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 In extenuating circumstances the chart can be superceded to show a change in industrial development quicker than represented on the chart but this will only be for Meiji, or rapid German industrialization efforts.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 1740 map, my Haejagang colony needs to be updated. It has expanded 500 sq km from 1715-1730, and from 1732-1739. In the map it still looks like it hasn't expanded since 1715 even though it did. Could this be fixed please? -Seiga  2015 January 07, 22:20 (CET)
 * In the 1750 map, my colony is missing expansion from 1740-1749, plus the past expansion I've listed above. Can it be fixed please? -Seiga [[Image:Miko THPW2.png|30px]] [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|25px|border]] 2015 January 17, 06:43 (CET)

In the 1760 map, Haejagang colony is missing the expansion from 1755 to 1759. Can it be fixed please? -Seiga  2015 January 27, 19:19 (CET)

In the 1770 map, the Haejagang colony is missing expansion from 1765 to 1769. Can this be fixed please? -Seiga  2015 February 07, 01:19 (CET)

Will get on it either tonight or tomorrow. For the record, Seiga, if it goes this long without being unnoticed, don't hesitate to message us directly. "This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 23:25, February 6, 2015 (UTC)

I have colonized the Banda Islands recently (as Brittany), though they are too small to be on the map. How should they be represented? By the way, I am also colonizing the southern coast of the much larger island of island of Seram to the north of it. —Bfoxius (talk)
 * The Banda Islands were already colonized by the Dutch more than a century ago at least. I remember because I was going to color them in on the map, only to realize they weren't there. Mscoree (talk) 23:36, January 16, 2015 (UTC)


 * http://i.imgur.com/ebwDny4.png


 * uuuuuum......if the Kievan Rus "lost" the battle for belarus(as said in the mod event) and only three revolts succeeded, then why are there four nations in the red union thing?-Lx (leave me a message)Azarath Flag.png 03:33, January 20, 2015 (UTC)

I just want a color for Aragon. Preferably a purple or a green.

23:05, January 22, 2015 (UTC)

The Netherlands/Lombardy/Westphalia should look like this. Mscoree (talk) 15:38, January 27, 2015 (UTC)



Correction, Westphalia and the Rhineland should now look like this. Mscoree (talk) 01:58, January 28, 2015 (UTC)

The Rhineland will look like that as of the 1765 map due to southern Rhineland rejoining France in 1761. And second of all, why'd you make the north all split up like that? you don't have control over an NPC nation. Cookiedamage (talk) 02:06, January 28, 2015 (UTC)



Japanese Papua's expansion needs to be on the map. Also, Japan has Hong Kong and Macau. And Sakhalin and mainland Sakhalin. And the Alaska colony has been expanding  Hail Sean! (Tech can into talkpage?) 16:46, January 31, 2015 (UTC)

The Manchu Empire map. http://i.imgur.com/blaBvoe.png RexImperio (talk) 16:52, January 31, 2015 (UTC)

Well, the Lithuanians and Prussians were annexed back into the Union of Konigsberg, well, with the exception of Danzig/Pomerania which became Polish.-Lx (leave me a message) 00:23, February 2, 2015 (UTC)


 * Well actually, since Toby toppled Prussia, he decided to let it be free, but you do get Lithuania, no doubt about that, it will be added on the next map, don't fear. SkyGreen24 14:14, February 2, 2015 (UTC)


 * Osnabruck was annexed into Oldenburg proper in 1766, could that please be added to the next map? Thanks, Callumthered (talk) 00:00, February 3, 2015 (UTC)

Japan won the war against the Tartary by a few points. That is a white peace, it's practically a tie. Can someone undo the giant annexation they did? Harvenard2 (talk) 13:28, February 3, 2015 (UTC)

In the last 20 years, the colony of New Austria has expanded considerably, and this expansion (where reasonable) needs to be reflected on the map. Its northern border stretches into an arm going along the Columbia River as far as Lac St Anne in Alberta. Its eastern border comes down from Lac St Anne parallel to the Columbia River until it bends back and follows the Bitterroot Mountains to the Great Salt Lake. Its southern border is the 40th Parallel from the Great Salt Lake to the Pacific. I'm sorry I don't have a map, as I probably don't have the software, and if I did, I don't have the artistic skills to use it.

Now, I've been told that the Great Salt Lake "appears" to be in the French territory. Now, considering the extremely vague descriptions Sine puts in his posts about Boralia, I consider it an easy mistake to make. For all I know, the top half of French Boralia is practically uninhabited. At the very least, I can easily imagine Boralian settlers peacefully appropriating land from the French's nonexistent defenses, but that's just my opinion. --Nathan1123 (talk) 05:27, February 7, 2015 (UTC)

Algonquia has expanded considerably and should look like the picture to the left. Thanks! Shikata ga nai! 13:19, February 7, 2015 (UTC)

Changing my hats from mathematician to cartographer, here is what I think New Austria should be like now (barring my atrocious artistic skills). Thanks in advance. Nathan1123 (talk) 19:04, February 7, 2015 (UTC)

Pursuant of the 1771 Oldenburg-Netherlands land swap, the new colonial borders should be as they appear on the map (see below right). Many thanks, Callumthered (talk) 02:01, February 8, 2015 (UTC)



In the 1780 map, the Haejagang colony is missing expansion from 1965 to 1779. Can it be fixed please? -Seiga  2015 February 16, 20:31 (CET)

For the last 4 years i have expanded my boarders north east as the Tatary into unowned territory. I made a map you can see how my nation looks like with the expansion. You can add the new looked Tatary in the next updated map for the game.

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.

"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? "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?

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)

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