Talk:Principia Moderni IV (Map Game)

Algorithms
Algorithms—the hard part of map games. This is where all of them are placed. It is mandatory to follow all the rules and strictly follow the procedure, rules, and computation of an algorithm, both of which can be seen here. You can see every algorithm below.

It's vital that you use exactly this format when writing or computing an algorithm, as it helps organization tremendously.

Formatting
Name of War (Years of War) [Use Heading 4]

Front Name [Only use this if there is more front in the war] [Heading 5]


 * Year
 * Pre-War Stage
 * Side I Name (Attacking or Defending)
 * Result:
 * Population:
 * War Exhaustion:
 * Casus Belli:
 * Government:
 * Side II Name (Attacking or Defending)
 * Result:
 * Population:
 * War Exhaustion:
 * Casus Belli:
 * Government:
 * Battle Stage
 * (Battle or Siege Name)
 * Side I Name (Attacking or Defending)
 * Result:
 * Army/Navy Size:
 * Location:
 * Great General:
 * Blunder:
 * Attrition:
 * Side II Name (Attacking or Defending)
 * Result:
 * Army/Navy Size:
 * Location:
 * Great General:
 * Blunder:
 * Attrition:
 * Final Stage:
 * Side I Name
 * Cities Occupied:
 * Result:
 * Side I Name
 * Cities Occupied:
 * Result:
 * Overall Result:

Discussion [Heading 5]

Al-Najm's Persian Campaign [DISCUSSION ONLY ALLOWED - LOCKED]

 * 1439
 * Pre-War
 * Abbasids + Ottomans + Russians: 55.5
 * Population: 44.5 (Abbasids 5 million, Ottomans 7 million, Russians + Siberia 8.5 million)
 * Motive: 4 (reconquest of Abbasid lands)
 * Government: 7 (theocracy)
 * War exhaustion: 0
 * Persia: 53
 * Population: 48 (24 million)
 * Motive: 2 (non existential defending vassal)
 * Government: 3 (Sultanate)
 * War exhaustion: 0
 * Battle of Mosul
 * Abbasids + Ottomans: 102.033
 * Military: 58.533 (Abbasids 80,000, Ottomans 30,000, Russians + Siberia 0,000)
 * Location: 3.5 (Near a city)
 * Great leader: 45 (MP approved)
 * Attrition: 0,
 * Blunder: -5
 * Persia: 109.5
 * Military: +108 (360,000)
 * Location: +3.5
 * Blunder: -2
 * Final results:
 * Abbasids/Ottomans: 35-(109.5-76.5) = 2
 * Persia: 53 = 53
 * Final outcome: Persia utterly defeats the Abbasid/Ottoman coalition, killing or capturing each and every man. Trebizond, however, is captured by the Ottomans.

Discussion
Left Persian forces blank 'cause I know Persia needs to be judicious between both fronts -Nate

Guess he was not judicious at all.... -Nate

You forgot to include the populations of the Bahmanids and Mogadishu, both of which declared support for the Gurkanis. (Bahmanid pop=31 mil, Fallacyman says his pop=1.3 mil)The Guardian of Forever (talk) 03:07, August 26, 2016 (UTC)

Scraw has confrimed with me that you and Mogadishu cannot be involved in this war. Take it up with him -Nate

So, Rimp has 360k men, revised down from a humonguous number of like 500k. According to his post, he sent 350k to Mosul last year, and 80k to Trebizond. Instead, now knowing his true troop numbers, he wants to send 360k to Mosul, and to concede defeat at Trebizond. Due to the time zone differences and such, it has been approved by the non-involved mods (mostly Sky and I) that we'd allow this troop re-allocation for 1439. The algo has been updated to reflect such, and as a result Persia re-conquered the Jalayarids, defeated the invading armies (by over 200%) and now has the ball in its court, to potentially counter-attack or force peace and focus on the Uzbeks. 17:44, August 26, 2016 (UTC)

Rimp should not be allowed to retroactively change his strategy of where he moves troops. Sending two-thirds to Mosul and the rest to Trebzond is just as plausible a strategy as this one, the only reason Rimp wants to change it is because he realizes after seeing the algo he wouldn't win with the original distrobution. Alternatively, if we do allow Rimp to change his strategy I should be allowed to change my strategy too, deciding to defend Mosul from Rimp's invasion instead of trying to take it. Either way, we should not move on until this question is answered. Oh, I didn't mean to push that button! † Oh, well leave a message I guess  21:01, August 26, 2016 (UTC)

What change of strategy are you referring to exactly? I was sending 350k to Mosul then and 360k to Mosul now. If you so desire to increase your armies size by 10k, you are free to do so. Don't make up lies because you are losing despite your attempts to cripple my Empire via Mod Events. I was sending roughly the same sized army before and even now. It was actually you who reduced the size of my army to 170k so don't blame me for your own mistakes. Now that leads to the question.. What change of strategy is Nathan talking about? Originally, Nathan was controlling the Uzbeks via Mod Events to sieze my cities and march on my capital. The other Mods crossed it out because it was obviously implausible amd this created a problem for Nathan because he was hoping my forces would be evenly split fighting him and the Uzbeks. That is the only thing that has happened. Moving onto the second issue, why is Russia even mentioned in this algorithm? They declared war on me on 1440 and this battle is taking place in 1439. Moving on, the size of the Abbasid + Ottoman forces is 110k. 110k*0.3 ÷ 1k = 33 not 58.5 so that needs to be fixed in the scores too. Finally, why exactly does Nathan have a Great General? I asked MP and he said he never gave it

Asked if it was possible to add naval scores to this since Russia would definitely be attacking along the Black Sea. Sky said yes so I'm posting scores here. Most Persia can field is 1,050, so I'd assume he uses all of it. Russia, being a merchant republic, can field an inappropriately high amount. I'll be sending 1,500 ships and I'd advise Bozi to add the Ottoman fleet as well. Crim de la Kremlin - "This is my signature. That means I just posted." 15:59, August 27, 2016 (UTC)

As has already been discussed on chat by Sky, Russia cannot intervene. This battle is taking place on 1439 and Russia declared war on 1440

Rimp proposed a white peace earlier today. If that offer still stands, I'm just going to do that. Crim de la Kremlin - "This is my signature. That means I just posted." 22:58, August 27, 2016 (UTC)

Croatian Attack on Ragusa

 * Year
 * Pre-War Stage
 * Ragusa
 * Result: 8.2
 * Population: 0.2
 * War Exhaustion:-1
 * Casus Belli: 7
 * Government: 2
 * Croatia
 * Result: 8
 * Population: 2
 * War Exhaustion:-1
 * Casus Belli: 4
 * Government: 4
 * Battle Stage
 * River battle
 * Ragusa
 * Result: 2.65
 * Army/Navy Size: 0.15
 * Location: 4.5
 * Great General:
 * Blunder:-2
 * Attrition:
 * Croatia
 * Result:7
 * Army/Navy Size: 2
 * Location: 4.5
 * Great General:
 * Blunder:-3
 * Attrition:
 * Final Stage:
 * Side I Name
 * Cities Occupied:
 * Result: 3.85
 * Side I Name
 * Cities Occupied:
 * Result: 8
 * Overall Result: 207%, Ragusa massively rekt, Croatia wins unconditionally.

Gurkani Assault on Trebizond (1440)
Not sure whether this should be under Al Najms Persian Campaign or not. Anyways I'lldo as soon as I can. I would prefer if someone else does this tho cause I am on phone and cant do algos atm -Rimp

Benin Invasion of Jolof (1440)

 * 1440
 * Pre-War Stage
 * Benin (Attacking)
 * Result: +90.5
 * Population: +83.5 (41,785,157)
 * War Exhaustion: -1
 * Casus Belli: +1
 * Government: +7
 * Jolof (Defending)
 * Result: +22
 * Population: +10 (5,000,000)
 * War Exhaustion: 0
 * Casus Belli: +7
 * Government: +5
 * Battle Stage
 * Benin Invasion of Jolof
 * Benin (Attacking)
 * Result: +47
 * Army/Navy Size: +46.5 (136,500 troops/45 ships/10% army concentration)
 * Location: +4.5
 * Great General: 0
 * Blunder: -4
 * Attrition: 0
 * Jolof (Defending)
 * Result: +34
 * Army/Navy Size: +30 (100,000 troops)
 * Location: +6
 * Great General: 0
 * Blunder: -2
 * Attrition: 0
 * Final Stage:
 * Benin
 * Cities Occupied: 0
 * Casualties: 13,650 troops
 * Result: +137.5
 * Jolof
 * Cities Occupied: 0
 * Casualties: 90,000 troops
 * Result: +56
 * Overall Result: 245.53% in favor of Benin. Jolof is conquered and annexed.

Al-Najm's Persian Campaign [Alternate version]

 * 1439
 * Pre-War
 * Abbasids + Ottomans: 35
 * Population: 24 (Abbasids 5 million, Ottomans 7 million)
 * Motive: 4 (reconquest of Abbasid lands)
 * Government: 7 (theocracy)
 * War exhaustion: 0
 * Persia: 53
 * Population: 48 (24 million)
 * Motive: 2 (non existential defending vassal)
 * Government: 3 (Sultanate)
 * War exhaustion: 0
 * Battle of Mosul
 * Abbasids + Ottomans: 81.5 + blunder
 * Military: 33 (Abbasids 80,000, Ottomans 30,000)
 * Location: 3.5 (Near a city)
 * Great leader: 45 (MP approved)
 * Attrition: 0
 * Blunder:
 * Persia: 53.9 + blunder
 * Military: 50.4 (170,000)
 * Location: 3.5
 * Blunder:
 * Battle of Trebzond
 * Abbasids + Ottomans: 24.5 + blunder
 * Military: 21 (Abbasids: 20,000, Ottomans 50,000)
 * Location: 3.5 (Near a city)
 * Attrition: 0
 * Blunder:
 * Persia: 25.1 + blunder
 * Military: 21.6 (72,000)
 * Location: 3.5
 * Blunder:
 * Final results:
 * Abbasids: 35-0.6 = 34.4
 * Persia: 53-27.6-10 (Mosul lost) = 15.4
 * Final outcome: Abbasids win 220%, Mosul is taken, leading to the annexation of the Jaylarid Sultanate, while Trebizond is successfully defended and the Ottomans stopped
 * 1440
 * Pre-War
 * Abbasids + Ottomans : 46


 * Population: 41 (Abbasids 5 million, Ottomans 7 million, Russia 8.5 million)
 * Motive: 4 (reconquest of Abbasid lands)
 * Government: 7 (theocracy)
 * War exhaustion: -6
 * Persia: 52


 * Population: 48 (24 million)
 * Motive: 7 (existential defending historic land)
 * Government: 3 (Sultanate)
 * War exhaustion: -6
 * Siege of Tabriz
 * Abbasids + Ottomans: 104.5 + blunder
 * Military: 55.5 (Abbasids: 70,000, Ottomans 30,000, Russia 85,000 (attrition accounted))
 * Location: 4 (beseiging city)
 * Attrition: -6 (mountains)
 * Great general: 45
 * Blunder:
 * Persia: 76 + blunder
 * Military: 72 (240,000, 1% of population)
 * Location: 4
 * Blunder:
 * Final result
 * Abbasids: 45
 * Gurkani: 23.5 - 10 = 13.5
 * Final outcome: Caliphate wins 333%, collapsing Persia

Deas Mhumhain attack on Mac Cárthaigh and Ó Súilleabháin

 * Year
 * Pre-War Stage
 * Desmond
 * Result: 6.2
 * Population: 0.2
 * War Exhaustion:
 * Casus Belli:3
 * Government:3
 * McCarthy and O'Sullivan
 * Result: 6.1
 * Population:0.1
 * War Exhaustion:
 * Casus Belli:3
 * Government:3
 * Battle Stage
 * (Battle or Siege Name)
 * Side I Name (Attacking or Defending)
 * Result: 4.6
 * Army/Navy Size:0.6
 * Location: 4
 * Great General:
 * Blunder:0
 * Attrition:
 * Side II Name (Attacking or Defending)
 * Result: 1.3
 * Army/Navy Size: 0.3
 * Location: 4
 * Great General:
 * Blunder:-3
 * Attrition:
 * Final Stage:
 * Desmond
 * Cities Occupied: Some random irish town
 * Result:
 * Clans
 * Cities Occupied:
 * Result:6.1-10-3.3 = 7.2
 * Overall Result: Maximum rekt

Discussion [Heading 5]

Totonac Invasion of Michoacan and Matlatzinco [1441]

 * 1441
 * Pre-War Stage
 * Totonacapan
 * Result: +10
 * Population: +5
 * War Exhaustion: 0
 * Casus Belli: +3
 * Government: +2
 * Michoacan and Matlatzinco
 * Result: +9,4


 * Population: +0,4
 * War Exhaustion: 0
 * Casus Belli: +7
 * Government: +2
 * Battle Stage
 * Battle of (small) city
 * Totonacapan
 * Result: +19,5
 * Army/Navy Size: +16,5
 * Location: +4
 * Great General: 0
 * Blunder: -1
 * Attrition: 0
 * Michoacan and Matlatzinco
 * Result: +2,2
 * Army/Navy Size: +1,2
 * Location: +4
 * Great General: 0
 * Blunder: -3
 * Attrition: 0
 * Final Stage:
 * Totonacapan
 * Cities Occupied:
 * Result: +10
 * Michoacan and Matlatzinco
 * Cities Occupied: Cities
 * Result: -7.9
 * Overall Result: 1890%, Michoacan and Matlatzinco massively rekt, Totonacapan wins unconditionally.

Discussion of Totonac Invasion
Mods check this pls.

someone do this Blocky858 (talk) 19:13, August 26, 2016 (UTC)

War of Balkan Liberation (1440-)

 * 1440
 * Pre-War Stage
 * Bohemia (Attacking)
 * Result: 48
 * Population: 40 (20 million: 7 million - Bohemia/Hungary; 7 million - Poland-Lithuania; 6 million - Naples)
 * War Exhaustion:
 * Casus Belli: 5 (religious)
 * Government: 3
 * Ottomans (Defending)
 * Result: 31
 * Population: 30 (15.5 million: 10 million - Ottomans; 5.5 million - Caliphate)
 * War Exhaustion: -6
 * Casus Belli: 2 (defedning vassal)
 * Government: 5
 * Battle Stage
 * Siege of Belgrade
 * Bohemia (Attacking)
 * Result: 7.2
 * Army/Navy Size: 7.2 (24,000)
 * Location: 4
 * Great General: 0
 * Blunder: -4
 * Attrition: 0
 * Ottomans (Defending)
 * Result: 4.3
 * Army/Navy Size: 2.3 (7,500, from vassals)
 * Location: 4
 * Great General: 0
 * Blunder: -2
 * Attrition: 0
 * 1441
 * Battle Stage
 * Battle of Greece
 * Bohemia (Attacking)
 * Result: 5.7
 * Army/Navy Size: 7.2 (24,000)
 * Location: 3.5
 * Great General: 0
 * Blunder: -5
 * Attrition: 0
 * Ottomans (Defending)
 * Result: 12
 * Army/Navy Size: 12 (40,000)
 * Location: 4
 * Great General: 0
 * Blunder: -4
 * Attrition: 0
 * Reconquest of Belgrade
 * Ottomans (Attacking)
 * Result: 5
 * Army/Navy Size: 3 (10,000)
 * Location: 4
 * Great General: 0
 * Blunder: -2
 * Attrition: 0
 * Bohemia (Defending)
 * Result: 2.3
 * Army/Navy Size: 0.3 (1,000)
 * Location: 4
 * Great General: 0
 * Blunder: -2
 * Attrition: 0
 * 1442
 * 3rd Siege of Belgrade
 * Bohemia (Attacking)
 * Result: 15
 * Army/Navy Size: 15 (50,000)
 * Location: 4
 * Great General: 0
 * Blunder: -4
 * Attrition: 0
 * Ottomans (Defending)
 * Result: 12
 * Army/Navy Size: 9 (7,500, from vassals and the rest ottoman army = 30k)
 * Location: 4
 * Great General: 0
 * Blunder: -1
 * Attrition: 0
 * Liberation of Epirus
 * Naples (Attacking)
 * Result: 4.8
 * Army/Navy Size: 3.3 (11,000)
 * Location: 3.5
 * Great General: 0
 * Blunder: -2
 * Attrition: 0
 * Ottomans (Defending)
 * Result: 2.3
 * Army/Navy Size: .3 (1,000 man garrison)
 * Location: 4
 * Great General: 0
 * Blunder: -2
 * Attrition: 0 - 11.2
 * 1443
 * Counter Attack on Epirus
 * Ottomans (attacking)
 * Result: 21 + blunder
 * Army/Navy Size: 21 (40,000 men, 300 ships)
 * Location: 3 (coastline)
 * Attrition: -3 (coast)
 * Blunder:
 * Epirus (defending)
 * Result: 9.8 + blunder
 * Army/Navy Size: 6.3 (11,000 Naples, 10,000 Bohemia)
 * Location: 3 (coastline)
 * Attrition:
 * Blunder:
 * 4th Belgrade
 * Caliphate (attacking)
 * Result: 64
 * Army/Navy Size: 15 (50,000)
 * Location: 4 (besieging a city)
 * Attrition:
 * Blunder:
 * Great Leader: 45 (Al-Najm)
 * Serbia (defending)
 * Result: 19
 * Army/Navy Size: 15 (50,000)
 * Location: 4 (besiegins a city)
 * Attrition:
 * Blunder:
 * Final Stage:
 * Bohemia
 * Cities Occupied:  Belgrade retaken
 * Result: 48-6.3-2.7-11.2-45 = -19.2
 * Ottomans
 * Cities Occupied: N/A
 * Result: 31-2.9-3-2.5 = 22.4
 * Overall Result: naples added in, someone add it to the result, but currently europeans winning by over 500% (1442)
 * After the last year of fighting, it's suffice to say the Muslims win (1443)

Discussion
WIP Blocky858 (talk) 19:25, August 27, 2016 (UTC)

Some small edits, and adding Bozi's strategic troop placement. 23:20, August 27, 2016 (UTC)

The CB should be religious war, and the government should be elective monarchy for Bohemia. Also, Ottomans should have -12 war exhaustion. Also, see my mod event complaint on how the army sizes are bullshit. Blocky858 (talk) 20:41, August 28, 2016 (UTC)

Dealt with. Blocky858 (talk) 03:57, August 29, 2016 (UTC)

This algo is BS. There is no way Poland and Naples should get involved in a war led by Bohemia/Hugnary, and the Ottomans should have more troops as the war in Persia ended years ago -Nate

For the last time nate, the war is still going on, no official peace has been declared. I looked at the turns from when you  said peace was declared, there was no peace. Even then, he still does not have enough man power to raise an additional 70k. Blocky858 (talk) 04:24, August 29, 2016 (UTC)

There are two glaring issues wrong with this, first: Ottoman government should be +5--Absolute Monarchy. Second of all, Ottoman population is definitely not 7 million, I'd argue that it's at the least 14 million, and at most, more than the combined opposing side. Here is my source.

 Consul Ioshua   #Beware!   04:19, August 29, 2016 (UTC)

Okay, Sky told me it was Iqta, so my/his mistake? Also, no. That source is near 100 years in the future from now, plus if you look at geocron, the Ottomans owned the Mamluks, quite literally ALL of the Balkans, swaths of North Africa, and a LARGE chunk of Ukraine, in addition to some additional Mid-East holdings. Right now, as it currently stands in terms of time and in their size, they have 7 million. Source. Blocky858 (talk) 04:24, August 29, 2016 (UTC)

Wrong source, other sources:

This one

Couldn't fine a link, so I'm going to cite this  Consul Ioshua   #Beware!   04:39, August 29, 2016 (UTC)
 * J.C. Russell, Late Ancient And Medieval Population, published as vol. 48 pt. 3 of the Transactions Of The American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, 1958.

Highly doubt Naples has 6 million people. All of italy has 10 million people according to a number of sources. Rome probably has up to 2 million people, and the majority of the population would be in northern italy, as opposed to the mostly rural Naples. Oh, I didn't mean to push that button! † Oh, well leave a message I guess  02:30, August 30, 2016 (UTC)

Naxian Invasion of the Morea (1441)

 * 1441
 * Pre-War Stage
 * Duchy of Naxos (Attacking)
 * Result: +8.07
 * Population: +.07 (35,000)
 * War Exhaustion: -0
 * Casus Belli: +3
 * Government: +5
 * Ottoman Empire (Defending)
 * Result: +0
 * Population: +14 (7,000,000)
 * War Exhaustion: -18
 * Casus Belli: +1
 * Government: +3
 * Battle Stage
 * (Battle of Sparti)
 * Duchy of Naxos (Attacking)
 * Result: 4.1 + blunder
 * Army/Navy Size: +0.6 (2,000)
 * Location: +3.5
 * Great General: +0
 * Blunder:
 * Attrition: -0
 * Ottoman Empire (Defending)
 * Result: 4.1 + blunder
 * Army/Navy Size: +0.1 (300)
 * Location: +4
 * Great General: +0
 * Blunder:
 * Attrition: -0
 * Final Stage:
 * Duchy of Naxos
 * Cities Occupied:
 * Result: 12.17
 * Ottoman Empire
 * Cities Occupied:
 * Result: 4.1
 * Overall Result: Naxos annexes the Morea.

Discussion
50,000 of the Ottoman troops are fighting the Bohemians and 30,000 were killed at the Battle of Mosul. As the most troops the Ottoman Empire can have is 70,000, how many Ottoman troops should be at the Battle of Sparti? NathanialPrice (talk) 00:52, August 28, 2016 (UTC)

Invasion of Cyprus (1440)

 * 1440
 * Pre-War Stage
 * Duchy of Naxos (Attacking)
 * Result: +8.07
 * Population: +.07 (35,000)
 * War Exhaustion: -0
 * Casus Belli: +3 (Historic Enemy)
 * Government: +5
 * Abbasid Caliphate (Defending)
 * Result: -18
 * Population: +10 (5,000,000)
 * War Exhaustion: -38 (The Abbasid Caliphate has been unable to allow for past war exhaustion to run out. A timeline of the Abbasid War Exhaustion is on my talk page.)
 * Casus Belli: +3 (Nonhistoric land. Cyprus had been ogverned by the Greeks and Italians for hundreds of years. The Abbasid Empire conquered it only 20 years ago.)
 * Government: +7 (Theocracy)
 * Battle Stage
 * (Battle of Larnaca Bay)
 * Duchy of Naxos (Attacking)
 * Result: 2.21 + blunder
 * Army/Navy Size: +1.71 (57)
 * Location: +3.5
 * Great General: +0
 * Blunder:
 * Attrition: -3 (coast)
 * Abbasid Caliphate (Defending)
 * Result: 8 + blunder
 * Navy Size: +4.5 (150. As the battle takes place at sea, the army doesn't count towards the algorithm.)
 * Location: +3.5 (city by sea)
 * Great General: +0
 * Blunder:
 * Attrition: -0
 * Final Stage:
 * Duchy of Naxos
 * Cities Occupied:
 * Result: 20.28 = (10.28 + 10)
 * Abbasid Caliphate
 * Cities Occupied:
 * Result: 1 = (-10 + 10 + 1)
 * Final result: Naxos wins 2028%. Cyprus is annexed, and the 150 ships are completely destroyed.

Discussion
NathanialPrice (talk) 04:31, August 28, 2016 (UTC)

So, you lost the battle, but you still say you won the war? I am that guy (talk) 21:48, August 30, 2016 (UTC)

Totonac-Tarascan invasion of Coinan, Tonallan, Poncitlan and Cuitzeo [1442]

 * 1442
 * Pre-War Stage
 * Totonacapan, Tarascan
 * Result: +9,4
 * Population: +5,4
 * War Exhaustion: -1
 * Casus Belli: +3
 * Government: +2
 * Coinan, Tonallan, Poncitlan and Cuitzeo
 * Result: +9,8
 * Population: +0,8
 * War Exhaustion: 0
 * Casus Belli: +7
 * Government: +2
 * Battle Stage
 * Battle of (small) city
 * Totonacapan, Tarascan
 * Result: +18,8
 * Army/Navy Size: +16,8
 * Location: +4
 * Great General: 0
 * Blunder: -2
 * Attrition: 0
 * Coinan, Tonallan, Poncitlan and Cuitzeo
 * Result: +6,6
 * Army/Navy Size: +2,4
 * Location: +4
 * Great General: 0
 * Blunder: 0
 * Attrition: 0
 * Final Stage:
 * Totonacapan, Tarascan
 * Cities Occupied:
 * Result: 9,4
 * Coinan, Tonallan, Poncitlan and Cuitzeo
 * Cities Occupied: Cities
 * Result: -2.4
 * Overall Result: 1280%, Coinan, Tonallan, Poncitlan and Cuitzeo massively rekt, Totonacapan and Tarascan wins unconditionally.

Discussion of Totonac Invasion
Mods check this pls

Thuringen Invasion of Hesse
Battle Stage
 * Year 1442-1443
 * Pre-War Stage
 * Side I Name Thuringen (Attacking)
 * Result: 8.1
 * Population: 2.1
 * War Exhaustion: None
 * Casus Belli: Attacking Historic Enemey +3
 * Government: Absolute Monarchy +3
 * Side II Name Hesse (Defending)
 * Result: 10.88
 * Population: 0.88
 * War Exhaustion: None
 * Casus Belli:  Existential Defending historical lands +7
 * Government: Absolute Monarchy +3
 * Battle Stage
 * The Boarder
 * Side I Name Thuringen (Attacking)
 * Result: -1.0
 * Army/Navy Size: 2
 * Location:  Near a populated border +2
 * Great General: None
 * Blunder: -5
 * Attrition: 0
 * Side II Name Hesse (Defending)
 * Result: -2.9
 * Army/Navy Size: 0.9
 * Location:  Near a populated border +2
 * Great General: None
 * Blunder: -5
 * Attrition: 0
 * Center of Hesse
 * Side I Name Thuringen (Attacking)
 * Result: 5.5
 * Army/Navy Size: 2
 * Location:  Near a center 4.5
 * Great General: None
 * Blunder: -1
 * Attrition: 0
 * Side II Name Hesse (Defending)
 * Result: 1.9
 * Army/Navy Size: 0.9
 * Location:  Near center 6
 * Great General: None
 * Blunder: -5
 * Attrition: 0
 * Final Stage:
 * Side I Thuringen
 * Cities Occupied: Weisbaden
 * Result: 8.1
 * Results: 13.6
 * Side I Hesse
 * Cities Occupied:
 * Result: 10.88-(-1--2.9) = 8.98
 * Results: 11.78 - 3.6 = 8.18
 * Overall Result: Hesse clings on, but Thuringia can launch another attack next year. In year 2 Thuringen tops over the Hesse deffence with a 166%. Most of Hesse goes to Thuringen.

Totonac-Tarascan invasion of Azmola, Ayutitlan, Colimotl and Xilotan [1443]

 * 1443
 * Pre-War Stage
 * Totonacapan, Tarascan
 * Result: +12,2
 * Population: +6,2
 * War Exhaustion: -2
 * Casus Belli: +3
 * Government: +5
 * Azmola, Ayutitlan, Colimotl and Xilotan


 * Result: +10,8
 * Population: +0,8
 * War Exhaustion: 0
 * Casus Belli: +7
 * Government: +3
 * Battle Stage
 * Battle of (small) city
 * Totonacapan, Tarascan
 * Result: +17
 * Army/Navy Size: +18
 * Location: +4
 * Great General: 0
 * Blunder: -5
 * Attrition: 0
 * Azmola, Ayutitlan, Colimotl and Xilotan
 * Result: +4,6
 * Army/Navy Size: +2,4
 * Location: +4
 * Great General: 0
 * Blunder: -2
 * Attrition: 0
 * Final Stage:
 * Totonacapan, Tarascan
 * Cities Occupied:
 * Result: +29,2
 * Azmola, Ayutitlan, Colimotl and Xilotan
 * Cities Occupied: Cities
 * Result: +0,6
 * Overall Result: 4866%, Azmola, Ayutitlan, Colimotl and Xilotan massively rekt, Totonacapan and Tarascan wins unconditionally.

Discussion of Totonac Invasion
Mods check this pls

Mogadishu Kilwa War

 * 1443
 * Pre-War Stage
 * Mogadishu
 * Result:  11.2
 * Population: +3.2[Mogadishu population ~ 1,600,000]
 * War Exhaustion: 0
 * Casus Belli: Attacking historic enemy (Swahili City States) +3
 * Government: Absolute Sultanate +5
 * Kilwa
 * Result: 9.4
 * Population: +0.4 (200,000)
 * War Exhaustion: 0
 * Casus Belli: Existential Historic enemy +5
 * Government: Oligarchy/Council +4
 * Battle Stage
 * Battle of Kilwa
 * Mogadishu
 * Result: 13.28
 * Army Size: 25,000 = 7.5
 * Navy Size: 160 Ships = 4.8*1.1=5.28
 * Location: Near seat of government, along sea +4.5
 * Great General: 0
 * Blunder: -1
 * Attrition:  Naval -3
 * Kilwa
 * Result:1.34
 * Army Size: 4,000 Soldiers = 0.12
 * Navy Size:  24 Ships = 0.72
 * Location: Defending near seat of government +4.5
 * Great General:
 * Blunder:  -4
 * Attrition:
 * Final Stage:
 * Mogadishu
 * 1000% difference in war score, Kilwa Annexed.
 * Kilwa

War of the Goats
Total:13.2 Attrition: -3 Total: -3.7 Total: +1.5 Result: -5.2 for Norway Total: +1.5 Total:+2.2 Total:10.5 Total:3.16
 * 1443
 * Pre-war Stage
 * Norway-Sweden Alliance
 * Population: +2 (1,000,000)
 * War Exhaustion:0
 * Casus Belia: Defending the Crown +3
 * Government: +5
 * Total:10
 * Denmark
 * Population:+1.2 (600,000)
 * War Exhaustion: 0
 * Casus Belia: 5
 * Government:+5
 * Battle Stage: Battle of Stornholm
 * Norway's Colonies
 * Navy Size: +1.3
 * Location: +1
 * Blunder:-3
 * Denmark
 * Navy Size: +0.5
 * Location:+1
 * Blunder:0
 * Battle of Ronneby
 * Sweden
 * Army size: +3 (10,000)
 * Location: +3.5
 * Great General: N/A
 * Attrition N/A
 * Blunder:-5
 * Denmark
 * Army size: +1.2 (4,000)
 * Location:+4
 * Great General:N/A
 * Blunder:-3
 * Results: -.7 for Sweden
 * Battle of Halmstad
 * Norway-Russian Army
 * Army size: +7.5 (30,000)
 * Location:+4
 * Blunder:-2
 * Attrition:0
 * Great General: +45 (Commander Shepard) 0
 * Denmark
 * Army size +2.16 (7,200)
 * Location: +4
 * Great General:N/A
 * Blunder:-1
 * Results: Denmark -4.34
 * Overall Results:
 * Sweden-Norway: 10-5.2-.7=10-5.9=4.1
 * Denmark: 13.2-4.34=8.86
 * Cities Occupied: -10 (for Denmark)
 * Result: Norwegian Victory 127.80%
 * Comment:Falkenburg was established in 1558 as a city, right not it is a military fort, so Denmark wouldn't suffer the -10 city capture penalty
 * New algo approved by Josh aka JeshThePleb aka Joshy the Yoshi.

First War of Bavarian Unification [1443]

 * 1413
 * Pre-War Stage
 * Austria: 12 (3 million)
 * Result:
 * Population: 6 (3 million)
 * War Exhaustion: 0
 * Casus Belli: Crown war (subjugation): +3
 * Government: Feudal +3
 * Landshut and Strauberg
 * Result: 10.6
 * Population: 1.6 (800 000)
 * War Exhaustion: 0
 * Casus Belli: Existential Crown +6
 * Government: Feudal +3
 * Battle Stage
 * Siege of Brannau
 * Austria
 * Result: 9
 * Army Size: 20 000 Soldiers = 6
 * Location: +4 (sieging Major City)
 * Great General: 0
 * Blunder: -1
 * Attrition: 0
 * Landshut and Strauberg
 * Result: 0.8
 * Army Size: 6 000 Soldiers = 1.8
 * Location: Sieging Major City (+4)
 * Great General:
 * Blunder: -5
 * Attrition: 0
 * Final Stage:
 * Austria : 12
 * Cities Occupied: Brannau
 * Casualties:
 * Landshut and Strauberg: -8.6 (10.6-8.2-10
 * Cities Occupied:
 * Casualties: Total Destruction
 * Result: Absolute Austrian Victory.

Mogadishu Mombasa War

 * 1443
 * Pre-War Stage
 * Mogadishu
 * Result:  10.6
 * Population: +3.6[Mogadishu population ~ 1,800,000]
 * War Exhaustion: 1
 * Casus Belli: Attacking historic enemy (Swahili City States) +3
 * Government: Absolute Sultanate +5
 * Mombasa
 * Result: 9.4
 * Population: +0.4 (200,000)
 * War Exhaustion: 0
 * Casus Belli: Existential Historic enemy +5
 * Government: Oligarchy/Council +4
 * Battle Stage
 * Battle of  Mombasa


 * Mogadishu
 * Result: 12.28
 * Army Size: 25,000 = 7.5
 * Navy Size: 160 Ships = 4.8*1.1=5.28
 * Location: Near seat of government, along sea +4.5
 * Great General: 0
 * Blunder: -2
 * Attrition:  Naval -3
 * Mombasa


 * Result:0.34
 * Army Size: 4,000 Soldiers = 0.12
 * Navy Size:  24 Ships = 0.72
 * Location: Defending near seat of government +4.5
 * Great General:
 * Blunder:  -5
 * Attrition:
 * Final Stage:
 * Mogadishu
 * Overwhelming Victory, 1000% difference in warscore, Mombasa annexed.
 * Mombasa

Discussion
The Bahmanids sent some help (I forget how much, probably the same as the Kilwa War).The Guardian of Forever (talk) 14:09, August 30, 2016 (UTC)

Aztec Invasion of Totonac and Tarascan Empires[1444]

 * 1444
 * Pre-War Stage
 * Totonac and Tarascan Empires
 * Result: +16
 * Population: +4
 * War Exhaustion: 0
 * Casus Belli: +7
 * Government: +5
 * Aztec Triple Alliance


 * Result: +10
 * Population: +4
 * War Exhaustion: 0
 * Casus Belli: +1
 * Government: +5
 * Battle Stage
 * Siege of Xallapan
 * Totonac and Tarascan Empires
 * Result: +19
 * Army/Navy Size: +9
 * Location: +12
 * Great General: 0
 * Blunder:2
 * Attrition: 0
 * Aztec Triple Alliance
 * Result: +55
 * Army/Navy Size: +12
 * Location: +8
 * Great General: +45
 * Blunder: 0
 * Attrition: -10
 * Final Stage:
 * Totonac and Tarascan Empires
 * Cities Occupied:
 * Result: 16-36=-20-15=-35
 * Aztec Triple Alliance
 * Cities Occupied: Cities
 * Result: 10
 * Overall Result: ???? Totonac and Tarascan Empires rekt

Discussion of Aztec Invasion
Mods check this pls

Naxian Invasian of Achaea (1443)

 * 1443
 * Pre-War Stage
 * Naxos
 * Result:  4.47
 * Population: +0.47 (235,000)
 * War Exhaustion: -4
 * Casus Belli: +3
 * Government: +5
 * Achaea
 * Result: 7.2
 * Population: +0.2 (100,000)
 * War Exhaustion: 0
 * Casus Belli: +4
 * Government: +3
 * Battle Stage
 * Battle of Kalamata


 * Naxos
 * Result: 2.9 + blunder
 * Army Size: +.9 (3000)
 * Location: +2
 * Great General: +0
 * Blunder:
 * Attrition: +0
 * Achaea


 * Result: 2.22 + blunder
 * Army Size: +.22 (750)
 * Location: +2
 * Great General: +0
 * Blunder:
 * Attrition: +0
 * Final Stage:
 * Naxos - 7.4
 * Achaea - 9.42
 * Achaea successfully defends the Naxian invasion.
 * Achaea successfully defends the Naxian invasion.

Gurkani Conquest of Balochistan (1443)

 * 1443
 * Pre-War Stage
 * Gurkani Sultanate
 * Result = +52
 * Population: +48 [Gurkani Population ~ 24,000,000]
 * War Exhaustion: -3
 * Casus Belli: +4 [Reconquering Historic Holdings]
 * Government: +3 [Monarchy]
 * Balochistan
 * Result = +12
 * Population: +2 [Baloch Population ~ 2000,000]
 * War Exhaustion: 0
 * Casus Belli: +7 [Existential and Defending Historic Holdings]
 * Government: +3 [Iqta]
 * Battle Stage
 * Battle of Kalat


 * Gurkani Sultanate
 * Result = 48.5
 * Army Size: +45 [Gurkani Army ~ 150,000]
 * Location: +3.5 [Near a City]
 * Great General: +0
 * Blunder: /
 * Attrition: +0
 * Balochistan


 * Result = 15.5
 * Army Size: +12 [Baloch Army ~ 40,000]
 * Location: +3.5
 * Great General: +0
 * Blunder: /
 * Attrition: +0
 * Final Stage:
 * Gurkani Sultanate: /
 * Balochstan: /
 * Gurkani victory after which Balochistan is annexed
 * Gurkani victory after which Balochistan is annexed

Naxian-Abbasid War

 * 1443
 * Pre-War Stage
 * Duchy of Naxos (Attacking)
 * Result: +4.47
 * Population: +.47 (235,000)
 * War Exhaustion: -4
 * Casus Belli: +3 (Historic Enemy)
 * Government: +5
 * Abbasid Caliphate (Defending)
 * Result: 18
 * Population: +11 (5,500,000)
 * War Exhaustion: -5  (The Abbasid Caliphate has been unable to allow for past war exhaustion to run out. A timeline of the Abbasid War Exhaustion is on my talk page.) This is not correct, I'll explain below
 * Casus Belli: +5
 * Government: +7 (Theocracy)
 * Battle Stage
 * (Siege of Beirut)
 * Duchy of Naxos (Attacking)
 * Result: 2 + blunder
 * Army/Navy Size: +1.5 (50)
 * Location: +3.5
 * Great General: +0
 * Blunder:
 * Attrition: -3 (coast)
 * Abbasid Caliphate (Defending)
 * Result: 6.2 + blunder
 * Navy Size: +2.7 (70 ships, 2,000 man garrison)
 * Location: +3.5 (city by sea)
 * Great General: +0
 * Blunder:
 * Attrition: -0
 * 1444
 * Battle of Naxos
 * Abbasid Caliphate (Attacking)
 * Result: 19.1
 * Army/Navy size: 18.6 (70 ships, 55,000 troops)
 * Location: 3.5 (city by sea)
 * Great General:
 * Attrition: -3 (coast)
 * Blunder
 * Naxos (Defending)
 * Result: 12.91
 * Navy/Army size: 9.4 (300 ships, 1,700 men)
 * Location: 3.5 (city by sea)
 * Blunder:
 * Final Stage:
 * Duchy of Naxos
 * Cities Occupied:
 * Result: 4.47 - 4.19 - 6.81 = -6.54
 * Abbasid Caliphate
 * Cities Occupied:
 * Result: 18
 * Final result: Naxos wins 2847%. Beirut and all Abbasid land north of Haifa is taken by Naxos.
 * Final result: Abbasids win 6600%, beating back Naxos
 * Ok, Naxos is now destroyed (1444)

Discussion
I'm pretty sure the African reclamation war, the Aragonese war, the initial fall of Constantinople, and the invasion of Cyprus would constitute minor wars at best. I am that guy (talk) 19:02, August 30, 2016 (UTC)

You can only win if you win a battle, that's still common sense. SkyGreen24 21:39, August 30, 2016 (UTC)

War exhaustion was only increased after the 1430 turn. You cannot retroactively put war exahstion in algos which have passed by long ago. As the previous major war exahstion was -2, I returned to 0 by the time the war with Persia began. Oh, I didn't mean to push that button! † Oh, well leave a message I guess  23:43, August 30, 2016 (UTC)

Bogomilist Crusade

 * 1444
 * Pre-War Stage
 * Croatia
 * Result: 9.2
 * Population: 2.2
 * War Exhaustion:
 * Casus Belli:4(historical holdings)
 * Government:3
 * Bosnia
 * Result:11
 * Population: 1
 * War Exhaustion:
 * Casus Belli:7
 * Government:3
 * Battle Stage
 * Siege of Prozor
 * Croatia
 * Result: 4.135
 * Army/Navy Size:(7500+2000)=2.85+10% conc=3.135
 * Location:4
 * Great General:
 * Blunder:-3
 * Attrition:
 * Bosnia
 * Result: 0.125
 * Army/Navy Size:1.125
 * Location:4
 * Great General:
 * Blunder:-5
 * Attrition:
 * Final Stage:
 * Side I Name
 * Cities Occupied:Prozor
 * Result:9.2
 * Side I Name
 * Cities Occupied:
 * Result:-3.01
 * Overall Result: Unconditional surrender

Discussion [Heading 5]

Second War of Bavarian Unification [1444]

 * 1413
 * Pre-War Stage
 * Austria: 10
 * Result:
 * Population: 6 (3 million)
 * War Exhaustion: -2
 * Casus Belli: Crown war (subjugation): +3
 * Government: Feudal +3
 * Ingolstadt
 * Result: 9.5
 * Population: 0.5 (250 000)
 * War Exhaustion: 0
 * Casus Belli: Existential Crown +6
 * Government: Feudal +3
 * Battle Stage
 * Siege of Neuburg
 * Austria
 * Result: 8
 * Army Size: 20 000 Soldiers = 6
 * Location: +4 (sieging Major City)
 * Great General: 0
 * Blunder: -2
 * Attrition: 0
 * Landshut and Strauberg
 * Result: 1.9
 * Army Size: 3 000 Soldiers = 0.9
 * Location: Sieging Major City (+4)
 * Great General:
 * Blunder: -3
 * Attrition: 0
 * Final Stage:
 * Austria :10
 * Cities Occupied: Neuberg
 * Casualties:
 * Landshut and Strauberg: -6.5 (9.5-10-6)
 * Cities Occupied: N/A
 * Casualties:
 * Result: Total Austrian Victory

Second Ahom Invasion of Koch [1445]

 * 1445
 * Pre-War Stage
 * Ahom Kingdom
 * Result: +6.2
 * Population: +0.2 (Population ~100,000)
 * War Exhaustion: N/A
 * Casus Belli: +1 (Conquering Unrelated Lands)
 * Government: +5 (Absolute Monarchy)
 * Koch
 * Result: +8.2
 * Population: +0.2 (Population ~100,000)
 * War Exhaustion: N/A
 * Casus Belli: +5 (Defending Historical Lands)
 * Government: +3 (Feudal Monarchy)
 * Battle Stage
 * Second Battle of Bengmara
 * Ahom Kingdom
 * Result: +.29
 * Army Size: +4.29 (3,000 men, 100 elephants +10% to score due to concentration)
 * Location: +2 (Near a Populated Border)
 * Great General: 0
 * Blunder: -2
 * Attrition: -4
 * Koch
 * Result: -2.1
 * Army Size: +0.9 (3,000 men)
 * Location: +2 (Near a Populated Border)
 * Great General: 0
 * Blunder: -5
 * Attrition: 0
 * Final Stage:
 * Ahom Kingdom: 6.49
 * Casualties: 77 men, 2 elephants
 * Koch: 6.1
 * Casualties: 234 men
 * Result: Ahom Victory by 106.39%. War carries on to 1446.

Mogadishu Malindi War

 * 1443
 * Pre-War Stage
 * Mogadishu and Bahmanids
 * Result:  66.2
 * Population: +68.2[Mogadishu population ~ 2,100,000, Bahmanid Population ~ 32 mil]
 * War Exhaustion: 0
 * Casus Belli: Attacking historic enemy (Swahili City States) +3
 * Government: Absolute Sultanate +5
 * Malindi
 * Result: 9.4
 * Population: +0.4 (200,000)
 * War Exhaustion: 0
 * Casus Belli: Existential Historic enemy +5
 * Government: Oligarchy/Council +4
 * Battle Stage
 * Battle of Malindi
 * Mogadishu
 * Result:14.79
 * Army Size: 35,000 = 10.5
 * Navy Size: 190 Ships = 4.8*1.1=6.18
 * Location: Near seat of government, along sea +4.5
 * Great General: 0
 * Blunder: -3
 * Attrition:  Naval -3
 * Malindi
 * Result:1.34
 * Army Size: 4,000 Soldiers = 0.12
 * Navy Size:  24 Ships = 0.72
 * Location: Defending near seat of government +4.5
 * Great General:
 * Blunder:  -4
 * Attrition:
 * Final Stage:
 * Mogadishu
 * Overwhelming Victory, Malindi Annexed
 * Mombasa

Rwanda-Buganda War (1448)
Rwanda-Buganda War (1448)
 * 1448
 * Pre-War Stage
 * Rwanda (Attacking)
 * Result: +18
 * Population: +8 (4,000,000)
 * War Exhaustion: 0
 * Casus Belli: +5
 * Government: +5
 * Buganda (Defending)
 * Result: +15
 * Population: +3 (1,500,000)
 * War Exhaustion: 0
 * Casus Belli: +7
 * Government: +5
 * Battle Stage
 * Rwanda-Buganda War
 * Rwanda (Attacking)
 * Result: +23.5
 * Army/Navy Size: +24 (80,000)
 * Location: +4.5
 * Great General: 0
 * Blunder: -5
 * Attrition: 0
 * Buganda (Defending)
 * Result: +10
 * Army/Navy Size: +9 (30,000)
 * Location: +6
 * Great General: 0
 * Blunder: -5
 * Attrition: 0
 * Final Stage:
 * Rwanda
 * Cities Occupied: 0
 * Result: 41.5
 * Casualties: 8,000 troops
 * Buganda
 * Cities Occupied: 0
 * Result: 25
 * Casualties: 27,000 troops
 * Overall Result: Rwanda wins by 166%. Rwanda may take large portions of Buganda's territory. War continues for another year if there is no treaty.

Discussion
Algo done for Warrior on request. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 17:53, September 3, 2016 (UTC)

I really don't think Rwanda has such a high population. Fallacyman (talk)

The region controlled by Rwanda covers most of the land beyond Rwanda in OTL. In fact, I believe Warrior is playing as Luba, not Rwanda, given the sheer size of his nation. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 18:44, September 4, 2016 (UTC)

Mogadishu-Mozambique War

 * 1443
 * Pre-War Stage
 * Mogadishu and Bahmanids
 * Result: +66.6
 * Population: +68.6 [Mogadishu population ~ 2,300,000, Bahmanid Population ~ 32 mil]
 * War Exhaustion: 0
 * Casus Belli: Attacking historic enemy (Swahili City States) +3
 * Government: Absolute Sultanate +5
 * Mozambique
 * Result: +9.4
 * Population: +0.4 (200,000)
 * War Exhaustion: 0
 * Casus Belli: Existential Historic enemy +5
 * Government: Oligarchy/Council +4
 * Battle Stage
 * Battle of Mozambique
 * Mogadishu
 * Result: +13.1
 * Army Size: 35,000 = 10.5
 * Navy Size: 190 Ships = 4.8*1.1=6.18
 * Location: Near seat of government, along sea +4.5
 * Great General: 0
 * Blunder: -5
 * Attrition: Naval -3
 * Mozambique
 * Result: +3.42
 * Army Size: +1.2 (4,000 troops)
 * Navy Size: +0.72 (24 ships)
 * Location: Defending near seat of government +4.5
 * Great General: 0
 * Blunder: -3
 * Attrition: 0
 * Final Stage:
 * Mogadishu
 * Result: +79.7
 * Mozambique
 * Result: +12.82

Discussion
I didn't even touch Sofala and how did Benin send its armies thousands of kilometers through the jungle to Sofala. The Benin fleet shouldn't even be able to cross the Cape due to the mod's decisions. (I tried to cross the Cape and mods just kept stopping me).Fallacyman (talk)
 * Entirely agreed. The Guardian of Forever (talk) 14:42, September 5, 2016 (UTC)
 * You stated that you invaded Mogadishu, and the only major city in that region is Sofala (OTL . I crossed the Cape about 20 years ago, and my actions were known to the mods then, I even explained the matter to them. I've been operating out of Sofala for some time now, and given that I using that location as a center of trade for my merchants, having Muslims that general dislike other organized religions, is a major issue for me. I am protecting my financial investments in the region. Also, Benin's navy is significantly larger and more advanced than Mogadishu's, and I have basing rights in Kongo allowing me to send larger fleets out without worrying about fatigue. Perhaps it would be of benefit if you read the details of Benin's navy and power projection capacity. Flag of the Xanian Empire.svg Flag of Xyon.svg Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 18:56, September 5, 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. I am Mogadishu/
 * 2. Mozambique is a city state on the map, north of Sofala. It's labelled in the maps in the map section
 * Fallacyman (talk)
 * I removed Benin from the conflict and I corrected the algo. I apologize for the misunderstanding. Flag of the Xanian Empire.svg Flag of Xyon.svg Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 23:53, September 5, 2016 (UTC)

English- Scotish war

 * 1449
 * Pre Battle Stage
 * England (Attacking)
 * Result: 11
 * Pop: +4
 * War Exhaustion: 0
 * Casus Belli: +4
 * Government: +3
 * Scotland (Defending)
 * Result: 10.9
 * Pop: +0.9
 * War Exhaustion: 0
 * Casus Belli: +7
 * Government: +3
 * Siege of Edinburgh
 * England (Attacking)
 * Result: 54
 * Army Size: +3 (10,000)
 * Location: +8
 * Great General: +45
 * Blunder: -2 (Provided by Josh)
 * Scotland (Defending)
 * Result: 11
 * Army Size: +1 (3,000)
 * Location: +12
 * Great General: N/A
 * Blunder: -2
 * Casulties: 1,000 losses to each side
 * Percentage: 490% of the score, unconditional surrender

Italian War of Unification
Discussion
 * 1449
 * Pre-War Stage
 * Italy (Attacking)
 * Result: +18.5
 * Population: +10.5 (5,250,000)
 * War Exhaustion: -1 (from War of Neapolitan Succession)
 * Casus Belli: +4 (Historical Holdings)
 * Government: +5 (Absolute Monarchy)
 * Mantua, Modena, Ferrara, and Padua (Defending)
 * Result: +12.6
 * Population: +2.6 (1,300,000)
 * War Exhaustion: -0
 * Casus Belli: +7 (Historic Defending Traditional Lands)
 * Government: +3 (City)
 * Battle Stage
 * Siege of Padua
 * Italy (Attacking)
 * Result: 38.5
 * Army Size: +31.5 (105,000)
 * Location: +8 (Sieging Center of Government)
 * Great General: N/A
 * Blunder: -1 (approved by Natemod)
 * Attrition: N/A
 * Padua, Mantua, Modena, and Ferrara (Defending)
 * Result: 14.8
 * Army Size: +7.8 (26,000)
 * Location: +12 (Defending Center of Government)
 * Great General: N/A
 * Blunder: -5 (approved by Natemod)
 * Final Stage:
 * Italy
 * Cities Occupied: Padua
 * Result: 18.5
 * Mantua, Ferrara, Modena, and Padua
 * Cities Occupied: None
 * Result: 12.6-10-(38.5-14.8) = -21.1
 * Overall Result: Complete victory for Italy; Mantua, Modena, Ferrara, and Padua annexed.

Initial Phase

 * 1450
 * Pre-War Stage
 * Majapahit Empire (Attacker)
 * Result: +31.93 (PLACEHOLDER)
 * Population: +21.93 = 10.96 million (Total Empire); 9.87 million (Core Empire). An extra NOTE: I had my previous algorithm calculations wrong and forgot to take into account annual growth. The equation is total population = starting population * e^(Number of years since initial population * annual growth rate). With a starting population of 10.12 million circa 1410, by this time I should have 10.96 million assuming a 0.02% growth rate (0.002 in the calculators).
 * War Exhaustion: 0
 * Casus Beli: +3 (War for the Crown)
 * Government: Theocracy +7
 * Pegu (Defender 1)
 * Result: 14
 * Population: 5 (2.5 million, as a guess)
 * War Exhaustion: 0
 * Casus Beli: +6 (2 + 4) (Defending the Crown + Existence as a government Threatened)
 * Government: +5 (Absolute Monarchy)

Andaman Sea Front

 * 1450
 * Battle Stage
 * First Battle of the Andaman Sea
 * Majapahit Empire (Attacker)
 * Result: +1.6 (PLACEHOLDER)
 * Navy Size: 429 ships (Total), 120 (Deployed) = +3.6
 * Location: 0
 * Great General: 0
 * Blunder: -2
 * Attrition: 0
 * Pegu Kingdom (Defender 1)
 * Result: -0.85
 * Navy Size: 3.15 (105 ships)
 * Location: 0
 * Great General: 0
 * Blunder: -4

Pegu Front

 * 1450
 * Battle Stage
 * First Battle of Martabar
 * Majapahit Empire (Attacker)
 * Result: +19.5 (PLACEHOLDER)
 * Army Size: 210,200 troops (Total), 80,000 (Deployed) = 24. Extra NOTE: also blame this on what I mentioned earlier.
 * Location: 3.5
 * Great General: 0
 * Blunder: -4
 * Attrition: -4
 * Pegu Kingdom (Defender 1)
 * Result: 6.62
 * Army Size: 5.62 (18,700 troops)
 * Location: 4 (city)
 * Great General: 0
 * Blunder: -3


 * Final Stage
 * Majapahit Empire
 * Cities Occupied:
 * Result: 30.92 (casualties: 25,000 troops, 10 ships)
 * Pegu:
 * Cities Occupied:
 * Result: -1.13 (casualties: 18,000 troops, 51 ships)
 * Overall Result:
 * clear Majapihut victory

Discussion
NOTE: This part of the algorithm is incomplete as it only takes into account Pegu's initial occupation. Nathan or another moderator can handle the Bahmanid Retaliation later. Through Stars We Rise. (Welcome to the Universe). 16:06, September 5, 2016 (UTC)

Bahmanid intervention in Andaman War (1450) (PROVISIONAL, AWAITING MOD RESPONSES)

 * 1450
 * Pre-War Stage
 * Bahmanid Sultanate and Friends (Attacking) (Italics indicate post-1452 i.e. Bengali and Kmhmer involvement)
 * Result: +197  +263 +205
 * Population: +192 [Bahmanid Pop ~32 mil, Delhi Pop ~40 mil, Gurkani Pop ~26 mil, Mogadishu Pop 3 million Bengal Pop ~33 mil]
 * War Exhaustion: -1
 * Casus Belli: +3 [Historic Enemy]**
 * Government: +3 [Itqa']
 * Majapahit
 * Result: +41.92 +11 for Khmer, so 41.92
 * Population: +31.92 [15.96 mil]
 * War Exhaustion: 0 (NOTE: this counts as part of the war)
 * Casus Belli: +3 [Non-existential against Historic Enemy]**
 * Government: +7 [Theocracy]

Andaman Sea Front

 * 1450
 * Battle Stage
 * Second Battle of the Andaman Sea (PROVISIONAL, AWAITING PLAYER RESPONSE*) (AWAITING MOD RESPONSES)
 * Bahmanid Sultanate and Friends (Attacker)
 * Result: -2
 * Navy Size: +3 [Bahmanid fleet=100 ships, Gurkani Fleet=30 ships, Mogadishans=100ships*0.3 of concentration ]
 * Location: +1 [Near Coast]
 * Great General: N/A
 * Blunder: -3
 * Attrition: -3
 * Majapahit Empire (Defender)
 * Result: +3.6
 * Army/Navy Size: +3.6 [Majapahiti fleet=110 ships+.3 for concentration]
 * Location: +1 [Coast]
 * Great General: N/A
 * Blunder: -2


 * Final Stage:
 * Bahmanid Sultanate and Friends
 * Cities Occupied:
 * Result: -2
 * Majapahit Empire
 * Cities Occupied:
 * Result: 3.6
 * Overall Result:

The Overland Front [1452] (Not official. See below)

 * 1450
 * Battle Stage
 * Second Battle of Martabar
 * Bahmanid Sultanate and Friends (Attacker)
 * Result: +69.9
 * Army Size: +73.3 [Bahmanid Army=180,000 men+10% concentration, Dehlavi Army=40,000 men, Bengali Army=40,000 men, Mogadishans=8,000 men ] - Attrition
 * Location: +3.5 [Near Coast]
 * Great General: N/A
 * Blunder: -3
 * Attrition: -4
 * Majapahit Empire (Defender)
 * Result: +68
 * Army/Navy Size: +69 [Majapahiti Army=150,000 men Khmer Army=80,000 men+10% concentration]
 * Location: +4
 * Great General: N/A
 * Blunder: -5


 * Final Stage:
 * Bahmanid Sultanate and Friends
 * Cities Occupied: All of Pegu
 * Result: 197-5.6 = 191.44
 * Majapahit Empire
 * Cities Occupied:
 * Result: 41.92 - 1.8 = 40.12
 * Overall Result: Decisive Bahmanid victory (Over 200% score difference-unconditional surrender)
 * Note: Although the Bahmanids have no naval superiority and just barely won the battle, the Majapihut are unable to dislodge them from Pegu -Nate

Discussion
*Mogadishu is a close Bahmanid ally, but Fallacyman hasn't responded either way to my asking for help, so it will be incomplete until he does.
 * I based this off the fact that the Bahmanids (wrongly) consider this a prelude to an invasion of India. The Guardian of Forever (talk) 18:06, September 5, 2016 (UTC)

Updates done (not final version). And Guardian? You forgot to add in coastline attrition for the attacker (and for some reason, the defender's attrition is not considered so........) :(. Through Stars We Rise. (Welcome to the Universe). 19:37, September 5, 2016 (UTC)

A few mods (Sky, MP, and myself) are extremely doubtful that the Muslim states would be invovled with this war (at least the Gurkani). Not that you can't attack later on, of course Oh, I didn't mean to push that button! † Oh, well leave a message I guess  21:53, September 5, 2016 (UTC)

Updates done. Will clarify Great Admiral in-turn. Through Stars We Rise. (Welcome to the Universe). 21:56, September 5, 2016 (UTC)

@ Nate: If Viva (with a far less advanced nation) was allowed to send ships (and men) to Mozambique, through far more treacherous waters, through the waters of a slew of states that he had no contact with before (and surely would not all appreciate an armada passing through their waters), and through waters that maybe a handful of Bini ships had passed through before, all in the space of a year (and fast enough to get there before the Mogadishans), then I think Rimp should be allowed to send ships a shorter distance through an area with the most consistent winds on the planet, which hundreds of thousands of Muslim sailors have navigated before, nearly entirely through Bahmanid waters, and all of this several months after the Majapahitis had arrived at Pegu. As for the Bahmanid reason for interfering, please see my main post for 1450. The Guardian of Forever (talk) 00:42, September 6, 2016 (UTC)

@ Ace: The Muslim fleet is sailing directly for Pegu. (Islamic navigation techniques were good enough to allow this.) Defenders have attrition? The Guardian of Forever (talk) 00:42, September 6, 2016 (UTC)

Guardian. Tell that to the moderators. Through Stars We Rise. (Welcome to the Universe). 01:07, September 6, 2016 (UTC)

@ Ace: Great Admiral? I can't find a thing on this Cahya Purnama. Which mod(s) approved? Naval communication was absolutely awful during this period (flags, which could easily be obscured by gunpowder smoke and slow, easily killable dispatch boats) so if your first commander gets killed, your fleet would most likely disintegrate rather than rally around one obscure captain. Also, you forgot to change the Bahmanid fleet size score for the Mogadishans and how on earth did I get a negative final score (my pre-war score being nearly 200)? The Guardian of Forever (talk) 00:53, September 6, 2016 (UTC)

@ Ace: And for the naval co-ordination reasons I explained above, massively changing tactics mid-battle would also probably lead to your fleet being unable to properly execute the maneuver and getting cut to pieces. Even Nelson had to physically meet w/his captains before battle in order to plan with any effectiveness. The Guardian of Forever (talk) 01:02, September 6, 2016 (UTC)

Both good points, but need I remind you that many of Earth's OTL famous figures were butterflied away? And for the negative score? Well, battle algorithm, so....... Through Stars We Rise. (Welcome to the Universe). 01:07, September 6, 2016 (UTC)

@ Ace: 1. Fine. I'll see what they have to say. 2. You responded to exactly 0 of my points about naval coordination and switching commanders mid-battle. The Guardian of Forever (talk) 01:10, September 6, 2016 (UTC)

@ Ace: I talked w/Rex on this for a while and he basically said, 'I don't know enough about this era.' But I have conclusive proof the Muslims could do it: nearly a hundred years before, Ibn Batutta was able to sail DIRECTLY from Sri Lanka to Bengal (which is a longer distance.) The Guardian of Forever (talk) 01:25, September 6, 2016 (UTC)

I already told you that you had a good point. And besides, I am basically terrible at this point in history so........ Through Stars We Rise. (Welcome to the Universe). 01:52, September 6, 2016 (UTC)

So...does that mean you agree or not? The Guardian of Forever (talk) 01:53, September 6, 2016 (UTC)

I've asked Scraw and Rex to look at this whole great admiral business. Until they respond, I'm marking the whole second part of this algo as provisional. The Guardian of Forever (talk) 02:41, September 6, 2016 (UTC)

Unless someone can refute all of my points, I will not accept this 'great admiral out of nowhere' thing or this attrition stuff. I am revising this algo. The Guardian of Forever (talk) 21:08, September 6, 2016 (UTC)

Guardian??!?!?!!? That is outright cheating! Through Stars We Rise. (Welcome to the Universe). 23:44, September 6, 2016 (UTC)

1. If you disagree with me, that's fine, but either disprove my points or find some other way out. 2. I didn't destroy what you wrote, I just put strikethroughs through it, so that it can be easily restored. 3. I really, really hate to sink to the following level, but you've left me no choice: you pulling a great admiral out of your hat mid-battle so you can win isn't? If everybody did that, than this whole map game would disintegrate to the kindergarten level. Lose gracefully. I even gave you a set of extremely generous terms. The Guardian of Forever (talk) 23:49, September 6, 2016 (UTC)

When I overextended myself by invading Delhi, and lost one of my richest provinces, I moved on. Do the same. The Guardian of Forever (talk) 23:51, September 6, 2016 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah. Nice attempt to justify cheating, cheater. Through Stars We Rise. (Welcome to the Universe). 23:59, September 6, 2016 (UTC)

Ad hominem again and again. I'm waiting for a logical argument. The Guardian of Forever (talk) 00:03, September 7, 2016 (UTC)

This is how much I care: zero. >:( And fun fact: before you change the algorithm outright, I want you to request a moderator intervention. Or else, I will take matters into my own hands! Through Stars We Rise. (Welcome to the Universe). 00:10, September 7, 2016 (UTC)

And as a first time map gamer, maybe I did accidentally violate some rule or other. If I did, than I am sorry. Very well, I'll ask the first mod who shows up on chat. Let's solve this in a civil manner. The Guardian of Forever (talk) 00:12, September 7, 2016 (UTC)

Forget it. I will just fix it myself as a "provisional" algorithm. Through Stars We Rise. (Welcome to the Universe). 00:15, September 7, 2016 (UTC)

I said that in quotations for a reason. And consider yourself lucky I removed my Great Admiral. Through Stars We Rise. (Welcome to the Universe). 00:17, September 7, 2016 (UTC)

The algorithm as it currently stands looks correct. I approve it.

00:59, September 7, 2016 (UTC)

Which one? *is lost* Through Stars We Rise. (Welcome to the Universe). 21:46, September 7, 2016 (UTC)

I based Khmer's population off its invasion of Champa, and I gave a high-ball estimate for their army. Ace, feel free to change if you want, you know more about your ally. The Guardian of Forever (talk) 01:34, September 8, 2016 (UTC)

I'm making the exectuive decision of retconning this latest front until Scraw or someone else explains to me how five (yes five) major muslim nations in the Indian Ocean defending a Buddhist nation it has no connection to is plausible -Oh, I didn't mean to push that button! † Oh, well leave a message I guess  02:03, September 8, 2016 (UTC)

@ Nate: As leader of this Muslim coalition, I'm in the best position to explain our involvement. We are not defending Pegu. None of us cares what happens to its government. (In the Bahmanid peace proposal, Pegu loses its independence.) The reason for the three Indian States getting involved is that (as explained in my main post for 1450) the Muslim nations (wrongly) believe a conspiracy theory that this was a prelude to a Majapahiti invasion of India (or at least Bengal.) To quote me from there: "The Majapahiti invasion of Pegu causes near-panic among the Muslim population, most seeing it as a prelude to an invasion of India, and/or an attempt to restore the Vijayanagar Empire. (The Bahmanid perception of Majapahit's military abilities is heavily exaggerated, thanks to them being the only foe to 'best' the 'great Firuz.')" (The whole restoring Vijayanagar thing is because the Majapahitis provided support to the Vijayanagar revolt of 1414-16, and considering that that revolt nearly toppled the Bahmanids, the Muslims are extremely scared of a repeat-the 'besting Firuz' is because Firuz Shah's attempt at retaliation was supporting the Bruneian War of Independence in 1421, which the Majapahitis won, the only time Firuz (seen by the Bahmanids as the greatest ruler/general in their history) failed to subdue a foe.) When Rex approved Dehlavi support, he explicitly stated it was because of these fears. (Ismail was careful to spread a parallel rumor among the Hindu population, that Majapahit wanted to replace their beliefs w/Gunterism. This is also in my 1450 post). Also, it's not like Bengal has no connection to Pegu-their neighbor just got conquered by what they see as an aggressive Hindu state, which has made a pattern of crushing every Muslim state around it. Our main intrest is expelling (and giving a bloody nose to) the Majhapitis from what we see as 'mare nostrum'. As for the Gurkanis and Mogadishans, they are Bahmanid allies. Please see my above post as for the plausibility of their involvement. (And for that matter, so is Delhi.) The Guardian of Forever (talk) 02:19, September 8, 2016 (UTC)

@ Nate: and also, Ismail Shah knows he will be compared unfavorably to his grandfather, like his father was, if he fails to garner some military glory. And what better than trouncing the sole foe his great warrior grandpa failed against? The Guardian of Forever (talk) 02:21, September 8, 2016 (UTC)

I agree that makes sense. However, the rules against more than two or three allies was made specifically to prevent these kind of large scale coalitions this early in the game. Such coordination of nations is not reasonable prior to the 17th century. As for the 'conspiracy', I'd like to override Rex's decision (as the official SE Asian Mod) to say that, while your nation may adhere to this myth, it's not necessarily something that far off nations like Dehli, Grukani, or Swahili would believe as well (conspiracy theories are not quite an accurate term at this time, so it's more like a legend or myth). So again, I'd like to wait for Scraw or another mod to answer why we should allow a coalition in this one case Oh, I didn't mean to push that button! † Oh, well leave a message I guess  12:01, September 8, 2016 (UTC)

I agree that we should wait for Scraw. I'd just like to note that Delhi's not far from me. I border it. Regards, The Guardian of Forever (talk) 15:58, September 8, 2016 (UTC

Tbh, All I did was send 30 ships to aid an ally of mine. Quite frankly, if it's going to create an issue, then just go ahead and retcon my involvement.

Same with Mogadishu. Their contribution really didn't change the course of the war much. (No offense, Fallacy) Regards, The Guardian of Forever (talk) 20:39, September 8, 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Gurkani or Mogadishu should be in here. I only allowed limited Delhi and Bengal support.

23:53, September 8, 2016 (UTC)

So after I remove them and scale back Dehlavi and Bengali support, we can consider this algo done? The Guardian of Forever (talk) 00:04, September 9, 2016 (UTC)

I changed it according to Scraw's specifications. If nobody has any more objections, I will post the final terms on the relevant page. The Guardian of Forever (talk) 01:14, September 9, 2016 (UTC)

Austro-Wurttemberg War [1450]

 * 1450
 * Pre-War Stage
 * Austro-Bavaria
 * Result: 11
 * Population: 7 (3.5M)
 * War Exhaustion: 0
 * Casus Belli: +1 (Diplomatic Insult, I guess taking random land?)
 * Government: +3
 * Side II Name (Attacking or Defending)
 * Result: 11
 * Population: 1 (500 000)
 * War Exhaustion:0
 * Casus Belli: +7 (Defending lands existential)
 * Government: +3
 * Battle Stage
 * Assault on Esslingen
 * Austria (attack)
 * Result: 3.5
 * Army/Navy Size: 4.5 (15 000)
 * Location: +4 (sieging major city)
 * Great General: 0
 * Blunder: -5
 * Attrition: 0
 * Wurttemberg (Defend)
 * Result: 3.2
 * Army/Navy Size: 1.2  ( 4000)
 * Location: +4 (sieging major city)
 * Great General: 0
 * Blunder: -2
 * Attrition: 0
 * Final Stage:
 * Austro-Bavaria 11-0 = 11
 * Cities Occupied: 0
 * Result: 11
 * Wurttemberg:
 * Cities Occupied: Esslingen (By Austria)
 * Result: 11-10-0.3 = 0.7
 * Overall Result: 1500% in favour of Austria, absolute victory

Irish conquest of Northern Ireland

 * Year
 * Pre-War Stage
 * Ireland, England (+Scotland)
 * Result: +16
 * Population: +9
 * War Exhaustion: 0
 * Casus Belli: +4
 * Government: +3
 * Tyrone, Ulster, Breifne, Sligo, Mayo


 * Result: +10,6
 * Population: +0,6
 * War Exhaustion: 0
 * Casus Belli: +7
 * Government: +3
 * Battle Stage
 * Siege of Capital
 * Ireland, England (+Scotland)
 * Result: +1,5
 * Army/Navy Size: +1,5
 * Location: +4
 * Great General:0
 * Blunder: -4
 * Attrition:
 * Tyrone, Ulster, Breifne, Sligo, Mayo
 * Result: +0,675
 * Army/Navy Size: +0,675
 * Location: +4
 * Great General:
 * Blunder: -4
 * Attrition:
 * Final Stage:
 * Ireland, England (+Scotland)
 * Cities Occupied:
 * Result: +16 + 6 = 22
 * Tyrone, Ulster, Breifne, Sligo, Mayo
 * Cities Occupied:
 * Result: +10,6 - 0,825 - 15 = 0,225
 * Overall Result: 9777% in favor of Ireland and England (+Scotland), Tyrone, Ulster, Breifne, Sligo, Mayo completely rekt

Discussion
Mods check this.

Second War of the Lions (1450-145x)

 * 1450
 * Pre-War Stage
 * Burgundy & Co. (Defending)
 * Result: 53
 * Population: 50 (Burgundy: 5.5 million, Brandenburg: 2 million, France: 15.5 million, Brunswick-Lüneburg: 750k, Thuringia: 1.1 million)
 * War Exhaustion: 0
 * Casus Belli: 4
 * Government: 3
 * Bohemian Crown (Attacking)
 * Result: 8
 * Population: 14 (7 million)
 * War Exhaustion: -12
 * Casus Belli: 3
 * Government: 3
 * Battle Stage
 * Battle of The Hague
 * Burgundy
 * Result: 25.6
 * Army/Navy Size: 21.6 (Burgundy: 35k, Brandenburg: 2k, France: 15k, Total: 52k troops + 200 ships)
 * Location: 4
 * Great General: 0
 * Blunder: TBD
 * Attrition: 0
 * Bohemia
 * Result: 13
 * Army/Navy Size: 9
 * Location: 4
 * Great General: 0
 * Blunder: TBD
 * Attrition: 0
 * Battle of Cottbus
 * Brandenburg and Burgundy
 * Result: 14.5
 * Army Size: 15 (Brandenburg: 20k, Burgundy: 30k)
 * Location: 3.5
 * Blunder: -4
 * Attrition:
 * Bohemia
 * Result: 9
 * Army Size: 9 (30k)
 * Location: 4
 * Blunder: -4
 * Attrition:
 * Final Stage:
 * Red Lion Alliance
 * Cities Occupied: Cottbus
 * Result: Complete Destruction of the Bohemian Army
 * Bohemia
 * Cities Occupied:
 * Result:
 * Overall Result:

Discussion
I didn't include the Dutch rebels because they have already been defeated by the time the bohemian army arrives. Both Mp and Nate agree this is a plausible scenario. After the victory over the rebels, I offered Blocky the chance to turn home, he refused. I am that guy (talk) 22:15, September 6, 2016 (UTC)

Rex said that you need to put them in the algo, and I didn't engage you or anything, all I said was that I move to the Hague, there shouldn't be a war for this. Also, Rex said that this would not develop into a war. Blocky858 (talk) 05:50, September 7, 2016 (UTC)

you tried to back a clamaint to burgundian lands. this is a direct violation of the treaty of prag that is more then grounds for war. Im not letting you dismantle my main ally, and i dont think that IATG would sit down and let half his lands be stripped from him. You shouldn't have marched on Burgundy in the first place. With Blood and Iron (talk) 22:46, September 7, 2016 (UTC)

the treaty of prague was never completed or signed, and you violated it first. the way i saw it, was that if france took the throne of burgundy, he would remove it from the hre, and that backing the younger son to take the netherlands and have it still be apart of the hre was the better option Blocky858 (talk) 07:03, September 8, 2016 (UTC)

I still consider this treaty binding as the clauses were accepted by all parties so as far as this goes it is open to interpretation, but honestly blocky this is what happens when you dont follow through with treaties and you get to entangled in issues of the princes, but hey now things will change. With Blood and Iron (talk) 10:35, September 8, 2016 (UTC)

Blocky, France wasn't a claimant, it was only two Burgundian brothers. Also, ships are included in the Battle of The Hague since the city is right there on the coast. Since the Dutch rebels were defeated before you arrived, The Hague is no longer a center of government. Your troop count at Cottbus is 30k because you've stated yourself that your maximum army size is 60k, and since no mention of mercenaries were mentioned when you sent the initial 30k to the Netherlands. I am that guy (talk) 12:25, September 8, 2016 (UTC)

ships are not included unless there is a naval element to both sides says rex. the hague is fortified/cog because i had gotten there and the hague is also  the regional administrative center, hence cog. Blocky858 (talk) 04:35, September 9, 2016 (UTC)

Ships are included if the engagement is at a city on the coast, which The Hague is. The Hague has also been retaken by this time, because the rebels have been defeated before you arrived (this isn't even a siege anyway). The nearest center of government that could qualify is Brussels, which houses the States General of the Netherlands. I am that guy (talk) 04:41, September 9, 2016 (UTC)

Pakhtun War (1451 -14xx)

 * 1451
 * Pre-War Stage
 * Gurkani Sultanate [Attacking]
 * Result: +60
 * Population: +53 [Gurkani Population ~ 26,500,000]
 * War Exhaustion: -0
 * Casus Belli: +4 [Reconquering Historic Holdings]
 * Government: +3 [Monarchy]
 * Pashtun Sultanate [Defending]
 * Result: +24
 * Population: 14 (Afghan Population ~ 7,000,000)
 * War Exhaustion: -0
 * Casus Belli: +7 [Existentional and Defending Historic Holdings]
 * Government: +3 [Iqta]
 * Battle Stage
 * Battle of Kandahar [1451]
 * Gurkani Sultanate [Attacking]
 * Result: +48.3
 * Army/Navy Size: +53.8 [Gurkani Army ~ 179,400][Attrition Accounted For]
 * Location: +3.5 [Near a city]
 * Great General: +0
 * Blunder: -4
 * Attrition: -5 [Desert]
 * Pashtun Sultanate [Defending]
 * Result: +22.5
 * Army/Navy Size: +21  [Pashtun Army ~ 70,000]
 * Location: +3.5 [Near a city]
 * Great General: +0
 * Blunder: -2
 * Attrition: -0
 * Final Stage:
 * Gurkani Sultanate
 * Casualities: 15,600 suffered due to attrition. 22,898 losses in the battle. 156,501 remaining
 * Cities Occupied: Kandahar captured
 * Result: 60
 * Pashtun Sultanate
 * Casualities: 25,200 losses in the battle. 44,800 remaining
 * Cities Occupied: Kandahar is lost
 * Result: -10
 * Overall Result: Total Gurkani victory

Third Ahom-Koch War (1451)

 * 1451
 * Pre-War Stage
 * Ahom Kingdom [Attacking]
 * Result: +6.26
 * Population: +0.26 [Ahom Population ~ 26,500,000]
 * War Exhaustion: -0
 * Casus Belli: +1 [Conquering Unrelated Land]
 * Government: +5 [Absolute Monarchy]
 * Koch [Defending]
 * Result: +8.14
 * Population: +0.14 (Afghan Population ~ 7,000,000)
 * War Exhaustion: -0
 * Casus Belli: +5 [Defending Historic Land]
 * Government: +3 [Feudal Monarchy]
 * Battle Stage
 * Battle of Sadiya [1451]
 * Ahom Kingdom [Attacking]
 * Result: +5.368
 * Army/Navy Size: +4.368 [Ahom Army=4,000 men and 100 elephants (Concentration and attrition accounted for. Score +4%)]
 * Location: +2 [Near a populated border]
 * Great General: +0
 * Blunder: -1
 * Koch [Defending]
 * Result: +0.6
 * Army/Navy Size: +0.6 [Koch ~ 2000 men]
 * Location: +2 [Near a populated border]
 * Great General: +0
 * Blunder: -2
 * Final Stage:
 * Ahom Kingdom
 * Casualties: 762 men, 19 elephants. 3238 men and 81 elephants remaining.
 * Result: +11.628
 * Koch
 * Casualties: 1155 men. 845 men remaining
 * Result: +8.74
 * Overall Result: Ahom Victory by 133.0434783%.

Discussion
As before, elephants count as 100 men. LordMarlborough (talk) 22:27, September 6, 2016 (UTC)

Invasion of Bohemia

 * Year 1451
 * Pre-War Stage
 * Side I Name Thuringen (Attacking)
 * Result: 6
 * Population: 2
 * War Exhaustion: 0
 * Casus Belli: 1
 * Government: 3
 * Side II Name Bohemia (Defending)
 * Result: 10
 * Population: 14
 * War Exhaustion: -11
 * Casus Belli: 4
 * Government: 5
 * Battle Stage
 * (Battle or Siege Name)
 * Side I Name Thuringen (Attacking)
 * Result: 10.4
 * Army/Navy Size: 2.4 (8,200)
 * Location: Sieging a center of government/very well-fortified city: +8
 * Great General:
 * Blunder: 0
 * Attrition: 0
 * Side II Name Bohemia (Defending)
 * Result: 16
 * Army/Navy Size: 9 (30,000)
 * Location:  Besieging a center of government/very well-fortified city: +12
 * Great General:
 * Blunder: -5
 * Attrition: 0
 * Final Stage:
 * Side I Name Thuringen
 * Cities Occupied:
 * Result: 4.4 (casualties: TBD)
 * Side I Name Bohemia
 * Cities Occupied:
 * Result: 26 (casualties: TBD)
 * Overall Result: Thuringia gets wrecked.

Discussion
I feel as if the blunder is wrong. Scar doesn't exactly have the best history of things firstly, and a -0 to his side and -5 to mine seems a bit odd, although it is still possible. If a mod could post here saying they did that I will be happy. Thanks. Blocky858 (talk) 07:28, September 8, 2016 (UTC)

I think blocky is nerffing the war on his faver, because he is salty for losing the other wars. He changed the scores and he can't have a 12 for his army if most of it is being used to fight nk's nation. Plus our government is the same since we are both in the HRE. - Scarlet Outlaw

May the universe howl in despair that the Holy Roman Empire was defeated by Scar -Nate

since it is not stated where he has invaded, and apparently since the red lion people are insisting that thuringia is attacking with their forces, i am assuming that this was an individual attack on my remaining forces by thuringia, which is a win in my favor. Blocky858 (talk) 04:33, September 9, 2016 (UTC)

Bohemia shouldn't be able to use all of its troops in this war since your fighing in another war at the same time. The casus belli is all wrong and the government is wrong. Both sides should have the same number for government since we are both a monarchy. - Scarlet Outlaw

Italo-Austrian War [LOCKED FOR IMPARTIAL MODS ONLY]

 * 1452
 * Pre-War Stage
 * Italy (Attacking)
 * Result: +19
 * Population: +13
 * War Exhaustion: 0
 * Casus Belli: +1
 * Government: +5
 * Austria (Defending)
 * Result: +16
 * Population: +8
 * War Exhaustion: 0
 * Casus Belli: +5
 * Government: +3
 * Battle Stage
 * Battle of Trieste
 * Italy (Attacking)
 * Result: +28.6
 * Army/Navy Size: +31 (90,000 men and 136 ships) [you can't send everyone]
 * Location:+3.5
 * Great General: N/A
 * Blunder: -3
 * Attrition: -3
 * Austria (Defending)
 * Result: +17
 * Army/Navy Size: +14 (30,000 men and 168 ships)
 * Location: +4
 * Great General: N/A
 * Blunder: -1

Red Lion Alliance Intervention
Result: Red Lion Alliance suffers 20% casualties, Italys army is completely routed.
 * 1453
 * Pre-war Stage
 * Red Lion Alliance
 * Result:39
 * Population: 38 (Austria: 4 million, Burgundy: 5.5 million, Brandenburg: 2 million, Poland: 7 million + Moldavia 500k)
 * War Exhaustion:-6
 * Casus Belli: 4
 * Government: 3
 * Italy
 * Result:14
 * Population: 13
 * War exhaustion: -6
 * Casus Belli: 2
 * Government: 5
 * Battle Stage
 * Battle of Laibach
 * Italy (defending)
 * Result: 31.4
 * Army size: 32.4 (108k)
 * Location: 4
 * Great General: 0
 * Blunder: -5
 * Attrition:
 * Red Lion Alliance (attacking)
 * Result: 32
 * Army size: 31.5 (Austria: 20k, Burgundy: 30k, Brandenburg: 20k, Poland: 35k) [reduced poland's involvment]
 * Location: 3.5
 * Great General: 0
 * Blunder: -3
 * Attrition:

Overall Result: Over 200% victory for Italy; Treaty of Trieste Overall Result: Victory for the Red Lion Faction; Trieste is retaken
 * Final Stage:
 * Italy
 * Cities Occupied: Trieste
 * Result: 14-0.6-10 = 3.6
 * Red Lion Faction
 * Cities Occupied: None
 * Result: 39-8.4 = 30.6

Discussion
For the sake of making life easier on Lx and my fellow mods, I made a few very generous assumptions (such as giving him his full army to defend Trieste, or whatever he renamed it, even though he sent 20,000 men [of his 30,000 max limit] to fight against Bohemia). 04:30, September 8, 2016 (UTC)

The terms of the Treaty of Trieste (1453) (too lazy to make a page) are as follows:
 * 1) Austria cedes South Tyrol, Trent, Carniola, and Istria (including Trieste) to Italy (see map);
 * 2) Austria refrains from expansion (either diplomatic or militaristic) in the Swiss and Celje lands for a period of no less than 100 years;
 * 3) Austria ceases its war with Bohemia; and
 * 4) Austria agrees to a 50 year non-aggression pact with Italy, during which period Italy shall grant Austria land access to Trieste.
 * 5) Austria agrees to sell its navy to other European nations, including Italy.

King Niccolò Maria Visconti of Italy and Naples: 04:30, September 8, 2016 (UTC)

Duke Albert of Austria: (MODS IF LX DOESN'T REPLY)


 * 1) I'm pretty sure you can't send your entire army to the front.
 * 2) You're claiming Istria, but your map shows Carinola being ceded to you, of which you made no mention. Istria would merely be the rest of the Istrian peninsula. (See: Imperial Free City of Trieste)

I am that guy (talk) 14:32, September 8, 2016 (UTC)

Why does Austria has -2 war Exhaustion? Austria has only make a war since 1450, that means in 1452 there is no war Exhaustion. Thats suspucious.              Ungern Von Sternberg   A Man's GREATEST Joy is Crushing his Enemies   15:53, September 8, 2016 (UTC)

First, Bear, please make a template for your signature. I figured the war exhaustion was from the Wurttemberger War and the Second War of the Lions, but you are correct in that they shouldn't have any. That is now corrected (albeit with a negligible impact on the final algo score). I'm pretty sure I can send my whole army, as other nations have been sending practically their whole forces halfway across Europe, and I am just invading from my Istrian peninsula (easy access). Finally, I appreciate your correction on Carniola, I was unaware of the distinction (but now am more aware, and have updated the treaty in reflection of that). 17:13, September 8, 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to explain why I didn't add any attrition. Namely, while it's true that much of Austria is taken up by the alps, there's a path that avoids the worst of it. This path involves moving from Bohemia, south to Vienna, then to Graz, then to Klagenfurt (as according to this map). This path also makes a trajectory that, if continued, leads straight to Laibach, the Carinolan capital. Also, I didn't include Naples 45k (number from Rex) because Naples' 1453 (the turn the battle occured in) made only mention of mobilization and no northward movement. I am that guy (talk) 13:31, September 9, 2016 (UTC)

Wrong numbers, Poland-Lithuania has 7 mil pop and its vassal Moldavia has another 500k population. Rex idk how to fix my sig, i don't even know whats wrong with it i have a template but it isn't working properly 15:15, September 9, 2016 (UTC)

Your sig is fixed now, being in a template. On a separate, more serious note, this would be a separate war. That is because the Italo-Austrian War closed in 1452, with the seizure of Trieste and Italy gaining a warscore of over 200%. Per precedent, that means the war is over and the winner can exact any plausible terms from the loser. Also per precedent, when the loser refuses to sign a treaty, a mod must do so in the player's stead. Therefore, we have the signed and effective Treaty of Trieste, which ended the Italo-Austrian War. Therefore, the Burgundian-led invasion of Italy is a separate war. I have moved it to its correct location below. 16:38, September 9, 2016 (UTC) Transplanted from above (see discussion under Italo-Austrian War for reason why). A few key changes have been made to this algo, from the version IATG proposed.

Firstly, there are no posts by Poland or Brandenburg indicating their involvement in the war. Therefore, we cannot assume that they wish to be involved in this war as they have not declared it, and so are removed from the 1434 version of this algorithm.

Therfore, as Burgundy is the only nation to have officially declared war in their 1434 post, this shall be considered a war between Burgundy and Italy, and Burgundy can call in its allies. Brandenburg is not a co-belligerent, so Poland is ruled out as a potential member of this conflict (plus common sense dictates that Poland cannot support an army of over 60,000 men for over three years in an invasion of a nation that has done nothing to harm them).

<p style="font-weight:normal;">This may be controversial, but Burgundy has literally zero reason to be going to war, considering Austria made peace with Italy at Trieste, so I gave them a CB of 0, as none of the causi belli apply (unless IATG's planning on annexing parts of Slovenia).

<p style="font-weight:normal;">Now that Italian soil is being invaded, it would use its full force and might (of 130,000 men) to defeat the invaders. This is valid, because per the rules and precedent, armies are reestablished at full capacity following the end of a war (and as the Bohemian War has yet to end, I'd note that Burgundy is not at full capacity).

<p style="font-weight:normal;">Next comes the claim that, by travelling from Bohemia to Vienna to Graz to Klagenfurt, they avoid all mountain attrition. Now, while Graz and Klagenfurt are both about 1,500' in elevation (easily considered mountainous - the US used to consider anything above 1,000' a mountain), IATG forgot entirely about the Alps which separate Austria from Slovenia. This, specifically the section labelled 35, shows the Carinthian-Slovenian Alps, which lies directly between Klagenfurt and Lubiana. Now we are talking about mountains that are over 8,000' and snowcapped. In fact, in the Kamnik-Savinja range (a subrange of the Carinthian-Slovenian Alps), there are 22 peaks over 2,000'. Clearly, this is a mountainous area and deserves attrition.

<p style="font-weight:normal;">I may have forgotten to justify some other part of this algo herein, but please do not edit it without first getting the approval of all involved parties. Thank you,  17:14, September 9, 2016 (UTC)

<p style="font-weight:normal;">Also, just felt like doing some research on the distance that would have to be travelled per IATG's route (Prague>Vienna>Graz>Klagenfurt>Ljubljana). The total distance, if the army marches as the bird flies is 348 miles (driving, the distance is 467, so we are being generous here). Then, if the army were to march 25 miles per day - breakneck pace considering the altitude and mountains - it would take just under 14 days to arrive, only to make battle against the well-rested Italian forces. Just saying, from the plausiblity standpoint, the result contained herein is spot-on. 17:25, September 9, 2016 (UTC)

If you had stated that your treaty was signed in '52, and not '53, I'd agree with you and concede the point. But what instead happened, is that I, on behalf of the Red Lion Alliance (Bear and Nk gave me permission to speak for them), declared support for Austria before you even put the treaty page up. Again, I'd understand if you'd stated that the treaty was signed in '52, then I won't have a leg to stand on. But did Edge even know when he signed for Austria that allies of his were inside Austria moving to reinforce Lx? Again, it'd be different if the treaty was to be signed in 1452. As well, you have no right to tell a player controlled country he can't fight for his own territory. Lx told me he was in this fight, so I'll keep him.

Also, the bohemian war ended in 1452, a turn before our intervention. Currently, Bohemia is occupied pending the final terms of the second treaty of Prague. And since, by all rights since we announced our joining the Austrian war before it officially ended the war is still going on, you're still out 22k troops (by Nate's calculation) from your battle with Austria.

Then, on the matter of attrition, you're correct I forgot about the Slovenian mountains. What you are forgetting is there are undoubtedly known routes through the mountains. This isn't the time on Hannibal, this area has been well established and well traveled for almost 1400 years. Even if I don't go through Klagenfurt, I can always keep traveling south from Graz to Maribor, then south west to Laibach then (as shown by this map). Either way, there's plenty of room to avoid the worst of the mountainous terrain.

I am that guy (talk) 18:50, September 9, 2016 (UTC)

Just an update, Mp has said that since we announced our intervention before your treaty was posted, it is considered the same war. I am that guy (talk) 19:04, September 9, 2016 (UTC)

You have no right to remove my version, just as I didn't remove your version. I am that guy (talk) 19:44, September 9, 2016 (UTC)

IATG, you "have no right to remove" my comentary, which is exactly what you did with your undo. Please refrain from indiscriminate undoing in the future, as you may remove information that is important.

The content of my message was that Scraw stated they should be separate wars, considering that Austria made peace and now there is a different war leader. However, I will still take the time to correct your war algo, IATG. Notably, we don't do different pre-war stages (unless, as I've pointed out, they are different wars).

Well, a few of the key edits are that Italy/Naples will be using its full army as opposed to only about 2/3rds of its army. Also, you yourself admitted that you marched a certain route, and then realizing it would give you a penalty changed your route. That is clearly not allowed, so you have the attrition penalty. 20:06, September 9, 2016 (UTC)

MP and myself have ruled that the war is close enough in time and space that the Red Lions can intervene. I reduced Poland's involvement for plausibility, but I'm still not sure how Italy is sendind its entire forces to a single battle. Oh, I didn't mean to push that button! † Oh, well leave a message I guess  19:51, September 9, 2016 (UTC)

For one, Rex, you can't edit a locked algo unless you're a non-involved mod. You can't edit, I can't edit.

Rex, we routinely create new pre-war stages when new developments occur in wars (such as new countries joining).

Then, in your 1453 turn (the turn the battle took place in) for Naples, the only mention of your army was mobilization. As I said earlier, I would've included it when I first added the new algo if you had said in the post that they were marching north. But, from your post, "Queen Mary Anjou orders the army to mobilize and prepare for a potential invasion of the Italian peninsula". The only other mention is that it is being "amassed", not moving out.

I am that guy (talk) 20:30, September 9, 2016 (UTC)

Fourth Ahom-Koch War

 * 1452
 * Pre-War Stage
 * Ahom Kingdom (Attacking)
 * Result: +3.32
 * Population: +0.32
 * War Exhaustion: -3
 * Casus Belli: +1
 * Government: +5
 * Koch(Defending)
 * Result: +7.08
 * Population: +0.08
 * War Exhaustion: -3
 * Casus Belli: +7
 * Government: +3
 * Battle Stage
 * Battle of Mahang
 * Ahom Kingdom (Attacking)
 * Result: +6.46
 * Army/Navy Size: +5.46 (5,000 men and 125 elephants, score boosted by 4% due to concentration and attrition)
 * Location: +2
 * Great General: N/A
 * Blunder: -1
 * Attrition: None
 * Koch (Defending)
 * Result: -0.7
 * Army/Navy Size: +0.3 (1000 men)
 * Location: +2
 * Blunder: -3
 * Final Stage: +9.78
 * Ahom Kingdom
 * Result: +9.78
 * Koch
 * Result: +6.38
 * Overall Result: Ahom Kingdom wins by 153%, and annexes Koch.

Ming China-Mongol War of Vengance
War of New Glory (1454-1455)
 * 1454
 * Pre-War Stage
 * Ming China
 * Result: 285
 * Population: 276
 * War Exhaustion: 0
 * Casus Belli: 3
 * Government: 6
 * Mongolia
 * Result: 18
 * Population: 6
 * War Exhaustion: 0
 * Casus Belli: 7
 * Government: 5
 * Battle Stage
 * Battle of Mongols Crossing
 * Ming China
 * Result: 70
 * Army/Navy Size: 65
 * Location: 8
 * Great General:
 * Blunder: -3
 * Attrition:
 * Mongolia
 * Result: 35
 * Army/Navy Size: 25
 * Location: 12
 * Great General:
 * Blunder: -2
 * Attrition:
 * Final Stage:
 * Ming China
 * Cities Occupied: 0
 * Result: 355
 * Mongolia
 * Cities Occupied: -15
 * Result: 18 - (35 - 15) = -2
 * Overall Result:

<p style="font-weight:normal;font-size:13px;">Discussion

<p style="font-weight:normal;font-size:13px;"> Mongolia is crushed by the Ming and annexed into the Empire.

China has 80 million people (65+ million in 1400, 100 million by 1500), not 130+ million [Previous unsigned comment added by Candies]
 * Discussion

I got the number approved by Rex  -Nova

While, yes, Nova did get the numbers from an approximation I ran, if you have a source for your assertion, Candies, I'd be happy to see to it that China's population is accurate for this period in OTL. 22:27, September 9, 2016 (UTC)

here China had a population of 103 million in 1500. As for the figure for 1400, I got it from the Wikipedia page for the Ming. Either way, it doesn't make a difference, the Ming would still win.

Jurchen Expedition (1455; approved)
Pre-war stage Battle stage Final stage
 * Korea (attacking)
 * Result +25
 * Population +16
 * War exhaustion +0
 * Casus belli +3
 * Government +6
 * Jurchens (defending)
 * Result +12
 * Population +2
 * War exhaustion +0
 * Casus belli +7
 * Government +3
 * Korea
 * Result +11.5
 * Army +12
 * Location +4.5
 * Attrition +0
 * Blunder -5
 * Jurchens
 * Result +10.5
 * Army +9
 * Location +4.5
 * Blunder -3
 * Korea
 * +25
 * Jurchens
 * +11

227% in favour of Korea

it's all good SkyGreen24 09:46, September 10, 2016 (UTC)

Nivh expedition (1456; needs approval)

 * Pre-war stage
 * Korea
 * Result +25
 * Population +18
 * War exhaustion -1
 * Casus belli +1
 * Government +6
 * Nivkhs
 * Result +10.02
 * Population +0.02
 * War exhaustion +0
 * Casus belli +7
 * Government +3
 * Battle stage
 * Korea
 * Result +0.9
 * Army +0.9 (2,000 troops, 10 ships)
 * Location +3
 * Attrition +0
 * Blunder -3
 * Nivkhs
 * Result +0.75
 * Army +0.75 (2,500 troops)
 * Location +2
 * Blunder -2
 * Final stage
 * Korea
 * +25
 * Nivkhs
 * +9.87 (10.02 - 0.15)

246.5% in favour of Koreans, Northern Sakhalin is annexed into Korea.

Approved <span style="background:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#B8860B), to(#DEB887)); border:4px ridge grey; -webkit-border-radius:0em 0em 0em 0em;"> <span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 2px brown, 0 0 1em #000, 0 0 0.2em #0FF; color: white; font: 1.5em Cambria, serif; text-align: center; font-variant: small-caps;">Consul Ioshua   <span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 2px brown, 0 0 1em #000, 0 0 0.2em #0FF; color: white; font: 1.0em Cambria, serif; text-align: center; font-variant: small-caps;"> #Beware!   13:41, September 11, 2016 (UTC)

No. Korea cannot win without winning a battle. SkyGreen24 22:08, September 11, 2016 (UTC)

253.3% in favour of Koreans, north Sakhalin annexed into Korea

Current Map
1455



Changes to Current Map
'''Add additions, complaints, or changes under here. If your changes were removed, it's because they were already added to the next version. '''

I just got Chagatai Khanate so I need that to have my color. Can the color be Dark Cornflower Blue? Thank you, Tft191 (talk) 17:08, September 12, 2016 (UTC)Tft191.

Since there are three north american nations(Iroquois, Wichita, and Cherokee), can we be put on the map? I know we don't really have the urban centers needed but it would make our play a lot easier if we could see our land holdings. It would also cut down on any arguments about who owns what. The Bearded B*st*rd (talk) 04:33, August 29, 2016 (UTC)
 * Speak with mods about that, it isn't my call. ~Nic

This is how the Aztecs have expanded -Nate

Swahili Expands-Fallacyman (talk)



Majapahit colony in Kesuburan expanded by at least 7 px, plus Borneo and the Celebes are annexed. Through Stars We Rise. (Welcome to the Universe). 12:33, September 10, 2016 (UTC)

16:07, September 10, 2016 (UTC) Cili is not, and never was, part of Hungary as far as I'm aware. It was an independent state, and therefore is colored independently. It was in fact, ruled by the Counts of Celje. Furthermore, here is the map of the results of the Treaty of Trieste. Thanks, Nic. 17:17, September 10, 2016 (UTC)
 * I would like to discuss this with the mods before I make that change Rex, I know they weren't, but for some reason they were under Hungary on the signup sheet so that would mean changing the default map.  Flippedlion.png NicDonalds  Lionsymbol.png 21:34, September 10, 2016 (UTC)

The Chinese annexed some territory from Mongolia, and it is now a vassal state of the Empire. It also includes China's colony in Taiwan. -Nova 08:44, September 11, 2016 (UTC)

<span style="-webkit-border-radius: 1px 1px;-moz-border-radius: 1px / 1px;-webkit-box-shadow: 1px 1px 1px rgba(0,0,0,0.6);background-image:-webkit-repeating-radial-gradient(#FFFFFF 50%,#FFFFFF 50%);background:-moz-repeating-radial-gradient(#FFD700 50%,#000000 50%));">

Haesi-nam (Hokkaido colony) is sold to Japan, while Shintoashima (Japan's Manchurian colony) is sold to Korea and renamed into Sinsado. Korea annexes the entirety of Manchuria (see the Jurchen Expedition). Also, may you change the colour of Korea to #ffe1e0 (or R 255, G 225, B 224).

All Omani territory in India has been sold to the Bahmanids. The Guardian of Forever (talk) 15:11, September 11, 2016 (UTC)

After discussing this with ace we came to the conclusion that Sulu would be independent from Majaphit due to the breaking up of brunei and no reason for them to remain a vassal of a vassal since the vassal is dead. So in point sulu is alive and independent. #FreeSulu

Leaves of Absence
If you plan on leaving the wiki for a while and will not be able post in the game for a while, please leave a message here telling us for how long you will be leaving and whether or not you have someone else you would like to play as your nation.

I will be leaving today (thursday) and will return on sunday. It will be very nice if someone does my turns for me. - Scarlet Outlaw

AM will be posting as Milan for the next week, as I will be out of town without my laptop or phone. Thank you, Andreas! 22:39, July 22, 2016 (UTC)

I'll be on holiday for 4-5 days, so I'll leave control of Pskov with Thewolvesden for the time being. EDIT: Seems my laptop is breaking down, battery dead and one of the two hinges is destroyed. Unknown when it will be fixed. Supergamer1 (talk) 13:10, July 24, 2016 (UTC)

I have to break off my Pacific Northwest trip due to a bronchitis. I need to fly back to Vienna and I need people to post for me and the guys I promised to post for, Rex and Super. AM, the King of the Banat (talk) 06:45, July 25, 2016 (UTC)

I could do that Andy, just tell me what should i post on chat.

I am dealing with some issues IRL and the Past few days have told me that the likelyhood of me being able to post untill at least monday will be hampered significantly.-Lx (leave me a message) 23:48, August 5, 2016 (UTC) I will be gone canping from August 7-August 13, if someone could post as Denmark that would be grest. -KawaiiKame.

Due to my obvious over-involvement in the game (leading to some bad cases of bias), I am taking a week off from the game. Please, someone (probably Rimp, I trust him the most) leave me a message on my talk page if my nation is critically needed at any time -Oh, I didn't mean to push that button! † Oh, well leave a message I guess  23:24, August 8, 2016 (UTC)

As it stands today i found out some very bad medical news concerning one of my family memebers and i will be withdrawing from PMIV on these grounds. I will probably not be on as much but might still be around as i work on my TL and such. Feudy McPlagueface (talk)

Alright, THAT IS IT! I officially quit. I want nothing to do with PMIV and I much less want anything to do with any of the moderators involved and their rubbish. You know that? If you think I am arse, then you NOW made me one. For all I care, this game better be dead by the time I come back. And honestly, hopefully, I avoid this game like the plague and any subsequent games. Now, I am honestly done. D-O-N-E. Done! So, honestly, I can at best give you the mother of all insults if I could come up with one. Lousy wankers! Now, to the rest of you, I suggest you do the same. So, if anyone wants to boycott this game, feel free to. I know I will. Through Stars We Rise. (Welcome to the Universe). 03:24, August 14, 2016 (UTC)

I will not be able to post tomorrow. (Saturday) I already talked to LordMarlborough, and he will be posting for me.The Guardian of Forever (talk) 15:09, August 19, 2016 (UTC)

General Discussion
I just noticed the Roman Empire's post for this year and it seems the player is ignoring what happened when I was the Roman Empire.Such as the fact that in growing fear of Papism we cut funding the Catholic ones when earlier the Romans were reconciliating with the Catholics. Weird. --The Epic Dragon (talk) 17:43, July 27, 2016 (UTC)

Still possible to join?
Hi. I missed the start of the game due to injuries (wasn't able to use my PC because of it), so just wanted to know if it was still possible to join the game. Zamarak500 (talk) 02:57, August 3, 2016 (UTC)

It is still possible to join the game! It's never too lae. -KawaiiKame

New Reference Maps?
Can we get some more reference maps, specifically for south america and central america? -Nova

I fully agree on this proposal. Also, on the reference map of India, there seems to be more states than on the signup list for South Asia, and no sign of Delhi? Could we have a more labeled version of that?The Guardian of Forever (talk) 02:57, July 28, 2016 (UTC)

Yes, reference maps of Central and South America are dearly needed. Cour *talk* 23:32, July 28, 2016 (UTC)

We need some reference maps over here. [North-Central-South America] 01:39, August 13, 2016 (UTC)

Am I a Vassal?
Ok, can someone tell me if the Duchy of Athens (which I'm playing) is a vassal? Cause I got my post cancelled because I was said to be a vassal. However, when I read the list of nation, the Duchy of Athens is independent, although Athen is a vassal. I'm confuse, so if someone could help me on that, it would be great. Zamarak500 (talk) 07:11, August 12, 2016 (UTC)

Yes the Duchy of Athens is a Vassal of Genoa, the mods jus haven't updated the nation list so that is why Athens is still on there. -Oct

So Can I still play them or I need to chang esince they are vassals (and I fucked up when chosing my nation)? Zamarak500 (talk) 03:50, August 13, 2016 (UTC)

Yes I listed some condtions on your tlak page.

Is The Roman Empire still a playable nation?
I was just wondering is the Byzantine Empire still playable and what is its curent state? I was just wondering as I have a deep love of all things Byzantine Related and when I saw it was open as a faction is such a popular map game I was a bit surprised if not a little suspicious. Thus I just wanted to check before I got my hopes up and posted as the Roman Empire in game. Thanks. The.Brick.Battle (talk) 01:36, August 21, 2016 (UTC)

No it is not. It got conquered by the Otties and then liberated by the Pope, you should talk to MP if you wanna play as his vassal. 12:27, August 21, 2016 (UTC)

Grivances with Certain Actions
I have some major complaints about how some things in the Ottoman War have gone. This has been brought up by a couple people other than myself. Anyway, in case you didn't know, there has been a war going on between the Ottomans and some Christian nations as of late. Here's a brief timeline of the war: Now, here is a list of the grievances I have with this. A few of us argued about this for 6 or so hours the other night, where Bozi finally ended up agreeing to sign the treaty the next day, but the next day he failed to do so. The mods that were there for a majority of the argument were Scraw and Nate. (Josh joined in later, however). This resulted in a few minor tweaks to the algorithm, which still put the Europeans above the unconditional surrender point, meaning the Ottomans should have surrendered.
 * Bohemia/Hungary invades the Ottomans, attacking Serbia.
 * Bohemia/Hungary captures Serbia and moves to take Greece, but their forces meet an Ottoman force, and essentially cancel each other out, and both armies are destroyed.
 * Bohemia/Hungary reinvades with the larger half of their forces (they split them before the war began), along with Polish and Neapolitan forces.
 * The European nations capture the Balkans as the Ottomans make no further attempts to reseize the lands.
 * European nations hold the area for a couple years (the algo at this point was over 500%, meaning an unconditional surrender for the Ottomans)
 * Bozi stalls and delays, refusing to sign the treaty although it was an unconditional surrender
 * The Abbasids back up the Ottomans, after the time given to them by Bozi's stalling, sending 50k troops and their great General to the front
 * Abbasids defeat the Bohemian/Hungarian forces, triggering an unconditional surrender by the Europeans, and then demand that we sign the treaty
 * 1) The Ottomans lost the algo by over 500% and the algo remained that way over I believe 2 or 3 years, which should have been more than enough time to trigger an Ottoman loss in the conflict
 * 2) For further reason for an unconditional surrender, the Ottomans have been at war with at least one party constantly for like the past 10 years, and have been losing all the while. (My last casualty count put them at 150k+ dead)
 * 3) Bozi stalled and delayed and refused to sign a treaty (which he was obligated to do because of unconditional surrender) for enough time for Nate to come and send troops
 * 4) Nate's great general is supposed to be dead
 * 5) Bozi's argument of "Victory or death" for not signing the treaty is bullshit, and has been called out as such by numerous people (including mods)
 * 6) The Europeans are being forced to sign an unconditional surrender after a single battle, while we have occupied the Balkans for years and have triggered the unconditional surrender all the while, but Bozi has refused to sign any treaty.
 * 7) Regarding above, I believe it's mandatory (at least from what I have been told) for a nation to sign unconditional surrender if there is a case of unconditional surrender, so this war should have been done a few turns ago when the Europeans originally defeated the Ottomans
 * 8) Bozi later changed his argument from "victory or death" to "the treaty is a scam" although the treaty had been reviewed by more than one mod, and had been found to be legitimate. The treaty in question also demands nothing unreasonable for an unconditional surrender.

I was told to do this via Skyboi and was also told to grab Rex, MP, and Nate and tell them to look at this, although everyone else can contribute to the conversation I believe. Thanks. Blocky858 (talk) 22:19, August 30, 2016 (UTC)

I'll try my best to give a definite answer on this, but here at least are my points: I'll now attempt to thoroughly rebut Nate's arguments, because it is quite evident he is grasping at straws with this one.
 * The casualties in the Persian War were broken, due to the disproportionate numbers on both sides. In the past (for other wars involving Persia) the mods have agreed to take common sense to estimate instead. As Persia only won by 110% in Mosul (not even achieving objective), it is unlikely very many people were lost, and certainly not the most important person there for both religious and secular authority.
 * The Persian War ended in 1439 (confirmed with Rimp), so Bozi has plenty of time to recover his military lost in that campaign.
 * Speaking of troop numbers, where are you getting yours? Your post at the beginning of the war implied you had 48,000 total military. But the algo shows you coming in with 64,000 in total. Ah, of course, mercenaries. If you can nearly double your army with mercenaries (while you are in an economic crisis I might add), the Ottomans certainly can recruit mercenaries from among the African imported from Benin, making up any margin of error
 * The Ottomans did in fact lose unconditionally in 1442, allowing you to annex the vassals you invaded. However, nothing in the rules compels a player to sign a treaty, as not every war has to end in a treaty (none of mine have). For instance, if I invaded the Jaylarids and beat Persia over 200%, I could annex the Jaylarid vassal. But I could not force Persia to stop fighting unless I invaded Persia itself. This has been done in previous wars already.
 * So after the Ottomans lost these lands, the Abbasids bailed the Otties out and retook them
 * Oh, I didn't mean to push that button! † Oh, well leave a message I guess  00:16, August 31, 2016 (UTC)

First, let's look at the Battle of Mosul (the one that the mod events ended up being based upon, not the one Nate did). The difference between the two sides (in the favor of Persia) is 7.467. From the rules, every 1 score differential in battle means 20% of the army is lost. In this case, about 149% of the losers died, or since you cannot lose more than 100%, an estimated 80,000 Abbasids (including al-Najm) and 30,000 Ottomans died at Mosul. This also didn't "break the casualties algo" as Nate implied, because the Persians only lost 49% of their men (the algo breaks when the victors lose over 100%, implying that they were destroyed).
 * That's still breaking it in my opinion but I'd let a neuteral mod decide. Just ask Josh, who made that rule himself, and he'd say since 1420 ish it's only used on occasionally now and with battles of smaller size -Nate
 * As the rules currently stand, what Rex says is correct. I would also like to say that you cannot change the rules without a majority of the moderators agreeing. Just because you don't think it is correct doesn't mean you don't have to enforce it. If it bothered you that much, then you or Josh should have brought it up and had the moderators vote on it. Not just conveniently choose not to enforce the rule when your own army and general got wiped. - Blocky

Secondly, the Persian War ended in 1442, with the mod event effectively forcing an end to the war. This meant the Ottomans were actually fighting two major wars simultaneously across their empire. So, no, Bozi couldn't recover his manpower in such a short period of time especially after losing 30,000 men at Mosul just a few years prior.
 * There was no battles after 1439, so these years don't count as part of the war. In OTL, World war two lasted diplomatically until the 1980s -Nate
 * The fact still stands that they were at war until 1442. Per the rules as currently written, the war was still going on, meaning you could not have raised anymore men. Also, what Rex says is correct, Bozi was fighting two major wars simultaneously, and I also doubt that their manpower reserves would have recovered in such a short period of time, especially since they lost over 100k in the Persian War alone.  - Blocky

Bohemia never claimed to have 64,000 men as far as I can tell based off the algo. He has reported 50,000 which is within a narrow margin of error of 48,000.
 * They sent 24,000 initially followed by another 30,000 later, with an additional 10,000 to Epirus. That's a total of 64,000 -Nate
 * It was originally split 24,000 and 24,000, as the economic crisis in Europe was giving me a -10% modifier to my max. army size. However, since the crisis has been resolved, I can field my full army of 54,000. The additional 10,000 comes from HRE Mercs. I hope that clears things up. - Blocky

Now, for the penultimate point, thank you Nate for admitting that the Ottomans lost uncondititionally in 1442. The vassals could be annexed, as Nate conceded, at which point the war would be over. Furthermore, in this particular geographical situation, the Ottomans would've been beaten back beyond the Bosporus, since they lost all of their European lands and don't own Constantinople.

You also point out that the Abbasids "bailed" the Ottomans out. This amounts to a new war, in which the Abbasids would be invading recently-liberated Greece. This would have massive  implications across Europe, as the Caliphate is attacking a set of Christian nations in Europe. The main point here, however, is that this would be a brand new war, between whichever nation the Abbasids choose to invade (be it Greece, Bulgaria, or whatever).
 * Both the Ottomans and Caliphate were in the counterattack, with the Caliphate merely aiding the Ottomans to retake what was recently lost. The battles won by the Christians, if I'm reading this right, would only be taking the vassals of Epirus and Serbia, so not completely pushed out of Europe unless Bozi allowed you by treaty
 * Also, past precedent has had results be year-by-year, not war-by-war. It's confusing as most wars in a PM game last only one year. I adapt for algos which try to make it war-by-war as much as I can usually. So while the Ottomans may lose in one year, they can still retaliate the next provided they have resources left, which thanks to the Caliphate they did -Nate
 * As the algo stands right now, only the Abbasids were invading. Also from what Bozi's posts look like, it seems more that he is following you than you following him. For the battles won by christians, the algo is currently not done yet. The Polish have taken Wallachia, and the Neapolitan army took the rest of Greece while Poland took the rest of Bulgaria. The algo is not yet finished. Also, we won by 200%, which renders an unconditional surrender. Since we had 200%, we could enforce any demands if wanted to. - Blocky
 * According to what you said earlier, Nate, about the Ottomans did unconditionally surrender, according to that, then the war should have been over right then and there. The Ottomans didn't need to sign the treaty, as you said, not all wars end in treaties.  If anything, the new invasion by the Abbasids two years later should be a whole new war, as the Ottomans surrendered in the original algo. However, the Abbasid intevention I am somewhat questioning, as they too were apart of the losers in the war against the Persians. I doubt that only a couple years later they would want to go back and fully support the Ottomans in another presumably costly war all the way across the Mediterranean. - Blocky

Thank you for dealing with my long counterpoint and reading through it all. 01:08, August 31, 2016 (UTC)

As someone who got invaded by Nathan and Bozi roughly 5 turns ago, a war that occurred about around the same time as this war, I personally believe I would be quite impartial and neutral on this issue. Since I like getting into arguments, I'm just going to go ahead and write a wallie xD.. Heres how everything happened in this war With that cleared out, I would like to quickly address the issue of the Tigris War, and Al Najm. Now, as far as the duration of the Tigris War is concerned, it last de jure from 1439 to 1442. The timeline of that war is as follows That is about all that happened. Hope this clears out any issues regarding the duration of the war and what not. As for Al Najm, like I said, I don't have a clue how casualities work. As per Nathan, SkyGreen24 has stated that Al Najm is not in fact dead. Now finally, the issue of the Ottoman 'unconditional surrender' and being driven out from the Balkans.
 * 1440 - The Bohemian Army, roughly 24k invaded Serbia and conquered it. The Ottomans did not send any troops to defend it, and I personally believe that this would allow the Bohemians to easily sweep through Serbia.
 * 1441 - The Bohemian Army, roughly 24k or less at this point invaded Greece. The Ottomans responded by sending 40k to defend Greece and defeated the Bohemian Army. Simultaneously, they attacked Serbia with 10k men and conquered it. This practically trapped the Bohemian Army in Ottoman territory. The difference between the battle scores for the Battle of Greece is about 6.3, so I doubt the battle resulted in the destruction of the Bohemian AND Ottoman army as Blocky said earlier. Quite frankly, it would be the Bohemians who would suffer a more severe defeat.
 * 1442 - The Bohemian Army that was trapped earlier would be annihilated, as stated by the Mod Event. The Bohemians invaded Serbia once more, with an army of 50k men whilst Naples simultaneously invaded Epirus and conquered it. The Ottomans would be defeated on both fronts but that would be all that would be lose territorially. As admitted by SkyGreen24 himself, the Mod who answered the Bohemian call for help to the Polish, Poland did not in fact invade Wallachia, they merely aided the Bohemian army at taking Serbia. So no, the Ottomans were not in fact driven from the Balkans. When we further consider that the Ottoman capital prior to the Fall of Constantinople was Edirne otl, it would mean that an attack upon Edirne would be required to drive out the Ottomans from Greece. So I quite honestly doubt Bozi lost any territory in the Balkans excluding Serbia and Epirus. Blocky's Timeline states that the Ottomans make no further attempts to retake their territories, and that the European nations hold the area for a couple of years. Blocky's Timeline also accuses Bozi of delaying his signing of the Treaty of Belgrade. This is a complete and total lie, as stated following
 * 1443 - The very next year, the Ottoman army, 40k men invaded Epirus to retake the territory from the Neopolitan forces. Simultaneously, the Abbasid army, 50k invaded Serbia from the Bohemian forces. Meanwhile, Naxos invaded Beirut but their invasion was repulsed. All battles resulted in victories for the Muslims. There literally was no 'stalling' by Bozistanball for the signing of the Treaty of Belgrade. He suffered defeats in Serbia/Epirus and he responded by invading the very next turn. I would also like to raise the issue of Reximus suggesting that Nathan would be invading a set of 'newly liberated nations' and that it would constitute as a new war. I would like to question this because first of all, neither Bohemia nor Naples turn mentions the establishment of Serbia and Epirus as independent states. Whilst Naples turn does mention that the Neopolitan forces style themselves as 'Liberators of Epirus', it still does not in any way hint at the establishment of new Christian Kingdoms. Moreover, even if we were to assume that new Kingdoms were established, it still does not mean that it would constitute a new war. Nazi Germany established numerous puppet states throughout Europe during WWII, but that does not mean that the conquest of each individual puppet state was termed a 'seperate war', completely distinct from WWII. No, that is not what happened.
 * 1444 - The Abbasid army, approximately 55k men invaded and conquered Naxos.
 * 1440 is correct. 1441 is incorrect. The mod event for 1442 states that the Turkish forces were obliterated as well as the Bohemians. 1442, both armies were killed by mod event. Yes, Serbia and Epirus were taken. And no, the Polish never helped the Bohemians, I asked them to take Wallachia and in exchange they would keep it, and they responded and said yes, per Sky. The Ottoman capital atm is Ankara. Bozi DID stall, because by that point we had won the algo by over 500%. The Treaty of Belgrade, which was the treaty that was written to end the war, establishes the Christian kingdoms, and was signed by all the Christian nations involved. This effectively establishes the Christian kingdoms even without Ottoman consent. - Blocky
 * 1439 - The Abbasid and the Ottoman forces simultaneously launched attacks upon the cities of Mosul and Trebizond. 80k Abbasid, and 30k Ottomans (~110k) invaded the city of Mosul. 50k Ottoman and 20k Abbasid (~70k) attacked Trebizond. On both fronts, the invading armies were defeated and their attacks repulsed. I will not be going into the detail of how many casualities they suffered because I don't have the slightest clue on how it works. Rather, my prime motive at the moment is to clear out the Timeline
 * 1440 - The Russian armies invaded and overran much of Crimea.
 * 1441 - The Russians retreated back to their territories after encountering the Gurkani military in the Caucasus and signed white peace.
 * 1442 - The Ottoman Empire signed white peace

Like I said earlier, the Bohemian army conquered Serbia and the Neopolitan forces captured Epirus. This not in fact mean that the Ottomans have been driven out from the Balkans. As stated by SkyGreen24 himself, the Polish never invaded Wallachia and that the Ottomans have not lost Bulgaria. The presence of the Ottoman capital, Edrine in Thrace further means that to truly drive out the Ottomans from Greece, it would be required of the invading forces to mount an attack on Edirne. When Nathan refers to the term 'unconditional surrender', I believe he is referring to the fact that the Ottomans had been defeated at Serbia/Epirus and were not in any condition to negotiate the return of Serbia and Epirus. To truly enforce an unconditional surrender on the Ottomans, it would be required of the invading forces to push out the Ottomans from the Balkans, destroy their navy and possibly even attack their cities in Anatolia. Simply conquering two vassals of the Ottoman Empire, territories that are not even integral parts of the Ottoman Empire does not in any possible way constitute an unconditional surrender. This would be like Nathan conquering Sicily and then enforcing a Treaty where he is given all of Naples. Moving on, when Nathan uses the term "The Abbasids bailed out the Ottomans", he is merely referring to the fact that the Ottomans were on the verge of defeat and they were saved by the Abbasids. I don't see how or why an issue is being out of this statement lol.. This very same statement could be applied to WW1 and a person could simply state "The United States bailed out the Triple Entente". Finally, to address Blockys criticism of Nathan helping out Bozi. First of all, each and every state has the right to make their own choices and Nathan has every right to decide who he wants to help and who not, as long as it is plausible. When we consider that the Abbasid/Ottoman forces fought side by side against the Persians not too long ago, that they fought side by side against numerous crusades and that the Ottomans are the only allies the Abbasids have in the region, I don't see why the Abbasids won't help out the Ottomans.

'''Sky is then telling us both different accounts of what is going on. The Ottoman capital is Ankara, and has been stated as being Ankara by Bozi multiple times. Poland in fact did invade, as shown by a mod event in 1443. At this point in time, the Ottomans had suffered a defeat of over 500%, which is more than enough to force them to give up their Balkan territory. Especially since they have only held these areas for a small amount of time. Once again, the Ottoman capital is Ankara, so there is no need to siege the city of Edirne itself. The Ottomans weren't on the verge of defeat, they were in fact, defeated. You can ask Scraw, as the other night he came on arguing to Bozi saying that he had lost the war, and to just sign the treaty. The analogy of Sicily to Naples is not applicable. The European nations have taken all the surrounding lands of the Balkans in the algo, and have support of the people of the regions in question. And as rules currently written say, that 200% or more in an algo is grounds for an unconditional surrender. The fact that even with just the Serbian and Epirus battles in the algo that gives us over 500%, I would definitely say that is grounds for surrender. Also, from what I have seen in other wars, you don't need to state that you go and conquer every region/town individually. For the casualties in the Persian war, what Rex said was correct. The armies of the Persians and Ottomans were destroyed, so Al-Najm should be dead. - Blocky'''

Hi I'm Sky-

I've been told to weigh in my two cents. In 1442 the Crusaders basically achieved an unconditional victory, yet Bozi, from what I have been told, stalled signing it because Nate was sending Al-Najm to attack with Bozi's forces. This in itself I consider an unfair turn of events, as by the same logic the Crusaders can just continue fighting as well.

Moreover, I had told Nate that I expect Al-Najm to be alive. But I forgot that Crim's Russian involvement in Mosul was retconned, hence the casualties were much greater than I thought they were when I said to Nate that Al-Najm is alive. Therefore, I believe there's a high chance for Al-Najm to have been dead since the battle of Mosul and the issue with re-attacking rendered moot.

SkyGreen24 19:45, August 31, 2016 (UTC)

Order in the court, order in the court. Edge shall weigh in. In the past games, pm3 included, if a player got 33% in an offensive war, akin to an uncondtional surrender, they could impose whatever terms they wanted as long they where within the realms of plausblity. '''Let it be known from this day forward that 200%+ victories will use this same rule. Players who get a 200% Victory from an offensive war can take whatever they want, while those who get a 200% defensive victory may impose things such as reperations in a treaty, but they can not take more than small tracks of bordering land.''' Now the way I see this issue is that the Bohemians and there fuck buddies invaded and got the uncondtional surrender, and than the Ottomans staged a counter attack. At best right now, although I haven't reviewed the algo, the Ottomans can get a white peace. I will post more when I have looked into this more.#BRINGBACK THESQUIRREL

The issue was resolved earlier today when Sky signed the Treaty of Belgrade retroactive to 1443 (pre-Abbasid invasion), effectively retconning Abbasid involvment as the Crusading forces already had the requisite 200%+ to win an unconditional surrender. 00:30, September 1, 2016 (UTC)

Concentrations
The Concentration system is new to Pm4. In this system, nations will either pick a concentration between the Army or the Navy, as no nations, with some extreme exceptions, could afford both at this period in time. How it will work is this:
 * 1) Nations will pick a concentration, assuming they have a choice. Nations that are landlocked can only pick Army, while nations like Genoa or OTL Venice can only pick Navy. You will need to recive mod approval for which ever you pick
 * 2) Your concentration can be officially changed every 30 years, although the mods may change it via event depending on the actions of your nations or wars you get involved in. An example of this would be something along the lines of the Spanish Armada. After a destruction like that, Spain would have to switch from Naval to Army because its prized navy was destroyed. Events like that can and will force changes in your concentraction.
 * 3) Your concentration will give you a 10% boost in the respective algorithim as long as it is changed without mod event.
 * 4) Simply add it to the table below to declare it (Add more rows if needed)
 * 5) If the cell with your concentration is green, that means you are currently getting the bonus. If it is red it was forced to change by a mod event. If it is gray it was never approved in the first place.

EDIT:Since there was some confusion on chat, I will explain. In AP Euro one of the thigns we discussed was what led to the rise of France and England as two of the dominant powers in Europe, and what made the two nations different. One of the things brought up is how even France, which during the rise of nation states, was among the richest and most powerful nations in Europe and the world. However, even they could not afford a powerful army and navy, so they where forced to choose between the two. France picked their army, and England picked their navy. Both nations had capable Armies and Navies, but the French navy was noticably weaker than the English navy and the English army was noticably weaker than the French Army.  This doesn't mean you can't develop both , but at this time, nations focused on one, often at expense of the other.

Explanations of lack of Approval
Feel free to dispute it in a civil manner, and if it gets out of hand you will get a three day game ban.
 * Benin
 * While I understand West Africa had a history of ship building, I find in highly unlikely that, at this point in time, your nation would allow its Land Based power to take a back seat to Naval based power. ~Edge
 * Burgandy
 * Same situation as above, Burgundy doesn't have really any reason to focus on its navy. I understand Flanders gives you acess to the sea but by the same vein, the bulk of your nation is land locked. ~Edge

Discussion
The reason I made burgundy navy focused is because it's set a new focus on its maritime economy by way of the low country possessions, already wealthy trade cities on their own. It's been expanding its merchant fleet these past few years, and when there's a large merchant fleet, a sizable navy is needed to maintain its merchants safety. Since the income from the low country territories is quite substantial, safeguarding the sources of that income would be a reasonable course of action, hence, naval focus. I am that guy (talk)

Ok I will accept that response. #BRINGBACK THESQUIRREL

I decided on the naval focus given that Benin's army is the largest in West Africa and the nation has no major enemies on its borders to contend with. Given that the Oba has the last say on all military affairs, he can easily define the needs of the nation's defenses now that Oyo (Benin's only real enemy) is gone. Benin has jungles on both sides, two weak kingdoms to its north, and nothing but water to its south. As the Oba knows of the wider world around Benin, and does not trust Mali with trade with Morocco and North Africa, using the sea route Benin discovered would have been the most realistic choice for the nation, securing the trade needs of the empire. The army is strong, but not needed for the foreseeable future. Focusing on the sea is the only rational choice for Benin at this time. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 19:55, July 28, 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain where you got those ship designs from? I looked online for historical West African ships and found nothing of that size.

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 01:50, July 30, 2016 (UTC)

There is a Nigerian forum which pulled together the research on traditional West African ship designs here. I based the designs of the Benin vessels off of that information, as well as the information that states such as Mali and Benin had sailing vessels for trade along the Niger River, while Mali itself had ships not unlike those in North Africa and Iberia. Given Mali used the Niger for trade with the south, Benin would no doubt have routinely witnessed these vessels firsthand coming down the river, and learned from their designs and operation. Further, an excerpt from the Journal of African History states that African war canoes were rather massive at 80 ft in length and 7-8 ft wide and typically had sails for navigation. Also, they had to be deep to carry 100+ men, their food, equipment, sleeping mats, and weapons so as to prevent capsizing ("...sharp pointed ends, rowing benches on the side, and quarter decks or focastles build of reeds, and miscellaneous facilities such as cooking hearths, and storage spaces for crew sleeping mats." –Journal of African History). Such vessels like these here have been built for ages in West Africa (the latter image showing a traditional shipbuilder), and were typically equal to are larger than vessels such as the caravel, which itself was typically about 40-50 ft long. These vessels here were actually built for deep-water seafearing and are rather large in size, and their designs have not deviated from those of the past. Though these modern designs use motors, in the past sails would have been present on them. Thus, it would not have been to difficult based on the knowledge possessed at the time to increase the vessels in terms of size and depth, as the knowledge was fairly common for the West African kingdoms of that time. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 03:30, July 30, 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I saw those designs on the actual website that you mentioned earlier, but the main question I have is where you are getting the size. You mention yourself that these vessels could manage 100 or so men, but I question the notion that you are able to build ships with five times that number or the motivation to do so. If you could provide some sort of proof in those issues that would be good.

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 21:57, July 30, 2016 (UTC)

Can you add the Chimu Empire, and give us concentration on Army Building? -Nova

I've switched to army since it will be easier to get it passed and less controversial. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 19:30, July 31, 2016 (UTC)

I've added Mogadishu with naval focus, can some mod approve this? - Fallacyman (talk)

I added the Majapahit with a naval focus. Any moderators to approve? Through Stars We Rise. (Welcome to the Universe). 14:16, August 7, 2016 (UTC)

Can someone add the Wichita as army focused? -Da Kaiser (talk) 18:56, August 16, 2016 (UTC)

Mod Elections of 8/11/2016
Hi all. We have decided to have mod elections for a new moderator. Now the three canidates in question are Callum, Cour, and Nic, and they where decided from a list of 9 possible canidates selected by the mods.

To Vote, you need a google account. Either make one or use an existing one. If this is a problem reach out to me and we will talk. You will use this link.

The way voting works is simple. You rank the canidates based on your prefrence. Only ONE will be chosen as mod, so you need to rank them as your  first, second, or third choice. If you select two first choices, your vote will be thrown out. Every First choice gets a canidate three points, every second gets a canidate two points, and every third gets a canidate one point. This is to avoid a plurality.

Any questions approch me in chat or on my talk page. #BRINGBACK THESQUIRREL.

EDIT: We will use STV as it is more accurate. #BRINGBACK THESQUIRREL

Going On Vacation
Since i will ot be here I would need someone to do my turns for me from Friday to Sunday. - Scarlet Outlaw

Viva 1
'''After the last couple of years of Benin's internal instability, lack of charismatic leadership, and crushing military defeat to the Songhai, the Kuzir religion begins to distabilize with 60% of the former empire converting to Islam (mostly under Songhai's control), a remaning 25% staying with the Kuzir religion (making a majority in the core of the empire), and the rest returning to the African traditional polytheism (mixed within the core and northern regions). Fearing the lack of popular support, the clerics among the regency council pressures the adolescent Oba to officially abolish the Kuzir religion and return to absolute rule, in hopes of restoring order.'''

Just make my game a "little difficult" as MP said, huh? Just admit, you are talking out of the bottom half of your body and making up excuses to make these negative events stick. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 05:22, August 16, 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) "...Benin's internal instability..." Which you caused. You killed off the young, healthy Oba for no reason, and sparked an unrealistic rebellion during a regency over a 12-year old who wasn't old enough to rule as the source. The people would never rise up over a minor unfit to rule yet. Also, you have a group of people conquered by Songhai decide that the nation that improved their lives was worse than the nation that marched in and violently oppressed them.
 * 2) "...lack of charismatic leadership..." How are Prince Uwaifiokun (the man who opened Benin's view of the world), Okpara Maduka (the man who explored that world), and Mohammed Benken (a great military leader who saved Benin) not popular or charismatic leaders?
 * 3) "...crushing military defeat to the Songhai..." Songhai exploited a rebellion in Benin to declare independence, and was destroyed the following year. How as that a "crushing military defeat"?
 * 4) "Fearing the lack of popular support..." From the people who think God saved them from defeat by multiple enemies, and point to the three aforementioned men as saints for saving them?
 * 5) "...the clerics among the regency council pressure the adolescent Oba to officially abolish the Kuzir religion and return to absolute rule..." Why would the clergy want the religion that sustains them abolished? How did the 16-year old become Oba when he is not yet old enough to rule? What makes you think that Uwaifiokun would allow that when he and the warriors support the religion? Why would the people who see the Oba as the leader of their faith (in OTL and ATL) want him to destroy his own religion? And as a theocracy, the Oba is by default an absolute ruler, making the clergy's reasoning either ignorant or completely retarded.

Not a mod or anything, but to be fair, Viva has made some very good points - it would be very illogical for the Kuzir clergy to demand to the leader of the Kuzir faith to abolish the Kuzir religion. That's utter nonsense. However, it is plausible that several high-ranking people discontent with the ruling family could trigger a succession crisis over an heir too young to rule or to understand the implications of such a conflict. ~Tim

Exactly. Only thing is that those high-ranking naysayers were removed in the modded rebellion two years prior to this nonsense. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 05:22, August 16, 2016 (UTC)

That rebellion makes absolutely no sense. All of the afformentioned causes have been solved years ago, or just happen out of nowhere Erizium (talk) 10:59, August 16, 2016 (UTC)

All I can say is that Viva is being targeted through Mod Events a lot. Like.. a lot and there isn't even a genuine explanation behind it. Lets see

I can see some valid points in the above complaints. I definitely agree with Tim that the idea of the Kuzir clergy pressuring the Oba to abolish their own religion seems somewhat absurd (I always personally had an issue with the Kuzir religion just literally being made up one day and imposed on a whole state, but that's unrelated and canon anyway). So I think that bit at least needs to be removed. I can see how a religion created from scratch 15 years ago could quickly lose supporters, especially after the death of its charismatic founder and some internal instability. Now, as to the plausibility of past events, keeping in mind Rule 3, anything before 1428 (or 1429, I guess, depending on the construction of the phrase "two turns") should be deemed canonical. I can, however, see how this run of events looks like "targeting" or some such. I can also see how, what with the very fast pace of social change in Benin, some internal division would not be unwarranted. I would like to see the replies to the above complaints. Callumthered (talk) 13:05, August 16, 2016 (UTC)
 * On Turn 1427, the Mods killed off Viva's Oba for no reason at all, who was seemingly perfectly healthy as Viva has mentioned. The very same Mod Event then established a regency to control the state whilst Ministers and Generals fought to expand their influence at court. A reasonable Mod Event, excluding the shady sudden death of a young ruler.
 * On Turn 1428, officers and priest fearful for their life suddenly staged a revolt because they didn't like the regency and wanted the 12 year old controlling the state. This doesn't even make sense and it sounds almost as if whoever is writing these Events is adamant on destabilizing Vivas Empire by hook or by crook. The previous Mod Event established a regency and promoted infighting amongst nobles. Viva responded by empowering Prince Regent and stamping out on the disloyal nobles in order to restore stability which seems as a smart move. Somehow that resulted in priests and officers becoming fearful that the stability was a threat to them, and somehow this attracted the military and urban classes. Wow.. like .. wow. I wouldn't have complained if the Mod Event had stated something along the lines of "The nobles keen on restoring their influence in the regency council, hoping to remove XYZ Prince Regent stage a revolt" or anything even close to that. But no, the priests want the stable regency removed so that a 12 year old who doesn't have a clue how to govern starts to rule. Tell me, who exactly in Benin gains from a 12 year old ruling the nation? No one but the enemies of Benin and Kuzirism. If only the enemies of Benin benefit from it, why would the urban and military classes revolt? It doesnt add up
 * On Turn 1429, the rebellion turned from one that wanted a 12 year old to govern the state into one with religious and ethnic elements. Good thing the Events are making sense atleast, yet there is so much left out. Lets see, somehow a random local with the name of an otl future Emperor becomes Songhais ruler? What? So basically, all the other major families, religious leaders and military commanders in Songhai just decide to hand control to some most likely lowborn guy named Sonni Ali cause why not? What further makes little sense is that this Sonni Ali is suddenly a great politician and military strategist. Its almost as if they just wanted the rebels to have a +45 in the algo so they decided to magically make a random guy a Great General. Yet surprisingly, Viva isn't allowed to have a Great General and the one that Viva did have awhile ago was killed off prematurely.. I guess we now know why he was killed off so suddenly.
 * On Turn 1430, well Vivas already mentioned that year so I don't have to
 * What he said ^ -Bozistanball
 * I agree with Rimp, Viva recieved multiple events that made less sense year after year and they all were to dismantle Benin. 카와이카매] ([[User talk:|카와이카매talk) 22:04, August 16, 2016 (UTC)

Rimp 1
''' Frustrated by the difficult terrain and slow travel for caravans heading to areas hit by the famine, many in Central Asia begin to seethe with discontent. This only intensifies as bands of riders begin attacking the food caravans, making off with their valuable contents before they can reach the major cities. '''

Now, I would just like to list a few points stating why the Mod Events make little sense.

-First of all, I would like to mention the 'Great Famine' I was given via Mod Event yesterday. The Event supposedly created a famine in Central Asia which stunted my population and threatened thousands of lives. This came as a surprise to me, especially when we consider that Central Asia has rarely ever been hit by a Great Famine throughout its history. Agricultural output has been sufficient to such a degree in Central Asia that the only otl Central Asian state to ever suffer a major famine was Kazakhistan, that too was because it was an artificial famine created by the Soviets. Moreover, when we consider the fact that almost all otl CAR states are agrarian in nature, it completely settles any question or debate in regards to the agricultural sufficiency of Central Asia. When we further consider that my nation controls the Fertile Crescent, the region known for being the most fertile and agriculturally important area in the Middle East; it clearly highlights the fact that my nation cannot be hit by a major famine because I obviously have the resources to feed my people. The reason I never raised the issue was because I assumed that the famine was perhaps similar to the ones European nations suffered every decade or so (which they aren't getting for some reason in PM4) so I decided not to outright criticize it. But after reading the very recent Mod Event, I've come to the conclusion that this is no more than a step by step process to promote unrest and discontent in my nation.. A plan who's very basis doesn't really make sense.

-Moving onto the 1431 Mod Event. I would first like to question what the Event means by "difficult terrain". Given that this Mod Event is centered in Central Asia, the logical conclusion is that it is referring to its terrain which has absolutely no major natural barrier of some sort that could obstruct transport. The area can easily be transvered through so I'm not sure where the difficult terrain part came into being. If the terrain was truly difficult to move through, it would never have served as the epicentre of the silk road. If anything, it would have been impossible for the Mongol armies to pass through this land to move South and West. Clearly, that isn't the case because there is nothing about the terrain that makes it impassable.

-The second part of the Mod Event speaks of slow travel for caravans heading towards area hit by the famine. Once again, this comes as a surprise to me as the area which has been supposedly hit by a famine was the same area that was full of routes that made up the Silk Road. If the area was truly so difficult to pass through, merchants would've utilized a sea route from the port city of Basra to India and onwards. They didn't because clearly, there is nothing wrong with the routes. When we further consider that I've been diverting funds towards developing the routes connecting the major cities of the Empire in order to promote the Compact of Iskenderun, for roughly 20 years now, it leads to further confusion as to how the caravans could supposedly not reach in time.

-Finally, something connected to my very first point. When we go through the list of major famines, the great majority lasted little more than a year. In fact, they ended within the same year. Yet somehow, Central Asia; a region that was never historically touched by major famines has somehow been hit by a famine in PM4.. and somehow the effects of that famine are now extending and stretching on and on. Hmm..?

The travel is slow because it needs to travel from areas such as inner Persia and Iraq to Central Asia. While it can be done, yes, that doesn't change the fact of the matter that it takes time to do so, especially when crossing the Persian mountain ranges. With trade goods like silk and porcelain, time is hardly important. When it comes to food, time is very important, especially to people who may be starving.

Secondly, I think it's important to point out that one, Kazakhstan was not the only place to suffer famine in Central Asia's history, nor were all of them a result of manmade issues. It should be pointed out that the famines in Kazakhstan that you mentioned, as well as the others that you did not, took place in the modern era, when advances such as irrigation should have helped mitigated the droughts that started them. Droughts can still happen, both now and then.

Thirdly, I find it interesting how everyone assumes that because they get one bad event, they are going to suffer major problems. That is not the case and people should know that there are examples of that, even as there are examples that prove otherwise. The point is, a single bad event or two should not be viewed as the disaster that it apparently seems to be viewed as.

Finally, if in the future you get another bad event that you believe to be implausible, by all means provide a feasible alternative that you believe is much more plausible. The mods cannot know every single aspect about every single nation, but as mentioned before, every nation will be smited from time to time. If you agree with that concept but disagree with the means, then provide an alternative.

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 01:56, August 18, 2016 (UTC)

Rimp 2
'''Angered at the draconian measures enacted during a time of crisis, many inhabitants of Central Asia begin to resent the continued occupation against raiders that no longer frequent the area. Some begin to grow angry at what they see as a Persian threat against their ways of life.'''

Now I don't want to criticize every single Mod Event that hits me but I would just raise some issues. First of all, I don't have a clue what draconian measures or which occupation this Mod Event is referring to. Not so long ago, Central Asia was hit by a famine and the people nearly died to famine due to raiders constantly attacking caravans carrying food. I responded by having the caravans armed, and ordered the Amirs of the Central Asian provinces to round up all those suspected of having engaged in attacks upon the caravans. I don't have the slightest clue why these people would sympathize for the raiders. As far as 'no longer frequent the area' is concerned, the people are still there. Raiders can't magically disappear and appear wherever they want. I'm going to assume that it means the raiders stopped raiding, which once again means that they're are still there.. they just aren't raiding anymore because it's not in their interests to attack the military. Like I said, I don't want to complain about every Mod Event and I decided to partially go ahead with this one by ordering the Amirs to no longer target suspected criminals which sounds like a dumb move but that is what this Mod Event is asking me to do... doesn't add up. Moving onto the second part, could you clarify what the Mod Event is referring to when it states "Persian threat against their ways of life" ? Which threat? Do they belong to completely different cultures which has resulted in a somewhat clash of civilizations? Not at all. Do they belong to completely different religious groups with one religion considering the traditions of the other religion as blasphemous? Not all all.. They're both Muslims. So I'm not sure what 'threat against their ways of life' means. Most importantly, when have I enforced Persian culture on the people in Central Asia? So I would really appreciate if this was clarified. Thanks

Now I complained against this event but never got a response. I didn't understand why but now I know the answer with the recent rebellions I got. It seems to me that the Mods couldn't even justify the uneasiness and discontent in my state because they knew they had no valid reason. Seems to me they chose to ignore my complaint so they could go ahead with the eventual revolt instead of properly explaining it.

'''Angered at continued rule by what they perceive to be Persian aristocrats and spoiled Turks, a general revolt breaks out in Central Asia. The appointed relatives of major cities like Samarkand and Bukhara are evicted or executed as they are seen as emissaries of the corrupt and foreign. The Gurkani Sultanate ultimately divides evenly in half by population, the western half (mostly in Iran) under Persia while the eastern half (mostly in Central Asia) under the newly formed Uzbek Sultanate.'''

Alright, so this is one of the worst Mod Events I have ever seen. Let's point out the very first thing about this Event.. The Mod Event created a revolt, executed all the Gurkani administrators appointed in those cities and then handed over the Event to me. Basically what the Event is telling me is that people decided to magically revolt for no reason, execute everyone whilst the Sultan and everyone else just kept watching. Lmao what? What Persian aristocrats is this Mod Event talking about? Each province has an Amir, Qazi and Dewan appointed from that respective province to represent their own people so I don't have a clue where the Persian part is from. When we further consider that a Majlis e Aam exists that consists of representatives from various tribes across the Sultanate to bring up any issue or problem directly with their Amirs or even the Sultan, it further makes little sense as to where the Persian aristocracy part comes from. As for spoiled Turks, what? There has not been a single mention of corruption in my nation, which while it may exists as it is natural, has never been extreme. This Mod Event literally has no valid casus belli for a revolt lmao. Basically, what the Mods are telling me is that the people woke up randomly angry one day, decided to kill all their rulers and declared themselves the Uzbek Sultanate. Why? No reason at all. Like, please explain to me how I am supposed to respond to this..? I doubt the Mods themselves have any clue what they would put in casus belli if they were asked to do the algorothm roght now. Finally, the Mods decided to just divide my nation evenly in half. As Viva mentioned, when has a nation ever magically split into two historically? The Events say it takes plave in Central Asia, and the successor state declares itself the Uzbek Sultanate but somehow the population is split into two. Now I know why the Mods did it.. They realize I have one of the largest armies so they decided to split my nation into two so that I won't be able to outnumber or even equal my opponents. Yet, they fail to consider that Persia abd the surrounding regions have always had a greater population than Central Asia. When we further consider that naming the rebel state 'the Uzbek Sultanate' gives the rebellion an ethnic element, we quickly come to the conclusion that other Turkic groups would never support the revolt. The Tajiks in particular are in fact culturally and linguistically Persian so that takes them out too. Are the Mods telling ne that a Pan-Uzbek rebellion somehow has 26 million people supporting it? That too ignoring how the revolt itself makes no sense and how the rebels somehow siezed major cities whilst the Sultan and the Imperial authorities 'silently watched'.

Meanwhile, the Jalayarid Sultanate declares its independence, and seeks the protection of its Arab brethren in the Caliphate against potential Persian invasions.

Once again, another classic case of Mods giving players rebellions but never bothering to read the playets turns even once. Remind me why there are Mods assigned for each specific region anyway if they aren't even going to read the turns of the nations in those regions..? So basically what the Moderators are telling me is that the Sultans niece, the Queen of the Jalayirids and her spouse (The Sultans son) decided to revolt against the Sultan. Why? No reason at all. Seems to me they woke up one morning as well and thought "Lets just revolt cause its funny LOL". Why exactly would they revolt against me? Have I persecuted them? No. Have I oppressed them? No. Have I promoted Persian or Turkic language/culture l in their territories? No. So why exactly are they revolting..? Lets look at it from a Mods perspective.

"Hey! We just gave Rimp a rebellion that split his population in two so he can't beat those rebels. But you know.. Rimp might find a way eventually.. I got an idea! We will give him two rebelliobs at the same time!"

That is honestly how I see it going. I honestly can't see how the Mods can justify this revolt. But thats just the first part. The Mods had to get Nathan involved in this revolt as well ofcourse as they needed to get a valid casus belli for Nathan to join in. So what do they do? They make the Jalayirids ask the Abbasids for help. What the Mod Event is bsically saying is that the Abbasids who have a historic claim on Iraq and particularly Baghdad are being asked for help against a nation that transformed the Jalayirids from a underdeveloped area constantly under Oghuz Turkic attacks to one that touched the Mediterranean and the Black Sea at the same time.. a nation whos navy was rapidly developed and for whom a massive trade network was developed to facilitate the spice trade. Why in the world would they ask the Abbasids for help? That too ignoring how the revolt has no valid casus belli in the first place. This makes as much sense as Finland asking the USSR to help invade Germany in WW2.

What does it have to be me though? Why didn't the Galicia magically (Jalayirids in this case) revolt when Edge got a Moroccon revolt? Why didn't the people of Grenada revolt for that matter? Why didn't the people of Tunis revolt after they freed thenselves from European rule only to be subjugated by Nathan? Why didn't Nathan get two revolts at the same time, perhaps a Tunisian revolt coinciding with his Coptic revolt? Why didn't he get a revolt when he drive thousands of Turks from his nation? I don't want to point fingers at other nations but all I am saying is that there are so many nations in this game, many players often performing implausible actions... yet it has to me getting these massive revolts simply because my nation is large and strong. Its almost as if there is a rule that states that if you become strong, you need to get a revolt but if I were to start pointing out how extremely implausible the nations of various Moderators were in the last major Map Game (PM3), they wouldn't be able to justify their actions other than a "Everyone else did it so why not me?". Its not about getting a revolt for me.. but if you want to give revolts, they should at the very least make sense. If there aren't any qualified Mods for specific regions in the Map Game, assign new ones. I would quite honestly prefer getting revolts from a Mod that knows what hes doing regardless of whether he borders me or not instead of a Mod whos only source of information is a 5mins skimming through the Wikipedia page.

Other than the general issue that these Mod Events make no sense, the following pictures prove that not only did Nathan abuse his position as a Mod by making sure his regional rival got negative events, but he also metagamed by informing his ally Bozistanball about it amd pre-planned an invasion to coincide with the revolt



Hi I'm Sky and this is Sky's solution™ to map game issues.

Ok so Rimpboi my good man, you need to choose an area in which you'll focus, be it east, west, center of whatever of the Gurkani Sultanate Empire thing. Then we should crumble the rest of your nation in such a way that you're separated from people like Nate and Crim. Not because you'd be ganked, which you would but anyways, because those regions were recently conquered and could easily be smashed into a series of smalll to mid-sized nations ready to refresh the region.

Next up, you will probably still get internal turmoil due to rapid decrease of size of your nation which'll probably last about 5-10 years and make you incapable of conquering anyone without having your army and economy cut down even more after you do.

Sound good? SkyGreen24 15:01, August 26, 2016 (UTC)

Multiple revolts sounds a bit right but losing a lot of territory in a short period of time needs to be done in a plausible manner. First of all, I believe this Uzbek Sultanate needs to be dealt with. Somehow the Uzbeks have declared independence, starting a Pan Uzbek Movement. Somehow these Uzbeks have the support of every single Turkic group in Central Asia without any proper justification and somehow even the Tajiks who are a Persian ethnic group are supporting Uzbeks as well. Whats further worse is that somehow, the Central Asian areas revolting means I lose 50% of my population even though those areas have historically been sparsely populated and would definitely not constitute 50% of the population. Finally, all of this needs to be done asap. At the moment, its basically Nathan controlling two nations. He controlled the Uzbeks to annihilate every single official in one of the most important cities of my nation which makes no sense at all. Why would the Uzbeks revolt for no reason all of a sudden? Moreover, how can they just take over cities without any algo? Lmfao wat. Whats further worse is that Nathan is basically controllung the Uzbeks via Mod Events to further invade me. So yeah

I agree with Rimp. There is no way the Uzbeks would have taken half of his nation over a "general revolt" and managed to build a perfectly functioning military overnight. Remember, most of Rimp's military is most likely Persian, meaning that siding with the Uzbeks would have been out of the question. If that is the case, they'd have to draw from locals who lack combat experience. If this was done plausibly, and the part that rebelled was not half of the Gurkani Sultanate, then the rebel army would be tiny if drawn from the Uzbek lands. Furthermore, the event was implausible as it magically turned all Uzbeks into a hive mind that somehow decided to automatically support an Uzbek state unanimously, and for some reason, 50% of the population in the nation decided they wanted to rebel at the same time for reasons unknown. And Rimp is correct yet again. How did the rebels manage to overpower at the same time perfectly all of the Persian military forces across half of the empire without any problems? We know BS when see it. Nate, the person who made the event, is in the process of invading Rimp's lands. He has the most to gain from the ASB event, and he is the one who made it. This is a huge conflict of interests. It seems that whenever you create a rebellion in someone's nation, you either give them a great general from out of nowhere, boost their population to unrealistic levels, or create as many implausible issues for the player to deal with to prevent them from saving their nation, all to give the rebels a boost in the algo. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 19:40, August 26, 2016 (UTC)

Blocky 1
'''Bohemia's army is stuck in enemy territory and mostly slaughtered as they retreat from Greece after being surrounded by the Ottoman Turks. News of the infamous “Massacre at Xánthi” spreads throughout Europe, leading many to call for a new crusade to liberate the continent from the Muslim influence.'''

'''After costly battles to defend Mosul and recapture Trebizond, the Persian Army is largely worn out. Advisers to the Shah suggest taking a brief respite before later pursuing the smaller eastern rebel statelets.'''

The algo was already finished and approved by a mod. Also, I extremely doubt that Wallachia could raise 50,000 troops on its own, and I doubt it would willingly raise them to fight against someone who is liberating them. I also doubt that given the economic situation in Europe, they could raise that much. Further, I also doubt that after many years of war there would have been any troops willing or able to fight in against the Bohemian army. Also, Epirus could not have attacked as they were liberated as part of Greece. Serbia was also already occupied by time of 1441, and therefore could not "raise an army" and link up with Wallachia's. Also, if the mod who I think wrote this actually did, there could be bias against me. Also, the algo has multiple problems since it was edited with. The Ottoman Empire's army should be in shambles after the Persian war, and after the riots that happened a few years ago, the population of the vassals of Wallachia, Serbia, etc. should be helping me if anything, not attacking me. I also doubt that Wallachia has a population close to seven million to support a 50,000 strong army, which is the population of both Bohemia and the Ottoman Empire itself. - Blocky

Oh seriously??? This must be the second most biased event in the game, after the collapse of the Guarkani Sultanate... Jeez i wonder who wrote this stuff??? So lets recap on this event, so after the Otties faced annihilating defeated, they suddenly recover and an army magically appears out of thin air, that ultimately crushes the Bohemians, sure and if that wasn't enough to justify this, you restrict Guarkani ability to continue its war with the Otties, basicly saying "now that things are NOT going our way as we hoped they would go, when we collapsed the Guarkani Sultanate just to invade it and grab some land, lets make sure that we won't lose any land with another BS event."

I concur. To suggest that the Ottoman and Abbasid forces can continue fighting despite losing the war but that the Gurkani cannot launch a counter-offensive after crushing the invaders makes little sense. If a 'worn out' penalty is being given that restricts people from further engaging in war, the Ottomans and the Abbasids should definitely suffer it too.

First, 50% of my population was taken away from me and I was stripped of my vassals without any justification. Simultaneously, Nathan was given a Great General for no reason at all. My only ally, Bahamani was not allowed to intervene in the war, once again wkthout any explaination. In contrast, Nathan's main ally, the Ottomans were allowed to freely invade me. The Russian Intervention in the war was also allowed after Nathan called upon Russia to join in. Nathan also wrote up Mod Events where he controlled the Uzbek army and made them march on my capital. In spite of all this, when I finally repelled Nathans and the Ottoman Invasions, I am no longer allowed to counterattack. So I would quite frankly request that this issue is cleared out. If the Mods (Some, not all) are adamant on having Nathan win by hook or by crook, then they should just clearly mention it so that I'll go ahead and pick another nation accordingly. I don't really see the point of being given false hope.

Tim 1
'''While most of Europe has now recovered from the economic collapse of 1439, the nation of Aragon faces its own, smaller banking crisis. This is caused by the Royal Bank of Barcelona, being capitalized by the Royal Family, attempting to collect on debts owed by Aragon’s royal family. In effect, they had loaned out money to themselves and others in sort of Ponzi scheme. This bank collapses drastically, and most Europeans grow wary of banking, causing branch closures of the Bank of Prague and Bank of St. Birgitta.'''

Okay, what the fuck is this? This is so random and sudden. First of all, the Royal Family never took any loans from the bank, and they never loaned a single cent to themselves. Did I ever say I did that? No. Did I ever loan money out to my own government from the Royal Bank "in sort [sic] of Ponzi scheme"? No. If there was a build-up to this "spectacular collapse", I would have accepted this. If I had actually been "capitalising on the bank" in the manner this event says I did, I would have accepted this. But I HAVE NOT. This is total BS and probably a deliberate attempt by a certain mod to sabotage me. I wonder who. ~Tim

The government injects a large loan equivalent to $500,000 into the bank, and raises the Common Base Tax to 4% to bring in more revenue to fund the bank. You put half a million into the bank as a loan from the government and now because just giving out loans to banks is a silly idea, the bank can't pay back. - Person

Well, that's a good point. But surely the bank isn't so incompetent that it can't pay back the loan. The bank's been quite successful over the years; such a bank doesn't just crash like that. ~Tim

Where does it say it's been successful. It was just some bank created 10 years ago which expanded rapidly and was propped up by the King when people lost their money and the bank got in trouble. Now the King wants to know where his money has gone but it all went trying to keep all the branches open. Everyone has been building to many banks to quickly and naturally massive over expansion is going to lead to you owing people money and the people who owe you money not being able to pay back because you lent to much. - Person

http://i.imgur.com/29JDTA0.png Basically without the invention of Bank Accounts and Aragon's money focused elsewhere it would have to be entirly funded by the royal family which would get the Money from Loans.

Your point is moot; I've already accepted the mod event on advice from Person and Bear. ~Tim

Crim 1 - Japan
Looking over the Chinese-Japanese relationship, it's insane how it does a complete 180 for no reason whatsoever. First Korea rebels from China and Japan moves in to aid China in its quest to prevent Korea from renouncing its tributary status. Evidentally the Chinese just let Japan take care of this instead of moving in, but whatever. Prior to this war, Japanese/Chinese relations were at a high, certainly the highest in the region. Which brings my concern to an event years later; the Tondo renouncement of Japanese protection.

Ming not only allowed this to happen in a mod event (due to a mod event because of players switching, but it still makes no sense in-game), they invaded their ally's protectorate for no reason other than 'they were asked to' in 1438. This event makes absolutely no sense. Furthermore, there is no reason why Japan would sell Ryukyu to China in 1434. I'm posting mod events to illustrate what exactly happened. I am requesting a moderator to examine these and to consider retconning them completely. There are some shenanigans regarding Ming and Korea going on right now that don't really make much sense, but that's not a mod event so that doesn't go here.

1434: ''' The Ming Emperor buys the Japanese colonies of Ryukyu for twelve tons of silver. '''

1438:  The Ming Emperor sends his full support for the Kingdom of the Tondo against Japan 

-Crim de la Kremlin - "This is my signature. That means I just posted." 21:05, August 29, 2016 (UTC)

You got it all wrong, absolutely wrong. Early in the game, I subjugated Korea as a protectorate, under Chinese suzerainty and thus it is no longer obliged to pay tribute. I did this as a protective measure against Japan. Later, I wanted to reverse the decision as I felt I was strong enough, so I sent tribute and emisarries to the Ming and wanted to receive full independence again in exchange for the reestablishment of the tributary system (Korea would have to pay tribute again).

Now my guess is meatpuppeting between the player of the Ming and Japan happened, because the former made this exaggerated response to my humble request for independence to which the latter suspiciously hopped in and readily invaded me. What is also funny was that the Ming's goal was to "surpress Korean revolts at independence" (yet I did not mention anything), yet its player said, "Japan, if you subjugate Korea I will give it to you". Anyways, the part about the Ming participating and a Korean rebellion was retconned. It basically became Japan invading Korea for some reason, which Japan lost. So basically most of what you are complaining about is obsolete or misinterpreted information.

Candies, You'll note that most of my grievances come from things not regarding the Japanese-Korean War. Furthermore, it's been a good three days since I posted that. By this point, I'm well aware of the details concerning that war.

Crim de la Kremlin - "This is my signature. That means I just posted." 17:29, September 1, 2016 (UTC)

Good that you understand the (messed up) situation by now. Anyways, I agree with the implausibility of Japan selling the Ryukyus to the Ming.

Blocky 2
<u style="font-size:16px;line-height:26px;">Seeing the senseless use of the Empire’s wealth in the Balkan War, most of the states in western Germany switch their favor toward the Elector of Brandenburg against a perceived Bohemian dynasty.

The Empire had nothing to do with the war. All troops were Bohemian/Hungarian and all funding for the war came from Bohemia. If anything, the states in the Empire would be happy to know that the Ottoman Empire, being heathens, were pushed back. I would also like to point out that this was mostly a war for the Hungarian part of my realm, not for Bohemia's own benefit. I also see no reason for the western states to turn towards Brandenburg of all people, who only really has influence in the north eastern HRE. I also see no reason as to why the HRE would be upset at Bohemia, as my efforts in establishing the Bank of Prague and establishing branches across the HRE for the Bank contributed to getting the HRE out of the economic crisis. I also have defended the HRE against outside forces, and the western HRE should be looking towards a powerful nation with a good track record of protection to insure that they will be protected if any forces from the west choose to invade. To emphasize these two points, Bohemia is regarded as one of the great powers (at least according to Edge), the full list being Castile, France, Bohemia, Milan, and Persia in no particular order. Bohemia has also defended the Empire against French aggression before, and (to my knowledge at least) has participated in every war where a member of the HRE is being attacked by an outside force, and my recent attempts at trying to return unlawful territory (largely in the west) shows that I am caring about the princes. I don't see why this event was made in the first place anyway other than someone trying to undermine me for biased reasons. Blocky858 (talk) 20:06, September 1, 2016 (UTC)

1.19 Desmond attack on Ormond and LeinsterEdit

 * Year
 * Pre-War Stage
 * Desmond
 * Result: +7,3
 * Population: +0,4
 * War Exhaustion: 0
 * Casus Belli: +4
 * Government: +3
 * Ormond and Leinster


 * Result: +8,2
 * Population: +0,2
 * War Exhaustion: 0
 * Casus Belli: +5
 * Government: +3
 * Battle Stage
 * Siege of Capital
 * Desmond
 * Result: +4,45
 * Army/Navy Size: +0,45
 * Location: +4
 * Great General:0
 * Blunder: 0
 * Attrition:
 * Ormond and Leinster
 * Result: +1,225
 * Army/Navy Size: +0,225
 * Location: +4
 * Great General:
 * Blunder: -3
 * Attrition:
 * Final Stage:
 * Desmond
 * Cities Occupied:
 * Result: +7,3 +11 = 18,3
 * Ormond and Leinster
 * Cities Occupied:
 * Result: +8,2 - 3,225 - 15 = 0,975
 * Overall Result: 1876% in favor of Desmond, Ormond and Leinster completely rekt

Tim 2
'''Princess Arianne of Aragon is reported to be pregnant while away at Malta. She continues to write her manifesto about government, but when her term comes due, she dies of childbirth. Sancho, upset at the passing of his wife, declares himself to be the sole heir of Aragon but the elders of Aragon, including John of Aragon, declare that responsibility falls to Eleanor of Aragon. The crisis is brought to a head when King Alfonso V dies due to heart failure upon hearing the death of his daughter'''

What the heck is this here? This is an absolutely unbelievable clusterf**k of a mod event! I suspect a mod-supported plot to destabilise my regime, because this single mod event conveniently destroys the possibility of an Iberian Union. There are a number of inconsistencies with this mod event here:
 * 1) Crown Prince Sancho never went to Malta with Arianne. While he was invited to Malta, the Castilian government never agreed to this, and thus Arianne and Sancho would have remained separate and so Arianne never would have become pregnant to begin with.
 * 2) If Arianne were to die, the succession would immediately fall to Arianne's younger sister, Eleanor. This is correct, and Sancho would know it. He wouldn't "out of heartbreak" claim the throne of Aragon. That makes no sense whatsoever.

I believe that one of the mods is against me and may be under the influence of a particular player. This is outrageous and I will not tolerate this mod event, which so quickly and effortlessly produces a succession crisis and could so easily lead to a war of succession. —  T  I   M  (TSW • AH • MGW • <font color="#006400">Contribs ) 05:39, September 6, 2016 (UTC)

A simple solution. Why not have Sancho and Eleanor marry each other?

I'm going to side with Tim on this one but recommend Rimp's idea as a good solution.

07:23, September 6, 2016 (UTC)

I would agree with this, but only if Arianne died of childbirth, which never happened anyway because of reason #1 in my complaint, negating the possibility of this mod event. —  T  I   M  (TSW • AH • MGW • <font color="#006400">Contribs ) 08:23, September 6, 2016 (UTC)

I'm also going to side with Tim on this one but recommend Rimp's idea as a good solution.

Whilst the idea of Sancho claiming the throne "out of heartbreak" does sound somewhat absurd, the idea of a widower of an heiress aparent claiming the throne generally is nowhere near as ridiculous. Phillip II of Spain held onto the idea of being king of England after Mary I's death. Admiteddly he had been married to her whilst she was queen, but it's not too great a stretch to imagine a widower of an heiress apparent getting angry enough at losing his chance at the throne that he would just go ahead and claim it. So I think the event should stand. But Rimp is right: Tim, you can very easily get around this by having the pair marry. Callumthered (talk) 12:11, September 6, 2016 (UTC) (Lictor, Maester &c.)

I'm sorry Tim, this event is clearly leveled at me in an attempt to drive me away from my allies. I mean, 2 turns in a row and 2 events that drive Castile away from an ally? Needless to say I have a solution. #BRINGBACK THESQUIRREL.

Blocky 3
<u style="font-size:16px;line-height:26px;">Several states forced to vassalize to Bohemia in the past now see the instability of the region their chance to denounce the Emperor, although no hostility is taken at this time.

I didn't force vassalize anyone. I only have 3 vassals in Germany, one of them was done diplomatically, while the other two were done more aggressively, if that's what you were referring to, but that was many years ago. Blocky858 (talk) 07:05, September 8, 2016 (UTC)

Ming Events
<p style="font-weight:normal;">

<p style="font-weight:normal;">''' A group of nobles in Ming China, aggravated by years of favouring barbarians over people in the Middle Kingdom, gather an army in rebellion of the Emperor under general Xinlan Liu. Liu declares the Emperor has lost the Mandate of Heaven, and one third of the military comes to his banner. Another fifth of the military remains undecided in their allegiance. '''

<p style="font-weight:normal;">I am contesting this due to the fact we are not in conflict and we have been confronting Korea for acting agressivley against one of our allies, which is ruled by Candies, a friend of Nate which in turn makes this seem more biased than anything. -Nova 05:46, September 12, 2016 (UTC)

The Ming has historically always favoured Korea over Japan, as Korea is more submissive and actively pays tribute. The only time Korea has ever engaged war with China was in the Silla–Tang wars over the remnants of Goguryeo, and that culminated in a Korean victory. Aggravating a zealously pro-Chinese ally, one that is considered Hua (not Yi), which means sinicized and thus "civilized", does not come without consequences. Being a Hua, the Chinese see the Koreans as an extension of the Middle Kingdom, and if the Chinese Emperor would choose to attack them they would lose the Mandate of Heaven.

Meanwhile, the Japanese pay little tribute, and are reluctant to send their royalty to the Ming to do prostrations nor achnoledge Chinese superiority and nominal suzerainty, so technically, it isn't a tributary state. Nor is the Japanese strategically valuable to the Chinese, as Korea is also a centre of gunpowder making and supplies much of the precious metals to Chinese banks. Furthermore, the Japanese have attacked Korea, a Chinese vassal, in 1433, so the Korean reluctance to be friendly towards the Japanese is clearly plausible and understandable.

Also, seeing that you're demanding to Korea to cede its Taiwanese colony to Japan, yet those sorts of actions have no historical backing. Never in Chinese history has China demanded its tributary to cede territory. Good day.

One third is entirely too much. You want to give China a BS event, do it with the Mongolians. Candies, along with the author of this poorly-written event very clearly fails to understand that the Ming aren't choosing one vassal over the other. They're mediating and Korea was disrespectful and disobedient. Not punishing these actions is a better way to lose Mandate of Heaven. To consider them choosing sides is lazy and silly at best.

Candies is emotionally invested in this and she speaks from a point of wank-based ignorance and stubbornness. Her arguments contain as much merit as Viva's do: little to none.

This event shows very clear bias towards her, as she has enjoyed for the entire game. I call for the immediate removal of Nate as East Asian moderator and his installation as a moderator of an area he is both familiar with and containing players for which he is not biased in favor of or against.

Crim de la Kremlin - "This is my signature. That means I just posted." 06:26, September 12, 2016 (UTC)

No, what the Ming has done so far is obviously been in favour for the Japanese, even though it is historically known that the Ming has preferred Korea over Japan, which has no strategic value whatsoever. No, providing input to what is thought to be a dumb move is not disrespecting. Korea has continued to pay tribute, and has not renounced its subordinate place. Thus, the Chinese could not launch a punitive expedition because it has no incentive to. The Chinese are aggravating what is seen as an extension of the Middle Kingdom, and it will not go unnoticed.

And I talked with a couple of moderators, and they have also concluded the shitstorm that is East Asia is implausible. Just because the mod events are against your interests does not deem it automatically implausible.

<p style="font-weight:normal;">''' The former Mongol leaders gather support to take over the vassal of Mongolia, pushing the Chinese back out. '''

<p style="font-weight:normal;">Same message as above, we have occupation troops in Mongolia, they have no way of pushing us out and even then they wouldnt do it. The event in itself is not an option. -Nova 05:46, September 12, 2016 (UTC)

The Mongolians have the tactics, and could pool their troops because as a nomadic people it would not affect their economy. Also, you would probably lose in the event of battle, as Chinese troops are ill-fitted to fight within the desert. That is why 300,000 Ming soldiers lost against 20,000 Oirat soldiers in the Tumu Crisis.

Candies is right, yet this will be an easy win for the Ming according to algo rules. Should speak for how terrible the algo is in the first place. Crim de la Kremlin - "This is my signature. That means I just posted." 06:26, September 12, 2016 (UTC)

Greek Event
The Byzantine Emperor, now with title only, requests the King of Greece an autonomous state within his nation

I just think it unlikely that the Emperor would ask to be subsumed into the Kingdom of Greece, accepting subordinate status to a mere king. I think a merging process, probably achieved through marriage, where the Emperor-ship and King-ship are joined would make sense, but I just can't see the Byzantine emperor, even if he only controls Constantinople, offering to accept a demotion to mere Grand Duke of Thessaly as the Greek player wants to happen. Also, isn't there still a Crusader army in Constantinople?Callumthered (talk) 13:07, September 12, 2016 (UTC)

An Open letter to my fellow mods and players.
Before I begin, I must preface this with the following message. Not a single other soul knows I am writing this. But there is an issue among the mod team that I must adress.This was origonally going to be my mod event compliant, but I have found that there are too many overarching issues that I must adress.

To my fellow mods:

When PM4 was first announced, I was adamantly against it. However, I agreed to mod and join the game, my hope being that I could solve the issues I had from inside of the mod team better than I could from the outside. It is clear to me now that I can not solve these issues, from the inside or the outside.

In many ways we have improved upon PM3, the mod team is more orginized (belive it or not) and there is more communication between mods. However, in many ways we have failed to improve. I would argue that this algo, while being more "historic", is more flawed than the PM3 algo. And despite the increased orginization, the mods can't seem to get anything done.

Maybe we haven't put our foot down hard enough. Maybe we have done it too hard or too often. Maybe we have done it wrong. Who am I to say what the problem is. What I know is this. This game has deviated far to much from OTL, and everyone, and I include myself when I say that, has overexpanded. Viva gets his shit thrown at him because his is the most notable difference from OTL, and he has a history of overexpanding, but Nate, Nic, Josh, Crim, Every player in the Americas, Viva, and I are all overexpanded as well. We can't place Viva as the sole reason for this game falling off course. Everyone is at fault. Once one person starts over-expanding, everyone must do so to keep up.

There is no problem with drawing out event arcs, and I can and will deal with mine right now, but the problem is that mods don't talk to the players enough. Rather than say "Hey, I think you are being implausble, here is why..." We jump right to mod event arcs, and when people feel they are being persecuted unfairly, of course they are going to lash out and complain and accuse us of being biased. We aren't explaining ourselves clearly enough and we are just trusting that the players will understand. I will go more into the arguments that the players use later. I told several mods that I would be away at school, and yet I still get mod events leveled at me. I know Josh thinks that my alliances made me overpowered and that i would become a second Feud, but when I confronted Josh for more information and more arguments, all he said was that was reason enough. We can't do this. I'm not trying to pick on Josh or anything, but his example gives me the clearest warrant.

To the players:

Its ok to protest an event, but you need arguments that make sense. Just saying ''"Its ATL I can do it because its ATL." ''Is not a valid argument. Just because its ATL doesn't mean I can conquer all of Europe. Viva may abuse fallacies and strech sources and twist sources to make his points, but at least he tries to put out coherent arguments. When I tried to come down on the Americas, I was met with people saying "Its ATL". The other argument I got is my next point. '''When a mod gives you a negative event, if your first argument is that they are biased in someway or for some reason, the mods are not going to listen to you. ''' Much like you don't like to be called ASB in events and retcons, the mods don't want to be personally attacked either. They are simply doing their job to the best of their ablity. If the roles where reversed, you would realize why this arguments are ridicolus and you would realize that the mods are mostly just trying to enforce plausblity. I challenge any player who calls a mod biased to try to put together a game to the size and caliber of PM3 and PM4. Hell, Scan drew the PM3 blank map. Now this is not to say that mod bias doesn't exist, but it isn't the root of every event ever given to you.

Now normally this is where I would draw up a plan for a solution, but I don't have one that everyone is going to like. Which is why this is being written. My desire is to see the game restarted from turn 1, a new algo designed, new expansion rules written up, new everything. Or we can slap the ASB label on this and continue playing as is. Or we can do something else. I feel the need to vent this all publicly. Thank you all for your time, and I hope you all do consider the things I have said. #BRINGBACK THESQUIRREL 22:02, September 6, 2016 (UTC)

I actually have an alternative to propose here, how 'bout instead of just restarting the game or ASB label, we go back to turn one and start a massive campaign to rout out implausability, with revising with player and mods consent, or simply crossing out and removing stuff. Of course this is not the easiest way and requires a lot of effort and team work, but it will yield us the best result. Or instead just go ahead and erase like 50 days work.

While I agree with many of your points, I would ask what sources and how I abuse and stretch them, along with using fallacies. This much I would love to see in act rather than a rather thinly veiled jab at my defense of my actions. I am pleased to know that I'm not being blamed for the game's state however. Nice to see a moderator take some responsibility. I salute you Edge. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 22:13, September 6, 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the game has some issues, but I really don't think anyone wants to go back and erase everyone's effort from the past fifty days. I think we need a threefold solution. 1) the mods, in cojunction with the relevant players, need to sort out some of the overexpansion. Like Italy (I never really understood how that happened)(Yes I know I will be accused of bias for singling out Italy). I'm not suggesting that the entire countries be destroyed, just that they are whittled down by adding another NPC here and there through rebellion or what have you. But these rebellions should be made through consultation with the player and with history to see which parts should rebel and for what plausible reasons. The next two points are common to all map games:  2) People need to stop thinking that the only way to "win" a map game is through expansion. It. Is. Not. A bit of plausible expansion here and there, complex vassalisation that takes place over decades and through intricately orchestrated marriages and economic dependence, are of course valid and fun parts of the game. But I think there is a mentality that the only way to get ahead is through expansion, often implausible. 3) Wars in map games tend to result in the total (or near total) destruction of one side. OTL there have been many, many wars where little territorial exchange has occured. Additionally, a lot of otl wars finish through negotiated settlements. I think the new algo, with its multiple tiers of victory, helps fight that common map game problem to a certain extent, but I believe more can be done to make the results of wars more plausible, probably by adding a tier of "military defeat with negotiated settlement" or something (I've never really been good at algos). Anyway just my two cents.  Callumthered (talk) 23:39, September 6, 2016 (UTC)

Viva, I don't have specfic examples of you abusing sources, but I have a running list of fallacies you comitt. Of course I don't keep chat screenshots so if you ask for proof I don't have it except for other witnesses. And your two personal favorites, Argument from Silence and Shifting the Burden of Proof. and I'm not saying you aren't partially at fault for what has happened this game, but many mods and players ignore their own issues while believing that tearing you down will solve all their problems. Anyway. this is distracting to the main point. #BRINGBACK THESQUIRREL 00:28, September 7, 2016 (UTC)
 * Shifting Goal Post
 * Argument from Ignorance
 * Appeal to stone
 * Appeal to Probiblity
 * Masked Man Fallacy
 * Association of Casuality and Correlation

None of these are actual examples, and your claims seem to be more of a big tent issue than an actual specified issue. Odd you mention shifting goal posts, because when I mentioned I was building roads, you stated I had to prove I had the money, and when I did that, you stated I had to explain where the money came from, and when I did that, you demanded to know who I was trading with. When I stated that, you said I didn't have access to the Mediterranean, to which I stated I was trading through Tangier which MP permitted. As to the argument from ignorance, how so? Did I not provide the source to Benin's population from Princeton University when I started? Did I not provide the source to the size of Benin's army from an OTL firsthand account? Did I not state Benin's government from a source linked to a doctoral paper from the University of Hamburg? I ask, what argument did I make purely from ignorance? You demand sources, but you discount the ones I provide even when they come from universities and historians. It seems that you are bent on ensuring that no matter what source I provide, the goal post you have set is forever out of reach based on whatever silly prerequisites you have set. You set the post, but then you complain when that post has been reached, and on your own terms might I add. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 01:48, September 7, 2016 (UTC)

I am completely for a new set of rules. This game is worse than PMII IMO. Crim de la Kremlin - "This is my signature. That means I just posted." 03:28, September 7, 2016 (UTC)

I'm out
Yeah, I think it's time for me to get going while the getting is good. The mods will say it's because of the population dispute with Benin, but that simply opened my eyes to just how corrupt the mods really are and how little they have changed since PM2. As I stated February 26, 2013 for PM2, nearly three and a half years ago: "I fear this is a recurring theme across all of the wiki. Even in plausible situtations, the mods still shoot down ideas they themselves use them in ways that make no sense or couldn't happen, such as Scraw having Sweden force the USSR to become a puppet state, and becoming a superpower when many larger nations had the same tech but no potential. This isn't limited to just a few games, and I feel that this has to be resolved on the wiki on general." My warning and foresight on the issue remains the same today. I should have gone with my gut feeling and avoided this game like kyptonite like the others, but I made the mistake of defying my better judgement and joining up anyway. So long as you the players keep supporting the same biased users as mods, you will continue to end up with dying, one-sided map games such as PM4. I'm not going to waste anymore time with this game, and I will follow Wild, KK, and Feud out the door leading to the light of freedom from corruption on this wiki. At least on some random map game. Gentlemen. Mi'lady (Candie). B)  Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 04:22, September 7, 2016 (UTC)

You are just too stubborn to admit you are wrong and ASB. Thanks god you are leaving so you won't dominate this game like you did with PMII with your ASBness.

Strange, I don't seem to recall you were even a member on this Wiki when PM2 was being played. I'm going to assume your entire argument on Viva's "ASB" actions are completely dependent on the last PM2 Map, so let me ask you this.. Why did you only mention Viva? Why not Georgia colonizing much of Canada and Northern US territories? Heck even Alaska. What about Indian colonies in South America, North Africa and Southern Africa? What about the Kalmar Union taking over roughly otl Germany, Poland and the UK? So many other examples. Don't blame Viva for all that happened in PM2 when you weren't even there to experience the Map Game. As far as PM4 is concerned, you always spoke against Viva and criticized Benin whenever the topic came up yet I don't seem to recall you ever confronting Viva with the issue on chat nor do I remember seeing you engage in a proper argument with Viva over the topic. If you really had a problem with what Viva was doing, why didn't you bring up the issue?

I did confront Viva about this several times but all Viva told me is that he is done with providing everyone with proof and tried to twist my words cuz he knows that the only way to win an already lost arguement, by never discussing it. And pls you are almost never there when Viva is online...

Now about PMII i will admit that there were many other ASB nations except Viva but none of the players that controled those nations has a nation of the size that Viva has in this game. The only person i know played both games (except Viva) is Scraw. Scraw is almost never active in this game, i think he quit or something and he never come close to the overextension Viva did or the ASBness that Viva contributed to this game.

Crim and Callum members of this game and were both moderators for PM2. And as I showed on the map, Ethiopia was larger as a connected nation, but in terms of sheer size, Italia, India, Germania, China, Portugal, and Arabia were far larger, and were the largest nations for most of the game. But to know that, you would have actually had to known that from experience, looked it up, or have someone tell you. Either way, your own statement proves you are speaking from ignorance. You use a lot of buzzwords such as "ASBness", but you could not provide a single account of my actions that were ASB. And you mention overextension, but completely ignore the overextension of Nate, clearly proving that you don't care about the act, but the person claimed to be performing the act. As for Rimp, he has been on several times when I use on, but again, you'd have to be active to know that, and clearly you are not that person. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 17:58, September 7, 2016 (UTC)

For the record neither Rimp nor BearCavalry was on the wiki at the time of PM2.

Also for the record I am involved in this game, I have elected to not play as a nation and only be a mod so I can spend more time moderating.

18:32, September 7, 2016 (UTC)

I never stated I was on the wiki at the time of PM2. Rather, if Bear is going to accuse Viva of "ASBness" based off the PM2 Map, then he should have gone ahead and criticized all the other players too instead of specifically pinpointing Viva.

Oh pls don't try to deny the obvious, thats going nowhere... PMII WAS ASB AND ITS CLASSIFIED AS SUCH. As for Crim and Callum, Callum was playing as the Papal States which is a very small state, nowhere near your overextended size. As for Crim, he is having his overextended nation collapse, through mod events, as he was the one to argue that his nation should collapse. Crim had a nation (Russia) same size as yours with 1/10 of the population you claim to have. So none of these players you mentioned have a so overextended nation as you do. They might have learned from their mistakes and chose not to repeat them, you however are keen on doing the exact same thing. Το summarize none of these players are trying to repeat their actions in PMII, unlike you. <span style="-webkit-border-radius: 1px 1px;-moz-border-radius: 1px / 1px;-webkit-box-shadow: 1px 1px 1px rgba(0,0,0,0.6);background-image:-webkit-repeating-radial-gradient(#FFFFFF 50%,#FFFFFF 50%);background:-moz-repeating-radial-gradient(#FFD700 50%,#000000 50%));"><span style="border:1px solid #778899;padding-bottom:1px;padding-top:1px;-webkit-border-radius: 1px 1px;-moz-border-radius: 1px / 1px;-webkit-box-shadow: 1px 1px 1px rgba(0,0,0,0.6);background-image:-webkit-repeating-radial-gradient(ellipse,#778899 45%,#998877 50%);background:-moz-repeating-radial-gradient(ellipse,#0000ff 45%,#202020 50%));border-top-left-radius:500px 400px;border-bottom-left-radius:500px 400px">           <span style="background:-webkit-gradient span style="background-color:black; border:4px ridge red; -webkit-border-radius:0em 0em 0em 0em;">  <span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 2px brown, 0 0 1em #000, 0 0 0.2em #0FF; color: red; font: 1.5em Cambria, serif; text-align: center; font-variant: small-caps;">Ungern Von Sternberg   <span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 2px brown, 0 0 1em #000, 0 0 0.2em #0FF; color: red; font: 1.0em Cambria, serif; text-align: center; font-variant: small-caps;">A Man's GREATEST Joy is Crushing his Enemies   20:21, September 8, 2016 (UTC)



Actually just to clarify in PMII I played as Saxony, part of the German superpower. PMII was much more implausible than PMIII. Callumthered (talk) 13:14, September 12, 2016 (UTC)

Ngarrindjeri's domestication of animals
I'd just like to express my concern over the plausibility of the Ngarrindjeri people domesticating wombats and emus and such. Unlike many other peoples, Aboriginal Australians believe that all natural objects possess a soul. They believe that many animals and plants are interchangeable with human life through re-incarnation of the spirit or soul, and that this relates back to the Creation Period when these animals and plants were once people. (Source: http://www.aboriginalculture.com.au/religion.shtml) Thus, I highly doubt that Aboriginals such as the Ngarrindjeri people would be so treacherous as to essentially condemn their ancestors to slavery through the domestication of animals. —  T  I   M  (TSW • AH • MGW • <font color="#006400">Contribs ) 04:59, September 12, 2016 (UTC)

Benin's Population
After discussing the issue with Edge, we came to an impasse over the matter. He has decided to leave the issue to the mods, to whom this post is directed. I shall be immediately since the topic is already understood by now.

My argument is that Benin's population is not excessive, given the main issue being that outside of OTL Mali and Benin, large-scale agriculture was not commonplace. Concepts such as plowing, manuring, irrigation, and crop rotation, were not known to the tribes that inhabited the regions of West Africa beyond Mali and Benin. Edge asked how is it that Benin had this information, but the rest of West Africa did not. The answer is simple. There was no communication with the tribes outside of Benin, because there were next to no people to relay that information too beyond the borders of Benin. Outside of the Niger Delta, there were no major population centers beyond those in Mali, meaning that there was no knowledge of any societies outside of the delta that Benin could communicate with due simply to the sparseness of the population in the region. Giving an example, assume that there are two major cities and nothing by hills all around you. If everyone you know either lives in one major city or that one other major city 500 miles away, are you really going to bother exploring the hills if you think no one lives there? Likewise, if all you know of are the hills, are you going to know there are two major cities outside of the 25 square miles you know of? Technology spreads through communication, and if you don't have anyone to communicate with, technology cannot spread. Large-scale farming methods spread to the Niger Delta from Mali because of the Niger River, the same river Benin used in OTL to trade slaves and ivory to Mali in exchange for salt and gold. No such natural corridor for trade existed in the region.

Now concerning the population boom. Mali and Benin had vastly different methods of farming compared to the rest of West Africa. Both relied upon large-scale agriculture which allowed for Mali and Benin to host populations of 15 million and 8 million respectively. However, the rest of West Africa relied upon subsistence farming, which in spite of the regions extreme fertility, only allowed for a population of 3.5 million people. The concept of large-scale agriculture did not exist in this region because there was no natural trade corridor such as the Niger River to allow for the spread of technology and ideas into the region. Benin and Mali and rice and wheat respectively as their main crops, while the main crops for the rest of the region was that of yams, corn and cassava. Subsistence farming revolves around feeding a single household for a year, while large-scale agriculture revolves around feeding an entire nation at any time of the year. Benin and Mali had the government infrastructure which allowed for farming on a scale that supported millions of people, while the tribal populations of West Africa simply had nothing of the sort. When Benin expanded into these regions, it's superior mode of governance and greater manpower allowed for better use of the land. You could compare this to the reason there were no more than 4 million Tupi in all of fertile Brazil, where as there were nearly 30 million Inca along a narrow strip of highly mountainous land.

The area of uncultivated and tribal West Africa was rather large, but only had a population density of 1.1 person per square kilometer. Using Mali as the source for an equivalent population density, just assuming the region had large-scale agriculture, the population could increase to 53.5 million. Mind you, this is using Mali's much lower population density as the bulk of its land was desert. The reason for this is simple. Subsistence farming is limited by drought, flooding, and soil erosion. Large-scale agriculture entails the use of irrigation to combat drought (OTL Ethiopia is famine-prone because it lacks irrigation in spite of having huge amounts of water), and crop rotation to combat soil erosion (the use of a single type of crop typically leads to sapping of the fertility of the soil). By introducing agricultural methods Benin already possessed for centuries prior to the game's beginning into the rest of the region, within fifty years, West Africa's population could plausibly increase do to no other reason than the fact that more food was available. In line with medieval demographics, as food become more accessible, the population increased. And with the lack of people in West Africa to resist Benin's expansion, Benin's growth was also very plausible as well, as there were no societies in the area beyond a few small villages capable of combating 180,000 heavily-armed and armored Bini warriors.

To wrap up my heavily over-explained point (something I have been struggling with since childhood), West Africa's population was so small because the bulk of the region lacked the agricultural means outside of Mali and Benin to exploit the highly fertile arable lands of West Africa. With more food, you will always have more people, hence the reason hunter-gatherer societies always expanded in size with the advent of agriculture. As a result, West Africa's population could easily exceed 100-200 million people prior to the Industrial Revolution, as the entire region is suitable for farming thanks to fertile grounds and high levels of accessible water. There is no reason an introduction of a vastly superior method of farming into a highly-fertile region that lacked farming as a whole, would not witness a sustained growth in the population. Thank you for your time. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 00:14, September 13, 2016 (UTC)