Talk:Principia Moderni III/Archive 7

Mod Event Grievances
Just so that it doesn't clutter the page, please post your mod event questions, comments and grievances here. This -should- be archived every five years.

1548
Viva is so going to be pissed.

'''What do you know - another biased mod event! SwankyJ (talk) 21:36, June 29, 2014 (UTC)'''

'''I'm not recognizing this event. I had four other mods say I could go into Australia, and here you are punishing me with ridiculous and implausible actions. How would sending a war party off to another land magically destablize the country back home? Most of the Maori don't even know about the adventure, and yet it's effecting them all? How stupid is that? And when did I ever say this was a confederacy? My nation has been getting stronger-not weaker, and the fact that you're trying to change that through a silly event, and yes it is silly, confounds me. ~Viva'''

'''While I can't outright delete this I think we should still strike these from the canon. Regardless of what you think of the guy this rampant Viva-bashing needs to stop. -Yank'''

'''Enough, It has been said that NO ONE! NOT EVERY SINGLE NATION ON THE FACE ON EARTH CAN TRY TO CONQUER OR COLONIZE ANYTHING that certainly includes you, you can do it eventually and earlier than anyone, but not this soon, Further more when you asked me i told you that you shouldn't not go to austria anytime soon, and honestly at this moment i'm just starting to believe you want to get pitty to eventually try to impeach feud or to get away with your plans every fucking time. Plus the event has the basin that you are sending them to their dead and that even with your development things like this would essentially look as if the mission was cursed by the gods, Just stop doing it and wait, like everyother player is Jeez! The event Stays, Deal with it Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 01:20, June 30, 2014 (UTC)'''

'''If I wanted to have Feud impeached, I would have just set up a vote to do it. The fact that you believe I'd sink to your level to do something I never intended shows how insecure you really are. I think it's funny that you believe I want Feud impeached, when all of the other players think he should be impeached. I'd love to see that happen, but I wasn't the first to pitch the idea. I really think you are truly blind since nowhere in my posts did I ever say I was going COLONIZE or CONQUER Australia you dolt. Tell me, please, where I said that was what I was doing? When did I ever say that was my plan to colonize the place NOW? I said I was waiting until I united the island, but like everything else, I guess you just decided not remember that too. ~Viva'''

'''Thing is viva you aren't trustworthy furthermore hadn't we stopped you you would probably be pulling some implaussie empire. The reason why you are bitching is that, that when you are trying to do it we block you I mean even by know you don't have a good reason to travel at the continent even if for trade its hardly ridiculous you have better reasons to conquer your homeland and something I wanna make clear no one can get to mainland Australia now not China not Spain and certainly not me so neither should you specially with less than 20 years of advance out of nowhere (considering that prior to that the Maori were nothing technologically speaking) something you are ignoring and blatantly ignoring and viva the "I'm a genius you are nothing to me" behavior only makes you look bad and is the reason why everyone ends up ganging up against you. Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 04:27, June 30, 2014 (UTC)'''

(I seperated the arguments, it was killing me to see them merged into one) - Eip the Eagle

'''I find that downright hilarious Sine. You deny the fact that most of the players agree with me, and you still act as if you can read my mind. I never said I knew everything, and I always gave proof of my information, something you and the other mods have still refused to do. Your actions continue to defy logic, and I honestly don't understand why you continue to promote your ridiculous belief that I'm "untrustworthy", when you and the mods continue to change rules, abuse loopholes, and metagame the mess out of PMIII for your own benefit. If you truly read my posts, you'd see I wasn't in Australia to take over anything, trade with anyone, or claim stuff for myself. Final thing, my behavior isn't getting people to gang up on me. It's always the same people, you and the mods. Everyone else supports me, but you refuse to see that. If I sound hostile, it's because I am. I've been saying the same thing for the last two years, but it never sinks, you keep ignoring it. ~Viva'''

On the rules of PMIII
A few days ago, I was on chat when the subject of ATL and OTL came up. I was told that the history of PMIII should resemble what happened in OTL, which understandably enough irritated me since the name of this wiki is "Alternate History". However, that peaked my concern about the way this game and many others have been going for the last two years I've been here. Because of that, I've seen countless games and TLs where history is different, but "not that different", and nowhere else has that been most evident than in the Principia Moderni games, more specifically the second and third. I'll point out the issues one by one and let you all decide whether or not I'm correct.

Alternate history vs. Actual history
At this point in the game, history is unfolding pretty much the same way it did in OTL. Britian, Spain, France, and the Netherlands are still the major colonial empires of the game, and everyone else is just in their way. China is xenophobic and crumbling from the inside out. Japan is isolationist, and divided. Africa has regressed into a period of European colonialism. And the Middle East is a backwater of conflict and disarray. Nothing has changed. The only major difference I can probably point out is the fact that the Tartars instead of the Russians dominate Eurasia. Any attempts to change the status quo have been met with criticism. Oyo was hampered at each and every corner with a countless array of negative events to prevent it from doing anything "un-African", and keep it constrained to the African continent. Hamburg attempted to build a colonial empire and was shot down each time it attempted to strike a soft target overseas. Bengal was attempted to unite India, but a series of mod events prevented it from breaking the power of the Indian League in spite of the fact India was unified under several empires throughout history. I mean, what's the point of having alternate history if the people in charge are hellbent on preventing that from happening?

When I was playing as Oyo, Reximus would harass me for performing actions he deemed "incorrect" of an African nation. Building warships? Colonizing lands? Expanding beyond your OTL borders? Sweet mother of Jesus! HERESY!!! Last I checked, the point of alternate history is to perform actions contray to what happened in actual history. Performing actions to prevent Africa from becoming the cesspool it is today would be considered alternating history. However, it has been deemed implausible by some based entirely on the fact that it's Africa, and thus unworthy of developing into anything else. Yes, I do mean because its Africa. That has been the sole argument of some, foremost of them being Reximus. Now some detractors would say I mention this because I'm mad the mods won't let me do what I want. Well unless you can read my mind and tell me you know what I'm thinking, I'd suggest said people shut up and go elsewhere. But in all honesty, this has a much greater point in my argument. That point is, people say something is impossible, and then do all in their power to prevent it from happening.

How can you say something is impossible if you never even let it happen? It's one thing to say a broke nation is going to the moon. There are reasonable constraints to that. It's another to say a nation with the desire and the resources cannot colonize/expand/conquer based solely on the opinion of another person. Which brings me to my next point.

Nation expansion
Now the problem with this, and yes, there is a problem, is that the rules make no sense and are reasoned from a top down perspective. For instance, the rules only allow you to expand 5,000 km at a time. That makes no sense at all, because at that rate of expansion, it would have taken the British approximately 1,458.53 years to colonize all of Australia. Now move from the British point of colonization in 1788, the British would finish their colonization in the year 3246 AD. Ridiculous, yes? The rules make it seem as if some group of politicians constantly look over a map and say; "Okay, we've expanded by 5,000 square kilometers. Good, we're done for this year gentlemen." Unrealistic and completely implausible. Nations claimed huge chunks of land for themselves, and whatever was disputed over was either fought over with guns and steel, or in the backroom of some hotel in a capital somewhere. If you simply have to keep these rules, then make them more reasonable. Make desert and tundra expansion faster. Allow islands to be claimed in a single sitting instead of having to meticulously move across them in ten years time. Don't force someone to have to slowly settle all of the land they taken simply by encircling what they've claimed already. Those huge pockets of land taken centuries to claim with the current rules. At least make a rule that speeds up settlement if you don't want automatic claims.

Now on the topic of conquest, let me to start with the stupid "no invasion of Europe" rule. If France can attack China, then China can just as easily attack France. It has the ships, the manpower, and the resources to make it happen, yet, the moderators say that it cannot happen using arguments from everything such as "Europe is too populated", "Europeans would unite against the attackers", "There's no reason for you to invade Europe", "It's too far away" (then why are you attacking the attacker on the otherside of the world, dumba**?), or "There's a magically invisible barrier protecting Europe against China, Africa, India and Cthulhu". However, its perfectly okay for the Europeans to attack anyone, anywhere, at anytime. Logic would dictate that if France can use a series of refueling stations to move its invasion force to China, then China could use its own series of jumping points to invade France. But no, that wouldn't make sense because France would be open to Chinese invasion, and all of Europe could be colonized by angry foreigners fed up with European imperialism. Let's just be straight and honest. You don't want Europe to fall because you believe in the infallibility of the European powers, and don't want to be on the opposite end of the stick.

Colonization. The stickler. PMII colonization was fun, for me at least, since it was fair and everyone got a chance to expand at the same rate. It was all about who got to where and when. Now, only a few select nations, mostly mod nations (Feud/Spain, Sine/France, Ms/Austria, Andrew/Britain, Collie/Portugal), are allowed to colonize huge swathes of land. The other nations in the "minor" and "other" categories, have the resources or cultural desire to colonize at the same rate, but are restrained by some stupid rule to simulate "realism", even though realism is determined by what already happened, instead of what could have happened, thus making it "real". We've seen Britain colonize the mess out of Africa, and thus we deem that realistic. We haven't seen China colonize America, but they demostrated their ability to do so based on the fleet they built, thus making that realistic. But we have yet to see Iran colonize Vietnam, and thus deem it unrealistic. The colonization rules are highly opinionated and biased toward already established powers. Why can't Hamburg invade and conquer Yemen, but the Netherlands, right next to Hamburg, is allowed to conquer Java? Both have reloading ports midway across Africa, while Hamburg has the benefit of using the canal to reach Yemen. What sense does it make to stop them from completing their mission?

Closing statement
At this point, I've made my argument. Judge me wrong or not, but I hold on to my views based entirely on what has happened since this game's start. I could go on to talk about the events and the flame wars (the ones I wasn't apart of), but my fingers are tired, and my eyes are sore. Gentlemen. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 01:54, July 5, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
I pretty much agree with all of the points you made, and it does seem like most of the mods are pretty euro-centric in their mindsets, even if just a little. I also feel that most of the mod presence being in Europe makes them pretty bias as well, seeing as how they want to succeed individually with their own nations. Cookiedamage (talk) 02:13, July 5, 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes, OTL. Because we all remember when the Wittelsbach king was eliminated from the Polish throne replaced by Józef Szczuka. Or when the Kalmar Union remained united into the sixteenth century and became a single nation, as well as annexing East Karelia. Or, you know, when a centralised nation formed in Australia. Or, for that matter, when Rome controlled Crimea and Egypt in 1550, and Hamburg invaded Somalia. Of course, who could forget the time the Tatars were converted to Christianity by the Byzantine Empire, after they vanquished the Ottomans from Europe? Or, of course, the bitter annexation of Colombia by France, and the vassailation of the Mapuche. Or the glorious war between Austria and the Tartary over Muscovy. Who could ever forget that?

Ah, yes, Eurocentrism. That's what you call when we don't permit Oyo to conquer the Mississippian Civilisations or expand halfway accross West Africa when nobody did something among that lines. Of course, just because the two largest nations in Earth are not Indo-European that means we're totally Eurocentric!!! And because we didn't allow you to have ships of the line within 15 years of taking Oyo we're evil racists. Sure. Obviously. Fed (talk) 04:08, July 5, 2014 (UTC)

Viva... there-s a reason why Europe has the headstart, the two biggest nations that can colonize have had an advantage, and take Ms out of there, we kicked his attempt to a colonial empires 50 after the time he wanted to do it lol. Spain and france had colonies since nearly when the game started, the reason we expanded so war is because we used a loophole (free to be used by anyone) and our prime positions to colonize, for an instance, I used the Quimbaya, made by yet another mod who at the moment i barely knew much of (i only knew he was colombian lol) to expand the colony to the size i desired lol same does feud. Like i said Loopholes, they are not illegal and good way to do as you desire. and like Cookie said, having all mods in europe is obviously going to give a head advantage to europe, plus we have all the most plausible and or experienced players in europe, while the rest of the world has octs or newbies. I mean, China had scan but then he got busy, and then china went NPC for half a century, thats the kind of things that fucks up other nations powerwise, i believe someone had said last PM2 "Mods will always have the advantage cause they will always know how things should be and will avoid the problems" which most of the players dont, this pm3 has been different from others cause it is filled with shitstorms and players that ignored the mods calls.finally to talk about colonization you have to see the state of the top colonizers from other PM games, In PM1 Asia colonized america mostly cause of China (Zheng he i believe) and europe colonized later on eventually, there was a stronger presence of asia because of this and because big asian empires focused in outside expansion, Europe had less players and all of the players of the games were newbies. PM2 europe had less of a chance to be the at the top because of three things 1. The big powerfull nations were taken by newbies or non-constant players, E.g Spain, France and England, the power centres from europe were in germany, scandinavia and italy and they left room for outside empires to grow 2. the caliphate fucked up European Politics and impulsed certain empires to power 3.Many good players were outside of europe,E.g Crim on China, Kogasa on Japan, Imperium in India and Viva (Good players though exagerated with your empires) in ethiopia, these three nations countered those in europe and with the fact that europe had gangrape wars gave them the chance to grow stronger, in a simple sentence, europe wasnt estable enough to allow empires to grow and thrive for long periods of time. In pm3 however theres a difference, most of those players are in europe and havent left any room for others to grow powerfull, mostly from fear of caliphates, Impempires and Viviempires from growing up in the game, that with the fact that europe is stronger than ever before and newbie players have the outside dominant nations has locked colonization and powerbalance solely in one place, Europe, like it had in OTL Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 04:26, July 5, 2014 (UTC)


 * For a time Sine, a large number of players were outside of Europe, and sought to colonize by fast-tracking their development. There were plenty of players who remained highly active throughout the start of the game, but slowly left after their efforts to expand were either aggressively hindered or simply unrewarded. Sky is one good example of a good player who's nation was punished repeatedly for trying to expand. Also, even players in Europe were denied the ability to colonize based solely on the opinions of others. Pskov, as I mentioned, was denied the ability to colonize simply due to its size, even though it was about the same size as Denmark, which in OTL had a colonial empire. Pskov had the benefit of a large forest which could support a large fleet, and a population base that was large enough to sustain the economy needed to run such an empire. Pskov had about half a million people, and Denmark only about 700,000 people. Both were close enough to do the exact same thing, yet Denmark (as an extension of Scandinavia), was allowed to colonize, while Pskov was not. Hamburg had a huge navy from what the mods themselves stated, yet Hamburg was only allowed a "tiny" colony in Greenland, and its later colonization and foreign expansion checked by the mods. Also, several nations had "prime positions" across the map. Oyo, Hamburg, China, Bengal, heck, even Madagascar, all had good locations. Wind and ocean currents, population bases, resource access, and political will, gave all of these nations the ability to do as much as the major colonizers.
 * Some out of European nations should be allowed, as China. China actually had a pretty damn good fleet, but stopped sailing west to focus on mainland Asia. None of a Savid African colony s***. Saturn (Talk/Blog) 23:43, July 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * However, the European nations were once again selected over any other nations which worked hard to colonize. All Spain, Britain, and even France did was "build more ships, hire more men". The other nations put extensive work into their development, but never recieved anything for it. Finally, the issue with mod calls is that said calls are often built on lousy information or general disinterest with facts. Feud told me not two days ago, that the Maori couldn't have sailed vessels. Yet, the very same person who said proudly "I do more than Google sh**", didn't even bother to look up his information on Maori vessels, and didn't know the Maori historically had sailed vessels with masts. The mods often state they know more about the player's nation than the players themselves, even though the person playing the nation will always do the research on them to know what to do with it. Oyo's expansion was condemned because its OTL self didn't expand beyond its borders. Yet, putting the fact that this is ATL aside, Oyo never expanded because it was in a constant war with its neighbors, and its land was so rich that more land wasn't needed for food or resources (mind you West Africa was by far, the most urbanized place in the world). Yet, the mods made no effort to learn about this, and simply punished Oyo for trying to expand.
 * So like I stated above, the game feels Euro-centric, and that is the problem with the rules as many players see it. The rules seem geared to aiding European nations in getting ahead, or preventing other nations from challenging them. You need only look at the events of the past to see proof of that. Flag of the Hurian Federation.png Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 05:20, July 5, 2014 (UTC)

For the most part i agree with what sine, and fed said.. You pretty much say our colonies and territorial extent shouldnt be this large, when by the 1550's OTL empires were around this size/maybe a tad smaller. My colonies in particular are not huge but just stretch across alot of coastline. its nothing like conquesting the Aztecs and Inca like OTL. when you say ATL you pretty much assume everything HAS to be different. Sorry that Western Europe manage to replicate colonial dominance like OTL. Colonialism wasnt fair, the Age of Exploration wasnt fair stop making it out like it needs to be fair when the OTL theme was the point of the major monopolizing powers preventing others from breaking into the colonial empire buisiness. As for your point of China being unable to invade France its purely logistical. the Chinese cant even do that in the modern age... Back in the Day people like France and britain used locals as military troops. Look up Sepoys and its already been done in Game. China cant invade europe because right now that superiority attitude in europe exists, and no good amount of europeans would flock to a chinese banner. Ships or no ships the logistics of transporting and army that distance is absolutely impossible for either side. There is a reason why in the case of india and Asia troops and supplies were recruited and built locally. Along with this not many of these troops can be recruited as of present. Your complaining you didnt get your ridiculous empire, thats all this is. No more of this foolishness from you period. Im 100% done with it as it every other mod, especially after i had sine, and multiple other mods confirm the fact that you STRAIGHT UP LIED to my face about the australia junk.

Oh? And what exactly did I lie about? You and what other mods? It could just be you and Crimson. That could be mods. You have to clarify. And tell me, what is it that I want to do? It's already been confirmed that I can go to Australia before anyone else, and I already said I don't plan on being there for another four or five decades. So that isn't the issue. So what is it that your not letting me do? How is my empire ridiculous? I haven't built one yet. So that certainly can't be the problem either. So please tell me, what is it that I'm doing or that I want that I'm trying to "hide" behind my argument here? What "secret motive" do I have? Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 05:20, July 5, 2014 (UTC)

Wait, you consider me a good player? Cool. On the subject, I do recall the recent Maori vessels issue where someone actually confirmed Viva's stuff. As for the OTL vs ATL & Fed's comment on it. If I recall correctly, Scandinavia was united by a player who happens to be a moderator. The Romans were powerful because Chris was inactive and similar details would follow. However, there we have a somewhat relevant issue. Most NPC nations do  nothing . For example, the Bahmani and Vijaynagari rivalry was completely forgotten. And as for the centralized nation in Australia, it is also a nation that own timor (not sure if directly tho) and has had contact with the Dutch. Many players cut deals, sacrificing their nations sovereignity in return for having the option to continue playing as the nation. The games is different because to players of major powers, it's important to grow and grow and find out how to retain their colonies post-decolonization, while players of smaller powers are just trying to survive.

Sky Green 24 - Join the party  12:04, July 5, 2014 (UTC)

Of course NPC nations do nothing. What do you want from us, for us to write a mod event about all fifty-something NPC nations? That's hardly fair, given that most players copy-paste posts, and more than one don't even bother reading mod events related to them.

As for sacrificing sovereignty and whatever, sure. What do you expect, for us to allow any small nation to create a large pan-continental empire? ''It's general plausibility to say that small nations will fight to survive, while large nations will thrive. Actually, it's not general plausibility; it's common sense.'' Fed (talk) 19:04, July 5, 2014 (UTC)

There is some legitimacy to what Viva said, but there is also a lot of truth in Fed and Feud's statements. Really, we all just need to realize that Map Games are bound to become ASB to some extent due to the absence of NPCs, and that is not the mods fault.

I also feel that part of Viva's frustration may come from his success in PM2 ad Ethiopia, but I would like to reiterate that PM2 and PM3 are COMPLETELY different monsters altogether. There is a reason PM2 is marked ASB, and that is (much as Sine pointed out), many early European players were iffy at best, and (lets not forget) the Caliphate.

Anyhow, I agree with the mods, generally speaking, in that there will be few powers who will emerge in the first 200 years that were not in the top levels of OTL society. Its all about the long-haul with these other nations, by 2000, Oyo could've easily been a world-class power. 19:44, July 5, 2014 (UTC)

My "success" in PMII has nothing to do with PMIII. The issues are the same because the people in charge are the same. The game is run by a handfull of players who play the most powerful nations in the game, and refuse to do anything that could hamper their growth. All events are either aimed toward limiting the growth of other nations, or a fake attempt to show they aren't biased by passing an event that "sorta" hurts their own nation. As I mentioned in the past, Scan only hurt his own nation when he was accused of being biased, but the earthquake he hit his tiny, far-flung backwater colony in Mexico, was small, and he rebuilt quickly after that. Crimson put spies in England, from China, when Ethiopia invaded, and used a genocide in the land to declare war on Ethiopia, in a region that had nothing to do with China. Yet, when any nation attempted to get involved in a war that was far from their shores, but that they could reach plausibly, Crim and other mods stated that the war had nothing to do with them, and they had no reason to join the fight.

As for Feud, he has taken over the Maya, Oyo, Italians, and Filipinos, yet he hasn't had a single major rebellion to put down. The only thing he encountered was his run in with Congolese tribals, who did no damage to his nation whatsoever, and that he has not encountered again. Somehow, his colonies are perfectly happy with his brutal conquest of their lands, yet when Oyo and Hungary did the same, the people hated them no matter what either nation did to please them. It's impossible to develop a nation when the moderators stomp on every attempt you or anyone else make to do so. Just call it what it is. Bias. Plain and simple. They did it in this game, the last game, the game before that, the AvA games, the Vive games, and the TEvCP games too. We have the same mods in every game, and we end up with the same problems in every game. The problem was well known long before I got here. All I did was make it a sore point for those abusing their power when I showed up. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 20:26, July 5, 2014 (UTC)

Viva, there's one thing, in OTL spain did most of that and it didn't had major revolts until its power began to fail in europe (the only major uprising i remember in Spanish america is the one of tupac amaru in 1750 peru) further more viva, You can't be seriously comparing a world power than in OTL proved to handle even 3 times the size of Spains current colonies and lands with a bigger foe than Spain has right now. According to your ideas Spain should have not lasted more than 50 years in OTL cause it had half of europe against them for good period of time and prior to that it had the Ottomans who were nearly as big if not more than them, you can't compare a culture that in otl hardly managed to project any power and expect it to be allowed to Conquer half of West africa and whine about a culture that Actually projected power around half of the world, when its projecting power in a little less area than it did in OTL. the reason it happens is because as mods we have to cross reference otl with certain cases (Spain being the example of a nation that did had a great deal of power in OTL and so with a good player it happens again in ATL) and cases like oyo's where it can achieve it, with a longer time period (Which you didn't fully cause you were trying to seize power in west africa since 1450) further more. and Viva you are quite Wrong. we don't have the mods in every game. feud wasn't a mod in TEvCP nor in any vive game and only in AvA in which the game went relatively fine (Setting aside germany lol) and in prior PM2 the mods were far from us. the only two mods that remain from the last game mods are Fed, and Collie and both of them were idle. in fact the mods who let PM2 get fucked up where Yank (By being idle and by allowing some events go as it wasn't supposed to, to say it nicely) and Imp, who you were allied to who grew an empire several times bigger than Spain's, thing is you don't like to get slowed by mods ruling and you ignore them, which eventually leads to you getting mod targeted, and my final comment is that We never said no one else in europe could colonize, we said that no one else in europe could colonize PRIOR to 1600. because in OTL even england and france waited until at least 1580 to start any attempts, in ATL spain, france and england face no more turmoil nor conflict which allowed the three of us to go, and a strong netherlands followed as well as a unified Scandinavia, and viva all you are trying to do is get everyone's attention into the mods so that no one focuses on you. Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 00:42, July 6, 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the "Speedier Exansion into Central Australia/Desert/Arctic etc." I am somewhat in agreement with you in certain circumstances. The Australia example is a good one. Britain arrived in 1788, claimed all the land East of 135*E and no-one challenged their claim. Such claims are all well and good, but there is nothing to actually stop another country from violating those claims except fear of war. In the case of Australia, the only nation which really had a remote chance/interest in colonising Australia was France, and after the French Revolutionary & Napoleonic Wars, they were too stuffed to risk it. In a hypothetical case where, let's say, (otl) Hamburg laid claim to all of Australia East of 135*E, basically any nation could have established a colony in that territory without Hamburg being able to stop them. So what does this mean in terms of the expansion rates? Well, I think we need to view the coloured regions as what our friends in the Berlin Conference would have called "Effective Occupation". Sure, I may lay claim to all of Labrador (and other countries might recognise my claims if they feel like it), but the only areas in which I have "Effective Occupation" are the regions which are coloured. Now we get to the scenario where I agree with you. Let's say it's 1900 and Spain, Brunei, and Schaumberg-Lippe all control large areas of Australia, and all generally accept each other's claims. In such a case, I think the annoying "black spots" could be filled by mod event after an agreement amongst the parties is reached.

With regards to other things, I have a few thoughts. Firstly, Oyo is not Ethiopia. Ethiopia was a large, fully centralised, powerful, modern nation otl, and when it became powerful in PM2, it kind of made sense; of all the nations in Africa it was the one best poised to do so. Oyo is a whole other kettle of fish. It started miles behind Ethiopia, yet it was somehow expected that it would outshine Ethiopia's grand achievements of PM2 in minimal time. The other thing; don't lump all the mods together as some kind of ignorant scum, it should be noted that I backed up the fact that the maori actually did have such large boats. And I must say, I was extremely surprised when I discovered it was in fact true, so people shouldn't be disparaged because they shared my initial surprise/shock/disbelief. Perhaps sources could be provided (such as the ones I did) when bringing up surprising otl facts which on the surface appear completely implausible, but which were achieved by the same group in the same time period. I'm not suggesting referencing everything we do (or providing maps of currents...), but just things which are surprising. Callumthered (talk) 08:51, July 6, 2014 (UTC)
 * About the effective occupation, that was my method to do the map back in the second game.And part of the reason why i didn't tolerate straight-line border such as what Cour tried to do with his eastward Mayan expansion back then. (Your claims can be as straight-lined as you like, but no nation would be able to keep their settlements in a perfectly straight line from the others that belong to them) --Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 16:48, July 6, 2014 (UTC)

Cal, Oyo was also a modern, centralized government as well in OTL, not physically as large as Ethiopia, but was a population larger than Ethiopia's in 1400. The region Oyo was located in had a population of some ten million people, living on extremely fertile and mineral-rich land, while the whole of Ethiopia was home to about four million people (going on the fact Ethiopia only had seven million people by the 1800s) spread across highly mountainous terrain. Oyo had the same level of technology as Ethiopia, but lack the overall contact with the world, and thus its capabilities were only recently discovered. In-game, Ethiopia was whiped constantly early in the game, and constantly suffered setbacks that took the aid of Orissa to counter, while Oyo had more than a hundred years of peaceful growth and development. By 1500, Ethiopia was a rump state trying to fend off an invasion from Arabia, while Oyo was setting up colonies in the Americas. Finally, Oyo was not subject to the constant droughts, invasions, and setbacks Ethiopia suffered throughout the game. Ethiopia was invaded on three seperate occassions by 1500, while Oyo had conquered four nations in the same time. So your correct. Oyo is not Ethiopia. Oyo was strong, modern, and powerful. Ethiopia had been run over by three empires, turned into a vassal, and by the constant reminders of others, its population "ravaged" by the Caliphate, its navy "destroyed", and its people "terrified".

And to Sine, the Spanish suffered multiple rebellions in spite of their strength. The, the (twice), the , and the. But I'm not saying Spain shouldn't be powerful as it was in OTL. I'm saying it shouldn't be given a pass simply because it was in OTL. You have other nations in the game being crushed by constant uprisings because of "overexpansion", but Spain, Britain, France, and the Netherlands have suffered not once. None of those nations started off great, but had to work at becoming the empires they were. You have countless nations in the game striving to do the same thing, and you punish them for trying to become something youAnd I believe they shouldn't be. And if you paid attention to my previous post, I never said you don't allow other nations to colonize (except Pskov), I said you restrict their ability to colonize effectively or control where their colonies are able to be established. You did it with Hamburg, Oyo, Madagascar, and Hungary. Feud never answered my question, so now I'm asking you. How I'm I trying to get attention off of me? Everyone knows where I am, everyone knows what I do in my posts. Yet, you assume that I'm trying to shift attention from myself onto someone else for what reason? No one was focusing on me before this, why would I need to go through all of this trouble just to make sure it stays that way? I already told you my plans in chat. What could I possibly be up that I don't what people's attention, especially if what I'm doing is already bland and low-key? Answer me that. Because clearly I'm up to something. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 14:08, July 6, 2014 (UTC)

Viva, Don't drag my nation into it, I have actually had numerous civil wars, political upheaval and several costly wars in Europe which are reflected in my colonization. I am behind Spain and France because I realistically dealed with my threats at home. I dislike your cloaked insinuations and assumptions.FOR THE GLORY OF THE PARTY!,LONG LIVE THE PARTY! 14:38, July 6, 2014 (UTC)

ummmmm in sorry in what moment have i been overexpanding out of all the countries mine has had one of the slowest expansions and i have 3 colonies one of which im still putting down a revolt (sunda) which i started myself in my own turn. the other one which i control through proxy, and the final one which i control due to the fact that it is purely dutch and im about to get into an indian war again caused by my own hand. mods have never had to really regulate me in any game since i control what occurs in my state well and actively create different events on my own. we have had this issue before Viva in AvA revolutions were you were turkey. With Blood and Iron (talk) 14:52, July 6, 2014 (UTC)

As One of those Small nations who had to cut a deal to survive, i am bassicly a colony ATM. That may change later, but for now I am bound 100% to Spain. And I am just pulling out of what was bassicly a civil war, so while the mods aren't sending events at the major powers, things still happen. Two wrongs may not make a right, '' but it makes me feel a lot better in the end! '' 15:50, July 6, 2014 (UTC)

Well then I'm sorry Andrew, but I've had to deal with the same cloaked insinuations and assumptions from the mods as well, such as the retarded (yes I said retarded), belief that if unchecked I WILL create a massive empire that breaks logic. Feud said it hismelf, as if that car accident now gave him the ability to see into the future. Sine himself just said that I'm up to something, but won't say why or with what end. As for you Nk, we only had this issue when I called the mods out for their one-sided actions, such as saying I couldn't use nukes to fight Egypt because there was a limit on how many I could use because of fallout, yet when the mods invaded my nation, they liberally used nukes on every city in complete disregard of their previous mandate against their use. When they started a Bulgarian uprising in my lands, I moved to put them down, but no matter what I did, the mods wouldn't let me stop them. Yet, when one of the mods had an uprising in their lands, they crushed it, and then used events to support their actions in doing so. I raised a fuss about it, but I was shut down. Everytime I said Turkey could do something, I always had a source. When I said Turkey was more populous that Iran, I gave a source. When I said Turkey had a large military, I gave a source. When I said Turkey could invade Egypt, I gave a source (I don't remember if that was an issue thought). Whenever the plausibility of my actions were question, I always gave a source proving I was acting plausibly. You remember what you want to remember. I have always played by the rules, told the truth and then given sources that prove it's the truth, and studied every nation carefully before choosing it and playing it. I wouldn't have selected the Maori if I didn't know that had ships (so don't say your "shocked" I was telling the truth), or the Oyo if I didn't know they could be developed and expanded plausibly. None of you have paid attention to my playing style from any of the other games I've been it. You know my actions from only one game, PMII, and even then, you let your opinions and personal feelings get in the way. That ruined the game, not me. So don't tell me I did something wrong when I didn't. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 16:22, July 6, 2014 (UTC)

You might not like limitations (to be fair, no one really likes having them), but they are absolutely necessary, in order to not let the game collapse into anarchy.

In a game with no expansion rules, if someone starts expanding more than the rest, the other players, even if they are usually plausible, will follow suit to not get left behind, after all, map games are about competition, deep inside.So, soon the expansion reaches implausible levels because one wants to keep up with the others' expansions.

Just before i joined the original PM (or was it while i was playing the early stages?) i joined a map game called Imperial Europe 2, playing as Hungary.No soon as i entered, the game died.Seriously.Three turns into my participation, everybody else stopped posting.The game was already about to die anyway, but this is beside the point.So, for the next 15 turns, i was the only player.Then i lost interest too and left it for dead.After i left it, more people entered.I must have been jinxing that game.What i just said might seem unrelated to the matter at hand, but, what happened later is.

The map game had some rules and moderators to ensure some degree of plausibility, but, after everybody left, there was nobody else to enforce them.then in 1453, Remedello (a player who used to run around map games playing nations in the Italian Peninsula and being all-around implausible, back in the day.) entered.With no one else to keep him in check and no expansion limits (plausibility was at the player's definition, practically), in only seven years, he, who started playing as the Republic of Genoa:



became this:



In 1457, Scandinator joined the game.and in order to not get left behind on the expansion, he began expanding implausibly too.After all, no one was there to enforce the rules that existed.So,given more 15 years....



It came to the point that later they had to make independence movements in their own nations to not let the game die.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 18:46, July 6, 2014 (UTC)


 * Jesus Christ, how did expand like that so fast? Saturn (Talk/Blog) 21:10, July 6, 2014 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against useful limitations. I'm arguing against unfair and unfounded limitations. Nations that have worked hard as establishing a strong, modern navy, are routinely passed over for certain colonization benefits by already-established navies from historical powers. Let's look at Eip's Bengal. Boy worked hard to expand his navy, yet he wasn't allowed to do anything significant with it. India's nations all had blue water navies for centuries, and established empires which control entire portions of Southeast Asia and Indonesia. Yet, when Eip turned that power onto the Indian nations neighboring him, he was called out for it, and limits were placed on his expansion. Indian powers who did not even like each other now work together against him? They wouldn't even do that when they were fighting the Mughals. And Pskov. It had the same capabilties as the Danes, the resources, the same manpower, and even the region, but because Pskov was "too small", it was denied colonial access. It had no enemies, and was developing greatly, but because peoples opinions, not facts got in the way, Pskov was kicked to the side. The moderators (you know who you are), put bogus limitations on nations which had the ability to do what they wanted, but were limited because a few knuckleheads didn't like what they saw. That's what I'm arguing against. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 19:37, July 6, 2014 (UTC)

So your throwing out has Spain and her empire has had no revolts or bad events. heres a few, some mod created and self created. Mayan (mod) Uruguay attacks (mod) Congo attacks, in which i lost territory (mod) Moroccan attacks (mod) Barbary pirates on malta (mod) Incan revolt (edge created it and did it himself) Mapuche unrest (self) Madagasikara unrest twice over that invasion of Zimbawbwe and then the recent one in which it fully reverted to my control, I had a near revolt in Seville over my union with Austria, large scale disease issues with settlers in South Africa. The list does go on but at this point its redundant. The fact is, your ignoring things unless they help you. Pskov had to go through straights, and had scandinavia as a bad guy against it, which means no he cant really colonize cause the straights can be blocked easily. I have no other issues to bring up cause your just going to keep throwing bogus claims and ad hominem attacks. Not to mention your unhealthy obsession with my Empire which your just trying to draw attention too because you want to make me a target so you can do whatever you want. Seriously the more comments you make the more its becomming borderline harassment. -Feud

Like you said Feud, the more powerful and bigger you become, the your actions are scrutinized and the more you are hated. Besides, you spearhard 90% of the moderator actions, and your the same-proclaimed "ASB-hunter", which in your case would be an oxymoron. But hey, you pushed me out of the game because I criticized your actions (which wasn't the aim of this post, since it was a critique of the rules and not the mods), so I guess it doesn't even matter anymore. I'm not in the game, and now you can run around building empires to the moon. Mission accomplished. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 04:45, July 7, 2014 (UTC)

Swedish War of Liberation (1555-???)
Ok, so first of all, Scandinavian Empire controls Denmark, Norway and Sweden. It's that includes Danes, Norwegians, Swedes and even three other ethic groups. Just since the Engelbrekt crises, Nordics stopped the revolts and moving it's capital to Stockholm and makes Swedish as the primary language of the Scandinavian Empire.

Second, to based realty OTL for Swedish War of Liberation, The Swedish nobleman Eric Vasa (OTL: Gustav Vasa) and other his men in Uppland started an rebellion with  same name. The goal of the war is to match from Uppsala into Stockholm takeover Scandinavian government and then splits into three states, Sweden, Denmark and Finland.

And the third, If Sweden has won the war, The Scandinavian Empire collapses and Eric4e play Sweden here. This is an ongoing war.

Eric von Schweetz, You Young and Sweet Boy! 11:30, July 6, 2014 (UTC)

Needless to say, uh, no. CrimsonAssassin-See you, space cowboys 13:42, July 6, 2014 (UTC)

The fact that Sweden is the leading force in Scandinavia would prevent any such rebellion, at least regarding the creation of an independent Sweden. Could it happen in Denmark or Norway, yes, but in Sweden, not likely and not for independence.

"This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 18:40, July 6, 2014 (UTC)

Camping
I'm going to be camping for a week, but I will try to make minor edits to the wiki to avoid losing my progress for the Wiki Hero badge. Dax is free to copypaste as me for the intervening days. --Yank 21:28, July 6, 2014 (UTC)

Main Map
I have returned to making the map, and have uploaded a version for 1559. This was done because the previous map being used was so beyond repair that I basically had to redraw a new map. On the map in use there were hundreds of thousands of square miles drawn in the ocean, continents stretched and moved, and entire landmasses added or deleted. I have redrawn the continents and for the time being I ask that Swanky abstain from editing the map to prevent this problem arising again. Since the map issues section was also outdated I have cleared it so that we can start fresh. Please post any problems you have there with specifics or maps and I will update the map for next turn. Thanks, Mscoree (talk) 20:35, July 10, 2014 (UTC)

Roman Empire (Attacker)
Total: 85
 * Location: +20
 * Location Bonus = +4
 * Tactical Advantage: +6
 * Nations: Rome (L), Netherlands (L), Urdustan (L), Egyptian Loyalists (M) = 18/10 = +1
 * Military Development: 34,0
 * Economic Development: 24,0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: +7 +3 +3
 * Modifiers: +4 +5 +6 -10 (Concurrent War)
 * Chance: +4
 * Edit count: 6808
 * UTC: 1*8*0*2 = 16
 * Total: 6808/16*pi = 1336.747674102545
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: +28 (74,000,000)
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 198,000/80,000 = +2
 * Recent Wars: -8
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Egypt (Defender)
Total: 68*1.5=102
 * Location: +25
 * Tactical Advantage: +1
 * Nations: Egypt (L), Judea (L) = 5/18 = 0
 * Military Development: 40/34=1
 * Egypt: 20
 * Judea: 20
 * Economic Development: 28/24=1
 * Egypt: 14
 * Judea: 14
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: +6
 * Motive: +9, +5
 * Modifiers: -2 -5 +4 +4 +5
 * Chance: +7
 * Nation Age: -10
 * Population: +7 (4,000,000)
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 80,000/198,000 = 0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result
0.266666667*(1-1/(6))=0.222222223
 * ((95/(55+95))*2)-1 = 0.266666667

Discussion
Done on request for MP. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 23:27, July 11, 2014 (UTC)

Ms, discuss first before making changes. Thank you.

Alexandria, Judea, and Aiguptia, as entities, no longer exist. The former two were both merged into Egypt proper, and Judea is literally part of the Empire and under military occupation.

"This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 23:51, July 11, 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't Egypt also get the 1.5 revolt bonus? I am that guy (talk) 21:44, July 12, 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe that Egypt should get a 1.5 bonus because as the rules state: Egpyt would have to first, revolt against Rome, create a weak government, and then have said weak government be revolted against against for a Revolutionary government of the revolting Egypt: However, the way Egypt has gone on, is: This current Egyptian revolt is not some popular revolt against a new weak government. Rome has been in control of Egypt for years now, so it is not "New" (French Republic lasted 12, Weimar lasted 14), and the Roman government of Egypt was not "weak" if it was able to hold down Egypt for so long before said revolt, thereby rendering this notion of a "Popular revolt" against a "New Weak Government" null and void, and removing the 1.5 score modifier. &#34;SO SAYETH THE EAGLE&#34; - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk) 19:46, July 13, 2014 (UTC)
 * If your nation has recently had a popular revolt soon after a new weak government was formed (like Adolf Hitler or Napoleon Bonaparte) your score is multiplied by 1.5 for all wars in the next ten years. However, you cannot have multiple popular revolts of this nature in a row without government changes in between.
 * Rome > Weak Revolting Egypt > Interior Egpytian Popular Revolt > Strong popular revolt Egypt.
 * German Empire > Wermier Republic > Nazi German popular revolt
 * Kingdom of France > Weak French Republic > Napoleon Popular revolt
 * Rome > Egypt

Damascan-led coalition (Attacker)
Total: 169
 * Location: +20
 * Location Bonus: 0
 * Tactical Advantage: +6
 * Nations: Damascan Sultanate (L), Karaman (LV), Diyabarkir (LV), Ankara (MV) Tartary (L), Bukhara (LV), Azov (LV), Volhynia (MV), Bajkal (SV), Perm (SV) Mansuriyya Sultanate (L), Urdustani Empire (L), Kamarumpa (LV), Orissa (LV), Vijay (LVW) = 48/9 = +5
 * Military Development: 192+10+5/20-5-2 = +16
 * Economic Development: 192+10/10-2 = +25 +3 (Aleppo, Baghdad, Samarkand) = +28
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: +7 +5 +5 +4 +3 +3 +3 +3 +3 +3 +3 -10 (Concurrent War)
 * Motive Modifiers: +4 +6
 * Chance: +1
 * Edit count: 1,318
 * UTC: 2*0*5*5 = 50
 * Total: 1318/50*pi (3.14159265359) = 82.8123823486324
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Population: +28 (66,000,000)
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 410,000/100,000 = +4
 * Recent Wars: -6
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Safavid Empire (Defender)
Total: 71
 * Location: +25
 * Location Bonus: 0
 * Tactical Advantage: +2
 * Nations: Safavid Empire (L), Khiva (LV) = 9/20 = 0
 * Military Development: 20/89 = 0
 * Safavids: 20
 * Khiva: 0
 * Economic Development: 10-2/69 = 0
 * Safavids: 10
 * Khiva: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: +6
 * Motive: +9, +5
 * Motive Modifiers: -3 -5 +4 +4
 * Chance: +2
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Population: +7 (2,500,000)
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 100,000/310,000 = 0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result
0.40833333333*(1-1/(6))=0.34027777777
 * ((169/(71+169))*2)-1 = 0.40833333333

6-year war is necessary to topple the Iranian government.

Discussion
Done on behalf of Swanky at his request. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 02:00, July 12, 2014 (UTC)

Why does Damascan have a population of 66 million, I mean is that not too much? RexImperio (talk) 11:00, July 12, 2014 (UTC)

It is Damascus plus the Tartarty plus Mansuriyya plus apparently Urdustan. Fed (talk) 16:34, July 12, 2014 (UTC)

The vassal should be LV... Sky Green 24 - Join the party  19:04, July 12, 2014 (UTC)

Can I ask what are the "recent wars"? Fed (talk) 19:41, July 12, 2014 (UTC)

Eip is involved in a three year war in Egypt, thereby adding a -6 here. Mscoree (talk) 21:06, July 12, 2014 (UTC)

So Ms, if you're going to meddle with the algo can you calculate the ending result. -Swank

The recent wars section on the rules page only states: It does not punish one for how many years they are active, so there should be no stacking penalty, a -6, for when it should only be either -1 or -2 for fighting any war in the last 15 years. &#34;SO SAYETH THE EAGLE&#34; - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk) 00:04, July 13, 2014 (UTC)
 * -2 for Leadership in any war over 15 years.
 * -1 for and Military or supply support in the past 15 years

DAMMIT, FEUD.

Well, it used to be -2 per year, and I think this is the same, with different wording. After all, a 20 year war should have more of a penalty than a 2 year one.

14:03, July 13, 2014 (UTC)

What is the current result? With the added vassals, and fixed rule adjustment, can anyone calculate this? - Swank

It says it above. After six years you can topple the government. Mscoree (talk) 16:55, July 13, 2014 (UTC)

Hello Can Someone Add Andorra Nation In The Map And The Template
Sergiusz01 (talk) 17:46, July 12, 2014 (UTC) The Title Says It All

'''Looks like we've found out who has been editing Sine's posts.. Anyways, Andorra I believe is already present on the map and under the control of France.'''

Andorra is a vassal of France and is therefore France's color.  I am on the edge...  The EdgeofNight   00:04, July 13, 2014 (UTC)

France

 * Location: 4
 * Tactical advantages: 5 (Siege equipment)
 * Nations Per Side: France (L)C.Burgundy (L) Africa (L) Lorraine (LV) Sardinia (LV) Bourbon (LV) Anjou (LV) Saluzzo (LV) Vendome (LV) Provence (L) Alencon (LV) Savoie (LV) Valois (LV) D.Burgundy (LV)
 * Military: 280, 1
 * France:20
 * Burgundy:20
 * Lorraine:20
 * Africa: 20
 * Sardinia: 20
 * Modifiers: +10, +5, +5
 * Economy: 280, 1
 * Modifiers: Larger Empire +5, Larger Economy: +5,
 * Expansion:-1
 * Infrastructure:N/A
 * Motive:+64
 * France: 7+4 =+11
 * C.Burgundy: 3+4 = 7
 * D.Burgundy +3
 * Africa: 3+4 = 7
 * Lorraine: 3 + 6 = 9
 * Sardinia: 3
 * Bourbon: 3
 * Anjou: 3
 * Saluzzo: 3
 * Vendome: 3
 * Provence: 3
 * Alencon: 3
 * Savoie: 3
 * Valois: 3
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Participation: +10
 * Chance:
 * Population: +8 +2
 * Recent wars: at least 0
 * of Troops: 300,000/240,000 1
 * Total: 129

Austria and Friends

 * Location:5
 * Tactical advantages: +2
 * Nations Per Side: Austria (L), Bohemia (L) Luxembourg (L), Alsace-Lorraine (LV), Trier (L), Jülich (LV), Zweibrücken (LV), Cologne (L), Cleves-Mark (LV), Paderborn (LV) = 48/21=2
 * Military: 197/100, +0
 * Has not lost any of the previous three wars: +10
 * Mobilized for war: +5
 * Economy: 182/100 = 2
 * Venice +2
 * Expansion:0
 * Infrastructure:+0
 * Motive:+50
 * Austria: 9+4
 * Bohemia: 3+4
 * Luxembourg: 3+4
 * Alsace-Lorraine: 3+5
 * Trier: 3+4
 * Jülich: 3
 * Zweibrücken: 3
 * Cologne: 3+4
 * Cleves-Mark: 3
 * Paderborn: 3
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Participation: +10
 * Chance:
 * Population: +8
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * of Troops: 300,000/240,000
 * Total: 88 - 21 = 65
 * Austria - 7
 * Bohemia: - 7
 * Luxembourg: - 7

Result
93/(93+64)*2-1 = 0.1847 = 18%

Spain

 * Location:3
 * Tactical advantages: 5 (Siege equipment)
 * Nations Per Side: Hispania (L) Italy (L) Savoy (LV) Genoa( LV) Morocco(L) Inca (M) Chiribaya Wamani (MV), Byzantium (L), Croatia (L) = 34, 0
 * Military: 140, 0 (with Mods)
 * Byzantium: 20
 * Croatia: 20
 * Hispania: 20
 * Italy: 20
 * Morocco: 20
 * Genoa: 20
 * Savoy: 20
 * Modifiers:
 * Economy:~140, 0 (with mods)
 * Modifiers: Larger Empire +5 Larger economy +5
 * Locations Bonus: +23
 * Military Modifiers: +10, +5, +5
 * Expansion:-1
 * Infrastructure:N/A
 * Motive:+12, +5 +4, +5 +4 +3 +3 +5+4 +5+4
 * Nation Age:+5
 * Participation: +10
 * Chance:
 * Population: +8 +10
 * Recent wars: at least -4
 * of Troops: 350,000/240,000
 * Total: 113

Austria and Friends

 * Location:5
 * Tactical advantages: +2
 * Nations Per Side: Austria (L), Bohemia (L) Luxembourg (L) Mainz (LV), Palatinate (LV), Lombardy (L), Ravenna (LV), Wallis (LV), Switzerland (L) = 37/34 = 1
 * Military: 192/140 = 2
 * Has not lost any of the previous three wars: +10
 * Mobilized for war: +5
 * Nation has a moderately sized armed forces: +3
 * Economy: 179/140 = 1
 * Modifiers: Large economy +5,
 * Venice +2
 * Expansion:0
 * Infrastructure:+0
 * Motive:+64
 * Austria: 9+4
 * Bohemia: 3+4
 * Luxembourg: 3+4
 * Mainz: 3
 * Palatinate: 3
 * Lombardy: 3+4
 * Ravenna: 3
 * Wallis: 3
 * Switzerland: 3
 * Nation Age:+5
 * Participation: +10
 * Chance:
 * Population: +8
 * Recent Wars:
 * of Troops: 300,000/240,000
 * Total: 100 - 21 = 79
 * Austria - 7
 * Bohemia: - 7
 * Luxembourg: - 7

Result
120 /(120+72)*2 -1 = 0.25 = 25%

Scandinavia

 * Location: 3 (4, 4, 2)
 * Tactical advantages: 5 (Siege equipment)
 * Nations Per Side: Scandinavia(L), Iceland (LV), Schleswig (LV) = 11,0
 * Military: 60+20=80, 0
 * Scandinavia:20
 * Iceland: 20
 * Schleswig: 20
 * Modifiers: +10, +5, +5
 * Economy: 65, 0
 * Scandinavia: 20
 * Iceland: 20
 * Scleswig: 20
 * Location modifiers:+3, +1, +1
 * Expansion:0
 * Infrastructure:N/A
 * Motive:7+3+5+5
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Participation: +10
 * Chance:
 * Population: +8
 * Recent wars:
 * of Troops: /240,000
 * Total: 56

Austria and Friends

 * Location:5
 * Tactical advantages: +2
 * Nations Per Side: Austria (L), Bohemia (L), Luxembourg (L), Brandenburg (LV), Swabia (LV) = 21/11=2
 * Military:2+18
 * Has not lost any of the previous three wars: +10
 * Mobilized for war: +5
 * Nation has a moderately sized armed forces: +3
 * Economy: 100/60=2
 * Modifiers: Venice +2, Lubeck +2
 * Expansion:0
 * Infrastructure: 10
 * Motive: 21
 * Austria: 3
 * Bohemia: 3
 * Luxembourg: 3
 * Brandenburg: 9
 * Swabia: 3
 * Nation Age:+5
 * Participation: +10
 * Chance:
 * Population: +8
 * Recent Wars:
 * of Troops: 300,000/240,000
 * Total: 71-21 = 50

Result
111/(111+74)*2-1 = 0.2 = 20%

Discussion
How is this even a thing? Where and how is Scandinavia moving its troops into Brandenburg? I am that guy (talk) 22:42, July 18, 2014 (UTC)

Why do a load of Scandinavia's totals come to 0 for no reason whatsoever? Just seems... odd. Local Mafia Boss (Talk) (Blog)

Hamburg cannot join a war that is now over, therefor I am removing his scores, you waited too late. Not to mention as a protectorate you don't really get much choice, I said I would defend you if you were attacked, you weren't deal with it. if you attack Scandinavia, I WILL invade YOU. I'm sick of you refusing to listen to reason. I regret letting you live.FOR THE GLORY OF THE PARTY! 14:12, July 19, 2014 (UTC)

ok I aknowledge that may have been a little harsh, But Pomerania nad Brandenburg are not recongnized as Hamburgian territories by several mods, even a few not in the war. There is plenty of evidence that the events were retconned, and No matter what you or Ms say on the matter none of us recognize that land transfer. If you continue on this line of thought I will not argue anymore, I will simply leave you be to your own devices. Britannia will turn its back completely, in every way. You may also expect a war of retribution for defying Britannia, I told you repeatedly that I would protect you if you were on the defensive, but Pomerania and Brandenburg are not seen as yours. FOR THE GLORY OF THE PARTY! 15:54, July 19, 2014 (UTC)

I never even declared war, I was hoping to find peace for the past four days.... I am that guy (talk) 16:52, July 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * and I never claimed Brandenburg, I was asking because Ms transferred Pomerania to me. Next thing I know, I hear that its retconned to allow Crim to invade him. I'm confused on the matter, so I asked but no one gave a response. I never "defied Britannia", I've repeatedly asked Scandinavia to withdraw in the interest of relations. I am not a protectorate, we agreed to mutual defense between you, me, and Cal. And the war doesn't appear over, as even Sine posts that he is still battling. I am that guy (talk) 17:05, July 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * Well you might want to direct your attention to ms, who has been trying to get me into his side of the war for days, trying to claim Hesse invaded. Sine always copy pastes, look at his posts for the past while, its the same over and over again. Perhaps i was hasty but several different people are telling me way too many different things, its really confusing me. Just ignore what I have said. I give up on trying to figure out whose right. If you are invaded (meaning what people actually consider as yours which is Munster, Hamburg, Holstien Lubeck etc.) then I will support you. But I don't see Pomerania as yours. Pomerania and Brandenburg were both made by the mods independent and when crim tried to influence them he was told to back off. I am confused too okay? There is too many very different words coming from both sides and I have lost the truth in the middle somewhere. We need to talk and I will let you explain everything. I am seriously lost, I posted the afore mentioned posts while being very angry at everyone and being confused. Sorry for the over action.FOR THE GLORY OF THE PARTY! 19:42, July 19, 2014 (UTC)

Possible Hiatus
I have gotten absolutely swamped at work and have commitments that frankly trump any in game. I am considering an indefinite hiatus until things calm down. I will let everyone know what I have decided in the next few weeks. For now I will try to post, though it may be infrequent. FOR THE GLORY OF THE PARTY! 22:58, July 16, 2014 (UTC)

Have a good one, see you when you get back. I am that guy (talk) 00:58, July 17, 2014 (UTC)

Could Someone Post For Me For The Weekend
I am leaving for vacation on friday around 11 a.m and need someone to post for me for saturday and sunday. I will be back on monday. - Scarlet

Yadaist Empire of Marrikuwuyanga(Attacker)
Total: 65
 * Location: +20
 * Tactical Advantage: +5
 * Siege Artillery: 5
 * Nations: Empire of Marrikuwuyanga (L), Mudbarra (MV), Gurindji (MV) = 7/12= 0.5 ~ +1
 * Military Development: 68/58 = 1.1 ~ +1
 * Marrikuwuyanga Empire: 20
 * Mudbarra: 20
 * Gurindji: 20
 * Mil Modifiers: +8
 * has not lost last three wars: 10
 * Small Sized Forces: -2
 * Economic Development: 32/46 = 0.6 ~ +1
 * Marrikuwuyanga Empire: 17
 * Mudbarra: 10
 * Gurindji: 10
 * Econ Modifiers: -5
 * Receding Economy: -3
 * Smaller Economy: -2
 * Expansion: -11
 * Motive: +13
 * Taking back territory recently held by nation but since lost: + 6
 * Enforce political hegemony: 7
 * Modifiers: +4
 * Government not supported: -10
 * War not supported (non-demo): -2
 * Chance: +9
 * Edit count: 270
 * UTC: 4:30 (4*3)
 * Total: 70.69
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Mature: 5
 * Population: 202,500 = +6
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: +1
 * 8,100/11,900 = 0.6
 * Number of Ships: 0
 * 6/41 = 0.1
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Islamic Sultanate of Marrkuwuyanga(Defender)
Total: 107
 * Location: +25
 * Tactical Advantage: +2
 * High Ground: 2
 * Nations: Sultanate of Marrikuwuyanga (L), Tapu (L), Gini (S) = 12/7= 1.7 ~ +2
 * Military Development: 58/68 = 0.8 ~ +1
 * Marrikuwuyanga Sultanate: 20
 * Gini: 5
 * Tapu : 15
 * Mil Modifiers: +18
 * Small armed forces: -2
 * Naval dominance: 10
 * More troops than enemy: 5
 * Fully mobilized: 5
 * Economic Development: 46/32 = 1.4 ~ +1
 * Marrikuwuyanga Sultanate: 20
 * Tapu: 18
 * Gini: 3
 * Econ Modifiers: +5
 * Larger Economy: 5
 * Infrastructure: +40
 * Marrikuwuyanga Sultanate: 20
 * Tapu: 17
 * Gini: 3
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +9
 * Fatal attack: 9
 * Modifiers: +4
 * Non-democratic: 4
 * Chance: +9
 * Edit count: 269
 * UTC: 4:30 (4*3)
 * Total: 70.69
 * Nation Age: -10
 * Newborn: -10
 * Population: 297,500 = +6
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: +1
 * 11,900/8,100 = 1.4
 * Number of Ships: +7
 * 41/6 = 6.8
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result
((107/(107+65)*2)-1 = 0.2441860465116279 or 24.4% but because this was a defensive war for the Sultanate, the Sultanate I believe will only gain 4% of the Yadaist coastlands and we shall assume that the Yadaist Marrikuwuyanga had been decisively defeated and the Islamic Marrikuwuyanga declares itself somewhat independent

(24.41)*(1-1/(2*6)) = 24.1175 so war lasts for 6 years although the land conquered by Timor shall only be 4%

Hamburg

 * Location: 4
 * Tactical advantages: 0
 * Nations Per Side: Hamburg (L), Mecklenburg (L), Stade (LV), Holstein (LV): 14/14= 1
 * Military: 98/155=0
 * Has not lost any of the previous three wars: +10
 * Nation has a moderately sized armed forces: +3
 * Mobilized: +5
 * Economy: 80/96=0
 * Equally matched economy with Bavaria +2
 * Modifiers: Lubeck +2
 * Expansion:0
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: 28
 * Hamburg: 5+4
 * Mecklenburg: 5+4
 * Stade: 5
 * Holstein: 5
 * Nation Age:+5
 * Participation: +10
 * Chance:
 * Population: +7
 * Recent Wars:
 * of Troops: 300,000/240,000
 * Total: 60

Scandinavia
Total: 120
 * Location: 3
 * Tactical advantages: NA
 * Nations per side: Scandinavia (L), Schleswig (LV), Iceland (LV), Greater Ingria (LV), Pomerania (LV), Bavaria (L), Greater Saxony (LV), Burgau (LV): 28/14= 2
 * Military: 155, 2
 * Naval dominance: 10
 * Mobilized for war: 5
 * Has not lost any three of the previous wars (Bavaria) +10
 * Moderately sized armed forces (Bavaria) +3
 * Economy: 106/80=1
 * Much larger economy: 10
 * Receding economy: -3
 * Larger Colonial Empire: 5
 * Equally matched economy (Bavaria) +2
 * Locations: 3+1+1
 * Infrastructure: 5
 * Motive: 43
 * Scandinavia: 5+4
 * Schleswig: 10
 * Iceland: 5
 * Greater Ingria: 5
 * Pomerania: 5
 * Bavaria: 5+3
 * Greater Saxony: +3
 * Burgau: +3
 * Expansion: 0
 * Participation: 10
 * Chance:
 * Population: 8
 * Recent Wars: -9

Result
Decisive Scandinavian Victory. Hamburg loses 3% of its territory during the seige. Lubeck, the site of this 3% change, switches hands to Scandinavia.

Scandinavia
Total: 141
 * Location: 15
 * Tactical advantages: 3
 * Nations per side: Scandinavia (L), Schleswig (LV), Iceland (LV), Greater Ingria (LV), Pomerania (LV), Brandenburg, Bavaria (L), Greater Saxony (LV), Burgau (LV), Bamberg (LV), Wurzburg (LV), Burggrafschaft (LV), Bremen Port (LV) : Westphalia (LV), East Cologne (LV), Mainz (LV), East Trier (LV)= 50/14= 4
 * Military: 155, 2
 * Naval dominance: 10
 * Mobilized for war: 5
 * Has not lost any three of the previous wars (Bavaria) +10
 * Moderately sized armed forces (Bavaria) +3
 * Economy: 106/80=1
 * Larger economy: 5
 * Receding economy: -3
 * Larger Colonial Empire: 5
 * Equally matched economy (Bavaria) +2
 * Locations: 3+1+1
 * Infrastructure: 5
 * Motive: 53
 * Scandinavia: 5+4
 * Schleswig: 3
 * Iceland: 3
 * Greater Ingria: 3
 * Pomerania: 3
 * Brandenburg: 3
 * Bavaria: 3+3
 * Greater Saxony: +3
 * Burgau: +3
 * Westphalia: 3+5
 * East Cologne: 3
 * Mainz: 3
 * East Trier: 3
 * Nation age: -6
 * Scandinavia: 5
 * Schleswig: -15
 * Greater Ingria: 5
 * Pomerania: -10
 * Brandenburg: -10
 * Bavaria: -10
 * Greater Saxony: -10
 * Burgau: 5
 * Westphalia: -10
 * East Cologne: -10
 * Mainz: -10
 * East Trier: -10
 * Expansion: 0
 * Participation: 10
 * Chance:
 * Population: 8
 * Recent Wars: -9

Hamburg

 * Location: 5
 * Tactical advantages: 1
 * Nations Per Side: Hamburg (L), Mecklenburg (L), Holstein (L), Stade (LV), Münster (LV): 14/14= 1
 * Military: 98/155=0
 * Has not lost any of the previous three wars: +10
 * Nation has a moderately sized armed forces: +3
 * Mobilized: +5
 * Economy: 70/96=0
 * Equally matched economy with Bavaria +2
 * Modifiers: Mogadishu +1
 * Expansion:0
 * Infrastructure: 25
 * Motive: 32
 * Hamburg: 5+4
 * Mecklenburg: 5+4
 * Stade: 5
 * Holstein: 5
 * Münster: 5
 * Nation Age:+5
 * Participation: +10
 * Chance:
 * Population: +7
 * Recent Wars:
 * of Troops: 300,000/240,000
 * Total: 86-5= 81

Mogadishu Front: Romania (Attacker)
Total: 117
 * Location: 15
 * Location Bonus: 0
 * Tactical Advantage: 0
 * Nations: Romania(L) = 5/5 = 1
 * Military Development: 48/1= 48
 * Romania:20
 * Mods:28
 * Economic Development: 30/14= 2
 * Romania:20
 * Mods:10
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 6 (eco/ally)
 * Motive Modifiers: 9
 * Chance: 0
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 27
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 15,000/15,000= 1
 * Number of Ships: 100/50 = 2
 * Recent Wars: -1
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Mogadishu(Defender)
Total: 46
 * Location: 25
 * Location Bonus: 1
 * Tactical Advantage: 2
 * Nations: Ostland (L) = 5/5=1
 * Military Development: -1
 * Al-Sumal:12
 * Mods:-13
 * Economic Development: 14/30=0
 * Al-Sumal:16
 * Mods: -2
 * Expansion: -8
 * Infrastructure: 6
 * Motive: 9
 * Al-Sumal: +9
 * Chance: 0
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 15,000/15,000=1
 * Number of Ships:50/100= 0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result
Coalition victory. The coalition may take 27.02% of the land. 23.6% of Hamburg's land is lost if the war lasts for four years. When we add the other front, which is 60%, Hamburg is toppled.

Discussion
Yeah, no. This is joining the northern front with Austria. I am that guy (talk) 23:39, July 19, 2014 (UTC)

That's over. A new algorithm is necessary. CrimsonAssassin-See you, space cowboys 23:46, July 19, 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't appear over, as sine is still posting about the war and the treaty isn't signed. I am that guy (talk) 23:48, July 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, let's get technical: in my post yesterday I wrote that if you didn't respond by (in-game) 11:59 December 31, war was to be declared. So I technically joined the war last year. I am that guy (talk) 00:01, July 20, 2014 (UTC)
 * The war was already over by then lol CrimsonAssassin-See you, space cowboys
 * Sure doesn't look that way when a major player in it continues to post about the war going on and no treaty signed. I am that guy (talk) 00:27, July 20, 2014 (UTC)
 * And seeing how there's no set timeframe for the war in the algo, pretty sure I can hop in until its all figured out. Think it as hopping in at the tail end of it.I am that guy (talk) 00:30, July 20, 2014 (UTC)
 * It's already been discussed. This is a seperate war. CrimsonAssassin-See you, space cowboys 00:36, July 20, 2014 (UTC)

Whatever then, its a tie anyways. I am that guy (talk) 00:38, July 20, 2014 (UTC) Wait, pretty sure I actually have the larger colonial empire. I know Scandinavia has Vinland, Strombeck, and New Gotland while I have Williamsburg (in otl Western Sahara), Neu Lüneburg (in otl Liberia), Neu Hamburg (roughly the coast of otl South Carolina), Neu Braunschweig (currently a few pixels around otl Saint John, New Brunswick), and Ostland (al-Sumal). Also, what constitutes "naval dominance"? I have roughly a 300 ship navy. And I should get a +1 in the location bonus for owning Mogadishu. I am that guy (talk) 00:59, July 20, 2014 (UTC)

I doubt this is a draw anymore. Also IATG, are you counting in the size of your colonies? Naval dominance is decided through navy size and location and other factors I guess. I mean you do own 300 ships, but Crim has the Oresund which allows him to cut off your supplies that would usually go through it I guess. And it doesn't really matter much, you don't gain anything if this algo is correct. Sky Green 24 - Join the party  09:32, July 20, 2014 (UTC)
 * I also have a canal that allows me to bypass the Oresund. I am that guy (talk) 13:40, July 20, 2014 (UTC)

My Name is Stephanus Rex you killed my Mogadishu prepare to Die! Stephanus rex (talk) 23:24, July 20, 2014 (UTC)

If we are doing pop culture references...

Shut up and take my supplies!

"This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 23:30, July 20, 2014 (UTC)

All my supplies are belong to Crim. Fed (talk) 01:00, July 21, 2014 (UTC)

Added my side of their offensive algo. My ruler died in battle, and the Count of Holstein, his cousin, is the closest heir, forming Hamburg-Mecklenburg-Holstein. This makes Holstein a "L" in the defensive algo and gives it the supported government modifier. I am that guy (talk) 18:42, July 21, 2014 (UTC)

I never agreed to giving Münster to Hesse, nor have I done so, therefore, it's still mine. The Count of Holstein becoming the Duke of Hamburg and Mecklenburg raises Holstein to a leader, as its a personal union. I have 25 points of infrastructure between my five nations, hence the sub-optimal Econ and military scores. Also, so many recent government changes...

I am that guy (talk) 17:30, July 22, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah cause Hamburg can send aid to its colony when it is fighting for its existance. Id say thats enough said on the matter. Also Feud literally said I was basiclly fighting the colony alone. Stephanus rex (talk) 20:27, July 22, 2014 (UTC)
 * I have a permanent presence in Ostland. You invade it, you're facing Hamburg forces in addition to the colonial troops. I am that guy (talk) 23:11, July 22, 2014 (UTC)


 * They arent being re-supplied though so you cant add the Hamburgian scores. Stephanus rex (talk) 23:39, July 22, 2014 (UTC)
 * Also I got some mods to rule on the 150 ships and they dont think its possible for you to support them. I was told 50 would be pushing it and so I gave you 50. Stephanus rex (talk) 23:50, July 22, 2014 (UTC)
 * I have posted repeatedly that I have designed merchant ships to be rapidly converted into warships, so it is possible. I also have a substantial economic and military presence in Ostland, so my scores do apply. I am that guy (talk) 23:54, July 22, 2014 (UTC)
 * Shouldnt you be more worried about your homeland? Also you need cannons to convert ships, and where are you getting cannons like that in this part of the indian ocean? Stephanus rex (talk) 00:32, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
 * Simple, it's called storage. But you know what? Whatever, you can have Ostland. But cookie, Crim, you guys drastically over counted your side... I am that guy (talk) 00:40, July 23, 2014 (UTC)

Crim, please simply explain how exactly you get 141 points. I even counted the modifiers after the divisions (which is not supposed to be done) and it still came up short. Please just explain your reasoning. You also continue to underscore my side and omit the -15 penalty to you brought up by the mods while both you and I were in chat. Can we please just discuss this? I am that guy (talk) 16:49, July 25, 2014 (UTC)

Cookie, even without the nation age added it comes up over twenty points short. Feud said your side has 86 on chat either yesterday or the day before, Sine was there, Crim was there. It was also there that Feud brought up the -15 penalty to your side because of the mod event against Scandinavia. And I am also not fighting a two-front war. I am that guy (talk) 17:16, July 25, 2014 (UTC)

Funny, because I could have sworn that last night Sine told me that the 141 point algo was supported by Feud, and if you look at your talk page, Fed as well. Furthermore, I've checked the mod events from 1568 - 1574, and no mention of a -15 penalty exist against Scandinavia. In 1568, there was a mod event targeting the economies of several nations, including Scandinavia. It was a -5 penalty which would be given to those nations should they enter the war as an offensive belligerent within the next 10 years. Scandinavia isn't the offensive in this war, as you declared war first. The counter-attack is offensive, yes, but I highly doubt it constitutes as a separate war. Cookiedamage (talk) 17:24, July 25, 2014 (UTC)
 * It is -5, I was told it was 15, but whatever. But the event says "-5 offensive for all nations for the next ten years", making no mention of them making the first move or not. So odds are it still counts, as it's an offensive. Also, your modifiers are added prior to the dividing (Basic dev scores + modifiers / opponents score), I was there in chat as Feud and Ms were finalizing their southern Front algo and both confirmed this as they were adding up the scores. I am that guy (talk) 17:31, July 25, 2014 (UTC)


 * "-5 Offensive" definitely means that nations who declare war first suffer the penalty. That's what "offensive" means. Scandinavia, Bavaria, and Westphalia are under the defensive side of the war, counter-attack or not. And Feud has literally told me the algo looks fine. Cookiedamage (talk) 21:10, July 25, 2014 (UTC)

Caliphate Algorithms
Gentlemen and Ladies, I've noticed a disturbing trend in the algorithms. That is their Caliphatisation, but worse. Not only is every single vassal being counted in some cases, they are being counted as leaders! Vassal =/= leader. The term vassal implies subordinate. There are other problems with the algorithm that need to be addressed, but this is currently the major problem. Saamwiil, the Humble 16:22, July 22, 2014 (UTC)

Absence
I'm going to be away for 3 and 1/2 weeks. starting this Friday, and I'd like for someone to post for my nation during that time. Is anyone willing to do it? Shikata ga nai 17:08, July 22, 2014 (UTC)

Novgorod-led coallition

 * Location: +20
 * Location Bonus = 0
 * Tactical Advantage: +5
 * Nations: Novgorod (L) Tatar (M) Perm (LV) =14/8=1.75~2
 * Military Development: 34-3=31, 2
 * Economic Development: 32-2+5=35, 1.842 ~ 2
 * Expansion: -0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 5+4+5+3=17
 * Chance: +5
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Novgorod: -5 (1136)
 * Perm:+5
 * Population: +7 (4,800,000)
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 96,000/47,000=2
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0
 * Total: 72

Muscovy

 * Location: +25
 * Location Bonus =
 * Tactical Advantage: +1
 * Nations: Muscovy (L) Volhynia (LV)= 8/9=.
 * Military Development: 12+5=17, 0
 * Economic Development: 14+5=19, 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 14
 * Motive: 5+3=8 +modfiers
 * Modifiers: +4=12
 * Chance: +4
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: +7 (4,600,000)
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 47,000/96,000=0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: -0
 * Fronts: -5
 * Total: 68

A Kiev, a Bulgaria, and a Romania: Southern Front

 * Location: +20
 * Location Bonus = 0
 * Tactical Advantage:1
 * Nations: Kiev (LV), Bulgaria (LV), Chernihiv (LV), Romania (C)= 12/8=1.5 ~ 2
 * Military Development: 54/17=3
 * Kiev:4
 * Bulgaria: 20
 * Chernihiv: 12
 * Mods:18
 * Economic Development:58/19=3
 * Kiev:10
 * Bulgaria: 20
 * Chernihiv: 18
 * Mods: 10
 * Expansion:0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 9
 * Modifiers: 4
 * Chance:
 * Nation Age: 1
 * Kiev: 0
 * Romania: 0
 * Bulgaria: +5
 * Chernihiv: 0
 * Population: +7 (1,400,000)
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 32,500/94,000=0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0
 * Total:54

Muscovy: Southern Front

 * Location: +25
 * Location Bonus =
 * Tactical Advantage: +1 (Defender Bonus)
 * Nations: Muscovy (L) Volhynia (LV)= 8/8=.1
 * Military Development: 12+5=17, 0
 * Economic Development: 14+5=19, 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 14
 * Motive: 9+3=12 +modfiers
 * Modifiers: +4=16
 * Chance: +4
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: +9 (4,600,000)
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 47,000/22,500=2
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: -0
 * Fronts=-5
 * Total: 73

Results
((74/(65+74))*2)-1=0.06474820143

(0.06474820143)*(1-1/(2*2))=0.04856115107

After two years, Novgorod and Perm can take 4.9% of Muscowy's territory, or 869 pixels. Fed (talk) 22:42, July 22, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
I am not even going to bother with this, it is going to be like 1%ish. If you want to do this, go right ahead.  I am on the edge...  The EdgeofNight   21:59, July 22, 2014 (UTC)

Id say Novgorod delcares independence. Muscovy cant defeat them, and then they sign a peace treaty with Novgorod independent after a year or so. Stephanus rex (talk) 22:09, July 22, 2014 (UTC)

TIE! Novgorod declares independence, SQAB. Fed (talk) 22:10, July 22, 2014 (UTC)

NVM no tie ~Edge

As was pointed out on chat, shouldn't Novgrad have a lager recent warspenelty? it was involved in many of the same wars that Russia was   I am on the edge...   The EdgeofNight   17:19, July 23, 2014 (UTC).

Indeed it was, and furthermore, how could Novgorod possibly have location bonus? Sky Green 24 - Join the party  17:25, July 23, 2014 (UTC)

Perm has a MASSIVE trade empire because of the fact that no Russian merchants were allowed in the Tartary or east of it until two years ago, while Novgorod and Moscow are surrounded by enemies and stronger economies. The econ bonuses should go over to the Novgorodan side. Fed (talk) 20:34, July 23, 2014 (UTC)

Also, Perm switched from hereditary to elective monarchy about 100 years ago, which would make it a mature nation. Fed (talk) 20:37, July 23, 2014 (UTC)

While I thank you for that, It doesn't explain the random +5 and -15 that was in the algo. I will add the nation age for you however  <font color="#191970"> I am on the edge...   The EdgeofNight   20:45, July 23, 2014 (UTC) The +5 in question is NOT from your seige bonus, that is counted.

No mods may not change algo, If you have any request to alterate you may add it in the next category Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 22:47, July 23, 2014 (UTC)

Algo fixes

 * Fill it in here Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 22:47, July 23, 2014 (UTC)

Muslim Coalition(Liberator XD)
Total: 68
 * Location: +15
 * Tactical Advantage: +5
 * Siege Artillery: 5
 * Nations: Timor Sultanate [L], Marrikuwuyanga [L], Tapu [MV], Gini [MV], Mudbarra [MV], Gurindji [MV], Malacca Sultanate [L], Brunei [L]: 24/5 = 4.8 ~ +5
 * Military Development: 83/15 = 5.53 ~ 6
 * Timor Sultanate: 17
 * Marrikuwuyanga: 20
 * Malacca Sultanate: 16
 * Brunei: 12
 * Mil Modifiers: +18
 * Has not lost last three wars: 10
 * More troops than enemy: 5
 * Moderately sized forces: 3
 * Economic Development: 74/27=2.74 ~ +3
 * Timor Sultanate: 20
 * Marrikuwuyanga: 20
 * Malacca Sultanate: 16
 * Brunei: 16
 * Econ Modifiers: +2
 * Equally matched economy (AT MOST): +2
 * Location Bonus: +3
 * Malacca Straits: 3
 * Expansion: -4
 * Motive: +16
 * Timor Sultanate
 * Enforce hegemony: 7
 * Marrikuwuyanga
 * Aiding ally: 3
 * Malacca Sultanate
 * Aiding ally: 3 (Actual motive is same as Timor but only one nation can get heavy hitter motive)
 * Brunei
 * Aiding ally: 3
 * Modifiers: +3
 * Non-democratic supported: +4
 * Chance: +4
 * Edit count: 288 (Rimp)
 * UTC: 4:00 (4*0*0)
 * Total: 1346.34
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Young: -5
 * Population: +10 (11.6 mil population of coalition)
 * Population Modifier: +2
 * larger population: +2
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 32000/23000 = 1.3 ~ 2
 * Number of Ships: 190/130 = 1.4 ~ +1
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Netherlands(Defender)
Infrastructure: +10 Total: AT LEAST 64
 * Location: +25
 * Tactical Advantage: +2
 * High Ground: 2
 * Nations: Netherlands [L]: 5/24 = 0.2 ~ 0
 * Military Development: 15/147 = 0.1 ~ 0
 * Netherlands: 20
 * Mil Modifiers:
 * Economic Development: 27/136 = 0.1 ~ 0
 * Netherlands: 20
 * Econ Modifiers: +7
 * AT LEAST equal economy: +2
 * Large Trade/Colonial Empire: 5
 * Location Bonus: +2
 * Antwerp: 2
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +5
 * Defending territory not part of heartland but held for more than 20 years: 5
 * Modifiers:
 * Rimp you cant make the assumption, period, its not your place unless theres been a contrary mod event tough luck to show they hate them in this regard.
 * Low-morale: -5
 * Chance: +0
 * Edit count: 4049
 * UTC: 4:00 (4*0*0)
 * Total: 3179.70
 * Nation Age:
 * Mature: 5
 * Population: +8
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 23000/32000 = 0.7 ~ +1
 * Number of Ships: 130/190 = 0.6 ~ +1
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

((146/(146+53)*2)-1<span style="line-height:14px;font-size:14px;background-color:rgb(242,242,242);"> = 0.4673366834170854 or 46.73%
(46.73)*(1-1/(2*2)) = 35.0475% in 2 years

Discussion
I have had enough of NK threatening to invade me and Toby so we certainly got frustrated knowing he is weaker than us... And there definitely is no place in the Muslim East Indies for Christian Netherlands which threatens everyone around... So this happens. Also, for people wondering, this is NOT the invasion of Dutch land in Europe but in East IndiesRexImperio (talk) 18:28, July 24, 2014 (UTC)

What's the *1.5 at the end? Fed (talk) 18:33, July 24, 2014 (UTC)

Also, MV aren't counted in development, and IIRC modifiers are added to development. This algo has several issues to be fixed. Fed (talk) 18:38, July 24, 2014 (UTC)

Corrected some things. This algo is still under work. Fed (talk) 18:51, July 24, 2014 (UTC)

As Fed said, this algo needs a lot of work. <font color="#191970"> I am on the edge...  The EdgeofNight   20:45, July 24, 2014 (UTC)

1) That 1.5 is due to the popular revolt that took place in Timor when a series of weak and corrupt monarchs that had ruined the state were finally overthrown 2) This is a coalition comprising of the Timor Sultanate and vassals and Malacca Sultanate and vassals, thus in modifier; I do not see why the 'Non demo: +4' has been added even though it is for Single Nations RexImperio (talk) 00:58, July 25, 2014 (UTC)

Algo Fixes
MUSLIM COALITION
 * Location: +15
 * Tactical Advantage: +5


 * Siege Artillery: 5
 * Nations: Timor Sultanate [L], Marrikuwuyanga [L], Tapu [LV], Gini [LV], Mudbarra [LV], Gurindji [LV], Malacca Sultanate [L], Brunei [L]: 36/5 = 7.2 ~ +7
 * Military Development: 147/5 = 29.4 = +29


 * Timor Sultanate: 17
 * Gini: 9
 * Marrikuwuyanga: 20
 * Mudbarra: 16
 * Gurindji: 16
 * Tapu: 13
 * Malacca Sultanate: 16
 * Brunei: 12
 * Mil Modifiers: +28


 * Has not lost last three wars: 10
 * Has naval dominance: 10
 * More troops than enemy: 5
 * Moderately sized forces: 3
 * Economic Development: 131/14 = 9.3 ~ +9


 * Timor Sultanate: 20
 * Gini: 9
 * Marrikuwuyanga: 20
 * Mudbarra: 16
 * Gurindji: 16
 * Tapu: 13
 * Malacca Sultanate: 16
 * Brunei: 16
 * Econ Modifiers: +5


 * Equally matched economy: 2
 * Location Bonus: +3


 * Malacca Straits: 3
 * Expansion: -4
 * Motive: +30


 * Timor Sultanate


 * Aid Religious Kinsmen being oppressed: 7
 * Marrikuwuyanga


 * Aiding ally: 3
 * Tapu


 * Aiding ally: 3
 * Gini


 * Aiding ally: 3
 * Mudbarra


 * Aiding ally: 3
 * Gurindji


 * Aiding ally: 3
 * Malacca Sultanate


 * Aiding ally: 3 (Actual motive is same as Timor but only one nation can get heavy hitter motive)
 * Brunei


 * Aiding ally: 3
 * Modifiers: +3


 * Most non demo: -3
 * High morale: 6
 * Chance: +4


 * Edit count: 288 (Rimp) + 1,426 (Toby) = 1714
 * UTC: 4:00 (4*0*0)
 * Total: 1346.34
 * Nation Age: -5


 * Young: -5
 * Population: +18 (11.6 mil population of coalition)


 * Population Modifier: +10

Total: 121*1.5 = 181.5 ~ 182
 * Between 5-10 times larger than opponents: 10
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 32000/23000 = 1.3 ~ +1
 * Number of Ships: 190/130 = 1.4 ~ +1
 * Recent Wars: -2

NETHERLANDS Total: 48
 * Location: +25
 * Tactical Advantage: +2
 * High Ground: 2
 * Nations: Netherlands [L]: 5/36 = 0.2 ~ 0
 * Military Development: 5/147 = 0.1 ~ 0.03
 * Netherlands: 10
 * Mil Modifiers: -5
 * Much smaller armed forces: -5
 * Economic Development: 14/131 = 0.1 ~ 0
 * Netherlands: 10
 * Econ Modifiers: +4
 * Equally matched Economy: 2
 * Location Bonus: +2
 * Antwerp: 2
 * Infrastructure: +10
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +5
 * Defending territory not part of heartland but held for more than 20 years: 5
 * Modifiers: -15
 * Government not supported by people: -10 (The Sunda obviously hate him due to his conversions of Muslims to Christianity and because he probably allowed Jews to settle. Not to mention, he disrespected the Sundese Sultan and annexed Sunda into his Empire)
 * Low-morale: -5
 * Chance: +0
 * Edit count: 4049
 * UTC: 4:00 (4*0*0)
 * Total: 3179.70
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Mature: 5
 * Population: +7
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 23000/32000 = 0.7 ~ +1
 * Number of Ships: 130/190 = 0.6 ~ +1
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

EXPLANATION Muslim Coalition
 * 1) It is not too close to get +20 but not too far away for a +10. I also took the average
 * 2) We have siege artillery
 * 3) Just like every other person adds LV to his vassals, I did too
 * 4) Divided my Mil score with his
 * 5) We won all 3 past wars, have more troops than enemy and moderately sized forces. Also, we have naval domination because not only are our warships more, some of our warships were built by Urdustan and Ayutthaya. The rest by Dutch
 * 6) Divided my Eco score by his
 * 7) Malacca Sultanate controls Malacca Straits and plausibly speaking, we have equally matched Eco
 * 8) The motive... Also, we plan to LIBERATE Sunda by expelling Ditch, not conquering Sunda
 * 9) This is a coalition and coalition modifier are applied
 * 10) Our population is between 5-10 times greater than that of Dutch
 * 11) Divided our troops by his
 * 12) Divided our ships by his
 * 13) We need to have 75% in the coalition to get the x1.5 bonus and we do have a 75% majority since 6/8 members were part of the popular revolt

Netherlands
 * 1) He gets 25+
 * 2) High ground since we are invading by sea
 * 3) Netherlands is L
 * 4) Divided his mil score by ours.
 * 5) In 20 turns, he can expand Infra for 10 turns, mil and Eco for 5 so he gets 10 for mil which get deducted to 5 after -5 from mil modifier
 * 6) Divided his Eco score by our
 * 7) He controls Antwerp and plausibly speaking, we have equally matched economy
 * 8) The motive does not need explanation
 * 9) Definitely not supported by people and you can read why in the algo
 * 10) His population is 2 mil or a little more ~ Sine de Gloriem
 * 11) He can send 20k or little more troops to defend Sunda ~ SkyGreen, Edgeofthenight, Andr3w777
 * 12) He can send 70-130 ships to defend Sunda ~ Andr3w777

Algo Fixes Discussion
I really don't think there should be a 1.5 bonus, as it is like I said with Egypt, which nobody paid attention to

"Egpyt would have to first, revolt against Rome, create a weak government, and then have said weak government be revolted against against for a Revolutionary government of the revolting Egypt: However, the way Egypt has gone on, is: This current Egyptian revolt is not some popular revolt against a new weak government. Rome has been in control of Egypt for years now, so it is not "New" (French Republic lasted 12, Weimar lasted 14), and the Roman government of Egypt was not "weak" if it was able to hold down Egypt for so long before said revolt, thereby rendering this notion of a "Popular revolt" against a "New Weak Government" null and void, and removing the 1.5 score modifier. "SO SAYETH THE EAGLE" - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk) 19:46, July 13, 2014 (UTC)"
 * Rome > Weak Revolting Egypt > Interior Egpytian Popular Revolt > Strong popular revolt Egypt.
 * German Empire > Wermier Republic > Nazi German popular revolt
 * Kingdom of France > Weak French Republic > Napoleon Popular revolt
 * Rome > Egypt

Basically, the the 1.5 modifier is for a revolt against a NEW, and WEAK government, put in place of a former government. The reason for usage of a 1.5 modifier was Hitler and Napoleon. Their governments went from Empire/Kingdom, to new and weak republic, which was then revolted against, popularly by the people. Timor and Co would need first, a Timor government, that is then replaced by a NEW and WEAK government, which, while still NEW, is revolted against popularly by the people. &#34;SO SAYETH THE EAGLE&#34; - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk) 04:23, July 25, 2014 (UTC)

Also, if the Netherlands is getting +1 for troop numbers, and +1 for ship numbers, how does the Muslim coalition have more total troops? &#34;SO SAYETH THE EAGLE&#34; - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk) 04:29, July 25, 2014 (UTC)

If you don't mind me stepping in here, I might explain. Quite simply, the total troops of the Dutch were divided by the total troops of the Coalition, and they got 0.7, which is rounded up to 1. Therefore, because simple mathematics hates us, the Dutch get +1 in their troop score due to a technicality. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 04:56, July 25, 2014 (UTC)

Here's what happened with Timor/Marrikuwuyanga

Stable government under Yada Gulpilil > Weak and corrupt government under Gulalin Gulpilil > A very weak and fragile state under Dosuririri Gulpilil > Protests > Weak Interim government formed by Supreme Council > Revolt > Strong and stable government under Yagan Gulpilil

Dutch should have "Larger Colonial empire" bonus for economy. You also need a penelty for you use of vassals as L.  <font color="#191970"> I am on the edge...   The EdgeofNight   15:48, July 25, 2014 (UTC)

The penalty for vassals have L was already deducted in Nations so the score became 36 instead of 40. RexImperio (talk) 16:35, July 25, 2014 (UTC)

im going to state this simply im not in any other conflict other then this. i have not converted the natives of sunda, never have never will, ive only educated their leaders along western lines for better administration. i dont intervene in internal rule of sunda all i do is control foriegn policy and economy. and most of my troops are well trained, well paid indian mercs so they would not be with low morale. also i have a uspirior navy and economy hands down im sorry. other then that if i lose fine i lose but i want ot lose to a true algo not some biased muslim crap. keep in mind if the natives were treated well they didnt give a fuck who ruled them at this point in history. also you need contrl of both sides of the straits for that bonus and timor would be bleeding after its war against the aussies. again i dont really care what happens i just want to lose or win fairly. With Blood and Iron (talk) 22:26, July 25, 2014 (UTC)

also jews are only settling the guiana colony i have left my east asian holding domgraphic unchanged as i have left their culture and way of life unchanged only batavia (otl jakarta is somewhat europeanized and that is my headquaters most of the population there is indian, chinese, and dutch not javanese.) With Blood and Iron (talk) 22:33, July 25, 2014 (UTC)

and ive been building up my naval strength in east asia since the late 1400s no way some upstart nations would beat the great dutch navy, which is recieving reinforcements of 60 ships. With Blood and Iron (talk) 22:35, July 25, 2014 (UTC)

This algorithm is a bit ridiculous. You don't get a *1.5 for a whole coallition with a SINGLE nation. And that is barely a popular revolt.

Nk is not in other sides, and he has as much popular support as you have.

And this is not punishable per se, but this is the most Caliphatised algorithm since... well, the Caliphate. Fed (talk) 23:09, July 25, 2014 (UTC)

This is the response to NK ''In the East Indies troops loyal to the East India Company back the Dutch as they force the current sultan of Sunda to resign in favor of his younger brother who is more deemed more favorable to Dutch interests and control. The Capital of Sunda Pakuan Pajajaran is stormed by East Indies troops and the new sultan is forced to sign a new protectorate treaty effectively ending all autonomy of the Javanese kingdom. With this the East India Company is now in control of the territory completely. However, a revolt occurs in areas loyal to the old sultan and troops from Jakarta and Kawali are sent to quell the revolt through fear if possible and through force if necessary. ''

This is your oppression of the Sunda and the Sundese Sultan and the Muslims of Sunda (Obviously Muslim) and also what makes you think the Sunda would be comfortable to foreign influence and just throw away nationalism when they fought for their independence against the Dutch. Also, the otl Dutch annexed Sunda in 1800s.. That was when they believed they were in complete control of Sunda, not in 1500s which has surprised me as to why no one revolted

Influence over trade in the East Indies continue to grow

If your influence has grown so much that you could virtually controlled their trade then the other states in SE Asia would be even more keen to cooperate with the Coalition and invade Sunda to expel the Dutch who could in many ways be compared to Ayutthaya

Pillaging is larger put under control with forces raiding Hindu settlements only when giving the green light by officers.

I question your use of Indian mercenaries. You have been raiding Hindu settlements which would have made the Hindus hate you but let's ignore that for now and move back to the mercenary topic. You see, if your mercenaries are Hindu then they would definitely oppose to having to leave 'Mother India' and being forced to fight overseas because that makes them caste less. The otl Hindus protested against this when they were forced to fight in Afghanistan during the Anglo - Afghan war and this was one of the reasons for the Indian War of Independence in 1857... The Hindus also held a non-cooperation movement during WWI when they were once again forced to fight overseas, in Europe. Now, if your mercenaries are Muslims; do you really think they would be willing to fight their fellow Muslims in war? Especially their fellow Muslims that are fighting to liberate the oppressed Sunda people. The Muslims would never do so, and even during WWI, there were a lot of desertions by Muslims soldiers being forced to fight the Ottoman Empire

im going to state this simply im not in any other conflict other then this

You are fighting tribes in Guinea

also i have a uspirior navy and economy hands down im sorry

Yes your Navy is superior but your economy is equally matched. You however have larger trade etc. Moving back to the navy, according to Andrew you should plausibly have 300 warships? Out of those 300 warships, you'd have to keep a large amount in Europe since the English Channel could be blocked to stop Dutch trade, right? Let's assume you keep 50% in Europe. That leaves 150 warships... Now out of those 150 warships, you would keep at least 50 in the 'New Land', right?. That leaves 100 warships out of which some have to be deployed at Sunda, some at that Dutch colony in India and some have been deployed in the Mediterranean (Rome - Egypt war) if I am not wrong? But you are still being allowed to have 130 ships to defend Sunda... Now if I am not wrong, the Ayutthayan navy was far superior in comparison to that of Dutch and at least 35% - 40% of the Malacca navy, the rest being Dutch designed warships. Our navy too is made up if 10-18% of Urdustani warships and rest being made by Dutch so would it not give us an advantage over Dutch considering that we also have a much larger navy and need less time to repair damaged ships unlike Dutch who have to send ships from Europe

most of my troops are well trained, well paid indian mercs so they would not be with low morale

My dear, low morale is when you have lesser score in Mil/Eco development category and chance below 1

timor would be bleeding after its war against the Aussies

First of all, that was a civil war that doesn't even need an algo, and even if we do consider the algo.. How would we be bleeding? I mean despite Timor being the defender, they won by 24% (Although defender can only get 4%)

This is the response to Fed ''This algorithm is a bit ridiculous. You don't get a *1.5 for a whole coallition with a SINGLE nation. ''

Ahem ahem, what do you mean by 1 nation? 6 out of the 8 members of the coalition had been affected by the popular revolt and that gives me 75% majority so according to the rules (In case you did not edit then to favour NK), the entire coalition gets the *1.5

Nk is not in other sides, and he has as much popular support as you have.

Did not understand the first part so let's move onto the second. Why do you think the people that had been robbed of their nation would support Netherlands? Any man in his right mind would support his religious brethren who have come to liberate him, not the oppressor. Let's just use an example.. Tartary has been conquered by Novgorod. The Kalmar Union declares war upon Novgorod and declare their intention to free the people of Tartary and restore the state of Tartary; do you think any former citizen of Tartary in his right mind would still support Novgorod?

''And this is not punishable per se, but this is the most Caliphatised algorithm since... well, the Caliphate''

Oh, I see.. So when Tartary first expands all around the borders of Novgorod to prevent their expansion and then expands all the way the way from the Ural to Russia Far East without facing any problem, it is completely normal. Or when European states set up colonies in America by just making a few lines on the the map to surround an area(Carving out Empire), leaving large land held by tribes in the centre and then expand in it without any problem; it is complete normal. But when my and Toby's coalition invade Sunda, we are being implausible.. When every state adds LV to its vassal (The recent Austrian war being the biggest example), it is normal but when I do it, it is a caliphatised algorithm. When Dutch develop their Eco, Mil and Infra each 10 times (30 Turns) (Feds Algo) even though 20 turns are counted, it is completely normal. But if I ever do something like that, I would be called an implausible player that needs to be banned from the game

Any other questions, NK and Fed? RexImperio (talk) 08:34, July 26, 2014 (UTC)

rimp 2 things first off i use muslim indians not hindu ones and second do not forget that in this period nationalism does not exist and their was a revolt i created one within the events of my turn.

on another matter. the muslim troops that serve in my forces are quickly becoming a leading part of the society. also you continue speaking of opression. this isa war were you 2 are trying to push me out of asia that is fair enough hegemony however do not tweak it ot your advantage. the sundanese continue to have thier old way of life they are far from oppressed and the ruling elite is well paid for and under dutch influence, the masses at this point would care little about who they are ruled by aslong as they are treated nicely and their way of life is respected and that is what i did i merely adjusted the ruling class a bit in my favor,

With Blood and Iron (talk) 08:50, July 26, 2014 (UTC)

also tell me in what world do the islands have a greater economy then the second largest trader in the world, talk to me about greater economy if you get china or urdistan in but not the islands. also you guys need to add the troops im getting as aid from european powers. also sunda fell in early 1600s it was as it is in this game a protecterate of the dutch after that. With Blood and Iron (talk) 09:03, July 26, 2014 (UTC)

I have confirmed with several professors and such 4 things. first off religious unity in the spice islands was not strong mainly due to the fact that the malay and javanese hate eachother. second im not that streched thin ive saved my resources pretty damn well. 3rd i barely use the straits which by the way are not controlled by malacca they are controlled by several powers. i use the pass between sumatra and java, and i use Batavia as a fueling base, not to mention i have a larger fleet then any of the individual states in the region and you are using older ship designs not the frigate and other ships since i never sold those models i have a fleet of 330 ships in total i can spare atleast 170 for the east indies.and finally my economy is not overstretched and ive taking part in a few wars here and there but all have been repayed and have not put a massive strain on a well built and developed economy im sorry but i have a larger economy also i believe my allies are joining the war anyways, and im only fighting agianst you guys. im sorry but religious unity didnt exist in the east, and also jews were not disliked in the east hell their numbers are minimal there. it wasnt until the late 1800s anyways that jews were disliked by muslims the muslims looked at jews as brothers against the europeans duing the crusade. so please back your claims with historical evidence. With Blood and Iron (talk) 23:35, July 26, 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Whether nationalism existed or not, there was always a sense of unity amongst all the Muslims which was why they rarely waged wars against each other (Excluding Sunni - Shia conflict) and either supported each other or remained neutral.
 * NK, why would a Muslim majority state want Christians that sympathise with Jews as their rulers? At this time, religious clerics have a lot of influence and secularism does not exist
 * 1) You have been part of 4-5 conflicts since the beginning of 1500s which would have slowed down the rise of the economy. The end of the Tulip mania would have also resulted in heavy economic losses. Now you also have to colonize land in America, protect your settlements, make sure the Dutch colonies are not attacked by other colonial settlements, deploy your navy in America etc... It would affect the Dutch economy very badly. Right now, you're in another war and you are also fighting against the tribes in Guinea. Moving on, both Timor and Malacca which imported firearms from Dutch would no longer do so, and this would too have an effect on the Dutch economy although not too much. The Malacca controlling the Straits of Malacca could also easily block all trade and contact between the Dutch and Vietnam, China and Fusahito Theocracy so? Do I need to say more? If even after this, you say that the Dutch economy is stronger (I admitted they however should get larger trade bonus), then the difference in the economy would be so less that it would be hardly recognisable

Sunda following the Dutch is ridiculous. RImps nation originated from sunda. Also they both have a common religion. since the aim of the war is not to annex but to liberate why wouldnt the sunda aid us??.

Also Fed, where were you saying that during the austria war?? Oh right because we arent european and there for not favoured by the mods Toby2: THEY CALL ME Mr. Awesome!!! You guys dont get a 1.5 bonus. you dont have supermajority for a 1.5 period. Popular revolts inquires that all your states revolted from NK or someone else which they have not. If i see any more of that then were going to have problems. For the most part this algorithm is absolutely ridiculous and not many of Rimps states would be able to fight and help him here, not all would have the capability whatsoever. i will be overlooking your previous algo for legitimacy issues (of which i see plenty)
 * 1) What Toby just said
 * 2) The Malay - Javanese hatred that you are referring to did not start until the 1963 - 1966 Malay - Indo confrontation.
 * 3) You cannot do so.. The Straits of Malacca are under the control of the Malacca Sultanate. The pass through the Sunda Islands has a lot of Timorid presence and the Sunda Straits has become a warzone which makes it impossible for Dutch merchant ships to pass through
 * 4) Batavia would have probably fell to the Muslim Coalition by now
 * 5) Older designs or not, we have naval domination. You see, Ayutthaya did fall but the people of Ayutthaya did not all die. They lived and continued to work for the new states which would be Malacca Sultanate and Thai. This means that not only would many of the previous Ayutthayan warships fall into the hands of Malacca, it also means that many people and many generals that worked for Ayutthaya would now work for Malacca effectively making its navy very strong and the recent purchase of Urdustani warships [Note: A great number of Urdustan warships are based on Spanish designs] by Timor would give the Coalition its advantage
 * 6) Well Feud said he would not intervene. It would not make any sense for Crim to intervene since he was just part of two major wars and Sine and Andrew idk. I think Andrew said he would help you
 * 7) It wasn't until 1800s that Muslims hated Jews? Seriously? Do you know anything about the history of Islam? I am not even going to start about this but every single Muslims knows that a Jew can never truly become their friend. As for the Crusades, it was the Muslims who showed mercy to the Jews and allowed them to live in Jerusalem after conquering it from the Christians and the Jews helped the Muslims because they knew that if the Muslims lost, the Christians would once again expel them from Jerusalem. Actually, the Jews can become 'friends' but you should never reveal your secrets to a Jew and the Jews were never considered brothers. [Not all Jews are hated. A great number of them probably went to heaven but that was long ago. Like before Islam probably] Seriously I am laughing right now RexImperio (talk) 17:45, July 27, 2014 (UTC)

From what i see the first one is the plausible one, and there is no 1.5 bonus. Popular revolt only happens if there is an event which says they popularly revolted, if i see anymore of this ridiculousness your going to have a punishment to live out. You win a little bit of sunda, and not all of your little nations could plausibly join this war, they simply are not economically able and would simply collapse. This is caliphate algo to the max (at least your fixed one) but thats not staying anyways.

I'm with Feud on this one. The 1.5 muliplier doesn't seem like it belongs in this algo CrimsonAssassin-See you, space cowboys 18:14, July 28, 2014 (UTC)

Countering coalition(attacker)
Infrastructure: Total: 114
 * Location: +5
 * Tactical Advantage: +5
 * Seige weapons baby ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
 * Nations: Netherlands [L] Hispania [L] Italy [L] Genoa [LV] Britannia [L] +23/5 = +5
 * Military Development: 137/74 = +2
 * Netherlands: 20
 * Hispania: 20
 * Italy: 20
 * Genoa: 20
 * Britannia: 20
 * Mil Modifiers: +37
 * Larger total armed forces, naval dominance, more total troops, nations are mobilized, nations have moderately sized armed forces
 * Economic Development: 115/74 = +2
 * Netherlands: 20
 * Hispania: 20
 * Italy: 20
 * Genoa: 20
 * Britannia: 20
 * Econ Modifiers: +15
 * Much larger economy +10
 * Larger colonial empire +5
 * Location Bonus: +23
 * Antwerp: 2
 * Gibraltar: +5
 * Cape of Good hope +3
 * Cuba: +3
 * Genoa:+2
 * Venezia: +2
 * Seville: +1
 * Barcelona: +1
 * Khambhat: +1
 * Cuzco: +1
 * Tenochtitlan: +1
 * London: +1
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +35
 * Netherlands +7 +4 (hegemony)
 * Britannia: +3 +4 (ally)
 * Hispania: + 3 +4 (ally)
 * Italy: +3 +4 (ally)
 * Genoa: +3
 * Modifiers:
 * Chance: +0
 * Edit count: 4049
 * UTC: 4:00 (4*0*0)
 * Total: 3179.70
 * Nation Age:
 * Mature: +5
 * Population: +9 +10 = +19
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 47,000/32000 = 1.468
 * Number of Ships: 295/190 = 1.55 = +2
 * 125 (Hispania)
 * 50 (Britannia)
 * 120 (Netherlands)
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Muslim Coalition(Liberator XD)
Total: 57 (cant go any higher, considering nothing else can be added) 
 * Location: +15
 * Tactical Advantage: +2
 * Nations: Timor Sultanate [L], Marrikuwuyanga [L], Tapu [MV], Gini [MV], Mudbarra [MV], Gurindji [MV], Malacca Sultanate [L], Brunei [L]: 24/5 = 4.8 ~ +5
 * Military Development: 78/ = 0 (this side gets no score period)
 * Timor Sultanate: 17
 * Marrikuwuyanga: 20
 * Malacca Sultanate: 16
 * Brunei: 12
 * Mil Modifiers: +13
 * Has not lost last three wars: 10
 * Moderately sized forces: 3
 * Economic Development: 74/137 +0 (no score no matter what)
 * Timor Sultanate: 20
 * Marrikuwuyanga: 20
 * Malacca Sultanate: 16
 * Brunei: 16
 * Econ Modifiers: +0
 * Location Bonus: +3
 * Malacca Straits: 3
 * Expansion: -4
 * Motive: +16
 * Timor Sultanate
 * Enforce hegemony: 7
 * Marrikuwuyanga
 * Aiding ally: 3
 * Malacca Sultanate
 * Aiding ally: 3 (Actual motive is same as Timor but only one nation can get heavy hitter motive)
 * Brunei
 * Aiding ally: 3
 * Modifiers: +3
 * Non-democratic supported: +4
 * Chance: +4
 * Edit count: 288 (Rimp)
 * UTC: 4:00 (4*0*0)
 * Total: 1346.34
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Young: -5
 * Population: +8
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 32000/23000 = 1.3 ~ 2
 * Number of Ships: 190/130 = 1.4 ~ +1
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result
Do i even need this??

Wait wait.. Sunda also needs needs to be added in the nations and Dutch had just sent 130 warships in the last war. Now they send 120 more?

Who says the dutch lost all their ships? also Sunda isnt being added, the war is over sunda and Sunda cant be used by your side within the same war like that. Alot of BS was made up on the last algo thats being corrected by the counterattack within the same war (which means no sunda involved in this algo)

Dutch do not have many ships over there. But I have a question, why does the European coalition have location +5?

Countryball
So, we were doing this for a little while, and then it all died. I have recently decided that I would make a comic named Neighbors from the perspective of Mississippia, being encroached on all sides by Euro powers. Just in fun and jest, no intentions to retake the clay you stole.

Oh, and in case you were wondering: '''This is my first Polandball ever! '''I am quite proud of it, so please let me know what you think and give me feedback!

Let's keep up the great Countryballin'! 10:59, July 25, 2014 (UTC)

YAY! You've given me a monocal! I say!FOR THE GLORY OF THE PARTY! 16:56, July 25, 2014 (UTC)



Indian League

 * Location: +20 +6 = 26
 * Location Bonuses: 6
 * ​Sea of Marmara: +3
 * London: +1
 * Constantinople: +1
 * Kaffa: +1
 * Tactical Advantage: +7
 * Siege Equipment: +5, Ambush: +2 (Euros are invading from coast, near enclaves)
 * Nations: Urdustan (L), Jaisalmer (MSC), Sindh (MSC), Dhundar (MSC), Orissa (MSCV), Kamarumpa (MSCV), Multan (MSC), Ladakh (MSC), Kangra (MSC), Jaunpur (MSC), Bahamani (L), Roman Empire (MS), Empire of Britannia (L), Croatia (MS) = 6
 * Military Development: 94 + 33 / 10 = 12.7 = 13
 * ​Urdustan: 20
 * Orissa: 20
 * Kamarumpa: 20
 * Bahamani: 14
 * Empire of Britannia: 20
 * Military Modifiers: 33
 * ​Has not lost any of the previous three wars: +10
 * Has Naval dominance: +10
 * More Total Troops than Enemy: +5
 * Nation is fully mobilized for war: +5
 * Moderately Sized Armed Forces: +3
 * Economic Development: 94 15 / 4 = 27
 * ​Urdustan: 20
 * Orissa: 20
 * Kamarumpa: 20
 * Bahamani: 14
 * Empire of Britannia: 20
 * Economic Bonuses: 15
 * ​Much Larger Economy: +10
 * Larger Trade: +5
 * Motive: 48 + 3 = 52
 * ​Attacking to Enforce Political Hegemoney: +7
 * ​Urdustan
 * Taking Territory of Similar Culture: +5
 * ​Bahamani
 * Aiding Ally/Economic: +3
 * ​Others
 * Motive Modifiers: 3
 * ​Mostly Non-Democratic Nations: -3
 * High Morale: +6
 * Chance: 5
 * ​Edit Count = 2,087
 * UTC Time: 2:35 = 1*2*3*5 = 30
 * 2,087 / 30 * pi = 218.5501289347
 * Nation Age: 3
 * Population: +29
 * More than ten times population
 * Participation: 10
 * Number of Troops: 3,660,000 / 520,000 = 7
 * ​Urdustan (37.5 million, 4% of pop): 1,500,000
 * Orissa (6 million pop, 4.5% of pop) = 270,000
 * Kamarumpa (3 million pop, 4.5% of pop) = 135,000
 * Jaisalmer: (2.5 million, 4% of pop) = 100,000
 * Jaunpur: (8 million pop, 4% of pop) = 320,000
 * Sindh: (7 million pop, 4% of pop) = 280,000
 * Dhundar: (2.5 million, 4% of pop) = 100,000
 * Bahamani: (8 million pop, 4% of pop) = 320,000
 * Multan: (10 million pop, 4% of pop) = 400,000
 * Ladakh: (3 million, 4% of pop) = 120,000
 * Kangra: (2.5 million, 4% of pop) = 100,000
 * Empire of Britannia: 5,000
 * Roman Empire: 5,000
 * Kingdom of Croatia: 5,000
 * Number of Ships: 65/326 = 5
 * ​Urdustan: 160
 * Orissa: 30
 * Bahamani: 35
 * Dhundar: 20
 * Sindh: 20
 * Kingdom of Croatia: 25
 * Empire of Britannia: 10
 * Roman Empire: 26
 * Total: 196

Vijaynagara
​Result:
 * Location: +25
 * Location Bonus: 0
 * ​Tactical Advantage: +1
 * Nations: Vijaynagara (L) = 5
 * Military Scores: 10/Abunch=0
 * ​Vijaynagara: 12
 * Military Modifiers: -2
 * ​Has not lost any of the previous 3 wars: +10
 * Moderately Sized Armed Forces: +3
 * Much Smaller Armed Forces: -5
 * Nation was not initially mobilized: -10
 * Economic Scores: 4/Abunch = 0
 * ​Vijaynagara: 6
 * Economic Modifiers: -2
 * ​Smaller Economy: -2
 * Infrastructure: +3
 * Motive: 5 - 1 = 4
 * ​Defending Heartland from attack that  WILL NOT cripple/destroy nation: +5
 * ​Vijaynagara
 * Motive Modifiers: -1
 * Non-Democratic Supported By the People: +4
 * Troop Morale Low: -5
 * Chance: 0
 * Edit Count = 2,087
 * UTC Time: 2:35 = 1*2*3*5 = 30
 * 2,087 / 30 * pi = 218.5501289347
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Population: 8
 * Participation: 10
 * Number of Troops: 520,000/ ?? = 0
 * ​Vijaynagara (13 million pop, 4%) = 520,000
 * Number of Ships: 65/Abunch = 0
 * ​Vijaynagara: 65
 * Total: 51

((196/(51+196))*2)-1 = 0.5870445344 = 58.70445344

(58.70445344)*(1-1/(2*2)) = 44.02834008

​Discussion
What the hell? IIRC Some of the leaders did lose a previous war *cough*egypt*cough* and although I have had Britannic aid in my naval development I probably couldn't send more than 5000 troops. And perhaps 20 ships or something? Guess that seems plausible. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green <font color="A00000">24 - Join the party  05:57, July 26, 2014 (UTC)

Eip, please let me know if you still need my aid in this war. SwankyJ (talk) 16:49, July 26, 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking that the Egyptian's use of 1.5 multiplier was still up for debate, as no-one had contradicted me on challenging it's use, which would mean that Rome would've in fact won. Also, I'll add up everything and see what I need Swank. Hopefully I'll be able to keep you out and fresh for other things :D. &#34;SO SAYETH THE EAGLE&#34; - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk) 01:42, July 27, 2014 (UTC)

Addressing A False Rumor
Hi guys, so I'm going to put this on the PMIII talk page because it is relevent to PMIII of course, and its players.

So, it has come to my attention over the past few weeks that, in the wake of the war against Austria, a specific rumor, concerning myself, has been making its way around the wiki. The rumor in detail is that I, as Bavaria, had concocted a plan with Sine's France in the very beginning of the game. This alleged plan would then carry on for several decades, with me having formed an alliance with Ms. According to the rumor, this alliance was fake and a sham, and was only a tool used by me to get closer to Ms, avoid suspicion, and somehow take him down and become Germany instead of him.

Then arrived the war against Austria, which started in, from what I remember, mid-July. It was then I was imbounded by all these private messages asking whether or not I was involved with an old plan to bring Austria down, and messages from allies asking whether our alliance was fake or not. Clearly, this was not pleasant nor fun for me.

I then started asking around about where this rumor came from, who started it, when they heard it, etc. For a timeframe, this occurred from around July 17th to the 19th.

A short time I got some answers. The author of this rumor? Sine. I was kind of bothered at this answer, and confused. I was staying neutral in the war against Austria, so why was Sine making these weird, provocative rumors concerning me. I confronted him about this in the early hours of July 19th, and he said that the rumor was false, and that those who said he was the origin of the rumor were lying. What he did admit, though, was that he had invested some interest in Bavaria, but only interest that developed within the month, not some plan that originated with the beginning of PMIII. In brief, Sine denied the rumor.

However, of course, the rumor still seems to be alive, as I've just gotten through another private message this evening with a wiki user asking me about my "plan with sine" and whether or not I was still "working with sine". This user stated that the rumor was, in fact, perpetuated by Sine and "other users". The rumor was "common knowledge". I denied involvement, which did not seem to have an effect on the user, who still seemed to think I was involved with this plan. Examples of the exchanges with this user will be below.

A conversation with separate users confirmed both the existence of the rumors and the origin of them. Below this paragraph are several examples of what was said to me over the timeframe of July 15th to the 26th.

These are from around the 18th. I've disclosed the identities of those I spoke with, because they were still private conversations, and I will only use what evidence is necessary. Click on the photos for a better resolution.





These below are from this evening, the 26th.





So, to conclude this address, I will be stating the truth. '''I was not apart of any such plan involving Sine or his France ever. '''Of course I've spoken to him before, but nothing discussing the future of Germany or the collapse of Austria. My neutrality in the war against Austria was my own decision, and I was not directly influenced by anyone or their plans.

The last time someone confronted me about these rumors was this evening on July 26th. With all due respect to everyone involved in the war, these rumors have to stop. They are seriously bothering me and making me very annoyed. Someone is obviously perpetuating these rumors, whether it be those affiliated with Sine or Ms, because, according to the wiki users I've spoken to, more than one person is behind this rumor. Either way, stop it, because this rumor spreading business is as childish as it is unsettling.

Thank you for reading and, hopefully, understanding.

- Cookie

Cookiedamage (talk) 00:17, July 27, 2014 (UTC)

For the sole record, I never said i had a "conspiracy with Bavaria to kill Austria" All i said is that i had told, once, to cookie that "If you are to come over germany as the supreme and most powerfull nation, Let me have rhineland and joint control with you over it", and the time i had desired to give central Germany to Bavaria was, and had i done so, would be to block austria from ever again becoming a threat to my power, Bavaria is far more friendly to me as an empire, than Austria would have ever been, so its quite clear why would i have such a preference with him (Someone who also happens to be a friend in a few other games), and that is over all more willing to cooperate in certain conditions, furthermore, do you think that if he was an ally of mine and had conspired against austria the whole time, wouldn't he had pretty much not fought me in the first Rhenish war?, or that i would have not helped him previously in any war in Germany?, Things that didn't happened (or that did happened), In this game i wasn't much friendly towards Bavaria, instead i've shown a more neutral behavior. Another fact is that prior to 1530 - 1534 I had no intention in killing Austria, my only previous land gains were Strassburg, part of Luxembourg and pretty much otl french borders, it was after the war for Trier that my perspective changed towards the decimation of Austria, and it was due to the Joining of other nations in his side that brought me the idea of further punishing him by giving central germany to Bavaria (action which feud dissuaded me from doing), but i have never said, Implied nor state any sort of alliance for bavaria's dominance over germany being in my plans (although indeed preferred) and neither did i discussed with cookie in doing such.

- Sine dei gloriem

Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 00:48, July 27, 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I never heard about this rumour, nor do I care much for it. However, if someone said it is common knowledge I am quite surprised. I have never seen ANYONE mention something like this in chat. Are you certain this isn't just "common knowledge" to a certain group of people? <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green <font color="A00000">24 - Join the party  05:16, July 27, 2014 (UTC)

I heard of this rumour. In fact, anyone that was curious regarding whether the rest of the HRE would intervene and join Austria's defense would have also asked on chat, 'Why did the HRE not come to Austria's defense?'

Then of course the person spreading the rumours would have said (I do not remember mine), "We do not know whether the HRE would join or not, but we merely plan to weaken Austria and place Bavaria in a much more stronger position".

I had initially come to the conclusion that this was just a plan so as to make sure that a nation as strong as Austria did not ever show up in Central Europe but after Bavaria aided Scandivania against Hamburg, I and any normal person would have thought that Bavaria was in some sort of an alliance with France/Spain/Scandivania but I don't really think it makes any sense for there to be a plan from the start if the game. It may be possible but personally, I think that's too long.. I mean for a person to wait for 170 days? RexImperio (talk) 09:32, July 27, 2014 (UTC)

Away
Will be away for the next week and cant post Toby2: THEY CALL ME Mr. Awesome!!!

A Problem
Well this problem is related to the Liberation of Sunda war. Basically, the war started on 24th and even if editions are made to the algorithm in favour of the Dutch; the war would still last for 2 years in which the Dutch would lose.

Now the problem is, today is 27th and some states have decided to aid the Dutch and but they cannot because the Dutch have 'already lost the war'. For those nations to intervene, it would require a new algorithm.. An invasion algorithm and those nations technically cannot join the Liberation of Sunda war because it has already ended.

So any nation that did not send support to the Dutch prior to turn 1576 [I checked and nobody sent aid] cannot enter the Liberation of Sunda war now. It would not make any sense... 'Thank you for wasting your precious time reading something that did not have anything to do with you. God bless your soul RexImperio (talk) 18:21, July 27, 2014 (UTC)'

I'll say that it isn't entirely impossible for algos to take longer than the actual war, and because of this, the results may alter the past. This is just the catching up period. Since the algo is still being done, I believe it's still open, and those past posts can be edited to comply with whatever outcome the algo yeilds. (Let me know if this makes sense, because it might be a little confusing) Cour *talk* 20:31, July 27, 2014 (UTC)

Cour, to be fair the same thing was done with my algorithm. Certain people were not allowed to join the algorithm, even if it changed the results, because the war theoretically should or would have already ended. For that reason I'd say that RexImperio is right, if what he is saying is correct. Mscoree (talk) 21:19, July 27, 2014 (UTC)

I believe NK should be given the opportunity to at least ask for allies/help because here's what I think has happened: What is seems, is that NK is a victim of circumstance, having to many outside obligations pop up randomly that were not planned for, and therefore took his time away from the game, and precisely at that moment, was when the war began, giving NK little time to ask for allies in a two year/day war. I believe the most fair thing to do, would be to "restart" this war, and allow both sides to amply ask for allies, and conduct their own side business now that both parties are fully attentive. &#34;SO SAYETH THE EAGLE&#34; - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk) 21:45, July 27, 2014 (UTC)
 * NK doesn't ask for allies because he believes the casus belli for the war is unjust, and the war should be retconned in its entirety.
 * It is not, but it is only declared 100% just, only a day away from it's enddate, leaving NK less than a day to gather allies, yet he hasn't been on chat, he's been too busy with the outside world, so he must rely on slow, and ineffective diplo-requests that hardly anybody reads (Believe me, you can post "Mod request" for a decade and get no response unless you specifically ask for it on chat).

To be honest, if there was any state that was willing to aid the Dutch in the war, they would have certainly intervened to join when the war had started considuering that I got on chat and discussed the war with Andrew, Sine, Feud and Crim. And if I am not wrong, the Nk found out about the war on 25th. Giving him both 25th and 26th to get allies but they failed so..I RexImperio (talk) 22:27, July 27, 2014 (UTC)

I said i wouldn't joined (Austria war is still fresh) Feud did said he was going to join before the war ended, crim won't join for too many wars and Andy did said he was going to join and that was before today. Furthermore the algo has not been edited by a mod (AFAIK) So until the war result is agreed by the prime algo mod (feud by default lel) - Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 23:38, July 27, 2014 (UTC)

It seems odd to me that Sine forbid anyone from being removed or added to his algorithm (I was put in the algorithm even though I never declared war. I asked if I could be removed but was declined.) when he determined it was "done", yet on the other side of things, when he wants people to be added despite a war being "done" he says it is fine. Tr0llis (talk) 23:48, July 27, 2014 (UTC)

First of all tr0llis, don't be an idiot, i clearly said "Feud and andy SAID they were joining" SAID i didn't said they did nor that they had, you ain't stupid to ignore those parts. Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 04:11, July 28, 2014 (UTC)

The dilemna here can simply be solved. If he can't asky for aid within two years, then he shouldn't be able to add them retrospectively, I mean there have many times in history where allies don't immediately intervene. However, a second algorithm may be added, to represent when the allies intervened (a second war), as per md event I have seen. Saamwiil, the Humble 04:17, July 28, 2014 (UTC)

Feud and Andrew might have said that they would intervene but I believe that since they never said it on the PMIII Page, it means it would not be valid. Besides, a new algorithm can be made by the invading force which at the moment are Hispania and Britannia. RexImperio (talk) 05:24, July 28, 2014 (UTC)

You really butchered the algo, cause you definitely dont get 1.5 bonus. it has to be true for the ENTIRE coalition for that kind of bonus to count. and there was never an event which revolted Sunda recently whatsoever so thats another kill to your bonus. you may have won but now youve got to deal with the netherlands, Britannia, and Hispania -Feud?

You need a Supermajority of 75% to gain these sort of bonuses, e.g. eight nations of your ten-nation coalition have a popular revolt bonus, meaning the whole coalition gets the bonus. Here RexImperio (talk) 07:03, July 28, 2014 (UTC)

Popular revolts are always induced by mod events to prevent the blatant abuse of the system here. So no you do not get the bonus. You do not have the bonus to begin with. Your blatantly attempting to abuse the bonus system so you can win, and you attempted to block other nations from joining to protect an implausible victory. Im here to get a fair algo, and your blatantly trying to create an unfair algo. NO POPULAR REVOLT BONUS IS PRESENT. Ignoring this (which the mods are agreeing is bull) will result in consequences. Your abusing a system thats in place to be created by a mod situation or specifically verified by mods. and youve done none of those things. YOU DO NOT have the popular revolt bonus, YOU DO NOT have coalition majority with said bonus, and YOU DO NOT have the ability to involve all your barely populous and extremely recent vassals that wouldnt be able to plausibly wage a war.

Novgorod

 * Location: +25
 * Location Bonus = 0
 * Tactical Advantage: +5
 * Nations: Novgorod (L) = 5, 0
 * Military Development: 14, 0
 * Economic Development: 14, 0
 * Expansion: -0
 * Infrastructure: 6
 * Motive: 9 - 15 = -6
 * Chance:
 * Nation Age: -10
 * Population: +7
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops:
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0
 * Total: 37

Moscow

 * Location: +20
 * Location Bonus =
 * Tactical Advantage: +6
 * Nations: Moscow (L) Vologda (LV), Volhynia (LV), Poland-Lithuania (L), Novgorodian Rebels (L) = 21/5=4
 * Military Development: 94 + 5 + 5 + 3 = 107/14 = 8
 * Economic Development: 94 +5 = 99/14 = 7
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure:
 * Motive: 32
 * Moscow: 7 + 4
 * Vologda: 5
 * Volhynia: 5
 * Poland-Lithuania: 5+4
 * Chance:
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Population: +7
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops:
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: -0
 * Fronts:
 * Total: 99

Results
((94/(71+94))*2)-1=0.139393939 0.455882353*(1-1/(4)) = 0.341911765

Discussion
See: http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Treaty_of_Tver_(Principia_Moderni_III_Map_Game) I said this in chat and I will say it again Vologda doesnt exist anymore, it was annexed by Moscow after the last major Russian war. Stephanus rex (talk) 16:49, July 29, 2014 (UTC)

I think it was also said to you many times that Vologda doesn't actually change the outcome of the war at all. Tr0llis (talk) 17:55, July 29, 2014 (UTC)

Changing the algorithm's results or not, you can't put unexistant nations in an algorithm. Fed (talk) 18:29, July 29, 2014 (UTC)

What I meant was, this change has no impact on the algorithm's result, and since the war is already over, it doesn't really matter. Even if it did change something I'd imagine they would just add a different state/vassal, but it appears to, if anything, only change like one or two points. Tr0llis (talk) 19:08, July 29, 2014 (UTC)

Tr0ll it sets a bad precendent, I understand that Novgorod is dead. Stephanus rex (talk) 19:21, July 29, 2014 (UTC)

Mod Nominations
Recently I hear don chat that two users were to be nominated for mod positions. Since no one has actually made the nominations yet, I have decided to put them up. Tr0llis (talk) 20:24, July 29, 2014 (UTC)

Yes

 * FirstChairmanLogo(Sky).png<font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green <font color="A00000">24 - Join the party FirstChairmanLogo(Sky).png 20:27, July 29, 2014 (UTC)
 * Kurt Cobain&#39;s Haircut (talk) 20:30, July 29, 2014 (UTC)
 * <font color="#191970"> I am on the edge...  The EdgeofNight   20:32, July 29, 2014 (UTC)
 * Harvenard2 (talk) 20:52, July 29, 2014 (UTC)
 * Da -- Stephanus rex (talk) 21:33, July 29, 2014 (UTC)
 * Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 23:05, July 29, 2014 (UTC)
 * Fed (talk) 23:56, July 29, 2014 (UTC) (put your box in a template Ed)
 * FOR THE GLORY OF THE PARTY! 02:57, July 30, 2014 (UTC)
 * Flag of Romania.svgToţi în unu; Nihil Sine DeoFlag of Romania.svg
 * Saamod! 01:22, July 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * &#34;SO SAYETH THE EAGLE&#34; - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk) 03:43, July 31, 2014 (UTC)

No

 * SwankyJ (talk) 20:31, July 29, 2014 (UTC)
 * Cour *talk* 04:28, July 31, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
If ya'll could do some of dat der elaborating I wouldn't mind  <font color="#191970"> I am on the edge...   The EdgeofNight   15:35, July 31, 2014 (UTC)

If I must, I will elaborate. As far as Eip, he's a little untested, but I think that he's generally a good candidate, and he has no votes against as of yet. As for Saam, I oppose his modship on two issues. The first is his history last game. In PMII, he started making mod events when 1) He wasn't a moderator and 2) He wasn't even a player in the game. Not to mention these events were questionable. If he can't handle power when he doesn't even have it, I don't think that it's prudent to allow him to have power. The second reason is social. Recently, I've noticed that, from an objective viewpoint, Saam is not a very nice person. Not that you have to be nice to be a mod, but I believe that a mod still needs to relate respectfully to other people. Treating others with respect should be a standard for all mods. Saam has not shown this, and this is why I am opposing his modship. Cour *talk* 23:56, July 31, 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a nice person? Well that hurts my feelings... Saamwiil, the Humble 09:51, August 1, 2014 (UTC)

Yes

 * SwankyJ (talk) 20:32, July 29, 2014 (UTC)
 * <font color="#191970"> I am on the edge...  The EdgeofNight   20:33, July 29, 2014 (UTC)
 * Saamwiil, the Humble 21:16, July 29, 2014 (UTC)
 * da -- Stephanus rex (talk) 21:34, July 29, 2014 (UTC)
 * Fed (talk) 23:56, July 29, 2014 (UTC)
 * Flag of Romania.svgToţi în unu; Nihil Sine DeoFlag of Romania.svg
 * Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 02:28, July 30, 2014 (UTC)
 * FOR THE GLORY OF THE PARTY! 02:58, July 30, 2014 (UTC)
 * Cour *talk* 04:28, July 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * Cour *talk* 04:28, July 31, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
Although I originally voted yes, I took my vote back because I think that I need to think it through more in Eip's case. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green <font color="A00000">24 - Join the party  21:33, July 29, 2014 (UTC)

Woo! #Saamod and #Eipmod! Fed (talk) 23:56, July 29, 2014 (UTC)

These are officially endorsed by the mods (we had nominated them just too busy to throw up the actual nom) Thank you trollis for putting these up, As per the rules the new mods need to be nominated by us, but this is Authorized purely off the fact we all authorized it previously

Point
Now, I have just returned from a 6 day hiatus (not really a wiki-break, but it has served the same purpose, really) and I have come back and looked at the PM3 map and was really taken aback by the ASB-ness of North America.

Barring my uber-epic Mississippian Confederation (and its not being updated, sigh) I looked to the coast. My mouth dropped.

What we have here is a classic case of map game disfunction. We establish certain rules that we deem to be good and plausible. In this case though, we mostly just kept old rules. And the rules, in a previous map game (PM2) were clearly unable to sufficiently regulate plausibility.

Let me refresh everyone's memory about (what I saw) what was the main failing of PM2 - colonization. We had an Ethiopian Canada/Northern US, but that is only ONE part of the greater failing. A Chinese Alaska, Indian Oregon, Italian Eastern US, and then in Africa we had a HUGE mess, due to Ethiopia and India.

Now, PM3 has a number of more lasting players than PM2 (at least so far) but I see it going the same way as PM2 went. A player takes a nation and thinks its his for all posterity, preventing newer folks from entering the scene, or ousted folks to rejoin the game.

--

But this is about a whole seperate (or is it really the same rooted issue) problem - that of colonization. I know people can say "this is not OTL" as much as you want, but OTL serves as a vital and valuable example to any good ATL. You cannot ignore OTL under the guise of ATL; you have to make sure it is still plausible.

Another point you can make is that Map Games are inherently implausible. Nobody really wants to make the best ATL as possible when playing a map game; they want to create a wank for their nation. Can people deny this statement? Sure. But come on, it is the truth for all but maybe 1 or 2 people.

Even Lx who has hardly expanded territorially wants to make Pskov a beacon of culture in Eastern Europe. Collie, who is mild mannered and avoids all the fights, still wants his Brazil. I've only seen 2 people who really play PM3 without the intent of being a megapower at some point in time - CommandanteLemming and Saamwiil, but even they have some motive or goal.

Therefore it is really impossible to analyze a map game without some level of bias. I'll admit, I am biased in the issue I am about the present. But to some extent some bias is needed - that is, the bias of realism. May I remind us of what may as well be the goal of any map game without the ASB-Map Games tag, and that is in our rules: "This is an attempt to simulate a real life alternate history"

--

Now, here comes the main point of my argument - colonization of North America (Borealia) has gotten out of control. Let's look at major OTL milestones in the settlement of North America: A direct quote from Wikipedia - " <span style="color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;line-height:22.399999618530273px;">By 1600 Spain and Portugal were still the only significant colonial powers. North of Mexico the only settlements were Saint Augustine and the isolated outpost in northern New Mexico. "
 * 1521 - Ponce de Leon (of Spain, the arguable hyperpower of the day) tries to settle Florida but fails (first attempt at colonization of North America mainland w/o conquest)
 * ATL 1521 - French Galveston, Scandinavian Manhattan, British Massachusetts and New Brunswick
 * 1540 - Failed French (second greatest power of the day) Attempt to colonize Quebec
 * ATL 1540 - France owns tons of the coast of Texas/Louisiana, as well as Colombia (making it quite overstreched), and a newer Austrian (who never considered colonizing America IOTL) colony in North Florida.
 * 1559 - Failed Spanish (still the hyperpower) settlement of Pensacola, Florida
 * ATL 1559 - What a mess is developing! Oldenburg (a tiny city-state) ows parts of Quebec state/Newfoundland, Scandinavia owns most of the St. Lawrence River, downstate New York and New Jersey, Prussia (literally a nobody) has done what OTL Spain cannot - it colonized Florida, an Austrian Baltimore, an INDEPENDENT European post-colonial state (see 1776 OTL), and Britain is doing things that didn't even start to happen until 1620.
 * 1570 - Failed Spanish settlement of the Chesapeake Bay (5 years after finally gaining Floridan lands), but IATL the Austrians and Romans have already done it (it would take until 1607's Jamestown to have a permanent settlement of the Chesapeake, including 1585's Failure at Roanoake nearby)

Here are a few OTL dates of the first OUTPOST SETTLEMENTS of other European nations (as in, not Spanish) Now we start to get into the more serious period of establishing colonies, but in ATL the entire coast will be taken up by 1610. Furthermore, we have random settlements of France that are hugging Mississippia's border. IOTL it took until the late 1680s to even establish FORTS that far north, but somehow IATL they own large tracts of land up there.
 * 1607 - Jamestown (England)
 * 1608 - Quebec (France)
 * 1615 - NYC (Forth Nassau) (Netherlands)
 * 1620 - Plymouth (England)

From all of this, we can see that our current colonization situation in Eastern North America (that is, of non-Spanish colonization) is massively implausible.

--

Now, as I already alluded to, people will defend their empires saying "This is not OTL," and I will buy that to some extent. However, we need to remember that the game's goal is to create a plausible 2014 scenario.

In ATL we have had a number of wars that have taken just about as much of a toll on major nations as we have had in OTL. '''We also have much higher tolerance. The primary reason for early colonization was seeking religious freedom, and that feature is not really needed IATL'''.

--

You know the issue. You know the general implausibility that is plaguing a whole continent. I do not want to just complain and do nothing about the issues we are facing. I do not really want to change the whole face of the game - just make Borealia a more plausible place to be.

Here is my solution: Reduction of the size of each colony by a non-Spanish nation in Borealia to a more modest amount to reflect a more plausible colonization scheme. At this rate, North America will be colonized in no time flat, which is just not plausible.

Additionally, I would like to have Mods decide upon the extent of any colonies growth, based upon how the main nation is doing as well as push vs pull factors of colonization.

--

'''To close, I would like to warn everyone that we are on the path to another PM2. I would like to see some semblance of plausbility here, so we can make it to 2015-6.'''

03:49, July 31, 2014 (UTC)

My Sources

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_colonization_of_North_America
 * http://www.geacron.com/
 * http://www.worldhistorymaps.com/maps/NA1536.htm
 * http://www.emersonkent.com/images/world_1340_1600.jpg
 * http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Colonisation_1550.png
 * Courtesy: Fed (note how it is only Spain in Borealia)

Counterpoint
Please feel free to argue a counterpoint here. ~Rex

Discussion
Your point only stands if you look at exclusively the Eastern Seaboard of North America. in fact, there's been far less colonisation in South America than there was IOTL, with the exception of France's Aurienne colony. Fed (talk) 03:50, July 31, 2014 (UTC)


 * France, france has an ENORMOUS clony in hesparia...probably surpassing all others combined...
 * Lx, please sign your posts, esp. on talk pages. Thank you. 01:37, August 1, 2014 (UTC)

This obvious issue was one of the reasons that kept me from joining PM games for so long, but though there may be a solution to it, but what Rex is proposing shouldn't even be on the table Kurt Cobain&#39;s Haircut (talk) 04:02, July 31, 2014 (UTC)

I have also spoken with Sine (who was receptive of the idea) of making a mod event which would effectively collapse Mississippia, which I have worked extremely hard on, in order to restore plausibility to Borealia. The event would probably be more of a chain that would take 5 years to complete, but would involve the complete destruction of Mississippia and the European colonies.

I was thinking something along the lines of major flooding which destroy Cahokia, Moundville, Etowah, and Parkin which then force millions of natives to swarm onto un-prepared or under-prepared colonies. Perhaps we would leave the capital city of these colonies in tact and just take away their expansion.

Quite simply, the expansion is what is going to get out of hand fast, and has just recently proven that that is what is going to happen. 08:16, July 31, 2014 (UTC)

As nobody has responded, I shall move to a new tactic - making sure all future colonizing powers follow the rules to the letter. I shall begin a new area in which I shall list all of the rules broken since colonization began so that we can determine the true size of each North American colony. 23:23, July 31, 2014 (UTC)

yes please...also, the french colony in South America looks suspiciously too large for its time...


 * Lx, please sign your posts. 01:37, August 1, 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my bad-Lx (leave me a message)Azarath Flag.png 15:05, August 1, 2014 (UTC)

Spain and Portugal were the only major colonizers of North America IOTL, yet other major nations had the capabilities to do it, however many were busy with other things, and failed colonies turned some nations of to colonization for a long time.

In this map game IMO, I think we need an algo or RNG to determine if a colony survives or fails in it's genesis before it can expand beyond 1px. Due to the nature of this map game, users anticipate the colonization of the Americas, knowing about them, while OTL Old World inhabitants know VERY LITTLE about the Americas during this time. Due to our 21st century superior knowledge of the Americas, we can plan our colonies in advance, leading to a degree of unrealism that is unavoidable.

Just a few thoughts - Bfoxius (talk)

I'm Back
Hey everyone. I have been a way for quite some time now, and it is in my interest to again participate in a Map Game. (Many things got in the way and I apologise for suddenly disappearing). I believe I took too much on board on the wiki and I feel as if I can join a map game and stick to it.

There have been a few hicups I have made in the past on this wiki but I would like to take this opportunity to make it up to a few of you (not sure how though).

The main reason for me posting this is to ask (especially as this is in the talk of PM3), can I please join?

Hope you have all been well, would like to know what has been happening in the past 6 months. ;)

Aternix (talk) 10:38, July 31, 2014 (UTC)

Anix you are welcome to join PM3. I am pretty sure you do not need to request permission for that, unless maybe you did something horridly wrong. Pick a nation and come join the history being altered :) SwankyJ (talk) 11:44, July 31, 2014 (UTC)

Awesome as! ;) I'll put my name down I hope I don't pick anything too impacting on other players though. I would like to join as a HRE state but I think that might get me killed straight away I will join now but can someone pleae give me a heads up if I will die in 2 turns becuase that will suck. :)

Aternix (talk) 12:11, July 31, 2014 (UTC)

Picking Hungary, or anything in Europe really, will probably get you killed fast. Also I believe Hungary is a vassal of Poland. Tr0llis (talk) 14:02, July 31, 2014 (UTC)

Native American countries are also nigh destroyed. I would recommend maybe Africa or Southeast Asian. Possibly play an American colony (which is what I did) Kurt Cobain&#39;s Haircut (talk) 18:15, July 31, 2014 (UTC)

Poland doesn't own Hungary, we deemed it too hard for Poland to pull that one due to ingame history, but yeah Europe is an area quite hard to deal with currently specially post war Germany, do what dax said, its for the best Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 18:43, July 31, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I joined in South East Asia. I may not be able to make an edit every day but I will definently stay commited as I can. I will probably post everyday of the week but don't freak out if I missed a couple of turns.

Aternix (talk) 01:28, August 1, 2014 (UTC)

Formal resignation
due to piling real life issues including my returning to canada in a little over a month. my job, family issues and new girlfriend i must formally renounce my position as the netherlands in PMIII and i give it over to Trollis. i have had fun but will be taking a small break from all wiki activities except maybe chat here and there until late september once im settled in back home. With Blood and Iron (talk) 16:31, August 1, 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Absence
Hey everyone, I'm leaving for a holiday between today (late at night so I'll be on for much of the afternoon) and August 17-18. I won't be able to post in the meantime (though I might be able to lurk around and pop in from time to time) so Steph is to copy paste my turns (thanks Steph). Eip is in charge of my Asian diplomacy if it's necessary, and Steph in charge of my European one. Fed (talk) 17:21, August 1, 2014 (UTC)

Raigama (Attacker)
Total: 194
 * Location: 20 (​Capital close to location of war)
 * Location Bonus: 2 Antwerp (Netherlands)
 * Tactical Advantage: 5 (​Siege Equipment)
 * Military Development: 1 + 20 + 20 + 10 + 5 + 5 + 3(Modifiers) = 64/14 = 5 (Same here.)
 * Nations: Raigaman (L), Netherlands (S), Empire of Urdustan (L), Vijaynagar (L), Orissa (LV) = 20/5 = 4 (Changed MSVC -> LV. Score did not change, we incorrectly added it with the MSVC.)
 * Economic Development: 4 + 20 + 20 + 10 + 5 = 59/14 = 4 (What you say are Nations, are the economic modifiers.)
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 7+4, 3+4, 3+4 = 25
 * Chance: 1
 * Edit count: 58
 * UTC: 1:00 = 1
 * Total: 58/1*pi (3.14159265359) = 182.21237390822
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Population: 6 + 2 = 8
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 157500/1500 = 105
 * Readied Troops: Raigama (7500), Urdustan and Vassals (150,000)
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Kotte (Defender)

 * Location: 25
 * Location Bonus: 0
 * Tactical Advantage: 2
 * Nations: Kotte (L) = 5/1 = 5
 * Military Development: 14, 0
 * Economic Development: 14, 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 6
 * Motive: 9
 * Chance: 2
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Population: 6
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 1500/157500 = 0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0
 * Total: 70

Result

 * ((194/(70+194))*2)-1 = 0.46969697
 * 0.46969697*(1-1/(4)) = 0.352272728
 * The First Raigaman Island War will take two years to complete a full annexation of Jaffna.

Dicussion
This is my first PMIII War Algo. I got help from others, but if you see a mistake, just type it here. NicDonalds, Beginning Editor Talk  19:19, August 1, 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Kotte was part of an empire or something, so I think the Scores should have bee7 infra, 7 eco, and 6 mil. I could be wrong. <font color="#191970"> I am on the edge...  The EdgeofNight   00:12, August 3, 2014 (UTC) PS: MSVC? Yea no I don't think that should be allowed. Ever. Also why are their 5 sets of scores for only 3 leaders?

I changed and added notes on the algo above. If I changed it to 7 infra, 7 eco, and 6 mil, it would make the war even shorter, or wouldn't influence the score that much. NicDonalds, Beginning Editor Talk  13:24, August 3, 2014 (UTC)

Pskov

 * Location: +25
 * Location Bonus = 0
 * Tactical Advantage: +1
 * Nations: Pskov (L) = +5
 * Military Development: 20, 0
 * Economic Development: 20, 0
 * Expansion: -0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 9
 * Chance:
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: +7
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops:
 * Recent Wars: 10,000, 0
 * Total: 57

Invaders

 * Location: +20
 * Location Bonus: +2
 * Tactical Advantage: +6
 * Nations: Poland-Lithuania (L), Moscow (L), Vologda (LV), Volhynia (LV), Novgorod (L), Prussia (L), Courland (LV), Estland (LV) = 32/8 = +4
 * Military Development: 160+5+5+3=173/20 = 9
 * Economic Development: 160+5=165/20 = 8
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure:
 * Motive: +6
 * Moscow: 7+4
 * Poland-Lithuania: 3+5
 * Vologda: 3
 * Volhynia: 3
 * Novgorod: 3+4
 * Prussia: 3+4
 * Courland: 3
 * Estland: 3
 * Chance:
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Population: +9+20=29
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 500,000/10,000
 * Recent Wars: -4
 * Total: 145

Pskov

 * Location: +25
 * Location Bonus = 0
 * Tactical Advantage: +1
 * Nations: Pskov (L) = +5
 * Military Development: 20+5+3-3 = 25, 0
 * Economic Development: 20, 0
 * Expansion: -0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 9
 * Chance:
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Population: +6
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops:60,000, 0
 * Recent Wars: -0
 * Total: 61

Invaders

 * Location: +20
 * Location Bonus: +2
 * Tactical Advantage: +6
 * Nations: Poland-Lithuania (L), Moscow (L), Vologda (LV), Volhynia (LV), Novgorod (L), Prussia (L), Courland (LV), Estland (LV) = 32/8 = +4
 * Military Development: 160+5+5+3=173/25 = 6.92~7
 * Economic Development: 160+5=165/20 = 8
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: +6
 * Moscow: 7+4
 * Poland-Lithuania: 3+5
 * Vologda: 3
 * Volhynia: 3
 * Novgorod: 3+4
 * Prussia: 3+4
 * Courland: 3
 * Estland: 3
 * Chance:
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Population: +8+20=28
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 500,000/60,000 = 8.3333 8
 * Recent Wars: -4
 * Leading Vassals: -8
 * Total: 92

Results
{[92/(92+62)]-0.5}*200% = 19.480%

The war, as stated by the players, lasts one year. so they can take 19.480% * (1-0.5) = 9.74% of Pskov

If they decide to have the war last three years they can gain 16.23%

and if it lasts 5 years, they can take 17.53%

Main point: I dont die, hurrah!

Discussion
...*sigh*...motive is averaged, but I know I will be ignored so...*sigh*...might be a better idea to immagine myself swimming in a scroogemcduckian vault filled with gold that belongs to me...*sigh*-Lx (leave me a message) 04:26, August 2, 2014 (UTC)

Motive hasnt been averaged for nearly 5 months.... which after some of these crazy wars ill be willing to change for the future. Sorry Lx

For your reference, here are the rules:

<p style="margin-top:0.4em;margin-bottom:0.5em;">For a coalition algorithm, all of the nations that have declared full-on war would have their own algorithm section (with them being the leader, their nation age and military build up, etc.) but because it is a coalition some of the scores for each side are worked out differently than in the usual algorithm.

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

Please dont tell me you are going to break the rules now, and then say: well, that was rather silly im going to start following the rules again. The rules arent selective, they apply to everyone. You made mistakes before, fine, at this point there really is nothing to be done, but do your bloody best to actually follow the rules once you realize that you might have forgotten some.-Lx (leave me a message) 04:40, August 2, 2014 (UTC)

Thing is, since they probably want to kill me, they will just redeclare war shredding the treaty next year and add the total, but at least I dont loose and I have some leverage in-game. No, I will not be giving up my navy, no you cannot chose my prince, no you cannot decide I wont be able to colonize. Period. thank you for ignoring me and probably mod-eventing my death next turn, hurrah for breaking the rules! Goodnight-Lx (leave me a message) 04:42, August 2, 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about, but Feud, the creator of the algorithm, looked over and approved it. Since you were refusing to sign after your nation was toppled, he also signed for you. At this point the war is over and the treaty is signed. Fritzmet (talk) 04:47, August 2, 2014 (UTC)

read the rules and you'll know what I am talking about. he has no right to sign for me. You esentially unilaterally decided that pskov is dead and will ignore all evidence to the contrary. so what's the use, might pretend i'm a space pirate with a planetworth of gold in the deck and I am about to escape the planet by blowing it to bits and selling ti for scrap. OR becoming an immortal time traveler, both more likely to happen in the next split second than anyone actualy paying attention to my post...so...I cna just about claim anything and nothing will come of it.-Lx (leave me a message) 04:52, August 2, 2014 (UTC)

Wait, feud, you're revising...thanks, I didnt think anyone would listen, thanks a lot to at least consider my thoughts, its a nice break from esentially being ingored for the past two games because "it already happened" and "nothing can be done" droning on untill nothing can actually be done because its engrained in cannon.(im referencing certain annexations and destructions of my territory for no real reason). But anyway, I hope I wont be too much of a nieusance from now on since somebody is actually listening. With joy, halleluiah-Lx (leave me a message) 04:56, August 2, 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh and im not being sarcastic, I genuinely am grateful for at least being listened to.-Lx (leave me a message)Azarath Flag.png 04:56, August 2, 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah i was wrong and im aknowledging that my bad Lx.

I'm glad that matter was sorted out. My apologies Lx, I had no idea that was a rule. Fritzmet (talk) 17:47, August 2, 2014 (UTC) Pskov is a nation fighting for its very existance. It instituted Conscription, and 10 000 people is the permanant regular standing army, which, if I may add, is not verry common in the 16th century. Pskov is a nation fighting for its life, which I am pretty sure is able to secure a fighting force of 60 000 people by enlisting less than half of the city-dwelling able-bodied male population. remember, Pskov has a population of around 600 000 before a bunch of republicans from novgorod decided to flee to Pskov, much like in the manner that the Loyalists fled to Canada during the US war of Independnance, looking to live in a territory of the Crown(in this case a territory of republican freedom). My conservative estimate of those refugees that are armed(and their families) is around 100 000 people maybe, adding to that population, most of them being willing to fight again for republican ideals. The rules say a normal force is about 2-5% of the population, but given the circumstances, a nation fighting for its very survival, facing imminent death, can draft less than 10% of the population, leaving people to work the fields with ease. Urban pop. is 73% of total in the Republic. Please dont read this as if Im being cockey, im just trying to peacefully make a case, one that my very survival is dependant upon-Lx (leave me a message) 22:50, August 2, 2014 (UTC)

In the OTL 16th century, when Pskov was invaded by Livonian forces and the city was sieged, Pskov had an army far less than you describe. Keep in mind that there Pskov was fighting to survive, with the city at risk of being destroyed. Pskov's army, numbering a few thousand, was reinforced by Daniil Shchenya's army from Moscow, reaching a total of 40,000 people. Even then they were decisively defeated. Secondly I'd imagine your population is smaller than what you describe. At the modern day the city of Pskov only has a population of about 200,000, while the entire oblast has a population of 670,000 people. Tr0llis (talk) 22:59, August 2, 2014 (UTC)

In OTL 16th century Pskov was a part if russia, so their military was decided by how much the tsar gave a damn about a region that is historically against absolute monarchy. Also, Novgorod in 1400s had a pop. Of 400 000, in 2010, it had 200 000. There is a historical president for slower pop growth in those regions, due in part to both 1603 famine and being overshadowed by Moscow and later st Petersburg.-Lx (leave me a message) 00:52, August 3, 2014 (UTC)

First of all this was before Russia was founded, so Pskov was not yet a part of it. Second their military plus "how much the Tsar gave a damn" equaled 40,000, whereas probably 20% of that was from Pskov itself. I am aware that in recent history (Late twentieth century to now) Russia's population has been dropping, but the fact that your population is claimed to be equal to the modern day's population, and slighter under the maximum population in Russia ever, makes me think it is too high. Tr0llis (talk) 01:05, August 3, 2014 (UTC)

In 1399 Pskov became a vassal of Moscow. In 1511 they were annexed. Unless Livonia invaded between 1501 and 1511 in the 16th century pskov was, for all intents and purposes, part of "Russia". In 1603 pskov region's population was reduced to a mere 17k due to the famine, and Moscow siphoning off their crops to not die. Me to get the pop I have would require an annual growth rate of less than 1% without mentioning refugees fleeing from wars to the (mostly) peaceful state of pskov. Tei such events are the northern war where Karelia was taken and civil war in Novgorod. Those events coupled with pop growth of less than 1% over 150 years leads to my current population estimate. Also, remember I got the Novgorod republicans to help me out by moving to pskov and fighting miscow because, we'll, I'm a republic and essentially helped arm them. And they are almost all are soldiers. Also conscription, never underestimate the power if desperation and propaganda. I believe my conservative estimate of 60 000 is logical, but feel free to poke holes in what I believe is a perfectly logical number.-Lx (leave me a message) 01:43, August 3, 2014 (UTC) Oh and before I forget, Novgorod had a pop of 200 k before russia started its negative population growth-Lx (leave me a message) 01:46, August 3, 2014 (UTC)

They DID invade between 1501 and 1511...Tr0llis (talk) 02:00, August 3, 2014 (UTC)

I looked it up. The army was led by Moscow, and Pskov was, like Novgirod already de facto part of Miscow. What you are citing is an army which unlike ATL had almost no firearms or artillery, vs an army that did. Which is why an army outnumbering the adversary 4:1 was soundly defeated. The timeline is 200 years diverged from OTL. The world is a dynamic(I.e. chaotic) system. In other words impossible to predict timpossible to predict effects of small changes, let alone that of a 200 years major divergences. In other words, the butterfly effect. And honestly, I didn't start believing in it until I started to look into Chaos Theory. Beutiful chaos will save me. Blood for the blood god, glory to she who thirsts, the great trickster, and decay to The Lord of pestilence. Chaos undecided sav me...But mostly you, lord of skulls. Blood for the blood god, skulls for the skull throne. Please somebody get the reference.-Lx (leave me a message) 02:25, August 3, 2014 (UTC)

Reference
The section in the rules
 * L for Leader (+5) M for military aid (+3), S for supplies (+2), C for Cultural (+2) ,V for vassalization or subordination (-2) and then W for withdrawal (-1). Along with this nations having more than two personal union nations involved (Leading) in the war will get an additional -2 per union state involved. The same applies for having three or more Leading vassals involved in the war which each will equate to -2 in an algo per vassal. This has it so many nations from say a large empire could have troops and supplies drawn in from its entire empire, but only have the relevant areas involved through the L system

Change
I added -8 to the invaders for their 4 Leading Vassals. I wont do it for the 3 in PU because, well, they are different players in a confed and therefore not really counted as together I guess? maybe? i dunno

Reference
The section in the rules
 * L for Leader (+5) M for military aid (+3), S for supplies (+2), C for Cultural (+2) ,V for vassalization or subordination (-2) and then W for withdrawal (-1). Along with this nations having more than two personal union nations involved (Leading) in the war will get an additional -2 per union state involved. The same applies for having three or more Leading vassals involved in the war which each will equate to -2 in an algo per vassal. This has it so many nations from say a large empire could have troops and supplies drawn in from its entire empire, but only have the relevant areas involved through the L system

Change
I added -8 to the invaders for their 4 Leading Vassals. I wont do it for the 3 in PU because, well, they are different players in a confed and therefore not really counted as together I guess? maybe? i dunno

Reference
The section in the rules
 * Friendly soldiers / Enemy soldiers.
 * Friendly ships/ Enemy Ships
 * Troops and ships must be in a plausible amount for your nation. No troop spamming this will be paid attention to and mods will edit to reflect your nations true troop potential (no armies of 25 million guys even if you have the population of China, its just not doable)
 * Naval battles must be conducted in the invasions of major territory overseas or in regards to attacking a major Naval Power. Major nations may not have a surface navy for whatever reason (German U-Boat fleet) and this can be circumvented.

Change
Pskov's military is 60 000 weak, the reasoning(novgorod republicans, draft, money, fighting for very existance), and I believe that it is plausible to recruit 34% of the able bodied male population(if you count able bodied male as half the male and thus a quarted of the total population, even though It is quite possible for them to be more, remember, people didnt get very old, so the 40+ category in age would be quite empty by modern standards, but I digress) =====Reference===== The section in the rules

<p style="margin-top:0.4em;margin-bottom:0.5em;">Military Modifier: 


 * Has not lost any of the previous three wars: +10
 * Has Naval dominance: +10
 * More total troops than enemy: +5
 * Nation is fully mobilized for war: +5 (must be specifically said in turn)
 * Nation has a moderately sized armed forces: +3 (60,000 to 20,000)
 * Nation has a small armed forces (20,000 or below) -2
 * Lost more than two recent wars: -3
 * Smaller armed forces: -3
 * Much Smaller armed forces: -5

Change
Add +5 in military dev, well, you know, I assume that "the veche agrees to institute the draft" and "economy diverted to weapons" and other things in my war post imply mobilization. the Sammler and moderate military cancel each other out, so just +5. I believe the Invaders already added these onm their score. I would but "economic golden age" +5 to econ aswell, but its just not worth it arguing the point.

Reference
The section in the rules

<p style="font-size:14.44444465637207px;">Goes by the last major change in the system of government.


 * Newborn nation (less than 5 years since gov change) = -10
 * Young nation (5–25 years since government change) = -5
 * Maturing nation (25–75 years) = +0
 * Mature nation (75–200 years) = +5
 * Old nation (200–300 years) = +0
 * Ancient nation (300–500 years) = -5
 * Antique nation (more than 500 years) = -15

Change
last governement change was in 1402, between 75 and 200 ytears ago.

Reference
The section in the rules <p style="font-size:14.44444465637207px;"> Change
 * The population score is the number of digits in the population + the additional bonus, which is below:
 * +2 to the larger nation that is less than five times the population of the smaller.
 * +10 if the larger nation is between five and ten times the population of the smaller.
 * +20 if the larger nation is more than ten times the population.

Pskov has 6 digit population, and there is no way that Rusia+poland hgave a 9-digit population(over 99 999 999), so -1 to both pop. scores.

I hope my changes are clear and I do not have to explain which rules they follow, as they are linked to them. Thank you for your attention, Chaos has saved me. Blood for the Blood God, Skulls for the skull throne.-Lx (leave me a message) 13:10, August 3, 2014 (UTC)

Leave of Absence.
I will not be able to post near as frequently as before due to a hellish work schedule and the beginning of term soon. I will post as I can, but if I am not available, I request that a fellow mod copy/paste when I am not available. i will be sure to let everyone know either here or in game of my absences. I await a reply with bated breath.FOR THE GLORY OF THE PARTY! 06:06, August 2, 2014 (UTC)

Damascus and allies
Total: 84
 * Location: +20 [Average]
 * Location Bonus: +6
 * Red Sea Opening: 3
 * Aleppo: 1
 * Samarkand: 1
 * Baghdad: 1
 * Tactical Advantage: +5
 * Siege Artillery: 5
 * Nations: Damascan Sultanate [L], Karaman Arab Rebels [L], Palestine [MSC], Bubudahla [MSV], Dijakkadir [MSV], Kurdistan [MS], Mansurriya Sultanate [L], Southern Persia [MS], Tartary [M], Yemen [L], Urdustan [MS]: 50/15 = 3.3 ~ +3
 * Military Development: 64/39 = 1.6 ~ +1
 * Damascan Sultanate: 12
 * Mansurriya: 20
 * Yemen: 14
 * Mil Modifiers: +18
 * Has not lost last three wars: 10
 * More troops than enemy: 5
 * Moderately sized forces: 3
 * Economic Development: 52/10 = 1.5 ~ +2
 * Damascan Sultanate: 8
 * Mansurriya: 20
 * Yemen: 14
 * Econ Modifiers: +10
 * Much larger economy: 10
 * Expansion: 
 * Motive: +5
 * Damascan Sultanate
 * Taking back territory recently held: 6
 * Mansuriyya Sultanate
 * Aiding ally: 3
 * Yemen
 * Aiding ally: 3
 * Modifier: +3
 * Most non demo: -3
 * High morale: 6
 * Chance: +6
 * Edit count: 1440
 * UTC: 01:30 (1*3*0)
 * Total: 1507.96
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Mature: 5
 * Population: 8 + 10 = +18
 * Population Modifier: +10
 * Between 5-10 times larger than opponents: 10
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 370000/100000 = 3.7 ~ +4
 * Recent Wars:

Turkish Rebels
Total: 59 x 1.5 = 88.5
 * Location: +25
 * Location Bonus: 0
 * Tactical Advantage: +1
 * Nations: Diyakabir [L], Ankara [L], Karaman [L]: 15/ 50 = 0.3 ~ 0
 * Military Development: 39/64 = 0.6 ~ +1
 * Diyakabir: 12
 * Ankara: 12
 * Karaman: 12
 * Mil Modifiers: +3
 * Much smaller armed forces: -5
 * Moderately sized forces: 3
 * Fully mobilized: 5
 * Economic Development: 34/52 = 0.6 ~ +1
 * Diyabakir: 12
 * Ankara: 12
 * Karaman: 12
 * Econ Modifiers: -2
 * Smaller economy: -2
 * Infrastructure: +12
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +9
 * Defending heartland from attack that will cripple nation: 9
 * Modifiers: -1
 * Non-demo: 4
 * Low morale: -5
 * Chance: +4
 * Edit count: 1440
 * UTC: 01:30 (1*3*0)
 * Total: 1507.964
 * Nation Age: -10
 * Newborn: -10
 * Population: +7
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 100000/370000 = 0.1 ~ 0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result
The result is subject to addition or change

((84/(59+84))*2)-1 = 0.1748251748251748 or 17.48%

(0.1748251748251748)*(1-1/(2x2)) = 13% in 2 Years

(0.1748251748251748)*(1-1/(2x3)) = 14% in 3 Years

(0.1748251748251748)*(1-1/(2x4)) = 15% in 4 years

((105/(46+105))*2)-1 = 0.3907284768211921 or 39.07%

(0.3907284768211921)*(1-1/(2x4)) = 0.3418874172185430875 or 34.18% '''after 4 years of continuous warfare, the rebel state known as the Turkish Sultanate would fall to the army sent from the East. Many men will be killed, many women will be victim to rape and many children captured as booty. The gruesome war would result in the death of thousands of people... A genocide would probably too take place against the Turkic people by the victorious Arabs who would be thirsty for blood and full of pride and this genocide would be like one never seen before for this one will change the fate of the Turks. In the end, the land would be carved, the people treated as second class citizens and their war heroes executed one by one. But.. but this will start a chain of revolts.. Indeed, people will rebel and this chain of revolts shall not end until those who call themselves the protectors of Islam yet sit upon the chariot of Satan are finally brought down. '''

Discussion
I need to know the population of the Turkish Sultanate and whether Urdustan is L in this war or not although I do believe Urdustan is supposed to be MS considering the fact that it shall make no sense for a South Asian state to be involved in a conflict taking place at the Anatolian peninsula where a landlocked rebel state is being invaded. I also need to know whether naval domination needs to be added for Damascus and allies even though ships are not involved in the war RexImperio (talk) 14:16, August 2, 2014 (UTC)

I think your algo has a few minor tweaks that need to be adjusted for. These are: Tell me what you think... 17:47, August 2, 2014 (UTC)
 * Your location. You have 3 leaders, Karaman (20), Damascus (15), and Iraq (15). I calculated distances, and Damascus is 1,000 km from the front whilst Baghdad is 1,600 km from the front. So, your location should be 17.
 * They should have (in my understanding) a 1.5 multiplier, because they recently had a popular revolt.
 * You should have a -15 for concurrent wars. Yes, you are not actively fighting Oman, but you declared war on them and have failed to negotiate peace with their nation.
 * Their motive should be 10; they are defending from an attack that will wipe out their culture and nation.

In my opinion, Rex, the location thing I guess is alright. The second point is invalid, because according to a recent statement of a moderator on the invasion of Sunda, mods specifically state there is a popular revolt in a nation (i.e. they'd say if it would get a 1.5 multiplier) and that is only after a weak government, and I doubt the Damascan sultanate is a weak government. Moreover, the concurrent wars thing. Although this is for coaltions Nations fighting multiple concurrent wars I think the same rule applies in non-coalition wars. He is not fighting a war, he simply declared war. <font color="#50E0F0">Sky <font color="#50FF60">Green <font color="A00000">24 (Party,quotes) 19:38, August 2, 2014 (UTC)

Motive is Averaged now since before this algo went up sorry for any misunderstanding, also THREE STATES, with three scores revolted please fix this before i have too This algo is subject to plenty of change

'''The Algorithm has been changed. The Turkish Sultanate is no longer a single entity and instead scores for Karaman, Diyakabir and Ankara too have been added. RexImperio (talk) 08:33, August 3, 2014 (UTC)'''

'''They get Popular revolt bonus. this is pretty clear that these three states popularly revolted on their own (and hence no abuse of the system) But a Mod consensus will be reached to determine if it stays '''

'''This algorithm is wrong and needs to be adjusted. The three rebelling provinces united into one nation, not three. Mscoree (talk) 03:59, August 4, 2014 (UTC)'''

Feud says they are 3 nations and Ms says they are one. I also do not see why they get a 1.5 Popular revolt because as far as I remember; Feud told me a nation can only get popular revolt when a Hitler or Napoleon like leader takes over following a weak government and neither is the Damascan Sultan Sulimen III a weak leader nor is there any Hitler or Napoleon like leader present in the Turkish Sultanate. RexImperio (talk) 07:59, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

There are three nations. They didnt unite into one nation. I wrote the event as per Sine's orders and they were to revolt as three seperate nations allied in the face of Damascus. As per the popular revolt, Nearly Every Turk in the Area is revolting. The Populace of these areas has revolted in its entirety and its being denoted as a popular revolt via every mod ive discussed about it. So yes its a popular revolt, The current algo is correct

In the event it says they become one nation. Mscoree (talk) 05:31, August 6, 2014 (UTC)

Native American Tribes
Recently the nation of Mississippia has entered a major civil war and collapse. I will be moderating the nations in the area for the next few years, creating some events regarding their actions in the war and after. Many tribes have underwent some form of centralization following the influence of Cahokia, with many tribes growing larger or being displaced by Europeans and other tribes, so not all tribes ATL are in the same locations as their OTL counterparts. Here is a labeled map, which will also be added to the labeled map section (native names followed by common names in parenthesis on some):



1 - Iroquois

2 - Lenni Lenape (Delaware)

3 - Susquehanna

4 - Erie

5 - Wyandotte (Huron)

6 - Odishkwaagamiig (Nipissing)

7 - North Ojibwa

8 - Tionontati (Petun)

9 - Ottawa

10 - Attawandaron (Neutral)

11 - Bodewadmik (Potawatomi)

12 - Asakiwaki (Sauk)

13 - Meskwaki (Fox)

14 - Kiwigapawa (Kickapoo)

15 - Mascouten

16 - Twightwee (Miami)

17 - Shawanwa (Shawnee)

18 - Mamaceqtaw (Menominee)

19 - Ho-chunk (winnebego)

20 - Anishinabeg (Ojibwe)

21 - Gojijiwininiwag (Rainy Lake and River Bands of Saulteaux)

22 - Santee Dakota (Sioux)

23 - Cahokia (Mississippia)

24 - Tsoyaha (Yuchi)

25 - Ani'yunwi'ya (Cherokee)

26 - Mvskoke Etvlwv (Creek)

27 - Yamasee

28 - Thimogna (Timucna)

29 - Mikasuki (Seminole)

30 - Apalachee

31 - Chatot

32 - Pensacola

33 - Taneks-haya (Biloxi)

34 - Acolapissa

35 - Houma

36 - Chitimach

37 - Bayogoulaa

38 - Natchez

39 - Yoron (Tunica)

40 - Chahta (Choctaw)

41 - Albaamaha

42 - Koasati (Coushatta)

43 - Chickasha (Chickasaw)

44 - Ugakhpa (Quapaw)

45 - Kadawdaachuh (Caddo)

46 - Kiowa

47 - Niukonska (Osage)

48 - Illini

49 - Neutache (Missouria)

50 - Otoe

51 - East Swampy Cree

52 - Moose Cree

53 - Eastern Cree

54 - L'Nu

Mscoree (talk) 04:45, August 3, 2014 (UTC)

holy mother of God, that's a lot of nations. I understand that you guys wanted to have Rex's nation fall apart, but 50 nations is a bit too much imo. <font color="#50E0F0">Sky <font color="#50FF60">Green <font color="A00000">24 (Party,quotes) 12:38, August 3, 2014 (UTC)

The more North American nations, the merrier! Bfoxius (talk)

Can Someone Post For Me
I am leaving this afternoon and would not be back till this upcoming friday, so I need someone to post for me. - Scarlet

Tsilhqot'in (Attacker)

 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage: 3
 * Nations: Tsilhqot'in (L), Nuxalk (M), Heiltsuk (M), Titunwan (M), Dakelh (C), Ktunaxa (C), Haisla (C) 20/4 = 5
 * Military Development: 2+(-2+5+5)/-7 = 10
 * Economic Development: 2+(+5)/3 = 2
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: 10
 * Motive Modifiers: 4+5 = 9
 * Chance: 0

Total: 106 and chance *1.5 = 159
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: -10
 * Population: (160,000) 6+20 = 26
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Number of Troops: 3,500/250 = 14

Neu Bayern (Defender)

 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations: Neu Bayern (LV) 4/20 = 0
 * Military Development: 0+(-2-5-10+10)/10 = 0
 * Economic Development: 0+(-2+5)/? = 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 4
 * Motive Modifiers: 4-5-15 = -16
 * Chance: 0

Total: 22 and chance
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Population: (500) 3
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Number of Troops: 250/3,500 = 0

Result

 * ((159/(22+159))*2)-1 = 75.69%
 * (75.69%)*(1-1/(2*2)) = 56.76%

After two years of fighting, the Tsilhqot'in nation has defeated the pale-faces. Their land has been taken, and the surviving pale-faces have fled.

Discussion
Yeah this algo is total Bullshit

Retconned. Nuff said

Plausible ASB elimination
Hello comrades and associates. I would like to discuss an issue that has recurred several times in PMIII; the usage of natural disasters to remove nations expanded to ASB proportions.

I do agree that nations that have expanded enormously beyond their realistic capabilities need to be mitigated. Mississipia covering half of OTL America and the Waikato Maori looking to colonize Australia are two examples that are likely implausible and rightfully deserve to be obstructed. However, summoning massive natural disasters to accomplish this is not the proper solution. The issue with this solution is twofold. These natural disasters did not occur in reality and also should not occur in fantasy; the points of divergence on this website are caused by humans, not the environment. Furthermore, and more importantly, using freak ecological cataclysms to wipe out certain nations and not others looks really bad. If Mississipia can collapse under the weight of one fictional flood, there's no reason that France or the Netherlands shouldn't have to deal with fictional floods as well.

In conclusion, do actively break up ASB developments, but do it intelligently. Use human events and influence to end implausible expansions, not fictional ecological disasters. Increased internal tension due to rapid expansion and clashes of cultures could easily lead to provinces declaring independence, civil war, or other human conflicts that would effectively obliterate any implausible empires. IhaveSonar (talk) 03:33, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

Well, arent natural disasters supposed to be, well, natual? like earthquakes and floods happening almost the same as OTL untill industrial era(and even then, earthquaques and volcanoes and whatnot would be the same, but atmospheric phenomenon would be different due to different places poluting, warming, etc...(i.e. floods, hurricanes, snowstorms, tornadoes, sharknadoes) would be different)-Lx (leave me a message) 03:47, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

Actually Rex was going to collapse for some time. The only reason why I added a bit about a flood was because previously Rex had actually written an event about a flood. Since Rex made that event I took parts of it and added it to the official event. Regardless he would have collapsed anyway. Mscoree (talk) 03:58, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes, someone could put forth the idea that until the 16th century, there were no disasters of any kind (-_-) &#34;SO SAYETH THE EAGLE&#34; - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk) 17:42, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

Some extremely detrimental natural phenomena are totally unpredictable. For a myriad of manmade and natural reasons this river could have easily flooded the main natural disasters that need to be kept OTL are Earthquakes, volcanos, and other sorts of things. Since Hurricanes happen nearly yearly and very natural and relatively moderate or minor changes in the weather can change their strength it makes sense we can manipulate hurricanes in this regard. As for Floods The mississippii river has flooded before, and in large quantities. Floods among other things can be completely random and can stem from things such as a massive increase in rainwater out of a random weather pattern etc etc. So as it stands its extremely possible for this flood to happen and We are allowed to break or harm a nation with these kinds of disasters. The main issue here seems to be the main point being that Rex was told to stop, and when he didnt get what he wanted he wanted to have himself breakup and then every european colony on the east coast be wiped out and closed to colonization for a long period of time. His Blatant ignoring of our warnings and telling him to scale back is what caused this, and the advent of a flood to do it is perfectly plausible and allowed

The mods stand firmly by this decision. It was within our power to do so, and it was one of the most plausible choices. Cour *talk* 20:26, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

Vassalisation of Lanna by Ayutthaya
I'm just writing this to confirm plausability.

I am looking to Vassalise Lanna (not that big of a deal so no point keeping it secret). I have so far been influencing the region, and their government for 5 turns and I looked over the rules to make sure I am correctly Vassalising their state. It does say that vassalising will take half as long as the size percentage to your country. Am I right to say that I can Vassalise Lanna in about 13 turns? Thanks. ;) Aternix!?  07:02, August 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * Lanna is roughly 20% of Ayutthaya and all its regions.
 * This means it will take 10 turns.
 * I'm assuming it will take about 5 more turns since (so I am told) my nation had recently gained independence.
 * We share alot of ethnicity and religion from both regions so this might take off 2 turns.

You'd have to check with a mod, but I think it should only take the ten years from the formula. As far as I'm aware you haven't just gained independence, all that happened before you joined is the Ayutthaya colonies collapsed, leaving the homeland intact. Hope this helps, Ozymandias2 (talk) 11:08, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I posted it for a mod to check hopefully they will respond. Thanks for the advice. :) Aternix!?  13:39, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

I believe ten years should suffice. Also your nation didn't gain independence, it simpy had a civil war and most of its territory collapsed. Mscoree (talk) 21:32, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

Alright thanks Ms! Aternix!?  23:09, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

Though the rules allow for a peaceful vassalisation, I recommend going to war for it to be your vassal (giving you the right to post, and what not for it). Saamwiil, the Humble 07:00, August 6, 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure I don't want to declare war on the state becuase I already have good relations with is and I have been fuunding their schools/communities and they also have a large Thai popualtion. I find it more plausable in this case the peacfully anex the state rather than declaring war on it and also dropping my stabability. I would probably declare war if it were not ethnicly and religiously alike to my nation. Aternix!? 07:24, August 6, 2014 (UTC)

You didn't declare independence. You just had a gigantic civil war which lost you all your colonies and basically ended your nations, then it came back.

You do not have to declare war; that's just the fast way, ie, if you do so, the war makes up for the 10 year vassalization period. IMO, it's not a great trade off, you shouldn't go to war.

12:44, August 6, 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, not all nations just become vassals of another because they have good relations and similar cultures. If you have the power to post as a nation, you should have the --p o w e r-- to post as that nation. If people were to spontaneously become vassals because of good relations and culture, God knows, maybe Canada would be apart of the United States, and Kazakhstan apart of Turkey. I'd also like to remind you, though this is a game, history is not like EU4. Many a time, sovereigns would declare war, and business would carry on as usual. Since you mentioned plausibility, I'd say its not plausible for countries to become vassals so easily, peaceful vassalisation may take decades, if it happens. Saamwiil, the Humble 00:08, August 7, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I understand and I see what you mean, and I agree. The nation even with good relations, will make descisions on it's own, however I will vassalise first and then slowly gain more controll over the communities. This means I will have small power to begin with after vassalisation. Ms said it shoudl only take 10 years and I will continue with this but on the point you made I will make sure I will continue to gain power over the region before I post as it. Aternix!? 08:59, August 7, 2014 (UTC)

Based on the rules I'd say ten years, yes. As Saam said it may take decades to fully gain power in the nation completely, which is also the amount of time before you can annex the state. Mscoree (talk) 19:20, August 7, 2014 (UTC)

Fragmented states
In the rules, it says it is possible to set up governments in framented states, but it'll take a while. I want to help the Ainu clan expand control of Hokkaido, any idea what kind of time frame? I'm thinking about 15 years. Cheers Ozymandias2 (talk) 10:33, August 7, 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, it's Von
Yes I can confirm your fears that I will not play this game. I was just reading back to see what happened to the Arabian Federation in PM2 and I need to remind you of being biased. Like people didn't have generations of family lasting back centuries to compel their grandchildren to start wars against people of completely different cultures. Life expectancy is much lower in the past, remember that.

Also people don't just change cultures and their beliefs in a couple of years like you all seem to have a bad habit of. If the USA (most of you guy's home nation) got invaded by a country of a completely different culture and from far away, then without genocide of the native population, the culture would not become a Chinese, Russian (or whatever) one within a few years. It takes generations!

Maybe also you guys should do another map competition with how you expect this game to be in a century or so. Basically how you'd like to see the end-game and the world end. I think it'd help you guys co-operate if you see what each other are trying to do.

Also if you'd like a new named map I can sort of help, by taking the current map and numbering each nation. Then you guys produce a list of nation names to the numbers. I can do this very quickly if its just numbers, I leave the hard part of putting names to the numbers to you guys.

BTW if you want to know how to make a labelled map it is very easy and surprised one of you haven't figured it out yet. Basically you use the add text function in a photo editor and put text on top of the map, just like how you guys colour in maps and add borders. You can do this in paint, just make the font small.

Also I'll do an AMA so if you have things to ask, say or whatever; I will reply honestly and give advice to you below. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 19:14, August 7, 2014 (UTC)

I believe the mapmakers are well aware how to make a labeled map. We have several in the labeled map section, including one I threw together just recently. I also heard that Fed will be attempting to make one large one for the entire world come 1600. I'm sure you'll be happy to help him if he needs any assistance. Mscoree (talk) 19:18, August 7, 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah that comment of mine came mainly from going over PM2 a lot rather than PM3. Yeah the maps are good. Like I say if you wanna make them quick just use numbers and have a legend to go with it. But if Fed is making a map himself I'll keep out and let him do it. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 19:47, August 7, 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, Von! How are you? Are you back from HK, or still enjoying your year abroad? 06:03, August 8, 2014 (UTC)

Sultanate of Yemen
Total: 146
 * Location: +15
 * Location Bonus: +3
 * Red Sea Opening: 3
 * Tactical Advantage: +7
 * Siege Artillery: 5
 * Invasion from sea: 2
 * Nations: Yemen [L] = 33/3 = +11
 * Military Development:
 * Yemen: 20
 * Mil Modifiers: +13
 * More troops than enemy: 5
 * Naval dominance: 10
 * Small armed forces: -2
 * Economic Development: 30/12 = 2.5 ~ +3
 * Yemen: 20
 * Econ Modifiers: +10
 * Much larger economy: 10
 * Expansion: -3
 * Motive: +3
 * Gain land/resources/strategic position: 3
 * Modifier: +4
 * Most non demo: 4
 * Chance: +7
 * Edit count: 355
 * UTC: 08:30 (0*8*3*0)
 * Total: 46.47
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Mature: 5
 * Population: 6+20 = 26
 * Population Modifier: +20
 * More than 10 times larger than opponents: 10
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 2000/80 = +25
 * Number of ships: 12/0 = +12 (Mathematically I get 0 for ships XD)
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Natives of Tiran Island
Total: 60
 * Location: +25
 * Location Bonus: 0
 * Tactical Advantage: +5
 * High Ground: +2
 * Tribal Ambush: +3
 * Nations: Tiran Natives [L] = 5/5 = +1
 * Military Development: 3/33 = 0.09 ~ 0
 * Tiran: +12
 * Mil Modifiers: -17/2 = 8.5 ~ -9
 * Much smaller armed forces: -5
 * Small sized armed forces: -2
 * Nation was not initially mobilized: -10
 * Economic Development: 12/30 = 0.4 ~ 0
 * Tiran: +14
 * Econ Modifiers: -2
 * Smaller economy: -2
 * Infrastructure: +7
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +9
 * Defending heartland from fatal attack: 9
 * Modifiers: -5
 * Low morale: -5
 * Chance: +5
 * Edit count: 355
 * UTC: 08:30 (0*8*3*0)
 * Total: 46.475
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Normal?: 0
 * Population: +3
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 80/2000 = 0.04 ~ 0
 * Number if ships: 0/12 = 0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result
((146/(146+60)*2)-1 = 0.4174757281553398 or 41.7475%

(41.7475)*(1-1/(2x3)) = 34.789 %

War lasts for 3 years before we capture the island and kill every person present at the island and then convert it into a military base, trade outpost and maybe repopulate it with Yemeni people

Discussion
Not even sure if people live at that island RexImperio (talk) 08:48, August 8, 2014 (UTC)

Romanian Hungarian Alliance

 * Location: +20
 * Location Bonus = 1
 * Tactical Advantage: +5
 * Nations: Romania (L), Bulgaria (LV), Kiev (LV), Hungary (L), Georgia (M), Spain (M) 22, 1
 * Military Development: 74+10( no defeats)+5 (Mobilized) -3 (Fewer Troops) =86, 0
 * Romania: 20
 * Bulgaria:20
 * Kiev:20
 * Hungary:14
 * Economic Development: 72/60=1
 * Romania: 20
 * Bulgaria:20
 * Kiev:20
 * Hungary:12
 * Expansion:
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 32/4=8
 * Mods: -3(Mostly Non-Demo) +6(High Morale)
 * Romania:5 (Pre-emptive Strike)
 * Bulgaria:5 (Pre-emptive Strike)
 * Kiev: 7(Hegemony) +3(Economic Gains)
 * Hungary:6(Retaking Land) +3(Economic Gains)
 * Chance:
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Population: +8
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 70,000+20,000=80,000/400,000=0
 * Recent Wars:
 * Total: 59

P-L Commonwealth

 * Location: +25
 * Location Bonus: 0
 * Tactical Advantage: +2
 * Nations: Poland-Lithuania (L), Moscow (L), Novgorod (L), Volgada (LV), Volhynia (LV) 21/22=0
 * Military Development: 100+5+5+3=113/86 = 1
 * Economic Development: 100-50+5+5 = 60/72 = 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 8
 * Poland-Lithuania: 9 +4
 * Moscow: 5 +4
 * Novgorod: 5+4
 * Volgada: 5
 * Volhynia: 9
 * Modifiers: -6(Low Moral) -3(Non-Democratic) -6(Unsupported war, Novgorod and Moscow)
 * Chance:
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Population: +8
 * Number of Troops: 400,000/90,000=4
 * Recent Wars: -9
 * Total: 44

Result-need to be redone
((59/(59+44)*2)-1=0.145631067961165

(0.145631067961165)*(1-1/(2*1))= 0.0728155339805825 = 7.28% of Russia and Poland after a year

Romanian Attack (Russian Phase)

 * Location: +20
 * Location Bonus = 1
 * Tactical Advantage: +5
 * Nations: Romania (L), Bulgaria (LV), Kiev (LV), Georgia (M), Spain (M) 17/16=1
 * Military Development: 60+10(no defeats)+5 (Mobilized) -3 (Fewer Troops) =86/93= 0
 * Romania: 20
 * Bulgaria:20
 * Kiev:20
 * Economic Development: 60/50=1
 * Romania: 20
 * Bulgaria:20
 * Kiev:20
 * Expansion:
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 29/3=10
 * Mods: +5(High Morale)+4(Supported Govt)
 * Romania:5 (Pre-emptive Strike)
 * Bulgaria:5 (Pre-emptive Strike)
 * Kiev: 7(Hegemony) +3(Economic Gains)
 * Chance:
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Population: +8
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 70,000/280,000=0
 * Recent Wars:
 * Total: 61

Russia

 * Location: +25
 * Location Bonus: 0
 * Tactical Advantage: +2
 * Nations:Moscow (L), Novgorod (L), Volgada (LV), Volhynia (LV) 21/22=0
 * Military Development: 80+5+5+3=93/86 = 1
 * Economic Development: 80-40+5+5 = 50/60 = 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 13/4=2
 * Moscow: 5+4
 * Novgorod: 5-10(unsupported war)
 * Volgada: 5
 * Volhynia: 9
 * Modifiers: -5(Low Moral)
 * Chance:
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Population: +10
 * Number of Troops: 280,000/70,000=4
 * Recent Wars: -7
 * Total: 42

Results:
0.1844660194174757 * .5 for 1 year = 9.223300970873785%

Final Result:
7% of both nations are taken + an aditional 9% of Russia.

Discussions
I am going to fix your botched motive changes now. Stephanus rex (talk) 15:46, August 8, 2014 (UTC)

Also Im calling bullshit on 400,000 troops, but I will wait for a mod to confirm or deny it. Secondly I added the war weariness for Russia. Stephanus rex (talk) 17:17, August 8, 2014 (UTC)

That appears to be the number used in previous algorithms, with the max amount of peasants mobilized. I believe they can use that number but it won't be good in the long run. Mscoree (talk) 17:53, August 8, 2014 (UTC)

Sounds fine then MS.Stephanus rex (talk) 20:28, August 8, 2014 (UTC)


 * Motive: 7
 * Poland-Lithuania: 9 +4
 * Moscow: 5 +4
 * Novgorod: 3+4
 * Volgada: 3
 * Volhynia: 3
 * Modifiers: -6(Low Moral) -3(Non-Democratic) -6(Unsupported war, Novgorod and Moscow)

Also, the military and economy modifiers are added after the dividing of the development scores. At least, that's what Crim and Cookie tell me. I am that guy (talk) 23:15, August 9, 2014 (UTC)

Nation List
It needs to be fixed. Nations that where annexed should be erased. <font color="#191970"> I am on the edge...  The EdgeofNight   00:45, August 9, 2014 (UTC)

An issue
This is something that's bothering me: the way I lost the war against Hesse, Bavaria and Scandinavia.

As you notice, the scores for the coalition opposing me counts to 140. This score is only attainable because those who wrote that side (Crim and Cookie) added their military and economic modifiers separately from their development scores and divisions. This is something that's not supposed to be done, as it goes against the algorithm rules. All the while, they refused to do the same for me! They merely added the modifiers and divided my development scores. It not consistent within the same algo.

Once more, it's not consistent with every other algo, as in every war since and before that, the modifiers haven't been added separately rather added to the development.

Simply put:


 * For the coalitions side of the algo: ( base dev. score / opposing sides ) + modifiers = final score


 * For every other war and my side of the algo: ( base dev. score + modifiers ) / opposing side.

I want to make clear I don't care about losing. What I do care about is I lost with a rigged algorithm. I have been busy these past few days and haven't had much time to write this out, but now I do. I would like to appeal this, and ask mods, Feud, Ms, somebody, to look at the algo, and tally up the scores fairly and please give a final score. I am that guy (talk) 00:29, August 10, 2014 (UTC)

Modifiers are supposed to be added before division. At least, that is what Feud told me to do in my own algorithms. Mscoree (talk) 01:04, August 10, 2014 (UTC)

Correct

I looked at it and thats exactly what is has from what i see... the modifiers are added into their side of the algo both times. the thing that totally kills it for you is the motive they got like +53 in motive

I hate that motive rule. It was beautiful, Feud, beautiful, and with one small change...

I'm at the point where I'm just not warring anymore.

01:25, August 10, 2014 (UTC)

Guns, which motive rule? Are you advocating for the return of the +53 in motive, or the averaged one? Mscoree (talk)

I know the motive is a blow to me, I just want to know what the score is without their twice-added modifiers. I am that guy (talk) 02:56, August 10, 2014 (UTC)

Feud? Can you please add up the scores without the separately added modifiers please, as you're a neutral mod? I am that guy (talk) 01:55, August 11, 2014 (UTC)

The only mods that were added were those that were apart of a diff nation rather than the other. They all still apply. @Guns just FYI averaged motive is back so calm down

I'm not disputing weather or not the modifiers apply. I'm asking you what's the score without them added separately, like what you've said is the case. Because the calculators I'm using give me an answer of 82. I am that guy (talk) 01:31, August 12, 2014 (UTC)

I got an 87 after adding, idk what i was doing but i added wrong. so this needs to be fixed for the appropriate gains.

Bavaria (Offense)
Total: +117
 * Location: +20
 * Tactical Advantage: +2
 * Nations per side: Bavaria (L), Württemberg-Swabia (L), Burgau (LV), Rhineland (M) Spain (L) Italy (L) Lombardy (L) Savoy (L) Modena (MV) Genoa (MV) Ravenna (MV) Britannia (M) = 40/10 = +4
 * Military: 263/20 = +13
 * Bavaria: +20 (modifiers +10 +5 +5 +3)
 * Württemberg-Swabia: +20
 * Burgau: +20
 * Rhineland: +20
 * Spain: +20
 * Italy: +20
 * Lombardy: +20
 * Savoy: +20
 * Modena: +20
 * Genoa: +20
 * Ravenna: +20
 * Britannia: +20
 * Economy: 250/18 = +14
 * Bavaria: +20 (modifiers: +10)
 * Württemberg-Swabia: +20
 * Burgau: +20
 * Rhineland: +20
 * Spain: +20
 * Italy: +20
 * Lombardy: +20
 * Savoy: +20
 * Modena: +20
 * Genoa: +20
 * Ravenna: +20
 * Britannia: +20
 * Locations Bonus: +20
 * Motive: +4
 * Bavaria: +7
 * Württemberg-Swabia: +3
 * Burgau: +3
 * Rhineland: +3
 * Spain: +3
 * Italy: +3
 * Lombardy: +3
 * Savoy: +3
 * Britannia: +3
 * Nation age: +1
 * Bavaria: -5
 * Burgau: +0
 * Württemberg-Swabia: +0
 * Rhineland: -2
 * Hispania :+5 (all involved states)
 * Britannia: +5
 * Expansion: +0
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 155,000/155,000 = +1
 * Bavaria: 50,000
 * Württemberg-Swabia: 25,000
 * Burgau: 25,000
 * Rhineland: 25,000
 * Spain: 5000
 * Italy: 10,000
 * Lombardy: 5000
 * Savoy: 5000
 * Britannia: 5000
 * Chance:
 * Population: +8 +20
 * Recent Wars: +0

Saxony and Thuringia (Defense)
Total: +71
 * Location: +25
 * Tactical Advantage: +1
 * Nations per side: Saxony (L), Thuringia (L) = 10/40 = +0
 * Military: 20/263 = +0
 * Saxony: +10 (-5 +5)
 * Thuringia: +10
 * Economy: 18/250 = +0
 * Saxony: +10 (-2)
 * Thuringia: +10
 * Infrastructure: +10
 * Motive: +5
 * Saxony: +5
 * Thuringia: +5
 * Nation Age: -10
 * Saxony: -10
 * Thuringia: -10
 * Expansion: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Chance:
 * Population: +6
 * Saxony: +6
 * Thuringia: +5
 * Recent Wars: +0
 * Pop. revolt bonus: *1.5

Result
((117/(117+71)*2)-1 = Bavaria claims 24% of the rebel territory. Since it is an uprising, the rebellion is crushed and Bavaria receives all Saxon-Thuringian lands back after a year of warfare.

Discussion
How does one get -15 for nation age? Was it not -10 for nations 1-5 years old?

It is, my mistake. Cookiedamage (talk) 04:17, August 12, 2014 (UTC)

Britannia did send a token force to Bavaria, see 1592 postFOR THE GLORY OF THE PARTY! 12:57, August 12, 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I put you down as mil support in the algo, however I wasn't sure whether you were joining the war as mil support, or you were just giving troops to put in the number of troops section. I put you down as M in the algo, and if that's not what you want, I'll revert the changes. Cookiedamage (talk) 20:00, August 12, 2014 (UTC)

Resignation
Hey, guys, this may be known to some of you, but this was supposed to be my last map game; I'd see it out to the end and then focus on DD and my TLs. Map games have gotten kinda boring for me, to be honest, and I'm starting to just copy-paste long turns and hope that no one notices it.

That said, though, over the last few days, I've realized that I probably won't be able to be active on this wiki continously anymore. Basically, I can't promise that I'll post every day. I can't even promise every week anymore.

So, with great reluctance, I'm resigning from my position in PM3, and generally from all map games. Sorry, guys. Hopefully my replacement will be more active.

BTW, Sine told me yesterday that China had collapsed, but MP has been posting for me over the last couple of days. Was he joking, or what?

Cheers, 16:11, August 12, 2014 (UTC)

I believe MP was posting for you, but that didn't stop the long chain of events that were made to hinder China regardless. I believe he just posted normally and in the end China fell apart from the events. Mscoree (talk) 16:23, August 12, 2014 (UTC)

Oh. See, I did not know that. I stopped reading the mod events after Batman.

16:28, August 12, 2014 (UTC)

Bye, Guns! Hope you stick around for the Return of the Squirrels and at least get some good TL and DD stuff worked out. 00:46, August 14, 2014 (UTC)

Fixed Map


Over the last few days I have been prohibited from making the maps. Recently however the map was messed up, with thousands of pixels drawn into the ocean and continents stretched, and I was asked to fix it. After several hours the map is fixed, and all the pixels should be removed. I had to redraw everything using a map from several years ago as my base, so let me know if anything is incorrect. Also to everyone who was having a problem getting their changes added to the map, on behalf of the administration I apologize for these last few days, which have been very unprofessional and inefficient. Hopefully we can figure out a better system for maps (discussion ongoing among the moderators). If by then I am impeached from moderator/mapmaker privileges, I wish everyone the best of luck. Thanks, Mscoree (talk) 16:09, August 13, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the map Mscoree! Although the map is not perfect (ie the Mansurryian purchase of Queshm Island from Urdustan was not added) I am satisfied with the changes. This is UglyTurtle, Signing off. 17:44, August 13, 2014 (UTC)

Thanx for fixing it, it was indeed getting hectic and many people (i for one) starting complaining about it. I think the new pink colours for SE asia look a little weird I guess but thats ok. I hope e can figure out a system so something like this doesn't happen again in the future. (I had also posted in map issues a few minuted ago about an error, but dont get mad at me I only just read that you did it from an old map.) Good job Aternix!?  06:19, August 14, 2014 (UTC)

Actually, can I sugest for a new system that it not be "Map issues" rather "Map update". See, only a few things that actually needed to be changed to the map get added there. I believe the system would work better if we all post our own maps using the one at the start of the 5 turns, and the map maker uses all the maps the players make and add it together. (So the talk page is used for all changes) Hope you know what I mean. ;) Aternix!?  06:26, August 14, 2014 (UTC)

The Cudgel War (1601-????)
Scandinavia (Offense)
 * Location: +20
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations per side: Scandinavia (L), Karelia (LV), Greater Ingria (LV)= 11/3= 4
 * Military: 35/20 = 2


 * Scandinavia: +4 (modifiers +10 +5 +5 +3)
 * Karelia: 4
 * Greater Ingria: 4
 * Economy: 29/20 = 1


 * Scandinavia: +2 (modifiers: +10 +5)
 * Karelia: 4
 * Greater Ingria: 8
 * Locations Bonus: +7
 * Motive: +4


 * Scandinavia: +6
 * Karelia: +3
 * Greater Ingria: +3
 * Nation age: +3

Total: 74 + chance
 * Scandinavia: +5
 * Karelia: +5
 * Greater Ingria: +0
 * Expansion: -3
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops:
 * Chance:
 * Population: 27
 * Recent Wars: +0

Finland (Defender)
Total: 46*1.5 = 69 +chance
 * Location: +25
 * Tactical Advantage: +0
 * Nations per side: Finland (L)= 5/1=5
 * Military: 20/35 = 0
 * Economy: 20/29 = +0
 * Infrastructure: +10
 * Motive: 3 (9+4-5)
 * Nation Age: -10
 * Expansion: - 3
 * Participation: +10
 * Chance:
 * Population: +6
 * Recent Wars: +0
 * Pop. revolt bonus: *1.5

Result
The rebellion is over and Finland is kill

Discussion
Had a moment to write this up. Applicable whenever. CrimsonAssassin-See you, space cowboys 04:50, August 17, 2014 (UTC)

Since you crushed the revolt, might as well not delay the war and get it over with. Mscoree (talk) 04:53, August 17, 2014 (UTC)

I don't have the time I usually do to deal with drama that entails wars (if there's no drama, wonderful). If there are issues, they need to be discussed here on the talk page. Only then do you have my permission to die post the event. CrimsonAssassin-See you, space cowboys 04:58, August 17, 2014 (UTC)

Anyone with any objections or drama to inflict, please speak now. Mscoree (talk) 05:01, August 17, 2014 (UTC)

I think that we should do this like any other mod event/revolt. At the start of a turn (be it next, or whenever it was planned for), the Mods post about the rebellion. Then Scandinavia must declare war. Then, this algo would go into effect. Thank You, 03:24, August 18, 2014 (UTC)

Not drama or anything, but why pick Finland? I mean, isn't it easier to pick a region less integrated in the rest of Scandinavia, like Sápmi or Karelia? Fed (talk) 03:36, August 18, 2014 (UTC)

Orginally I actually wrote this event about Karelia, but then I changed it to include that whole area. On the advice of Feud we changed it to be only about Finland (in an effort to motivate Crim to annex some of his vassals) and to be scored, whereas a rebellion in Karelia was made to be a peasant revolt, and to be posted at a later date. Mscoree (talk) 03:44, August 18, 2014 (UTC)

So maybe, given all of that backstory, it would be best to wait til he is back and then have the War take place in Karelia or Sapmi, instead of Finland. 03:57, August 18, 2014 (UTC)

Rebellions need to be specified, as in what constitutes "swuashing" a rebellion. As of now, you are squashing them with 8% victory. Saamwiil, the Humble 03:21, August 20, 2014 (UTC)

I see several things of concern: I am that guy (talk) 20:32, August 20, 2014 (UTC)
 * Motive is averaged, as we've established and remains on the rules page, which means Crims motive is 7 and not 21.
 * Nation age is also averaged, so the nation age score for Crims side would be 3 and not 10.

Fixed it, Nation age and motive are both averaged, you lose, 92-91. Finland is independent.

The Entire algo was wrong i mean OMFG finland score is 63 even without the expansion is less than 70... da fuq is going on here with the score blind people lel Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 00:03, August 21, 2014 (UTC)

We are waiting until he is back full time for this event to actually go into effect, right? 00:05, August 21, 2014 (UTC)

Finnish expansion should not count as the expansion was financed by Scandinavia. If anything, the expansion penalty should be given to Scandinavia, which has been expanding. The nation of Finland has not expanded at all. Finland should also have a +4 non-democratic govt. support bonus. The motive of Karelia and Greater Ingria should be 3 (ally), since they did not ever have Finland as part of their homeland; it was part of Scandinavia's empire.


 * Expansion is Expansion, regardless of all, The nation expanded, the Finnish moved to areas that stretch more their resources and their Ability to fight, their expansion stays. Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk)

Furthermore, Scandinavia's development scores are WAY overstated. Let us see what each of the three nations leading the war did in the past 20 years, shall we?

The past 20 years are from 1581 to 1601, and here is what the nation did: So, as we can see Scandinavia should have 4 military points, 2 econ points, and Ingria should have 4 mil and 8 econ, and Karelia should have 4 mil and 4 econ points. This is all pre-modifier.
 * 1581 - Navy/Military for all nations
 * 1582 - Economy for all nations
 * 1583 - WAR with Austria for Scandinavia, Econ for Karelia and Ingria
 * 1588 - Mil/Navy for all nations, Karelian Expansion
 * 1589 - Scandinavia: Nothing, Karelian Expansion, Ingrian Economy
 * 1592 - Scandinavia: Nothing, Karelian Expansion, Ingrian Economy

There should also be a -3 expansion for Scandinavia. ~Rex

Also, the nations per side isn't divided by the opposing side, it's divided by that sides total nation count, so Scandinavia's score for that is 4 while di lands is 5. And when has Scandinavia mentioned siege equipment? I am that guy (talk) 03:13, August 23, 2014 (UTC)
 * Since no one else did it, I went ahead and added these, plus reduced the expansion for for Finland to match Karelias, as I see them expand together in Crims' posts. So as it sits, Finaland narrowly gains independence. I am that guy (talk) 08:12, August 24, 2014 (UTC)

This still feels like the Brits winning the American revolution by capturing Rhode Island. --Yank 03:18, August 23, 2014 (UTC)

The Finnish also expanded, and Expansion penalty i added, if you are going to change the algo at least keep the stuff as it is... Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 04:48, August 23, 2014 (UTC)

We've got four mods in favor of retconning this war, so I'm going to call upon Modjolnir. That said, Scandinavia gets a -3 for recent wars and this will be recognized as a series of slight rebellions rather than a huge battle to decide the fate of Finland. CrimsonAssassin-See you, space cowboys 19:03, August 24, 2014 (UTC)

Going On Vacation
Need someone to post for me please. - Scarlet Outlaw

Houston We Have A Problem
It has come to my attention that there are some people who don't post at the bottom of the turn like normal users do. These people post at the top like they're too lazy to actually scroll down to post after the last person to post. This shouldn't be allowed. It's the map game equivalent of cutting in line. It's incredibly rude and incredibly annoying. I had thought that the idea that you post after the last person to do so was too basic to get wrong, but clearly I was mistaken. We need to add this to the PM lingo. Like how new users who sign up and quit quickly are called "flash players" there should be a term for people who post at the top of the turn for no good reason. --Yank 18:30, August 22, 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is. I post at the top because I post on my iPad, and later in the turn, most of the time after most people post. Some people post long turns (*looks at Feud*) and it's simply easier to post at the top than scroll down. It really doesn't make a difference because our turns occur concurrently as it's all in the same year.

Then what's everyone else's excuse? You weren't the only one doing it. --Yank 04:51, August 23, 2014 (UTC)

I used to post normally, but since the base of my posts is copypasted, i realized that a reference was necessary for me to find my posts to copy them later.it's hard to find your own post when it is wedged between many similar posts and some kilometric posts and it is completely undistinguished of the others.so i began to post them on top so it would be easier to find them.if it looks like laziness, it probably is.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (Show no shame) 07:56, August 23, 2014 (UTC)

Not to come off as rude, but the find function reall helps with that. <font color="#191970">I am on the edge... The EdgeofNight

When I first saw people posting at the top, I was a bit confused, but really, posting at the top isn't that big of a deal. Cookiedamage (talk) 22:46, August 23, 2014 (UTC)

Well I use an iphone most of the time like IATG said, we have to scroll a lot to get to the bottom due to some people having really long turns like Feud for example. So that would be my excuse. RexImperio (talk) 05:28, August 24, 2014 (UTC)

The better solution would be to limit c/p of super huge turns for main nations and vassals. I mean, these often go up updated for great lengths of times. If your nations doesn't do anything new this year and you just have to c/p, then the answer is DONT POST. Oh, and I also sometimes use iPhone, so I may start posting at the top of the turn now that that is allowed. |

Upcoming Leave of Abscence.
So as many of you know, School is starting again. I now have 5 days to finish 2 books, math work, and a few small papers and such. I have decreased activity on the wiki lately to help finish these things, however this coming Wensday the 27th of August, I will be leaving the wiki, returning on Friday, September 5th. Unless things have changed, Feud has agreed to lump my post in with his. I will be checking my talk page when I can, so if you need me for any reason, that is the way to reach me. <font color="#191970"> I am on the edge...  The EdgeofNight   22:33, August 23, 2014 (UTC)

Roman-Cappadocian War
Romans and Serbia and others Total: 200
 * Location: 20+15/2=18
 * Location Bonus: +4
 * Tactical Advantage: 6
 * Nations: Roman Empire (L), Serbia (LV), Croatia (M), Romania (M) 5+3+3+3=14/5= 3
 * Military Development: 40+10+10+5+5(mobilized) = 70/-2=70
 * Economic Development: 40+10+5 = 55/2=28
 * Expansion: -1
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 7
 * Motive Modifiers: +6-3=3
 * Chance: 0
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: 10
 * Population: 10+20=30
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 300,000=15
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

1 M0ar Turk (GET IT? GET IT?!) Total: 54
 * Location: 25
 * Location Bonus:
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * NPS: L
 * Military Development: 6/2=3-5=-2/70=0
 * Economic Development: 7/2=4-2=2/55=0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 7/2=4
 * Motive: 9
 * Motive Modifiers: -5+4=-1
 * Chance: 0
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 6
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 20,000
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result

0.5764705882352942 57.65*(.75)= Win in 2 years

Discussion
This algo was done by Steph. Address most comments regarding algo rules to him. "<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 23:38, August 23, 2014 (UTC)

You have to divide your military development by the other nation's development, not by the the remainder of pre-dividng it. Basically something like 70/6=12 (your score), 0 (their score), since they get zero automatically. Mscoree (talk) 13:27, August 24, 2014 (UTC)

My dear MS, this is where I throw a rule at you:

NPC Bonus
In every very year that a NPC nation is not at war or expanding, or having a disaster, it will build up one of the three (military, infrastructure and economy). The number of total buildups will be divided into the three categories as evenly as possible, with preference going infrastructure > economy > military. their final score will be divided by two then rounded to the nearest whole.

Ex: If a nation (ex: Moravian Serbia) existed for 11 years, or spent 11 turns not doing anything, this would mean that the infrastructure and the economy were updated in four turns, and the military in three. Dividing all those scores by two, Serbia would receive six points of bonus, two for each department (economy, infrastructure and military).

As quoted from the rules page, following this rule the algo has been done correctly, at least in that regard. Now I would understand a movement to remove this rule, but I though that this was a good war to bring it to the light of day. Stephanus rex (talk) 14:02, August 24, 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and just so it is clear, Rome will still win in 2 years without the use of the NPC rule. Stephanus rex (talk) 14:04, August 24, 2014 (UTC)

Prussian Colonies
I just had a question about my colonies. I tried to ask Feud on chat, but because I was lagging heavily I couldn't see his answer. Firstly, I was confused about the wording of the event. Does Spain/Rome conquer my colonies through events, or just destroy it? Also I lose 100% of my colonies, which have existed for decades and have thousands of citizens? This feels kind of cheap since they destroy my colonies and next thing you know they're all owned by my rivals. I mean I can understand weakening the colonies, but why 100%? Other nations have only lost a few pixels or were halted, not destroyed, that is why I think it is kind of odd and wanted to ask what was going on. NonEuclidean ツ (Talk)

This issue has since been resolved between Euc and myself. Mscoree (talk) 20:22, August 25, 2014 (UTC)

Pskov (Attacker)
Total: 64
 * Location: 20
 * Tactical Advantage: 6
 * Nations per side: Pskov (L), Prussia (L), Poland-Lithuania (L), Moscow (L), Novgorod (LV), Volgada (LV) = 26/6 = 4
 * Military: 120(+10+5+3) =138/98 = 1
 * Economy: 120+5+3=128/90 =1
 * Locations Bonus: 0
 * Motive: 4
 * Pskov: 7
 * Prussia: 5
 * Poland-Lithuania: 3
 * Moscow: 3
 * Novgorod: 3
 * Volgada: 3
 * Modifier: 4
 * Expansion: 0
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Pskov: 0 (Old Nation)
 * Prussia: -5 (Young Nation)
 * Poland-Lithuania: 5
 * Moscow: 5
 * Novgorod: 0
 * Volgada: -5
 * Participation: 10
 * Chance:1
 * Number of Posts: Edits to Main Namespace
 * UTC time: 18:44 =128
 * (Edits to Main Namespace/128)*pi=134.082193
 * Population: 8+2
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Number of Troops: 450,000/167,000 = 3

Livonia (Defender)
Total: 64
 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations per side: Livonia (L), Kuramo (LV), Saare-Lääne (LV) Hamburg (L), Oldenburg (M) = 19/5 = 4
 * Military: 80(+10+3+5) = 98, 0
 * Economy: 80(+5+5) = 90, 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 8
 * Livonia: 9+4
 * Hamburg: 3
 * Expansion: 0
 * Participation: 10
 * Chance: 9
 * Edits: 11,582
 * Time: 21:50 UTC = 10
 * (11,582/10)*pi = 3638.59261
 * Population: (3,000,000+1,200,000) 7
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Livonia: -5
 * Hamburg: 5
 * Troops: 167,000, 0

Result
((64/(64+64))*2)-1 = 0.00

0.00*(1-1/(6)) = 0.00

Pskovio-Prussian Colonies (Attacker)
Total: 57
 * Location: 20
 * Tactical Advantage: 6
 * Nations per side: Zollern Insels (L), Neu Franken (M), Pskov Imperial Company (L), Polish Imperial Isles (L) = 18/4 = 4
 * Military: 60/40=2
 * Economy: 60/40=2
 * Motive: 8
 * PIC: 7+4
 * Zollern Insels: 3+4
 * Imperial Isles: 3+4
 * Expansion: 0
 * Nation Age: -2
 * Participation: 10
 * Chance: 1
 * Population: 5
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Troops: 10,000/10,000 = 1

Livonian Colonies (Defender)
Total: 68
 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations per side: Vȯiti Vež (L), Kōlaisa Jõugõisa (L) =10/2 = 5
 * Military: 40,0
 * Economy: 40,0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 9
 * Modifier: 4
 * Expansion: 0
 * Participation: 10
 * Chance: 9
 * Population: (60,000) 5
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Nation Age: -2
 * Troops: 10,000/10,000 = 1

Result
((68/(57+68))*2)-1 = 0.088 0.088*(1-1/(6)) = 0.073333

Total Result
0.00-0.073333 = -0.073333

Livonia wards off the attacks, but only preserves it's territorial integrity.

Discussion
This needs to be 2 separate algorithms, one for the pskovian attack, and another for the counter assault. Poland does not have 12 million people. After the last century it might be 5-6, maybe 7 million but not 12. Pskov should have a motive of 9 for the counter attack algo, and I pretty sure its population is higher than 300k. Stephanus rex ( talk ) 23:27, August 30, 2014 (UTC)

Alright, here is all of my logic, with a couple of things I'll go ahead and add... So, here we go...  00:06, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) For the 2 separate algos, you are right. I will make the second soon, but just wanted to get this up here as soon as it was done.
 * 2) Poland's Population is about the same as OTL. OTL Poland was involved in a number of wars, and ATL Poland has not been in any major or devastating wars for a while now (last one was Mscovite Crusade). The OTL population (even for a smaller region than ATL Poland occupies) in 1600 was 12 million. I just took this number as a baseline. If you think it should be closer to 11 million, we can fix that, but I strongly believe that 12 million is a good estimate for this nation. Remember that P-L has always been one of the most grain-producing regions of Europe, and also has high birth rates.
 * 3) For Pskov's population, I used its OTL Modern Day population (500,000) and then multiplied it by the modern day Russia population by its 1800 population. This created a good guideline for Pskov's OTL population in 1800. Given the advances of Pskov in ATL, I think that an 1800 level is fine. Also, we need to consider the recent famine, winter storms, and war. Also, it doesn't matter in the long run; so long as it is under 1 million, he gets the same score (and even Lx doesn't claim his population is 1 million).

You need to remove Poland from this algorithm. Not only are all your claims about your relationship false, but I have repeatedly had to cross out parts of your turns in this regard for you controlling other people's nations. If you don't stop this disciplinary actions may have to follow. Mscoree (talk) 00:11, August 31, 2014 (UTC)

OTL Poland was HUGE see: http://www.euratlas.net/history/europe/1600/index.html Therefore it is safe to say that IF it stays in the algo that its population is clser to 7-8 million than 12 million. Stephanus rex (talk) 00:16, August 31, 2014 (UTC)

Meet in the middle at 9, me thinks. ~Rex

Dacia will join for the Pskov and Livonian colonies in the new world.Stephanus rex (talk) 01:26, August 31, 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget; Oldenburg's sending military aid in the form of a small contingent + supplies. Callumthered (talk) 01:39, August 31, 2014 (UTC)

You ppls forgettings that Pskov is going the Way of Scandinavia, yea? Pskov's Declaratuib was contingent on Scandinavia's Support...NO Scandinavia, No Pskov. Thank you-Lx (leave me a message) 12:46, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * to whom? Stephanus rex (talk) 01:52, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * Hehe, how did I forget to mention that? To the Livonia/Hamburg side. Callumthered (talk) 03:14, August 31, 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but since you began the war you cannot retcon your involvement. Don't worry, the Treaty of Räpina, which I am drafting now, will take you out of the war without any problems. 16:50, August 31, 2014 (UTC)

hmmmm...the invading coalition retconned...im pretty sure that's retconing involvement in a war...-Lx (leave me a message) 20:05, August 31, 2014 (UTC)

No, as per game canon (which sounds different than pre-arranged plans) Pskov invaded in 1610, followed by Prussia, Scandinavia, and Bavaria in 1611. Since Scandinavia and Bavaria have changed their posts to say that they are no longer in the war, they never declared war and therefore are not involved in this war. You, having been involved in 1610, are still at war and need to settle (may I suggest the Treaty of Räpina?) 20:12, August 31, 2014 (UTC)

Only thing I can see, is that the Pskovian sides nations per side needs to be 5, and the Livonian side needs to be 4.2 (4), in the non-colonial war. In the colonial theater, Nations per side for Pskovian forces needs to be 4, and Livonian 5. &#34;SO SAYETH THE EAGLE&#34; - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk) 20:21, August 31, 2014 (UTC)

In response to what Rex said, Prussia hasn't declare war at all, and Pskov is the war leader. Mscoree (talk) 20:22, August 31, 2014 (UTC)

You can't start a war, start losing, then decide to change history as if you didn't declare a bad war. &#34;SO SAYETH THE EAGLE&#34; - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk) 20:36, August 31, 2014 (UTC)

I started a war, with me, Crim, Non, and Cookie all on the same side, all declaring war, how is it that they are allowed to retcon the war, as we all declared war, TOGETHER under the assumption that all declare war, and then two people are allowed to be forgotten and allowed to retcon for one side's conveniance, while the other two are not, how does that work exactly?(oh, and we were winning by quite a lot before Rex officialized the retcons he found convenient)-Lx (leave me a message) 21:51, August 31, 2014 (UTC)

I think that I fixed the issue with the nation per sides. 23:50, August 31, 2014 (UTC)

No more edit wars, this algo has been locked. You may continue to discuss changes and plausibility, but no more edit wars or crossing out turns. &#34;SO SAYETH THE EAGLE&#34; - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk) 03:24, September 1, 2014 (UTC)

Alright, so the two years have elapsed. I have drafted the two treaties that will conclude this war. If NonEuc and/or Lx would like to sign the treaties, that is fine with me. If they don't before the next turn, I shall sign on the behalf of their nation because their governments were overthrown. Note to both: Do NOT negotiate the terms on the treaty pages; do it over chat with me.

Lx, if you would like, sign the treaty and you will have the choice to play as Pskov for all perpetuity without fear of future wars. Here is your treaty: Treaty of Räpina.

NonEuc, here is your treaty: Treaty of Königsberg. IATG, please note that you must sign both treaties also. Alright, that is all and this closes the topic, as far as I can tell. 07:17, September 1, 2014 (UTC)

I'm wondering why Ms removed Rex's vassals, and had P-L declare war. Ed isn't here to declare war. And no one ever mentioned siege equipment. I am that guy (talk) 16:42, September 1, 2014 (UTC)

I removed his vassals because he never actually vassalized them. That was crossed out. Ed asked me to have Poland-Lithuania declare war since I'm posting for him at the moment. Also I did a search for siege equipment and came up with several instances. Mscoree (talk) 16:44, September 1, 2014 (UTC)

Can Ed come on and confirm that? I am that guy (talk) 16:58, September 1, 2014 (UTC)

Ed entrusted me with running his nation for a while, allowing me to make such decisions. Since he is away however he probably would be unable to come on the wiki and confirm this, but off the wiki he allowed it. Mscoree (talk) 17:01, September 1, 2014 (UTC)

It just seems weird that you pull P-L from supporting Livonia, an ally, on the basis of Rex "controlling" another country. Then you have P-L declare war yourself, while Ed isn't here to do it himself. It takes but two minutes to say "Yes, I allowed Ms to declare war for me". Otherwise, why should this be allowed? I am that guy (talk) 17:10, September 1, 2014 (UTC)

Except Poland-Lithuania was never allied with Livonia, nor did it have any diplomatic ties or royal marriages. Rex controlled Poland in his turn to make those things happen and they were crossed out. Meanwhile Poland-Lithuania is allied with both Prussia and Russia. It seems weird because previously Rex thought he could circumvent the rules and do something counter to what Poland-Lithuania wanted, to the point where he was almost banned. Ed left me in control of his nation and left me specific instructiosn to do this. The reason he cannot confirm it (right now) is because he is unable to access the wiki at all right now, hence why he left his nation in someone else's control. Mscoree (talk) 17:18, September 1, 2014 (UTC)

Reximus has told many lies to people recently. He completely broke the rules and lied in an effort to get Poland-Lithuania to join him, counter to what the player actually wanted. I know it might seem odd Guy, that's because Rex is doing everything within his power to lie himself to victory, even if it means cheating, lying, or walking a thin line in terms of a ban. Why shouldn't it be allowed? Ed specifically told Ms to post for him and do this. Obviously he can't post to confirm it, he's away and left his nation to someone for a reason. That's like seeing a last will and testament which says you inherit something, and then someone says "Yeah can we get your grandma to confirm this? Otherwise I don't think that inheritance should be allowed". NonEuclidean ツ (Talk)

Ok, so it seems that I won the first part of the war, in which I won 4% of Prussia and Pskov. Since they will be soon taking pixels from me, I want to make sure that my pixel count includes the amount of pixels I have won from Prussia and Pskov.

So here comes the pixel counting! Therefore, Livonia has its 1610 pixel count (2,723) plus 122 pixels gained in its victories over Pskov and Prussia early on in this war. So, the attacking coalition can take up to <WHATEVER THEIR PERCENT IS> of my 2845 pixels. 19:50, September 1, 2014 (UTC) Alright, I have had to fix some of Ms' algo. Here are the fixes I've made: Thanks, 22:48, September 1, 2014 (UTC)
 * Prussia had (in 1610) 2015 pixels. 4% (or 81) went to Livonia.
 * Pskov had (in 1610) 1020 pixels. 4% (or 41) went to Livonia.
 * Nations per side - NPS isn't divided by the other side, but rather by how many nations are involved on a side. This was a rule that Eip brought to my attention the other day.
 * Chance: Your chance calculations were wrong. As per the rules, you must use Edicount and edits to a page within the namespace MAIN:. Also, the defender's chance is the tens place only when the defender is an NPC, otherwise it too is in the hundreds.

Dont forget to add Hamburg's Pixels since they were leaders too, I believe Hamburg is 2056 pixels, making the total coalition pixels 4901 16% of that is 784 pixels-Lx (leave me a message) 22:56, September 1, 2014 (UTC) You can only take 16% of Livonia's pixels, however. So you get 16% if 2845 (455), which by the way includes colonies, and of that number about 1/6 is occupied by you, since Poland, Volgada, Novgorod, and Moscow are all fighting alongside the Prussian front. You get 65 total pixels, therefore. 04:34, September 2, 2014 (UTC)

Ed has been gone for about a month, if anything, P-L is an NPC. Tr0llis was posting Novgorods turn for Razor, but was forced to quit because of the length of time. I am that guy (talk) 04:50, September 2, 2014 (UTC)

I made a few minor tweaks that once again changed the entire course of the algo. These tweaks were chance and NPS, and now we pretty much have SQAB. If results stand, I will not be invading Prussia with Scandinavia. 06:05, September 2, 2014 (UTC)

Not only are you edits completely unsanctioned, but they are irelevant since you have already been defeated by a different algorithm. Mscoree (talk) 10:25, September 2, 2014 (UTC)

Nehilaw

 * Location: next to the location of the war: +15
 * Tactical Advantage: Siege Equipment: 5
 * Nations Per Side on the War: +5 Nehilaw (L)
 * Military Development: +0 +10 (Naval Dominance) +5 (More Troops) +5 (Mobilized) -2 (Small Armed Forces)
 * Economic: +4 (2 turns) +10 (Larger Economy)+5 +Larger Trade +5
 * Expansion: -6
 * Motive: Total: +16 (+7 (hegemony) + 5 (Similar Culture) +4 (non Dem supported))
 * Chance: Chance :8
 * Edit count = 454
 * 4*6 =24, 454/ 24*pi = 59.398333
 * NPC Bonus: N/A
 * Special NPC Bonus nations :N/A
 * Nation Age: Maturing nation = +0
 * Population:Total: +6 (220,000) +2 (less than five times larger)
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 5000 / 3000 = 1.5
 * Theaters of War: 0
 * Total: 115.5

Eastern Cree

 * Location: +25
 * Tactical Advantage: (Tribal warfare) +3
 * Nations per side: Eastern Cree :+5 (L)
 * Military Development: +3 (6 turns/2) -2 (Small armed forces) -3 (Smaller armed forces)
 * Economy: +4 (7 turns/2)
 * Infrastructure: +4 (7/2)
 * Expansion: -0 (no expansion)
 * Motive: Defending heartland from non fatal attack +5
 * Chance:+3
 * Edit count = 454
 * 4*6 =24, 454/ 24*pi = 59.398333
 * Nation Age:0 (Maturing nation)
 * Population: +6
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Troops strength: 3000/5000 = 0
 * Theaters of War: 0
 * Total: +63

Result
Total: (115.5/(63+115.5))*2)-1 = 0.29411 (0.29411)*(1-1/(2*3))= 0.24509166666%  If the war lasts 3 years, the Nehilaw can take about 25% of the Eastern Cree territory which amounts to 415 px (of a total 1658)

Discussion
Never really done this before, so if you see a problem... Shikata ga nai! 20:39, August 31, 2014 (UTC)

Scandinavian Empire
Total: 54
 * Location: +20
 * Tactical Advantage: 1+5
 * Nations per side: Scandinavia (L), Karelia (LV), Pomerania (LV), Livonia (L): 16/5= 3
 * Military: 73/17 = 4
 * Scandinavia: +10 (modifiers +10 +5 +5 +3)
 * Karelia: 10
 * Greater Ingria: 10
 * Livonia: 20
 * Economy: 65/18= 4
 * Scandinavia: +2 (modifiers: +10 +5)
 * Pomerania: 10
 * Greater Ingria: 10
 * Livonia: 20
 * Locations Bonus: +7
 * Motive: +8
 * Scandinavia: +6+4+5
 * Karelia: +3
 * Greater Ingria: +3
 * Livonia: +5+5
 * Nation age: +3
 * Scandinavia: +5
 * Karelia: +5
 * Greater Ingria: +5
 * Livonia: -5
 * Expansion: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops:
 * Chance:
 * Population: 9
 * Recent Wars: -6 (The official verdict is that Rex has been in three wars now; Pskovian invasion, Prussian Invasion, Spanish invasion)
 * Concurrent Wars: -15

Prussia (Defender)
Total: 31
 * Location: +25
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations per side: Prussia (L)= 0
 * Military: 17/53= 0
 * Prussia: 20-3= 0
 * Economy: 18/45= 0
 * Prussia: 20-2
 * Motive: -10
 * Prussia: 10-5-15= -10
 * Nation age: +0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops:
 * Chance:
 * Population: 7
 * Recent Wars: -2

Result:
Scandinavian victory. Scandinavia is entitled to 27% of Prussian land. The war lasts for one year, Scandinavia pulling out due to the Dutch invasion, resulting in Scandinavia taking 14% of Prussia's land.

Netherlands (Attacker)
Total: 59
 * Location: 20
 * Tactical Advantage: 6
 * Nations per side: Netherlands (L), Luxembourg (L) = 10/2= 5
 * Military: 40+10+5+3=58/68=0
 * Economy: 40-2=38, 0
 * Locations Bonus: 3+2
 * Motive: 2
 * Netherlands: 3+4-5
 * Luxmebourg: 3+4-5
 * Expansion: 0
 * Nation Age: 3
 * Netherlands: 5
 * Luxembourg: 0
 * Participation: 10
 * Chance:
 * Population: 8
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Number of Troops:

Scandinavia (Defender)
Total: 63
 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations per side: Scandinavia (L), Karelia (LV), Pomerania (LV) = 11/3 = 4
 * Military: 60+10+5+3-10= 68/58=1
 * Economy: 60+5+5 = 70/38= 2
 * Locations Bonus= +7
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 8
 * Scandinavia: 9+4
 * Karelia: 5
 * Pomerania: 5
 * Expansion: 0
 * Participation: 10
 * Chance:
 * Population: 7
 * Recent Wars: -8
 * Nation Age: 2
 * Scandinavia: 5
 * Karelia: 5
 * Pomerania: -5
 * Troops:

Discussion
To avoid a massive argument here, let's work details out on chat if you have issues with this. CrimsonAssassin-See you, space cowboys 21:23, September 2, 2014 (UTC)

TBH this kinda feels like the Netherlands is stepping in to save Prussia, especially seeing the treaty Tr0llis proposed, which is a direct violation of the Treaty of Westminster. Thats all I have to say on the matter. Stephanus rex (talk) 22:58, September 2, 2014 (UTC)

Actually this was just a simple war that happened to occur at a similar time. I added that to the treaty since otherwise I would have decisively won, and I didn't want him to sign a treaty with me then just take advantage of the situation by reinvading Prussia. Those terms just ensure that this is a true white peace. Crim and I already agreed to as such. Him withdrawing from Prussia is necessary to create a white peace in the first place, and since he was already doing it, I just put it in writing in the treaty. Tr0llis (talk) 23:12, September 2, 2014 (UTC)

Spain (Offense)
Total: +95
 * Location: +10
 * Tactical Advantage: +6
 * Nations per side: Spain (L) Italy (L) = 10/5=2
 * Military: 40+10+10+5+5+3=73/20=4
 * Economy: 40+10+3+5=58/20=3
 * Locations Bonus: +20
 * Motive: +9
 * Spain: 7+4
 * Italy: 3+4
 * Expansion: +0
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 155,000/60,000 = +3
 * Chance:
 * Population: +8 +20
 * Recent Wars: +0

Livonia (Defense)
Total: +28
 * Location: +25
 * Tactical Advantage: +1
 * Nations per side: Livonia (L) = 5,0
 * Military: 20,0
 * Economy: 20,0
 * Motive: 9
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Expansion: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Chance:
 * Population: +7
 * Recent Wars: -4
 * Concurrent Wars: -15

Discussion
I would seriously like to call into question Spain getting involved independently. Spain literally has no just casus belli to do so, and has zero, I repeat, zero, strategic interest in the eastern Baltic. The whole Westminster thing is null as Prussia was the aggressor. If anything I would think intervening on behalf of Prussia against Scandinavia would be more understandable. I am that guy (talk) 04:42, September 2, 2014 (UTC)

Well here is what Westminster Article 1,Section 6 has to say: "In case of attack during a conflict between two treaty states, all issues about that war must be put off until further notice to handle the outside threat and then the previous war may be continued until a conclusive (or inconclusive) situation is reached."

So, it is quite clear that the onus falls unto Crim and NonEuc to put aside their argument and deal with this "attack." Furthermore, I am not so much as attacking as my troops are going into my land that is being illegally occupied by Prussian forces and trying to secure that land. 04:56, September 2, 2014 (UTC)

That's more or less applicable only to situations in which both nations are at threat, such as if Spain invaded them both. Furthermore Westminster is only as appliable as the states in it. If Spain wants to invade you he can. I doubt anyone in Westminster will object or stop him. Mscoree (talk) 21:54, September 2, 2014 (UTC)

Dacian-Croatian-Austrian Attack

 * Location: +20
 * Location Bonus = +2
 * Tactical Advantage: +6
 * Nations: Dacia (L),Halych (LV), Kiev (LV), Croatia(L), Austria(M) 21/5=4
 * Military Development: 80+10(No defeats)+5 (Mobilized)+5(Troops) = 120/4=30
 * Dacia: 20
 * Halych:20
 * Kiev:20
 * Croatia:20
 * Austria:20
 * Economic Development: 60+10(Much larger)+5(Colonies)=115/4=29
 * Dacia: 20
 * Halych:20
 * Kiev:20
 * Croatia:20
 * Austria:20
 * Expansion:
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 8
 * Dacia:7+4 (Hegemony)
 * Halych: 3(Econ)
 * Kiev: 3(Econ)
 * Croatia:7+4 (Hegemony)
 * Austria: 7+4 (Hegemony)
 * Chance:
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Population: +8+20(>5x)=28
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 45,000(15,000 from each)/30,000=8
 * Recent Wars:
 * Total:136

Hungary
Motive: 11/2=6
 * Location: +25
 * Location Bonus: 0
 * Tactical Advantage: +2
 * Nations: Hungary (L), Slovakia(LV)=8/11=0
 * Military Development: 12/2-5(Smaller Mil)+3(Moder. Size)=4/100=0
 * Hungary:6
 * Slovakia:6
 * Economic Development: 12-2(Smaller Economy)=4/95=0
 * Hungary:6
 * Slovakia:6
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 7
 * Mods:+4(Supported Govt.)-5(Low Moral)
 * Hungary:9(Defending Heartland)
 * Slovakia:5(Defending)
 * Chance:
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: +7
 * Number of Troops: 30,000/45,000=0
 * Recent Wars:
 * Total: 47

Results:
Toppled in 2 years.

France
Tactical Advantage: Siege Equipment: 5
 * Location: next to the location of the war: +15
 * Nations Per Side on the War: +6 France (L), Rhineland (MV)
 * Military Development: 20/3 = 7
 * Economic: 51 +1, /4 = 13
 * Much larger econ +10
 * Larger Colonial Empire +5
 * Has Naval Dominance: +10
 * Nation Fully Mobilized +5
 * Mogadishu +1
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: Economic Gains +3 + 4
 * Chance:
 * Edit count =
 * NPC Bonus: N/A
 * Special NPC Bonus nations :N/A
 * Nation Age: Mature nation = +5
 * Population:Total: +28 (More than 10 times larger)
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 120000 / 6000 = 20
 * Theaters of War: 0
 * Total: 111
 * Total: 111

Bayogoulaa

 * Location: +25
 * Tactical Advantage: (Tribal warfare) +3
 * Nations per side: Bayogoulaa :+5 (L)
 * Military Development: +3 (6 turns/2) -2 (Small armed forces) -3 (Smaller armed forces)
 * Economy: +4 (7 turns/2) Smaller economy -2
 * Infrastructure: +4 (7/2)
 * Expansion: -0 (no expansion)
 * Motive: Defending heartland from non fatal attack +5
 * Chance:+
 * Edit count =
 * =/ *pi =
 * Nation Age:0 (Maturing nation)
 * Population: +6
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Troops strength: 3000/5000 = 0
 * Theaters of War: 0
 * Total: +49

Result
Total: (111/(49+111))*2)-1 = 0.3875 (0,3875)*(1-1/(2*4))= 0.33906% 34% If the war lasts 4 years, the colony of Rouenelle can take Bayogoulaa

Discussion
Never really done this before, so if you see a problem... Shikata ga nai! 20:39, August 31, 2014 (UTC)

Nehilaw

 * Location: next to the location of the war: +15
 * Tactical Advantage: Siege Equipment: 5
 * Nations Per Side on the War: +5 Nehilaw (L), +3 Nemaska (LV)
 * Military Development: +0 +10 (Naval Dominance) +5 (More Troops) +5 (Mobilized) -2 (Small Armed Forces)
 * Economic: +6 (3 turns) +10 (Larger Economy)+5 Larger Trade
 * Expansion: -9 (9 turns)
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Motive: Total: +16 (+7 (hegemony) + 5 (Similar Culture) +4 (non Dem supported))
 * Chance: +8
 * Edit count = 483
 * 2*5 =10, 483/ 10*pi = 151.7389
 * NPC Bonus: N/A
 * Special NPC Bonus nations :N/A
 * Nation Age: Maturing nation = +0
 * Population:Total: +6, +2 (less than five times larger)
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 6000 / 3000 = 2
 * Theaters of War: 0
 * Total: 98

Eastern Cree

 * Location: +25
 * Tactical Advantage: (Tribal warfare) +3
 * Nations per side: Eastern Cree :+5 (L)
 * Military Development: +3 (6 turns/2) -2 (Small armed forces) -3 (Smaller armed forces), -10 (Not mobilized)
 * Economy: +3 (6 turns/2)
 * Infrastructure: +3 (6/2)
 * Expansion: -0 (no expansion)
 * Recent Wars:-2
 * Motive: Defending core from fatal attack +10
 * Chance: +9
 * Edit count = 483
 * 2*5 =10, 483/ 10*pi = 151.7389
 * Nation Age: 0 (Maturing nation)
 * Population: +6
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Troops strength: 3000/6000 = 0
 * Theaters of War: 0
 * Total: 60

Result
Total: (98/(60+98))*2)-1 = 0.24050 (0.24050)*(1-1/(2*1))= 0.12025 ; In one year, the Nehilaw take 12%, which, combined with the previous war, reaches 33.3%. The Eastern Cree government is toppled.

Discussion

 * Feel free to fix any issues you notice. Shikata ga nai! 22:37, September 5, 2014 (UTC)

Bavaria & Co.

 * Location: +20
 * Location bonus: +9
 * Tactical Advantage: +5
 * Nations per side: Bavaria (L), Swabia-Württemberg (L), Würzburg (LV), Scandinavia (L), Brandenburg (L), Schleswig (LV), Westphalia (L), E. Trier (LV), E. Cologne (LV), Mainz (LV), Palatinate (LV), Rome (L) = 44/11 = +4
 * Military: 273/57 = +5
 * Bavaria: +20 +10 +3 +5
 * Swabia-Württemberg: +20
 * Würzburg: +20
 * Scandinavia: +20 +5 +10
 * Schleswig: +20
 * Brandenburg: +20
 * Westphalia: +20
 * East Cologne: +20
 * East Trier: +20
 * Mainz: +20
 * Palatinate: +20
 * Rome: +20
 * Economy: 265/42 = +6
 * Bavaria: +20 +10
 * Swabia-Württemberg: +20
 * Würzburg: +20
 * Scandinavia: +20 +5 +5
 * Schleswig: +20
 * Brandenburg: +20
 * Westphalia: +20
 * East Cologne: +20
 * East Trier: +20
 * Mainz: +20
 * Palatinate: +20
 * Rome: +20 +5
 * Motive: +3
 * Bavaria: +7
 * Swabia-Württemberg: +3
 * Würzburg: +3
 * Scandinavia: +4
 * Schleswig: +3
 * Brandenburg: +3
 * Westphalia: +3
 * East Cologne: +3
 * East Trier: +3
 * Mainz: +3
 * Palatinate: +3
 * Rome: +3
 * Expansion: +0
 * Nation Age: +0
 * Participation: +10
 * Population: +8 +10
 * Number of troops: 317,000/317,000 = +1
 * Bavaria & Vassals: 100,000
 * Rome: 50,000
 * Scandinavia & Vassals: 75,000
 * Westphalia: 92,000
 * Recent Wars: -6
 * Coalition Modifiers: -3 (Non-dem. gov't)
 * Chance: +3
 * ​Edits: 1,496
 * UTC: 16:23 = 36
 * (1496/36)*3.14 = +5
 * High Morale Bonus: +6
 * Total: 81

Hamburg

 * Location: +25
 * Location bonus: +0
 * Tactical Advantage: 
 * Nations per side: Hamburg (L), Lubeck (LV), Bruchhausen (LV) = 11/42 = +0
 * Military: 42/263 = +0
 * Hamburg: +20 -3 -5 -10
 * Lubeck: +20
 * Bruchhausen: +20
 * Economy: 58/255 = +0
 * Hamburg: +20 -2
 * Lubeck: +20
 * Bruchhausen: +20
 * Locations Bonus: +2
 * Motive: +5
 * Hamburg: +9
 * Lubeck: +3
 * Bruchhausen: +3
 * Expansion: +0
 * Nation Age: +0
 * Participation: +10
 * Population: +7
 * Number of troops: 
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Modifiers: -3, -6 (Low Morale

(81/(38+81))*2)-1 = 0.3274 > 36%

Hamburg is crushed.

Discussion
chance is wrong, should be 5 which gives you high morale +6. That makes your score 83. Idiots... <font color="#50E0F0">Sky <font color="#50FF60">Green <font color="A00000">24 (Party,quotes) 21:03, September 8, 2014 (UTC)

Fixed chance. Cookiedamage (talk) 22:10, September 8, 2014 (UTC)

Reme did not attack the Borealian Hamburger colony. Just to make that clear to you guys. Saturn (Talk/Blog) 23:03, September 8, 2014 (UTC)

No further Edition from any side to this algo, Further continuing this will result in the banning of whoever edits it without Mod Permission Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 00:35, September 10, 2014 (UTC)

British Invasion of Scandinavia (1619 - )
==

Britannia (Attacker)
Total: +60
 * Location: +20
 * Tactical Advantage: +6
 * Nations per side: Britannia (L), Scotland (L), Eire (LV), Calais (LV) = 16/11=2
 * Military: 0+10+5=15/60=0
 * Economy: 0-2+5=3/60= 0
 * Locations Bonus: 1
 * Motive: +6
 * Britannia: 3 +4
 * Scotland: 3+4
 * Eire: 3
 * Calais: 3
 * Expansion: +0
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops:
 * Chance:
 * Population: +8 +2
 * Recent Wars: +0
 * Troops:

Scandinavia (Defender)
Total: +52
 * Location: +25
 * Tactical Advantage: +1
 * Nations per side: Scandinavia (L), Karelia (LV), Pomerania (LV)=11, 0
 * Military: 60+5+10=65/15= 4
 * Economy: 60+5= 65/3=22
 * Economic Bonus: 3+1+1
 * Infrastructure:
 * Motive: 5
 * Scandinavia: 10
 * Karelia: 10
 * Pomerania: 10
 * Expansion: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Chance:
 * Population: +8
 * Recent Wars: -10
 * Nation Age: -2
 * Troops
 * Concurrent Wars: -15

Crossed out until Confirmed and Ratified by Andy Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 00:45, September 8, 2014 (UTC)

Not ok with this. Really not okay. 02:25, September 8, 2014 (UTC)

Bavaria & Co.

 * Location: +20
 * Location bonus: +9
 * Tactical Advantage: +5
 * Nations per side: Bavaria (L), Swabia-Württemberg (L), Würzburg (LV), Scandinavia (L), Brandenburg (L), Schleswig (LV), Westphalia (L), E. Trier (LV), E. Cologne (LV), Mainz (LV), Palatinate (LV), Rome (L) = 44/12 = +4
 * Military: 129/92 = +1
 * Bavaria: +20 +10 +3 +5
 * Swabia-Württemberg: +20
 * Würzburg: +20
 * Scandinavia: +6 +5 +10
 * Schleswig: +6
 * Brandenburg: +4
 * Westphalia: +0
 * East Cologne: +0
 * East Trier: +0
 * Mainz: +0
 * Palatinate: +0
 * Rome: +20
 * Economy: 115/92 = +1
 * Bavaria: +20 +10
 * Swabia-Württemberg: +20
 * Würzburg: +20
 * Scandinavia: +2 +5 +5
 * Schleswig: +2
 * Brandenburg: +6
 * Westphalia: +0
 * East Cologne: +0
 * East Trier: +0
 * Mainz: +0
 * Palatinate: +0
 * Rome: +20 +5
 * Motive: +3
 * Bavaria: +7
 * Swabia-Württemberg: +3
 * Würzburg: +3
 * Scandinavia: +4
 * Schleswig: +3
 * Brandenburg: +3
 * Westphalia: +3
 * East Cologne: +3
 * East Trier: +3
 * Mainz: +3
 * Palatinate: +3
 * Rome: +3
 * Expansion: -1 (annexation of Finland)
 * Nation Age: +0
 * Participation: +10
 * Population: +8 +10
 * Number of troops: 317,000/100,000 = +3
 * Bavaria & Vassals: 100,000
 * Rome: 50,000
 * Scandinavia & Vassals: 75,000
 * Westphalia: 92,000
 * Recent Wars: -6
 * Coalition Modifiers: -3 (Non-dem. gov't)
 * Chance: +3
 * ​Edits: 1,496
 * UTC: 16:23 = 36
 * (1496/36)*3.14 = +5
 * Total: 68

Hamburg

 * Location: +25
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations per side: Hamburg (L), Stade (LV), Munster (LV) Mecklenberg (L), Holstein (L)= 21/5 = 4
 * Military: 92/129 = 0
 * Hamburg: +12
 * Stade: +20
 * Munster: +20
 * Mecklenberg: +20
 * Holstein: +20
 * Economy: 92/115 = +0
 * Hamburg: +12
 * Stade: +20
 * Munster: +20
 * Mecklenberg: +20
 * Holstein: +20
 * Infrastructure: +8
 * Locations Bonus: +2
 * Motive: +6
 * Hamburg: +10
 * Stade: +5
 * Munster: +5
 * Mecklenburg: +5
 * Holstein: +5
 * Expansion: +0
 * Chance: 6
 * Edits: 1,919
 * UTC: 16:23 = 36
 * (1,919/36)*pi = 167.46
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Participation: +10
 * Population: +7
 * Number of troops: 100,000/317,000 = 0
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Modifiers: -3 -6

Total: 63

War of the Elbe (1618 - 1619)(Cookie's Version)
Restoring the aglo. Note: '''Nobody edit this. IATG don't edit this, instead leave your own algo up and I'll leave mine. That way the mods can compare them. Any edits not done by an unbiased mod will be undone. '''

European Front
Bavaria & Co.
 * Location: +20
 * Location bonus: +9
 * Tactical Advantage: +5
 * Nations per side: Bavaria (L), Swabia-Württemberg (L), Würzburg (LV), Scandinavia (L), Brandenburg (L), Schleswig (LV), Westphalia (L), E. Trier (LV), E. Cologne (LV), Mainz (LV), Palatinate (LV), Rome (L) = 44/12 = +4
 * Military: 129/46 = +3
 * Bavaria: +20 +10 +3 +5
 * Swabia-Württemberg: +20
 * Würzburg: +20
 * Scandinavia: +6 +5 +10
 * Schleswig: +6
 * Brandenburg: +4
 * Westphalia: +0
 * East Cologne: +0
 * East Trier: +0
 * Mainz: +0
 * Palatinate: +0
 * Rome: +20
 * Economy: 115/46 = +3
 * Bavaria: +20 +10
 * Swabia-Württemberg: +20
 * Würzburg: +20
 * Scandinavia: +2 +5 +5
 * Schleswig: +2
 * Brandenburg: +6
 * Westphalia: +0
 * East Cologne: +0
 * East Trier: +0
 * Mainz: +0
 * Palatinate: +0
 * Rome: +20 +5
 * Motive: +3
 * Bavaria: +7
 * Swabia-Württemberg: +3
 * Würzburg: +3
 * Scandinavia: +4
 * Schleswig: +3
 * Brandenburg: +3
 * Westphalia: +3
 * East Cologne: +3
 * East Trier: +3
 * Mainz: +3
 * Palatinate: +3
 * Rome: +3
 * Expansion: -1
 * Nation Age: +0
 * Participation: +10
 * Population: +8 +10
 * Number of troops: 317,000/100,000 = +3
 * Bavaria & Vassals: 100,000
 * Rome: 50,000
 * Scandinavia & Vassals: 75,000
 * Westphalia: 92,000
 * Recent Wars: -6
 * Coalition Modifiers: -3 (Non-dem. gov't)
 * Chance: +5
 * ​Edits: 1,496
 * UTC: 16:23 = 36
 * (1496/36)*3.14 = +5
 * Total: 73

Hamburg
 * Location: +25
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations per side: Hamburg (L), Stade (LV), Munster (LV) Mecklenberg (L), Holstein (L -2)= 19/5 = +4
 * Military: 46/129 = 0
 * Hamburg: +8
 * Stade: +11
 * Munster: +11
 * Mecklenberg: +8
 * Holstein: +8
 * Economy: 46/115 = +0
 * Hamburg: +8
 * Stade: +11
 * Munster: +11
 * Mecklenberg: +8
 * Holstein: +8
 * Infrastructure: +8
 * Locations Bonus: +2
 * Motive: +6
 * Hamburg: +9
 * Stade: +5
 * Munster: +5
 * Mecklenburg: +5
 * Holstein: +5
 * Expansion: +0
 * Chance: 6
 * Edits: 1,919
 * UTC: 16:23 = 36
 * (1,919/36)*pi = 167.46
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Participation: +10
 * Population: +7
 * Number of troops: 100,000/317,000 = 0
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Modifiers: -3, -6

Total: 63

Result
(73/(73+63*2)-1 = 7%

Colonial Front of Elbe War
For some reason this was deleted and never done, so here it is to be finally finished.

Reme
Total: 68
 * Location: 20
 * Location Bonus: 4
 * Tactical Advantage: 6
 * Nations: L = 1
 * Military Development: 20+10+5-2=7
 * Economic Development: 20+5+5=2
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: +3+4=7
 * Chance: 3
 * Edit count: 1586
 * UTC: 0 = 14:10
 * Total: 1586/1404*pi (3.14159265359) = 3.53194326241
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: +6
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 7000=2
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Neu Hamburg
Total: 47
 * Location: 25
 * Location Bonus: 2
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations: L = 1
 * Military Development: 8-3-10-2 = -7
 * Economic Development: 8
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 5-5
 * Chance: 0
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 6
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 3500/7000 = 1
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result
(68/(68+47)*2)-1 = 0.22033898305 = 18% War lasts 5 years, Rome gets 22%

War lasts 5 years, rome gets 18%

Discussion: Colonial Front
Done for MP. Stuff will be added later on (troop number specifically) <font color="#50E0F0">Sky <font color="#50FF60">Green <font color="A00000">24 (Party,quotes) 21:33, September 12, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion: European Front
Note, that the war is over, no more adding vassals to either side. Edit: My reasoning for this is simply the fact that the war is still technically over, and I'm not into adding vassals in. I'm okay with adding in defensive infrastructure and adjusting nation age, but adding in vassals is not happening here. Furthermore, my reasoning for adding two Hamburger vassals in the first place was because that has been standard practice. For the most part, each nation puts forth their main homeland province + two vassals. I was not going to put forth all of Hamburg's vassals (giving him a more-than-two-vassal penalty) while IATG was absent. So basically, I'm not adding any more vassals than was present in 1619, and neither is IATG. He can switch them around all he wants, but neither of us can add more than is already present.

Cookiedamage (talk) 02:18, September 10, 2014 (UTC)

Cookie, you left out my nations when it convenienced you. You invade me with the intent to annex, they're coming in. Another thing, the PU and vassal penalties are separate, so I wouldn't get a penalty. You cannot assume something because I'm not here, especially when you do so in your favor.

And another, have you even noticed when and what your allies post? Crim is sporadic, but Blocky barely posts at all. To those too, I understand if you have irl stuff, but your nations don't get auto-made elopement.

I went back into the archives twenty years to document Scandinavia's and Hesses progress, allow me to show:

1596: 1597: 1598: 1599: 1600: 1601: 1602: 1604: 1605: 1606: 1607: 1608: 1609: 1610: 1611: 1612: 1613: 1614: 1615: 1616:
 * Hamburg: military
 * scandinavia: nothing
 * Hesse: nothing
 * Hamburg: infrastructure
 * Scandinavia: nothing
 * Hesse: nothing
 * Hamburg: economy
 * Scandinavia: nothing
 * Hesse: nothing
 * Hamburg: economy
 * Scandinavia: nothing
 * Hesse: nothing
 * Hamburg: military
 * Scandinavia: nothing
 * Hesse: nothing
 * Hamburg: military
 * Scandinavia: nothing
 * Hesse: nothing
 * Hamburg: economy
 * Scandinavia: nothing
 * Hesse: nothing
 * Hamburg: economy
 * Scandinavia: military, annexes Finland (expansion)
 * Hesse: nothing
 * Hamburg: military
 * Scandinavia: military
 * Hesse: nothing
 * Hamburg: infrastructure
 * Scandinavia: military
 * Hesse: nothing
 * Hamburg: infrastructure
 * Scandinavia: economy, accepts ten-year NAP with Hamburg
 * Hesse: nothing
 * Hamburg: economy
 * Scandinavia: military
 * Hesse: nothing
 * Hamburg: infrastructure
 * Scandinavia: military
 * Hesse: has a kid, writes a song (nothing)
 * Hamburg: military
 * Scandinavia: nothing
 * Hesse: nothing
 * Hamburg: military
 * Scandinavia: nothing
 * Hesse: nothing
 * Hamburg: infrastructure
 * Scandinavia: military
 * Hesse: nothing
 * Hamburg: military
 * Scandinavia: nothing
 * Hesse: more songs (nothing)
 * Hamburg: infrastructure
 * Scandinavia: nothing
 * Hesse: nothing
 * Hamburg: economy
 * Scandinavia: nothing
 * Hesse: nothing
 * Hamburg: infrastructure
 * Scandinavia: nothing
 * Hesse: another song (nothing)

Can someone add these in? I'm busy for the rest of the night and most of tomorrow, thank you. I am that guy (talk) 05:18, September 10, 2014 (UTC)

Isn't there also a rule that the penalty does not apply in this instance? I'm not sure, that rule may have been removed. Mscoree (talk) 14:07, September 10, 2014 (UTC)

Alright so I reviewed your list and found that Scandinavia and Westphalia barely posted at all, so I fixed up the Mil and Econ, and I added your stade and munster vassals, even though they p much dont change your score at all. Cookiedamage (talk) 20:57, September 10, 2014 (UTC)

You still took out Holstein and Mecklenburg, my PU states. Also, Stade and Münster would also get a 5 motive, as they too are fighting for survival. When you do get around to adding them, Holstein and Mecklenburg, as well as Hamburg, also get the +4 supported government modifier, as stated in the rules. I also don't get the low morale modifier as I don't have lower development scores in all categories, considering infrastructure is a development. If I hadn't built up infrastructure at all, that's one thing. Another thing, you do realize military and infrastructure development is +2 per year, right? So that means Stade, Münster, Mecklenburg, and Holstein would have 20 for each, and Hamburg with 12 each (as only Hamburg itself is allowed to build infrastructure that counts). I am that guy (talk) 21:41, September 10, 2014 (UTC)

"So that means Stade, Münster, Mecklenburg, and Holstein would have 20 for each, and Hamburg with 12 each" Not if you do Mil and Econ both at the same time. And you've never mentioned Mecklenburg or Holstein as having any mil or econ developments.Cookiedamage (talk) 21:46, September 10, 2014 (UTC)

To elaborate on that. Every nation gets a +2 for economy or military. If a nation spends 11 turns on mil and the remaining nine on econ, they would get a +22 for mil and a +18 for econ. However, if you're like me and put both mil and econ development in the same turn, they're split. So if you develop mil and econ in the same turn, you get a +1 for each as the +2 is split. Over twenty years, that would amount to +20. That WOULD be your case, had you posted every single turn for the past twenty years, which you did not. I counted 11 turns where you posted, and in all eleven turns, Stade and munster both updated mil and econ simultaneously. Cookiedamage (talk) 21:57, September 10, 2014 (UTC)

Cookie, low morale requires a higher score in all categories, and infrastructure is one of them. If I hadn't worked on that, then I would take the hit, but because I took the time to expand infrastructure, that saves me from the penalty, that's the way its always worked. You think the nations per side score are divided by the opposing side, when they're divided by the numbers of nations on your side. You try to insert a wrong motive: the nations' motive would be fighting for survival. You also don't take into account that I post as "Hamburg-Holstein-Mecklenburg", meaning my main post is for all three PU states, and that when I expand infrastructure in Hamburg, I expand the militaries and economies in Holstein and Mecklenburg. On the subject of PU states, take a look at the first and Second Franco-Austrian wars, Austria, Bohemia, and Luxembourg are all PU states, but they didn't get the penalty. The penalty applies if, say, Ms had Swabia or Brandenburg under PU at the time. Therefore, I don't get a penalty. You also try to tie vassals and PU states together, when the rules clearly separate them. You even fail to include the simplest of things, like Scandinavia's annexation of Finland <15 years ago.

You take points from my side that are rightfully mine. You disregard the rules to benefit yourself. I do not doubt that I lost this war, but I contest the way you put this algo together.

I am that guy (talk) 00:04, September 11, 2014 (UTC)

False Iatg you already won a war against this coalition so at this moment all the hamburgians would be doing is to prepare for another war regarding it as another pointless attempt by bavaria and scandinavia to take over (Not seeing the danger those two pose due to the previous victory) much like why bavaria can't use the downfall of the Hamburg, furthermore i don't think infrastructure would count... I mean not if the Bavar-Scandinavian Side can't use it (Over all if attackers don't get to use infrastructure) Otherwise Low morale wouldn't ever be possible to use and indeed PU's don't get penalties unless they are more than 2 PU's in war, as vassals. Don't defend any algo though Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 13:49, September 11, 2014 (UTC)

I kinda feel this is the most accurate algo regarding how it is from scores, although the result may change in the future if sufficient proof is given to its accuracy, SSOA  Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 02:23, September 12, 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, he has the nations per side scores shown as dividing by the opposing sides score, even though the rules say they're divide by the number of nations on your side. He hasn't added all of my sides' development scores (notice that he shows Stade and Münsters scores as 11 when they're developed by +2), and he underrepresents Holsteins and Mecklenburgs scores, when I develop their military and economy even when I develop Hamburg infrastructure. He shows my accompanying nations' motives as merely aiding and ally, when they're fighting for survival. He doesn't include Scandinavia's expansion via the annexation of Finland. He also hasn't added in my sides chance (which I did on my algo). Also, when 317,000 is divided by 100,000, the answer is 3, not 4. I am that guy (talk) 02:36, September 12, 2014 (UTC) Okay lemme clear some stuff up! Cookiedamage (talk) 03:13, September 12, 2014 (UTC)
 * SIne gave me permission to do NPS as NPS/Enemy NPS.
 * The Mil and Econ of Stade and Munster were updated at the same time for 11 turns, so you get +11, because the +2 is split when you update mil and econ in the same turn
 * Hamberg-Holstein-Mecklenberg updated Mil a total of 8 times, Econ a total of 8 times, and infrastructure a total of 8 times. You do not update mil and econ if you do not mention them, which you didn't a bunch of times. You have to solidly mentioned the development of mil and econ in order to get points.
 * YOU DON'T GET A "FIGHTING FOR SURVIVAL" MOTIVE IF YOUR NATION  ISN'T  BEING CONQUERED WITH A 33% ALGO. NEITHER DO YOUR VASSALS!!!
 * You were using part of my chance in your algo. And You never even declared war back, hell you haven't even posted at all since 1618, so no chance for you.


 * But that's not what the rules say.

"When the final scores are added up the Nations per side score is calculated by dividing the final total by the # of involved nations on your side "

I am that guy (talk) 03:37, September 12, 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that they were expanded more than 11 turns, in fact, I know that they expanded for more than 11 turns.
 * I've specifically posted in the turns I decides to expand infrastructure, to also post "military and/or economy expanded". And considering that the main turn is for the three nations, and I get to decide where the Mil and Econ point go.
 * (Try cooling it on the caps lock) you're intention in this invasion of yours was to conquer and partition me. The fact that now you don't have the points to do so doesn't hide that your goal was my complete annexation. Therefore, I, and my vassals, get the fighting for survival motive. That's how its always been, that's how it was when you attacked me before, that's how it is here.
 * The only thing that changes between the chance calculations of attacker and defender is the edit count. The time for my declaration of war is the same as yours, as a returning declaration is redundant when a war begins. Again, how it's always been done. And frankly, to say that I don't deserve a chance score is outright bullshit. What did I say on chat that I was busy with these past few days, huh?

Did a quick of this algorithm and noticed some things that need to be fixed. Nations per side is divided by number of nations on that side. In the colonial algorithm it should be population of your colony. Mscoree (talk) 00:35, September 14, 2014 (UTC)

Final Result
European front: 7%

Colonial front: 18% / 2 = 9%

7 + 9 = 16%

Austria (Attacker)
Total: +66
 * Location: +20
 * Tactical Advantage: +6
 * Nations per side: Austria (L), Bohemia (L), Luxembourg (L), Lusatia (LV), Silesia (LV) = 21/5=4
 * Military: 100+5+5=110/70=2
 * Economy: 100+3=103/68=2
 * Locations Bonus: 2f-
 * Motive: +8
 * Austria: 7 +4
 * Bohemia: 5+4
 * Luxembourg: 3+4
 * Lusatia: 5
 * Silesia: 5
 * Expansion: +0
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops:
 * Chance:
 * Population: +8
 * Recent Wars: -1
 * Troops:

Scandinavia (Defender)
Total: +38
 * Location: +25
 * Tactical Advantage: +1
 * Nations per side: Scandinavia (L), Karelia (LV), Pomerania (LV)=11/3=4
 * Military: 60+10=70, 0
 * Economy: 60+3+5=68, 0
 * Locations Bonus: 7
 * Infrastructure:
 * Motive: 5
 * Scandinavia: 5-5 (Defending Heartland from attack that will not cripple/ destroy nation)
 * Brandenbug: 9
 * Pomerania: 5
 * Expansion: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Chance:
 * Population: +8
 * Recent Wars: -10
 * Nation Age: 3
 * Troops
 * Concurrent Wars: -15

Result
((66/(38+66))*2)-1 = 0.269230769

0.269230769*(1-1/(8)) = 0.235576923

Discussion
Let's start off with the obvious motive issue I think we're having. Brandenburg should get a 5/9 motive depending if it will cripple or destroy the nation (in its current form) or not. Since this is, afterall, the Brandenburg war. Moreover, Scandinavia should rather get a Defending territory not part of heartland but held for more than 20 years motive since it ain't heartland as it's a vassal but it has been held for a while. Also, if Austria, Bohemia and Luxembourg are in a PU (which I assume they are since Luxembourg doesn't have a V) shouldn't austria's side get a penalty for more than two PUs? That's all for now. Cheerio.

<font color="#50E0F0">Sky <font color="#50FF60">Green <font color="A00000">24 (Party,quotes) 14:01, September 12, 2014 (UTC)

I think my comment was deleted somehow, but Austria gets a -1 since they only sent support, and Luxembourg is one of two personal unions, meaning it does not go over the limit. Mscoree (talk) 00:46, September 13, 2014 (UTC)