Talk:Principia Moderni III (Map Game)

=Resources=

Archives

 * Archive 1
 * Archive 2
 * Archive 3
 * Archive 4
 * Archive 5
 * Archive 6
 * Archive 7
 * Archive 8
 * Archive 9

Algo Template (WIP)
This algo template is being worked on in order to standardize algos, which will make it simpler for mods to check them and fix them. Once this algo template is declared official, a mod (probably me) will declare that at the start of the turn following the declaration, all algos must follow this format and if not, they will not be regarded as valid.

Feel free to comment about the algo template, suggest something that would increase it's effectivity, ask questions, or even suggest changes to the algo. Note that no matter what, nothing but the hundreth/thousandth digit of the Edit Count / UTC time * pi will be bolded in the algo.

Cheers, SkyGreen24 17:33, January 28, 2015 (UTC)

===Attacker=== *Location: **Location Bonus: *Tactical Advantage: *Nations Per Side: *Military Development: *Economic Development: *Expansion: *Motive: **Modifiers: *Chance: **Edits: **UTC (ABCD) = A * B * C * D = ** /  * pi = *Nation Age: *Population: *Participation: *Number of Troops: *Theaters of War: *Concurrent Wars: Total: ===Defender=== *Location: **Location Bonus: *Tactical Advantage: *Nations per side: *Military Development: *Economy Development: *Infrastructure: *Expansion: *Motive: **Modifiers: *Chance: **Edits: **UTC (ABCD) = A * B * C * D = ** /  * pi = *Nation Age: *Population: *Participation: *Recent Wars: *Troops strength: *Theaters of War: *Concurrent Wars: Total: ===Result=== ===Discussion===

Industrial algo update
Due to us beginning to drive into the industrial age, the algo needs to be updated accordingly, With this having happened in PMII with decent success (and one of our redeeming qualities that someone always updates the maps usually) we will be replicating this here (support was shown by multiple mods a few of which were PMII veterans.) This will be represented on a map much like the Game map, but with the colors replaced to represent differing industrial levels and when they started. A Chart to represent will go below this post and just above that a map (currently in progress) will be posted to represented our first industrializers. In extenuating circumstances the chart can be superceded to show a change in industrial development quicker than represented on the chart but this will only be for Meiji, or rapid German industrialization efforts.

In the algo a n algorythm multiplier would be applied to all wars with the side with a higher stage gaining 10% extra for each stage higher they are. an example would be in a war between Britain and France, the British are 3 stages ahead of the French in terms of industrial development (for whatever circumstance caused this) the British would multiple their ending score by 1.3.

If anyone is wondering, currently industrialization will be mostly in europe with a select few nations outside of the continent it would be currently taking place (nations with a realistic reason to adopt it as such such as asian nations with a extremely anti-colonial attitude, or something along the lines of Japan.) Industrialization in the Americas (when stuff goes independent) will depend on how the territory is when it gains independence and will more than likely have to be handled on a case by case basis like the outside of Europe industrializers.

Stage 1

 * The Air Furnace is developed
 * Agriculture begins to rapidly shift with fertilizers and rest years for the fields
 * Chemistry develops in leaps and bounds

Stage 2​

 * Steam Power is developed and water wheels are heavily utilized
 * Various chemicals are produced in large amounts
 * Health care and anatomic understanding improve, birth rates still high but death rates on a massive decline
 * Urbanisation begins on a significant scale

Stage 3

 * Paper mills develop with the tech to produce large reels of paper
 * Cloth factories begin using machines and steam power to increase productivity massively to keep up with population boom's clothing demand
 * Some revolutionary rumbles appear

Stage 4​

 * Experimental Railways begin to crop up
 * Stronger cements are produced
 * Steel and Glass are avaliable
 * A few colonies and nations will have rebellions in this period

Stage 5

 * Ironclads and Artillery become widely used in combat
 * Revolutions by poorer citizens in cities become frequent
 * Wide use of civilian and military purpose use railways

Stage 6​

 * Tanks and planes appear
 * Total War emerges with populations also targetted
 * Nationalism appears in larger multicultural nations

Stage 7

 * Atomic age begins a decade before the start of this age with certain nations able to make nuclear weapons
 * Wars between atomic powers CEASE, due to the threat and consequences of nuclear war
 * Colonies rebel for independence

Discussion
As Said Above, Industrialization aside from a few cases (and a case by case evaluation of tier jumps such as a US/German rapid industrialization, or a Japan Meiji or an Asian anti colonial reasoning) will be mostly within Europe and the Americas initially. As a relatively new person to the industrial tier buisiness i will be consulting PMII vets on how it was implemented but for right now due to ease the only two current industrializing states are France and Spain (and the other particulars will be worked out before another one joins the mix). Please bear with us while i gather the needed information to implement this properly.

The intended purpose of this is to prevent an unindustrialized state such as a disorganized tribe being able to deal a true and terrible blow to the Great industrial powers since this rarely happened, (and when it did it was usually due to vast numerical superiority, and even then it only happened once or twice). This is also to simulate a war and the vast advantages provided by industry in this case.

In the case of colonies, that can/will be handled by the mother nation. Plausibly most nations did not let directly owned colonies to industrialize (which is in fact represented by the fact that most colonies will be represented by the mother nations industrial colors). Colonies, under certain circumstances will be allowed to industrialize independently, and due to the access to technology and depending on their terms of industrialization (if they fought a 15 year war of independence like most of Spain OTL colonies) then industrialization will be a rather tough thing to propose to a new nation that would be essentially bankrupt right off the bat. Colonies that Gain Self rule or co-opting rule of any kind will also be able to industrialize in most cases due to the relatively open nature in which its being done. However a problem with this is how will you as a Colonial power manage your self ruling colonies industrial policy without inciting revolt.

This Era must be played carefully while the pertinent information is being discussed please be patient, but for now play on, enioy the game, and plan your moves Carefully

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

In the last 20 years, New Austria (now the Commonwealth of Borealia) has expanded significantly into OTL Canada. Here's what the map should look like now: Nathan1123 (talk) 02:53, March 8, 2015 (UTC)



In the 1800 map, my Haejagang colony is missing expansion from 1785 to 1799. Can it be fixed please? -Seiga  2015 March 09, 06:18 (CET)

Arcadia is independent now, has been for ten years, can someone please help me find a color to differentiate myself from Britannia?207.93.13.67 01:30, March 18, 2015 (UTC)

In the 1810 map, my Haejagang colony is missing expansion from 1785 to 1809. Can it be fixed please? -Seiga  2015 March 21, 19:10 (CET)

Seiga, your colony has been updated before. In this case, since your colony is an island and there aren't really any other places to expand, could you please inform us where it is expanding? A map of the area would be extremely helpful in this case, if you can find time to make one.

"This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 17:14, March 21, 2015 (UTC)



The island (highlighted purple in the map) is where the Haejagang colony should be expanding. -Seiga  2015 March 21, 19:23 (CET)

Thank you. It will be updated on the next map version.

Also, before you ask, Nathan, I see your new map. I must have missed it, but it will also be on the next version, I'll make sure of it.

"This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 17:25, March 21, 2015 (UTC)

Does that mean I'll get my own color too? Nathan1123 (talk) 19:40, March 21, 2015 (UTC)

Of course. Pick a color, any color.

"This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 23:27, March 21, 2015 (UTC)

The current map is wrong. Scandinavia lost the war with Nehilaw and controls none of its land. Thanks. Shikata ga nai! 01:05, March 25, 2015 (UTC)

In the 1815 map, the Haejagang colony is still missing expansion from 1785 to 1814. Also, my new colony, Baeglyeongyo, established in 1814 on OTL, is missing. Can these be fixed please? -Seiga  2015 March 25, 03:37 (CET)

I think Crim should be disqualified from making the map as he obviously has a listening problem. Neither mine nor Seiga's compliants were rectified, in addition to Crim stealing land for himself that he clearly lost. Nathan1123 (talk) 03:08, March 25, 2015 (UTC)

I did not make the most recent map, your claims and Seiga's will be updated by the end of tomorrow. As for the war, that too will be resolved tomorrow and the outcome will be displayed on the map accordingly.

"This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 03:17, March 25, 2015 (UTC)

Not a fan of the attitude, guys. I'd drop them. Seiga, I'll see what I can do. Crim de la Crème 04:46, March 25, 2015 (UTC)

All the Dutch islands east of Australia, Luxembourg, and Newfoundland should all be colored Westphalian. Also I doubt Korea owns that much when they're competing with the Dutch. Tr0llis (talk) 01:25, March 26, 2015 (UTC)

Can the changes made in the treaty of Amsterdam be added? Stade, lippe, and Brunswich-Göttingen were subsequently annexed, Palatinate and mainz were released from vassalage, Dutch Australia was annexed to New Mecklenburg, Aceh was ceded to the Netherlands. And can someone please add New Mecklenburgs expansion? It expands by 750px every turn. I am that guy (talk)
 * also, Cambodia should be my color, as they accepted to become a protectorate. I am that guy (talk)

Due to some earlier expansion that I kinda forgot about, Algonquia should look like this for the 18120 map, if possible. Thanks. Shikata ga nai! 00:34, March 30, 2015 (UTC)

Labelled


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

Cultural


Now, I will attempt to list the myriad of cultures that are represented on the map. To do so, I will go by continent.

It is finished! 01:34, August 1, 2014 (UTC)

Religious Map
Alright, added another religion map. Map is based off of the 1655 Map. Same rules apply: List all changes below in the Notes section.

18:46, October 17, 2014 (UTC)

Color Key

All regions are shown according to their plurality religion.

Catholicism is yellow; the Western Church nations are shown in dark gold, and Catholic states whose churches function independently of the Roman Church are shown in pale yellow. Ludwigism is shown in bright gold. Eastern Orthodoxy is orange; Oriental Orthodox sub-branches are burnt orange. *Reformism is red. Sunni Islam is lime green, Shia Islam is forest green; Ibadiyya Islam is dark green, Assafi Islam is bright green, and Paganistic Islam is mint green. The Mastorava is teal blue, Hinduism is sky blue, and Buddhism is dark blue; the Bon religion is pale blue, and Mongolian Buddhism is grey-blue. Confucianism is purple, while Shintoism is violet. Other "pagan" religions are pink; the Mesoamerican pantheon is light pink, the South American pantheon is hot pink, the North American pantheon is fuchsia, and the African pantheons are all dark pink. Other religions will be added as needed.

Notes
 * Added Charismatic Christianity and Mogul Khanate is now Charismatic king Trevor 1 of wales (talk) 12:38, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

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.

'''A Council is brought up by the remaining Chinese warlording states, which seeing the advance and centralization of Manchu’s to the north and wishing to showcase a powerful united china to the outside threats, particularly Spain and Japan. The Warlord all unanimously declare that any further attempt by the advancing Manchu empire to take more parts of china will be met with massive force. Si-Chuan, Wu, Yue, Various high level elements of Yunnan, and Jin all show heavy support for this. Shandong and Hebei (the Two nations that formed out of the small Kingdoms decades ago) also show relative support to preventing further Manchu expansion.'''

This interesting, considereing the fact that Spain signed an alliance with the Yunnan last year, and also the fact when when Rimp asked to trade with the Si-Chuan, Feud responded and said no, but when Sky did it; the Si-Chuan said yes. Also, if all of China was against Feud was against China, they would stop trading with him; leading to an economic recession for Spain in Asia. Because of Feuds position as head mod, and has a huge interest in China, I am curious of how all of this to be, and for the "No modding in your area of interest" rule to be focused on, if it hasn't been already. Saturn120 (Talk/Blog) 16:43, December 14, 2014 (UTC)

Just so you know, Feud isn't actually head moderator. He is just a regular moderator. Tr0llis (talk) 17:20, December 14, 2014 (UTC)

I never said no to the trade before the event, i crossed out him attempting to trade with a state that literally just joined a coalition to keep him from spreading further. As for the no modding in your area of interest. that area is much further along in any attempt of me potentially influencing especially since im still on the coast and could probably barely get a message to them. As for Rimp advancing in china, this is not OTL. the OTL ming at the time of Manchu conquests had multiple revolts various other natural disasters and were essentially just ripe for conquest and exploitation in one fell swoop. Currently china is a collection of warlords who either want to be emperor of keep their independence leading to a general status quo. Anyone who upsets the status quo here is a target including me. If i go galavanting about and conquesting parts of coastal china they would all team up on me. Just because i have a few enclaves in China and a dream to take a bit more territory doesnt mean im constantly doing mod events in my favor.

The only reason your even bringing this up is the fact that its targeting Rimp.. who has been aggressively expansionist against Chinese warlord states of which there is a standard agreement to ally against anyone gaining hegemony. If it was me doing the same thing, you would say the coalition is justified and wouldnt make a single complaint about it. In fact if i ever attempt to mass conquest china you guys would call for an event exactly like this against me. The event has nothing to do with my chinese interests period since such a coalition can just as easily be turned against me to force me off Mainland China. This grouping is quite easily the start of a confederation type thing that more or less can target anyone who is a threat. Imperium, Japan, Manchu, and Spain. It does more harm to me then it does good

Now if they were truly against me, they would've outright declared war. But they merely declared that they were opposed to further expansion. Moreover, why is the Imperium included? He only controls the Mongol Empire. Why not Wu Empire? Is it because Wu is your little pet in China?

Regardless, this coalition is only against me to prevent me from further expanding. Certainly, I see no way how I can't revert this Anti - Manchu sentiment later on. Obviously, this sentiment will fall apart in the future. I am not saying they'll allow me to occupy China. However, I see no reason why I can't slowly and gradually allign with various Chinese states. RexImperio (talk) 05:15, December 16, 2014 (UTC)

=General Discussion=

Edge for Mod
As this nomination would indicate, I would like to nominate Edge as a moderater for PM3. He is an experienced player who has played the game from the start and has weathered every challenge or success with a clear heart and mind. He's a skilled mapmaker and has no ongoing blood feuds with any other person that might cloud his judgement. For these reasons and many more, I officially nominate him as a moderator for PM3.

"This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 18:48, January 25, 2015 (UTC)

For

 * I need some help man. SkyGreen24 19:04, January 25, 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's do it. We need more active mods. Cour *talk* 23:29, January 25, 2015 (UTC)
 * Aw yiss Crim de la Crème 17:54, January 26, 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not :v, he's a good player after all Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 01:22, January 27, 2015 (UTC)

For

 * Vinland Flag.jpg Upvoteanthology ( Talk | Sandbox )

21:03, January 25, 2015 (UTC)
 * Shikata ga nai! 19:40, January 25, 2015 (UTC)
 * Toby2: THEY CALL ME Mr. Awesome!!!
 * Saturn120 (Talk/Blog) 20:00, January 25, 2015 (UTC)
 * Roman-spqr-flag.png Consul Ioshua  (Talk) SPQR_EMBLEM.jpg
 * I am that guy (talk) 21:40, January 25, 2015 (UTC)
 * Cookiedamage (talk) 21:42, January 25, 2015 (UTC) Still am unsure what you can bring to the table, but you are very responsible and un-troll like on chat and you have performed reasonably well at pm3, sooo....
 * Is reasonable human being-Lx (leave me a message)Azarath Flag.png 22:27, January 25, 2015 (UTC)
 * Decent player and hasn't pissed off many people. 01:56, January 26, 2015 (UTC)
 * Cause why not? RexImperio (talk) 08:03, January 26, 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
Go and vote! "This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 18:48, January 25, 2015 (UTC)

Am i suppsoed to write out why I accept my nomination or no? This is Edge, He is a cool guy when he isn't too lazy to sign his real sig. Hit him up.

You can if you want to. Also, voting time should be a week or two, I think. "This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 19:05, January 25, 2015 (UTC)

Because Cookie is unsure of what I can do for this game, I will write it out here:

First, as MP already stated, I am capable of Map Making (Though that is limited to what computer I am using), can do algorithms, and I would like to consider myself a good player. I am an admin on the Map Game wiki, and have ran fairly sucsseful games over there. I have an understanding of History at least on par with, if not exceding, many of the others on this wiki. I belive that we need more mod presence. From what I can tell, many of the mods we have are inactive. They may be active behind the scenes, but I belive that we need more mods visablly active on this project. I am a regular on chat, and I advise and help new players on a regular basis. As such, I belive I would be fit for modship. Thank you.

Poland

 * Location: +20
 * Nations: Poland = 5
 * Tactical Advantage: 6
 * Military: 20+10+5+5/7=6
 * Economy: 20+5/18 = 1
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Chance :
 * Motive: 7+4+5
 * Population: 7+2
 * Nation Age: -10
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Troops: 150,000/100,000=2
 * Total: 63

Prussia

 * Location: 25
 * Nations: Prussia 5
 * Advantage: 1
 * Military: 20-10-3
 * Economy: 20+2 = 0
 * Infrastructure: 3
 * Chance:
 * Motive: 5
 * Modifiers: +4 (Non. demo) -5 (Low Morale)
 * Population: 7
 * Nation age: -10
 * Participation: +10
 * Troops: 100,000
 * Concurrent War: -15 (Pskov)
 * Total: 25

Result
(63/(63+25))*2-1=0.4318

0.4318*(1-1/(2*3))= 0.3598

Prussia toppled in 3 years

Discussion
Done for Toby SkyGreen24 21:07, January 25, 2015 (UTC)

I have edited the algo, and added in Multiple Concurrent War. Toby and Lx may decide their new borders. RexImperio (talk) 14:20, January 27, 2015 (UTC)

Union of Konigsberg

 * Location: +20
 * Nations: Pskov, Eesti, Latvia, Belarussia = 5 -2 (I assume all three are vassals)
 * Advantage: 6
 * Military: 34+34+5+10+5=88/37 = 2
 * Economy: 34+34-15(recession)+5+5 = 63/30 = 2
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Chance : 8
 * Editcount: 3558
 * Time: 21:34 = 2*3*4 = 24
 * Calculations: 3558/24*pi = 47.189
 * Motive: 7(hegemony)+3+3+3 (I removed the oppressed for now, as you can only have one motive over five) +5(demo)-5(low morale) = 4
 * Population: 7+2
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: -8(belarus)
 * Troops: 150,000/100 000=2
 * Subtotal: 61
 * Industry: *1.1
 * Total: 67

Unholy (Royal Baltic) Alliance

 * Location: 25
 * Nations: Lithuania, Prussia : 5
 * Advantage: 2 (defender)
 * Military: 40, 0
 * Economy: 40-10(recession), 0
 * Infrastructure: 3
 * Chance: 9
 * Editcount: 3558
 * Time: 21:34 = 2*3*4 = 24
 * Calculations: 3558/time*pi = 3558/24*pi = 47.189
 * Motive: 9+4-5+5=7
 * Population: 7
 * Nation age: -10
 * Participation: +10
 * Troops: 100 000
 * concurrent wars: -15(poland)
 * Total: 43

Result
67/(67+43)*2-1 = 0.21818181818...

combined with poland's war, the collapse of the royal alliance, and their re-incorporation into the union of konigsberg, with some territorial changes

Discussion
I added the recession score for every nation except belarus because its the only nation that's landlocked, and the one that's the least tradey because of the whole landlocked thing. My goal: obtain all of orange lithuania minimum before 1760.

Since the Unholy Alliance does not have an entire nation in the orange section, and I have 3 nations out of my 4 completely in the orange, I have 75% and the unholy alliance doesnt therefore I get industry.

Also, the whole thing started because I didnt let them take de facto slaves. I think that counts as fighting for opressed kinsmen. -Lx (leave me a message) 21:34, January 25, 2015 (UTC)

hmmm...Prussia only has a pop of about 1M, so 100K would be 10%, and it just had a coup, anyway, I changed that thing...

There are some things I'm a bit confused about:

1. Why is Estonia and Latvia helping pskov? Weren't they part of the original band of revolvers before Lx talked his way into delaying it?

2. The motive is wrong, I know that. Only one nation should have greater than a 5 motive, and the others should be aiding ally (+3).

3. Recent war is 15 years, not 10, so that's -8 if latvia and Estonia remain included (which considering their earlier willingness to revolt I think should be unlikely), -4 for just pskov and Belarus.

4. Didn't Sky say the industrial modifier is still unimplemented? Idk if he has said different since.

5. The defenders infrastructure should be 6, not 3.

6. Since when did revolting nations get hit with recession penalties?

I am that guy (talk) 01:02, January 28, 2015 (UTC) Low morale since the -8 recent war penalty, I decided to give your nations a -5 instead of -10 in eco since you weren't directly involved in the war.
 * 1) Estonia and Latvia "took the deal"(basically agreed that owning people is bad)
 * 2) Well that's how sky did in in the other algos soooo
 * 3) Serfs are de facto slaves. The estonians and latvians agreed that serfdom was bad, i.e. the stated goal is to end that and bring the "traitors" to heal.
 * 4) Well it was implemented in Belarus so that's a thing.
 * 5) Only the Nation that is invaded counts, I am invading through lithuania, therefore Lithuania counts.
 * 6) Since the 1750-something mod event(the recession penalty ended in 1759). All "trade nations"(i.e. with a coastline) got a -10.-Lx (leave me a message)Azarath Flag.png 01:31, January 28, 2015 (UTC)

Althought Lx beat the revolt, I'm guessing that since Poland conquered more, Toby can have the upper hand when it comes to deciding the territorial exchange.

Tibet
Total:
 * Location: +20
 * Tactical Advantage: +3
 * Nations Per Side: Tibet - +5
 * Military Development:
 * Economic Development:
 * Expansion:
 * Motive:
 * Nation Age:
 * Population:
 * Participation:
 * Number of Troops:
 * Theaters of War:
 * Concurrent Wars:

Yunnan
Total:
 * Location: +25
 * Tactical Advantage: +2
 * Nations Per Side: Yunnan - +5
 * Military Development:
 * Economic Development:
 * Expansion:
 * Motive:
 * Nation Age:
 * Population:
 * Participation:
 * Number of Troops:
 * Theaters of War:
 * Concurrent Wars:

Discussion
I can Algo, but i can't lean much about ALGO's hardest numbers. So anyone can help me in algo please?

France

 * Location: +20
 * Bonus: +2 (I think)
 * Nations: France, Rhineland Royalists, Lower Burgundy = 4
 * Tactical Advantage: 6
 * Military: 12+10+5+5=32/18=2
 * Economy: 18+10-20+5=13/8=2
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Chance :
 * Motive: 6 (Taking back territory recently held by nation but since lost), 4 (modifier), 3, 3 = 5
 * Population: 8+20
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Troops: 255,000/30,000=9
 * Total: 81

Rhineland revolters

 * Location: 25
 * Nations: Rhineland revolters = 5
 * Advantage: 1
 * Military: 20-5+3
 * Economy: 20-10-2
 * Infrastructure: 10
 * Chance:
 * Motive: 9
 * Modifiers: +4 (Non. demo) -5 (Low Morale)
 * Population: 6
 * Nation age: -10
 * Participation: +10
 * Troops: 30,000
 * Total: 55*1.5=82.5

Result
(99/(99+75))*2-1=0.137931034

X*(1-(1/2*1)=0.068965517

Discussion
Done for sine, I know it's late but he didn't stand a chance either way. SkyGreen24 17:21, January 26, 2015 (UTC)

Japan
Total:  57
 * Location: +18
 * Location Bonus: +4
 * Tactical Advantage: +6
 * Nations:  Japan [L], Shanghai [LV], Formosa [LV] Yantai [LV] = 14/4=4 -2 (number of vassals)=2
 * Military Development: 80+20 = 100/83 = +1
 * Economic Development: = 80+5+5 = 90/78 = +1
 * Economic Bonus: +5+5
 * Expansion:  0
 * Motive: 7+4+3+3+3-5=15/4 =4
 * Chance: 0
 * Edit count: 190
 * UTC: 0 = 03:08= 27
 * Total: 190/27*pi=22.10750386
 * Nation Age:  +2
 * Population:  8+2 = +10 [Population Modifier] 
 * Recent Wars:  -4 (Yue War/Alaskan Revolts)
 * Military Strengh (Troops): 180,000/60,000 = +3
 * Participation: +10

Tartary
Total: 51
 * Location: +16
 * Location Bonus: +0
 * Tactical Advantage:  +2 [High Ground] = +2
 * Nations: Tartary [L] Salikin Territory [L], Khanate of Bukhara (LV), Great Perm (LV) = 16/4=4
 * Military Development:  80+10-10 (Not initially prepared)+3=83, 0
 * Economic Development:  80-2 = 78, 0
 * Infrastructure: +0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: 9+4+5+4+3+3-5=6
 * Chance: 0
 * Edit count: 3,027
 * UTC: 0 = 03:08= 27
 * Total: 3,027/27*pi=352.2074431
 * Nation Age: 4
 * Population:  +8
 * Recent Wars:  -0
 * Military Strengh (Troops): 60,000/180,000 = +0
 * Participation: +10

Result:
(57/(50+57))*2-1=0.06542056074

X*(1-1/(2*3))=0.05451713395

Discussion:
Made the algo. I have proof of the military and economic scores below. Saturn120 (Talk/Blog) 03:27, January 27, 2015 (UTC)

Military Expansion Here and Here Economic Here Here

There was a rule change making it so that "Player Nations" get the NPC bonus if their player edits so sparingly that its basically an NPC. I mean, it doesn't look like it will really make a difference, but it is technically the rule.-Lx (leave me a message) 04:18, January 27, 2015 (UTC)

Although you might have a similar colonial empire, (albeit Harv's is barely a colony and not very settled), Sat does lead in trade and economy. And I fixed some other stuff too. SkyGreen24 17:52, January 27, 2015 (UTC)

Fixed location. SkyGreen24 18:29, January 28, 2015 (UTC)

The population of the Tartary is actually smaller than Japan. After doing research on Russia (Which is much like the Tartary in this timeline) has a population of 25 million estimated here, the table shows that Russia's population actually is only 25 Million in 1789. Add the mountainous and desertous (As well as the fact that Siberia is just plain cold) is that your population would actually be smaller than this. I would AT LEAST say a deduction of 1.5 million from your population at the moment, and that's not even really deeply thinking about it terrain. That's even without populous cities like Moscow, St. Petersburg, and other cities backing you up. However, if you look here Japan's populations is 26 million in 1762, without the added estimated 17 or 20% added. Combine that with all of Japan's port cities and colonies, and you probably got 30 Millionish throughout the entire Japanese Empire. To better reflect these factual numbers, I have undone your edits to the algo, Harv. I also ask a mod to put this algo on lockdown, to further prevent any user to change anything. I can understand if something was forgotten to be added, but doing it to change the scores deliberately isn't right, tbh. Saturn120 (Talk/Blog) 05:56, January 29, 2015 (UTC)

I believe the population of all of Tartary is taken into account when we do that 'Population' thing. Besides, why even argue about a thing who's Treaty you have signed as well. The only thing that I feel confusing in this entire algo is you getting 40 Mil/Eco with 4 Nations and Tartary getting 80 Mil/Eco with 4 Nations. (No Mil/Eco modifier yet added). Idk but I think you forgot to double your scores, Sat... RexImperio (talk) 09:06, January 29, 2015 (UTC)

LMAO. Looks like you did forget to double your Mil/Eco scores. No wonder you lost! RexImperio (talk) 09:08, January 29, 2015 (UTC)

So does that mean the Mil/Eco scores are doubled in the algo? Hail Sean! (Tech can into talkpage?) 09:31, January 29, 2015 (UTC)


 * I guess so, and NOBODY bothered to bring it up. Saturn120 (Talk/Blog) 12:02, January 29, 2015 (UTC)

About the population, that is because you are factoring in the time of troubles. Tartary's populations is way higher without that. Mscoree (talk) 11:45, January 29, 2015 (UTC)

Any "time of troubles" wouldn't matter on the climate in the geographical area of the Tartary. May I remind you that they don't control Russia at all? That was more of a reference, and without the area of Russia, their population is somewhat lower. Just leave the population up to the mods, because I'm asking Sky and/or MP to take a deep, through look at it today. Saturn120 (Talk/Blog) 12:02, January 29, 2015 (UTC)

Honestly I don't even care now, Japan wins and Japan can only take the Sakhalin territory plausibly, if we gave it a larger win it just wouldn't matter. Let it, let iiit goo... SkyGreen24 16:47, January 29, 2015 (UTC)

Whoever tried to add the bonus, remember that Tartary are more industrialized, but Bukhara and Salikin aren't, which negates the bonus. SkyGreen24 17:16, February 3, 2015 (UTC)

Ethiopia

 * Location: 20
 * Advantage: 6
 * Nations Per Side: Ethopia (L)=+5
 * Military: 19 +10 (Has not lost past 3 wars)+5 (more troops) +3 (20k to 60k troops)+ 5 (Fully mobilized) =42/4=10.5~+11
 * Economy:19+5=24/17=1
 * Motive: 5+4+5=14
 * Population: 8+2
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Chance:8
 * Edits:2872
 * Time:2*3*2=12
 * 2872/12*3.14=751.8878417591571817
 * Ships:5/1=5
 * Expansion: 0
 * Recent wars:-2
 * Troops: 150,000/100,000 = 1.5~2
 * Total: 90

Nubia

 * Location: 25
 * Advantage: 2 (defender)
 * Nations Per Side: Nubia (L)=+5
 * Military: 19-5 (much smaller armed forces)-10 (Not moblized)=4,0
 * Economy:19-2=17,0
 * Infrastructure:
 * Motive: 5+4-5=4
 * Population: +7
 * Nation age: -5 (meging of Nubia just before the Spanish war)
 * Participation: +10
 * Troops: 100,000
 * Chance:2
 * Edits:2159
 * Time:12
 * Result:2159/12*pi=565.2248782583636335
 * Ships:1
 * Expansion: -7
 * Recent Wars:-2
 * Total: 41

Result
Max is 37%

1 year gives enough to collapse when added to the pervious gains.

The First Great Campaign (1763 - ?)
Small Kingdom Front

Attacker: Great Manchu Empire

Total: 85
 * Location: +20
 * Location Bonus: +1
 * Lanzhou: +1
 * Tactical Advantage: +6
 * Nations: Great Manchu Empire [L], Shangjingkou  [LV], Kingdom of Lanzhou [LV], Uighur Khanate [LV], Kingdom of Shijuazuang [LV] = 18/5 = 3.6 ~ +4
 * Military Development: 133/24 = 5.5 ~ +6
 * Military Modifer: 100 + 5 [Fully Mobilized], +3 [Moderately Sized Forces], +5 [More Total Troops] +10 [Has Not Lost Prev 3 Wars], +10 [Naval Dominance] = 133
 * Economic Development: 132/26 = +5
 * Economic Bonus: 100 + 10 [Much Larger Economy], +5 [Larger Trade], -3 [Receding Econony] = 132
 * Expansion:  0
 * Motive: +4 [Average]
 * Establish Hegemony: +7
 * Aiding Ally: +3
 * Aiding Ally: +3
 * Aiding Ally: +3
 * Aiding Ally: +3
 * Modifer: +4 [Non-Demo], +6 [High Morale] = +10
 * Chance: +7
 * ​Edit Count: 942
 * UTC: 0*2*1*2 [02:12]
 * Total: 739.470
 * Nation Age: +5 [Mature Nation]
 * Population: +8 + 10 [Population Modifier] = +18
 * Military Strength (Troops): 200,000/180,000 = 2.1 ~ +2
 * Naval Strength (Ships): 118/12 = 9.8 ~ +10
 * Recent Wars: -4
 * Front: -5

Defender: Shangjing and Hebei
Total: 57
 * Location: 25+
 * Location Bonus: +0
 * Tactical Advantage: +1
 * Nations: Kingdom of Shangjing [L], Kingdom of Hebei [L] = 10/2 = +5
 * Military Development: 24/133 = 0.1 ~ 0
 * Military Modifer: 24 - 3 [Smaller Forces], +3 [Moderate Sized Forces] = 24
 * Economic Development: 26/132 = 0.2 ~ 0
 * Economic Bonus: 28 - 2 [Smaller Economy] = 26
 * Infrastructure: +14
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +9 [Defending Against Fatal Attack]
 * Modifer: -3 [Mostly Non-Demo], -6 [Low Morale] = -9
 * Chance: +0
 * ​Edit Count: 942
 * UTC: 0*2*1*2 [02:12]
 * Total: 739.470
 * Nation Age: +5 [Mature Nation]
 * Population: +8
 * Military Strength (Troops): 18,000/200,000 = 0.9 ~ 1
 * Naval Strength (Ships): 12/56 = 0.2 ~ +0
 * Recent Wars: 0

Result:
((85/(85+58)*2)-1 = 0.1888 or 18.88%

(0.1888)*(1-1/(2 x 1)) = 0.1416 or 14.16%.

'Therefore, it shall take 2 years of war to topple the Kingdom of Shangjing and Hebei, since the Manchu already conquered 22% from the previous war and 14% now. '

Discussion
.-. wat RexImperio (talk) 17:05, January 30, 2015 (UTC)

What the hell is this? This is not how fronts work... This is two concurrent wars... SkyGreen24 09:21, January 31, 2015 (UTC)

Jin war retconned. SkyGreen24 19:13, January 31, 2015 (UTC)

Attacker
Total: 78*1.5 = 117
 * Location: +20
 * Location Bonus: +1 (Seville)
 * Tactical Advantage: 5+2 = +7
 * Nations Per Side: 5+9 (Italian/Buenos Airean/Uruguayan supplies) = +14
 * Military Development: 20+5+5+3 = 23/22 = +1
 * Economic Development: 20-3+5 = 22/18= +1
 * Expansion: +0
 * Motive: 7+4+5 = +16
 * Modifiers: 4+5 (High Morale)
 * Chance: +8
 * Edits: 3068
 * UTC (ABCD) = 0 * 3 * 2 * 5 = 30
 * 3068 /30 * π = 321.280208707
 * Nation Age: -10
 * Population: 8+10 = +18
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: +0
 * Number of Troops: 140,000/70,000 = +2
 * Theaters of War: N/A
 * Concurrent Wars: N/A

Defender
Total: 58
 * Location: +25
 * Location Bonus: +0
 * Tactical Advantage: +1
 * Nations per side: +5
 * Military Development: 20-3+5 = 22/23 = +0
 * Economy Development: 20-2 = 18/22 = +0
 * Infrastructure: +0
 * Expansion: +0
 * Motive: 9+4 = +13
 * Modifiers: 4
 * Chance: +3
 * Edits: 18,907
 * UTC (ABCD) = 0 * 3 * 2 * 5 = 30
 * 18,907/30 * π = 1979.93641005
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Population: +7
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: +0
 * Troops strength: 70,000/130,000 = +0
 * Theaters of War: N/A
 * Concurrent Wars: N/A

Result
(117/(58+117))*2-1=0.3216374269 0.33714285714*(1-1/(3*3))=30%

Discussion
Castilia takes 30% of Navarre in 3 years. Saturn120 (Talk/Blog) 20:20, February 6, 2015 (UTC)

Algonquia

 * Location:20
 * Location Bonus: Hudson Bay? Great Lakes?
 * Tactical Advantage:+5
 * Nations Per Side: Algonquia (L), Odawa (L), Nipissing (L) = 5
 * Military Development: Algonquia +7, Odawa +8, Nipissing +8, +5 (Larger eco), (Larger trade) +5 = 34
 * Economic Development: Algonquia +7, Odawa +8, Nipissing +8, +10 (Naval dominance), +10 (Won past three wars), +5 (Larger army)= 48
 * Expansion: -3
 * Motive: +7 +5 +5 = +17
 * Modifiers: Non-dem. sup. +4
 * Chance:
 * Edits:
 * UTC (ABCD) = A * B * C * D =
 * /  * pi =
 * Nation Age:0
 * Population:+8 +2
 * Participation:+10
 * Number of Troops:+35/15 = +2
 * Theaters of War: 0
 * Concurrent Wars:0
 * Total:138

Ojibwe radicals

 * Location:25
 * Location Bonus:N/A
 * Tactical Advantage:+1
 * Nations per side: Ojibwe (L) +5
 * Military Development: 5
 * Economy Development: 4
 * Infrastructure: 2
 * Expansion:0
 * Motive: +9 (Fatal attack on heartland)
 * Modifiers:
 * Chance:
 * Edits:
 * UTC (ABCD) = A * B * C * D =
 * /  * pi =
 * Nation Age: -10 (Newborn)
 * Population: +6
 * Participation:+10
 * Recent Wars:0
 * Troops strength:15/35 =0
 * Theaters of War:0
 * Concurrent Wars:0
 * Total:66

Result
Ojibwe radicals get rekt.

Discussion
Feel free to fix any mistakes...

Attacker
Total: 61*1.5 = 91.5
 * Location: +20
 * Location Bonus: +1 (Seville)
 * Tactical Advantage: +2 = +2
 * Nations Per Side: +5
 * Military Development: 16+5+5+3-10 = 19/20,0
 * Economic Development: 18-3+5 = 20/14= 1.4~ +1
 * Expansion: +0
 * Motive: 7+4 = +11
 * Modifiers: 4
 * Chance:
 * Edits: 3086
 * UTC 03:48 =96
 * x/y * π =100.98911
 * Nation Age: -10
 * Population: 8+10 = +18
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Number of Troops: 140,000/70,000 = +2
 * Theaters of War: N/A
 * Concurrent Wars: N/A
 * Treaty Breaking:-5

Defender
Total: 59
 * Location: +25
 * Location Bonus: +0
 * Tactical Advantage: +1
 * Nations per side: +5
 * Military Development: 18-3+5 = 20/13 = +1.5~2
 * Economy Development: 16-2 = 14/20= +0
 * Infrastructure: +0
 * Expansion: +0
 * Motive: 9+4 = +13
 * Modifiers: 4
 * Chance:
 * Edits:18907
 * UTC (ABCD) =96
 * x/y * π =618.73
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Population: +7
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Troops strength: 70,000/130,000 = +0
 * Theaters of War: N/A
 * Concurrent Wars: N/A

Result
(89/(55+89)*2)-1=21% max

Collapsed in a year.

Discussion
With the past war, Navarre is toppled in one year. Saturn120 (Talk/Blog) 03:51, February 9, 2015 (UTC)

Don't you think there should be a certain gap between your two wars? I'll explain

If I wage a war of two years, I'd get lets say 28% max.. which is not enough to topple.

However, if I wage war for one year and get 18% then wage another war against the same nation the next year and get 18% again, now that would be enough to topple.

Don't you agree? Both last for 2 years, but one allows me to topple the enemy whereas the other doesn't. If you added a third year to your First Spanish - Navarre War, you would not have been able to topple Navarre but now that you made your first war last for two years and have your second one started directly after, you managed to topple Navarre. RexImperio (talk) 08:57, February 9, 2015 (UTC)

As cheap as it is, it is a legal play. Granted, it is rare to see someone do it like this, plenty of users have waged wars, taken a year's gains, and then launched another shortly after to get the collapse

But given that PM3 works in years and not months, I'd be impossible to end and restart the same war in the same turn. RexImperio (talk) 15:14, February 10, 2015 (UTC)

It's not. A turn simulates what happens in the entire year. It's kinda weird to write down you end the war and you declare war again in the same turn, but it's not impossible. Hail Sean! (Get a free potato here) 15:18, February 10, 2015 (UTC)

Resign
Apparently Japan was a good time for me to quit, since this came up...

Anyway, due to some irl issues, I have to resign from PMIII. I am unsure if I'll be able to post everyday, and between this and AvA (As well as DP), I can't realy play two map games at once. Therefore, I will be re-signing from the game, and hope that I will be able to come back sometime in the near future. Saturn120 (Talk/Blog) 19:02, February 10, 2015 (UTC)

Attacker: Great Manchu Empire
Total: 147
 * Location: +20
 * Location Bonus: +1
 * Lanzhou: +1
 * Tactical Advantage: +6
 * Nations: Great Manchu Empire [L], Shangjingkou  [LV], Uighur Khanate [LV], Kingdom of Shijiazuang [LV] = 14/4 = 3.5 ~ +4
 * Military Development: 103/2 = 51.5 ~ +52
 * Military Modifer: 80 + 5 [Fully Mobilized], +3 [Moderately Sized Forces], +5 [More Total Troops] +10 [Has Not Lost Prev 3 Wars] = 103
 * Economic Development: 95/12 = 7.9 ~ +8
 * Economic Bonus: 80 + 10 [Much Larger Economy], +5 [Larger Trade],  = 95
 * Expansion:  0
 * Motive: +5 [Average]
 * Establish Hegemony [Manchu]: +7
 * Aiding Religious Kinsmen [Uighur]: +7
 * Aiding Ally [Shangjingzhou]: +3
 * Aiding Ally [Shijiazuang]: +3
 * Modifer: +4 [Non-Demo], +6 [High Morale] = +10
 * Chance: +8
 * ​Edit Count: 962
 * UTC: 1*8*1*1 [18:11]
 * Total: 377.585
 * Nation Age: +5 [Mature Nation]
 * Population: +8 + 20 [Population Modifier] = +28
 * Military Strength (Troops): 260,000/120,000 = 2.1 ~ +2
 * Recent Wars: -2

Defender: Mongol Khanate
Total: 59
 * Location: 25+
 * Location Bonus: +0
 * Tactical Advantage: +1
 * Nations: Mongol Khanate [L] = 5/1 = +5
 * Military Development: 2/103 = 0.01 ~ 0
 * Military Modifer: 12 - 3 [Smaller Forces], +3 [Moderate Sized Forces], -10 [Not Initially Prepared] = 2
 * Economic Development:  12/95 = 0.1 ~ 0
 * Economic Bonus: 14 - 2 [Smaller Economy] = 12
 * Infrastructure: +7
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +9 [Defending Against Fatal Attack]
 * Modifer: +4 [Non-Demo], -5 [Low Morale] = -1
 * Chance: +5
 * ​Edit Count: 962
 * UTC: 1*8*1*1 [18:11]
 * Total: 377.585
 * Nation Age: +0 [Maturing Nation]
 * Population: +8
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Military Strength (Troops): 120,000/260,000 = 0.4 ~ 0

Result:
((147/(147+59)*2)-1 = 0.4271 or 42.71%

(0.4271)*(1-1/(2 x 1)) = 0.34 or 34%

Therefore, it shall take 3 years cof war to topple the Mongol Khanate

Discussion
Sean.. Don't mess this up >_> RexImperio (talk) 08:18, February 11, 2015 (UTC)

Messing up? Whaaaaaaat? Hail Sean! (Get a free potato here) 08:26, February 11, 2015 (UTC)

'Mess up' by intervening into the war and whooping Manchu ass .-. RexImperio (talk) 10:50, February 11, 2015 (UTC)

Uhhmmmmmmmm... Hail Sean! (Get a free potato here) 16:42, February 12, 2015 (UTC)

Can you just change something like that? Especially when the war has already passed one year? Hail Sean! (Get a free potato here) 17:22, February 12, 2015 (UTC)

Nihon
Total: 64
 * Location: 20
 * Location Bonus: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations Per Side: Nihon, Nihonese Manchuria, Formosa = 4
 * Military Development: 54+10(Naval dominance)+5(More troops)+5(Fully mobilized)=1
 * Economic Development: 54+5(Larger economy)+5(Larger trade)=1
 * Expansion:
 * Motive: 7 (Hegemony)+7(Kinsmen)+3 (Aiding Ally) = 11
 * Modifiers: +5 (High Morale) +4*3
 * Chance: 8
 * Edits:721
 * UTC (16:42) = 1 * 6 * 4 * 2 = 48
 * 721/48 * pi = 47.1893395
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Population: 8
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent wars: -2
 * Number of Troops: 225,000/150,000=2
 * Number of Ships:
 * Theaters of War:
 * Concurrent wars:

Manchu
Total: 41
 * Location: 25
 * Location Bonus:
 * Tactical Advantage: 2
 * Nations per side: Great Manchu Empire [L], Shangjingkou  [LV], Uighur Khanate [LV], Kingdom of Shijuazuang [LV] = 4
 * Military Development: 62-3(Smaller armed forces)
 * Economy Development: 62-2 (Smaller economy)
 * Infrastructure:
 * Expansion:
 * Motive: 9+3+3+3 = 6
 * Modifiers: -5 (Low Morale) +4*4
 * Chance: 2
 * Edits: 969
 * UTC (16:42) = 1 * 6 * 4 * 2 = 48
 * 969/48 * pi = 63.4209017
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Population: 8+2
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: -8
 * Troops strength: 150,000
 * Number of Ships
 * Theaters of War:
 * Concurrent wars: -15

Result
(64/(64+41))*2-1=0.219047619047619

0.219047619047619(1-1/(2*2)=0.16

Discussion
No mention of Seige equipment, no number ships, seeing as this an invasion from an island to a land empire, that is needed.

AFAK, Wu has also entered the war, which might change the scores somewhat. Shikata ga nai! 01:45, February 13, 2015 (UTC)

Mscoree (talk) 03:52, February 13, 2015 (UTC)
 * Rimp's military and economic scores are a bit off. Judging by the number of turns he has posted, minus years at war, he should have 76 for each.
 * The attackers have two motives over five, which is not allowed.
 * Furthermore the attackers have aiding kinsmen, even though they actively genocide said kinsmen. Makes no sense to have that motive.
 * If Wu joins the war (for some reason) don't forget the -10 for breaking treaties to the attackers. Wu had a treaty with Manchu, if I understand correctly.
 * No mention of mobilization or siege weapons in the declaration of war.
 * Might want to look into Japan's frequent expansion in their so called homeland, as that affects the expansion penalty.
 * Manchu is lacking several modifiers, such as won three recent wars.
 * Japan's treaty is ridiculous. Firs they beat Tartary by 2-3% and impose Versailles type terms (yes they were similar to the ones Harv once proposed to him, the difference though is almost twenty percentage points, plus Harv's was ridiculous too; two wrongs don't make right here). Next they beat Manchu here and do something similar. At this point Japan has allegedly beat China and Russia (equivalents) in back to back land wars and now has direct or indirect control, either politically or economically, over almost all of Russia and China.

Wu signed a Non-Aggression and Joint Defence Pact with Manchu not so long ago. Then under Japanese pressure, the next turn (After having agreed to what the Manchu proposed) Wu player decides to change his mind and cancels the stuff he agreed with Manchu.

I am pretty sure it does not work like that. By that logic, this could happen
 * 1) Muscovy attacks Scandivania
 * 2) Scandivania loses
 * 3) Scandivania agrees to giving up let's say half of its navy and signing a 50 year NAP
 * 4) Next turn, Scandivania player cancels both naval agreement and NAP as if he never signed them (To avoid Treaty Breaking penalty) and attacks Muscovy

Pretty much what happened. Wu broke the NAP to avoid any penalties in the war. In fact, the whole Wu - Japan relationship is very implausible.


 * Japan and Wu have no social, religious, cultural link
 * Japan and Wu have always had bad relations. Japan was always closely allied with Manchu while Wu was with Spain
 * Japans player has literally been killing the people belonging to the religion followed by Wu
 * Unless Wu player changed it, the current Royal family ruling over Wu is the same imposed by Feud over Wu and I am pretty sure they don't like Japan
 * Wu player is being a bit too implausible by playing PM3 based of what he thinks of their players and not looking into history. Wu tried to completely end all trade and link with Hispania (Whom they entirely depended on) when he didn't like Feud. Wu agreed to a Non Aggression and Mutual Defence Pact with me (Because I had been 'friendly' to him on chat). Now Wu wants to become part of the Nihonese Theocracy itself (Cause Sean promised to be his 'best friend' on chat). RexImperio (talk) 08:31, February 13, 2015 (UTC)

And as Ms mentioned, Mods need to intervene. If the Wu join, they are joining on their own front and not hoping on the Same Front so Japan can gain points. Now, regarding the treaty, as I explained several times on chat to Rimp and others, That treaty will not be accepted. Sean did not gain enough to demand the things he wanted. He took  more than he could in terms of Pixels.
 * 1) The very existence of an industrialized Japan in the 18th Century is wrong.
 * 2) And when you add in the fact that he controls the port cities Yantai, Qingdao, Shanghai, Heinan, Hong Kong and Macau
 * 3) Might as well add in that the Japan is expanding in Papua and Siberia
 * 4) And holds a large Chinese Empire (Wu) hostage despite having no cultural, social, political, religious link with Wu
 * 5) Perhaps end it with that unlike in otl, Japan opened up to America by colonizing Alaska RexImperio (talk) 09:50, February 13, 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why. Tech wants to join me in war. And I already agreed a Non-Aggresion Pact and Point Defense. For sure this would be Wu's mistake. So this would be possible a penalty, but for me I think this is right for me to play PM3 and accept the rights. Great showing. B23 (talk) 16:13, February 13, 2015 (UTC)

Well, considering that you signed a Non Aggression and Joint Defense agreement, you literally don't even have a plausible casus belli to attack. If anything, you'd actually be on Manchus side due to the Joint Defence. Anyways, Tech can't force you to join the war; in fact he shouldn't even be able to hold control or influence over any nation in China. Anyways, we need to talk asap. I haven't talked to you for a long time which is probably why you fell into this mess. RexImperio (talk) 16:24, February 13, 2015 (UTC)

Woah woah woah. I didn't force Bandon to do anything. I'm not holding the Wu hostage. The colonies were already there. And this isn't OTL. Japan isn't isolationist like in OTL. I'm okay with critique about taking too much land, but don't act like I'm controlling China or something. Hail Sean! (Get a free potato here) 16:44, February 13, 2015 (UTC)

Rimp, as I told you, make your own version if you have a major issue with things.

Attacker: Nihon Theocracy
Total: 40
 * Location: 20+
 * Location Bonus: +5
 * Tactical Advantage: +1
 * Nations: Nihonese Theocracy [L], Nihonese Manchuria [LV], Formosa [LV] = 12/3 = +4
 * Military Development: 88/86 = +1
 * Military Modifer: 60 + 5 [More Total Troops], +3 [Moderate Sized Forces], +10 [Naval Dominance] +10 [Has Not Lost Prev 3 Wars] = 88
 * Economic Development: 70/74 = 0
 * Economic Bonus: 60 + 5 [Larger Economy], +5 [Larger Trade] = 70
 * Infrastructure: +0
 * Expansion: -15
 * Motive: +4 [Average]
 * ​Establish Hegemony: +7 [Nihonese Theocracy]
 * Aiding Ally: +3 [Nihonese Manchuria]
 * Aiding Ally: +3 [Formosa]
 * Modifer: +4 [Non-Demo]
 * Chance: 8
 * Edits: 721
 * UTC (16:42) = 1 * 6 * 4 * 2 = 48
 * 721/48 * pi = 47.1893395
 * Nation Age: -2 [Average Nation]
 * Population: +8
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Military Strength (Troops): 225,000/150,000= 2

Defender: Great Manchu Empire
Total: 37
 * Location: +25
 * Location Bonus: +1
 * Lanzhou: +1
 * Tactical Advantage: +2
 * Nations: Great Manchu Empire [L], Shangjingkou  [LV], Uighur Khanate [LV], Kingdom of Shijiazuang [LV] = 14/4 = 3.5 ~ +4
 * Military Development: 86/88 = 0
 * Military Modifer: 76 - 3 [Smaller Armed Forces], +3 [Moderately Sized Forces], +10 [Has Not Lost Prev 3 Wars] = 86
 * Economic Development: 74/70 = +1
 * Economic Bonus: 76 - 2 [Smaller Economy] = 74
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +5 [Average]
 * Not Part of Homeland [Manchu]: +5
 * Aiding Ally [Uighur]: +3
 * Aiding Ally [Shangjingzhou]: +3
 * Fatal Attack [Shijiazuang]: +9
 * Modifer: +4 [Non-Demo]
 * Chance: 2
 * Edits: 969
 * UTC (16:42) = 1 * 6 * 4 * 2 = 48
 * 969/48 * pi = 63.4209017
 * Nation Age: +5 [Average]
 * Population: +8 + 2 [Population Modifier] = +10
 * Military Strength (Troops): 150,000/225,000 = 0
 * Recent Wars: -8
 * Multiple Concurrent Wars: -15

Result:
(40/(40+37))*2-1= 0.0389

(0.0389)*(1-1/(2 x 1))= 0.0189 or 1.8%

Discussion
I'm just gonna say this, no matter how correct this algo is, I'm not accepting it until you remove all the bold. SkyGreen24 19:24, February 15, 2015 (UTC)

Attacker:Japan
Total: 42
 * Location: 20+
 * Location Bonus: +5
 * Tactical Advantage: +1
 * Nations: Nihonese Theocracy [L], Nihonese Manchuria [LV], Formosa [LV] = 5+5-2+5-2=11/3=3.6~4
 * Military Development: 88/86 = +1
 * Military Modifer: 60 + 5 [More Total Troops], +3 [Moderate Sized Forces], +10 [Naval Dominance] +10 [Has Not Lost Prev 3 Wars] = 88
 * Economic Development: 70/74 = 0
 * Economic Bonus: 60 + 5 [Larger Economy], +5 [Larger Trade] = 70
 * Infrastructure: +0
 * Expansion: -15
 * Motive: +4 [Average]
 * ​Establish Hegemony: +7 [Nihonese Theocracy]
 * Aiding Ally: +3 [Nihonese Manchuria]
 * Aiding Ally: +3 [Formosa]
 * Modifer: +6 [Non-Demo]
 * Chance: 8
 * Edits: 721
 * UTC (16:42) = 1 * 6 * 4 * 2 = 48
 * 721/48 * pi = 47.1893395
 * Nation Age: -2 [Average Nation]
 * Population: +8
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Military Strength (Troops): 225,000/150,000= 2
 * Military Strengh (Ships):

Defender: Great Manchu Empire
Total: 39
 * Location: +25
 * Location Bonus: +1
 * Lanzhou: +1
 * Tactical Advantage: +2
 * Nations: Great Manchu Empire [L], Shangjingkou  [LV], Uighur Khanate [LV], Kingdom of Shijiazuang [LV] = 5+5-2+5-2+5-2=14/4 = 3.5 ~ +4
 * Military Development: 86/88 = 0
 * Military Modifer: 76 - 3 [Smaller Armed Forces], +3 [Moderately Sized Forces], +10 [Has Not Lost Prev 3 Wars] = 86
 * Economic Development: 74/70 = +1
 * Economic Bonus: 76 - 2 [Smaller Economy] = 74
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +5 [Average]
 * Not Part of Homeland [Manchu]: +5
 * Aiding Ally [Uighur]: +3
 * Aiding Ally [Shangjingzhou]: +3
 * Fatal Attack [Shijiazuang]: +9
 * Modifer: +6 [Non-Demo]
 * Chance: 2
 * Edits: 969
 * UTC (16:42) = 1 * 6 * 4 * 2 = 48
 * 969/48 * pi = 63.4209017
 * Nation Age: +5 [Average]
 * Population: +8 + 2 [Population Modifier] = +10
 * Military Strength (Troops): 150,000/225,000 = 0
 * Recent Wars: -8
 * Multiple Concurrent Wars: -15

Result
1% in 1 year. Tactical Victory for Japan as of Now.

Introduction
Hi guys, Cookiedamage (talk) here.

So recently on chat and elsewhere, over the past few days or so, we've all been discussing the shortcomings of PM3. Of course, things like implausibility, algo problems, overly huge countries, and the like were included, but the concept of liberalism has been mentioned as one of the issues with the game.

For instance:


 * Bavaria has had around five respected, powerful female rulers when in OTL, most of Germany still had Salic Law, barring women from the throne, until the 19th century and onwards.

Clearly, we have a very progressive world in PM3.
 * Pskov has created one of the most stable, democratic federal governments that did not exist virtually at all in the world until about 1800. In France, Britannia, and Spain, similar democratic/parliamentary governments flow with ease. Noble revolts are barely heard of.
 * The Westminster Treaty, whether ASB or not, dominated European politics for several centuries from its inception in the early 1500s until its degradation in the early 1700s.
 * Cahokia similarly dominated America/Borealia for a long time as well, and several Mississipian fragment states continue to exert much regional power, with little French, Roman, or Hamburgian interference.
 * The Muslim nations of Damascus and its neighbors have lived for centuries under a peaceful political union when in OTL desires for land, wealth, and prestige led countless wars in the region.
 * Slavery is barely prevalent as it was at this time in OTL.

On chat, various users, including myself, have come to a consensus regarding this state:

The various governments and leaders (not the common people), primarily in Europe, command a very leftist, liberal continent that is much more liberal than OTL.

According to UT/KawaiiKame, this liberalism was initially forced at the beginning of the game in 1400, until it became a natural, socio-philosophical "flow" as time went on. It is similar to a domino effect or "cause-and-effect" occurrence.

For instance: Bavaria abolishes salic law (cause, perhaps?) > Bavaria estranges itself from HRE politics > Bavaria wars against Austria and Hamburg > Bavaria leaves HRE > Bavaria federalizes

Or:

Britannia, Spain, and France dominate the Western European sphere by 1500 > in an effort to avoid war (why would they want to avoid war?) they form the Westminster Treaty > An equilibrium is initially achieved > The equilibrium naturally degrades as Spain emerges as the utmost power in Europe, and possibly the world > A war is threatened between Spain and France (two nations which have not ever fought a large-scale war in the entire game, really)

In a similar theory, Sky states that we as players have become too rational and pragmatic, and as a result, have become too liberal.

But why does rational link with liberal? In my opinion, it is simply a rational/pragmatic decision to be liberal, simply because we, as modern players who mostly understand history, we know that a fair, liberal, and democratic way of playing will allow us to hold onto our nations and keep us in the game.

In other words, treating all the peoples of our nation, as Pskov has done, strongly mitigates the effects of rebellion, nationalism, and separatism. Various peoples and ethnicities have no reason to wage war or rebel if they notice that their brethren or they themselves are treated fairly/equally in a country.

It is at this point that I asked "Is this prevalence of liberalism (other words may have included pragmatism, or rationalism) implausible/ASB, or is it a natural flow of socio-politics that occurred in the PM3 timeline, and thus, realistic?"

KawaiiKame responded with "Both.", and to be fair, it is a reasonable response.

In a separate note, Sky mentioned that a cultural lag was occurring in PM3. We have all these liberal goverments trying to maintain a leftist-oriented peace within their countries in an effort to boost national power and technology, while the people themselves could care less about liberalism and only desire their own survival.

Questions
So, in order to kickstart a debate I guess, I pose a few questions which you answer if you all would like to:
 * 1) Is the PM3 timeline subjected to an over-abundance of liberalism?
 * 2) Specifically, is this liberalism a cultural issue (as in, is everyone, from the nobles to the peasants, liberal), or is it only an issue in terms of politics and government, where the leaders are the only liberal ones because it helps them maintain power?
 * 3) Is this liberalism a problem or is it just a neutral aspect of the PM3 universe in comparison to OTL? In other words, is our liberalism an ASB issue or is it something that realistically happened?
 * 4) Should we allow this liberalism to continue, or should we mandate that all players analyze their actions and ponder themselves if what they are doing is realistic or not?

Discussion
''Note: You don't have to answer these questions in a linear format. You don't even have to answer them really, I just thought they would be interesting to ponder. If you would like to answer them, feel free on putting your responses in this section. Thanks. -Cookie''

I honestly think that liberalism in PMIII is inevitable as we are modern players with a modern view of history as well a modern idealogies. Not only does liberalism make a nation run more smoothly, but it also makes a nation worth playing. I don't think anyone wants to play as an oppressive nation with various human rights abuses. But that's the thing, universal human rights is a realatively modern concept, and we play according to modern ideas, it is just natural. I think liberalism was a problem at the start, where there were liberalism was scarce in OTL. Now, in the 1700s, liberalism began to spring with the Enlightenment, so it now makes sense that states are liberal. Also, since states were liberal for a long time in OTL, I think it would make sense for people to be accustomed to it. Perhaps a Reactionary Rebellion would fix the liberalism problem, and I see how that would be a viable option. But why would people be reactionary? It seems people would enjoy liberalism, as they are accostomed to it in this TL. I think the mods should have stopped liberalism early in the game and make the spread of liberalism more like OTL. It is too late to stop liberalism now, however, as it has been engrained and accepted in the PMIII TL. I guess  a main POD for PMIII would be a more liberalized world. For PMIV, however, the mods definately need to snip liberalism in the bud early on. KawaiiKame (talk) 22:43, February 15, 2015 (UTC)

I think first of all we need to distinguish between liberalism in the Western tradition and simply different political and cultural ideas. Society doesn't necessarily progress from Western-style autocracy to Western-style democracy, as seems to be the assumption here. For example, the later survival of tribal nations like Ionte or my nation the Nehilaw has allowed for ideas that never survived long enough to be widely prevalent OTL to remain more so, including a limited existence of nobility, a gift economy, and more relaxed attitudes toward things like religion. Let's not subsume the entire world into a Western political narrative. Shikata ga nai! 01:09, February 16, 2015 (UTC)

Roman Front

 * Location: 20
 * Location Bonus: 2
 * Tactical Advantage: 1 + 5
 * Nations Per Side: Roman Empire (L), Italy (MV), Bulgaria (MV) = (5+1+1)/3 = 2
 * Military Development: (20)+10(Naval dominance)+5(More troops)+5(Fully mobilized)= 40/7 = 6
 * Economic Development: (20)+5(Larger economy)+5(Larger trade)=30/18=2
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: 7 (Hegemony) =  16
 * Modifiers: +5 (High Morale)+4(Non demo.)
 * Chance:
 * Edits:
 * UTC (AB:CD) = A * B * C * D =
 * / * pi =
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Population: 8+10
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent wars: 0
 * Number of Troops: 175,000/50,000= 4
 * Number of Ships: ?
 * Fronts: 0
 * Total: 91

Hamburg (Roman Front)

 * Location: 25
 * Location Bonus:
 * Tactical Advantage: 2
 * Nations per side: Hamburg (L) = 5
 * Military Development: 20-3(Smaller armed forces)-10(Not initially mobilized) = 7 = 0
 * Economy Development: 20-2 (Smaller economy) = 0
 * Infrastructure:
 * Expansion:
 * Motive: 9 = -7
 * Modifiers: -5 (Low Morale)+4(Non. demo)-15
 * Chance:
 * Edits:
 * UTC (AB:CD) = A * B * C * D =
 * / * pi =
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars:
 * Troops strength: 50,000
 * Number of Ships
 * Fronts: -5
 * Total: 42

Result (Roman Front)
(91/(91+42)*2-1=0.36842105262...

Scandinavia

 * Location: 20
 * Location Bonus: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: 1 + 5
 * Nations Per Side: Scandinavian Empire (L), = 5
 * Military Development: 20+10(Naval dominance)+5(More troops)+5(Fully mobilized)= 40/23= 2
 * Economic Development: 20+5(Larger economy)+5(Larger trade)=1
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: 7 (Hegemony) = 11
 * Modifiers: +4 (Non. demo)
 * Chance:
 * Edits:
 * UTC (AB:CD) = A * B * C * D =
 * / * pi =
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Population: 7+2
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent wars: 0
 * Number of Troops: 175,000/50,000= 4
 * Number of Ships:
 * Theaters of War: 0
 * Concurrent wars: 0
 * Total: 81

Hamburg (Scandinavian Front)

 * Location: 25
 * Location Bonus: 1
 * Tactical Advantage: 2
 * Nations per side: Hamburg [L]= 4
 * Military Development: 20-3(Smaller armed forces)-10(Not initially mobilized) = 17 = 0
 * Economy Development: 20-2 (Smaller economy) = 18= 0
 * Infrastructure: 2
 * Expansion:
 * Motive: 9 = -7
 * Modifiers: -5 (Low Morale)+4(Non. demo)-15
 * Chance: 0
 * Edits:
 * UTC (AB:CD) = A * B * C * D =
 * / * pi =
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars:
 * Troops strength: 50,000
 * Number of Ships
 * Fronts:-5
 * Concurrent wars:
 * Total: 44

Result (Scandinavian Front)
(80/80+56))*2-1=0.17647058822...

Discussion
This algo is null and void in the event that IATG responds to MP's diplomatic solution. This algo has been checked by Sky. Post all complaints here, a mod will change the actual algo.

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 23:58, February 15, 2015 (UTC)

All I can really say here is Reme Stronk. Saturn 03:36, February 16, 2015 (UTC)

That's all that comes to mind right now, there might be more. I am that guy (talk) 13:36, February 16, 2015 (UTC) That's all, I hope you can get back to me quick. Cheers, SkyGreen24 16:22, February 16, 2015 (UTC) I am that guy (talk) 18:06, February 16, 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) There is more of my stuff in North America: New Hamburg, Cherokee and Shawana (two nations in PU with each other), New Brunswick, and Belize.
 * 2) Whats with the -15? There's no concurrent war.
 * 3) I have way more than 50,000 troops in North America, probably able to match or come close to matching the invading forces.
 * 4) Hamburgs infrastructure should be ten.
 * 1)  which are colonies? Because we have this rule that colonies count as extensions of the main nation.
 * 2) I'm guessing MP copied an old algo, I'll remove it soon.
 * 3) I need you to be more specific.
 * 4) Could you tell me the complete list of your scores then? I wasn't quite sure, so if you could please check your last 20 posts for the development scores. Also, as an FYI, on Scandinavia's front, only Cherokee/Shawana infrastructure counts.
 * 1) I don't understand how I can be more specific, New Hamburg and New Brunswick are my most populous colonies. Together with Belize, those three near or exceed one million at least. Then there's Cherokee-Shawana, which probably adds another several million in population. The Cherokee military has also been modernized in the years since my take over. And I'm sure we're well aware that they capable of raising armies of a greater percentage of their population, especially during a fight for the lives.
 * 2) hamburgs infrastructure is ten, as is its econ and mil as a result. All other states have 20-20 econ and mil.
 * 3) and then, if colonies don't count in the algo, then how did we get away with spamming said colonies during the American from of the Grand Coalition?
 * 4) finally, why is this two algos? Everything is close enough together to warrant a single Algo imo.

The only thing I have problems with is wars taking place for no reason. Now, while I noticed the growing tensions between Scandivania and Hamburg in New Zealand; was there really any reason for Rome to intervene? <font color="#3178e0">"It's not going  to suck itself."  16:07, February 17, 2015 (UTC)

Issues I have: Also, can someone remove the roman algo, seeing as that's settled? I am that guy (talk) 20:19, February 21, 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Whats the deal with the random -15? There's no concurrent war.
 * 2) If Scandy is attacking New Rugia, then I would like my other possessions added: New Mecklenburg, South Philipines, Aceh, and North Sumatra (the small state south of Aceh, I vassalized it like thirty years ago). All have 20-20 econ and military development.
 * 3) I should get the "has not lost past three wars" and "moderately sized armed forces" modifiers
 * 4) How is Scandy getting 175,000 troops all the way around he world?

Would someone mind looking at my complaints? I am that guy (talk) 21:31, February 24, 2015 (UTC)

Attacker
Total:171
 * Location:+20
 * Location Bonus:+1 (Cuzco)
 * Tactical Advantage:+1
 * Nations Per Side:Osea (L) Andea (L) Union of Upper Peru (L) Chile (LV) South Chile(LV)=5+5+5+5-2-2=20-4=16/5=3.2~3
 * Military Development:86+10 (Has not lost past 3 wars) +5 (more total troops,) +3=104/35=2.9~+3
 * Economic Development:88+10 (Much larger eco) +5 (larger trade)=103/0 (Did not develop it once)=103
 * Expansion:0
 * Motive:3.4~3+6=9
 * Osea:+5
 * Andea:+3
 * Chile:=3
 * South Chile+3
 * Peru:+3
 * Chance:4
 * Edits:40
 * UTC (ABCD) = 1 * 9 * 1* 6 =54
 * / * pi = 2.32
 * Nation Age:-10
 * Osea:-10
 * Andea:-10
 * Chile:-10
 * Peru:-10
 * South Chile:-10
 * Population:8+20=+28
 * Participation:+10
 * Number of Troops:100,000/20,000=+5
 * Theaters of War:0
 * Concurrent Wars:0
 * Recent Wars:-2

Defender
Total:71
 * Location:25
 * Location Bonus:+1
 * Tactical Advantage:+1
 * Nations per side: Buenos Aires (L)=+5
 * Military Development:35,0
 * Economy Development:0,0
 * Infrastructure:
 * Expansion:0
 * Motive:10
 * Modifiers:4
 * Chance:9
 * Edits:2,250
 * UTC (ABCD) = A * B * C * D =54
 * / * pi =130.89
 * Nation Age:+0
 * Population:+6
 * Participation:+10
 * Recent Wars:0
 * Troops strength:0
 * Theaters of War:0
 * Concurrent Wars:0

Result
41% max

34% in 3 years.

Wu vs. Chu Algo?
Hey guys, I think you probably miss something, my turn was added that I was deciding to attack Chu, but you guys have to do an algo. You probably forget something.

Rome (Attacker)
Total: 138
 * Location: 20
 * Location Bonus: 6
 * Tactical Advantage: 7
 * Nations: Rome (L), = 1
 * Military Development: 20+10+10+5-2=43
 * Economic Development: 20+10+5=12
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 7
 * Motive Modifiers: +4+5
 * Chance: 8
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 =
 * Total: 7066/(1*9*5*pi) = 49.9817256839
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 10+20
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 7500/2500=3
 * Recent Wars: -3
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0
 * -15

Native Nation A (Defender)
Total: 56
 * Location: 25
 * Location Bonus:
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations: 1
 * Military Development: 6-3-10=-7
 * Economic Development 5/2=3
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 7/2=4
 * Motive: 10
 * Motive Modifiers: -5+4
 * Chance: 1
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 5
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 0/0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result
Win in 3 years.
 * ((Winner/(Loser+Winner))*2)-1 = 0
 * (0)*(1-1/(2*0)) = 0

Rome (Attacker)
Total: 138
 * Location: 20
 * Location Bonus: 6
 * Tactical Advantage: 7
 * Nations: Rome (L), = 1
 * Military Development: 20+10+10+5-2=43
 * Economic Development: 20+10+5=12
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 7
 * Motive Modifiers: +4+5
 * Chance: 8
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 =
 * Total: 7066/(1*9*5*pi) = 49.9817256839
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 10+20
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 7500/2500=3
 * Recent Wars: -3
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0
 * -15

Native Nation B (Defender)
Total: 56
 * Location: 25
 * Location Bonus:
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations: 1
 * Military Development: 6-3-10=-7
 * Economic Development 5/2=3
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 7/2=4
 * Motive: 10
 * Motive Modifiers: -5+4
 * Chance: 1
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 5
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 0/0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result
Win in 3 years.
 * ((Winner/(Loser+Winner))*2)-1 = 0
 * (0)*(1-1/(2*0)) = 0

Discussion
So uh...this algo was from a while ago, I'm assuming nothing has changed. Declaration of war will follow shortly, and stuff.

Wu vs. Chu (1784-?)
I'm starting a war with Chu, somebody do an algo for me.

My friend, you must start the algo first, then the mods will step in to help you do it.

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 19:48, February 22, 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how to do it, well if you wish to teach me it would be rather easy. Great showing. B23 (talk) 13:07, February 23, 2015 (UTC)

Hamburg and Co. (Offensive)
Total: 80
 * Location: 25
 * Location bonus: 6
 * Tactical Advantage: 1+5
 * Nations: Hamburg (L), Mecklenburg (L), Holstein (L), Stade (LV), Münster (LV), Oldenburg (L), Bavaria (L), Austria (L), Venezia (L), Brandenburg (LV), Pomerania (LV), Prussia (L) = 52/12 = 4
 * military Dev: 226/40 = +6
 * Hamburg: +20
 * Mecklenburg: +20
 * Holstein: +20
 * Stade: +20
 * Munster: +20
 * Oldenburg: +20
 * Bavaria: +20
 * Austria: +20
 * Venezia: +20
 * Brandenburg: +20
 * Pomerania: +20
 * Prussia: +6
 * Economic dev: 227/40 = +6
 * Hamburg: +20
 * Mecklenburg: +20
 * Holstein: +20
 * Stade: +20
 * Munster: +20
 * Oldenburg: +20
 * Bavaria: +20
 * Austria: +20
 * Venezia: +20
 * Brandenburg: +20
 * Pomerania: +20
 * Prussia: +7
 * Motive: 68/16= +4
 * Hamburg: 7+4
 * Mecklenburg: 3+4
 * Holstein: 3+4
 * Stade: 3
 * Münster: 3
 * Oldenburg: 3+4
 * Bavaria: 3+4
 * Austria: 3+4
 * Venezia: 3+4
 * Brandenburg: 3
 * Pomerania: 3
 * Prussia: +3
 * Nation age: 5
 * Population: 8+2
 * Participation: 10
 * fronts: -5
 * Troops: 600,000/175,000 = 3

Scandinavian Empire (Defensive)
Total: 57
 * Location: 25
 * Location bonus: 5
 * Nations: Scandinavia (L), Karelia (LV), Schleswig (LV), Iceland (LV) = 11/4 = 3
 * Military dev: +40/226 = +0
 * Scandinavia: +10
 * Karelia: +10
 * Schleswig: +10
 * Iceland: +10
 * Economic dev:  +40/227 = +0
 * Scandinavia: +10
 * Karelia: +10
 * Schleswig: +10
 * Iceland: +10
 * Infrastructure: +0
 * Motive: 22/4 = 6
 * Schleswig: 9
 * Scandinavia: 3+4
 * Karelia: 3
 * Iceland: 3
 * Nation age: 5
 * Population: 8
 * Participation: 10
 * Fronts: -5
 * Troops: 175,000 = 0

Hamburg and Co. (Offensive)
Total: 68
 * Location: 25
 * Location bonus: 6
 * Tactical Advantage: 1+5
 * Nations: Hamburg (L), Mecklenburg (L), Holstein (L), Stade (LV), Münster (LV), Oldenburg (L), Bavaria (L), Austria (L), Venezia (L), Brandenburg (LV), Pomerania (LV), Westphalia (L), Luxembourg (L), Nassau (L), Mainz (LV), Palatinate (LV), Prussia (L) = 67/16 = 4
 * military Dev: 296/40 = +7
 * Hamburg: +20
 * Mecklenburg: +20
 * Holstein: +20
 * Stade: +20
 * Munster: +20
 * Oldenburg: +20
 * Bavaria: +20
 * Austria: +20
 * Venezia: +20
 * Brandenburg: +20
 * Pomerania: +20
 * Westphalia: +14
 * Luxembourg: +14
 * Nassau: +14
 * Mainz: +14
 * Palatinate: +14
 * Prussia: +6
 * Economic dev: 257/40 = +6
 * Hamburg: +20
 * Mecklenburg: +20
 * Holstein: +20
 * Stade: +20
 * Munster: +20
 * Oldenburg: +20
 * Bavaria: +20
 * Austria: +20
 * Venezia: +20
 * Brandenburg: +20
 * Pomerania: +20
 * Westphalia: +6
 * Luxembourg: +6
 * Nassau: +6
 * Mainz: +6
 * Palatinate: +6
 * Prussia: +7
 * Motive: 95/16= 6
 * Hamburg: 7+4
 * Mecklenburg: 3+4
 * Holstein: 3+4
 * Stade: 3
 * Münster: 3
 * Oldenburg: 3+4
 * Bavaria: 3+4
 * Austria: 3+4
 * Venezia: 3+4
 * Brandenburg: 3
 * Pomerania: 3
 * Westphalia: 3+4
 * Luxembourg: 3+4
 * Nassau: 3+4
 * Mainz: 3
 * Palatinate: 3
 * Prussia: +3
 * Nation age: 5
 * Population: 8+2
 * Participation: 10
 * fronts: -10
 * Broken treaties: Alliance: -10
 * Troops: 600,000/175,000 = 3

Scandinavian Empire (Defensive)
Total: 61
 * Location: 25
 * Location bonus: 8
 * Nations: Scandinavia (L), Karelia (LV), Schleswig (LV), Iceland (LV) = 11/4 = 3
 * Military dev: +40/316 = +0
 * Scandinavia: +10
 * Karelia: +10
 * Schleswig: +10
 * Iceland: +10
 * Economic dev:  +40/316 = +0
 * Scandinavia: +10
 * Karelia: +10
 * Schleswig: +10
 * Iceland: +10
 * Infrastructure: +0
 * Motive: 22/4 = 6
 * Schleswig: 9
 * Scandinavia: 5+4
 * Karelia: 3
 * Iceland: 3
 * Nation age: 5
 * Population: 8
 * Participation: 10
 * Fronts: -5
 * Troops: 175,000 = 0

Discussion

 * 1) Our location is 25, as all our capitals are even closer than Stokholm.
 * 2) there are only two fronts: Europe and new Rugia. Remember, MP dropped out.
 * 3) There is no treaty being broken, as the only treaty was between myself and MP, you were the one that decided to continue fighting.
 * 4) As according to the new Rugia algo that you made, you have a location bonus of 5.
 * 5) Only main nations and PUs get the "supported government" modifier, of which Karelia and Iceland are not, as there is zero mention anywhere of them becoming so.

I am that guy (talk) 19:28, February 22, 2015 (UTC)

IMPORTANT NOTE: So Ms is being unbanned, however we won't let him join the war till 1787, but I don't feel like removing him from the algo, so... Cookiedamage (talk) 22:18, February 22, 2015 (UTC)

Gais, I think you forgot eco and mil modifiers. SkyGreen24 09:59, February 24, 2015 (UTC)

Kiev
Total: 96
 * Location: 20
 * Location Bonus:
 * Tactical Advantage: 6
 * Nations Per Side: 5
 * Military Development: 20+5 = 25
 * Economic Development: 20+5+5=30/12=3
 * Expansion:
 * Motive:  7 = 11
 * Modifiers: +4
 * Chance: 4
 * Edits: 13,408
 * UTC (03:54) = 0 * 3 * 5 * 4 = 60
 * 13,408/60 * pi = 702.041239<span id="cke_bm_58E" style="display: none;">
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 8+2
 * Participation: 10
 * Number of Troops: 200,000/125,000=2
 * Theaters of War:
 * Concurrent Wars:

Vlachia
Total: 65
 * Location: 25
 * Location Bonus:
 * Tactical Advantage: 2
 * Nations per side: 5
 * Military Development: 12-10 (Not mobilized)-3 (Lost more than two recent wars) -2 (Smaller forces)
 * Economy Development: 14-2
 * Infrastructure: 7
 * Expansion:
 * Motive: 9 = 8
 * Modifiers: +4-5 (Low morale)
 * Chance: 1
 * Edits: 13,408
 * UTC (03:54) = 0 * 3 * 5 * 4 = 60
 * 13,408/60 * pi = 702.041239
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars:
 * Troops strength: 125,000
 * Theaters of War:
 * Concurrent Wars:

Result
(96/(96+65))*2-1=0.192546583

In three years, 0.160455486, or 640 pixels.

Discussion
I need Sky's help for the algo.Yank 18:30, February 22, 2015 (UTC)

Wu
Total: 89
 * Location: 20
 * Tactical Advantage: 6
 * Nations Per Side: 5
 * Military Development: 15+5+10+25+1=56/5 =11
 * Economic Development: 10+20+5=35 =7
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: 10
 * Modifiers: +3+5
 * Chance: 7
 * Edits: 0
 * UTC: 0 =
 * Total: 6650/(2*3*2*pi)
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 8 +1
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 200,000/45,000 = 4
 * Theaters of War: 0
 * Concurrent Wars: 0

Chu
Total: Total: 66
 * Location: 25
 * Location Bonus: 0
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations per side: 5
 * Military Development: 0
 * Economy Development: 0
 * Infrastructure: 7
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: 9
 * Modifiers: +2+1
 * Chance:1
 * Edits: 0
 * UTC: 0 =
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 8
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Troops strength: 0
 * Theaters of War: 0
 * Concurrent Wars: 0

Result
Your turn mods.

Discussion
Should be more accurate, would appreciated if another mod checked over my work since I am not the best at these.

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 21:52, February 23, 2015 (UTC)

Me too, not best of it all, but somebody like Sky or someone could help. Great showing. B23 (talk) 13:03, February 24, 2015 (UTC)

Scandinavia (Attacker)
Total: 58
 * Location: 20
 * Location bonus: 5
 * Tactical advantage: 1
 * Nations: Scandinavia (L), New Zealand (LV) = 7/2 = 4
 * Military development: 20
 * Scandinavia: 10
 * New Zealand: 10
 * Economic development: 20
 * Scandinavia: 10
 * New Zealand: 10
 * Motive: 7
 * Scandinavia: 7+4
 * New Zealand: 3
 * Nation age: 5
 * Population: 8+2
 * Participation: 10
 * Fronts: -5
 * Troops: 100,000/100,000 = 1

Hamburg (defender)
Total: 64
 * Location: 25
 * Location bonus: 1
 * Tactical advantage: 2 (sea invasion)
 * Nations: Hamburg (L), New Rugia (LV), New Mecklenburg (LV), Aceh (LV), Hamburgian Philippines (LV) = 13-4 = 9/5 = 2
 * Military development: 100/20 = 5
 * Economic development: 100/20 = 5
 * Motive: 6
 * Hamburg: 3+4
 * New Rugia: 9
 * New Mecklenburg: 3
 * Aceh: 3
 * Hamburgian Philippines: 3
 * Nation age: 5
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: 10
 * Fronts: -5
 * Troops: 100,000/100,000 = 1

Discussion
This is my version of the New Rugian front of the current war, sky please check. I am that guy (talk) 16:56, February 25, 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Swiss Annexation of Genoa Region
Proposed Swiss annexation of Greater Genoa Region.


 * This land is ceded to the Swiss Confederacy.


 * The Swiss Confederacy will pay 1,750,000 Swiss Francs for the land. Leldy22 (talk) 20:31, March 1, 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Also I need to check, but Lombardy has been influencing Switzerland enough to vassalize, from before you signed up. Tr0llis (talk) 20:36, March 1, 2015 (UTC)

Both your annexation and the vassalization are rejected, carry on. SkyGreen24 16:37, March 2, 2015 (UTC)

Union of Konigsberg

 * Location: +15(base at Zlatobrezhie)
 * Nations: Pskov(L), Latvia(LV) = 8/2 = 4
 * Advantage: 1
 * Military: 40 + 10(no losses) + 10 (naval dominance) + 5 (large military) = 65/10 = 7
 * Economy: 40 +10(much larger) + 5(larger colonial) = 55/12 = 5
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Chance :
 * Editcount:
 * Time:
 * Calculations:
 * Motive: +3(colonial expansion)+3(ally)+5(demo)+5(Morale)= 13
 * Population: 7+10
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars:0
 * Troops: 20 000 /30 000=0
 * Subtotal: 77+Chance
 * Industry: *1.1
 * Total: 85

African Nation (|onte?)

 * Location: 25
 * Nations: African Nation(|onte?)(L) = 5
 * Advantage: 2 (defender)
 * Military: 12+ 5 (more total troops) -10(not initially mobilized) +3 (moderately sized military) = 0
 * Economy: 14 -2 (smaller economy) = 0
 * Infrastructure: 7
 * Chance:
 * Editcount:
 * Time:
 * Calculations:
 * Motive: 9(LoD)-5(low Moale)+4(Nondem) = 8
 * Population: 6
 * Nation age: +5
 * Participation: 10
 * Troops: 30 000/20 000 = 1.5 = 2
 * concurrent wars: 0
 * Total: 65 +C

Result
(85/(85+70))*2-1=0.09677419354 something. Pskov wins, takes some land, gains foothold in nation, sings "unequal treaty"

Discussion
People please check this over, mkay?-Lx (leave me a message) 20:47, March 7, 2015 (UTC)

When the hell did Pskov get Prussia back? Yank 07:58, March 8, 2015 (UTC)

I took 1618 as the last government change of |onte because that was the moment it actually started creating laws, thus ending its previously completely tribal system. SkyGreen24 09:08, March 8, 2015 (UTC)

The last 3 wars fought by Pskov were One gets a +10 for Last 3 Wars Won. But Pskov only won its Last 2 wars therefore it was really nice if Lx stops cheating and removes the +10 from his Mil Modifier. <font color="#3178e0">"It's not going  to suck itself."  10:20, March 10, 2015 (UTC)
 * Polish - Pskov War [1656 - 1658]: Pskov Defeat
 * Alexander Lushenko's Rebellion [1747 - 1748]: Pskov Victory
 * Union of Konigsberg Civil War [1758 - 1760]: Pskov Victory

I do believe that pskov didn't go to war with Poland since 1580. The last three wars I fought were (in order), Continuation War, Alexander's Revellion, and the civil war, all victories. -Lx (leave me a message) 22:09, March 10, 2015 (UTC)

A little slow recently
What happened to 1805? Is the game dying or sometihng? Nathan1123 (talk) 13:37, March 13, 2015 (UTC)

MP and I've been busy lately, but we're both back again. We're gonna spice it up again, don't worry. SkyGreen24 22:05, March 13, 2015 (UTC)

Scandinavia

 * Location: +20
 * Tactical Advantage: Siege Equipment: 5
 * Nations Per Side on the War:  Scandinavia, Iceland = 5/2= 3
 * Military Development: 40+10+10+5+5+3= 53/5= 11
 * Economic: 40+10+5= 55/15 = 4
 * Locations Bonus: 9
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: 3+3+5+5= 16/2 = 8
 * Nation Age: Mature nation = +5
 * Population: 28
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 30,000/20,000= 1.5=2
 * Theaters of War: 0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Total: 105

Nehilaw

 * Location:  +20
 * Tactical advantage: +1
 * Nations: Nehilaw (L+5) Vassal A (LV+4) Vassal B (LV+4) Vassal C (LV+4) Vassal D (LV+4) Borealia (L+5)= 24/5 = +5
 * Military: 20 -5 -10 +10 =5 = 0
 * Economy: 20 -2 -3 =15/55= 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: +9+5+5+5-5-10+3= 12/6=2
 * Chance:
 * Nation age: 0
 * Population: +6
 * Recent wars: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of troops: 0
 * Recent wars: 0
 * Total: +44

Result

 * ((113/(113+44)*2)-1 = 0.4494 * 1.5 = 65.9%
 * (65.9)*(1-1/(2*2)) = 49.425 = which means Scandinavia can topple the Nehilaw in two years.

Result

 * ((113/(113+44)*2)-1 = 0.4494 * 1.5 = 65.9%
 * (65.9)*(1-1/(2*2)) = 49.425 = which means Scandinavia can topple the Nehilaw in two years.

Discussion
Um... I may be missing something, but there is no declaration of war on the game page. If there was, Borealia would certainly come to the Nehilaw's aid as per New Munich. Nathan1123 (talk) 02:49, March 17, 2015 (UTC)

I officially declared war on Scandinavia, sending 42,000 troops to the Nehilaw. So that should be added to the algorithm. Nathan1123 (talk) 23:51, March 17, 2015 (UTC)

A new nation on the other side of the continent sending 42,000 troops across the continent, much less having that many troops, is a bit implausible. Crim de la Crème 23:56, March 17, 2015 (UTC)

Transportaiton between New Austria and the Nehilaw has been frequent over the last 50 years, and the total military of Borealia has been stated as 54,000 without any redaction. If you want to talk about implausibility, how about invading and conquering a nation without any rational whatsoever. A nation, I might add, that you had an alliance with continuously, and even restated your alliance in the exact same post as the declaration of war. Honestly, I don't know why you're grasping for a colonial empire while we're entering into the age of revolutions. Nathan1123 (talk) 00:09, March 18, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, those troop levels need to be lowered by a lot. As far as motives go, I had a few. Mostly claiming the land for Andy OOCly (our plan is to merge my Borealian stuff with his. This war helps this alliance of yours more than hinders it lol). Reason in-game is that the nation was collapsing since it's been ages since Kras last posted. Crim de la Crème 00:14, March 18, 2015 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. But you have to see it from my perspective. I'm never kept in the loop of any of this meta-gaming. All I saw was that one of my strongest allies is being crushed by a foreign power. I don't believe that a lapse of seven turns should be legitimate cause for partitioning of his territory, considering the extended absences of other players in the past, but you do what you will. Nathan1123 (talk) 02:42, March 18, 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I completely understand. At this point in the game, though, Nehilaw's main enemy seems to be itself right now. But that was way more than a lapse of seven turns. Also, just adding this; the broken alliance thing doesn't really apply right now since the nation was collapsing and, therefore, fair game for invasion, even from allies (as stated on the rules page) Crim de la Crème 03:24, March 18, 2015 (UTC)

I reduced the numbers down to 10,000 troops. The Nehilaw's last post was 1802, and didn't seem to imply any instability that I could tell, but of course I'm not good at reading between lines. Btw, I really think you should consider reworking your standard post. Besides the broken alliance thing, I find it has a number of other inconsistencies.Nathan1123 (talk) 04:50, March 18, 2015 (UTC)

Why did you completely delete my discussion posts? You still need to average your motives, add broken treaties, and add recent wars. EDIT: I see you decided to take my advice about these things and apply them only to the other side, thereby incorrectly bulstering your own score even more. Crim I'm pretty sure that's called cheating. Tr0llis (talk) 10:41, March 18, 2015 (UTC)

Crim, I think it's a little early to be calling a victory if there are still problems with your algorithm. Nathan1123 (talk) 19:25, March 19, 2015 (UTC)

Tr0llis, if I'm not mistaken, I never deleted your post. The recent wars and broken treaties don't apply to Scandinavia. Motive has been averaged and, even if Kras last posted in 1802, he'd still be in disarray. Crim de la Crème 13:43, March 21, 2015 (UTC)

Okay, a full list of issues I have. Until this algo is fixed, this war is not resolved. Also, another back room deal to split my land with Andy? I've had my fill of those already. Shikata ga nai! 22:34, March 21, 2015 (UTC)
 * Troops. I have way more than 3000. Minimum 10,000 at the most conservative estimate, even if fireballs were raining from the sky and the entire nation was in a state of utter collapse, which, by the way, it isn't. Plus Borealia's contingent.
 * Scandinavia has one hell of a recent wars penalty that isn't being applied.
 * My nation isn't in civil disarray. I never posted any such thing, it hasn't been in the mod events, and it isn't happening. Crim seems to have made it up.
 * I should have a fortification tactical bonus.
 * My population bonus should be larger than 6. With Borealia's, it should be much, much higher.
 * Treaty breaking penalty, as a longstanding alliance Scandinavia has affirmed quite recently exists.
 * I get mature nation bonus.
 * I also get guerrilla war bonus, since that's the likely response of any nation under attack by a superior force. This applies in several places, not just one.
 * I get the "won last three wars" bonus.

Kras, you've posted once in thirty years. To say that your empire ISN'T in disarray is implausible. Enough time has elapsed since my last war that I don't get a recent war penalty. Broken treaties doesn't apply as per the rules on nations in disarray. Crim de la Crème 18:56, March 22, 2015 (UTC)

You do realize that Algonquia is the same as the Nehilaw, right? Because he's posted fairly regularly up until last week. Nathan1123 (talk) 19:01, March 22, 2015 (UTC)

I can list dozens of nations that underwent extended periods of inactivity without disarray resulting, for example, Urdustan, Brittannia, Osea, the Tartary, China ... the list goes on. Even if that weren't true, you definitely don't have the right to decide my nation is in disarray to help you in the algo. Also, per Nathan, I posted up until last week. I have no idea where you came up with the idea I haven't posted in the last thirty years, it's simply untrue. In case you weren't aware, by the way, my nation changed its name to Algonquia, so even the war's name is wrong. Shikata ga nai! 19:17, March 22, 2015 (UTC)

I haven't posted since 1802; prior to that, I posted every turn. That being the case, I need dev scores for the years I posted, including for all my vassals. You declared in 1809, so I get eleven turns worth of dev scores for my nation and all vassals, per the 20-turn limit in the rules. Please add it. Shikata ga nai! 19:20, March 22, 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I hate to add fire to this, but apparently Kras is Sine's protectorate, and I've been posting for sine, unaware of this. I feel like that would change things, as Sine says it would mean French involvement. This is my fault for not being aware. Let me know what would be done here.

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 22:52, March 22, 2015 (UTC)

I imagine that France would come in on the Nehilaw side, but fairly late as it has been rather lackadaisical about Borealia recently. Nathan1123 (talk) 23:44, March 22, 2015 (UTC) That does seem like the most likely outcome, although I've been acting fairly independently lately, so France could stay uninvolved. On another note, this algo is hugely wrong, so could a mod fix it? A version including my changes is below. Shikata ga nai! 00:28, March 23, 2015 (UTC)

Scandinavia

 * Location: +20
 * Tactical Advantage: Siege Equipment: 5
 * Nations Per Side on the War:  Scandinavia, Iceland = 5/2= 3
 * Military Development: 40+10+10+5+5+3= 53/50= 1
 * Economic: 40+10+5= 55/75 = 0
 * Locations Bonus: 9
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: 3+3+5+5= 16/2 = 8
 * Nation Age: Mature nation = +5
 * Population: 8+2 =10’’’
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 30,000/25,000= 1’’’
 * Theaters of War:0
 * Recent Wars: ?
 * Guerilla war:-10
 * Treaty broken: -10
 * Total: 52

Nehilaw

 * Location:  +20
 * Tactical advantage: +2
 * Nations: Nehilaw (L+5) Vassal A (LV+4) Vassal B (LV+4) Vassal C (LV+4) Vassal D (LV+4) Borealia (L+5)= 24/5 = +5
 * Military: 5x2x5 = 50 + 20 (Borealia)= 70 -5 -10 =5 = 50/53 = 0
 * Economy: 6x2x5= 80 -2 -3 =75/55= 1
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: +9+5+5+5-5-10+3= 12/6=2
 * Chance:
 * Nation age: +5
 * Population: +8
 * Recent wars: 0
 * Won last three wars:+5
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of troops: 0
 * Recent wars: 0
 * Guerilla war:+2
 * Total: +69

Result
Scandinavian defeat.

Discussion
Total list of changes implemented: nation age fixed, guerrilla war, treaty breaking added, civil disarray removed, won last three wars added for Nehilaw, tactical advantage fixed, population fixed according to historical values, with Borealia's added, dev scores for 11 years I posted within 20 year limit prior to declaration. As you can see, the result is very different.

Scandinavia

 * Location: +20
 * Tactical Advantage: Siege Equipment: 5
 * Nations Per Side on the War:  Scandinavia, Iceland = 8/2= 4
 * Military Development: 40+10+10+5+5+3= 53/35=2
 * Economic: 40+10+5= 55/55 = 1
 * Locations Bonus: 9
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: 7+3+5+5= 20/2 = 10
 * Nation Age: Mature nation = +5
 * Population: 8+2 =10
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 30,000/25,000= 1
 * Theaters of War:0
 * Recent Wars: ?
 * Treaty broken: -10
 * Total: 67*1.2=80.4~80

Nehilaw

 * Location:  25+25+25+20+20/5=23
 * Tactical advantage: +2
 * Nations: Nehilaw (L+5) Vassal A (LV+3) Vassal B (LV+3) Vassal C (LV+3) Vassal D (LV+3)-2(Vassal spam)+Borealia (M+3)= 18/6 = +3
 * Military: 5x2x5 = 50-5-10=35/53 = 0
 * Economy: 6x2x5= 60-2-3 =55/55= 1
 * Infrastructure: 18
 * Motive: +9+3+3+3+3=21/5=4
 * Chance:
 * Nation age: 0
 * Population: +8
 * Recent wars:
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of troops: 0
 * Recent wars: 0
 * Total: +67

Result
(80/(80+67))*2-1=0.08843537414965972900390625...

Disscussion
Beyond what I have been told, I have no idea what is going on. Need to know the year it started. ~Edge

It started with Crim's post in 1809. Nathan1123 (talk) 22:29, March 23, 2015 (UTC)

It started in 1809 and ended in 1801. Only after the war was over did Kras start causing problems.

At any rate, there are multiple things wrong with this algorithm. First and foremost, Algonquia is in a state of disarray since Kras was inactive for seven years. Algonquia is a large, tribal nation with low population density. Therefore, the treaty breaking penalty is null. Even so, it was a loose alliance at best. The guerilla war mod is in the wrong category; it should be in the motives modifier section and as a -5, not -10. While I may be fighting a coalition, I, myself, am not a coalition. Scandinavia's population is a bit more than five times that of the Algonquian population. In fact, their population score should be 7, if not 6 (given that one is a tribe and the other is a former colony located on an area on the continent where not a lot of people would choose to migrate). Not sure where they're mustering up 25,000 men to fight if Algonquia is in disarray and New Austria is on the other side of the continent.

Borealia was a young nation, if I'm not mistaken, at the beginning of the war. That's a -5 to nation age, averaging out with Algonquia's +5 score to a 0. Won last three wars belongs in the motive column. They recently sent aid to Arcadia during its war with Britannia, dropping the score by -2. That should be it for the issues for now. Crim de la Crème 05:04, March 25, 2015 (UTC)

Algonquia isn't in disarray. There is no rule stipulating that a period of inactivity (of any length) necessarily results in disarray. It does result in a transformation into an NPC nation, but not for fifteen years. As best I can feel, Crim decided that my nation was in disarray as he invaded, thereby giving himself a 1.5 multiplier. This is obviously a hugely biased decision, and to me this smacks of abuse of mod powers to give himself an advantage. Secondly, it doesn't matter how loose the alliance was, or what type of nation it was with, the treaty breaking penalty still applies. It's absurd to decide that since the other nation was of a certain type, the penalty can be discarded at will. Not only that, but the alliance was hardly loose, as Crim affirmed it in the same turn he declared war, and in every turn before for months, which proves the existence of a close and repeatedly confirmed alliance.

Second, the population bonus is most definitely 8. Algonquia is not a tribe but a federation of ethnic groups that were previously tribes. As such, it incorporates the populations of several historical tribes, and includes areas that had historically high densities of population. Borealia is located in one of the most heavily settled areas of the continent OTL, and was controlled by two major colonial powers, ensuring that lots of immigration would occur. A combined population of over 1 million, and plausibly significantly more, is assured. Given the military forces. As such, a military force of 25,000 is easily mustered.Shikata ga nai! 11:07, March 25, 2015 (UTC)

Crim, first you say that Kras hasn't posted in "ages" and it was "a lot more than seven turns" since his last post. Now you admit that he had last posted seven turns ago, but still think that's justification to consider his country in disarray. Kinda grasping at straws there. The rules clearly state that it takes fifteen turns to be considered NPC, let alone in disarray. Even if it was, it would have to be mentioned in a mod event before you can take advantage of it. Nathan1123 (talk) 15:05, March 25, 2015 (UTC)

How the hell is Borealia helping out the Nehilaw? I fixed some stuff, but Edge/Crimmyboo/Krasyboo, I'll need more detailed info on what is what in this algo to properly fix it. SkyGreen24 17:57, March 25, 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: Borealia ain't helping Algonquia. Also, according to Kras' 1770 post, his vassals are now subchiefdoms, I must inquire... What does that exactly mean? PU, glorified vassals or something else?

And I fixed the algo too. Scandinavia does win, although only a slight percentage. SkyGreen24 20:06, March 25, 2015 (UTC) Glorified vassals, basically. No real change in status, just a change in name. Glad to have this resolved :D. Shikata ga nai! 21:02, March 25, 2015 (UTC)

This leaves me confused as to what transportation is allowed and what isn't. Quite a lot of stuff has transported back and forth across the continent since before New Austria existed. Military, diplomats, and trade have seemlessly trecked between Borealia and Algonquia without any redaction, not once. (And let's not begin to ask how everything is so quickly transported back from Europe, how the heck did Bavaria get all the way to the west coast in the first place?). Furthermore, I sent military aid to Arcadia when it rebelled from Britannia, again without any redaction. I wish this could somehow be more clear. Nathan1123 (talk) 21:10, March 25, 2015 (UTC)

Well, the problem isn't you sending it, as much as it is that you were deemed an L in this algo. If you agree to switch to an M and no sending of more than 15k troops to aid (even that I consider a bit high), I'll allow it.

As for the Arcadia thing, did you get a mod response/player response that you were allowed to help? SkyGreen24 14:28, March 26, 2015 (UTC)

Also, treaty breaking. What treaty was broken? (I need a link, otherwise I'm removing it from the algo). SkyGreen24 20:02, March 27, 2015 (UTC)

A longstanding alliance between Algonquia and Scandinavia. Crim affirmed its existence in every turn he posted from around the 1750s, including the turn he declared war. Shikata ga nai! 20:07, March 27, 2015 (UTC)

Again, I ask you link me. SkyGreen24 21:41, March 27, 2015 (UTC) Principia Moderni III (Map Game) - look at Scandinavia's post in 1809, where it declared war, for one point at which he affirmed the alliance. The specific text is: "Scandinavia retains its alliances with Pskov, the Roman Empire, Britannia, the Nehilaw and many other nations." Really, check any of Scandinavia's posts from the 1750s up until the war.Shikata ga nai! 22:13, March 27, 2015 (UTC)

I agree to being changed to an M (I didn't write that part of the algo anyway). I was originally planning to send about 10-15k troops. Nathan1123 (talk) 02:02, March 28, 2015 (UTC)

Union of Konigsberg

 * Location: +25(base at West Africa)
 * Nations: Pskov(L), Lithuania(LV), Eesti(LV), Belarussia(LV) = 14/4 = 3.5 = 4
 * Advantage: 1
 * Military: 36 + 36 + 10(no losses) + 10 (naval dominance) + 5 (large military) +5 (more troops)= 102/3 = 34
 * Economy: 36 + 30 +10(much larger) + 5(larger colonial) = 81/10 = 8
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Chance :
 * Editcount:
 * Time:
 * Calculations:
 * Motive: +3(colonial expansion)+3(ally)+5(demo)+5(Morale)= 13
 * Population: 7+20
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars:-2
 * Troops: 50 000 /30 000= 1.67 = 2
 * Subtotal: 127 + C
 * Industry: *1.0
 * Total: 127 + C

African Nation (|onte?)

 * Location: 25
 * Nations: African Nation(|onte?)(L) = 5
 * Advantage: 2 (defender)
 * Military: 10 -10(not initially mobilized) +3 (moderately sized military) = 3 = 0
 * Economy: 12 -2 (smaller economy) = 0
 * Infrastructure: 6
 * Chance:
 * Editcount:
 * Time:
 * Calculations:
 * Motive: 9(lethal)-5(low Moale)+4(Nondem) = 8
 * Population: 6
 * Nation age: +5
 * Participation: 10
 * Troops: 30 000/50 000 = 0
 * recent wars: -2
 * Total: 65 +C

Result
(127/(127+65) -0.5)*2*100% = 32% *0.833 = 27%. With the Winnings of the 1st campaign enough to topple the |ontean government.

Discussion
This is probably worse than the last one, given most of the stuff is pure cut-paste from the previous algo with additions for the other 2 nations.

I'll fix it later, but just FYI, if you put a bit more effort into this war, you might be able to conquer all of it, just sayin'. SkyGreen24 17:57, March 20, 2015 (UTC)

If im able to kill though, the motive becomes 8 not 4, because then it becomes a "potentially lethal" and not "non-lethal"-Lx (leave me a message) 18:31, March 20, 2015 (UTC)

Rome

 * Location: 20
 * Location Bonus: +3+1
 * Tactical Advantage: 7
 * Nations: Rome (L), Italy (LV), Armenia (L) = 5+3+3=11/3=4
 * Military Development: 60+10+10+5+5=90/8=11
 * Economic Development: 60+10+5=75/26=3
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 7+5+3=11
 * Motive Modifiers: +4+4+4+5
 * Chance: 8
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 =
 * Total: 7066/(1*9*5*pi) = 49.9817256839
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Population: 8+5
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 400,000/350,000=1
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0
 * Total: 85*1.1*1.5=140

Damascan Sultanate

 * Location: 20
 * Location Bonus: 0
 * Nations per side: Damascus (L) Morroco (LV)=+8/2=4
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Military Development: 24-3-10-3=0
 * Economic Development 28-2=0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 7
 * Motive: 9+3=8
 * Motive Modifiers: -5+4+4
 * Chance: 1
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: 3
 * Population: 8
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0
 * Total:62

Result
In progress. "<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 22:12, March 20, 2015 (UTC)
 * ((140/(62+140))*2)-1 = 0.3861...
 * (x)*(1-1/(2*2)) = 0.28960396039

Need information regarding damascus. ~Eon

I am satisfied with the results. Now for the hard part.

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 01:08, March 25, 2015 (UTC)

I fixed some stuff, btw... I also calculated something, and you can topple in 4 years. I may allow you to change it because you hadn't been informed about the true state of the algo. Cheers, SkyGreen24 09:20, March 29, 2015 (UTC)

We really really really need to change this aspect of the Algo
Vassalspamming. Dont Deny it, thats the reason none of our nations are centralized on the board, why we all have so many little vassal or subject states with "independance". The Algorithm gives a decisive advantage, as it currently stands, to the player nation with not the largest and most advanced military, but the player nation with the most fractured state. Each new state gives 40 algorithm points, and the more split up the nation is, the more algorithm points can be achieved. The Population and troops scores would be the same regardless if it is one united nation, or twenty small and divided ones. The Mods have been bantering everyone about "annexing vassals" when all it would do is leave you open to both invasion and conquest, with ironically less chances of winning a war with a single united military, than ten affiliated but different ones. People have a harder time fighting both NPC nations and defending against players without subordinatess revolts would be impossible to beat, and so far, the more subordinates you have, the more win your military will get. Somehow this needs to be balanced for in the algo. Just some food for thought. There is currently no limit or reprecussions to using twenty vassal states in the algo, save for the small hit they give in nations participating(3 points instead of 5). Otherwise its only perks. -Lx (leave me a message) 02:34, March 26, 2015 (UTC)

That's partly why I'm trying to instigate revolutions in the Americas. Turn those colonies into NPC states. That's also why it's so annoying that some people are still trying to expand colonial empires. Nathan1123 (talk) 02:39, March 26, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but when the mods try to force people to annex vassals, they bitch and moan. This is Edge, He is a cool guy when he isn't too lazy to sign his real sig. Hit him up. 02:53, March 26, 2015 (UTC)


 * Right, because its litearlly puts people at a disadvantage to have an ununified state. Having Vassals is a huge boost even in defensive wars, and thus people are more unlikely to do that, especially those wanting to expand a bit and/or are paranoid about possible future invasions.-Lx (leave me a message)Azarath Flag.png 13:25, March 26, 2015 (UTC)

Not all the mods even annex their own vassals. Harvenard2 (talk) 10:47, March 26, 2015 (UTC)

Alrighty folks, how bout the following proposal:

Knowing that some vassal states cannot be integrated into the main nation,

understanding the plausibility that comes with having vassals before integrating them,

agreeing that the current vassal spam is ludicrous,

respecting the wishes of players not to annex vassals for reasons known to them,

I suggest that we create what shall be known as nation groups.

What are nation groups, you ask? Players will have their controlled territories grouped together into one entity algo-wise, resulting in 2 (perhaps 3 in special cases) nation groups on the same continent, colonies and overseas dominions will be handled on a case-by-case basis.

This will be a temporary solution until we do an adequate algo refrom, which Edge, MP, Crimyboo and I will hopefully try to do over the following week (as I have spring break at last).

SkyGreen24 14:36, March 26, 2015 (UTC)

That's basically the same thing as annexing your vassals, only you don't remove the lines on the map (in other words what's the point). If you want to actually fix this problem you need to realize that (for example's sake) the United States should be more powerful than just Texas, where as the United States minus Texas should be less powerful than the United States. In other words there are different forms of vassals; those where there is a nation plus another nation, and those where there is a nation split in two. For lack of a better solution you should incorporate pixel count into the algorithm. Meaning State A with 10,000 pixels should be about as powerful as State B (5,000) and State C (5,000) combined, when not factoring in any other factors (like quality of said pixels; ie industry). EDIT: Just an idea, let vassals have a percentage of your military score each based on the percentage of your main nation they consist of (if smaller than your base nation), else they receive 100% of your military score, ie treated as they were before. In which case most people should have larger base nations. Using my own nation as an example, in an algorithm Lombardy would get 20 military points, while Savoy would get 6, since they are about 30% the base nation's size. Tr0llis (talk) 19:03, March 26, 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan! Thanks for the idea Tr0ll, I think this will be very useful in the upcoming algo reform. SkyGreen24 22:05, March 26, 2015 (UTC)

What about nations in which we have a USA style government? Arcadia is split up between 13 different states that have semi independence but are all subservient to the federal government.FOR THE GLORY OF THE PARTY! 14:09, March 28, 2015 (UTC)

Arcadia is one nation, but with a (con)federal government. Couldn't make it simpler. SkyGreen24 15:03, March 28, 2015 (UTC)

There are certain nations of which I do not understand why they haven't annexed or released their vassels yet:

Has some excuse:


 * France (it's not Sine posting, so maybe he would annex them if he could)
 * Wu (a small state, so I guess it would be hard to annex them)
 * Rome (just conquered new territory, so it might take a while)

No known excuse:

--Nathan1123 (talk) 03:38, March 29, 2015 (UTC)
 * Scandinavia (which is basically a wonk now)
 * Tartary
 * Pskov
 * Andea

There is an easy solution to the issue that is currently being used by Axis vs Allies: Resurrection. Of course, the algorithm we use is very different, but it should work out for you guys too.

The way is simple: Add up all the vassal scores, then divide that number by the # of vassals involved muliplied by .75. So if the total combined vassal score is 50, and there were 5 vassals that contributed, the total final score would be (50)/(5*.75) = 13.33333. Of course, this works better with the AvA system, where we have tiers and such, but I'm sure you guys can figure something out.

Here's our algo if you guys wanna check it out.

Cheers, PitaKang- (Talk to me | Kill count: 6)

Andea has a reason. I have explained it to people on chat before. This is Edge, He is a cool guy when he isn't too lazy to sign his real sig. Hit him up. 01:43, March 30, 2015 (UTC)

Hawaii
Just to let you guys know I'm going to Hawaii for the next nine days. So I'm probably not going to be able to post. Yank 07:26, March 30, 2015 (UTC)

Help
Can someone tell me what's the country's name that is orange and has some territory under Castile?(cuz i wanna buy that territory(i think its a german state...not sure)

Wrto12 (talk) 05:53, April 1, 2015 (UTC)Wrto12

That's Westphalian territory, you may request to buy it in your post as it is owned by a banned player so it will be regulated as if it were an NPC. SkyGreen24 08:12, April 1, 2015 (UTC)

thank you

Wrto12 (talk) 00:11, April 2, 2015 (UTC)Wrto12

Hamburg
<p style="font-size:14px;">Total: 68
 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage: 6
 * Nations: Hamburg (L), Mecklenburg (L), Schleswig-Holstein (L), Hesse (L), Westphalia (L), Münster (LV), Oldenburg (M), Palatinate (L), Prussia (L) = 41/9 =
 * Mil: 150+10(no losses)+5(large military) = 175/120 = 2
 * Econ: 160+2(equal economy)+5(colonies) = 167/102 = 2
 * Econ bonus: +1 (New Hamburg), +3 (Kuba)
 * Motive: 7
 * Hamburg: 7+4
 * Mecklenburg: 3+4
 * Holstein: 3+4
 * Münster: 3
 * Hesse: 3+4
 * Westphalia: 3+4
 * Palatinate: 3+4
 * Prussia: 3+4
 * Nation age: 5
 * Population: 8
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent wars: 0
 * Troops: 250,000 = 0

Union of Konigsberg
<p style="font-size:14px;">Total: 54(55)
 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations: Pskov (L), Estonia (LV), Latvia (LV), Lithuania (LV), Belarus (LV) = 3.4 = 3
 * Mil: 100+10(no losses)+5(large military) +5(more total troops)= 120 = 0
 * Econ: 100+2 = 102 = 0
 * Motive: 9 (technically also in PU, just
 * Pskov: 7 + 5
 * Estonia: 3+5
 * Latvia: 3+5
 * Lithuania: 3+5
 * Belarus: 3+5
 * Nation age: 5
 * Participation: 10
 * Population: 8
 * recent wars: -8
 * Troops: 300 000(380 000 if lasts untill 1825) = 1(2)

Result
<p style="font-size:14px;">looks like slim victory for hamburg ATM

Discussion
<p style="font-size:14px;">Just fixed a few things, comments on changes visible. I dont think you can include Prussia because we are fighting over it, or at least if you do, we both get "half" of it, i.e. North and South Prussia-Lx (leave me a message) 00:14, April 2, 2015 (UTC)

<p style="font-size:14px;">Can confirm, location bonuses now only apply when fighting is taking place in or near that area, at least that is what I remember Sky telling me. As such, Cuba and New Hamburg both wouldn't apply to this situation, since at present the entire war is being fought in Europe.

<p style="font-size:14px;">As for Prussia, it would require more investigation into the circumstances of the war.

<p style="font-size:14px;">"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 00:21, April 2, 2015 (UTC)

Sky specifically told me that Prussia would be an L in this war on the HRE side, and Pskov would get an extra 10,000 troops from pro-Pskov militias in Prussia.

PU states are considered L's, always have.

Oldenburg and Palatinate are independent countries, that are supporting on their own will.

Mp, when was this econ bonus change made? I'm wondering because Sky looked this over earlier and didn't remove it. I would think that this sort of thing would've made more sense earlier in the game, to expand to be allowed globally as world trade picked up.

As for location, the matter of transport is irrelevant, only the raw distance is accounted for. Besides, it's not like it's traversing the Atlantic.

How can republics utilize personal unions? I'm just curious. I am that guy (talk) 00:40, April 2, 2015 (UTC)

I didn't touch the PUs, that's not my concern at the moment.

I'll confirm with Sky what you said here.

If Palatinate is an independent country, where is their support coming from. If it is independent, it needs to make that decision on its own, and if it is independent, which one is it on the map? I don't see it. Not saying you are mistaken, but clarification of this point would be appreciated.

This econ bonus change has been in place, at least as far as I can remember, since before I tried invading you last, in New Hamburg. Of course, your bonus still applied there because I was invading it.

I also didn't touch anything having to do with transport yet.

It's a Russian republic, which as far as I can tell is essentially a constitutional elective monarchy, or something like that. If that's not the case, I could see it being like some sort of federal thing, although Lx would probably know the details more.

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 00:44, April 2, 2015 (UTC)

Just the question regarding the location bonus was towards you, but I appreciate you trying to answer them all.

Sky gave a mod response in 1823 that the Palatinate would join, while Rhineland and Mainz declined.

I am that guy (talk)