing. so yeah, Quashi should be able to vassalize Sicily if sicily's last player post (by himself) is 15 turns or more before current turn and if he shows no apparent sign of returning. Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk)

Expansion
How does one go about expanding in to an area marked as dark grey on the map? Is an algorithm needed and if not, what are the rules for how much can be taken per year?Ozymandias2 (talk) 20:43, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

I too would like the answer to this. I've been arbitrarily expanding into these regions, hoping for a mod response but get nothing. Ishmal1103 (talk) 02:56, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

Impeachment of Scan as a Disaster Mod
Note: this is only an impeachment of Scan as the Disaster Mod, not as a mod in general or a mapmaker, and will result if successful in the election of a new Disaster mod.

For

 * ugh...."<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. "

Against

 * Fed (talk) 18:02, March 24, 2014 (UTC)
 * Banner_of_the_Holy_Roman_Emperor_with_haloes_(1400-1806).svgLabarum.jpgCrimsonAssassin- gib clay 19:24, March 24, 2014 (UTC)
 * Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 22:08, March 24, 2014 (UTC)
 * Cour *talk* PMII_Mayan_Flag.pngCaborr_Flag.png 23:58, March 24, 2014 (UTC)

Abstain
(meaning you forfiet your right to vote)

For

 * Kunarian TALK 09:40, March 24, 2014 (UTC)
 * --Yank 19:06, March 24, 2014 (UTC)
 * I am that guy (talk) 23:26, March 24, 2014 (UTC)
 * Flag of the Hurian Federation.pngorius: "I don't need a slogan" 00:24, March 25, 2014 (UTC)
 * SwankyJ (talk) 00:54, March 25, 2014 (UTC)
 * Ishmal1103 (talk) 01:17, March 25, 2014 (UTC)
 * TheNoseKnight (talk) 01:17, March 25, 2014 (UTC)
 * 23:34, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

Against

 * I make a stand... alone [[Image:1.png|23px]]Imp (Say Hi?!) 12:50, March 26, 2014 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Flag of Russian Alaska (HR).svg |40px|link=User talk:Octivian Marius]] <font color=Purple face="Algerian">OCT MARIUS, HAIL HIM [[Image: Flag of Italy (Federalist Italy).svg|40px|User talk:Octavian Marius]]
 * 00:46, March 27, 2014 (UTC) Scand, Collie, and MS seem to be doing the most work from what I can see. (No offence to others, who I am sure are doing stuff also!) Let Scand Stay!!!

Abstain
(meaning you forfeit your right to vote)


 * Eiplec - ಠ_ಠ (talk) 23:25, March 24, 2014 (UTC) (Please, stop impeaching people before you talk to them so you can understand the reasons why they make events. You cannot just impeach without even hearing their reasons.)
 * Macedon_Shield.png<font color="#29AB87">Bow To Your Sensei. <font color="#002366">BOW TO YOUR SENSEI!!! Rome_Shield.png ^^^

Discuss
I support this impeachment of Scan as a Disaster Mod because currently the Disasters he creates are of low quality, ignore the actions of players and are rarely followed up.

The most recent of course and the last straw for me, being the ridiculous mod event claiming that Venice would almost be bankrupt, even after years of stock piling gold, costing all its expenses and not claiming to be spending money willynilly. This has been repealed but only with much protest.

Apparently it was because I had too many vassals and the mod event was supposed to get me to merge them. The mere idea that a player could work out from a bankruptcy event that a mod felt they had too many vassals is the height of delusion.

And the idea that all vassals must be merged when and as mods see fit is a worse delusion. Many players keep vassals because they see it as implausible or without reason that the vassal would or should merge with their main nation. As Venice I keep my vassals because they are still very much seperate cultures and have no need or want to merge with culturally different vassals or with my central nation.

Apparently other nations being targeted for disasters are nations like tibet, apparently for overexpansion, despite the fact that tibet has not expanded since the game began. Mods and players have even said that Scan seems to take pleasure in collapsing nations left, right and centre which is a terrible characteristic for a Disaster Mod.

Concerning events that were never followed up, the recent events in Italy and Albania are examples.

In Italy a plague hit the capital and another major city and apparently caused internal strife with the possibilities of a civil war, this event is extreme and you would think the Italian player was in for it, but then Italy did nothing they simply copy-pasted their turn. Then there was no follow up event, apparently Italy's economy was okay, poltical tension died down in a year and nothing came of anything. What a wasted event and what a waste of players time responding.

In Albania a rebel leader emerged wishing to create an independent Albania. Italy, Venice and the Ottomans all hold Albanian land, an interesting piece of history looked to be starting. Italy did nothing. Venice tried to offer an alliance and assist them in return for Venetian lands being untouched and an alliance. The Ottomans fought them and offered to transder difficult rebels to Venetian lands. One turn passed, no response to either players actions, two turns passed, no response, three, no response. The only outcome of it was that in the recent war, Venice and the Romans wanted to create an indepedent Albania.

These two events fall under the responsibility of the Disaster Mod in my opinion, yet they were not followed up at all. Players are at the mercy of the Disaster Mod, yet the Disaster Mod won't let them try and deal with their disasters instead they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

A good Disaster Mod should read players posts, not just look at the map and attack the players that have the most lands or the most widespread lands. A good Disaster Mod should research the players nation and posts and not create disasters that are illogical and are unavoidable for players. A good Disaster Mod works with players to create interesting history and not against them to try and grind their nation down. A good Disaster Mod responds to a players actions to avoid Disaster rather than just carrying on anyways.

TL;DR: read the bold parts.

So I implore you to vote for, so that we can elect a Disaster Mod to bette PM3. Kunarian TALK 09:40, March 24, 2014 (UTC)

Well about the italian plague, the mod was ignoring that Naples is not the capital now, and there is no logical reason for civil war for a plague, and i did something about that btw. About the albanian rebel, if is not a treath to my vassal i dont see why i have to do something. But i agree that some mod event are ignorign tha actions of players, i already talk about this on chat, but noone respond me. Quashi (talk) 17:45, March 24, 2014 (UTC)

In Italy's case most events didn't make it through. For example, at one point there was an event saying that in Italy a man claiming to be Jesus (if I remember correctly) rises up in Naples and starts a religion that leads to the collapse of Italy into civil war. Mscoree (talk) 18:00, March 24, 2014 (UTC)

Apparently Fed and Crim see nothing wrong with Scan constantly flinging punishment events with no rhyme or reason other than apparently pure spite.--Yank 22:02, March 24, 2014 (UTC)

What even led you down that train of thought? CrimsonAssassin- gib clay 22:07, March 24, 2014 (UTC)

Well, for most of his events have a reason, and tend to accomplish a purpose (Either forcing a player to do something that he should've done such as unifying his empire (Happened to me last game) and or punishing him). I don't really see a reason for his impeachment as Disaster mod although i do recognize that as mods (All of us) Should try to see the players history throughout the game before coming and doing "X nation breaks away from Y nation because of Z reason". Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 22:08, March 24, 2014 (UTC)

If Scan is impeached, who would take his place? Just wondering. <font color="#29AB87">Bow To Your Sensei. <font color="#002366">BOW TO YOUR SENSEI!!!


 * Someone will and if no-one puts themselves forwards then I will. I at least read other peoples turns and believe in everything that I've said in the first post. Kunarian TALK 09:18, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

While I am relatively new to this game, I'd like to explain why I'm saying yes for the impeachment. I feel as some of the disaster events I've seen are a little unevenly distributed among civilizations in a given region of the world. Not only that, but I feel some events have been a little offbeat of what is either the history of a given nation or the current affairs. Example: There was a mod event where an outpost of mine that I never controlled was attacked by natives. I feel disaster mods should spend the time reading into the strong points of a civ in order to add disasters in a more apropriate way. I encourage everyone who votes on this to post an explanation as to why they voted the way they did so this can be a little more instructive to Scan to help him better serve this wiki. I also would be interested in who would take Scan's place. While it is likely he won't be impeached, I hope Scan takes this as a wake up call to adjust how he constructs his events. Ishmal1103 (talk) 01:47, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

The event with the plague in Naples was not followed up because he dealt with it. Yes most was copy and paste but he mentioned that aid was sent to the plagued areas. On the topic of Albania it was not my doing. Any mod can create events, I concentrate on the disasters and natural catastrophes that occur. In this time period the majority of info we do have is of OTL European disasters which is why I've held off some of the floods and famines so as to not disadvantage the European nations... If I was acting with pure spite I'd be targetting specific nations without reason. The majority of my events have hurt, numerous nations INCLUDING my own. And Kun, you need to settle down a bit, you have too large a network of vassals, OTL Venice was peaing in power at the time on the Italian Peninsula and consolidating, you've flung into the Western Mediterranean Sea, a domain Venice never had any real stake in OTL, with large chunks of coastal Morocco. Scandinator (talk) 05:49, March 26, 2014 (UTC)


 * Wait, so he can solve civil war tensions and population issues by saying he sent aid but other nations just get continuously hammered into the ground despite giving more elaborate and holistic solutions? That just stinks of bad management of events and poor consistancy.


 * Those nations are vassals for a reason, and Venice can easily maintain them as such. And Morocco? Venice traded there constantly, you may not have the understanding but Venice OTL actually did trade all the way up to England and all along Morocco too and had a vested stake across the continent and Med. And "peaing power"? Venice fought off a coalition of several of the most powerful nations in Europe OTL. Venice is a power although maybe a minor power, it may not have the numbers of other empires but it has the money and a navy that is practically unchallengable.


 * Venice only started downhill OTL because of the Ottomans, if not for them it would have held all of its Greek territories into the Napolionic Era and would've had no challenge to trade and no block to trade in the east. And Napoleon was the real reason Venice disappeared off the map, not "a large network of vassals" or "financial difficulties".


 * In fact do you even know how vassals work? clearly not if you think that they lose you money. Vassals maintain their own nation AND pay homage in some manner to a leige nation. Some nations demand tithes from their vassals, Venice in ATL does not, it instead simply provides governance, protection and trade. Vassals are revenues not expenses, unless they are hard to hold. Unlike most empires it is not extorting its vassals and so they are very content. But back to finances, I know you may not understand but I don't lose money over my vassals (as I said earlier if anything they are a revenue), occasionally Venice sends support in one form or another to them but nothing that isn't funded within a year by taxes or tariffs.


 * Also you and other mods need to get your act together and realise that vassals are perfectly fine, at least for now. In OTL nations didn't superunify until the 1800s when nationalism kicked in. I expect the mods, who are very enthralled by OTL this time round in the PM series, to follow this. Vassals at the moment represent nations that are independent but submissive and at this time cultures and national borders are being formed for the modern era to make clear.


 * And two last further points, OTL Venice gets a load more vassals than I have now, so please don't try that again, I would understand if the vassals were vastly more populous than the Republic, but they're not. And further please don't try and pretend that a stupid event about financial difficulties will mean anything to a player concerning their vassals. Like I've pointed out, vassals are a revenue not an expense (unless you're fighting wars over them constantly like Venice OTL).


 * Just more reasons why I think we need a new look at mod management of events. Kunarian TALK 09:32, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

The fact still stands that vassal nations contribute to the algorithm and a flood of vassals can win in almost any algorithm. HENCE, the attempt to limit the number of vassals. I'm not as dumb as I look, I STUDY history at university. I KNOW that Venice had trading interests in England and Holland. But they never maintained territory on the Western side of the Med Sea. I understand that Venice is the second most populous city in Europe at the time and an economic powerhouse but in the interests of the game and following plausability with the algorithm there is a limit on the number of vassals. Its not definite but there is a limit. Scandinator (talk) 11:29, March 26, 2014 (UTC)


 * Scan. Good to know you study something at university, to be honest that means very little here. Now on the matter of vassals, the recent UNC-Austrian war proves that what you say about vassals is just plain wrong.


 * And it doesn't matter whether Venice maintained territory on the western side of the med OTL, this is ATL, you'd do well to remember that. What matters is whether I can maintain it, there aren't that many Moroccans in my territory, probably 250,000 less than and even less considering I'm slaving them. Venice can outmuscle them and out gun them, combined with Epirus that can happen doubly so. At best, Morocco falls in line once the forts there are finished. At worst, Morocco continues to rebel and ends up making Venetian Morocco even less populated but more secure because I can move Venetians and other loyalists to the Republic in to colonise it.


 * Now concerning your limit, I'd expect you to have learned by now not to try and be arbitrary. If one person has 20 vassals, but they each have 20,000 population while their main nation has 4,000,000. Then they can maintain those vassals. Now when it comes to the 1800s - you know that period I mean after all you study history at uni! - then those vassals will have to be absorbed or they will form their own independent states. But right now? no.


 * Please learn from your mistakes. Kunarian TALK 12:35, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

Economy Stats
Seeming as my chances of staying are very touch and go, I thought I'd share some stats on the world economy I've been compiling. These are rough estimates, however I was working towards more and more accuracy in the population and therefore the GDP total. So some of these might be overestimates, take it with a pinch of salt.

Forgive me if I haven't done your nation yet.

Largest Economies by GDP (the ones I have done):


 * 1) France - 44,494,545 Ducats
 * 2) Castile - 24,894,545 Ducats
 * 3) Albion - 16,896,969 Ducats
 * 4) Netherlands - 12,315,454 Ducats
 * 5) Austria - 9,924,848 Ducats

End of list. Kunarian TALK 16:01, March 24, 2014 (UTC)

What is GDP? Quashi (talk) 17:45, March 24, 2014 (UTC)

GDP is Gross Domestic Product, a way of measuring the size of an economy. It's the sum of all goods, services and finance within a country in one year. Ozymandias2 (talk) 18:18, March 24, 2014 (UTC)

Pskov Republic. my estimates for Pskov's GDP land in the area of 1 500 000 - 3 000 000 Zolotniks minimum.(or if you are so inclined, 2 250 000 - 4 500 000 Ducats). Let me explain these Estimates. By modern estimates, Russian GDP per capita (former soviet union) was 500 1990 International Dollars...which were ≈ 1000$/oz of gold...so 1/2 oz of gold or ≈ 3 Zolotniks(1 troy oz ≈ 30 grams, 1 zolotnik ≈ 5 grams, so 0.5 troy oz ≈ 3 zolotniks)...so...applying that to the population of pskov, about 200 000  by the most generous estimates, makes by lowest maximum GDP 600 000 Zolotniks or 900 000 Ducats if you are so inclined... Considering that Pskov was one of the centers of Trade of russia, I would put that at 2-4x the GDP of "USSR" at the time(and these are being generous), so...1 200 000- 2 400 000 Zolotniks or 1 800 000 - 3 600 000 Ducats if you are so inclined. Pskov is trade republic, and was the center of Russian handicraft and one of the most important trade nodes with the west, with well-developed fishing, farming, blacksmithing, jewler's art, construction and other industries...being small this gives this that advantage, and the fact that there were no real large feudal landowners, unlike in the rest of rus, the Pskovians could have more oportunity for all of the population to contribute more than the average russian...since none of them are serfs(comparitively). Considering the fact that these numbers are closer to the 1500 CE populationwise and GDP percapita wise, and the low rate of change, I would put these as my most conservative estimates. now let's put another additional small bonus for all the economic work i put in throuhgout these 50 years and the fact that Pskov is the center of the Renaissance in Russia, and the new Russian Currency that is centered in pskov...and additional 25%...so...multiply both numbers by that and you get 1.5 million for the lowest limit and 3 million for the upper limit... so... a 3 million zolotnik or 4.5 million ducat GDP for pskov is not too unreasonable considering the circumstances.

Alright, that was quite something, I did this all in quite a rush so please,  anyone who can, pull out flaws in my logic and mathematics and show me where I might be worng...then again, venice's GDP is probably a bit higher than this...not too much hopefuly, but still a bit higher...although who am I kidding I dont know at all what Venice's GDP would be like...-Lx (leave me a message) 19:20, March 24, 2014 (UTC)


 * A quick estimate puts Veneto alone (not all of the Venetian Republic) at a GDP of 2,848,484 Ducats. I'll work on this more if I'm still around. Kunarian TALK 19:42, March 24, 2014 (UTC)

Yay I'm the one with the most lol for now Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk)



Treaty of Adrianople Negotiations (1452)
With the war against the Ottomans turning in a slight pro-Christian advantage, I feel it would now be best that we turn to the peace treaty ending the war. The algo claims that the Christians win by 13%, and Sine has told me that such territory is comparable to the size of the entire Latin Empire as depicted in this map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LatinEmpire.png. As such, I think we can begin making offers and counteroffers.

Roman Terms

 * Macedonia, Thrace, and Thessaly will be transfered to Roman military control.
 * Serbia shall be freed of Ottoman vassalage and be under Hungarian influence.
 * An independent Albania will be formed under the de jure soveriengty of the Roman Empire, but the Empire will do little in its governance.
 * All parties in this war will agree to a non-aggression pact for the next twenty years.

Georgian Terms

 * The Sultanate of Erzincan and the lands of the Black Sheep Turks shall be ceded to Georgia.
 * The Ottoman Empire will recognize the lands of the White Sheep Turks as a Georgian interest zone, and will not interfere with Georgian efforts to secure this area.
 * Georgia will repatriate all Turkish residents of these lands to the Ottoman Empire at its own expense.
 * In addition to a non-aggression pact, Georgia will sign a defensive alliance with the Ottoman Empire valid against any non-Christian aggressor for the next twenty years.

Rumanian Terms

 * Bulgaria shall become an independent nation under the jurisdiction of Rumania.

I am willing to negotiate, as I understand that the whole of Bulgaria is beyond the 13%.Stephanus rex (talk) 03:34, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

Venetian Terms

 * The Ottoman Empire shall cede all the isles of the Aegean they currently hold to Venice.
 * The Ottoman Empire shall relinquish Arta from its influence and shall recognise Arta as belonging to the Venetian sphere of influence.
 * All parties in this war will agree to a non-aggression pact for the next twenty years, protected by the other signatories.

My terms aren't harsh. I think both can be complied with.

Roman Treaty Proposal
I have spoken to another unbiased mod (Crim) and he claims that the land ceded does correspond to roughly 13% of Ottoman territory. In addition, the chance for the Christian Coalition has yet to be added and should be taken into account. Let the second round of debating begin. "<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 19:24, March 25, 2014 (UTC)
 * The Ottoman Empire will cede Thrace and the M-shaped land mass up to and including Thessalonica in Macedonia to the Roman Empire.
 * The Ottoman Empire will cede a small section of territory adjacent to Thessaly and Macedonia to be an independent homeland for the Albanian people.
 * The Ottoman Empire will cede its Aegean islands to Venice.
 * The Ottoman Empire will cede a small strip of Bulgarian coastline down to Varna to Romania.
 * The Ottoman Empire will cease all obligations with the nation of Arta in Greece.
 * All nations involved in this war will agree to a two decade long non-aggression treaty enforcable by the other powers signing this treaty.

I support this treaty. Kunarian TALK 20:50, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

Georgia will support this treaty. TankOfMidgets (talk) 22:51, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

Seems reasonable enough. I'm assuming this means that Serbia, Bulgaria, the Black Sheeps, and Erzincan remain with me? ChrisL123 (talk) 23:54, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

Radu I will sign this treaty Stephanus rex (talk) 01:32, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

Anything not mentioned in the treaty remains under the control of their respective owners, yes. I shall make a map to detail these changes.

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 23:57, March 25, 2014 (UTC)



First map proposal has been drawn.

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 00:15, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

So, uhm, according to Imp and Guns, the algo has been finished and actually results in a Christian takeover of 31%. As skeptical as I am, should I begin drafting new terms? "<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 21:01, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

Well if the 31% is valid then a new treaty will be needed. Stephanus rex (talk) 21:20, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

Hungarian Treaty Proposal


So yeah.
 * All the things in the map will occur:
 * Hungary will gain Serbia and additional lands to the south
 * Rumania will gain a portion of Bulgaria
 * Venice will gain islands which they desire
 * Rome will gain Greek lands which they desire.
 * An independent Albania will be formed due to their valiant efforts.

Plus we have around 300-400px spare.

Imp

I think the Albania is a bit too big for my liking, but other than that.

The pixels can be put to us on other stuff in Europe or what not.

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 21:58, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

Imp lets wipe out that wierd gap between Bulgaia and Serbia, it looks strange Stephanus rex (talk) 22:01, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

So smaller Albania? Well, for the gap to be removed, out southwardly territories would also have to be traded to cover the cap. Imp (Say Hi?!) 23:04, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

ok then nevermind, lets just divide the extra, or just give Chris a break Stephanus rex (talk) 23:15, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

I'm working on an editted version of Imp's map to divide the extra 300px. Place territorial requests on my page.Stephanus rex (talk) 00:01, March 27, 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine not going beyond my current gain of the islands if the Epirote claim to Arta is recognised and supported by all the signatories. Kunarian TALK 00:41, March 27, 2014 (UTC)


 * This was mainly directed at Georgia and Hungary. Stephanus rex (talk) 00:43, March 27, 2014 (UTC)

Just a note that the Christians added a *1.25 advantage even though they have two vassals as leaders. So it's so far only 22%; however, the Ottomans have not yet had their chance score, so. ChrisL123 (talk) 00:53, March 27, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry - forgot my war penalties for Armenia and Assyria. They've now been added, which (by the current algorithm, which includes Rex and runs for 4 years instead of 2), gives a 25% Christian victory, with Ottoman chance still on the table.

At this point, Georgia declines to make any territorial claims. As far as I'm concerned, the war ended in 1452. I'll approve whatever the final treaty is as long as I don't lose land I actually own. TankOfMidgets (talk) 03:49, March 27, 2014 (UTC)

Rumanian Proposal

 * An independent Albania will be created in the same fashion as the Hungarian proposal
 * Rumania will gain a lesser portion of Bulgaria (south-western area remaining Ottoman)PMIII_Ottoman_War_(1450)-modded.png
 * Hungary will gain Serbia without the southern expansion.
 * Rome will gain Thrace and Thessaly
 * Venice gains Islands of the Agean

Discussion
I propose that we don't make the maps detailing such changes until we have a conclusive idea set in stone and agreed upon first.

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 00:04, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that idea. And of course MP and I have our island transfer, which is more of an under the table deal. Mscoree (talk) 00:10, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

Not really a deal with the Ottomans, but yes, there is that. It would not be represented here, though.

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 00:14, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

I assume the Serbia I receive will be the enlargened one as we talked about MP? :L Imp (Say Hi?!) 00:30, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

That's the plan, Imp.

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 00:32, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

I'll add my terms tomorrow, I wasn't aware that this wasn't nullified by the mods. Kunarian TALK 00:47, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

...If the land that will be taken is (at the moment) 13%, comparable to the size of the Latin Empire, and I give up all that 13%-area territory, why in the world would I also be expected to give up Albania, Serbia, Erzincan, the Black Sheep Turks, and (basically) the White Sheep Turks? I very much doubt that is equivalent to a 13% loss. ChrisL123 (talk) 02:05, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

Yes, these terms are for 33%+. They're wayyy out of order. I say, until further changes, Chris just chooses the terms he'd rather prefer until the 13% deadline is accomplished. Fed (talk) 02:13, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

I say Chris chooses the terms of the treaty he'd prefer and do them one by one until it reaches 13%. Fed (talk) 02:12, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

I am not saying that the states released would be part of the 13%. But if we took the land that comprises the Latin Empire in the picture, I very much doubt that he would be able to control the lands beyond like Albania or Serbia. They are simply an aftereffect of the war.

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 02:14, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

Then I'm saying that Albania and Serbia would be breakaways caused because of the war, and would count in the 13%. I'm sorry, but it's abusing the results taking more than what is strictly fit, especially with a small victory, such as this one. Fed (talk) 02:19, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

Fed - I was under the impression that these were our starting offers, and that they'd be pared downward as negotiations proceeded, not a hard-and-fast "these are the conditions we're imposing on you" kind of deal. Chris - I'd also like to point out that 1) as the White Sheep Turks aren't your vassal at this point, I'm not counting them as 'controlled' until I fight another war against them to subjugate them, nor am I counting them as part of your territory; 2) with the exception of western Erzincan, I'm basically asking for sparsely populated land that your vassals wouldn't have allowed you to sell so that I can settle my Copts; 3) I'm willing to compromise on specific borders, indemnities, etc. TankOfMidgets (talk) 02:58, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

I've made my proposals, sorry this has been a load of madness chris as a result I'm not going to demand much really. Although I will make it aware to my allies, the terms I have made are within the scope of this war. Kunarian TALK 09:28, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

My math may be wrong, but it appears that after 3 years the coalition would take 67% of the Ottoman Empire. Stephanus rex (talk) 14:36, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is your mistake.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 15:26, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

"...down to varna..." does this include Varna, or just stop at the city? Stephanus rex (talk) 23:35, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

What are we doing?
I know I sort of showed up late to the party, so to speak, but I am interested in making at least some land gains, notably either Mardin or Dulkadir, or if possible both. Further, I'd like it if the treaty recognizes Ramazan and Tekke as mine, as well as securing the rights to Karaman back to me.

Thanks, 08:40, March 27, 2014 (UTC)

Venetian Treaty Proposal
I want a more balanced and holistic treaty. I find that at the moment my points are being disregarded and certain players are being favoured over others. In favour of created a balanced treaty.

Territory divisions shall be done on a basis so that all nations gain as equally as possible rather than one gaining massively without consideration for others. Please note I will make a map for this, so when I make a point on cecession wait until I show the map to comment.

Additionally in return for the recognition of influence and other clauses, a minor amount of territory we could gain shall be forgone as a sign of good faith.

Also I would like people to sign this if they agree to it, as the war leader I want this treaty over now, today, before the next map.

The biggest gainers are probably the Romans, followed closely by Georgia, Rumania and Hungary. Venice, Epirus and Mashriq benefit more from the recognition of their claims rather than land. Therefore this treaty serves all the interests of the main participants, rather than a select few.

Treaty of Adrianople:


 * Concerning territory


 * Albania shall be freed from Ottoman rule under the protection of the Romans
 * Thrace will be ceded to the Roman Empire
 * The lands of the Black Sheep Turks shall be ceded to Georgia
 * Bulgaria shall be ceded to become an independent nation under the protection of Rumania
 * The Aegean Islands shall be ceded to the Venetian Repubic
 * Serbia shall be released from vassalage and come under the protection of Hungary
 * Ramazan shall be recognised as belonging to the Mashriq Sultanate
 * Concerning influence


 * All signatories shall recognise the lands of the White Sheep Turks as within the Georgian sphere
 * All signatories shall recognise the lands of Arta as within the Epirote sphere
 * All signatories shall recognise the lands of Karaman as within the Mashriq sphere
 * Concerning other agreements


 * All main nations shall sign a non-aggression pact to last for a period of twenty years, enforcable by the other signatories of this treaty
 * The Ottomans must not levy tariffs or other taxes on trade on any Roman, Venetian, Georgian, Hungarian, Rumanian or Mashriq vessels or merchants for the period of the non-aggression pact
 * This non-aggression pact may be broken to enforce sections of the treaty if they are violated

Signatories:


 * Venetian and Epirote Republics - Kunarian TALK 10:12, March 27, 2014 (UTC)
 * Roman Empire -
 * Georgia -
 * Rumania -
 * Hungary -
 * Mashriq Sultanate -

There. Kunarian TALK 10:12, March 27, 2014 (UTC)

UNC (Attacker)

 * Location: 21


 * Denmark: 20
 * Sweden: 20
 * Norway: 20
 * Lubeck: 25
 * Holstein: 25
 * Bremen: 25
 * Jochid Ulus: 15
 * Tactical Advantage: 3 (attacker, excellently connected capital)
 * Nations: Sweden (L), Denmark (L), Norway (L), Jochid Ulus (L), Bremen (LV), Holstein (LV), Schleswig (LV), Lubeck(LV), = 28 => 0
 * Military Development: 112~0


 * Denmark: 14
 * Sweden: 14
 * Norway: 14
 * Lubeck: 14
 * Holstein: 14
 * Schleswig: 14
 * Bremen: 14
 * Jochid Ulus: 14
 * Economic Development: 112~0+3 = 3


 * Denmark: 14
 * Sweden: 14
 * Norway: 14
 * Lubeck: 14
 * Schleswig: 14
 * Holstein: 14
 * Bremen: 14
 * Jochid Ulus: 14
 * Expansion: -2
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 10 (Political Hegemony, Govt Support)
 * Chance: 5

Total: 54
 * Edit count: 5535
 * UTC:  8:48 = 20
 * Total: 5535/20* (3.14159265359) = 869.4537....
 * Nation Age: 0 (UNC, Bremen, Jochids all over 25 years, under 300)
 * Population:7
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: -1 per vassal: -3

Novgorod (Defender)

 * Location: 25 (NOV)+20(PRU)+25 (PSK)+15 (HAB)+20 (LUX)+20 (BRA)+15 (BOH)+15 (MOR)+20 (TRI), +20 (HAM) = 19.5 ~ 20
 * Tactical Advantage: 1 (well connected capital)
 * Nations: Novgorod (L), Prussia(L), Pskov(L), Austria (L), Luxembourg (L), Brandenburg (L), Bohemia (L), Moravia (L), Trier (L),, Hamburg (L), Moscow (L), Bavaria (M)= 48/28 = 2
 * Military Development: 172/112=2


 * Novgorod: 0
 * Austria: 16
 * Prussia: 16
 * Luxembourg: 16
 * Brandenburg: 16
 * Bohemia: 16
 * Moravia: 16
 * Trier:16
 * Hamburg: 16
 * Pskov: 6
 * Moscow: 30
 * Economic Development: 138/112=1


 * Novgorod: 0
 * Austria: 14
 * Prussia: 14
 * Luxembourg: 14
 * Brandenburg: 14
 * Bohemia: 14
 * Moravia: 14
 * Trier:14
 * Hamburg: 14
 * Pskov: 12
 * Expansion: -5
 * Infrastructure: 5
 * Motive: 11 (defending heartland+support)
 * Chance: 4

Total:  46
 * Edit count: 565
 * UTC: 8:48 = 20
 * Total: 565/20* (3.14159265359) = 88.74999
 * Nation Age: -1 (according to Ms because laziness)
 * Population: 8
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: -12
 * Vassals and Puppets: -1 per vassal: 0

Result

 * ((51/(46+51))*2)-1 = 5.1%
 * (8.5)*(1-1/(2*6)) = 4.87%
 * War lasts for 6 years, then UNC can annex 4.87% of Prussia, Brandenburg, Novgorod, and assorted.


 * ((54/(46+54))*2)-1 = 8%
 * (8)*(1-1/(2*6)) = 7.33%
 * War lasts for 6 years, then UNC can annex 7.33% of Prussia, Brandenburg, Novgorod, and assorted.

Discussion
This algorithm is awfully done. I'm calling lockdown. Fed (talk) 01:37, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I want a ruling from unbiased mods (not you, Ms); would vassals supporting the head nation through (MV) still have the nation get a *1.25 modifier, even if they are more than half of the nations per side of war? Because if they do, it needs to be rectified; that just worsens the problem with vassals, which IIRC we put in place so that vassalspamming like what the Caliphate did wouldn't happen again. Fed (talk) 02:02, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

Every war and algorithm thus far has followed the unofficial rule that the 1.25 is only removed if the vassals are L, including algorithms approved and reviewed by the moderators. Keep in mind that we only get four points from nations per side, so this isn't really worth it Fed. We should probably be a bit more clear in the rules about this to avoid this confusion. Mscoree (talk) 02:12, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

The fact that every war and algorithm so far has done it (and I doubt it has) is irrelevant - even if they all have, this is wildly out of order, given that that's how the Caliphate worked (two-four L nations and then a tonne of MV ones). Furthermore, the "nations per side" section is irrelevant; the fact is, you get 108 with your perception of the rules (because of *1.25) and 38 or so with mine (because it would lead to no *1.25 and a -22). That's a HUGE difference that must be rectified. Indeed, we should be a "bit more clear", and do the algos like it is stated in the rules:

"Vassals and Puppets

-1 for every vassal involved

-3 for every puppet involved

x1.25 if only your main nation is fighting"

- Principia Moderni III Rules

Note it says  involved , not leading.

Fed (talk) 02:16, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

Yes but you can't start enforcing this rule just now all of a sudden. If anything we should clarify the rule then decide to follow it from now on, because before this it was definitely only for L. Mscoree (talk) 02:23, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

"you start enforcing this rule just now all of a sudden".

So, what is the alternative? Overlooking an error in an algorithm that makes a 70-point difference for another 50 turns? The rules (and the reasoning behind the placing of that rule IIRC) both indicate to enforcing it towards MVs as well, so I'm making an inquiry.

Note, before you started an argument, I was requesting unbiased moderators to review this. I am not trying to enforce an inpopular opinion; I'm just trying to straighten things out. I believe that it is a pretty clear abuse to only remove such a giant moderator for Ls, which are generally few, but leave heaps and heaps and heaps of MVs left unpunished.

Which reminds me, I believed personal unions acted like vassals in algorithms (algorithmi??)? Fed (talk) 02:29, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I don't mean to start an argument. Just wanted to say my half of the story (notice the copyedit I made btw). As for personal unions they aren't treated as vassals. At least they never have before, even in your algorithm against Moscow for example, in which Poland, Lithuania, and the states of the UNC were counted as independent. But who knows, everything I thought I previously knew about the algorithm is being thrown out the window (Lol). Mscoree (talk) 02:39, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea why there is even a dispute about this vassals thing. Wow. Regarding motive, it should be 7+7+7+10 (three hegemonies plus a fight against annexation). CrimsonAssassin- gib clay 02:44, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

The personal union thing is also just a guess. I know it's never been used before, and it might be a bias showing through, but it's only to make sure. Fed (talk) 03:42, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

For motive we had it with only the lead nation's motive. If you want we can add one for everyone on our side. I will fix that soon. Mscoree (talk) 10:32, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

Your locations also need to be averaged. CrimsonAssassin- gib clay 10:50, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

That's only for coalition wars if I'm not mistaken. Mscoree (talk) 14:08, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

I have a feeling that this will end up a 4+year war on deciding algos...get ready for the long haul guys...also, why is Sweeden, Norway, and Denmark counted as individual nations, aren't they constituents of the "united Norse crown"...so should each of the USSR republics be counted separately? they have one military, they should have one score...just seems a bit odd...seeing as the UNC posts were posted as "UNC" and not Denmark, sweeden, or norway: "the UNC declares war" "The UNC works on xyz"...-Lx (leave me a message) 14:30, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

I love how you only complain about that sort of things when it is the UNC against Russia. Every other time, it's okay.

Austria doesn't do individual turns either, so if Denmark and Norway are to be remove, so is to be removed your vassalspamming. Brandenburg, Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia and almost every nation in the Austrian war in the war is only mentioned twice; sign-up and template.

I'd also like to add that, even without the -1 vassal penalty, no x1.25 modifier should occur either, given that the rules say 'x1.25 if only your main nation is fighting'. No mention of vassals, so personal union should also be the case. Fed (talk) 16:02, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I agree then, remove the vassals of Austria Unless vassals state something on the main page, they might as well be NPCs. The UNC acted as a United Nation and Sweeden Denamark etc as provinces, so this should be reflected in the Algo.-Lx (leave me a message) 16:22, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

The difference between the UNC and Austria is that the nations in union with me are independent from my main nation. You can't find their posts because the game was recently archived and because I recently have been pretty busy and unable to make a full turn. If you view some of my older ones you'll see that they have separate turns. Mscoree (talk) 17:48, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

Prussia hasn't expanded its economy at all in the last 15 years. CrimsonAssassin- gib clay 20:27, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

Sweden, Norway and Denmark are in real union within the UNC; sure, they're quite integrated, but given that the Danes have the right to delay an integration process, that must imply that the UNC is, at the very least, a loose federation with near-independent realms, which amounts to the algorithm.

Separate turns have not occurred since the last archive, more specifically since before the start of the Ottoman war.

Also, can I please get neutral mod ruling?? Fed (talk) 20:40, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

I forgot, can somebody explain to me how is it that the Ulus is farther from the war than Austria, given that it has a border with the nation being invaded and Austria is in the opposite end of eastern Europe???? Fed (talk) 20:43, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

Can Guns into algo?

20:44, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

Please do. Mscoree (talk) 20:46, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

Just to add that, in fact, since 1440 there's been two Brandenburg posts, so the mil and econ scores together shouldn't be over 10 at very most.

And the attacker reason modifiers are lacking. Fed (talk)

As I said before I have been too busy to make separate turns for all my subject nations, but I stated in all turns that I upgrade military and economy of all subject nations. Mscoree (talk) 20:57, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

Fixed something on our side, with permission from Guns. Mscoree (talk) 21:09, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

A note to whoever is fixing this algorithm. It has been claimed that we don't get the x1.25 bonus, even though we don't have any vassals involved, because some of the nations are in personal union. Despite this it is quite clear that this was not the way of doing things until this very algorithm. If you look at algorithms made and/or involving Guns and Fed, namely the invasion of Muscovy and the Norse Wars, it's quite clear that they applied the bonus to themselves, so we should be allowed to do so here as well. Even still, if the rule is to be changed, that should take affect after this, not in the middle of the algorithm making, in which it benefits one side. Mscoree (talk) 22:30, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

None of that is true. It was applied in a SINGLE war, the first war on Muscovy- but in that case, it was made by Rex, and there was a disussion later deciding to leave it because it had already been done before. We decided that in the clusterf*ck of an algo that I initially left over.

What's more, what you're saying here is because people have been murdered in the past, it should be done. Umm, no. That's not a valid argument.

You don't get the *1.25 bonus because, and the rules are quite clear on this, MORE than just the player nations are fighting.

Besides, according to what you're arguing, Crim should get his bonus too. Either give it to both or give it to no one (as the rules clearly state) but you cannot just say that it applies to yourself and no one else.

I say we leave this algo untouched until a neutral mod, like MP, Collie, or Scan, shows up.

22:38, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Guns' algo for his attack on me included the bonus.

http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Principia_Moderni_III/Archive_2#UNC_war_of_reclaimation

I am that guy (talk) 22:46, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

Guns it's in a bunch of algorithms, including yours against Guy. And yes, if their side has no vassals then it applies to them too. The problem is you can't say that it applied to you in the past, but you realized just now that it was apparently illegal and apply it to us. If this is indeed illegal you must apply it at a later date for fairness. Mscoree (talk) 22:49, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

That was the algo I was referring to when I said "We decided that in the clusterf*ck of an algo that I initially left over." In any case, you had the bonus there too, but it was there that we agreed to fix that going forward.

Ms. Your side has more than the main nations (ie, more than the player nations). Crim's side has more than the main nations. Either give him the bonus too or actually follow the rules and, dammit, get rid of the bonus.

Excuse me? I want to point out that you have cited two algos so far, one of which was not done by me, and the other of which included an agreement which said that this rule violation would be allowed there and never again.

So, frankly, Ms, I advise that you admit that you lost. 4.5% isn't that much.

And finally, I resent the implication that I'm anything but a neutral mediator here. I like Yank, but note that I did not favor him. I've had friction with Fed, but note that I did not push the algo against him. Stop with your incessant ad hominem- now you're just getting insulting, and you don't help your cause.

23:04, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

I didn't have a single ad hominem attack there, and I agree we should wait for a neutral moderator. Mscoree (talk) 23:09, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

As soon as a wrong rule is noticed, it must be fixed. Are you seriously saying that, 'for the sake of fairness', we should be unfair and wait until an algorithm that doesn't hurt Ms and Co. comes around? How is that more fair than solving it immediately? Since you lose without the algo, and win with it, you want it to be fixed. That is completely and absolutely biased and unfair. I'm not unbiased, but I believe we must all agree Ms' reasons are for a selfish purpose, rather than actual 'fairness'.

We can see this is the case, given that he removed his vassals immediately after Guns ruled they indeed would lower his score. Guys, it is crystal clear that the rule that says a multiplier is only applied when there is only one nation in your side would not apply if you add in five personal unions and twenty vassals... but when I pointed this out I was called biased, constantly insulted by Yank and shut up with constant repetition about how the subtitle's heading says "vassals". Fed (talk) 23:11, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

You know what? I apologize for all my insults. All I want is this war to be over. --Yank 23:12, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

^ Exactly. Let's just wait for a neutral moderator- MP, Scan, or Collie- and let them resolve this.

And Ms... you're entire argument was "GUNZ CHEETZ GUNZ LYEZ KILL EBUL GUNZ!!"

23:18, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

The point is, Guns, when it was brought up you never made a case for it removal. Why not fight it in the past, then fight it now when you have nothing to lose? The answer is just that: you have nothing to lose at the moment. Also, I would like to point out that, while you were in control of the UNC and Crims subsequent rule, measures were made to centralize it, including the formation of a grand council. So are they are less independent and more autonomous regions within another country, subordinate to a central government. And by the way, Bavaria has sent military aid.

I am that guy (talk) 23:24, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

Guns I don't believe I said any of that. Also as for this rule, why don't we make a compromise? It's clear that one side wants it because it benefits them, and another side doesn't, because that benefits them. Could we find a way to be in between? What if we only added half the normal bonus? Although I'd still like to hear the official ruling. Mscoree (talk) 23:28, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

There is no mention of Sweeden, Norway, Denmark, Holstein, Lubeck, and Schleswig in the context of independant nations. Those nations never posted, therfore they should not be in the algo, the UNC should be in the algo, not the provinces, you cant invent numbers for nations that did not point. Period.-Lx (leave me a message) 23:31, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

Those are nations in, rather than a single nation. We've gone over this before. Much like Ms' different dynastic union, they are mentioned as a whole when their movements are synchronised, but that does not imply they are the same nation. Fed (talk)

Nations under real union are united, it means, even if they are not de jure one nation, the de facto situation is that they are one nation, and are treated as such internationaly. If it were in the context of the game, and IMperial Russia were to Invade a nation, you would count it as the "Russian Empire", not "Russia, Finland, and Poland" It was all one nation, and more importantly, shared a military and an economy. Same with Austrio-Hungary, its "austro-hungary" not Austria and Hungary, same with later Poland-Lithuania after they United. They were considered a single Nation. They were, for all intents and purposes, a single nation, and should be considered as such. Poland and Finland were de facto at least semi-autonamous regions of the Russian Empire, and Austria and HUngary...well they were de facto one nation to begin with, and Poland-Lithuania. They are drawn on maps as one nation, they were repersented internationaly as one nation, and they always acted as one nation, For all intents and purposes the UNC and all aformentioed are one nation. The UNC is a united nation, and if it is, as you claim, a nation in "real union", then the UNC acts as one, shares institutions, and, as I assume, a military and economy. There is one UNC military, the UNC is one nation, not five, Period.-Lx (leave me a message) 00:11, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I believe it is Crim's right to determine how his nation is organised, not yours. Or I can just say that it's implausible for you to be playing because Pskov was a de jure vassal of the Golden Horde, and thus I should be playing it. Also, Poland and Lithuania did march separately in more than one case after Commonwealth. Fed (talk) 00:14, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

Of course he had that right, his posts were reflective of the fact that Sweden, Norway, and Denmark acting as though they were provinces, with Denmark having mroe autonamy, there was one UNC military dev post, he should not get 10 points for it, but 2. And those are the only ones mentioned, he does't even pay any  mind to Holstein and the bunch, and then pulls them out of nowhere. Sweden Norway and Denmark were treated as provinces, and the UNC military treated as one, while Holstein, Lubeck and Schleswig were treated as though they did not exist, and this should be reflected in the Algorithm.-Lx (leave me a message) 00:59, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

Clairification: If Crim had treated them as independant(i.e. seperate posts for ALL of them), and treated each nation independantly, and noted where each had a seperate military and whatnot, and orgonized them seperately instead of United as the UNC), then he would have the full right to post them as separate in the Algo, but seeing as though he treated them as one, there should only be one entry, as one UNC exists, made of various provinces. Also, Pskov is not de jure vassal of the Golden Horde, since Pskov BRoke off of Novgorod, which is arguably the only rus nation independant from the Golden Horde...and I god independance from an independant nation...so by transitive property of non-vassalhood, I am not the Horde's vassal.-Lx (leave me a message) 01:09, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

These states, especially at this time in history, walk a thin line. For example, Austria is counted as one nation, that is very clear, but if I was really specific I could try to count Austria separately as the Albertinian Line's Lower Austria and the Leopoldinian Line's Duchies of Styria, Carinthia and Carniola, the County of Tyrol and Further Austria. Obviously that would be ridiculous, so it's all a matter of finding the balance. It would be my judgement that the UNC should be one state, but given the circumstances I see it fair to count them as they say, for the sake of compromise. Again, for this case I say count the UNC as you wish, before we descend into further arguement. Mscoree (talk) 02:18, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

The UNC is three nations in real union, with de jure independence, right now. When, after the war, the UNC begins its transition into Scandinavia, they shall become a single centralised state. Also, I can say the same thing; I count the Jochid Ulus as a single nation, but I could actually call them the White and Blue hordes, as well as Volga Bulgaria, as three independent nations. It's a thin line, so what about we stop complaining. Fed (talk) 03:02, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

I noticed an error in the algorithm. Novgorod upgraded infrastructure every turn, but I think it was accidently counted as 5. For infrastructure I should have 15, while military and economy both zero. Military and economy for our side become 172/112=1.5 and 138/112=1. Do I have permission to edit the algorithm, or can authorized personnel fix this? Thanks, <span style="background-color:silver; border:4px ridge grey; -webkit-border-radius:2em 0em 0em 0em; padding-left:8px; padding-right:0px;"> ... <span style="background:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(red), to(aqua));border:6px outset yellow; -webkit-border-radius:0em 0em 0em 0em;"> <span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 2px yellow, 0 0 1em #0FF, 0 0 0.2em #0FF; color: white; font: 1.8em Cambria, serif; text-align: center; font-variant: small-caps;">Razor  <span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 2px yellow, 0 0 1em #0FF, 0 0 0.2em #0FF; color: white; font: 1.8em Cambria, serif; text-align: center; font-variant: small-caps;"> -  <span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 2px yellow, 0 0 1em #0FF, 0 0 0.2em #0FF; color: white; font: 1.4em Cambria, serif; text-align: center; font-variant: small-caps;">the Razor    14:11, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

Honestly i think Unions for the sake of the game need to count these nations as vassals cause the nation leading the union for the most part treats the lesser partner like a vassal in most instances of the situation. -Feud

Here's my reasoning:

Therefore, the personal union leader has his nations declare war as independent states (even though they have the same leader, they're still separate), while the vassals have no choice and are drawn in as they're client states.
 * 1) We all know personal unions involve one person leading two nations.
 * 2) Vassal states, I hope we all also know, involves the leader of that nation (not necessarily the nation itself) being subservient to the larger power.
 * 3) When war is declared, the leader of one nation does so for one state, then (if he's in a personal union with another) declares war as the head-of-state of that other nation.
 * 4) When a vassal declares war, it is because they are being forced to by their liege nation (see aforementioned subservience).

I am that guy (talk) 18:29, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

UNC (Attacker)

 * Location: 18


 * Denmark: 20
 * Sweden: 20
 * Norway: 20
 * Lubeck: 20
 * Holstein: 20
 * Scleswig: 20
 * Bremen: 15
 * Jochid Ulus: 15
 * Tactical Advantage: 3 (attacker, excellently connected capital)
 * Nations: Sweden (L), Denmark (L)(dispute), Norway (L)(dispute), Jochid Ulus (L), Bremen ( L MV)[not used], Holstein ( L MV)[not used], Schleswig (L MV) [ not used], Lubeck( L MV) [ not used ], = 24 (16)[8]=> 0
 * Military Development: (56) /182 < 1 = 0 OR 28/182 < 1 = 0


 * Denmark: 14(involvement disputed)
 * Sweden: 14
 * Norway: 14(Involvement disputed)


 * Lubeck: 14 These are vassals, we decided during the caliphate that vassals can't be leaders.
 * Schleswig: 14 These are vassals, we decided during the caliphate that vassals can't be leaders.
 * Holstein: 14 These are vassals, we decided during the caliphate that vassals can't be leaders.
 * Bremen: 14 These a re vassals, we decided during the caliphate that vassals can't be leaders.
 * Jochid Ulus: 14
 * Economic Development: (56+3) / 148 < 1 = 0 OR (28+3)/148 < 1 = 0


 * Denmark: 14(involvement disputed)
 * Sweden: 14
 * Norway: 14(Involvement disputed)
 * Lubeck: 14 These are vassals, we decided during the caliphate that vassals can't be leaders.


 * Schleswig: 14 These are vassals, we decided during the caliphate that vassals can't be leaders.


 * Holstein: 14 These are vassals, we decided during the caliphate that vassals can't be leaders.
 * Bremen: 14 These are vassals, we decided during the caliphate that vassals can't be leaders.
 * Jochid Ulus: 14
 * Expansion:  -2  colonial type expansion does not count
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive:   10  7+4=11 (Political Hegemony, Nondem Support)
 * Chance: 5

Total: 18+3-2+11+5+8+10-4[0] = 51[55*1.25=68.75≈67]
 * Edit count: 5535
 * UTC:  8:48 = 20
 * Total: 5535/20* (3.14159265359) = 869.4537....
 * Nation Age: 0 (UNC, Bremen, Jochids all over 25 years, under 300)
 * Population:7(8)
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: -1 per vassal: -4 [0]

Novgorod (Defender)

 * Location: 25 (NOV)+20(PRU)+25 (PSK)+15 (HAB)+20 (LUX)+20 (BRA)+15 (BOH)+15 (MOR)+20 (TRI), +20 (HAM) = 19.5 ~ 20
 * Tactical Advantage:  1  2 (capital on border region)
 * Nations: Novgorod (L), Prussia(L), Pskov(L), Austria (L), Luxembourg (L), Brandenburg (L), Bohemia (L), Moravia (L), Trier (L),, Hamburg (L), Moscow (L) = 46/24(16)[8] =  3  1.91≈2 (2.875≈3)[5.75≈6]
 * Military Development: 184  164/56(28) =  1  2.7796≈3 (5.85≈6)


 * Novgorod: 0
 * Austria: 16
 * Prussia: 16
 * Luxembourg: 16
 * Brandenburg: 16
 * Bohemia: 16
 * Moravia: 16
 * Trier:16
 * Hamburg: 16
 * Pskov: 6
 * Moscow: 30
 * Economic Development: 148  124/59(31) =  1  2.101≈2(4)


 * Novgorod: 0
 * Austria: 14
 * Prussia: 14
 * Luxembourg: 14
 * Brandenburg: 14
 * Bohemia: 14
 * Moravia: 14
 * Trier:14
 * Hamburg: 14
 * Pskov: 12
 * Expansion:  -5  Colonial type expansion does not count
 * Infrastructure: 15
 * Motive:  11  8+5=13(defending heartland+democratic support )
 * Chance: 4

Total:  20+2+2(3)[6]+3(6)+2(4)-5+15+13+4-1+10-12 = 58(62)[66] * 1.25 =≈73(≈78)[≈83]
 * Edit count: 565
 * UTC: 8:48 = 20
 * Total: 565/20* (3.14159265359) = 88.74999
 * Nation Age: -1 (according to Ms because laziness) (To be revised)
 * Population: 8 + 2(larger population) = 10
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: -12
 * Vassals and Puppets: -1 per vassal: 0

hopefuly I outlined all that is needed, in is the score if UNC is counted as one country, in [] if vassals decide not to participate.-Lx (leave me a message) 15:14, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

Please note wrong things, because I am almost 100% sure I screwed up somewhere...-Lx (leave me a message) 15:15, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

who said im supproting im not in this war, the only allies im supporting are the romans, im not part of the novogrod war take my name off please. With Blood and Iron (talk) 18:55, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

With permission I'd like to remove NK's name. Mscoree (talk) 19:03, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

Several wrong things:

Basically, all your changes either directly contravene the rules, directly contravene history, or directly contravene mathematics.
 * We agreed no such thing about vassals, and it says no such thing in the rules. What was agreed after the Caliphate were stringent limits on the number of vassals.
 * You do not get democratic support in any way. Novgorod is a REPUBLIC- NOT a democracy- and all the other nations are monarchies.
 * There are no colonies yet, and that is NOT colonial support.
 * I wish to fault your addition and division on the various development scores.
 * There is no reason why the PU of Norway, Denmark, and Sweden would possibly be doubted.
 * You do not have a larger population than the UNC and the Jochid Ulus in any way shape or form. Russia's total population at this time- counting several states that are not at war here- was around 3.5 million. The UNC alone was 3.25 million at this time- and adding the 1.5 million for the Jochid Ulus- well...

With love,  20:47, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

Now that the issues have been dealt with, can we just move on here? Russia lost by 5%. It's really not that much. Live with it.

20:48, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

i removed the netherlands from the algo because i never said i supported it at all plus unc is one of my allies. With Blood and Iron (talk) 21:25, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

If the fact that the "vassals" of Austria can be proven as PUs as well, then the 1.25 thing would apply as well, I think.

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 21:52, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

@guns

So yes, I believe my changes are more than justified, so can we please discuss?-Lx (leave me a message) 22:47, March 26, 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes we did, we agreed vassals can NOT fight as leaders in a war, only Independant nations can, it has been like that for as long as I can remember in ALL THREE Principia Modernis. Vassals can't fight as leaders because, as vassals, they are not leaders, but subservient to another nation...the most they can do is provide military support
 * 2) The Motive is based on the Lead Nation(in the defender's case, Novgorod).In fact, Republic is a form of Representative Democracy, and the name "republic" is simply and anglificaiton of Novgorod's system of governance, where a the veche, an assembly composed of citizens of the Novgorod Lands, would assemble in the city of Novgorod and decide upon electing officials, enacting new laws, and appointing the next prince, or impeaching him if he is not to their liking, that is in all senses of the word, a Democracy.
 * 3) Colonial expansion, by that I mean expansion that is on the scale of colonial expansion, and since colonial expansion does not count towards the algorithm, neither should expansion that fits within the area into black zones bordering the main nation...simple logic.
 * 4) Show me where the fault in Addition and division is, I admit that I very well may have made a mistake, but show me the mistake, dont just say its there.
 * 5) The UNC acts as a single, unified nation, is represented internationaly as a single unified nation, acts militarily as a single unified nation, does diplomacy as a single unified nation, sets economic policy as a single unified nation, the nations of the UNC are in Real union and are de facto a single unfied nation, and are treated as such by Crim, and should be treated as such in the algorithm. As a sidenote, the nations of BRemen, Lubeck, and the rest of his vassals have not been mentioned once in his posts, and he decides to bring them up with scores of 14 in each category, esentialy making ONE of his posts worht SIX of the posts of anyone else. So yes, under that logic I do believ he should be treated as one nation
 * 6) Russia's population at the time was more like 6 million, and the Population of Germany is emesely more dense, so yes, I do believe that not only do we have a population greater than the UNC and the Jochid Ulus, we have more because of population density.

The 1.25 bonus is in order is no vassals were used please add it.

I believe this war is now officially final. We've had a bunch of neutral moderators and players confirm this most previous version, so please let us just leave it as it is. At this point we ought to just end this constant arguing and move on. Mscoree ( talk ) 00:45, March 27, 2014 (UTC)

We explained several times that you guys don't get the bonus. You don't get to remove vassals just because they're inconvenient. CrimsonAssassin- gib clay 03:38, March 27, 2014 (UTC)

Crim, neutral mods (feud and mp) have weighed in and also believe the bonus should be allowed, Feud himself was the one who added it. I am that guy (talk) 03:41, March 27, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah im rescinding that. im no longer inclined to have that on here as i misunderstood the situation. The Bonus should not be allowed.

What situation? And we still have conflicting neutral mods, Feud (it appears) and mp.

I am that guy (talk) 03:52, March 27, 2014 (UTC)

And I would like to point out that this still doesn't include Bavarias military aid, or Hesses deceleration of war. I am that guy (talk) 04:35, March 27, 2014 (UTC)

Feud rescinded his statements regarding the bonus. Still need MP's input to confirm. I actually talked with Blocky; Hesse didn't declare war. They're moving in to prevent violence. They don't want Hamburg taking it, but they aren't necessarily fighting for my side. Bavaria's aid, however, will be added. Sorry for not seeing that. CrimsonAssassin- gib clay 17:20, March 27, 2014 (UTC)

Lx, Love,  22:35, March 27, 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) We agreed no such thing. Please point it out.
 * 2) A republic and a democracy are two extremely different things, and I recommend you read the wikipedia page on each, because frankly, you clearly have no clue at all. North Korea is a Republic, for instance- not just "officially" but actually. It is NOT a democracy, however.
 * 3) There are 3 types of expansion: Colonial, military, and "other". This falls into "other".
 * 4) How about the fact that despite barely differing from the sections on the algo, your results are widely different?
 * 5) Umm- have you even read mine, and later Crim's posts? Totally false. Just because the UNC has only a single post, for the umpteenth time, DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT'S A SINGLE NATION.
 * Wow, Lx. Do some research, please? I can quote 7 sources, including wikipedia. 3.5 million. And since none of these German states- save Prussia- have more than a few hundred thou each- the populations are about equal. BTW, i was wrong about the Jochid Ulus- their population would be in the range of 2.5-3 million.

@Guns
 * 1) Vassals are, by definition, NOT leaders, they are subservient to another nation...and therefore fall under the command of that nation and therefore can not be leaders in a war, by simple definition...
 * 2) Alright, then no nation in the ENTIRE PLANET is democratic, they are all republics, therefore nobody will EVER get the democratic support bonus...but no, I believe "democratic" in the case of the war algorithm refers to a system of governance where the people have either direct or indirect(republic) control over the laws being enacted, which the people of Novgorod do. And Just a note, North Korea may be de jure a republican democracy, but is de facto(or as you put it "actualy") a hereditary dictatorship...also known as unofficial absolute monarchy...
 * 3) So far, I have seen Colonial expansion, and non-colonial, and technicaly when Russia was expanding into Siberia they were colonizing it, and Novgorod is colonizing Karelia and the Kola, so Colonial expansion
 * 4) Just have somebody check the math and get back to me on that... I admited I may have screwed up, can you please show me what I did wrong and not just say "you're wrong everywhere"
 * 5) The UNC acted as one nation, and Crim treated them as regions or provinces, the UNC works on this, the king visits these places, the UNC sends diplomats the UNC declares war, he was treating them as one nation, not as separate entities
 * 6) look ,I am basing my thing on the fact that Russia had either 6.6 million either before or after the giant famine in the 1600s that killed 2/3 of the populaiton...(this was LX)

(MOD) Vote of Finality
I'm opening this vote to see whether we can get this horrible horrible algorithm out of the way already. Fed (talk) 23:07, March 27, 2014 (UTC)

All in Favour

 * Fed (talk)
 * Banner_of_the_Holy_Roman_Emperor_with_haloes_(1400-1806).svg Labarum.jpg CrimsonAssassin- gib clay 23:17, March 27, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
What is this vote even for? Can we just have white peace like MS said? NonEuclidean ツ (Talk) 23:15, March 27, 2014 (UTC)

Not really sure why a personal union rule would apply to the Scandinavians and not the Austrians, if that is indeed the case. Would like to know more about the situation, but it would be good to get this behind us.

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 00:03, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

No, Euc, we cannot.

And MP, what do you mean with that? Fed (talk) 00:08, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

I really want to know what rule has the 1.25 negated by personal unions, and why this rule (provided that it exists) has never been enforced before.

By the way, check this out: http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Principia_Moderni_III/Archive_3#Hamburg-Saxe-Lauenburg_War_.281429-1430.29

In my previous invasion of Saxe-Lauenburg, I put both Hamburg and Brunswick-Lüneburg in as leaders as I was in a personal union at the time. Collie checked it and revised it to correct errors. Notice that he did not cross out that bonus? I am that guy (talk) 01:21, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

I propose that, since there has been a precedent regarding personal unions going to war without vassals, we allow the bonus this time and allow it to be dead.

And since this has been such a divisive issue these past few days, I proposed to Feud we deduct points the more personal union nations are in the algo, a proposition he has accepted and since added.

I am that guy (talk) 02:58, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

For the record, MS' actions with regard to this section, combined with being insulting in general and going against an overall warning I had just given him in the process, has been blocked once again. Lordganon (talk) 15:29, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

Either way, regardless of your agreement to the changes that I proposed, Novgorod is still missing 10 pts in Infrastructure...since they have 0 in military and 0 in economy, because they worked on Infrastructure all the time...anyway, my objections can be summarised in three points, Vassals can' be leaders, UNC is one nation, and Novgorod is missing Infrastructure points.-Lx (leave me a message) 17:39, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

Standards of Vassalization
So I have been trying to get an alliance/trading rights with the Wanka for 2 or 3 turns now, and this is not to complain about mod incativity, that has been done to death. What this is about is how nations like the Ica-Nazca can just say We influence so and so (turn 1 of 4) whitout having any previous ties. So now I'm jumping on the band wagon, because I could be already done infulencing them if I had done it that way from the start. My intial plan was to allign with them, give them aid, trade with them, deepen ties with them, and then work to vassalize them for 4 turns. In all, this probably would have taking 10 turns at least. Instead, I am going to spend four just writing "we influence the Wanka."

I also know the one category a turn rule is to prevent hyper expansion, but it seems to me that encourges players to have mulitple vassal states to work on developing thins for their own nation. Also States that have like 4 vassals and then treat them like they are a state of their own country. And then when "states" begin to break away because there is nothing to make them think staying is worth it. Sorry for the rant, but can someone explain these things? Also, I feel like I read this before... sorry if I am repating what has already been said.What is this????Is this a signature??? (talk) 01:35, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

You love giving me crap for that don't you? SwankyJ (talk) 13:49, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry if it seems that I am picking on you, but you are just the example I have on mind right now. But what I am trying to say is that you are making the vassals equal to you, you are not dominant enough in your own sphere of influence, When you get 4,5,6 vassals/puppets,both in the game and in real life, you run the risk of them rebeling against you, unless you do something to consalidate or inforce your power. You are a less extreme example, as some states have had more vassals than you. The main point of this rant was to complain about how easy it is to Vassalize a nation with no ties to you.What is this????Is this a signature??? (talk) 19:16, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

I Can't Do Anything As Foix
My nation sucks. Ms told me this was a good nation and he lied. Kick ms for his lies to me. I want to be the Tonga in the pacific. - Scarlet

All I said was that Foix was a possible nation, and I was hoping you'd make the best of it. No one would be kicked for telling you available nations. Also if you want an exciting nation, Tonga is probably worse. Mscoree (talk) 23:48, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

"kick ms for his lies to me." OKAY WILL DO!!! Cookiedamage (talk) 00:00, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

You're really going to complain that your nation sucks? Scar, I'm Georgia, for crying out loud; I'm supposed to be dead at this juncture in history. If your nation is too boring, try doing something creative with it. If you need inspiration for "doing something creative," look at Pskov (making its own currency and becoming a surprisingly influential commercial power), the Koryak Confederacy (going from land-bound barbarians to Alaska-settling seafarers), or Oldenburg (playing the sides of the religious schism against each other to try and gain influence in Germany). In your case, try getting into feudal scheming - send emissaries to some of France's many vassals and plot a rebellion, or manuever your dynasty's scions onto the French throne.

If you still can't think of something for your nation to do, then I am very, very sorry for you... and I'd also suggest that you find a form of entertainment that doesn't hinge on your imaginative abilities. TankOfMidgets (talk) 05:15, March 26, 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, i don't have any creativity, but i have been playing in PM since the first game, and i never had to resort to blatant implausibilities.although i would never know what to do with a non-European nation.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 07:09, March 26, 2014 (UTC)


 * Well I can't have a coast, I am land locked. I wanted to attack England but it got crossed out. I asked France if I could buy land he nrever responded to me. This sucks because everytime I do something the mods tell me I can't do it. Thats why I need a new nation. - Scarlet


 * Hate to be that asshole but honestly you should have done some research and you dont really have a causus belli or the ability to leave, play your cards like the other guys were saying. TOM managed to get Georgia from a relatively minor POS nation to one that may be a legitimate competitor over there. -Feud

Considering Resignation
Uni work is piling up and I'm getting sick and tired of the repeated rule breaking, overexpansion and impeachments. I'm seriously considering quitting the game but I do not wish to deprive China of a player. I'm giving it another few weeks but if I can't find my old passion for PM, I might just have to sit this round out. Scandinator (talk) 06:09, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

On a related note. If anyone wants Ming China, feel free to ask. I shall let the person with the most plausible track record and most level-headedness take over should I resign. I shan't leave completely. I'll still watch over the game and maybe add an event or two if the mods let me (Cour, here's your neutral mod). Scandinator (talk) 06:57, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

Scan I would love to take over China for you. Just give me the link in my talk page of the nations page. - Scarlet

Scan if you let Scar be China I will find you and I will... tell you that you've made a horrid mistake. -Sky

I am willing to take the position of Ming China, since I do not have any bias for the nations there, or any personal bias, and will resign as Muscovy. However, before you change the player to me if you decide, let me think about my decision. I really want to learn Chinese history, and this is the best way for me to start through entertainment throughout the game. Toţi în unu; Nihil Sine Deo

If Lx agrees I will switch to the Ming Dynasty, and Lx will play as the Grand Duchy of Moscow. Another reason why I am switching is because I have had enough with the Golden Horde attacking me and my allies, and others calling me an "MScovite" due to my affiliation with the user Mscoree. Toţi în unu; Nihil Sine Deo

After much consideration I don't think I will switch nations. Toţi în unu; Nihil Sine Deo

Blatant Rule Breaking and Harassment of the Mods
As of Right now there are a few people in this game i wont throw names out, that are causing a huge headache to all the mods and Particularly Scan. I realize were mods but we are trying to have fun here as well and y'alls constant bickering and ridiculousness is really killing it for alot of us. While i admit theres some mod fault but im making this post to fix many of these issues.

Algo: The Current algo is Defender Biased which in this point could have some backwater like Tunis Beat france which i highly doubt could have happened. Regardless of this The Algo is being looked at for fixing since i brought it up and seemed to get a relatively majority consensus on the fact it needs to be fixed. That being said, for everyone worried about vivempires or Implausophates me and Sine will be looking into wars particularly for plausibility and any nation attempting a kind of Caliphate typed deal will be treated as a unique SINGULAR nation not a collection.

Expansion: For everyone complaining about expansion rules etc etc, the Expansion rules apply to everyone and were trying to reel this in to get the game back on track. Everyone complained about Scans events which considering im a victim of one of them, i believe they are well within reason and warranted. These events are made to break up or nerf states which have risen much too quickly and need some sort of instability or knockdown in order to prevent huge super empire in areas before everyone fairly has a chance. Like in the Expamples of the North and Central American states, while there to be a nice new speedbump for colonization, they are not there to prevent it entirely and their expansion reaching the heights of the US settling the west isnt plausible whatsoever. However allowing this in general is relatively our fault to begin with.

Along with this the 5000 km expansion rule (which i believe equates to about 100 px) is if your nation is under the best of circumstances, has not been in a recent war, has not had a civil war, and has not had huge unrest, self created or otherwise. In my Personal Opinion Civil war = 0 expansion for at least 5 to 10 years following. Civil unrest and moderate Revolt = 5 years with reduced expansion to 500-1000 km unless its particularly weak, or bloody in which case it would be 6 or 7 years of lower or no expansion whatsoever. This in General solves alot of the overexpansion issues weve been having as the Mamlukes (or whatever their name is now i can never remember it) expansion not even 2 years post civil rebellion, which i believe isnt exactly the most plausible deal.

Events: The Events that come about in this game are around for a reason. Many of these events are voted on in a majority consensus or are mostly agreed upon so you cant say they are unfair except in the case of certain events ignoring what a player has been doing for quite a significant period as is the Case with Venice and its bankruptcy. In that expample i think a better event might have been some lead up towards Bankruptcy which encourages Venice to release some vassals as allies or scale back her military and trade presence, something Kun could effectively combat and fix quite easily.

That being said, you guys need to stop complaining events, you all complain about plausibility but as soon as we do something to your nation you complain, whine, etc etc. This is unacceptable and in certain cases it has even led to heated issues going to LG's page, or the TSPTF and has led to multiple attempts at impeachment of various mods some of which have followed guidelines, some of which havent. Considering Two of this games biggest players, Me and Scan have both had relatively damaging events, Scan with a bloody 15 years famine, and Castile losing Granada for a bit due to civil war you cant say were not unfair. Stop complaining when your nation is targeted by a mod event. If you do decide to complain be mature about it, going and yelling BULLSHIT on an event does nothing other than make every mod think "wow why should i listen to the guy whos yelling and being immature." If a mod event goes after you for whatever issue and it has been fixed previously or does no longer apply than contest it civily. The current behaviour of people dealing with mod events geared towards their nation is UNACCEPTABLE. This uncivil and absolutely ridiculous behaviour will no longer be tolerated and will be enforced with a 1-3 day ban for this, so for the love of god please be mature when contesting events.

Harassment: My biggest problem with this game seems to be the huge attitude that Mods are forever at your service for this game. While yes its our responsibility to fix/upkeep the game and prevent ASB, Getting yelled at every time we try and then getting huge shit fits in chat over it IS NOT OKAY. You all wanted a relatively decent and plausible game and were fixing it to deal with that but the behaviour particularly towards Scan who is busy and overloaded right now and MS who outside of a few instances is a RELATIVELY GOOD MOD, is unacceptable and is harassing in its nature. So in order to maintain peace and civility in this game please do not harass the mods in this way anymore.

Complaints: From now on lets do complaints about mod events civily under the event instead of Explosions. As for anything else like say an event ignored something you have been doing which makes it redundant, leave it on my Talk Page and ill present it or get it handled. This is to make sure we have a much easier time of handling all this. Thank you all for reading.

These are some excellent points. For events, I for one am always open to suggestions and discussion, and encourage people to seek out explanations for certain events. I look forward to any clairfication or reworking of the rules and the algorithm. Perhaps the moderators can get together sometime on the mod page and get to work on that together. Mscoree (talk) 17:51, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

Me and Sine are already reworking PMII's algo a bit since the motives and a few other certain things needed to be fixed as well as the fact we god Fed's Approval to go ahead and work on it. So leave it to me and Sine i will be doing it later i just have to go finish a few things up with my Lease on an apartment next year

This message sounds like it is directed at me. Mostly because I've made an argument and provided evidence. And I have explained why the following event is implausible. It was a argument that dragged on for too long, dragging multiple people into it. If this whole thing is because of me. I will graciously resign my nation. And stop playing PM3. SwankyJ (talk) 19:41, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

No its not directed at you, its a general assumption and could potentially be somewhat overexaggerated but to some degree the issue is more general than not. Alot of people are generally disrespectful as hell to the mods who have to balance this as well as personal things as well. We get bitched at for the game not being plausible, and then get bitched out when we try to make it plausible. Were damned if we do anything and im trying to fix that issue by bringing civility back into these arguements. The deal some are having is with Kun and others attempting to impeach people left and right over unfair events when honestly this could be handled so much  better and with less hostility. Its getting out of Hand and mods are considering bans for people that act supremely out of line when handling events which deal with their nation. -Feud

I agree with Feud. GQM has spoken.

20:17, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

^^^ I agree with everything, especially the rampant impeachments. Not a month after PMIII began and no less than five mods were impeached because of one cause or some player's unfounded complaints. Cookiedamage (talk) 20:24, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

The Mamluks were in a Civil War? The short answer is no, Feud. 23:12, March 27, 2014 (UTC)

Algo update
Due to the ridiculousness and the ASB its causing the previous algo is being rendered moot and we will be replacing it with a modified PMII algo. due to the issues from the last game the current motive system we have in place will remain and Feudalplague and Sine de Glorium will be personally overseeing the plausibility of wars and the prevention of vivempires and Implausophates. thank you and have a good day

<p style="margin-top:0.4em;margin-bottom:0.5em;">Location

Location goes by capital city.

Tactical Advantage
 * at the location of the war: 5
 * next to the location of the war: 4
 * close to the location of the war: 3
 * far from location of the war: 2
 * other side of the world: 1
 * Antarctica: 0

Defender:

Attacker:
 * No defenses, open field, etc: 1
 * High ground/ambush: 2
 * Tribal Ambush/Unconvential Warfare (Only works for Tribes against higher tiered civilizations): 3
 * Basic earthworks, makeshift defenses, ruins, Rivers: 2
 * Fortifications, Dug in defenses: 3
 * High-security fortress, City walls: 4
 * Multi-Layered/Leveled City Walls: 5

A country receives high ground/ambush if: 1)The battle location, or area where the army in question is located has a high topographic prominence, meaning it is surrounded by areas of significantly lower elevation. Even plateaus count, but it must be so that the enemy has to climb the mountain to capture the location. 2) The defenders are meeting a force invading from the coast. This means in all invasions involving crossing water in boats/ships and meeting an enemy immediately at the beach starts at this level.
 * No defenses, open field, etc: 1
 * High ground/ambush: 2
 * Seige Equipment: 5 (must be explicitly with the army and stated in the post.)

Nations Per Side on the War

Military Development:
 * M for military aid (+3), S for supplies (+2), V for vassalization or subordination (-2) and then W for withdrawal (-1). Along with this nations having more than 2 personal union nations involved in the war will get an additional -2 per union state involved.

Economic
 * Country has developed military: +2 for each turn dedicated to military or military technology in the last 10 years gets you the basic military development score.
 * The military development scores for both sides will be completed, then the larger side will be divided by the smaller one. The result, rounded to the nearest whole number, will be the number of points the higher scoring side gets on the algorithm. The lower scoring side gets none.

Expansion:
 * Country has developed economy: +2 for each turn dedicated improving the economy in the last 10 years.
 * A nation can get economic bonus points for controlling crucial trade routes and locations (NOTE: you must control the entire coastline of the region to obtain the bonuses for the regions) Cities can rise and fall between +1 and +2 on the list but no city will reach +3 :

Motive:
 * Expansion: -1 for every turn used for non-colonial expansion in the past 15 years

If there are multiple motives, the one told to the army will be selected.
 * Economic (Gains land, resources, etc): + 3
 * Defending territory not owned by nation more than 20 years: + 4
 * Defending territory not part of heartland but held for more than 20 years: + 5
 * Taking territory of similar culture but not part of nation: + 5
 * Aiding an Ally: + 5
 * Pre-emptive Strike against a nation rapidly building military forces: + 5
 * Taking back territory recently held by nation but since lost: + 6
 * Aiding Social/Moral/Ideological/Religious Kinsmen who are being oppressed: + 7
 * Attacking to enforce political hegemony: +7
 * Defending Heartland from attack that will not cripple/ destroy nation: + 5
 * Defending Core/heartland from possibly fatal attack + 9
 * Defending from attack that will wipe out nation and culture: + 10 (pre-nuclear era), + 15 (post-nuclear era)
 * Defending from nuclear armed nation that has a motive over 5 and has not yet used their weaponry: + 10
 * Defending from nuclear armed nation, regardless of motive, that has used said weaponry: + 15
 * Modifiers:
 * Non-democratic Government supported by people: + 4
 * Democratic government supported by people: + 5
 * Government not supported by people: - 10
 * WAR not supported by people (democratic) : - 3
 * WAR not supported by people (non-democratic): - 2
 * Troop Morale high (requires motive over 5, chance over 4, and stronger development scores in at least one category): + 5
 * Troop Morale low (any of the above: chance below 1, lower development scores in all categories, recent war penalty over 8): - 5
 * Fighting Guerilla War: -5 attacker, + 1 defender
 * Warning: Negative motive scores are possible!!
 * Lead nation's motive, not average.

Chance

<p style="margin-top:0.4em;margin-bottom:0.5em;">0 to 9 points will be awarded to each person based on chance. Factors will be the opponent's edit count (on Althist's main articles. The main articles' edit count can be found in Edicount Page. and the precise time when the country declares war or acknowledges the other's declaration of war. The product of the non-zero digits of the time by UTC (0:00 yields 1) will be written as a percentage of the opponent's edit count at the exact time of the declaration. The result is multiplied by pi and the hundredths digit is the amount of points that person gets (e.g. 123.8377% yields 3).

For NPCs, the chance will be defined as the thousandth place of z, using the exact same algorithm as the player nation.
 * Edit count=x
 * nonzero digit in time*nonzero digit in time=y
 * x/y*pi=z
 * Chance=Hundredth place of z

NPC Bonus

In every very year that a NPC nation is not at war or expanding, or having a disaster, it will build up one of the three (military, infrastructure and economy). The number of total buildups will be divided into the three categories as evenly as possible, with preference going infrastructure>economy>military. their final score will be divided by two then rounded to the nearest whole.

Ex: If a nation (ex: Moravian Serbia) existed for 11 years, or spent 11 turns not doing anything, this would mean that the infrastructure and the economy were updated in four turns, and the military in three. Dividing all those scores by two, Serbia would receive six points of bonus, two for each department (economy, infrastructure and military).

Special NPC Bonus nations

Some Non Player Countries are stronger than others, usually because these nations used to be part of a powerful empire, hence they are stronger than normal NPCs.

This bonus is worked out like the normal NPC bonus, where in every very year that a NPC nation is not at war or expanding, or having a disaster, it will build up one of the three development areas (military, infrastructure and economy). The number of total buildups will be divided into the three categories as evenly as possible, with preference going infrastructure>economy>military. With their final score will be divided by two then rounded to the nearest whole.However the special NPC bonus doesn't divide by two, so it is just the number of total buildups.

E.g. If a nation existed for 15 years, or spent 15 turns not doing anything, this would mean that the infrastructure, military and the economy were updated in five turns each. The NPC nation would receive fifteen points of bonus, five for each department (economy, infrastructure and military).

Nation Age

<p style="margin-top:0.4em;margin-bottom:0.5em;">Goes by the last major change in the system of government.

Population
 * Newborn nation (less than 5 years since gov change)= -10
 * Young nation (5–25 years since government change) = -5
 * Maturing nation (25–75 years)= +0
 * Mature nation (75–200 years)= +5
 * Old nation (200–300 years)= +0
 * Ancient nation (300–500 years)= -5
 * Antique nation (more than 500 years)= -15

Participation
 * The population score is the number of digits in the population + the additional bonus, which is below:
 * +2 to the larger nation that is less than five times the population of the smaller
 * +10 if the larger nation is between five and ten times the population of the smaller
 * +20 if the larger nation is more than ten times the population

All nations get a +10 on this (Nations as in side, if two nations are participating, such as one sending supplies and military, there is still only a +10 for the side).

Number of Troops


 * Friendly soldiers / Enemy soldiers.
 * Troops must be in a plausible amount for your nation. no troop spamming this will be paid attention too and mods will edit to reflect your nations true troop potential (no armies of 25 milliion guys even if you have the population of china, its just not doable)

Example Algo:

Castile


 * Location: next to the location of the war: 4
 * Tactical Advantage: Seige Equipment: 5
 * Nations Per Side on the War: +4  Castile (L) +5 Aragon (M) +3 Portugal (M) +3 = 11/3 = 3.6 = 4
 * Military Development: +10 20/2 = 10 (10 years of development)
 * Economic: +7 20/3 = 6.67 = 7 (10 years of development)
 * Expansion:  N/A (no expansion)
 * Motive: Total: +11 +7 (hegemony) +4 (non Dem supported)
 * Chance: Chance:4


 * Edit count=95
 * 2*1*5*6=30
 * 95/30*pi=9.94
 * NPC Bonus: N/A
 * Special NPC Bonus nations :N/A
 * Nation Age: Mature nation (75–200 years)= +5
 * Population:Total: +9 +7 (7 million) +2 (to the larger nation that is less than five times the population of the smaller)
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 15,000 / 7000 =2.14 = +2
 * Total: 71

Morocco

Result: Currently Castillan victory. Castille can take ((72/(72+42)*2)-1=26.31% of Granadan territory at most, and can decide how long the war lasts. Castille's player will have the war last 4 years, so they can gain up to (26.31)*(1-1/(2*4))=23.02125 of Granada's territory (neends an update but ive got class)
 * Location: +5
 * Tactical Advantage: High security Fortress City walls +4
 * Nations per side: Morocco :+5 (L) +5/1 = 5
 * Military Development: 4/2 = +0
 * Economy: +0
 * Infrastructure: 5/2 = 2.5 = +3
 * Expansion: -0 (no expansion)
 * Motive: Defending heartland from non fatal attack +5
 * Chance: +5
 * Edit count=335
 * 2*2*1*6=24
 * 335/24*pi=43.8
 * Nation Age: Old nation +5
 * Population: +6
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: -1 (war with Algiers)
 * Troops strength: 7000/15,000 = 0
 * Total: +47

<p style="margin-top:0.4em;margin-bottom:0.5em;">Coalition Algo:

<p style="margin-top:0.4em;margin-bottom:0.5em;">

<p style="margin-top:0.4em;margin-bottom:0.5em;">F or 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 build up, etc.) but because it is a coalition some of the scores for each side are worked out differently than in the usual algorithm.

These differences are that location and nation age scores are done as an average of the coalition e.g. Nation A has a location score of 4 and Nation B has a location score of 2. Thus (4+2)/2 = 3, meaning the location score for the coalition of Nations A and B is 3.

All other scores in the coalition war is a total of each nation's individual score e.g. Nation A has a motive of +5 and Nation B has a +3 motive. Thus the coalition of A & B has a motive of +8. Also strength, military development and economic development scores are still divided by the other side's score for that category. Chance is a single score done using the data from the player that started the war in the first place and the player who they declared war against. Ergo the first players on each side. When it comes to Troop amounts the Leader of the coalition is used for troop amounts. So say the leader of one coalition is France and the defender is England then France and England would divide their troop amounts together for the point total. When it comes to nation involvement the scores for all nations involved are divided highest to lowest. So if the Timurids have 35 for their involvement and the Ottomans have 20 it would be divided 35/20 and rounded to 1 from 1.4

Furthermore if only 1 nation has a bonus (e.g. an industrialization bonus, height bonus, popular revolt bonus, etc.) then it cannot be applied to the entire coalition as all nations in the coalition may not be as industrialized as the other side. You need a Supermajority of 75% to gain these sort of bonuses, e.g. 8 nations of your 10 nation coalition have a popular revolt bonus, meaning the whole coalition gets the bonus.

Another difference is the result of a coalition war: all the nations on each side are 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.

Nations can only leave the coalition war if both sides agree to it, meaning separate peace agreements can be formed between nations in either side. If both sides don't agree to the peace then that nation is still in the war as the other side will still be attacking them.

This algo rewrite is endorsed by Scandinator (talk) who wrote the original.

Well this makes me feel much much better now that Scans behind it haha

Discussion
You forgot to add L to the nations per side (or remove it from the example, if that's what you meant to do). Personally I think L should be kept, as there is a difference between leading a war (the United States during the height of the Vietnam War for example) vs just sending a small force to aid (like some other nations during the Vietnam War allied to the United States, such as New Zealand). For the bonus modifiers I recommend specifying the difference between non-democratic and democratic, so there is no dispute over the legitimacy of a republic. For nation age, I say after the initial curve upward, there shouldn't be a curve downward. I know this is supposed to simulate how a nation tends to decline over time, but it doesn't decline just because of a number on its birth cerificate, it's from a number of factors. it's also very hard for some nations to follow these guidelines. For example, I've heard complains from some in Germany who note that from the 800's to 1800's they basically have no opportunity to change government types in a plausible manner, but despite this, in OTL they continued to prosper for some time. I will look into this more, but if it still exists, any system regarding vassals or subject nations should be clarified. As a general rule make sure we define any and all terms. Thanks, Mscoree (talk) 14:46, March 27, 2014 (UTC)

Ah my bad ill add that thanks for catching that

Ming (Attacker)

 * Location: 18


 * ​Ming: 15
 * Lao Xing: 20
 * Tactical Advantage : 3
 * Nations: Ming (L), Lao Xing (LV), Ayuttahaya (L): 11/4 = 3
 * Military: 12+0+3/3 = 5
 * Economy: 0+12+3/3 +4 = 9
 * Infrastructure: NA
 * Chance: 9


 * Opponent Edit Count: 2343
 * UTC time: 13:41
 * Chance: 2343/12*pi=639.57590439332207346368648211265
 * Expansion: -1
 * Motive: 9 


 * ​Ming: 11
 * Lao Xing: 9
 * Age: 3


 * Ming: 0
 * Lao Xing: 5
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Participation: 10
 * Population: 9+20=29
 * Vassals & Puppets: -1
 * Total =  96

Pegu (Defender)

 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage : 0
 * Nations: Pegu (L): 4/11 = 0
 * Military: 3/15 = 0
 * Economy: 3/15 = 0
 * Infrastructure: 3
 * Chance: 0


 * Opponent Edit Count: 2343
 * UTC time: 13:41
 * Chance: 2343/12*pi=639.57590439332207346368648211265
 * Expansion: -0
 * Motive: 9 - 5 (troop morale low due to chance) - 2 (Sukhotthai Rebels not supporting Pegu's government) = 2
 * Age: 5 (1287)
 * Recent Wars: -0
 * Participation: 10
 * Population: 6
 * Vassals & Puppets: *1.25
 * Total = 46*1.25 =  57.5 

Results

 * ((y/(y+z))*2)-1*(1-1/(2x))
 * ((96/(96+57.5))*2)-1*(1-1/(10))
 * 0.25081433224755700325732899022801*(7/8)
 * 22.573289902280130293159609120521%
 * Ming China seizes 22.57% of Pegu reforming Sukhotthai as a joint vassal of Ayutthaya and Ming China. Pegu will not become another nation's vassal diplomatically.

Discussion
Since when did china have relations with Ayuttahaya? Also is it too late to add Tibet to Pegu's side, I have been trading with Pegu for a few turns and have a trade agreement with them so it's in my interest to keep them around and I just saw this today? <span style="background:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#B8860B), to(#DEB887)); border:4px ridge grey; -webkit-border-radius:0em 0em 0em 0em;"> <span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 2px brown, 0 0 1em #000, 0 0 0.2em #0FF; color: white; font: 1.5em Cambria, serif; text-align: center; font-variant: small-caps;">Jbwncster  <span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 2px brown, 0 0 1em #000, 0 0 0.2em #0FF; color: white; font: 1.0em Cambria, serif; text-align: center; font-variant: small-caps;">(Talk)

Also China just got out of a famine he should still be weak <span style="background:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#B8860B), to(#DEB887)); border:4px ridge grey; -webkit-border-radius:0em 0em 0em 0em;"> <span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 2px brown, 0 0 1em #000, 0 0 0.2em #0FF; color: white; font: 1.5em Cambria, serif; text-align: center; font-variant: small-caps;">Jbwncster   <span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 2px brown, 0 0 1em #000, 0 0 0.2em #0FF; color: white; font: 1.0em Cambria, serif; text-align: center; font-variant: small-caps;">(Talk)

Mamluks and the implausibility of Reximus
rexi has acronic history of implausibility and it is reaching its limit in this game, despite recieving various heads up already he continues to mess around with aceh, and on top of that he now claims it is a semi puppet state, and has a fusion culture ? With Blood and Iron (talk) 17:53, March 27, 2014 (UTC)

The mods have tried to address this with events many times.he is the one who believes that everything he does is perfectly plausible, and shrugs the events off like nothing had happened.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 22:05, March 27, 2014 (UTC)

Ok, its Rex, and not "rexi." Secondly, the Mamluks are a dying soldier class in the Mashriqi Sultanate. I have no idea how that topic involves implausibility. If you are speaking of my nation, it is the Mashriq.

Now, as for Aceh, I do not have much, if any, political control over the state. Yet, the Mashriqi afiliated IAFATM, does have a lionshare of all trade coming out of Aceh towards Europe. The Spice Islands supply Europe with spices, but now my IAFATM has merely made it easier to take on the responsibility of getting supplies to their destination - and making Aceh money in the process.

This gives me some decent political - and great amounts of economic leverage over Aceh. I have never claimed to fuse the culture. That is absurd. I may be spreading my religious reforms, but I am doing that everywhere. 00:31, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

Sedevacantism
isn't a religon it's a belief.

Sedevacantismis the position, held by a minority of Traditionalist Catholics that the present occupant of the papal see is not truly pope and that, for lack of a valid pope, the Episcopal see has been vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958.

We should not be using that term at all in this game as it's not 1958.

Please sign your posts.

'Sedevacantism' literally just means "Vacant See". It's a perfect term for any branch of Christianity (well, mostly Catholicism and the Copts) that believes the current occupant is not the true Pope. Fed (talk) 21:06, March 27, 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Fed.

Yes unnamed whinger, I took the name from the group who has existed OTL since 1958, but since Sede vacante is a latin phrase in use for basically the entire history of the papacy, it's completely plausible that someone could have coined the term Sedevacantism. Furthermore, using the term in this period makes sense. The breakaway church Oldenburg has created is a direct effect of the schisms and multiple papal claimants. I have always said that it is just Catholicism which doesn't recognise any of the papal claimants. The Bishop of Osnabruck is constantly urging the "Catholic World" (Catholic and Western Churches) to elect a new pope for all. Then the Sedevacantists will just rejoin mainstream Catholicism. But until that point, it is a breakaway branch of Catholicism, just like that so-called "Western Church". Callumthered (talk) 00:54, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

Just so you know the main Western Schism ended by 1420 I believe, in which for a short period there was only one pope. Currently there are the few different branches, but they are pretty much all Catholic. I assume when that formally ends you'd attempt to become just Catholic again. Tr0llis (talk) 01:01, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is pretty much exactly what I just said. We will rejoin the mainstream church once the Western and Catholic churches have reconciled their differences (which are basically none bar their separate popes) and have one pope. Callumthered (talk) 01:55, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

Metagaming
Are we going to let scan or any other mod metagame? I have been told by several mods that scan made posts for lots of nations including mine. It has already been a problem with dean making posts in his region. Oh and mods banning each other because they can't get their way is another metagaming offense. <span style="background:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#B8860B), to(#DEB887)); border:4px ridge grey; -webkit-border-radius:0em 0em 0em 0em;"> <span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 2px brown, 0 0 1em #000, 0 0 0.2em #0FF; color: white; font: 1.5em Cambria, serif; text-align: center; font-variant: small-caps;">Jbwncster   <span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 2px brown, 0 0 1em #000, 0 0 0.2em #0FF; color: white; font: 1.0em Cambria, serif; text-align: center; font-variant: small-caps;">(Talk) Im personally handling events now to prevent meta (which includes some minor issues in the Shan states for you but not a total break away) The Issues revolving around Austrias HRE meta and his mass of personal unions etc etc. Events will also not be limited to standard players only and like myself dealing with Granada nations like China, France, and other nations will be given events accordingly. The reason some events have not been posted for certain moderator nations is due to the fact some players cause their own revolutions or revolts in their own nation (such as Albion/England.) So this game is alot less meta than you think and alot of thigns are actually much better than they appear. However due to some playing complaining about events like i said in the previous post i will be handlign the validity of many of these events with research into turns etc etc.

Ms's Ban and a Note
As many of you are probably aware, Ms was banned yesterday due to some very ugly circumstances. Despite what many will likely accuse me of, I banned Ms because he was undoing administrative edits and essentially twerking an algorithm so he would win. Yesterday was a Kobayashi scenario, i.e. unwinnable. I really wish the events of yesterday had not transpired and I lost a fair bit of sleep over it last night. I am heartily sorry for the way things went down throughout this entire week and, should Ms choose to return, I sincerely hope this does not put a dent in our relationship. However, LG has decided to extend Ms’ ban until the end of April.

Obviously, this is going to leave a bit of a hole in our staff and player base. Ms’ nation is very influential and Ms was a pretty proactive moderator. There is currently a discussion regarding this matter on the talk page, but I would also like to ask everyone else what they think should happen in this next month. Let's avoid further arguing and bickering on this matter. CrimsonAssassin- gib clay 17:33, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

Wow. I understand that you were banning him for undoing your edits, and therefore changing the algo in his favor, but to him you were changing the algo in your favor. The situation could have used some better communication, but all he did was undo your edits. Is that really a one month (or however long) ban? If anything ban me, it was all my fault anyway. I'm the one who wanted to have a good result in the algo, and the one who continued the argument. I feel bad because honestly I feel like I am responsible. Ms merely did as he was asked, told to undo all edits, but I'm sure he will stop. Can we please reconsider? NonEuclidean ツ (Talk) 17:50, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

You don't understand. LG banned him for past offenses. It's out of my hands at this point. Also, I reiterate: let's avoid further arguing and bickering on this matter. This is not the place. CrimsonAssassin- gib clay 17:56, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

Well it would seem we either need another proactive mod to take up his baton temporarily or we need to just carry on. I doubt he'll be stopped from contributing to the game anyways, despite the rule against it. He's blocked here but he's not blocked on the Mod page. Kunarian TALK 17:57, March 28, 2014 (UTC)