Talk:Principia Moderni II (Map Game)

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

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

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

Maps
Maps will be updated every 5 years.

Map Issues
''' Please address any map issues here. They will be wiped at the start of each turn the map is updated. '''

It's past 1500, the named maps should be updated.
 * On the 1500 map, why hasn't Japan's expansion into OTL Kamchatka Peninsula (Japan calls it Reiuzi (霊烏路)) included? -Kogasa [[Image:Symbol of Natori, Miyagi.png|23px|border]][[Image:宮城県.png|23px|border]][[Image:Flag of Japan.png|23px|border]] 2012年10月25日 06:35:25 (JST)
 * I dont think I even need to talk about russia agian. this time, can you not ignore my changes to the RF please?-Lx (leave me a message) 21:41, October 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * Montferrat is a Milanese vassal. Bauglir Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All (talk) 23:35, October 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * Baden-Wurttemberg is offically melded into Bavaria.Andr3w777 (talk) 00:06, October 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * East Pomerania is still missing, and Brandenburg own 1/3 of former Prussia, while the rest is Russian. [[Image:IMPERIAL NY-SPQR 1.png|25px]][[Image:Regen Flag.png|30px|border]] Hasta la vista, baby. (I'll be back.) 03:56, October 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Many times I have been saying that the Incas controlled the coast, and also have not taken in mind any of my post, I occupied territory of the Araucanians, approximately to the river Maule OTL, and the northern city states at least half of that territory already in my possession. Remember that by this time the Incas in OTL had already controlled the whole territory. And only in the last years were devoted to control their territories, because the ambition of sucecion the throne. I have no such problems, so should be easier to control all my territories, but must add them to the map, ok? Zetsura (talk) 22:09, October 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * I ain't got the program needed to do it. my attempts on doing on, back in PMI, ended up as a disaster.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 12:07, October 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll do it for the 1510 map. I still have exams and they finish in a week and a half. Collie if you wish I can also take over the mapmaking. I have 4 months of holidays and I need something to keep me occupied. Scandinator (talk) 12:46, October 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay.When you start?--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 15:55, October 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Muscovy, Novgorod, Poland, and all their vassals are part of one nationish thing, and thus should be the same color. And Muscovy has annexed Yaroslavl into itself. It no longer exists.

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


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

Europe

 * Aragon 1505 (mid navy, ok position)
 * Austria 1535 (tiny navy, terrible position)
 * Bavaria
 * Brandenburg 1512 (mid navy, bad position)
 * Burgundy 1509 (mid navy, ok position)
 * Cyprus 1545 (tiny navy and a bad position to boot)
 * Denmark 1504 (large navy, ok position)
 * England 1502 (large navy, good position)
 * Florence 1510 (mid navy, bad position)
 * Georgia (about to get owned)
 * Granada 1507 (small navy, good position)
 * Milan 1520 (vassal navy, bad position)
 * Moscovy 1560 (recently established tiny coastline)
 * Naples 1508 (mid navy, ok position)
 * Novgorod 1525 (mid navy, terrible position)
 * Ottomans 1550 (mid navy, worst ever possible position ever)
 * Papal States 1525 (small navy, bad position)
 * Poland 1515 (mid navy, bad position)
 * Portugal 1499 (large navy, prime position)
 * Saxony
 * Scotland 1506 (small navy, good position)
 * Switzerland
 * Venice 1503 (large navy, good position)

Middle East

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

Asia

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

Other (must wait 30 years before reaching the rest of the globe)

 * Aztec
 * Inca 1530 (poor navy, can colonize Pacific areas)
 * Lakota
 * Maya 1560 (naval tech still terrible, can colonize Atlantic Areas)
 * Zulu 1550 (naval tech still terrible, can colonize Indian and Southern Atlantic Areas)

Discussion

 * And América? aztec, chiche itza, inca? we have navy too Zetsura (talk) 17:31, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * YTour navies are rowboats, sailboats with very small sail, and rowboats. No colonial power there.[[Image:IMPERIAL NY-SPQR 1.png|25px]][[Image:Regen Flag.png|30px|border]] Hasta la vista, baby. (I'll be back.) 18:08, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * im not sure about aztec and mayas, but the incas have ships, and they go to polynesia, acording the spanish cronist in 1460 aprox, the inca Tupac Yupanqui make a trip with 10,000 man to polynesia, and the Kon tiki voyague make in 1960 (in not sure the year) is an expample the this is totally real.Zetsura (talk) 20:51, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * And what about the Zulu?--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 17:56, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Austria can colonize sooner than the Papal States, despite the fact that the States have been improving military on both sides of the peninsula, have been establishing territories through with the encouragement of the navy, while Austria has a tiny sliver of coastal land and would have to go around an entire peninsula to get to the Americas? Other than that, perhaps we should make a sort of algorithm so we have a bit more reliability, not just mod assumptions. ChrisL123 (talk) 18:00, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Anybody have noticed how all complaints until now have started with the letter A?--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 18:01, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Austria, America, Aragon. XD [[Image:IMPERIAL NY-SPQR 1.png|25px]][[Image:Regen Flag.png|30px|border]] Hasta la vista, baby. (I'll be back.) 18:08, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * And Aragon? Isn't Aragon in a good position to colonize Africa as well as in an insanely perfect place to colonize America? [[Image:IMPERIAL NY-SPQR 1.png|25px]][[Image:Regen Flag.png|30px|border]] Hasta la vista, baby. (I'll be back.) 18:08, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Aragon would be in a good position, but Portugal is still the best by far. LurkerLordB (Talk) 18:16, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, but where is Aragon on the list? [[Image:IMPERIAL NY-SPQR 1.png|25px]][[Image:Regen Flag.png|30px|border]] Hasta la vista, baby. (I'll be back.) 18:42, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that it would be somewhere around 1505 and 1510.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 19:54, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyways, I changed the Papal States and Austrians around, because the Austrian position is worse than the Ottomans really, and the Papal states would have a bietter military. On the subject of having an algorithm, that seems a bit hard to make, one of the major factors is location, and that is hard to create any algorithm for. This is making me think that the position of having the first sailor to arrive in the Americas from Europe should be Portugal. Not only are they currently the ones with the earliest possible date, but Collie has had the Portugese to quite a bit of exploring already, more than many other nations with early dates. LurkerLordB (Talk) 18:16, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * I could try to make an algorithm, with all the key factors needed. Just note that tallying the results would probably be like golf, where a lower score means they get to start earlier. Sounds confusing, but hopefully I'll make it work. Stay tuned! ChrisL123 (talk) 19:06, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, but then again, most of the time, i'm just repeating here what the Portuguese explorers actually did during this period of time, and when it come to explorers, Colombo presented his exploration project to Portugal twice.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 19:48, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * well he did but i think you should make that colombus is represented by an rng with all the nations in western europe, the one with the highest score and the best points in the system in here can get being the first in reaching americas, after all i think it should be like in OTL, just a random lucky guy and a random lucky nation like spain Sine dei gloriem (talk) 19:54, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Few European nations are powerful enough to get Columbus to come to them. Moreso there was nothing lucky or random about it in OTL. [[Image:IMPERIAL NY-SPQR 1.png|25px]][[Image:Regen Flag.png|30px|border]] Hasta la vista, baby. (I'll be back.) 19:57, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * i say lucky because as far as every european the world was flat and as it seems to happen in otl colombus was rejected a few times, because no one would pay for something they didn't thought possible such as this travel, and he was lucky enough to have convinced the kings of spain of doing it as far as i know Sine dei gloriem (talk) 20:00, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the first time that Colombo presented his project to Portugal, João II refused it after consulting experts, who told him that the travel distance that Colombo had planned was too low.in the second time, in 1488, he refused because a way to India (arond Africa) had already been discovered.Then, even the Castillian experts also told their monarch, when Colombo presented his proposal there, that the distance planned was too low.However, to keep Colombo from taking his ideas elsewhere, and perhaps to keep their options open, the Catholic Monarchs gave him an annual allowance of 12,000 maravedis and in 1489 furnished him with a letter ordering all cities and towns under their domain to provide him food and lodging at no cost.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 20:07, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought China had a large navy. CrimsonAssassin (talk) 21:42, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * HAD is the crucial word. Thanks to your emperor's idea that naval exploration is a waste of time after Zheng He's voyage, the Chinese navy has suffered to the point where Japanese pirates could shut down most Chinese shipping.Scandinator (talk) 00:59, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * What about the Zulu. We have a coastline and have developed are Navy from the beginning. Enclavehunter (talk) 21:59, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Developing a navy from scratch=shitty tiny naval with no capacity even after 20 years. Your best chance is to reverse engineer a modern ship. Scandinator (talk) 00:57, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * If Muscovy gets a coastline, it can colonize, right? (hint, hint) The Royal Guns (talk) 22:42, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * look, you wont have to worry about not having colonies as long as the the Commonwealth of Great, Little, and White Russia(Commonwealth/Confederation of All the Russias)[hint-hint invasion of poland]-Lx (leave me a message) 23:28, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes you can but I would recommend via Poland, You would have to beat and take over all of Poland and Lithuania... Go through the Crimea if you can. (hinthint, nudgenudge) Scandinator (talk) 00:57, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well Novgorod has control over most of the baltic via the hanseatic league, and has de-facto control over the Hanseatic Navy, and the navy will be built up continuously as long as there are people that sign up, we will build more ships...although we do need to broker an alliance with Danemark or Sweden to pass through the baltic with warships, but we have no problem passing through the baltic with explorers or traders, all we need to do is install Hanseatic trade posts along the Kattegat strait, and we have de facto free passage, so long as the league has interest, and resources of a new continent are a strong motivator and I believe that the hasea will help a novgorodian expidition leave the baltic.-Lx (leave me a message) 23:16, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * You and what league? Burgundy has no wish to be in a trade league considering they have the largest port on the Atlantic, Friesland is Burgundian now, Denmark trades through Stockholm, Brandenburg through Venice, Poland through Venice. All you have is Prussia trading through you. Even Scotland and England with their Novgorodian trade posts still send most of their goods to Antwerp. Scandinator (talk) 00:57, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * Stockholm is a member of the Hansa, the hansa has an actual navy that patrols the baltic sea, Burgundy has trade agreements with novgorod and is still part of the league, and In northern germany, it is not venice who holds influence(eh-hem how can you control trade that far away eh?) in northern germany, but the New Hansa controled by Novgorod and the Imperial Trade Guild of the HRE(I think that is what it is called), that was formed because of the apparent demise of the Hansa...an oportunity novgorod took to take control of it. I think it was Lurker that said that it was impossible for venice's influence to reach that far north if novgorod was keeping the league alive, not to mention i spent the last 10 years at least trying to undo the dammage you did aswell as reorgonize the Hansa-Lx (leave me a message) 01:20, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * Since I now have Manchuria, do we get the "good position" perk? Thanks. Flag_of_South_Korea.png PitaKang- (But here's my number | So call me maybe) 12:22, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * You didn't take enough of Manchuria to make a difference. LurkerLordB (Talk) 17:07, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely Korea is in a better position than Manchuria, Manchuria has very few warm water ports... VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 23:10, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm planning on eventually crossing the Bering Strait to colonize the sleeper property known as Alaska. I'll just have to expand my territory until I can get to that point. Yank 02:52, October 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * We Muscovians now have a coastline. Uncross us please. (We have one on the baltic as part of the Poland treaty, and have a treaty with Novgorod allowing us to put our ships through their ports (and vice versa)). The Royal Guns (talk) 20:16, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey I think as Granada I deserve to be on this list. I have a pretty good position and my navy may be F'ing terrible but I'm working on it. Willster22 (User talk:Willster22) 21:51, October 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * Could I also have my navy updated? I've been continually expanding my navy for at least 15 years. Airlinesguy (talk) 09:51, October 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you add Bengal??? Tipakay (talk) 15:11, October 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * Since Russia(novgorod) took over Prussia, do we not get a better position?-Lx (leave me a message) 13:22, October 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Muscovy has been working flat out on the nav since we got a coastline. Can we be upgraded?The Royal Guns (talk) 23:18, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

Siamese-Malaccan War
can someone do the algorithm

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

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

Travel

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

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

Naval establishment

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

Navy size

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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


 * This is what I calculate for Aragon:


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

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


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

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

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

England would have...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Caliphate
Total: 284
 * Location: +3 (Rumelia +4, West Qoyunlu +3, Anatolia +4, Syria +3, Persia +2, Iraq +3)
 * Tactical Advantage: +1
 * Strength: +92 = Ramazan (L), West Qoyunlu (L), Dulkadir (M), Candar (M), Karaman (M), Circassia (M), Georgia (M), East Qoyunlu (M), Iraq (M), Persia (M), Egypt (M), Syria (L), Pelestine (M), Tunisia (M), Tripolitania (M), Hijaz (M), Yemen (M), Hadramut (M),Oman (M), Shyabah (M), Nejd (M), Trebizond (MV), Rumelia (L) Anatolia (L), Crimea (M), Al-Slaveit (M), Alodia (MV), Granada (S), Gujarat (S), Koli (S), Deccan (S)
 * Military Development: +176 = (West Qoyunlu +30), (Rumelia +20) (Anatolia +20) (Syria + 16) (East Qoyunlu +30) (Iraq +30) (Persia +30)
 * Expansion: -3
 * Motive: +3 (taking territory)
 * Chance: +5
 * Edit Count: 1067
 * UTC Time: 8:45
 * (8*5)(1067)/3.14 = 13592.3567
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: +10
 * 8 digits in population
 * Larger
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: -13 = (Crimea -9) (Cossack -2), Gujarat (-2)

Holy Roman Empire
Total: 280
 * Location: 4 = (Byzantium 5, Venice 4, Muscovy 3, Cyprus 5, Papal states 4, Naples 4, Savoy 3, Aragon 3, Novgorod 2)
 * Tactical Advantage: 0
 * Strength: 125= Byzantium (L), Austria (M), Tyrolia (M), Salzburg (MV), Golden Khanate (MV), Papal States (M), Venice (L), Croatia (MV), Siena (MV), Ferrara (MV), Mantua (MV), Modena-Lucca (MV), Serbia (M), Naples (L), Savoy (L), Bosnia-Montengro (M), Florence (M), Piombino (MV), Milan (M), Genoa (MV), D'Asti (MV), Monferrat (MV), Cyprus (M), Pessaro (MV), Calais (MV), Swiss Confederacy (M), Saxony (M), Anhalt (MV), Baden-Wurttemberg (MV), Bavaria (M), Brandenburg (M), East Pomerania (MV), Burgundy (M), Friesland (MV), Luxembourg (MV), Aragon (L), Navarre (M), Muscovy (L), Novgorod (L), Poland (M), Pskov (MV), Ruthenia (MV), Rostov (MV) Yaroslavl (MV), Ukraine (MV), Ryazan (MV), Lithuania (MV)
 * Military Development: (Venice + 26) + (Aragon +20) + (Musovy + 20) + (Novgorod +20) + (Naples +28) + (Savoy + 24) + = 138
 * Expansion:-9
 * Motive:10
 * Chance: 8
 * Edit Count: 2903
 * UTC Time: 9:07 9*7 =63
 * 2903/63*3.14 = 144.68
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 8
 * 8 digits in population
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: Poland-Lithuania (-6), Prussia (-6)

Result
((284/(280+284))*2)-1 = 0.00709219858

The Caliphate won meaning they win 1% of HRE territory. The war started in 1491 and finished in 1499, so the war lasted 8 years.

(1)*(1-1/(2*8)) = 0.9375

So after this 8 year long war the Caliphate is entitled to 1% of the HRE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I ahve to congradulate the HRE on fielding a strength force of over 100. That's massive. Saamwiil, the Humble 16:21, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

the Caliphate Just attacked Byazntium...the center of orthodoxy(even if russia is seperate, they are still fellow orthodox). Because of this Russia is thinking of helping...although not difinitive yet because the RF is the only european antion with a substantial borrder with the caliphate-Lx (leave me a message) 16:29, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

I am reading the past posts, and i can't find any post related to Rumelia and Anatolia in 1488, 1489, 1486, 1485 and 1482.So, their development should be 20, both.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 16:45, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

Still waiting for the confirmation of other palyers. 1 question: if you can set 3 leaders, can we set 3 defenders? Quiari (talk) 16:48, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

An why +20 on population?, is not supouse to be +10 if you have more population?, is acumulative? Quiari (talk) 16:56, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

It is 20, if the larger nation has over 10 times the population of the other nation.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 18:30, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

I get this is a flaw in the algorythm, not a problem in the war, but how come Lorraine, Saxony, Switzerland, the Golden Horde, Salzbourg, et cetera for the HRE and Alodia, Hadramwt, Yemen, et cetera for the Caliphate participate? And how come aid from, say, Piombino or Trebizond, has the same amount of strength than aid from Egypt, Persia, Austria or Venice? Fed (talk) 21:24, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

In the HRE algorithm, I'm seeing many of the states are vassals, which is the only way all of them could be controlled without players. If so, then how come all of the nations in the Caliphate part of the algorithm are sending military aid without being vassals and without players? CourageousLife (talk) 21:26, October 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * ..I don't get where did you get the notion none of our nations have a player, for heaven's sake. And if you read my comment, you would've notice my complain also goes for the Caliphate. Fed (talk) 21:34, October 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * I am aware that you have three players. I had also read your previous comment and knew that you made statements about the HRE and the Caliphate. I was just under the impression that many more of the states were vassalized since an earlier conversation about all of the posts by members of the Caliphate. CourageousLife (talk) 21:40, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

This is true, for example: i can form a state in Naples, i will fragment all my kingdom in 50 small states, with no vassals, in this form i can sent 100 points in help?, but this is force the rules?... the caliphate have no vasal, all are equal they say... but.... Quiari (talk) 21:35, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

...You guys don't seem to get this: First of all, we have less provinces than you do, so I don't know what are you complaining with "... the caliphate have no vassal, all are equal they say...", and second, my complain also went for the Caliphate''. Fed (talk) 21:41, October 17, 2012 (UTC)''

Before a flame war happens. The Caliphate is structured in a similar matter, as far as I can see they are not really doing anything that bad. As Fed stated they do have less provinces than us. He also explained his confusion about the Caliphate. After last time, their is no further need to beat the dead horse as the expression goes.Andr3w777 (talk) 21:46, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

What nations in the Caliphate are main nations, and who are their vassals? CourageousLife (talk) 21:55, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

Again, there are no vassals in the Caliphate. Fed (talk) 22:21, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

Then how is the Caliphate controling so many countries when it only has three players? CourageousLife (talk) 23:05, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

They are not nations they are provinces. Players control provinces of the Caliphate. The Caliphate is the actual nation but we control each province of it. We treat the provinces as if they were nations, same thing which is done with the HRE, except we are more centralized. Seriously just read the Caliphate page or past game posts, its all there. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 23:13, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

Also while I'm here, are all of the HRE nations helping actual player nations? You guys have a lot of NPCs and I'm not entirely sure on all of the names of them so could this be checked?

Also are we sure that it is plausible for all those nations to contribute to the war effort? Some are quite small and/or far away. Remember we need to be strict with this as the algorithm is flawed as the algorithm gives the same amount of points for nations sending military aid even if the power of the aid differs e.g. Georgia sends 10,000 troops but Yemen sends 2,000 will still give the same amount of points even though Georgia is sending 5 times the amount of troops. So we need to compensate for this or else the results will be biased and flawed. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 23:33, October 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agreed, this is really flawed. For example, if the algorythm is translated into a 1700s Map Game, Courland and Poland will only have a point of aid in difference despite the huge differences. The algorythm is horribly flawed. Fed (talk) 23:54, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

I highly doubt that these nations spread over three continents would suddenly decide to be happy and join into one nation... over even a supernatural/dynastic union. The Caliphate is pretty implausible to me, as I see it. PitaKang- (But here's my number | So call me maybe) 23:35, October 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * Because continents, and not religion, language and culture, are the only things that matter nowadays, right, Pita? Plus it's not like Holland+Taiwan+Madagascar, it's a contiguous nation. Fed (talk) 23:54, October 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * You do realize that Ottoman culture is radically different from Tunisian culture, and Oman's culture is also radically different from Palestinian culture? This would be something like Korea and China suddenly deciding to join because they have similar language, philosophy, and religion. Flag_of_South_Korea.png PitaKang- (But here's my number | So call me maybe) 00:10, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

Well I don't think its plausible for Korea to colonize Taiwan and the Philippines in the 1400s either, especially seeing they have all that new land they just got from Manchuria. Regardless, those comments aren't helpful here Pita, put them somewhere else. This algorithm discussion thread is clogged up enough as it is. Try to keep things related to the war/algorithm itself rather than things said by the way.

Anyway I've done a quick look through the HRE nations and I'm a bit ignorant on a few nations on there, could someone inform me about these nations (I'd check myself now but going out soon, so apologies): Basically if its on this short list, its because I'm not sure about the player of the nation (i.e. NPC colour on map) or if it even exists. Apologises for my ignorance on this matter, but after the stuff against the Caliphate, fair is fair right? VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!)23:59, October 17, 2012 (UTC) VonGlusenburg  (talk to Von!) 23:59, October 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * Golden Khanate (Who controls & where is it?)
 * Bosnia-Montengro (I know both Bosnia & Montenegro exist, but I see no single nation called Bosnia-Montengro. Also who controls this country too?)
 * Palatinate (Which player controls this nation? It is an NPC on current map)
 * Provence (Which player controls this nation? It is an NPC on current map)
 * Pessaro (Where is this on the map & who controls it?)
 * Lorraine (Which player controls this nation? It is an NPC on current map)
 * Thuringia (Which player controls this nation? It is a civil disarray NPC on current map)
 * Wurttemburg ((Which player controls this nation? Where is it on the map too? I notice Baden & Wurttemburg are now one nation, which I assume is Baden-Wurttemberg, so where is the other wurttemburg nation?)

Some of them, Pessaro is an Italian military base-city state, Bauglir Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All (talk) 00:12, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but the ones I wasn't sure existed where the Golden Khanate, Bosnia-Montengro (I can see both Bosnia & Montenegro, but I didn't know they were a single nation, let alone player controlled ones), Pessaro, etc. I've added my problems with each of the nations onto the list to the list as well now to make things easier. Sorry for my earlier vagueness & stuff. I appreciate your help though :) VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 00:34, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

There is no other nation. I merged the vassal states of Baden and Wurttemberg into one a good while ago. Also Thuringia is a vassal of Bavaria Proper.I think the Khanate is owned by Austria and Bosnia-Montengro by Venice or Naples? Sorry I got confused after trying to incorporate the Nassau/Ansbach/whatever it was called into Bavaria. Andr3w777 (talk) 00:39, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

Pesaro! Bauglir Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All (talk) 01:01, October 18, 2012 (UTC)





For the Caliphate:

Military Development: +70 (West Qoyunlu +30), (Rumelia +20) (Anatolia +20)

That, my friends, is what we in the derogatory speech business call total bullcrap. That MD is only for the leader if I am not mistaken, meaning a 30, not a 70. Also meaning that the HRE wins. LOL XD ' FAIL. '

Hasta la vista, baby. (I'll be back.) 01:41, October 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol FAIL? You seem tp be very well versed in derogatory talk. However, if you were as versed in wikia rules, you'd get that offensive behaviour is punished. Don't ever say something of the sort again. Fed (talk) 14:50, October 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well if you'd dug a little harder, you'd see that I didn't even coin that portmanteau. You can thank Pita for it. [[Image:IMPERIAL NY-SPQR 1.png|25px]][[Image:Regen Flag.png|30px|border]] Hasta la vista, baby. (I'll be back.) 00:09, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations, you have achieved the record for most nations giving military aid on an algorithm ever.

Also, what is an R&A warning? The only way you can use the defending territory motive is if you are the defender, which the caliphate is not. So currently I am trying to find a way that you are helping out a religious or ethnic minority in Byzantium. LurkerLordB (Talk) 02:35, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to point out the Imperial Government of the HRE has been centralizing with little objection over the last decade or so. While it does not put them under solid control of a player, the closest it could be seen as is something like Venice's "Diplomatic Union." Since they are not player nations, I don't think that it is right to add them to the algorithim yet.

The Golden Khantate is the former Austrian Territory near the Crimea.

Monster Pumpkin (talk) 03:41, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

i think that the Caliphate have no real reason to use defensive, because the war against the otts were before their union in the caliphate, so there would be no offensive from our side, and with our win from the Empire and christianism what do we gain, exactly? Sine dei gloriem (talk) 03:45, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

3,666 + 1 + 75 + 70 + 0 + 5 + 5 + 0 + 34 + 10 - 3 - 2 = 198,66600 Bauglir Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All (talk) 04:04, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

why is everyone so biased against the Caliphate?? First its anti-Caliphate mod events, then ant-Caliphate mod events about loyal states revolting, then this?? This is an overly biased agaisnt the Caliphate, and the HRE has had no noticable penalties whatsoever, and those provinces are tiny as heck in he HRE, they shouldnt gain so many points, one of the Caliphates provinces has the population and territory of a third of the HRE, yet the HRE gains points act like the HRE has a bigger provinces and central government, which is implausable as the HRE states were agaisnt cenrtalization completley OTL. Stop being biased, do it RIGHT! (DeanSims: Talk) 11:29, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

No offense, but WE DID do it right. Each nation up there is controlled by a player in some manner. We have been around longer, we have a central government becuase, unlike OTL, we actually worked for it. Since majority of the HRE's members are indeed controlled by players, that means that they CAN join and support a centralised authority(which they obviously did). As for the mod events and stuff. Do not dare presume they are siding with us. We have had nations breaking away, civil wars, inter nation squabbles and revolt and discontent. It is only fair that the Caliphate (which is MUCH younger) get the same. Stop whining please. I may not agree with everything. But I do belive the algorithm is more or less right(minus the loopholes). Once again I ask you not to take anything offensivly. I understand how much you all have worked. But SO DID WE!!! You act like we sat there and did nothing. Read the(arguably) longest Constitution on the wiki. Read our organisational structure and how each nation contributes before making sweeping generalisations(to Saami, yes I know I did that before. I was ill informed and stand corrected. Sorry)Andr3w777 (talk) 11:55, October 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt that the HRE has 40+ players, and yes, you have gotten mod events, but it's only when you're implausible while every time we blink a heretical, ahistorical and implausible branch of Islam appears and we lose a province. Fed (talk) 14:50, October 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * Russia has declared a FULL war on the Caliphate, we are not a part of the HRE, and thus this would be a coalition war. Which I have mde. Though, I do agree that the HRE is a bit overmuch, you guys so don't have that many nations. You'd be more like 170 ish. Fortunately, Russia is here... The Royal Guns (talk) 19:13, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

Okay then Andr3w if you have joined Baden and Wurttemburg got merged into the vassal state of Baden-Wurttemburg then why is there another vassal state called Wurttemburg as well?

Next, if the Golden horde is that Austrian/Venetian colony in Crimea, then why is a colony contributing to the war algorithm? If not a colony then what is it? Pretty simple/wrong name for Austria to call one of their colonies too.

Thirdly, there is no state called Bosnia-Montenegro but there are two states though, one called Bosnia and the other Montenegro. But they are not a unified state so B-M doesn't exist.

Fourthly, Pesaro is still not be found, where it is circled on the map posted by Bauglir Zero there is no Pesaro nation, just the Papal states. So I'm thinking this is a made up nation as it still isn't accounted for.

And finally, I still don't know who is controlling the nations of Palatinate, Provence and Lorraine. They all seem to be NPCs to me.

Apologises I didn't know Thuringia was a vassal of Bavaria, please update the nation list and the map to show this to avoid future confusion.

Anyway as it stands the HRE has broken the rules seven times as it stands in this algorithm, 3 counts of using NPC nations in a war to boost algorithm scores (Palatinate, Provence and Lorraine), 3 counts of making up a nation to use in a war (Pesaro, Wurttemburg & Bosnia-Montenegro), and one count of using a colony in the war algorithm (Golden Khanate). If you guys can't prove your innocence with these matters then I will be forced to punish the HRE severely for breaking so many rules. It is a joke that you guys complain about the Caliphate breaking rules, use abusive language then you go and break the rules in 7 different places in one algorithm. You guys have some time to prove your innocence but if you can't, then prepare to be punished.

Also Russia doesn't have a large population than the Caliphate, you forget that we have half of India, all the middle east and a large part of north Africa. Not to mention large parts of Europe too. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 19:34, October 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * ya...the RF has 10-20 million people only. its not near 100 million.


 * But would that be fair if you punished them, since you're on the opposing side? I mean, if you have to punish them, at least let someone else do it so we don't get into a fight about whether it's fair or not. CourageousLife (talk) 20:09, October 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * So. A: Palatinate is a Neapolitan or Savoyan vassal, if I'm not mistaken. Provence: Milanese. Lorraine: English. B: Pesaro: It was actually created out of conquered lands. (If I am not mistaken, again.) Wurttemburg does not exist; ergo, I have removed it. Bosnia-M is just Venetian magical lands. C: Golden Khanate is an Austrian vassal. [[Image:IMPERIAL NY-SPQR 1.png|25px]][[Image:Regen Flag.png|30px|border]] Hasta la vista, baby. (I'll be back.) 00:09, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

I did update both the territories page and added a map. I was plain. I mentioned before that Wurttemberg shoudn't be up there seperate and thought someone would fix this. I have been explicit. Bavaria has done no wrong here. Also I think Austria clarified the whole Golden Khanate thing. I guessed. Don't take my word for it. And before you go all gung ho on the HRE i believe Savoy controls the Palatinate and Provence. and Passaro I think is a milanese holding. And Bosnia Montengro was created several years ago in game by Venice i beleive. Nobody has updated everything yet. I may only be speaking for myself when I say that I have no knoweldge of us tweaking the algorithm. I have been gone several days, been to the hospital. The last thing I need is you threatening to punish me. Andr3w777 (talk) 19:42, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

The map was not updated a long time, if you see the page of maps you will see the reclamations, and also, I THINK THE MAP UNDER THIS CONVERSATION, (was made by tipatai) is showing in some way the actual map, sure that need sonme change, but is ok. Finally, who is winning??? and when is over the war??? Quiari (talk) 20:09, October 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Golnden horde is controled by astria
 * 2) Bosnia-Montengro was created few years ago, after the repartition of that territory betwen Venece and Naples. Naples is in control.
 * 3) Pessaro belong to england, but is not show on the map, i dont know why.
 * 4) Lorraine is vasal of england. Palatinate and Provence are vasals of Savoy.
 * 5) IS A LOT OF NATION IN THE LIST THAT NOT SHOW TO WHO BELONG, PLEASE UPDATED. AND ALSO THE CALIPHATE, MUST SAY WHO IS IN CONTROL OF HIS PROVINCES, OVER ARABIA OR NEAR EAST.

The war won't be over until the issues about these rule breaking are sorted as they will affect the outcome of the war. Also the information about the Caliphate and its provinces is funnily enough on its nation page. Here is the province list. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 21:46, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

Why is Russia even in the algorithm as a leader. We've agreed that their control of the coast is minor, and wouldn't play a large role. Saamwiil, the Humble 22:37, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter- we have a BORDER WITH YOU.

The Royal Guns (talk) 22:43, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

well i see a few reasonsfor the break aways from the caliphate, due to the differences between the shiites, the sunnites and jariyists, something similar would happen to the Byzantines if they haven't been trying to retie with romans pope, and the almost complete extermination of the catholic orthodox, while this has been never been done with the Caliphate, also i once read, somewhere that there would be no vassals in the caliphate, and i found that many nations in there have no player, and have become in the war greater participants, and aided, so If the Caliphate can use all their provinces why cant the HRE use there Duchies and Counties in the same way, when infact the entire empire has certan vassalization upon the emperor thus forced in the war, well thats what i think 186.144.118.166 01:49, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * "Differences between shiites, sunni and jariyists"; yes, diferences between 95% and 5% of the population. "Almost no nations have player", all the nations have a player, for God's sake. And "why can't the HRE use their Duchies and Counties in the same way" because not all of the HRE is player-controlled, not all of the NPCs singed the unified treaty and you have far more vassals and NPCs than us. Please try to check around both side's arguments before commenting, alright?Fed (talk) 03:06, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Bedouin Nomads -- Not part of the Caliphate, so we don't have to provide a player for you.
 * Oman (Caliphate) -- VonGlusenburg
 * Yemen (Caliphate -- Fed (talk)
 * Hejaz (Caliphate) -- Fed (talk)
 * Hadramaut (Caliphate) -- Fed (talk)
 * Shaybah (Caliphate) -- Von
 * Palestine (Caliphate) -- Fed (talk)
 * Ak Qoyunlu -- Saamwiil
 * Alaiye (Caliphate) -- DeanSims
 * Georgia (Caliphate) -- Saamwiil I think
 * Ag Qoyunlu (Caliphate) -- Saamwiil (talk)
 * Ottoman Empire (Caliphate) -- DeanSims
 * Karamanids (Caliphate) -- Saamwiil I think
 * Candaroglu (Caliphate) --Saamwiil
 * Dulkadir (Caliphate) --Saamwiil
 * Ramadanids (Caliphate) -- Saamwiil
 * Trebizond (Caliphate) --Saamwiil
 * the rest that are being used in game are used by one of you i think saamwiil, but as they aren't vassals, and in your Caliphate, there aren't supposed to be vassals i think some should be erased from the algorythm then, for the same reasons the ones of the HRE are being rejected, so the only ones in the war would be the ones with players otherway would be a failure if the caliphate can use non-vassal NPC and the HRE can't Sine dei gloriem (talk) 15:43, October 19, 2012 (UTC)


 * The nation list hadn't been updated, I have now updated it. If you had bothered to look in this discussion thread, you would of found us answering this question several times. So as I told Quiari just a bit above this post, (seriously scroll up once or twice & its there) the information about the Caliphate and its provinces are on its nation page. Here is the province list. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 16:27, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

Because not every NPC signed the treaty would be the foremost reason I can think of. I won't try explaining the Caliphate again. For that just look at the explanations we've been giving. Saamwiil, the Humble 02:35, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

well yeah,but this would not just be a war from the empire, if not from a religious perspective so i think they would join, but ok i think someone should either redo the algorythm that its not involved inthe conflict, and or put the arguments of the errors of it depending on from these ones who gets advantage the HRE resalted and the Caliphate in Cursive Sine dei gloriem (talk) 02:53, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

firstly, the Caliphate does not have 10x the population of the coalition. to have 10x russia's population alone, by my estimates, the caliphate would have to have 100-150 million people. Add the HRE it would have to have at least 215 million population to have the +20. at most I give the Caliphate 2x or maybe 3x the population of the coalition(being verry generous, and thats only because of the Mughal empire's 50 million population in 1600).-Lx (leave me a message) 14:22, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

Each of the Qoyunlus have a population of around 10,000,000, and that's an understatement. A lot of them are children, but that's the population. And so is Circassia, due to all the incoming tribes some years ago. The same with Georgia.

India 50,000,000, 4 Qoyunlus 50,000,000, Circassia 10,000,000, Georgia 10,000,000 so that 120M just counting those states. We still have the rest of the Caliphate to go to. Saamwiil, the Humble 14:50, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

Uhmm, no. India must have the most population, arround 150,000,000 in all the sub contient by year 1500. And also regios so smallers like Circassia and Georgia no way they have so many population, muts be arround 8 millions between the 2. Qoyunlus must have in 1500 arround 30 millions, just like all Egipt... In all Russia must be like 12 millions, in alllllllll... and all europe must be like 80 millions at most by year 1500. Also im not part of any side Tipakay (talk) 14:59, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

In OTL, Circassi was flooded with immigrants. For many years, the government had almost no control because of them. And the Qoyunlus have had massive population increase, most of which are children, since every human is a child when they are young. Saamwiil, the Humble 15:02, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

Okay the Caliphate is declaring full war on Cyprus and the Papal states as well now. That means Cyprus and the Papal states join the HRE algorithm score as coaltion leaders (as in their military development contribute to score), and the Caliphate provinces of Karaman, Ramazan and Syria are leading the invasion of Cyprus and Tunisia is attacking the papal states. This is happening because only nation leaders can loose territory hence we're bring Cyprus and the papal states fully into the war because otherwise we couldn't take their territory, which is something we want to do.

Furthermore since Russia has now joined the war, the provinces of Crimea, Al-slaviet, Candar and Circassia also join the war as algorithm leaders since they are fighting the Russians.

I'm updating the algorithm now, also going to give those rule breaks a thorough check through after. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 15:05, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

Also, I don't see how Novogrod is in the war as a coalition leader. They don't border the Caliphate, or have a coast. Saamwiil, the Humble 15:18, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

If the Caliphate can have 11 leaders, then why can't the HRE and Russia have that many? If you are attacking a province, such as Cyprus, you have one leader. Not Karaman and Ramazan and Syria. And, if you can have more than one leader, then shouldn't the other side be allowed to make more leaders? CourageousLife (talk) 18:11, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * You can have more than one leader, that is already the case in this war already as it is a coalition war. Leaders are the only state which can gain or loose territory in a war so he added Cyprus because we want to take Cypriot territory and we had a coalition of provinces leading the attack against Cyprus. This is perfectly allowed, two + nations can attack another one. No one has said the HRE can't add more leaders, they can assuming the new leader nations are close enough. Please read the rules and read properly what has been said in the discussion before commenting in the future as you are clogging up the discussion with your irrelevant, ignorant nonsense. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 18:36, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

As for the rule breaks, the Golden khanate/horde state was made a state of the HRE in 1483, however no one posts as this nation so it seems to not be a real nation rather a colony of Austria. Colonies do not contribute aid to the war effort. This still seems like a rule break to me.

Secondly according to you guys, "Bosnia-M is just Venetian magical lands which were created few years ago, after the repartition of that territory betwen Venece and Naples. Naples is in control." This didn't help my situation so I decided to look through old posts only to find that of the old Bosnian state which is shown on the map because it hasn't been updated, that the northern 25% of Bosnia joined Croatia and the rest joined with Montenegro to form Bosnia-Montenegro. So only Bosnia-Montenegro exits really with the nation controlled by the house of Naples/Savoy. Therefore it okay that Bosnia-Montenegro is in the algorithm as it is an actual country controlled by Naples/Savoy. Apologies this was not a rule break, just bad communication between players allowing multiple conflicting stories to exist. To solve his problem once & for all, I request the map be updated to show this. Also who controls it? Savoy's or Naple's player?

Thirdly, Palatinate is a vassal of Savoy after a dynastic union with Naples according to past posts. Erm, how does that work out? I'm still confused with this one.

Fourthly, Provence after controversially forced into the HRE was vassalized by Savoy. While this confirms that Provence is part of the HRE, it does bring up the question of the rules being broken as the HRE-Savoy force Provence to join the HRE. As you HRE guys keep saying, I thought you weren't allowed to force NPC nations to join your multi-national organisation. No you are not. So why has the Savoy forced NPC Provence to join the HRE then without an algorithm or anything? This seems to be a violation of the rules which was missed by the mods earlier. Punishment will soon be brought upon you for this.

Fifthly, Pessaro is meant to be an Itailian military base city controlled by England but it isn't on the map. I googled it and it should be in the northern part of the Papal states. The map needs to be updated to show Pessaro, otherwise no rule violation. However I am still not entirely sure how Pessaro came to be a nation still. Could someone explain with references to in-game posts please?

Sixthly, Lorraine is a vassal of England, but again I am suspious of how it came into being and if it should have been allowed to happen. Can I have some in-deepth analysis on this matter please?

Finally, the Thuringia issue I applogize for again. Please update the map to show Thuringia as a vassal of Bavaria. However I will say that vassalizing a nation should take longer than a year, so don't do that again Bavaria or else. Also Wurttemburg was shown to be put into the algorithm even though it didn't exist however you have come clean and removed it, I'll take it adding Wurttemburg was an accident but I express displeasure that I had to clean up this mess for you as I doubt you'd have removed Wurttemburg from the algorithm yourself without me calling you out on it. Anyway lets solve these last 6 issues, I think us mods missed a few things with some of these vasalization efforts, and I think justice needs to be done. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 18:23, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

Naples and Savoy are ruled now bye the same king, Pedro III, but first Pedro III was only king of Savoy and in this time is when the Palatinate become a vasal of Savoy: Tancred II father of Pedro gives this duchy to empower the new kingdom of his son. Montengro was a province of Naples, an later is formed a new kingdom with Bosnia under the crown of Felipe, brother of Pedro. Provence take time to be vasalized by Savoy, and in the last years the HRE make a pression to be a part of him. The 3 kingdom are part of the same royal house, byt with independent goberment, and Savoy has ony 2 vassals by now. Quiari (talk) 20:07, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

1.Thuringia actually took several (3 0r 4)turns not one. It was something that happened when I was expanding Bavaria's influence.

2.I never put Wurttemberg up there. I wasn't even on. I discovered it being up there after you made the comment and then removed it. I gave the Emperor permission to put my nations up while I am unavailable, so there was probaly confusion. I wasn't available for a day because I was out of town.

3.Thank you for looking over these things in an unbiased way.(no sarcasm I'm serious) There has been an aweful lot of confusion recently.Andr3w777 (talk) 18:39, October 19, 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your support, however what you said about Thuringia seems to be a lie. I've just done a CTRL-F search for Thuringia on the game page, the first mention was in the nation list, then the 2nd mention was in 1484 as part of a post by Bavaria it said: "Thuringia is still being vassalized." Then in 1485 in Bavaria's post it said:"Thuringia becomes a vassal of Bavaria". This was vassalization in a year and it wasn't from a war algorithm either. Hence I suspect you've broke the rules. But I notice you say in 1487 that "Thuringia is officially recognized as a vassal to Bavaria." and 1487 is the first turn that you post as Thuringia. What do you have to say about this then? VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 18:59, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * '87 was the correct date. I had intially intended it to be earlier, but I thought it too implausable. I thought I had removed the previous post. I assure you this oversight will not happen again. I am trying to build a respectable nation. I did not know the name of the region at first which is why that post alludes to"still beign vassalized. Scand sent me a list of the nearby nations after I had already began, hence the name appearing later. That was ignorance on my part.Andr3w777 (talk) 19:03, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Also do a ctrl f and type Thuringen(that is the modern name for Thuringia) What will pop us should a post made in '82 or '83 talking about attempts to vasslise.Andr3w777 (talk) 19:09, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I thought that was the case, seeing you didn't post as Thuringia until '87. Well just go change your post in '85 then to say your still vassalizing Thuringia and this issue will have been solved. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 19:12, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

Ya...Novgorod is a leader too...since the mechanics of the Russian Federation allow for free transport of Local Druzhinas as armies throughout the Federation(well, its technicaly de jure one army...but controlled by the different states and other states dont have to do the same as the other ones stwitch makes them de facto seperate and controled by the three players therefore liable for seperate leadership)...and isnt there a basic convention and rule that prohibits esential vassals of others to become leaders? like chrimea and the Cossacks?-Lx (leave me a message) 18:35, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

Novogorod is too far away to send troops via sea as you have only had a navy for a few years and it is a long journey by sea too. Novogorod is simply supporting the Musocovy army, if you say Novogorod is a leader then I guess every other Caliphate province in the middle east is as well as we too have a good infrastructure to allow other province's troops to go through the Caliphate to support the other provincial armies. Therefore that is why Novogorod is not a leader, the war zone is too far away to wage war in using 15th century technology/communications. Also there is no rule against vassals being leaders in wars, heavens knows where you got that idea from. Of course vassals can start and lead wars. Plus Crimea and Al-Slaveit are not vassals, they are full pledged provinces of the Caliphate. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 18:45, October 19, 2012 (UTC)


 * Also to clarify, novgorod was the only russian nation to have a navy, mostly for trading and had the first "icebreakers" known to man. All I did was overhaul the thing.-Lx (leave me a message) 02:30, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

Actually, sure, that's cool. Let's go that way: every single player controlled province can be a leader. That'll be fun.

In any case, Novgorod is a lot closer than many of your middle eastern provinces. Since technically it's a single army, all this is is mobilization.

But, you know what, I'm fine. When does the Caliphate expire (Oh, and muscovy has in the 7s-8s... OTL it was in the 7 digits by now (not counting the territory of Novgorod).

Still, I do believe the above algorithm is biased, we need a mod who is completely unbiased to do this.

The Royal Guns (talk) 19:10, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

And the Caliphate is gonna put more leaders or this is it?... what is the final score??? Quiari (talk) 20:07, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

Time out--I used to know some nice people: namely Fed and Von, and Courageous, who are now going all nasty on the other side, moreso Von than the others. Don't get offended too much, Von.


 * What?? I am so so sorry if I came off that way! I didn't mean it like that! I wasn't getting nasty at anyone, and I'm definately not trying to pick a fight. I apologize profusely if I offended anybody, and I hope that no one thinks any less of me for joining the conversation! Really really sorry!!! CourageousLife (talk) 02:48, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm super mega offended now, I thought I was holding a lot back of my rage, hence now I wonder if my super mega offended-ness too much? Fufufufufufu~
 * But Courageous (and everyone else for that matter), if you take the time to read through past posts & try to answer your questions yourself, then this discussion & the war will proceed much quicker as then we don't have to keep going back to (re)answer questions. That is why I am getting irritated, because this discussion keeps going around in circles. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 11:54, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

I have questions and comments. Naples and Savoy enter in full war... You should've read the discussion before, since a bunch of answers are there. Once again, you really should've read what was in the previous discussion and in the game. Also, sign your posts. Fed (talk) 23:02, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) If a jillion Caliphate provinces can all be leader, all the main player HRE states might as well be leaders too.
 * 2) Now is not the time to question if vassals or province states or new states or puppet states should have been created not; they were created so long ago, removing their existence would change everything since then.
 * 3) I suggest that we let Lurk do the algorithm, as I know that he plays for neither megastate and is not in the war at all.
 * 4) How on earth did the Caliphate come to control parts of India?
 * 5) How did the Caliphate force the Ottomans and Mamluks into a single nation?
 * 6) How is the Caliphate powerful other than having lots of people and land? The HRE has that too.
 * 7) As for Provence-Savoy and the such, Provence was first vassalized by Savoy, then Savoy decided to bring all of its lands into the HRE.
 * 1) A few provinces can be leader because they are those attacking, while only Cyprus and Byzantium are directly in the war right now. That's pretty much common sense.
 * 2) Agreed, I guess?
 * 3) Agreed
 * 4) The Caliphate come to control parts of India because there are Muslims in India. That's very straightforward. If you mean out of character, then it's because the player of the Muslim Bahmani Sultanate gave up but agreed to join his nation into the Caliphate beforehand.
 * 5) What? Okay, so there's a lot wrong between this, like 1) The wars between Ottomans and Mamluks were just for land, and hate didn't run between the two very deeply, and 2) the Mamluk State was abolished.
 * 6) Well, it has far more people and land than the HRE, so thusly more manpower, and more riches since it controls both the Silk Route and the western part of the Indian Ocean Trade Route. Furthermore, the Caliphate is a very centralised state for its age leading to more control and has a reason by which everybody flocks and allies with the Caliph.
 * 7) Alright.

I thought you couldn't have multiple leaders in an algorithm without making it a coalition algorithm. 77topaz (talk) 01:09, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

That algorithm was revised earlier. This IS a coalition algorithm.

I agree with the current total (yay for bias).

The Royal Guns (talk) 01:23, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that the four states that completly follow the Imperial government, Austria, Tyrolia, Salzburg, and the Golden Khanate, have all been building up their military for some time now.

Monster Pumpkin (talk) 03:30, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

Are you finished with this? the Caliphate controversy and this war already took up almost half of the talk page.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 12:36, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

That's not how the population part of the new coalition algorithm worked, it was the number of digits of the total population of all of the states. So if all the Caliphate had 100 million people (which I imagine it would have less) it would get 9.

Also, I think I should have made this clear, you can't build up vassals militaries then have them join you. Vassals can only contribute military aid. Also, both sides had ridiculously large numbers of leaders in the coalition. Only the player nations of the DME are going to have their military aid counted, as only the actual Player nations should be leaders I'm counting nations broken away from player nations (like both Qoyonlus, Syria, Egypt, etc.) for this.

I am not done yet, I am still looking over the HRE states. However, let me say that the HRE's amount of vassalization has been nothing short of ridiculous in frequency and amounts. LurkerLordB (Talk) 13:45, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

Currently, I am suspicious of the +30s for military buildup for many of the HRE leaders. You can't be building up your military and be the leader in the war at the same time. Since it is incredibly tedious for me to go through and count up all of the valid years, I would like the players of those nations to go and subtract from their military buildup any year in whihc they fought in a war, expanded into unclaimed territory, or vassalized a nation (counts as expansion) because you can't build up your military and do those things in the same year. LurkerLordB (Talk) 13:58, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

Also, any years Cyprus built their military up before they had a player don't count, if any of their years are those. LurkerLordB (Talk) 14:01, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove any years in which the nations were at war with someone, as those can't count.

Also, I could not find any instance of the Sibir Khanate being vassalized. They are too big for Russia to vassalize without a war in any case. LurkerLordB (Talk) 14:11, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

There are 4 Qoyunlus. The rulers of which are all brothers. They're uncle is the ruler of Circassia. Saamwiil, the Humble 14:37, October 20, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll accept Iraq and Persia, but Circassia was only ever a vassal. LurkerLordB (Talk) 15:18, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, Circassia was carved out of Qoyunlu... And Circassia isn't subjegt to any of Qoyulnu policies, I could make them vote against a policy I created in the court, but there's not a reson to do so. Saamwiil, the Humble 22:34, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

The war against Sind was lead by Gujarat, Gujarat and the other Indian provinces are not involved in this war because they are too far away. So this recent war would not affect this algorithm since that war had none of the leader nations contributing to it. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 15:09, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

Persia, Iraq, and East Qoyunlu all are listed in that algorithm as giving military aid, and all of them are listed as being leaders here. LurkerLordB (Talk) 15:18, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

Well they shouldn't be leaders! After looking threw the page history, I found that Saam has also taken off a few other nations from the list who are leading the war, not sure why he has done that. The leaders are ones closest to the war zone. The leaders should be Rumelia, West Qoyunlu, Anatolia, Ramazan, Tunisia, Candar, Circassia, Al-Slaveit, Crimea, Karaman and Syria. Persia, Iraq & East Qoyunlu are all too far away to lead the war, the provinces closer by should be the leaders. Why you done that Saam? Score boosting using Iraq, Persia and East Qoyunlu's higher military development scores? <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 15:47, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

Also you need to put bizantium like a leader, and Naples has develop his army more tahn 15 years, we must have 30 points there. Quiari (talk) 15:58, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

No, the differences between doing those are to large. I didn't change it LurkerLordB did. Saamwiil, the Humble 22:34, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

Byzantium is a vassal of Venice, they can't lead wars. Also, as I established, ''' you cannot build up your military, be involved in a war, or expand/vassalize in the same turn. '''

I ruled that the only Caliphate nations that could lead wars would be ones broken away from former player nations, to prevent you from algorithm spamming by having all of your tiny little provinces each be a leader. LurkerLordB (Talk) 23:01, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

But Byzantium is the nation being invaded by the Caliphate primarily! Also having the provinces actually near the war rather than the ones really far away like Persia makes more sense for leading the war. Furthermore the only tiny little provinces (those in Turkey) where the nations that got taken over by either conquest or vassalization by Qoyunlu. I do not understand your reasoning that a far away province like Persia is more suited to being a war leader than the provinces of Crimea and Al-Slaveit which are being attacked by the Russians! Please explain your reasoning on this issue. As I see it, Rumelia, West Qoyunlu, Anatolia, Ramazan, Tunisia, Candar, Circassia, Al-Slaveit, Crimea, Karaman and Syria are the leaders because they are on the front lines of the war. The rest of the Caliphate are supporting them and propping them up. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 00:46, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

I added Persia beacause I didn't see how Aragon or Novogrod could be leaders. I said something about Novogrod earlier, but no-one responded. Saamwiil, the Humble 00:56, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

I know why you added it, but no nation that far away would be able to lead a war like this, hence we should use the provinces where the action is actually taking place. TBH I'll apologise for that childish "tit for tat" response to Novogorod. I should behave better, sorry. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 01:07, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

If I had Byzantium be able to be counted as a leader, then the HRE would be able to add like 7 other vassals to the coalition. My reasoning is that letting people build vassals up seperately and then adding them to the coalition is unfair; it makes vassals overpowered and virtually makes it stupid not to have like 7 vassals to bump up your algorithm. If I let you use every province, the Caliphate would become ridiculously overpowered. Wars should not be determined over whether or not some tiny little country like Karaman or the Golden Khanate is fighting, which is what that would allow. LurkerLordB (Talk) 01:30, October 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * Just a question: is this discussion worse than the Northern wars form PMI yet? cause its close or holds the record IMO...although I admit its not as flamewary-Lx (leave me a message) 02:35, October 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't put the mark on it. One of the two is worse. Hard to determine. [[Image:IMPERIAL NY-SPQR 1.png|25px]][[Image:Regen Flag.png|30px|border]] Hasta la vista, baby. (I'll be back.) 19:18, October 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * We haven't had anyone banned yet, so it isn't as bad as that Northern Wars or the Venice-Vietnam conflict. LurkerLordB (Talk) 02:51, October 22, 2012 (UTC)

Well we wouldn't use every province unless it was close enough to the war zone to lead the war. Also if Byzantium is not a leader then we can't take territory from them, which is the whole reason this war started.

I purpose keep it how you got it currently, but if the war is taking part in that nation then they definitely should be a leader. The war is happening in Crimea, Al-Slaveit and Tunisia. They should be leaders because that is where the war is going on, as the actions of that nation should influence the war algorithm outcome. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 02:44, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

You can take territory from Byzantium, since they are a vassal of Venice, a leader. For the sake of the war, all nations of the caliphate will be able to lose territory, but only player nations could lead to avoid problems. For fairness's sake I'll say that if you win a war against an HRE nation, you can take territory from NPC HRE states.

Could the two sides of this war try to negotiate some plausible treaty, like where Russia can get Al-Slaveit and parts of the Balkan territory of the Caliphate get broken away and the Papal states gain a little land on Tunisia? Because the HRE is not going to conquer huge swathes of territory like all of Anatolia and the Balkans and Tunisa, that would be overkill to the uttermax. LurkerLordB (Talk) 02:51, October 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * The most I want is the opposite side of the Marmaran Coast to be under joint Venetian-Byzantine occupation (about 100px). I suggest we demand Wallachia, Bulgaria and Rumelia to break away from the Caliphate and join the HRE as neutral states. As well as the loss of the Crimean Khanate, Georgia and Cossacks to Russia and some territorial gains for the Papal States and Naples in Tunsia. Scandinator (talk) 06:03, October 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * I would also like a tiny bit of OTL Turkey for Cyprus. Airlinesguy (talk) 08:46, October 22, 2012 (UTC)

Oh so your not going to remove the nations from the HRE which broke away because they had broke the rules? Thats not fair considering they're only fighting because the HRE broke the rules to take them over & force them to fight in this war. You also not going to add the provinces to the algorithm where the war is actually taking place in? The provinces leading this war against those HRE leaders like Tunisia, Al-Slaveit and Crimea should be in this war if they're doing all the fighting and if they going to loose territory. Also for HRE military development score 26+26+20+12+20+20+28+24 = 176 not 180. Also is the war against Prussia is a recent war for the HRE as this war started in 1491 and the Prussian war was in 1485 so it was definitely 15 years ago. Meaning that Musocovy & Novogorod both get -3 for leading that war. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 13:20, October 22, 2012 (UTC)

Russia would like to have Chrimean peninsula(only th peninsula) and the province of Al-Slaviet and the recognition of the Russian Orthodox church's authority in Georgia(although the latter is just provided as a term in negotiations so that we have something to comprimise on and remove from demands.)...unless there are any objections that is what russia would like.-Lx (leave me a message) 20:32, October 22, 2012 (UTC)

I removed Papals + Cyprus because NPC declared war. And since they can't actually lead, I took the nations they declared war on off. Fair enough? Saamwiil, the Humble 02:49, October 23, 2012 (UTC)

If you are saying that nations that are under attack get into the algorythm then Byzantium makes it in too. Also the Papal States and Cyprus are PLAYER NATIONS. Scandinator (talk) 12:00, October 23, 2012 (UTC)

So, if tunez is not in the algorithm, Naples and Savoy cant get lands there, in that case, why i am fighting? this is wrong, why are all the leaders out of combat? i dont understend... Quiari (talk) 15:17, October 23, 2012 (UTC)

I understand that Papal States and Cyprus ar Player Nations. However, since non-player nations cannot be leaders in the war, and the Papal States were declared war on by Tunisia (NPC), and Cyprus by Syria (NPC), and as said their war declarations didn't count, the only way they could be involved is if they re-declare war. As for Naples and Savoy, I believe they delcared war, so they could get land, if they win. You can take NPC territory, they just can't be leaders. Saamwiil, the Humble 17:18, October 23, 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Both of those nations are, as ou said, part of the Caliphate, so even if that doesn't count, they arestill being attacked by the entity as a whole. If Muscovy attacked Qounlyu, and Ukraine attacked Syria (god knows how) then are you seriously saying that Syria can't join the war because Ukraine is an NPC?

Also, Lurk is supposed to edit the algorithm and no one else. Put those two back.

The Royal Guns (talk) 19:13, October 23, 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm not saying it, but if the scenario did arise, yes I would say that Syria could not join the war, as Byzantium doesn't count for military developement. +, I've looked around, and I can't find anywhere were LurkerLordB is given sole exutive authority over changing the algorith. Do correct me if I am wrong. Saamwiil, the Humble 20:15, October 23, 2012 (UTC)

As it stands now the most the Caliphate can get is less than a single percent. That's the textbook definition of futility. 74.198.151.45 (Yank) 02:42, October 24, 2012 (UTC)

Hm, I hadn't considered the situation where a member of a coalition withdraws. Is anyone opposed to simply ending the war ASAP with the end result being both sides being left incapable of taking any territory and being exhausted? LurkerLordB (Talk) 10:54, October 24, 2012 (UTC)

I want the war over and done with. Scandinator (talk) 13:33, October 24, 2012 (UTC)

How about the Caliphate gains those little HRE enclaves in Anatolia (the Venetian and Papal ones) instead, and they also loose Crimea too. Those little bits wouldn't have been able to hold out for a decade under Caliphate siege. The Caliphate could have lost some territory to the Byzantines in OTL Macedonia too. This also solves most of our border issues too, and makes things seem more realistic after a 10 year war. We gain were the HRE were weakest, and the HRE gain where our Caliphate was weakest. Then the war ends as a stalemate as the weak points in each sides defence are gone. I've done a map to show what I mean.<font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 12:54, October 24, 2012 (UTC)

Which Venetian exclaves? The ones that look connected to the Turkish mainland are actually islands that are very close to the Turkish coast. Search Lesbos and Chios as proof. Scandinator (talk) 13:33, October 24, 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at the map I posted. Regardless if they are islands or not, I still think this is a fair way in how the territory looks with the war reaching a stalemate. I think the HRE might of actually gained extra pixels with my division. I'll have to check up on the pixel count to check this. Still how you feel about this map/outcome? <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 14:51, October 24, 2012 (UTC)

Um... no. DeanSims has agreed to status quo ante bellum and that map suggests that the Caliphate defeated SEVERAL island fortresses including Rhodes which if I recall in OTL took 2 tries a century or so apart to fall. Not to mention the Venetian navy, largest and most powerful in the Old World, was guarding these isles... Also OTL Macedonia... is Northern Greece. The country that names itself Macedonia today should be by all rights called Illyria or Slavia. Macedonia is Northern Greece. Scandinator (talk) 15:15, October 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * The ancient Greeks used to call today's Macedonia (the country) as "Paeonia".--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 21:29, October 24, 2012 (UTC)

It really should be status quo ante bellum, methinks. Just have a couple of the tiniest enclaves on both sides go over. Also, that's a significant part of russian land, not less that 1% (I may be mistaken)

The Royal Guns (talk) 19:02, October 24, 2012 (UTC)

Russia has not lost any land on my map. No side has really, we've just swapped territories around. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 19:46, October 24, 2012 (UTC)

Plus, can we calculate how many pixels we can take. I know it must at least be like 15 or something. Saamwiil, the Humble 20:40, October 24, 2012 (UTC)

I think the Caliphate should concede those farthest African provinces. Hasta la vista, baby. (I'll be back.) 21:54, October 24, 2012 (UTC)

Th'Caliphate won marginally, the war is over. Please stop adding last minute things after the war is done, peoples. If Papals wishes to have war with the Caliphate, it will be a new one... Saamwiil, the Humble 14:49, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

This war is over, its gone on too long, the Caliphate has won marginally. Who doesn't agree with my proposed border changes? (see the map I posted above)

All that has happened that with that map is the HRE lost its enclaves in Crimea, Anatolia & Tunisia, and some islands in Greece. The Caliphate then lost territory in OTL Macedonia/Serbia/Greece. Compare my map showing my proposals to the current map to see how the borders change. It isn't much difference & the changes make sense in contrast to where our nations are. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 18:35, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

The algorithm as it stands awards a paltry 0.7 % to the Caliphate. That means that your entire war was still a collosal waste of time. As far as I'm concerned status quo ante bellum is the only plausible result. 0.7 perecent isn't enough to make much of a difference either way, so I think it should be dropped. Yank 19:15, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

Well the amount of territory held by either side is basically the same in my proposed map, its just where that territory is what has changed. Hence the HRE & Caliphate both lost their weakest/least defend-able areas. Just a territory swap so the war wasn't completely pointless. Plus the HRE-Caliphate border is more defined too (HRE don't have all those random outposts dotted about the Caliphate) meaning that tensions would be lower as less potential border hotspots. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 19:42, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

The Papal States have no interest to continue the war. Also, I looked at the proposed map, and I must complain. If the Caliphate win less than 1% in the war, they cannot also gain the Papal's territories of Alfons and Antalya. I'm sure we had enough reinforcement in the area to keep the holdings, if not expand into them. ChrisL123 (talk) 20:57, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

Well the Caliphate did loose land in OTL Macedonia/north greece/southern serbia to make up for it. Hence my map is basically a border change, we both exchanged the same amount of pixels so no side has lost or gained anything. I've changed my proposed map slightly, you keep Alfons but I still think the HRE enclaves in Anatolia & Crimea should be gained by the Caliphate, and the far western parts of Rumelia province are lost to the HRE to make up for the HRE loosing those enclaves. I have updated that map I posted to show my new proposal. You say extra men would be sent to those areas but they still would be hopelessly outnumbered by the main Caliphate armies in Anatolia who were besieging those enclaves as soon as the war started. As would the armies fighting in Crimea too. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 21:34, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

Uhmm, no, if you want land, you shoul take the bizantine part, because was there the original dispute, you can have the X% there, no exchanging position in this way, because they are very important and strategic locations. Quiari (talk) 21:43, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

Quiari this doesn't concern your territory at all. We won, so we get the stronger bargaining position. This way our two empires are nicely divided without all those little enclaves. I mean its not like we're going to be friends so it is pointless to have outposts there if the people living near-by are enemies of your country. They serve no purpose if trade isn't going to happen there, and in times of war they are the places we are going to first attack, which we did in this war. The Byzantine dispute was us trying to take their capital, so you think its plausible for us to just take away their capital city and all other borders remain the same? No this makes much more sense, as you guys in the HRE have much more easier to defend borders as they would be better defined with this plan. Less border disputes, more easy to defend borders and shorter supply chains; this will stop wars for a good while. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 23:16, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

Um.....Aragon did kind of invade and occupy your North African land, especially in OTL Libya & Tunisia. Can I get a bit? Hasta la vista, baby. (I'll be back.) 03:54, October 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you lost the war. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 12:21, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

''' The result of the war is Status Quo Ante Bellum. No side gains any land. Scandinator (talk) 05:26, October 26, 2012 (UTC) '''

No. The Caliphate won the war, they gain the Venetian land in Anatolia and Crimea as they won. Defying the result of the algorithm is a serious offence & against the rules. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 12:21, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

As long as you understand that the Papal Enclaves stay intact I'm fine with it. Yank18:15, October 26, 2012 (UTC) "Understand" that Papal enclaves stay intact? What does that mean precisely? I get we only get a very small part of land, but why can't we choose to take, say, the Papal enclave instead of Crimea if we wanted to? Fed (talk) 21:57, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

You have the liberty to choose, anywhere you whant, but only 1%, so choose Quiari (talk) 23:50, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

Naming the New World
In my opinion I believe the honour of naming the new world should go to a HRE state (Bavaria, Florence, Naples or Venice) as although the Portugese were expert seafarers and navigators the name America originated from a mistake in a map produced in the HRE where the Florentine explorer Amerigo's name was used. I propose that each of the four players, plus Portugal can suggest a name and the rest of the players can vote on it. Scandinator (talk) 14:19, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

my suggestion is Antília/Antillia.It has even a "natural poetic counterpart" with África, Ásia and Europa.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 15:24, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

I suggest the Germanic term Geheimnis. Not only is it cool sounding, but it fits with the largely German nomenclature that came from German Cartographers.(Geheimnis means mystery or secret) The Latin word Arcanium I also like. :) Bavaria, Andr3w777 (talk) 15:38, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

Tamriel. CrimsonAssassin (talk) 18:01, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

The Shining Continent-from cap diamand near quebec city...an entire clifface that was mistaken to be diamond but was realy quartz....Galifrey is a neat name too... or novus....Novus is good...from Novus Mundi...New world...Novus Mundi eventualy drops the Mundi...becomes just the continent of Novus...Northern and southen Novus.-Lx (leave me a message) 18:13, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

What about Alfheimr, after the world of the elves in Norse mythology? When the Norweigan explorer discovers America, the Native Americans remind him of the elves described in the ancient myths? CourageousLife (talk) 20:00, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

Middle Earth. CrimsonAssassin (talk) 20:48, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

I like Antillia the best of the names suggested so far, it matches the pattern of most other continent names like Collie said. I'd actually like for the two continents to be named something different instead of just North/South whatever, more variety. LurkerLordB (Talk) 21:06, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

So would it make more sense for South America to be Amazonia? CourageousLife (talk) 21:32, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

Amazonia is very good, i like it =) Quiari (talk) 21:40, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

Antillia is fine enough, but it is a very recent name (for the first time originating in 1424 OTL) so I'm not sure.

I don't think they'd name it secret; "secret continent" doesn't send much of an appeal to colonists. So colonials are not too possible to adopt.

Tamriel, Middle Earth and Gallifrey? Really?

The Shining Continent sounds more of a nickname than a proper name, and Novus Mundi is a bit too bad on the tongue (much like "Georgium Sidis" didn't stick for Uranus)

Alfheimr would make some sense, but since they're Christian and not Pagan, it'd really be a bit strange for them to adopt the name unless the Renaissance takes an equally large amount of influence in Scandinavia rather than Italy.

Amazonia is based on female warriors, a culture that only occured on the Amazon River. I really don't think it'd make so much sense. Although this and Antillia, and Alfheimr to a lesser degree, make the most sense. Fed (talk) 22:17, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

Name it after the explorer? Or other explorers to go to America perhaps. Then you can make up a surname and call it whatever if you name it after your made up Explorer. E.g. Explorer Frederick VonGlusenburg landed in OTL Georgia, discovering the new continent. He names the new continent (OTL N-America) Glussonia after himself. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 22:21, October 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * i think that Reginssonia sounds more like a Cambrian/Ediacaran fossil than a continent.like: "Reginssonia terranovica"--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 07:14, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

I think Von's proposal makes the most sense. After all, America came from a misspelling of Amerigo. PitaKang- (But here's my number | So call me maybe) 23:11, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

What were they called in the last game? CourageousLife (talk) 23:14, October 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * ....America. (sigh) Actually, I think it was never agreed upon, and Nippon used America for the country of the USA (in South America) after their colonies became independent and joined up. [[Image:IMPERIAL NY-SPQR 1.png|25px]][[Image:Regen Flag.png|30px|border]] Hasta la vista, baby. (I'll be back.) 00:08, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, I did ask if OTL Americas continent had been named anything different but I was never told it was called anything different hence I called it the United States of America. I would have been willing to name it something else but nothing was said. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 19:02, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

I also like the name Ardeus or Arcadia/Arcadea. Both are pretty good names.Andr3w777 (talk) 23:16, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

Intresting that you say, I was reading some months ago that it is a common mistake (which I believed till then) that America was named after Amerigo. The book aregued that it was named after a man by the name Richard Amerik. Who knows though... Saamwiil, the Humble 23:19, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

I still like the idea of naming it for something describing the people or the landscape, something in the new world as opposed to who discovered it. CourageousLife (talk) 23:41, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

Why Bavaria? Anywho, I shall suggest a name I like for the hell of it: North America = Vinland. (Even if he didn't discover it, he could assume that this is the place and call it that. Atlantis works too, since the oldest myths of a land beyond Europe described Atlantis. Maybe NA = Vinland and SA = Amazonia or Atlantis? I think we should send more explorers out and name it after one who makes a super great discovery, like living nations in the New World, like the Maya or something, or maybe new species, etc etc. If you folks don't agree with any of those, I guess we should go with Von's idea. (A Glussonia-esque name.)

Hasta la vista, baby. (I'll be back.) 00:08, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

Land of the Shining Nipples. CrimsonAssassin (talk) 01:06, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

Well, the diffuse votation/suggesting stage up to now gave the results: Antillia (3) [for north America], Amazonia (3) [for South America], unespecified variation of explorer's surname (3), and Alfheimr (2). shall we organize this votation into a voting stage and closing the suggestion stage, as nobody is suggesting since almost one day ago?--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 20:03, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

Aw, I was just getting used to Atlantis. I guess we might as well set up with those 3/4 suggestions and vote on it. My vote goes to Amazonia for SA and surname variation for NA. Hasta la vista, baby. (I'll be back.) 20:31, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

I love Amazonia for the south, and for the north... i dont know... Quiari (talk) 20:46, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

again, Antillia for the north, and...I don't know for the south.name variation, perhaps?(but whatever variation will be, Reginssonia is totally out of question.)--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 21:02, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

Then let's put it to a vote CourageousLife (talk) 21:23, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

Antillia for the North and Arcadia for the South. Arcadia is a pleasing soundign name and goes along with Antillia.Andr3w777 (talk) 21:25, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

Right now I suggest we remove the two or three least popular choices from either continent and ask those voters to choose from Antillia/Surname for North America and Atlantis/Amazonia for South America. Hasta la vista, baby. (I'll be back.) 19:10, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

So you want a run-off vote? I'd say that would be good for the South America, since no name has a majority there, but for North America Antillia has a clear majority. LurkerLordB (Talk) 02:34, October 22, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah pretty much. I guess we should settle on Antillia and have a run off for South America. Hasta la vista, baby. (I'll be back.) 03:24, October 22, 2012 (UTC)

OK, we will close the voting then. LurkerLordB (Talk) 10:56, October 22, 2012 (UTC)

Voting (closed)
Leave your signature under the section you wish to vote for.

Voting will close at 0:00 UTC on 10/22

North America

 * Antillia
 * CourageousLife (talk) 21:32, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Andr3w777 (talk) 21:33, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yank 21:47, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Bauglir Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All (talk) 22:05, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:12, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * The Royal Guns (talk) 00:23, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Monster Pumpkin (talk) 03:26, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * ChrisL123 (talk) 03:28, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Airlinesguy (talk) 04:42, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 08:05, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Zetsura (talk) 15:36, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Scandinator (talk) 19:38, October 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * Alfheimr
 * Fed (talk) 23:05, October 19, 2012 (UTC)


 * Novus
 * -Lx (leave me a message) 22:19, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * 67.225.41.146 14:01, October 20, 2012 (UTC)


 * Explorer's Surname
 * [[Image:IMPERIAL NY-SPQR 1.png|25px]][[Image:Regen Flag.png|30px|border]]
 * Hasta la vista, baby. (I'll be back.) 21:42, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Quiari (talk) 21:49, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Tipakay (talk) 22:36, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 11:23, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Saamwiil, the Humble 13:35, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Galaguerra1 (talk) 19:56, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

South America

 * Amazonia
 * CourageousLife (talk) 21:32, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Quiari (talk) 21:36, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Tipakay (talk) 22:15, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * -Lx (leave me a message) 22:21, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * ChrisL123 (talk) 03:28, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Airlinesguy (talk) 04:43, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Saamwiil, the Humble 13:38, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Zetsura (talk) 15:33, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Scandinator (talk) 19:38, October 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * (DeanSims: Talk) 11:36, October 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Atlantis (Atlantia
 * Hasta la vista, baby. (I'll be back.) 21:42, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yank 21:48, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:12, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Fed (talk) 23:05, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * The Royal Guns (talk) 00:30, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Monster Pumpkin (talk) 03:26, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 08:07, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * 67.225.41.146 14:01, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Explorer's Surname
 * <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 11:23, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Galaguerra1 (talk) 19:56, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Arcadia
 * Andr3w777 (talk) 21:33, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Bauglir Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All (talk) 22:00, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

Run-off Voting for South America (Closed)
OTL South America, by a vote of 11 to 9, will be called Amazonia.
 * Amazonia
 * <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 14:25, October 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Scandinator (talk) 01:50, October 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * Tipakay (talk) 02:51, October 23, 2012 (UTC)
 *  Saamwiil, the Humble 02:52, October 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * Atlantis/Atlantia
 * LurkerLordB (Talk)
 * [[Image:1.png|23px]] Imp (Say Hi?!)
 * Andr3w777 (talk) 16:04, October 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yank 16:59, October 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * The Royal Guns (talk) 19:05, October 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * [[Image:IMPERIAL NY-SPQR 1.png|25px]][[Image:Regen Flag.png|30px|border]] Hasta la vista, baby. (I'll be back.) 01:51, October 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * Monster Pumpkin (talk) 03:03, October 23, 2012 (UTC)

Amazonia - 11 Atlantis (Atlantia) - 9 That's not how run-off voting works, only votes cast in the run-off election count. Atlantia wins with 7 votes compared to the four votes that Amazonia got. That's how run-off voting works in real life, and that's how it will work here. LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:02, October 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * What kind of vote are you looking at? Because the vote is clearly 7-4 Atlantia winning. LurkerLordB (Talk) 21:29, October 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * The voters that previously voted for names other than these two or did not vote at all were the ones voting. Those votes were added on to the previous totals to come up with a final total. Repeat votes did not count. The final vote looks like this-
 * CourageousLife (talk) 21:32, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Quiari (talk) 21:36, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Tipakay (talk) 22:15, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * -Lx (leave me a message) 22:21, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * ChrisL123 (talk) 03:28, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Airlinesguy (talk) 04:43, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Saamwiil, the Humble 13:38, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Zetsura (talk) 15:33, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Scandinator (talk) 19:38, October 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * (DeanSims: Talk) 11:36, October 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 14:25, October 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Hasta la vista, baby. (I'll be back.) 21:42, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yank 21:48, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:12, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Fed (talk) 23:05, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * The Royal Guns (talk) 00:30, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Monster Pumpkin (talk) 03:26, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 08:07, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * [[Image:1.png|23px]] Imp (Say Hi?!)
 * Andr3w777 (talk) 16:04, October 22, 2012 (UTC)

Then I'd like to request a re-voting section, because several of us misinterpreted the purpose of the runoff vote, and therefore did not get the chance to vote. Scraw posted Right now I suggest we remove the two or three least popular choices from either continent and ask those voters to choose from Antillia/Surname for North America and Atlantis/Amazonia for South America. implying that only the voters who voted for other names needed to vote. Notice that many people who voted previously did not vote in the second round. Therefore, to be fair to everyone, I am requesting a re-vote. CourageousLife (talk) 22:10, October 24, 2012 (UTC)

If 3 more people state that they didn't know how run-off votes work in the next 24 hours, then I'll hold a revote. LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:22, October 24, 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Sorry I got confused. CourageousLife (talk) 22:25, October 24, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with CL, it was meant to be the people that did not vote for the two main options that went into the revote... Scandinator (talk) 07:20, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

You apparently were not confused Scandinator, considering that you were the second person to vote in the run-off despite voting for one of the two options earlier yourself. LurkerLordB (Talk) 21:00, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

Second person to vote Antilla... but I saw at least 5 for Amazonia which meant I quickly realized everyone was revoting. Scandinator (talk) 23:24, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

Map
For PMI, anybody wiling to make a "modern" map of the world? Because the actual map still looks like the 1400s for some reason... it would be great to have a "modern" map. I can't, because I'm terrible at map making :D PitaKang- (But here's my number | So call me maybe) 00:20, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

By "modern" I assume you mean 1494, but I think that labeled maps are only updated every 50 years. ChrisL123 (talk) 01:20, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the PMI map was that it was pretty much never updated. It stayed pretty stagnant for most of the game. --Yank 12:23, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah a new named map should be made out of the 1500 map. There are a fair few map problems which need to be sorted out first though, we should focus on getting the named maps as accurate as possible! <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 14:21, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

I just put a map up... can you at least see that??', used please Tipakay (talk) 14:45, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

...I was talking about the PMI map guys. PitaKang- (But here's my number | So call me maybe) 18:48, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

Possible Algorithm changes
Ok, Nation POwer been established as bunk, how about we just add the following:

Economy: +2 for every turn of economic development in the past 20 years.

Without money, you cannot pay your soldiers, or feed them, or afford weapons. At the same time, the crashing economy will cripple your nation. The economy has the power to give a bigger boost than military power because all those military training programs and upgrading of the military COST MONEY.

Infrastructure: Every turn in the past 15 years in which both this and military development occur gives a boost of +3. Every year of concurrent economic and infrastructural development in the last 10 years gives a bonus of +3. Every year in which only this is practiced gives plus one for the past 10 years, IF AND ONLY IF you are the defending nation. ''If you are the attacking nation in the war, then the last only counts for 5 years. The other 2 (econ-infra and military-infra) count for the smae.''

Because the infrastrucure+military applies for 15 years, versus only 10 years for econ-infra development, that evens out the economy's bonus in the first idea. Infrastructure is the single most important factor when being attacked, because you need to mobilize your soldiers to the proper position.

The Royal Guns (talk) 20:57, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

So basically, Economy=Military Buildup, except with it going further back. Therefore, people should only build up their economies, as if they build up their military they'll only get +30 at most, while building up their economy they get +40.

Infrastructure seems a bit complicated to me. I think it would be easier to have infrastucture just be +3 each year but only be for defensive wars, that differentiates it from military buildup enough. LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:56, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

Massive Algorithmic changes
There has arisen a plausibility and fairness problem that I did not foresee. In the current war of the Caliphate and the Holy Roman Empire, the problem of people counting vassals and nations they are in union with as full nations, and adding their military development to the war, creates a problem.

I will state that the example given on this page, as to why the old coalition algorithm was bad, that convinced me to overhaul it was Saamwiil's; he brought up the good point that a league of San Marinos could overpower a China. And that is true; for every algorithm, each nation at least gets like 30-40 points at minimum, with several of these added together, China's +20 in population would be feeble, and the San Marinos would triumph. So I made the new algorithm, in which, I hoped, the problem would be solved. And it did help in regards to the population, and to nations giving aid, and chance, and many other aspects of the war. Yet there was one that I did not foresee.

Alas, for I realized that due to military buildup, the problem remained. The league of San Marinos, having built their military up for the past 15 years, would get a military buildup bonus in the hundreds. The same situation, which Saamwiil described, could occur. I had failed to prevent the implausibility and unfairness. I should have considered this when making the new algorithm for coalitions.

I thought of several solutions. I could make it so that military buildup has to be averaged, or something of that nature, but that would be unfair to players who spent many turns building up their militaries. I thought of making military buildup only be +1 instead of +2, like it was in the last game, but unfortunately that would only make it so that the League of San Marinos would require to double their numbers to overpower China.

And then a solution came to me, a radical solution, that could potentially alter the entire algorithm with huge consquences. We prevent the algorithm from simply becoming a game of adding numbers, of whoever can add and add the most 2's and 3's to their lists of allies and military buildups.

We keep the current score systems for military buildup, number of allies sending supplies or military aid, or expansion. However, for the actual number that goes into the total that will go into the results, we will not use the raw number of allies or military buildup. Instead, we will use the ratio between the two nations.

For example, let's say that China has, on its side of the algorithm, a combined ally score totalling to 22 and a combined military buildup totalling to 24. Meanwhile, the League of San Marinos combined total is 20 for allies and military buildup of 88. We would find the larger score divided by the smaller one, and round to the nearest whole number, and give that number to the side with the larger number. Zeroes, for the sake of this, will count as ones.

Allies: 22/20=1.1=1, so China would get +1 for having just barely more allies than the League.

Military Buildup:88/24=3.666...=4, so the San Marinos get +4 for building up their military more.

This type of system would have several benefits for the game: Also, on the subject on economic buildup and infrastructure: Economic buildup would function exactly like military buildup: +20 for each year involved in a war. However, players would still want to alternate between improving their military and their economy, because if a player only improved their military for 10 turns, and their economy for zero, and their opponent improved their military for 5 and their economy for 5, the player would only get +2 for their military buildup, while the opponent would get +5 for their economic buildup. Infrastructure would be a +1 for each turn, adding in total to the algorithm but only for defensive wars.
 * 1) It makes motive, location, chance, and expansion, currently dwarfed by the huge numbers generated by military buildup and number of allies, into play for the end result.
 * 2) It makes that population number the biggest number for most wars, which makes sense since population is a big factor.
 * 3) It allows us to differentiate between economic buildup and military buildup if we want to add economic buildup to the score.

To finalize a solution for the past wars problem: every war in the past 15 years that you or a vassal sends military aid to war, you get -1 for that war. Every war that you led in the past 15 years you get -1 per year. With the lower scoring algorithms (thanks to using ratios instead of enormous ally and military buildup numbers), these smaller penalties would work.

Would the players of this game be willing to implement such a drastic change? LurkerLordB (Talk) 02:13, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

I'm in. Sounds all good to me. But can it be implemented after the Caliphate war? It's already confusing enough as it is. Hasta la vista, baby. (I'll be back.) 02:37, October 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course, this would be for future wars. LurkerLordB (Talk) 04:06, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

Well what if China doesn't have any allies (or hardly any)? What do we do when we need to divide by zero? I assume you'd swap China & San Marino around as numerator & denominator, but still 20/1 = 20. Just because the league of San Marinos have more allies doesn't mean that they should be stronger than China. Now the bias towards large alliances is emphasized more. A more relevant comparison might be if the HRE decided to invade France. The HRE would still get a huge ally boost as they are all fragmented but as a single state still in terms of all the other factors similar to France. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 02:58, October 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * China, and all other nations, would get at least +4 for ally score, as it would have +4 for leading. So to get a score of 20, you would need to have allies totalling up to 80, which is usually unlikely. Even then, you getting an 20 point bonus for 80 ally points still makes the emphasis towards large alliances less than getting 80 points for that.


 * I really did not understand that last HRE and France sentance at all, I'm sorry. Can you try rewriting it? LurkerLordB (Talk) 04:06, October 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * The HRE & France example I was using instead of the league of San Marinos vs China example. The HRE would have a lot more allies/nation leaders in the event of a HRE-France war, and they'd get a lot more points than France because they are separate states. Even though a couple of HRE states vs France in terms of common sense would mean France should win but the algorithm would favour the HRE simply because they are separate states. As you say, this is made even worse because France is NPC so they have few allies. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 15:28, October 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * The thing is that problem exists in the current set up even worse. If we changed it to this, the problem would be less problematic than it is currently, though still existant. I can't think of any way to mitigate it without jacking up the population factor to be utterly powerful. LurkerLordB (Talk) 02:08, October 22, 2012 (UTC)

I have noticed that this will make NPCs incredibly weak though. Perhaps we should give NPCs some sort of bonus to prevent them from being steamrolled? (but still being weaker than player nations). LurkerLordB (Talk) 04:06, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, we could put a NPC bonus, but that should only apply to NPC nations which actually have a chance.

You used my idea =D

The Royal Guns (talk) 19:12, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

Also, I recommend we take out the Nation age thing, except for very new nations (0- 25), and very old nations (750+). Other than that, it shouldn't grant or take away points, because at that point it makes no difference.

Don't forget to add the changes to the rules page...

The Royal Guns (talk) 19:25, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

I don't get the economy part... Also, I'm thinking: shouldn't we also cut down the amount of points given by allies. Ex. Military aid is now three, we should reduce it to two. Supplies is now 2, and it would be reduces to one. I believe this would be benificial because as said, they're not actually leading, it's just a few troops. Saamwiil, the Humble 19:33, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

i like the idea to remove nation age until it becomes a major factor(see Guns post) I also am for evening out the amount of points that NPC's would get so they don't just get steam rolled, as for the massive changes Lurk mentioned above, I agree that it is necasary, although I'm a little lost on how it works in relation to the current alogrithm, is the math any drastically different? And before we just all blindly vote on it, will it remove the nastyness that is the HRE-Caliphate war?Andr3w777 (talk) 20:57, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

The nation age thing is to encourage people to change their governments every so often, so that governments don't last forever.

Can you be more specific as to what you don't get about the economy?

If we did that, Saamwiil, we wouldn't be able to differentiate between vassals and major nations, and we wouldn't be able to show nations withdrawing from a side.

Does anyone have any ideas how to give the NPCs a slight advantage?

Andr3w777, I'll try to make a sample algorithm tomorrow or the next day.

It would not remove the HRE-Caliphate war. LurkerLordB (Talk) 02:08, October 22, 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how working on the economy say for 5 and military on 5, vs economy for or military for 10. Saamwiil, the Humble 14:35, October 22, 2012 (UTC)

For NPCs, I guess you could give them an NPC boost, based on population (eg, +5 for 5 digits, +6 for 6 digits)

Still, as it is, it doesn't encoyurage the changing of government, because if they stay ancient they get minus 5, if they change they get minus 10.

The Royal Guns (talk) 19:05, October 22, 2012 (UTC)

Saamwiil, if you work on the economy for five and military for five, and your opponent works on the military for 10 and economy for 0, He gets 10/5 for the military, so 2 points, while you get 5/1 for the economy, so 5 points. So you get 3 points more than if you just worked on one.

But after the -10 expires, you get -0, and then after that you get +5. LurkerLordB (Talk) 20:58, October 22, 2012 (UTC)

Well, should we implement this for all future wars? (starting with the Indian war that just began)? LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:19, October 24, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, there has been no large resistance to this change being enacted. The way I see it, this is the new algorithm. I would say the rules page could do with being updated with the new algorithm and the other new rule changes since the game's start. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 23:36, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

OK, this is now implemented, and will go into effect for all wars starting 1502 or later. The rules page should be updated, I will try to do it tomorrow if I can. LurkerLordB (Talk) 02:26, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

Naming Australia
Since the European nations got a chance to name the Americas, the Asian nations get a chance with Australia. However they will compete against the Latin name Australis. Scandinator (talk) 05:44, October 22, 2012 (UTC)

Japan will have their own unique names for all continents that is only seen in their Japanese language (Aside from Asia, Europe, and Africa, they stay named the same as OTL Japanese). So regardless the results, the Japanese name for Australia, and the Americas will be different and unique (and Japan will be the only ones to call it by such unique names). -Kogasa 2012年10月22日 17:31:08 (JST)


 * Well, obviously all nations will be able to have their own names in their own language, this will determine what we generally refer to the continent as. LurkerLordB (Talk) 00:00, October 23, 2012 (UTC)

Can't Hindustan get to name it as well? :/ Imp (Say Hi?!) 14:25, October 22, 2012 (UTC)

If one of the others fails to post one in by the start of next turn then go ahead. Scandinator (talk) 01:44, October 23, 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to bet that eventually the selected name will be lost, but I can't physically bet with anyone or vote, so no. Hasta la vista, baby. (I'll be back.) 01:52, October 23, 2012 (UTC)

Can I? I intend my Caliphate successor state based around Oman to be a great colonial power too. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 23:57, October 23, 2012 (UTC)

Once Tibet gets a proper port, I hope to get some Oceanian colonies (amongst other things), maybe on Australia as well. 77topaz (talk) 05:17, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

Wikibreak
I (Cyprus) am going on a wikibreak until the 26th. Just so everyone knows why I've suddenly gone inactive. Airlinesguy (talk) 20:47, October 22, 2012 (UTC)

Bengal coalition
Total: 111
 * Location: +4
 * Tactical Advantage: +1
 * Strength: Bengal (L), Lanka (MV), Gujarat (M), Koli (M), Deccan (M), Tibet (L), Nepal (MV), Buthan (MV), Kashmir (MV) = +25
 * Military Development: Bengal (+20), Tibet (+30) = 50
 * Expansion: -1
 * Motive: +5
 * Chance: 9
 * Edit Count: 9322
 * UTC Time: 2*3*3=18
 * 9322/18*pi=1626.999733
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: +8
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: 0

Hindustan
Total: 83
 * Location: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: 0
 * Strength: Hindustan (L), Gajapati (MV), Rajputana (M), Japan (S), Siam (M) = 14
 * Military Development: +26
 * Expansion: -1
 * Motive: 10
 * Chance: 9
 * Edit Count: 9322
 * UTC Time: 2*3*3=18
 * 9322/18*pi= 1626.999733
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 10
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: 0

Result
((111/(83+111))*2)-1 = 0.14

(0.14)*(1-1/(6)) = 11.76

The war last 3 years (1500 - 1502), so Bengal can take 12% of Hindustan territory. War ends in 1502.

Discussion
Unless Tibet joins you in your war, they will not be automatically accepted.


 * He just accept

How can you have 19 in population, you dont have this number, is imposible, also, you are not a colonial empire, so you dont get the +5 of adventage, you must recount and wait Quiari (talk) 22:41, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

I have a colony, whereas Bengal has none. Advantage there. Benagl's population would be something like 20-30 million. Mine would be atleast 175 to 250 million.What's this differences thing? I've never seen it before. :/ Imp (Say Hi?!) 22:51, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

I've seen neither, I'm not changing. Regarding the population across India should be like 200 million people by that time, I do not think you have much population, considering that the most populated areas have always been the North, especially the entire strip around the river Ganges. And another point, having a vassal does not make you a colonial empire, and if that's the case, I think Bengal also has one in their algorithm. Quiari (talk) 22:59, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

No! I've got a colony at otl Johannesburgin SA. Its not on the map forsomme reason. I'm sticking with the old algorithym as well. :/ Imp (Say Hi?!) 23:06, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

Colonization Rules:  '''No colonies until 1500. (so, you get your colony before 1450? like portugal? or you are breaking the rules?...) Tipakay (talk) 05:18, October 26, 2012 (UTC)'''

He doesn't have a vassal, he has a colony. Also, Imp's right, by this point the portion of India he controls has a popualtion of approx 200 mil. The Royal Guns (talk) 23:16, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

Imp you can't just decide how you want to follow the rules, those are rules now, so follow them. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 23:34, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

According to my sources [1][2], OTL world population in 1500 was about 425 - 437 million people, I don't think you have half the entire world's population living in Hindustan. My sources say the total population of all of India in 1500 was around 110 million. So your population figures are completely wrong. Like Quiari said above, the Ganges is one of the most populated places on Earth, so I think the difference in populations is much less than you claim it is Imp. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 00:08, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

A multiple of pi being a recurring decimal? The chance looks a bit botched. :P 77topaz (talk) 05:02, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

Imp, I do not believe that India could maintain a colony in South Africa much less Johannesburg which is inland. And after checking the list it says no colonies for you till after 1532. Scandinator (talk) 05:44, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

Wait, I thought that was for getting to America. It said that couldn't India like colonize from the onset? Oh, if its like 425 million, then fine my population will be 110 million. However, even though the Ganges has a significant proportion of the population, its not all! And I would still have atleast 5 times than Bengal, considering in otl is like 12 for all over Indian and like 7 for only south India. And my colony was on the coast of province of the north coast in South Africa. And the rules, well its not been used in the war below the Indian one, so... :P Imp (Say Hi?!) 12:02, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

And only one country for the military development. Imp (Say Hi?!) 12:04, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

<p style="margin-left: 24px">No, Tibet is also a leader, dont change my post, please Tipakay (talk) 14:13, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

If you noticed, I said that the population of all of India is 110 million in 1500. You don't control all of India, so your population won't be 110 million. Also we will be using the new rules on the algorithm below too. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 12:15, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, ok. 110 all over India. So Benagl would be a seven figured number in population? :/ Imp (Say Hi?!) 12:18, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

I think 8 digits, they'll have more than 10 million. Therefore your population bonus would be +2 to Hindustan as it's less than five times the population of Bengal. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 12:28, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

<p style="margin-left: 24px">I imagine that Bengal must have arround 20 millions, and hindustan 60 millions, aprox Tipakay (talk) 14:13, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

<p style="margin-left: 24px">You cannot have two leaders! Especially with the fact that Tibet has no border with Hindustan whatsoever!! Imp (Say Hi?!) 14:36, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

<p style="margin-left: 24px">In fact, Tibet has a border with Bengal, through Bhutan, but the map is not well placed. So in this way Tibet attack. And, you know, nowhere in rules of the game (war section) says you must have a border to attack someone. I imagine that there must logically be not a very large distance between the contenders. But like OTL Europe: France declared war on Austria and his army marched THROUGH Europe, logically asking permission. And again, do not change my post, ok?

<p style="margin-left: 24px">PD: Being Tibet also a leader in this war, I add their population, and in that way reduces the population difference, can not have "5" times more population than me, so earns no bonus there.Tipakay (talk) 14:58, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

<p style="margin-left: 24px">Tibet doesnt change anything. Its modern day population is 3 million. Then, its maximum must have been like 200,000. And Tibet said nothing about being a leader, they just gave you military aid. I am also sure you are not allowed 2 leaders in one algorithym (thats how it worked in PMI). Imp (Say Hi?!) 15:05, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

<p style="margin-left: 24px">He took the lead, its vassals are those who send military aid. Currently, Tibet has this population due to migration and Chinese policy toward them. Some international news. And indeed it is possible to have two leaders, and even more, these are the coalition wars, from what I've read. Tipakay (talk) 15:17, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

<p style="margin-left: 24px">Yes, but in coalition wars, things are different. Plus, against Tibet I would have a tactical advantage. And he might be sending you military aid, but he would not be the leader, he will just have an M and his vassals will have an MV. Imp (Say Hi?!) 15:48, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

<p style="margin-left: 24px">You should review the examples of the wars of the Caliphate and the HRE, and you'll see what I mean, in that sense there is no problem with him being leader. I'm making this model from the last war, that was the Caliphate against HRE. And if I'm right, this war is using that algorithm, as the new algorithm will be used in the wars since 1502, and this war began in 1500. So I'll finish.. Tipakay (talk) 16:20, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

<p style="margin-left: 24px">Yes, but Tibet has specifically written military aid!! I'll even get a moderator here if you do not believe me. :P Imp (Say Hi?!) 17:33, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

<p style="margin-left: 48px">I agreed to be a leader after I posted. Check Tipakay's talk page. 77topaz (talk) 21:00, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

<p style="margin-left: 24px">You can check our talk page if you dont belive me, he is a leader in this war, so please change the algorithm again, i am tired of doing it every second you wite your response Tipakay (talk) 19:18, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

Lol, he takes 0.52%, so less then 1%!!!!! wow, is this correct??? Quiari (talk) 19:30, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

Check your pages. You haven't asked him, and he did not ask you. I saw. I will ask a mod to look over this algo. Imp (Say Hi?!) 19:33, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

From my talk page: "Hey man, can i put you like a leader, so we can win the war, and give you the port i promise? please? Tipakay (talk) 04:42, October 26, 2012 (UTC)" I agreed. 77topaz (talk) 21:07, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

Naples/Savoy
Total: 99
 * Location: 4
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Strength: Naples (L) Savoy (L) = 8
 * Military Development: Naples (+30) Savoy (+26) = 56
 * Expansion: -1
 * Motive: +5
 * Chance: 5
 * Edit Count: 207
 * UTC Time: 2*4*5 = 40
 * 207/40*pi = 16.25778
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 17
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: -6 Caliphate

Bosnian Rebels
Total: 37
 * Location: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: 0
 * Strength: Rebel (L) = 4
 * Military Development: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +5
 * Chance: 7
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 6
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: 0

Result
((99/(37+99))*2)-1 = 0.45

(0.45)*(1-1/(4)) = 33.75%

The war last for 2 years, and with this result Bosnia and Montengro are now part of the Crown Naples/Savoy.

Disscussion
No we don't use random number generators for the chance score. Re-do the chance scores using the actual rules please. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 18:50, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

The rebels dont have post, i use my own edit number?? Quiari (talk) 18:59, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

You do the chance as normal for yourself, with the 2nd number after the decimal point (hundredths) being your chance score, and then the 3rd number after the decimal point (thousandths) is the chance score of the NPC. Look at an older algorithm against an NPC like this one, to see what I mean if you confused. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 19:04, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

Ok fixed, ty for the help Quiari (talk) 19:17, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

No worries, also guys we using the new algorithm rules for these two new wars? <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 19:38, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

No, you will use the new algorithm when you change the Rules page, meanwhile we have to use the normal algorithm. So i think that will be the next war, not this. Quiari (talk) 19:46, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

I think we shoukd use the new one. It's fairer. Saamwiil, the Humble 22:54, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

Well, its not on the rule page, and I'm clueless as to how it works, so... Imp (Say Hi?!) 22:56, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

It above under 'massive algorithm changes'. Saamwiil, the Humble 22:59, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

Well if you want to use it, use it in the Indian war, do not experiment on mine, ok? TY =) Quiari (talk) 23:02, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

-_- I mentioned this on the 'massive algorithm changes' section, lol. And mods in here?

And, Quiari... that's not really fair... if we're doing it to India, we should do it to Naples too.

The Royal Guns (talk) 23:10, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah India was the first war to use the new rules, so the precedent has been set. You must use the new rules Quiari. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 23:17, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, but I put my post of this war before you decide to do it in India, and also my war is a 2 years war from the previous year to this year, and is over, so there are no reasons, but seeing that India will take a little longer you should do there. I say this because first you should make a model of how it works, as an example, do not use it in one that is already happening. I hope you understand my position. Quiari (talk) 23:55, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

Wikibreaks and Nation changes
I do not believe we should set a precident with wikibreaks and nation changes. I believe that AP should be Aragon and MoS should return as a member of the former Kalmar Union when he comes back in a week. The only time a nation change has been permitted was when Zagoria returned to 10 pieces of the AGC. And when RogueJedi went on wikibreak and was conquered. In this case AP has not been conquered as is merely in dynatic union with Aragon. Scandinator (talk) 05:14, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

AgentMars
Mars has been absent for over 2 weeks, and even then only posting for three days. He's played 5 total turns, I think. So, until he gets back (god knows when), can Lx and I post for him? Technically, we're 'one nation' (in a sort of Articles of Confederation way. Except we don't go to war with each other. And I think we have the same currency). If scraw could do it with AP...

The Royal Guns (talk) 16:08, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

Scrawland had AP's permission to control his nation like this. All of this controlling multiple nations in a confederacy is starting to get out of hand, everyone's going to want to be in a confederacy now because that seems the easiest way to do good in the game. LurkerLordB (Talk) 20:55, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

Hello
Holaaaa, I'm from Bolivia, I was reading this page a few days ago, and I would like to play, do not quite understand all the things that you say about algorithms, but I'd like to try, I want to choose a country, no problem right? Mariano Gonzales Rosas

Well, you don't actually need to do the algorythms.And, you can choose one.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 21:24, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

Ok, gracias!. Well all major countries are already occupied, but I like Castilla, because I speak Spanish, but I think it is taked, the other option is the Byzantines, because it has an asterisk, right? One of those two I can choose? MGR

Those are the biggest two you can choose from right now. I hope you enjoy yourself here! Scandinator (talk) 23:18, October 26, 2012 (UTC)