Talk:Principia Moderni (Map Game)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

War Algorithm
An updated algorithm can be found on the rules page

Location goes by capital city.
 * at the location of the war: 5
 * next to the location of the war: 4
 * close to the location of the war: 3
 * far from location of the war: 2
 * other side of the world: 1
 * Antarctica: 0

Tactical Advantage

 * attacker's advantage: 1
 * high ground: 2
 * Note: A country receives high ground if:

1) Its capital has a high topographical prominence, meaning it is surrounded by areas of significantly lower elevation. Even plateaus count, but it must be so that the enemy has to climb the mountain to capture the capital.

2) For countries being invaded from the coast, they get high ground if their capital is 300 m or higher.

3) A country invading via sea does not get high ground.

4) A country gets high ground if their capital is more than 300 m higher than the capitals of the neighboring countries.

5) A country invaded from a bordering country, and its capital is 500 m higher or more.

Strength

 * each country on a side of the war: L for leader (+4), M for military aid (+3), S for supplies (+2), V for vassalization or subordination (-1) and then W for withdrawal (-1). So a list of belligerents read like China (L), Zhuang Warlords (MVW), Japan (M), Korea (MW), Hawaiian rebels (MV), Mali (SW), creating a score of 13
 * country has developed military: 1 for each turn dedicated to military or military technology in the last 15 years
 * expansion: -1 for every turn used for expansion in the past 10 years

Motive

 * motive is life or death (country's sovereign existence is threatened): 10
 * motive is religious: 7
 * motive is social or moral: 6
 * motive is political: 5
 * motive is economic: 3

If there are multiple motives, the one told to the army will be selected.

Chance
0 to 9 points will be awarded to each person based on chance. Factors will be the opponent's edit count (on Althist's main articles) and the precise time when the country declares war or acknowledges the other's declaration of war. The product of the non-zero digits of the time by UTC (0:00 yields 1) will be written as a percentage of the opponent's edit count at the exact time of the declaration. If the resulting number is less than one hundred percent, the reciprocal is taken. The result is multiplied by pi and the hundredths digit is the amount of points that person gets (e.g. 123.8377% yields 3). The algorithm is online for fairness, but I will be the moderator.

Other

 * Countries in civil disarray are able to resist invasion by a factor of 1.5. However, they may not take territory in another country.
 * If X countries attack another country, they have to take 100X/(X+2)% of their opponents' territory to facilitate a full government transplant.
 * Expansion into countries not fully united is multiplied by 1.5, but it does not affect how well the country fares in war if it wins the war.
 * Stability bonus points as calculated by the stability moderator.

Stage 3 - huge factories near cities, massive urbanization, mass use of railways, steam powered ships common, electricial experimentation

 * Japan
 * Naples
 * Austria
 * Hungarian puppets/independent colonies/colonies/vassals
 * Napolitan puppets/colonies/independent colonies/vassals
 * Vietnamese puppets/colonies/vassals
 * French puppets/independent colonies/colonies/vassals
 * Chinese puppets/colonies/vassals
 * Labrador
 * Japanese puppets/colonies/vassals/independent colonies
 * USA
 * Hanthawaddy
 * Hanthawaddian colnies/vassals/independent colonies/puppets
 * Manoa
 * Brunei
 * Afghanistan

Stage 4 - airplanes and cars, decrease in the factories near cities, more urbanization but focused on towns, electricity used in cities

 * Russia
 * Hungary
 * Egypt
 * Finland
 * Finnish colonies/independent colonies
 * Northern and littoranean China
 * Caliphate
 * United Principalities
 * Greece
 * Persia
 * Russian puppets/colonies/indeoendent colonies/vassals
 * Swedish former colonies
 * Bharat/puppets/colonies/vassals

Discussion
I have one complaint: according to the list of what you need to do to advance, to get to stage 3 you need to open a rail link. However, for Naples, a nation with large amounts of its territory in islands, and with a significant portion in Africa, and the land being primarily a peninsula, it makes more sense for them to invest in steamships prior to investing in steam trains. So making the first functioning steamships should count as well as making the first rail link. LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:30, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah Nippon is in a similar situation due to all the islands, but I'm just going to do both but with more focus on steamships than trains. Of course I'll do some train lines but steamships are more relevant for Nippon, VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 23:11, February 14, 2012 (UTC).

I see your point. For Nippon and Naples ONLY, I accept a sea route operated by steam-powered ships.Scandinator (talk) 08:39, February 18, 2012 (UTC)

What about electricity? we have to assume that something like the voltaic pile eventually was discovered?i mean, already is 1818 and nothing about it.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 07:58, February 23, 2012 (UTC)

Could we update the map? It's been 60 years since then.

Yank 20:47, July 14, 2012 (UTC)

Stability
2.5*Number of digits of population*Time

Time is:


 * 1) Number of years ruled / 10.
 * 2) Plug into: x^1.25/1.25^x.

So take the current United States: 9 digits in population. Ruled for 235 years. Thus:23.5^1.25/1.25^23.5*2.5*9 = 6 points



Graphical representation. Red is 6 digit in population, green is 7 digits, blue is 8 digits, and yellow is 9 digits. The horizontal axis is years and the vertical is bonus points. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 01:36, October 31, 2011 (UTC) {C}{C When you archive the page again,please don't remove this section. i need to remind how the stability curve is done.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 20:15, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Due to the vote, in which every voting player agreed, this system will now be used for all nations (however, some changes have been proposed based upon industrialization) LurkerLordB (Talk) 01:54, April 12, 2012 (UTC)

Algorithm Results and Moderator Revolts
The new equation for gains from war algorithms is (p)*(1-1/(2x)), where x is the number of the years the war goes on and p is the amount of territory determined by the algorithm ((y/(z+y))*2)-1 where y is the winner's score and z is the losers). So if your war lasts one year, you only get 50% of the territory, but if you let the war last five years, you get 90% of the territory.

For mod rebellions or rebellions for new players who want to join, a specific area will be selected. For new players, it has to be a specific ethnic, regional, or national area, but for mod rebellions it will depend on the situation (i.e. for homogenous countries). The algorithm will continue normally, except the territory "owned" by the rebellion will equal half the disputed territory. If the war is a tie, the rebellious country may choose territory from 1/2 of the disputed area.

Early Planning/Nation Calling/Map Making
Seeing as Principia Moderni is entering it's final century, would any of you sign on to play on a hypothetical Principia Moderni Mark II? Especially if we take the effort to iron out the flaws in the colonization system? I would play as Japan, which was going to be my first choice.

Yank 16:56, May 21, 2012 (UTC)

might play as a nation in north america maybe Canada? Andr3w777 16:44, June 2, 2012 (UTC)

I would, and I'd be playing as a Thai kingdom if there will be a PM Mark II. -Kogasa 17:00, May 21, 2012 (UTC)

Me too.i would be playing as Portugal.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 17:05, May 21, 2012 (UTC)

It shouldn't be made until after this one is done, but I'll play. Probably as Ireland, Scotland, or one of the native American nations (like Tsalagi or Muscogee). LurkerLordB (Talk) 17:11, May 21, 2012 (UTC)

Also I have a map of about 1450 I made for another game, which can easily have a few things changed to be 1450 in real life. LurkerLordB (Talk) 17:11, May 21, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with only making it after this one is complete.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 17:16, May 21, 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have a map, I only have a few questions first: LurkerLordB (Talk) 18:00, May 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) How should city-states or small states be portrayed? Nations like the Mayas, the Irish, and the Swahili are not unified nations, but are "civilized". Currently I have them the same as civil disarray, but I want to know if they should be kept as the dark grey, made black (like other tribes), or given some other designation.
 * 2) Should there be labels on the main map? Currently I have labels, but I could make a version labelless if needed. Labels do look messy and can interfere with coastlines, but currently we have a lot of "X nation invades the small country under it". Should we have both labelled and unlabelled versions (labelled being updated less frequently)?
 * 3) (assuming that we will have a labelled version) Should major unorganized tribes have labels on the map?
 * 4) What constitutes an organized, developed nation or small states? Would the various North American natives be counted, or not?

Definitely, though I am debating whether to be China or England.

I will be Korea again, and I won't let my colonial empire be taken apart by *others* cough cough Vietnam hehe. PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 19:58, May 21, 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to play as Venice, England or even some spanish or arabian state like Castille or Aragon. I think not-unified nations should ave a different border than unified nations and colonies, so we disitnguish them. On alabelled map, we should put the name of major uncivilized tribes to make them "civilizable and playable". Obviously a developed nation is a group of peoples that have somehow a centralized system. The european nations have mostly king and comon institutions. Others like the irish just have periodic alliances during time of crisis. Others, like the League of Mayapan, the mpauche Wallmapu, some asian khanates, are simply permanent or periodic confederations of civilzied tribes that unify under a common institution of even a person during times of crisis. May be not-confederated but civilized tribes should be distinguished from the confederated ones. Such as the League of Mayapan should be distinguished from the rest of not-unified maya tribes.--Galaguerra1 21:55, May 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * So what should the difference be between Civil Disarray, Loose Confederations, Civilized Tribes, City-States, etc.? Specifically. LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:05, May 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll have fun with Making the Novgorodian State dominate moscow in this new one.-Lx (leave me a message) 22:20, May 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes I would love to Play a Second Principia, Im sad I missed out on all the fun.-Althistoryman11


 * A state in civil disarray is that state that is, in theory, organized, but in civil war, as warlords are struggling for the dominion; Africa is full of examples, a state in civil war would be the same, a state in a succesion war, a state with a provisional unestable government. A confederation is a group of tribes that unite in case of war or share some common institution, like a parliament, and example is the Rouran Khanate in Asia, the mapuche Wallmapu in South America, maybe the Iroquois Confederacy even. City-states and civilized tribes are cgroups of people that are culturaly and ethnicly alike, but are not confederated, usually they have conflcit with each other, the difference is that; while tribes are contered in a cultural core (tribe, family, clan, etc...) and primitive; city-state are just organized states, but smaller, and centered around a geographical/political core, and they have an orgnaized government, a capital and could have colonies and form city-state confederations (like the Aetolian League in OTL Greece). --Galaguerra1 01:12, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * But how would they be on the map? (currently Confederations are marked the same as unified nation-states, and city-states and civil disarray are the same). LurkerLordB (Talk) 01:32, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe different borders. Confederaitons wouldm have a blue borde ror something like that and the city-states and tribes would have golden borders? I don't know, something like that whould work. --Galaguerra1 01:37, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Different borders worked for colonies here, that is true. The unsettled tribes I currently just have as their names in the middle of the black areas. I'll upload the current map as it stands, for 1450.
 * Principia_Moderni_2_1450.png added Manoa and Onguayal for tradition's sake, the first moderator event can be made by them.
 * Also, I suggest we use the format of this game, instead of the Fractured America format that almost all other games currently use, simply because it annoys me. LurkerLordB (Talk) 01:43, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact I've invented a system that I think would work, be cause so many times I've seen people arguing about who invented what weapon, or that obtain 500 thousand kilos of gold is a plausible benefit but it doesn't have any benefit in the system. My system bases on points and its used in Orbis Terrarum, the Map Game I currently run with Jaeden CC (previously Burgundy) in the spanish Althist wiki. We have economic points (denarii, though I supose they should be called ducats in this gam, or somethng like that) that are equal to a specific cuantity of gold, and we use them for build up military, trade, aument our expansion rate, fund independent explorers of scientifics (moderator events), fund rebellions abroad, or trade them for investigation points, that we use to develop technology. Does some of you undestarnd spanish? So you could read the system in the page "Puntuación (Orbis Terrarum)". If you don't I'll graldy traduce the system to show you how it works. --Galaguerra1 01:52, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I also think the Holy Roman Empire should have different borders, as it's composed by many different states and those state could striggle the crown. --Galaguerra1 01:53, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand Spanish enough to figure the system out, I hope it won't be overly complicated (then again, a complicated game could have fewer and more competent players). I'll read up on it. On the HRE, I am going to think of a way, maybe I'll go with your idea with the different colored border, or use dotted borders or thinner borders for the states inside it. LurkerLordB (Talk) 02:03, May 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll end up reprising my role as China. Trying to kill the Mongols will be a challenge with the algorithm, but it can be done. I'd like to go more in-depth with China's interior. CrimsonAssassin 03:43, May 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll play as France. Making a huge worldwide empire can be a challenge, but may be worth it. BTW, for the HRE, is it possible you can take the position (you know, like Charles V)? RandomWriterGuy 04:16, May 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * I, as you all know, am an India fanatic so I'll take the Dehli sultanate. However, things won't be like what they seem, and I don't plan to have a mughal empire! ;D [[Image:1.png|23px]] Imperium Guy 08:10, May 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll be Oman in the next game, but whatever happened to making this game into a timeline? VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 10:20, May 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * Did you know that Oman actually had an empire in the 18th/19th Century but stupid emperors led to its downfall. It was so bad that there was a communist rebellion in the early 70s. Read the to get what I mean. :P --[[Image:1.png|23px]] Imperium Guy 10:34, May 22, 2012 (UTC)

OK, for the new map, I gave the HRE borders which were blue and grey mixed, and the smaller states inside I gave thinner borders than normal. On the subject of the HRE, would people play as the individual states, or the empire itself? LurkerLordB (Talk) 14:37, May 22, 2012 (UTC)

Individual states. In the vidogame Europa Universalis III In Nomine, the member sof the HRE are independent, but electors can appoint an Emperor and these EMperros can make laws that affect the whole empire, intervene somehow in politics, accept new members of the Empire and appoint new electors. I'm considering to play as England an ghet the throne of the HRE, or even make Venice a members of the Empire. I don't know. But I think I'll decide soon. --Galaguerra1 16:48, May 22, 2012 (UTC)

I read the system on the Spanish wiki, and it seems good, so if you could translate that when we actually make the game, that would be good. LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:00, May 22, 2012 (UTC)

I'd be glad to do so. Thank you. --Galaguerra1 22:27, May 22, 2012 (UTC)

I think I should play as China instead. RandomWriterGuy 22:32, May 22, 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if you're trolling me or being serious. I already called China. CrimsonAssassin 22:47, May 22, 2012 (UTC)

I made a draft of a first post in my userspace: Principia Moderni II. I will make a draft of the rules later so that we can work out all the new colonization and whatnot. Also I am going to update the map (again). LurkerLordB (Talk) 01:20, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

I've decided for England, and Jaeden says me that he'll join as Castille. I'll make a draft for my system. There are some things I need to ask you about it. --Galaguerra1 01:24, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

On the map you missed the iroquois civilization, as it did technicaly have one "Parliment" consisting of the top chieftains of each of the 5(and later 6) nations-Lx (leave me a message) 01:29, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

I will add them, for some reason I thought they had formed later, but I checked and they had definately formed by 1450, though their origins before that are indeed unknown. LurkerLordB (Talk) 01:59, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

Colonial Expansion/Independent Colonies Debate
We should have it where expansion doubles in 1650, triples in 1700, quadruples in 1800, and quintuples in 1850. CrimsonAssassin 03:06, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have a draft of the rules up: Rules (Principia Moderni II) We will need to add and change a lot of stuff. As for the expansion, here is an idea I had: With several extra modifiers: Is this good? LurkerLordB (Talk) 13:06, May 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are using a half-turn, you get half the expansion
 * If the colony itself is younger than 5 years, it can only expand by 200 square kilometers, regardless of any bonuses
 * If a colony itself is older than 50 years, a bonus +100 square km is given for expansion in that colony
 * If a colony is older than 150 years, a bonus +500 square km is given for expansion in that colony
 * When areas of the Americas are first contacted by people from Eurasia or Africa, that region that is contacted will have double the colonial expansion rates from those outside nations. Regions contacted in the first 50 years since first contact will have trippled expansion.
 * Additional bonuses will be recieved with industrialization, and other bonuses may arrive later.
 * Expansion into areas which are fragmented (in civil disarray or small states) can be done through colonial expansions, at half the normal rates. Expansion into gray areas requires an algorithm

Also, another idea I had was restricting players to only being able to control one of their former colonies, thus the former colony would get its own, new color instead of using the part nation's color, as that was sort of confusing with having independent nations the same colors as others. LurkerLordB (Talk) 19:50, May 23, 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree with this policy of only controlling one of your former colonies, but agree with the new colour change though. Basically because we lack an AI to control non-player nations (which is usually present in video games for stuff like this). So in order to make the game be as perfectly competitive as possible we shouldn't bother with this rule, otherwise we just risk having NPC nations dominating the game, and leading us to the same problems as we have in this game --VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 23:08, May 23, 2012 (UTC).

I've amde the proposal for my additions to the system here:. It's based on Orbis Terrarum's, but not the same. I hope you'll find it to be useful for this game. --Galaguerra1 20:34, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the spelling (it's liberator, not libertier, English is a messed-up language). For the proposal, my main concern is with the popularity thing, how can we determine how popular a nation's actions are with its people? Because everyone will say that their people all love the system to get the most popularity. LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:37, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I agree, english is messed-up, and sometimes I just confuse. Anyway, for the popularity and loyalty things, we should have a single mode to that, so the mod could decide based on the system of government, recent actions of the government, etc... And a second mod who would wield the main moderator's powers when the first one is involved in the war or absent. If both are involved or absent, people should vote. Also, I trust in the player's plausibility on this matters. --Galaguerra1 01:19, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

Are there no complaints about the colonization system? LurkerLordB (Talk) 01:36, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

I think it's good. --Galaguerra1 02:42, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

I like this new system and I find it easier to understand. Hope to play the next game as Russia, unless that's already taken. Maybe Brandenburg then. Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 02:55, May 24, 2012 (UTC)


 * I already claimed russia...sorry...I want to reprise my role, but this time have it dominated by Novgorod instead of Moscow.-Lx (leave me a message) 11:54, May 24, 2012 (UTC)


 * You guys could always have 2 Russian states fighting over control of OTL Russia like Novogorod vs Moscow, but continue it for ages. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 12:25, May 24, 2012 (UTC).

Also, I had one question that I have pondered over for a while. In the rules for chance it says: "Factors will be the opponent's edit count (on Althist's main articles) and the precise time when the country declares war or acknowledges the other's declaration of war. The product of the non-zero digits of the time by UTC (0:00 yields 1) will be written as a percentage of the opponent's edit count at the exact time of the declaration. The result is multiplied by pi and the hundredths digit is the amount of points that person gets (e.g. 123.8377% yields 3)." Why would there be such a strange rule? Yes, I understand that it produces a very random number. Really one of the strangest things I've ever seen, yet it is very ingenious. Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 03:05, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

The rule is so that people cannot complain that the Random Number Generator is unfair, like they do in many other games. LurkerLordB (Talk) 11:08, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

I gree with changing the colour of newly independnt colonies, but, if we just leave them to be NPC nations, being sincere, the nearby player nations will devour them. Also, I want to make it clear: The traveling system I propose only applies to 1450's technology, so, at 1800, you could travel more distance for less money, is the technology is invented.

I think economic points should allow a nation to aument its territorial or military expansion rate. --Galaguerra1 16:11, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

If the second game works like the first, we should have no problem. Romainia and Moldova have sat for centuries undisturbed and unconquered. Nations that fought for their freedom from colonialism are going to be less likely to allow themselves to be subjugated again, and having to deal with constant revolts of your annexed territory will cause a nation so much problems it wouldn't be worth it. We cannot allow everyone to control every single independent colony and still give them all a new color. There aren't enough distinct colors. LurkerLordB (Talk) 16:44, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

So, is it concluded that you will only be able to control one former colony at a time? LurkerLordB (Talk) 20:56, May 26, 2012 (UTC)


 * Personally, I would like it if we get to control all our former colonies, and them being a lighter colour from the original nation. I liked it better with former colonies having a lighter colour from the original nation and I understand it would get confusing and complex. I don't know, kinda would discourage having colonies a bit, maybe. -Kogasa [[Image:Symbol of Natori, Miyagi.png|23px|border]][[Image:宮城県.png|23px|border]][[Image:Flag of Japan.png|23px|border]] 21:42, May 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * It's just plain confusing though, especially once the former colonies start building colonial empires of themselves and having their own vassals and whatnot. Plus it makes posts really long, and in the end people have 7 nations or more. I am thinking of adding a colonial empire bonus to the algorithm to encourage more colonization. The problem with the lighter color was that it is also the same color as puppet states. Having only 1 former colony to be controlled at a time could then let that colony have its own color, so no confusion, and would result in shorter posts, which would probably make it easier to make maps and would definately make it easier to make algorithms. And it would give more opportunity for new players to join. LurkerLordB (Talk) 13:00, May 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * We could make it so that the colonies that declared independence won't have their own colonial empires (but they can only hold on/take care of the mother nations colonies if the mother nation is in trouble or something.) While it may make posts really long, at least it can prevent from unexpected events happening to them (ie Satori gives independence to Rin and Utsuho. Rin is still controlled by the player but Utsuho isn't. Since Satori had undergone a transition from Buddhist to Hindu for years and two of her former colonies, Rin and Utsuho are both Hindu. But then an event happens where Utsuho is all slowly converted back to Buddhist all of a sudden, and Hindu becomes minority. Or, after Utsuho is taken by another player then the new player turns Utsuho into a Confucianist state, etc.). And I see, well if we allow the new players to ask permission from a person who happens to control two of their former colonies, the new player can always ask for said person if it's okay to control one of their former colony, and the player can agree. We have that system here, so I personally think it would be good if we could have it in the new game as well. Like I said, I understand that it's all confusing and takes up much space and causes problems for the map makers; but at least the players who play their colonies can ensure that random events (ie the example I gave above) won't happen: and they can always give a new player their colony to control if they want. -Kogasa [[Image:Symbol of Natori, Miyagi.png|23px|border]][[Image:宮城県.png|23px|border]][[Image:Flag of Japan.png|23px|border]] 13:31, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

We do need something like a colony bonus, because at it stands colonies don't contribute anything to the mother country's war effort. However we should keep the system of players controlling former colonies until a new player comes in to take them over, otherwise we risk having too many NPCs, which is a worse problem than having former states controlled by past players, as their is reduced game play. Plus I think that we should be able to have more colonies too. On the point of having too many countries with the same colour, we could always just add a numerical reference on the map rather than just relying on colours. The way I see it, people use independent states as a means of boosting their scores in the algorithms (hence they're aren't too many countries which don't get on with their former masters) so we need to encourage players to keep colonies opposed to giving them independence & being pally with the former rulers. Hence I rate we treat colonies like we do vassals in the algorithm VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 14:03, May 27, 2012 (UTC).

How are NPCs a problem? The number of players would stay the same. And I do not understand what you are talking about Kogasa with unexpected events happening. Players can and have done just as many random events with their own nations. If the new players come on and do something random and implausible, their actions will be crossed out. Moderators should not cause random moderator events that are implausible. Furthermore, voluntarily giving another player control of your former colony that you now have no influence over does nothing to prevent them from making those same events happen. With numerous nations all being the same color as puppet states or colonies they would be and have been in this game times when there has been confusion among the players as to who controls what area. There have quite literally been wars on this map game that have been mistakenly caused or escalated due to the fact that people did not know who was independent and who was not. Confusion damages the gameplay. Labels work, but to do a label system that could fix that, massive amounts of parentheses would be needed to label nations such as "The Phillipines (Vassal of the United States (former colony of Britain))". Plus, the question of what former colonies of former colonies will look like, and puppet states of former colonies, has not been determined. Numerous other successful map games have had the rule in which a player can control no former colonies. Encouraging people to keep colonies instead of granting them independence creates and implausible game like Axis vs. Allies 2 where colonization never ended, or it would otherwise result in everyone granting all their colonies independence at the very last moment. Finally, it is implausible to state that a nation will be weaker in a war and unable to establish any colonies simply because it was once a colony itself. LurkerLordB (Talk) 18:51, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

Do we really need each player controlling 8 different nations anyways? I know that it is hard for me to divide my time and attention between all of my nations, and a lot are neglected because it is hard to roleplay that many nations. 2 long quality posts is better than 6 short ones Plus, you all don't know how hard it is to count up all of the times of expansion and military development and who is helping who in the war when there are hundreds and hundreds of lines by people with 5 nations each all posting stuff. Poor Collie has to count up every single nation's colonial expansion for the past 5 years for each map. That is probably at least a thousand lines to go through, and even more are being made every day as more nations become independent. We moderators are only humans after all. LurkerLordB (Talk) 20:05, May 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, as long as a player gives a new player permission to play as their former colony, then they can do whatever they want with it. Sorry if I wasn't being too clear. Also I never said that a mother nation would be able to keep all colonies, of course most of colonies would be given independence (and mod events could enforce that too if needed) and they can only keep a few colonies that are about the size of OTL French Guiana or less. Also the colours of former colonies of former colonies can remain the same, and so on...
 * Anyway, I just though that having people control former colonies would be able to ensure that their way they made the nation would stay the same and if they wanted to give a nation to a new player, they can do so and let them do what they want with the nation that was given to them. And while personally I'm against being able to control only one, instead of all, of my former colony, I'm fine with whatever the desition comes to be. -Kogasa [[Image:Symbol of Natori, Miyagi.png|23px|border]][[Image:宮城県.png|23px|border]][[Image:Flag of Japan.png|23px|border]] 20:07, May 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * I had been responding to Von Glusenberg, who stated that we should try and encourage people to keep colonies for longer instead of having a bunch be independent to boost the algorithm. Nations do change slowly over time, but massive changes would be implausible without a good reason. LurkerLordB (Talk) 21:22, May 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * It is well if you don't want to play all your former coolonies, so don't play them, but I really enjoy controlling every nation, giving them all a different history. --Galaguerra1 20:48, May 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what I meant. I meant that I preferred to play all my former colonies, and I liked that better. However I then said that I don't mind what the desition would come out to be, even though I don't really like the idea of controlling only one colony. Sorry for my unclear English... -Kogasa [[Image:Symbol of Natori, Miyagi.png|23px|border]][[Image:宮城県.png|23px|border]][[Image:Flag of Japan.png|23px|border]] 20:58, May 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * I still say that it is confusing to play the game with so many player-controlled nations, and it is very difficult to moderate and most likely to mapmake for all of that as well. Perhaps we could say that you could only play as one former colony at a time. So, for example, in real life the British player could play as America and Britain until the 1920s, then drop America and play as Egypt until the 1940s when they start playing as India. So you could still have variety and give your nations more history, but only 2 would be played as and have colors at the same time, so it would be easier to moderate and mapmake. This would also encourage people to make the independence process gradual instead of all at once, so they could have equal time with each former colony. Having each player control 7 nations is very complicated though. If the game was like real life, the player of Britain would end up controlling 20 nations by the end! LurkerLordB (Talk) 21:22, May 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * I like the idea, controlling a former colony one at a time. Good enough for me, I accept. -Kogasa [[Image:Symbol of Natori, Miyagi.png|23px|border]][[Image:宮城県.png|23px|border]][[Image:Flag of Japan.png|23px|border]] 21:39, May 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know, I'm not convinced, but, If you aren't disposed to yield, well, I accept that. But I'd still prefer to play all of them, or, at least, the ones I'd like to play with. --Galaguerra1 22:03, May 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll put it in the rules for now. We have about a year until colonies would become independent in the second game anyways, so if we decide to change something or someone has a new idea, we can come up with it then. LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:17, May 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * When I say we should encourage colonization, I means as opposed to making loads of vassal & puppet states and independent nations because at the end of the day colonies contribute nothing to algorithm scores at the moment, so people are less inclined to make colonies. And too many NPCs is a problem. For example think about how many countries would be NPCs in the current game if we made all former colonies NPCs? We'd lose so much creativity and content, which has gone from these former colonies. If they'd become NPCs then we would not have the world we have in 1912. I'd estimate nearly half of the past 50 year's content has involved former colonies controlled by their former master's player. And you want to throw that away? VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 23:39, May 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * I am thinking of further reducing the amount of action of puppet states. Plus, if there were less independent colonies, people could concentrate on their main nations more. And you are ignoring my massive arguments about how it is extremely difficult to moderate, make maps, make algorithms, and the various other actions necessary for the game to function, actions which you do not need to perform. Add in the confusion that this has caused and will cause in the future. And add in the fact that these problems are only going to get worse. I think that these problems outweigh the benefits, and we can get by with still having twice the number of nations on most map games. LurkerLordB (Talk) 01:33, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I have the solution for this vassals/puppets problem. In my new map game, players have to play as their colonies and vassals, however, it is all supposed to be compiled into one long post. That avoids the confusion for colonies and vassals. However, puppet nations should be played seperately since they are not really controlled by that nation.


 * Example: I intend to/ will  play as Brandenburg in Mk II, so let's say I have a colony, New Leipzig, a vassal state, Lesser Germany, and a puppet state, Hohenzollernia. I write something like this: "Brandenburg: The New Leipzig colony is expanded by x sq km in directions y and z. Meanwhile the vassal state of Lesser Germany continues to help in the fight against Bohemia, respecting their vassalism. Also, the emperor instructs the Hohenzollernians to invade Southern Bohemia and take the crucial city of w. He also learns that around Hohenzollernia's colony of Wihelmland there is a large deposit of gold. He tells them to expand." Under that should be: "Hohenzollernia: Receiving orders from Brandenburg, Hohenzollernia invades southern Bohemia and takes the crucial city of w. Also, the colony of v is expanded by Brandenburgian order since the emperor learned that there was valauble gold in the surrounding areas."


 * That should fix it all up. [[Image:IMPERIAL NY-SPQR 1.png|25px]][[Image:Regen Flag.png|30px|border]] Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 04:09, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that people shouldn't have seperate lines for each of their vassals. But that wasn't really my point, I was talking about what Von mentioned earlier about how people made a ton of vassals and puppet states to boost their algorithm points. But, honestly, I've thought about it and decided the -1 on algorithms would be enough. LurkerLordB (Talk) 14:40, May 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * I offered to be a mod after Scan quit remember? If you guys want to ignore my offers of help and then ruin the game because you can't be bothered to do the job you signed up to do, then your just making your own problems. If there is a lot to moderate, which there is, then add more moderators to spread out the workload rather than reducing the workload. You have people who'd be willing to help you moderate. Map making I'll take Collie's word on the difficulty of that as he is the map maker, but he does a great job, and if he has problem with the map making then again, there are plenty of people willing to help him & we amend the map were necessary. Algorithms are tough to make anyway, people make their own algorithms but yeah looking back to find out what you need to do in an algorithm is always going to be a ball ache, but thats the price we pay for a fairer war resolution system. As for having twice the number of countries than other games, that's what makes this game the best! Other map games just end up having one or two big nations ruling the world, whereas our game is delightfully spread out. As for confusion, that's always going to persist, but unless you're going to stand behind everyone & make sure they read everything then there isn't much of a solution other than reducing content, but that then makes the game less interesting as there is less going on. Besides if anyone is confused they can always just post something on the talk page and someone can enlighten them VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 13:25, May 28, 2012 (UTC).
 * Having 20+ nations per player in a map game is going to be confusing regardless of who is playing. There is no way that a game will be easy to play when each year has hundreds, maybe even thousands of lines of text to go through. People will miss things. This game isn't being changed at all, we are talking about the next game. If you can't be willing to compromise like Kogasa did and still have more nations under your control than you are allowed anywhere else, I am sorry. A ton of confusion is worse than a little less content. This game was the most active map game, and fun for more than a year prior to the advent of massive decolonization, and it was less confusing then as well. You appear to play other map games with only one nation per player and enjoy them, so you should really enjoy having two nations. But this argument is about something that will happen in a year or more. I'll put the compromise me and Kogasa made together in the rules now.LurkerLordB (Talk) 14:40, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * I know this game isn't being changed, I'm just showing you that a lot of the success of this game has been due to the wide array of nations interacting with one another. But I must disagree with you, content is more important than confusion, because confusion can be solved by asking questions, whereas if we added more content, it'd ruin the established cannon. We're holding the game back because of our own short comings.
 * Want to know why I think we should have lots of player controlled nations? Because I find it highly implausible that we have half of the countries in the world not reacting to events going on in player nations, expanding, founding colonies or starting wars. Its not a good enough simulation of history to have half the world sitting around on their thumbs barely reacting to any global events. To solve this we either need to have more player controlled nations or a heck of a lot more mod events to show the rest of the NP world reacting to the player controlled world. That's my fundamental issue with the game, heck all map games. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 00:25, May 29, 2012 (UTC)

Changes to the Algorithm
So, on the subject of subjects that would be pertinent to all points of the game, I was thinking of adding another bonus for population to the algorithm, beyond just the stability one. I know that Lx has been pushing for this for quite some time. Does anyone have any ideas?LurkerLordB (Talk) 14:49, May 28, 2012 (UTC)

I think we should have three things: Population, Population in favor of the war/militar engagement, and Population against. Nation with larger population = +1, in favor = +1, against = -1. Then again, in three map game I have employed the use of "the League of Mathematicians," mod who do algorithm for other people unless they are involved in the war. As for using the vassals/puppets in the algorithm, I think two things: A, drop that, or B, use an insane formula like the one for chance. Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 16:43, May 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * Population in favor/against seems very easy to manipulate. I think that the "motive" points factor in that, as the people will be more in support of the action if it is life or death versus political. A "League of Mathematicians" sounds strange to me. Scandinator was the war moderator before he quit, but that didn't do anything. I think people should all make their own algorithms and then have them approved by the moderators, that is what I did on this game before becoming a moderator. LurkerLordB (Talk) 17:50, May 28, 2012 (UTC)

I proposed a bonus on my proposal page. This is: The number of population based on historical censes on the place or moderator aprooved stadistics: The bonus equals the number of zeros of the popualtion rounded off and the numbers of millions. So, a country with 9.000.000 inhabitants gets a 9 + 6 = 15 points bonus. BTW, what do you thinka bout my proposal? I mean, Lurker already told me, but I want to know what the rest thinks aobut it. --Galaguerra1 16:48, May 28, 2012 (UTC)

Colonies should be providing something to the war effort too -- VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 00:25, May 29, 2012 (UTC).

I added that the nation with the larger colonial empire in the war gets a +5 bonus. LurkerLordB (Talk) 03:00, May 29, 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I decided to be Scotland for the game. LurkerLordB (Talk) 03:29, May 29, 2012 (UTC)

Galaguerra, your system for population has some problems. For example, a nation with 9,000,000 inhabitants would have (9+6)15 bonus points, while a nation with 10,000,000 would have (1+7)8 bonus points, which makes no sense. For the moral and the popularity of the war, again that sounds fairly easy to be rigged by players to always have their troops have high moral and the war be popular. I think motivation would cover that. Speaking of motivation, I have some ideas to how to overhaul that system: This is because most conflicts just used the political motive as "trying to gain territory" motive, when the real purpose behind that would be economic. Also, I decided to split Social/Moral to differentiate between trying to help others versus trying to help your own people. For example, if Britain is oppressing the Northern Irish, and France goes to war to help them, it would be Social/Moral Friend, +5. However, if it is Ireland trying to help the Irish in Northern Ireland, it would be Social/Moral Kinsmen, +7.
 * Economic: Fighting for resources= +3
 * Defending: Fighting to defend territory you already own=+5
 * Social/Moral Friend:Fighting for social/moral reasons to help an ethnicity/race in the nation=+5
 * Social/Moral Kinsmen:Fighting for social/moral reasons to help a minority of your nation's main ethnicity/race in another nation:+7
 * Religious: Fighting for religious beliefs=+7
 * Life or Death:Opponents purpose is to destroy your nation=+10

Also, to clarify for the religious motivation: you can't just use this because your nation is a different religion. Furthermore, the religion you are supporting has to be the dominant religion of your nation, if you are helping a religious minority being persecuted in another nation that isn't the main religion of your nation, it is just Social/Moral Friend. Note that by main religion, it can either be denominational (Protestant vs. Catholic, Shi'a vs. Sunni) or religious (Christian vs. Muslim, Hindu vs. Sikh). A Catholic Spain can use this to help Orthodox Greeks being massacred by Muslim Ottomans, for example.

Potential causes of this motivation: If there are other instances you want to add to the list, or other motivations, please suggest them below. LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:08, May 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The nation you are fighting is severely increasing religious persecution or conversion of members of your nation's main religion. Almost all nations in the beginning of the game will have favored or official religions and some level of persecution against minorities. However, if a nation starts implementing new, much more severe actions, such as forced conversions or deaths, that they did not have before against members of your nation's main religion, you can use this.
 * 2) The nation you are fighting against has some holy site(s) for your nation's main religion, and has cut off or severely restricted access to those sites, or damaged, converted, or destroyed them.
 * 3) The government of the nation you are fighting against has opposed numerous conversion attempts by your nation. For example, over the past several decades, your nation has been sending missionaries into the other nation, but that nation's government has banned such activity and stopped the missionaries. The government needs to do this. If the government allows the missionaries by the people of the nation don't convert, you can't use this.
 * 4) The nation you are fighting against has either changed its official religion, which was once your main nation, or is allowing large amounts of converts recently. For example, if Britain suddenly breaks away from the Catholic Church and becomes Protestant, Spain can use this. Also, if for example Korea is still officially Buddhist, but they have recently permitted vast amounts of Christian converts in their nation to the extent that the status of Buddhism as the dominant religion in Korea is threatened, China can use this motivation.

Sorry, but you're wrong. A nation with 10.000.000 inhabitants would have 10 + 6 = 16 bonus, as the number counted in million equals 10, and it has 6 non-million zeros. I think it is more than plausible, as 1 million more population is 1 more bonus point.

Also, I think your causality system is very well. I'd like to be the mod for moral (popularity and loyalty).--Galaguerra1 00:16, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, so it's millions, not just the first digit. OK then. My main question is with the motives, is there any need for popularity or loyalty? I assumed that the higher motives were the ones the people thought strongest about, and the lower motives were the ones that the people were less enthused about. LurkerLordB (Talk) 01:06, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

Also, I added in all the names of people who had already called nations to the sign-up area, but you can change yours until the game begins. Kogasa, you said a Thai kingdom, and there are two, so I gave you Siam since the other is Sukhothai and tiny and landlocked. LurkerLordB (Talk) 01:11, June 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * It's good, I meant the Ayutthaya Kingdom (Siam) anyway. -Kogasa [[Image:Symbol of Natori, Miyagi.png|23px|border]][[Image:宮城県.png|23px|border]][[Image:Flag of Japan.png|23px|border]] 03:48, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

It was just a suggestion, as I consider the people's support to the ones invading/defending their country would be an important factor in a war, as the loyalty of the troops also influences the result. --Galaguerra1 01:18, June 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * But what I am saying is that the support of the people and troops goes under motivation already. They are going to be less enthused to fight and support the war if they are just fighting over resources, versus if they are fighting for their religion or fighting to defend their home nation. I can make the motive more important in the war if you want.


 * In fact, I was looking at the wars in this game, and I saw that currently, the two main factors in the wars are the stability and the number of allies. Only in close wars has military build up, motive, chance, or location mattered. Usually those things only matter in cases of whether or not the losing gov can be toppled. Due to this, the two factors that matter most in a war are allies and the length of government reign.


 * Now, one solution I had to this was the make military build up count as +2 for every year, which would make it count twice as more. Also, I was considering making a penalty for being in a lot of wars just as an ally, but I need ideas. Another idea I had was overhauling or removing the stability curve, as I am starting to find a system which would make the modern day USA a weak nation to be faulty, perhaps just making a system of Newly formed nation (less than 5 years since gov change (-10)), New nation ( 5-30 years since gov change (-5)), Average nation (20-100 years since gov change (+))), Old nation (100-300 years (+5)), Ancient nation (past 300 years (-5)).


 * Also there would be an industrialization bonus. In addition, I am planning to give a few moderator event bonuses to nations that sometimes take a year off from military build up or full expansion or war or anything to work on their economy, infrastructure, agriculture (or later) industrialization as a reward. LurkerLordB (Talk) 03:10, June 3, 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand your point, but I consider that the cause of the war is the motivation only for the government, not the people. An example: France is a dictature and Naples is a monarchy, but the people is actually more lbieral than the king. Then, Naples invades France, as France is commiting some acts they cosnider to be heretic, such as allying with a muslim nation, for example. Then, France would have the motive Life or Death, as Naples attemtps to topple the government, and the Life or Death cuase means 10 points in the algorythm., is the government's cause. But the people doesn't want to ahve this dictature anymore, so they would support this war, and not fight with a 10-points-motivation for their government. Also, the troops could be actually loyal to the dictator, but also they could be jsut interested in money, and let's suppsoe Naples has more money and actual possibilities of win the war. Now, Naples would have a religious cause, 7 points. But the people of Naples is not as conservative and religious as the King, so they surely wouldn't fight with a 7-points-motivation only for religious motives. But the troops of Naples could be religious, but be disposed to sell themselves to the enemy if France offers them enough money. This is way I consider the cause of the war doesn't reflect the whole support that the people and troops in general gives to the war, but the government's.
 * Also, I think the system for the government's antiquity is good. I think that, if we finally use the point system I proposed, we could have some extra points in the war if invest money in it, or in the military build ups. If not, the system of 1 build up equals +2 points is good enough for me. --Galaguerra1 03:34, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with the moral thing is that that just seems too manipulatable by the people. Then everyone would say all their people and armies were totally behind all their wars, or the moderators would be forced to control how every single nation's people felt in every single war, whether it fit the player's vision of their nation or not.
 * I will check your system again to see if it would work right, I might do both regardless. LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:35, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about your population system Galaguerra, and I have found a flaw: by this system, nations like China or India would get a thousand points on the algorithm, basically making them totally unstoppable. I know that nations with high populations are stronger, but I fear that the system you have makes them too strong. LurkerLordB (Talk) 16:02, June 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * May be those overpopulated countries could have a negative modification as they have to many people and that makes them much more susceptible to revolts, illness, hungry, pooverty, etc... An overpopulated country would be any country with a population larger than eight characters. Maybe if we calculate the number of million just counting the first eight digits, and then add up the extra characters duplicated. So, China, rounded off, has 1.353.000.000 inhabitants. 6 zeros, 39 as the first two characters of the number counted in millions. The formula would be: 53 + 6 + 13 x 2 = 95 points. India, with 1.258.000.000 inhabitants, gets an 84 poitns bonus.
 * A country with nine characters would have the first two digits multiplicated the extra one, plus the six zeros, plus the extra digit duplicated. USA's popualtion is 315.000.000 = 15 x 3 + 6 + 3 x 2 = 57.
 * If the first non-extra digits are more than 50, then the number is divided four times. a Country with 490.000.000 inhabitants would have (90 x 4 + 6 + 4 x 2) : 6 = 62 points as bonus.
 * If the country doesn't have eight characters, but the population is larger than 50.000.000, then we just divid it two times. So, for example, Vietnam with 89.000.000 inhabitants has a (89 + 6) : 2 = 52 bonus.
 * It's still larger than a country with less than eight characters, for example, Argentina, with 40.000.000, would have just 46.
 * This system could have some mistakes, but I tried to addapt it two current countries. I supose it would work, for now. If there's any msitake, please let me know. The results are big, I know, but, fi we're having so many bonuses, making the military build up equivalent 2 points, then we're having a large number based algorythm anyway. --Galaguerra1 20:46, June 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * That system is a little bit complicated, but it might be the way you worded it. To recap, this is what I would post on the page:

See, it's a it complicated, even in bullet form. Plus, it does have some implausibilities. For example, someone with 60,000,000 population would get ((60+6)/2)=33 points, while someone with 40,000,000, like argentina, gets 46 points, a sizable advantage despite being only 2/3 of the size of the 60,000,000 nation's population.
 * If your nation is less than a million, it is the first digit of the population plus the number of the remaining digits
 * If your nation has less than 50 million inhabitants but above 1 million, its population bonus is determined by the number of millions +6. I
 * If your nation is between 50 and 100 million, it is the same as above, but with the end result divided in two, unless the first two digits add up to be more than fifty, in which case it is divided by four instead.
 * If your nation is above 100 million but less than 1 billion, the first digit is multiplied by the number made by the second and third digits, then added to six.
 * If the nation is above one billion, the result is made from six, plus the ten and one millions digits, plus the billions and hundred millions digits multiplied by two.

Here is an alternate idea: the initial population bonus is for the number of digits in the population. However, the nation with the larger population gets an additional +2. If the nation with the larger population is more than five times the size of the smaller nation, it gets a +10 bonus instead. If it is more than 10 times the population of the other nation, it gets a +20. Thoughts? LurkerLordB (Talk) 00:59, June 5, 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it could work. Ok, let's go with that ^^. I have to work in my population algorythms :P. --Galaguerra1 21:58, June 5, 2012 (UTC)

Historical People/Technology
I also would like to propose a rule against all of the bolded OOC text occuring on the main page, other than a person clarifying something OOC after their post or a moderator explaining why they crossed something out. Instead, I would propose that any OOC discussion other than that go on the talk page. On the talk page, up at the top, we would have a big heading called "Map Discussion", under which a subheading would be for each year a map game out, and another being called "Moderator Event Discussion", under which another yearly subheading would occur for the Moderator events. Having a lot of OOC in the game looks bad, and having OOC complaints about the map in the pre-game text looks even worse. LurkerLordB (Talk) 18:22, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

Any additional ideas? LurkerLordB (Talk) 23:50, June 23, 2012 (UTC)

I have a proposal: We ban using historical people in the next game. Plausibly, after the POD, no real-life people are going to be born. Slight things such as a 5 minute delay in when someone gets home, who gets killed in a war, people having to move to a different city due to a different economy, the weather on one day being different, are going to prevent the exact conditions for conception from being the same as in OTL. Thus, the person who was born would be very different. Plus, it's more creative and interesting to read about fictional people than just real-life people doing the same thing as in RL, and often transported to a random country. This interpetation could be enforced under implausibility rules, but as it would be a major change, I wanted to suggest it here first. LurkerLordB (Talk) 16:49, July 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. I like this idea, because it encourages creativity and interesting. Though, how would it affect some royal familys (like the Japanese Royal Family)? When we eventually do start out the new game, does this mean we can get brand new Emperors and all that are from a completely different royal family we come up with right from the start? -Kogasa [[Image:Symbol of Natori, Miyagi.png|23px|border]][[Image:宮城県.png|23px|border]][[Image:Flag of Japan.png|23px|border]] 17:04, July 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the people alive at the start of the game would be alive in the althist, just anyone born after 1450 would not be alive. It would be the same dynasty and whatnot, just anyone born later would be different. LurkerLordB (Talk) 21:13, July 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, so that would include no same royal people being born (if the Japanese Royal Family would not be changed or altered in anyway, for example) -Kogasa [[Image:Symbol of Natori, Miyagi.png|23px|border]][[Image:宮城県.png|23px|border]][[Image:Flag of Japan.png|23px|border]] 13:00, July 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * Hanazono would be emperor, and his son, Tsuchimikado, would presumably become the next as he was born in 1442 (unless he died before 1464, when Hanazono died). But other than that, they would be different people. LurkerLordB (Talk) 23:18, July 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I have sort of decided in the current nuclear/space race situation (which has like 6 nations going to space all at the same time) that it is best to have both of those join industrialization as a process in which the moderators will choose which nations would gain those technologies first. Any other ideas for technologies that should be restricted? LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:06, July 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * Its like you say with people being born and stuff, technologies would be created under different circumstances, by different people, so it should be at different times too. As long as it makes sense for that technology to come into being in our game at that time under those circumstances it should be allowed rather than not allowing it because that's not what happened in OTL. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 00:04, July 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * For the second game, the limit is that it can't happen more than 10 years before it was made in real life, as 562 years gives a lot of fluctuation for technology. Detectivekenny made the rule for this game that technology could surpass the date. However, that is not what I was talking about above at all. What I was talking about is that currently, we have 6 nations who have all shot off their first satellites into space in the same year, and they probably are all going to shoot of the first men in space the same year as well. In real life only the two most powerful nations in the world were capable of sending people for space for the first 42 years of human space travel. It isn't the technology being earlier that bothers me, it is that it is occuring all over the globe all at once, with most of the nations doing so not really being advanced enough to do so.


 * So here is what I have planned out, in a manner similar to industrialization: In 1920, 2-4 nations would be chosen for the first ones to develop nuclear weapons. For the next 20 years, they could devote a turn to nuclear research if they wished. However, this would count as a full turn for the aspects of the game. That would mean that they would probably not use all 20 years for nuclear research. In 1940, the nation with the most turns devoted to nuclear research could develop the first bomb anytime they wished in the next decade (even if they wanted to delay it to 1949). The nation with the second most amount of research could do it 2 years after the first, and if there were a third and even a fourth nation chosen, they would have 2 year buffers as well. 10 years after the last of the 2-4 original nuclear nations got nuclear weapons, other nations could if helped by one of the 2-4 original nations. 10 years after that any nation could begin to develop nuclear weapons.
 * Space exploration would work in a similar manner, with 2-4 nations being chosen (not necessarily the same as the nuclear ones) in 1930, and having to devote turns to space research. Then in the 1950s the nation with the most research could send a satellite in space, and the 2 year rule would follow. Nations would have to leave real-life buffers between stages of space exploration (4 years after first satellite to launch first man, 8 years to launch a man to the moon. The same rules about 10 year waits for other nations, and difference between independent and with help, would apply.
 * In events of ties for the number of turns, both nations would be able to achieve the accomplishment the same year, and whoever posts first gets it.
 * Thoughts? LurkerLordB (Talk) 01:32, July 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * In additiont to feedback on my system, you can propose other technologies that you think should be limited like this. LurkerLordB (Talk) 14:09, July 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * Silence is consent? LurkerLordB (Talk) 01:38, July 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * No. I disagree (and propose changes to) with parts of your proposal.
 * First and foremost me and Crim have decided that I Denmark will put the first man in space, and all can follow next year. I'll do it in 61.
 * Also, I think some historical people can exist without being the same. EX: Charles Darwin becomes the President of England and Stalin can be the first man in space.
 * And about the game right now, the only nations I see unlikely to be spacing is Wales, but Denmark and Russia are pushing Wales up.
 * Fourthly, the nations that are picked to do things could have some sort of thing happen and they would be crippled and unable to do stuff like get the nuke and satellites, etc. This is the major flaw in your proposal that I see.
 * [[Image:IMPERIAL NY-SPQR 1.png|25px]][[Image:Regen Flag.png|30px|border]] Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 03:25, July 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * It is implausible for any historical person to even be born. The probability of the exact same sperm cell reaching the exact same egg in a different universe, when the parents may be dead or seperated because of different wars or economies or colonization or religious events, is beyond unlikely.
 * The technology thing is because the first satellite in space had 6 nations in one year. That is ridiculous. As is the massive amount of whining that you and your alliance is doing because China decided not to lie down and let you win everything. LurkerLordB (Talk) 12:52, July 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand me. I mean that two completely different people meet up and have a child with the same name and looks like the OTL person.
 * Also I proposed that China and the three nations take a joint mission to the moon.
 * [[Image:IMPERIAL NY-SPQR 1.png|25px]][[Image:Regen Flag.png|30px|border]] Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 16:44, July 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * Two different people having a child with the exact same DNA as a child of two other people, and then happening to name their child the exact same thing, and live in the exact same time period, is improbable beyond belief. The chance of an OTL person being born in real life 250 years after the POD is 1 to 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
 * 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Everyone's existence today is astronomically lucky. Without divine intervention, no real-life people are being born. LurkerLordB (Talk) 00:56, July 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I think I dominated the real-life people argument. And as for the technology, if you have a war or disaster, you won't be able to use your turn to work on new technology, so you could get behind in the counting. If a nation completely falls (total government overthrow during the nuclear/space research phase) then they won't count as the same and thus will no longer be in the running. LurkerLordB (Talk) 14:55, July 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Does anyone else want to discuss something? LurkerLordB (Talk) 20:01, July 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * We can still use their names right? After all it would be hard to come up with a load of new names. When I say this, its a different person, could be doing different thing at a different time; just the same name. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 20:06, July 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose once or twice is fine, but if all the names you ever use are names of OTL famous people, then there may be a problem. Sometimes, when I need names, I will go on wikipedia and look at the lists of past governors/representatives of part of whatever nation I am using, and switch a first name and last name around. Or I just look up something like "Italian first names" or "Italian surnames" and combine them together. Most of the Italian nobles actually have their names from the semi-Italian names of Shakespeare plays. LurkerLordB (Talk) 04:06, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

The Empire of Nippon

 * Location: 1
 * Attacker's advantage: 1
 * Motive (political): 5
 * Expansion: 0
 * Military Update: 15
 * Strength: Nippon (L), Chamoru (MV), Shuubudan (MV), Maurituis (M), Wonderlaand (M), Commonwealth of Eetoria and Ngainkeha (M), Guinée (M), Bharat (M), Bihar (MV), Assam (MV), Govapuri (M), Afghanistan (M), Bengal (M), Bengali vassal (MV), Sindustan (M): 41
 * Chance: 6
 * Time: (Nipponese declaration of war: 12:19) 1*2*1*9 = 18
 * Editcount: 4,411
 * 4,411/18 x pi = 769.8 6 5
 * Participation: 10
 * Stability: ((10.1^1.25) / (1.25^10.1)) * 9 * 2.5 = 43 (rounded up from 42.5396)
 * Total: 122

The People's Republic of France

 * Location: 5
 * Motive(Life or death): 10
 * Expansion: 0
 * Military update: 0
 * Collectivist France(L), Navarra (MV), Catalonia (MV), Aragon (MV), Castile (MV), Calora (M), Italy (M), Pahang (S), New Maya (M), Istoias (M), Russia(M), Hungary (M), Norway (M), Greenland (M), Arctica (M), Nouvelle Copenhague (MV), Denmark (S), Sweden (S): 43
 * Puppet states:-2
 * Chance: 2 (RNG)
 * Participation: 10
 * Stability: 1.1^1.25/1.25^1.1*2.5*8 = 18 (rounded up from 17.6267)
 * Total: 85

Result
((122/ (122+70))* 2)-1 = 27.08% at most, depending on how long the war lasts of course. Looking like a Nipponese victory. War isn't over yet though, waiting for the rest of Nippon's anti-collectivist allies to join the war.

Discussion
Seeing how the former Crown Princess of France Marie is queen of the Kingdom of Guinée, I think it only makes sense that Queen Marie I of Guinée would use her current nation to help re-take France. Also who else was helping to re-install the French monarchy? Wales, Scandivia, Bharat, the federation of the Americas, Saigyo, etc.? VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 12:18, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

I'm all in! :D Imp (Say Hi?!) 14:22, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

Italy wants it to be known that once Crown Princess Marie is restored to the throne and France is restored, that they do not want France to become a puppet of the Nipponese. LurkerLordB (Talk) 14:36, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

A puppet for one or two years as we sort out France following the devastation of the war & helping to build new infrastructure for them, assert the new government's legitimacy and then yes, they have complete independence. Probably in dynastic union with Guinée as well, seeing that Marie will be queen of both the two nations. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 16:00, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

Well then you can count Europe out if they're going to be a puppet for a while. Doesn't it make more sense just to occupy them for a bit until you can be sure they're all good. That's what the Allies did after World War II. Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 17:34, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

Good god this is starting to annoy me. Every time I try to set up a major collectivist power someone comes around to destroy them. I was planning on having the Collectivist French become an analogue to the OTL Chinese. I'm going to have the Spanish unite to form the People's Republic of Spain, and I have no intention of having them harm anyone.

Yank 18:23, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you really need to have a major collectivist power ready to back them, like a USSR analogue. Unfrotunately, Russia, China, Wales, Nippon, Denmark, India, Vietnam, and all the other major powers are not collectivist. The only other nation that's collectivist on the globe is Kawashiro. Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 18:28, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

I'm planning on having the Spanish go through the changes that OTL China did. And I'm planning on stating that the Spanish have no intention of spreading Collectivism by force. They might fund Collectivist parties, but that's it. And those Collectivist parties would attempt to spread Collectivism by ballot rather than by bullet.

Yank 18:36, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

Hey I'm just as unhappy about having Nippon's vassal or puppet in europe either...if thats the plan, Im not sure why europe will be joining this...unless of course we all agree that this will be the event that brings about the end to the Asia-Europe cold war and makes us work together to achieve greater goals(in other words, a manned base on the moon or mars landing.) -unsigned post by someone

No one is going to land on Mars or make Moon bases in this map game.

Anyways, Calora is also collectivist.

Also, I removed Scandinavia on account of the fact that their player stated that if they become a puppet, "you can count Europe out". Anyways, since they are becoming a puppet, I am going to have the Sovereignty Defense League Defend them. LurkerLordB (Talk) 19:52, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place. I can side with the anti-collectivists and bring back the Kingdom of France and look like an Asian supporters and lose by SDL seat, or I can support the SDL, end Red Claw attacks, have Denmark and Sweden leave Scandinavia, be faced with mass intense rioting nationwide. Yeah. You can really count me out on this one.

Also, we can land on Mars. It is absolutely possible. In fact, America had a choice in the 80s: space shuttles or Mars missions. We can easily choose Mars missions.

Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 22:25, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

You can always be neutral.

And no, it is much harder to get to Mars than that. We are multiple decades away even now, even by the estimates made when the economy was soaring. In fact, I can't find any real source stating that the shuttle program replaced any Mars program. No one is going to Mars in this game, it is against the rules against advanced technology that have already been stated multiple times. Also, without space shuttles, you can't make many satellites, space telescopes, or space stations.

LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:31, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

So, unless you can convince that we'll all occupy France and  not  make it a Nipponese puppet, you'll lose. Greatly. And this will boost global pro-collectivist feelings. Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 22:34, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

Besides the fact that the war was pretty much unprovoked? I'm thining about siding with the SDL. I had imagined Marie would adapt to ruling Guinée. The Marie I imagined would be too proud to rule over a puppet, no matter how temorary the arrangement is. I still think Von had absolutely no reason to interfer in France, especially when the Japanese have no stake in European matters, and haven't had one for centuries. Yet another example of war-mongering.

Yank 22:36, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

I'm forming a puppet regime in France because their is nothing in the rules about occupying another nation for a while. Making a puppet was the closest thing to occupying them for a bit until they're all good like what the Allies did after World War II. If I can do an occupation then I'll do that but I wasn't sure if I would be allowed to occupy them as there is no rules about it so I went for something with more clarity, i.e. a temporary puppet government. This isn't Nippon trying to gain territory in Europe, all the other anti-collectivist nations can be part of the temporary government, but again since there's no rules on what to do with coalition wars, occupying nations for short periods of time & such, I went with something I definitely know follows the rules. Apologises for any confusion caused, which I believe it certainly has caused. Some stuff in 1975 turn now is probably gonna need editing to get rid of the counter-factual posts this confusion has caused. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 22:41, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

You said nothing about the fact that it seems that you initiated the war without a legitimate reason. Sure Collectivism/Communism sucks, but Collectivist France wasn't doing anything to harm you or anyone else. It still seems like a warmongering move that, as Lurk pointed out, may actually increase pro-Collectivist feelings.

Yank 23:40, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, Yank. In PMII, I plan on having some sort of Communist revolution in China. Whether or not the Communists win remains to be seen. CrimsonAssassin (talk) 00:08, July 30, 2012 (UTC)

Von, your nation's actions are still going to be percieved by Europeans as a senseless and causeless Asian invasion of a Sovereign European nation with no good reason. I'm not going to retcon anything. LurkerLordB (Talk) 04:43, July 30, 2012 (UTC)

You know what, I can rectify my situation: Norway, Greenland, Arctica, Nouvelle Copenhague, military aid, Denmark, Sweden, supplies. Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 05:18, July 30, 2012 (UTC)

Map Issues 1975
There are so many minor player nations left uncoloured it's ridiculous. At least three nations in Europe need to be coloured. Also Flanders and Portugal became client states of Britain and Tangiers respectively.

Yank 01:16, July 30, 2012 (UTC)

Imuhagh shouldn't have that Giant long panhandle, and Taureg should border Algeria-Libya.

Also, the Federation of Americas should be colored the 50% former-Nipponese Pink and the 50% former Italian yellow. LurkerLordB (Talk) 04:48, July 30, 2012 (UTC)