Talk:Principia Moderni III/Archive 9

What do we do with an honorary mod?
So yeah I'm back but I'm an honorary mod, so I'm wondering where exactly I stand in regards to my mod authority. I want to focus on the roles of mod events, neutrality Bringer, Air Breather and ASB hunter like EiplecOco and Feudal. So basically am I reinstated or not? No chance of me being a map maker anymore but my ability to look at a situation and be very neutral and unbiased is good I think.

But yeah other mods how do I stand with this all? I don't think we have precedent, but if an old/honorary mod did show up again in the past (like in pm2 I think it happened once or twice) then they got a flood of welcome backs, and it was like they never left, but then they left again. So far it ain't happened when the mod stays back for good. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 00:57, October 31, 2014 (UTC)

Well, welcome back! I think that part of the difference is that the community shifted. The people who play PM3 are quite distinct from the people who play PM2 (whereas PM1'ers were very similar to PM2'ers). Thats not to say that there isn't overlap, just that you are a new face to a number of this game's users.

Furthermore, the whole idea of Honorary Mod really got messed up, in my opinion, when all mods of PM2 were granted Honorary status in this game. We had Mod elections to start the game off, so if you weren't elected then, then I would think that you would not be in the "official" mod status.

That being said, it seems that the mods are getting busier and busier and unable to make as many events as in the past (not complaining here, tbh), so you may be able to work on that. Additionally, the loss/impeachment of Ms has sort of brought about a space for a qualified fellow like you. Your position in the Americas is also a boon, as Europe is too saturated with players.

Best, 05:14, October 31, 2014 (UTC)

I'm in the same boat - I got modship at the beginning of PM3 and then ended up having to drop out for a long while. Honestly I probably couldn't handle being a full-time mod right now anyway but if honorary modship gives me any rights, I would probably throw a few bombs into the mod events every now and again. I wouldn't mind being a "universal chaos mod" whose job is to throw weird curveballs. Commandante Lemming (talk) 17:29, October 31, 2014 (UTC)

To become an actual moderator from the honorary moderator position you need to be voted in (again). Honorary modship is more for people who resigned or are inactive to the point where they are no longer a valid moderator. Mscoree (talk) 22:18, October 31, 2014 (UTC)

Can an actual PM3 mod comment on this? VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 06:14, November 1, 2014 (UTC)

Well, i don't know.the one mod that came back after being inactive was Pita, who came back intermittently in PMII, and never really established himself.he also never acted as a mod after he as declared inactive, so there is no precedent.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 14:19, November 1, 2014 (UTC)

From what I've seen, what I said is what we've been doing for previous honorary moderators who have considered joining as active moderators. Not to mention that all moderators are voted in, and the honorary moderators have not been yet. Mscoree (talk) 14:28, November 1, 2014 (UTC)

Well then can I come back as a mod? I'm back to full time now. Plus seeing all my experience at the job makes it an easy choice. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 18:55, November 3, 2014 (UTC)

The Precedent was set, Nova tried to return once and we had a vote on whether to bring him back in or not. The Vote said no. So the mods would need to vote Von back in (which i assume hed win convincingly)

Im a she bub -Nova

Bavaria (Attacker)

 * Location:  +10
 * Tactical advantage: +5
 * Nations: Bavaria (L+5), Brandenburg (LV +3), Pomerania (LV +3) = 16/4 = +4
 * Military: +60+10+10+5+5+3 = +93/1 = +93
 * Economy: +60+10 = +70/4 = +18
 * Infrastructure: +20
 * Motive: +3
 * Bavaria: +3
 * Brandenburg: +3
 * Pomerania: +3
 * Chance:
 * Nation age: 0
 * Population: +7 +10
 * Recent wars: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of troops: 12,000/12,000 = +1
 * Total: +181

Acolapissa

 * Location:  +25
 * Tactical advantage: +3
 * Nations: Acolapissa (L+5) = 5/1 = +5
 * Military: +6 -5 =+1/93 = 0
 * Economy: +6 -2 = +4/70= 0
 * Infrastructure: +7
 * Motive: +9
 * Chance:
 * Nation age: 0
 * Population: +4
 * Recent wars: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of troops: 0
 * Total: +63

Result

 * ((181/(181+63))*2)-1 = 48%
 * (48)*(1-1/(2*2)) = 36%

Discussion
Two year war and Acolapissa is kill. Feel free to post suggestions to the algo.

Where's Acolapissa?

Post_Mississippia_Collapse_labeled.png

Number 34 on that map. Cookiedamage (talk) 13:47, November 1, 2014 (UTC)

Colonies
Why were all my colonies removed from the map? Mscoree (talk) 18:47, November 2, 2014 (UTC)

They were collapsed due to the lack of a centralized government and strong support of another nation ( I think one of the African ones is going to be a tribal state) Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 19:08, November 2, 2014 (UTC)

But I do have a centralized government, and all my colonies are being supported by the Netherlands and Hamburg. Do you meant to tell me that neither the Netherlands or Hamburg is capable of having colonies, or has a decentralized government? Mscoree (talk) 19:11, November 2, 2014 (UTC)

EH dont look ah me i didnt made The event lel Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk)

There was no event! Someone just edited the map one day and removed them all. Can you please fix this map error? Mscoree (talk) 19:16, November 2, 2014 (UTC)

Overthrowing Hated Leader
I noticed that recently there was an event to break Westphalia into several states in protest of being ruled by a foreigner. Since Luxembourg is running rampant under a hated ruler, I believe it's only fair that we break them up to, for plausibility's sake. As such, I propose the following event:



In Luxembourg, after a long period of occupation by the Austrian and Westphalian forces, and the recent enthroning of the previous Archduke of Austria and his family in Frankfurt leads to a series of uprisings throughout the nation claiming for the liberation of their nation. One of the uprisings is heavily crushed by a group of Luxembourgian military corps near the city of Luxembourg, leading to an all out rebellion that spreads rapidly in Luxembourg. The enraged people of the nation enters the lightly defended city and slaughters the loyalist forces in its path to the palace where they find the Duke and slay him while capturing his family and take them into rebel-held territory. Soon landlords reestablish the borders of most of the counties prior to Luxembourg's existence. They leave the Holy Roman Empire citing its “failure to protect its states and inefficient defense against foreign threats” and establish the Luxembourgian confederation, and request for Dutch, French, and Spanish support to defend their nation. Luxembourgian royalist forces manage to hold Luxembourg City (Any act of war by any nation towards any member of the confederation will be an act of war against all members,Vassalage is also impossible in a period of less than 50 years) (Score undoubled: Military: 10, Economy: 8, Infrastructure: 8 for all the nations).

Hopefully that shuts down the implausible mess that is Luxembourg being ruled by a Habsburg. Hopefully that helps, Harvenard2 (talk) 18:59, November 2, 2014 (UTC)

If i recall correctly tr0llis is Luxembourg, idk if Luxembourg is a mess, the culture is pretty much similar throughout the nation and it would be ruled by a Nassau member of the family not a Habsburg one. No reason for a revolt or uprising at all so not happening Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk)

False Luxembourg is currently owned by Ms, and it is ruled by a Habsburg. Harvenard2 (talk) 19:13, November 2, 2014 (UTC)

Afaik as I know the treaty made with the Netherlands was that it was personally owned by the king of the dutch but it was Austrian, with Austria gone it would become of the king. Especially with the fact that the Austrian Habsburg monarch dead. Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk)

Perhpas the worst place for a revolt to occur is 1670s Luxembourg. If you could have picked any nation that wouldn't revolt against a foreign ruler, it would be Luxembourg. Luxembourg has little to no cohesive ethnic or national identity, no tradition of native rule that has recently been broken to be replaced with foereign rule, isn't experiencing especial oppression or high taxation, and really has no reason to revolt. Luxembourg was and presumably is very much a buffer state and administrative division within a larger Austrian (and now Dutch) empire, rather than a seperate nation. Luxembourg has no reason to revolt. Secondly, this is before the era of nationalism. Popular revolts for liberation didn't really occur at this point, not without significant support from disaffected nobles, who receive all their privileges from the king and haven't suffered significantly recently. In short, a revolt in Luxembourg is a ridiculously implausible bad idea. Shikata ga nai! 23:13, November 2, 2014 (UTC)

I guess Kras missed my statement on chat, but for the record Luxembourg is owned by myself, not the Dutch. Mscoree (talk) 23:28, November 2, 2014 (UTC)

Hesse conquered them all, a half dozen player and NPC states and didn't have a single revolt. There was oppression and high taxation (given the squashing of resistance and the many expensive wars) and he got nothing. Then Hamburg liberates a single province smaller in size than Rhode Island and all hell breaks loose. You mean to tell me someone can aggressively conquer several nations and increase their size by 500%, but if a state retakes a small area that was theirs for years it collapses? Harvenard2 (talk) 23:37, November 2, 2014 (UTC)

Now we see the real motivation behind this. It's an overdone attempt to prove a point entirely separate from this event. Hence the fact that Harv, rather than actually referring to my arguments as to why a revolt would never occur in Luxembourg, focused on prior events that occurred in ''different countries. ''Again, Luxembourg has no separate national identity from the HRE and Germany. Luxembourg's noble class - the only group that can plausibly lead a revolt at this point - has no reason to be angered, especially to the poin tof immediately resorting to violent revolution. Nobles don't revolt unless their privileges are seriously under threat by revolting, they risk losing these same privileges. None of the ingredients for a revolt exist here; it's an attempt to prove a point that discards logic and plausibility. Shikata ga nai! 23:50, November 2, 2014 (UTC)

That was just a comparison. Harvenard2 (talk)

Oh mai gawd. I get it now. Harv isn't going against Ms, he's going for IATG. This has nothing to do with Luxembourg per se, he only wants to undermine the plausibility of westphalia revolting against Hamburg. It took me a while to figure it out. Sky Green 24 (Party,quotes) 13:43, November 3, 2014 (UTC)

Not really, the only thing I'm advocating for is this event. I was comparing it to Hamburg, how if he can have his province revolted away, then so should this. Hamburg's province revolting was socially accepted; the norm. If you think I am trying to advocate for it being returned to Hamburg then that's probably a reflection of how you actually think. Harvenard2 (talk) 14:00, November 3, 2014 (UTC)

Haha I just noticed this revolt took away land from multiple nations that they had fairly won in war and gave them to other players. This would be one of the reasons why I pretty much left. Somehow extremely bias things happen and no one cares. (If anyone would like to revolt all of Italy except Rome and make a random confederacy in which I am granted Lombardy again, that would be great.) Tr0llis (talk) 14:23, November 11, 2014 (UTC)

France

 * Location: next to the location of the war: +20
 * Tactical Advantage: Siege Equipment: 5
 * Nations Per Side on the War: +15  France (L), Rhineland (L) Africa(L) 15/3 = 5
 * Military Development: 60/1 = 60
 * Economic: 61 +1, /4 = 15.5


 * Much larger econ +10
 * Not lost previous last three wars +10
 * Larger Colonial Empire +5
 * Has Naval Dominance: +10
 * Nation Fully Mobilized +5
 * Mogadishu +1
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: 7


 * France:Economic Gains +3 + 4
 * Rhineland: +3 +4
 * Africa: +3 +4
 * Chance: 84.49575 =9
 * Nation Age: Mature nation = +5
 * Population:Total: +28 (More than 10 times larger)
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 120000 / 6000 = 20
 * Theaters of War: 0
 * Total: 184.5

Natchez

 * Location:  +25
 * Tactical advantage: +3
 * Nations: Natchez (L+5) = 5/1 = +5
 * Military: +6 -5 =+1/93 = 0
 * Economy: +6 -2 = +4/70= 0
 * Infrastructure: +7
 * Motive: +9
 * Chance: 84.49575 = 5
 * Nation age: 0
 * Population: +4
 * Recent wars: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of troops: 0
 * Total: +68

Result

 * ((184.5/(252.5)*2)-1 = 0.461386 = 46.14%
 * (46.14)*(1-1/(2x2)) = 34.605 = 34.6 which means france can topple natchez in 2 years

Discussion

 * v French Cahokie begins Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk)

France

 * Location: next to the location of the war: +20
 * Tactical Advantage: Siege Equipment: 5


 * Nations Per Side on the War: +15  France (L), Basse Bourgogne (L) Sardinia(LV) Artois (LV) 16/4 = 4
 * Military Development: 93/1 = 93


 * Not lost previous last three wars +10
 * Nation Fully Mobilized +5
 * Economic: 104 /4 = 26
 * Much larger econ +10
 * Larger Colonial Empire +5
 * Has Naval Dominance: +10
 * Mogadishu +1
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: 7
 * France:Economic Gains +3 + 4
 * Basse bourgogne: +3 +4
 * Sardinia: +3 +4
 * Artois: +3 +4
 * Chance: 84.49575 =
 * Nation Age: Mature nation = +5
 * Population:Total: +28 (More than 10 times larger)
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 150000 / 6000 = 20
 * Recent Wars: -4
 * Total: 194

Chahta

 * Location:  +25
 * Tactical advantage: +3
 * Nations: Chahta (L+5) = 5/1 = +5
 * Military: +6 -5 =+1/ = 0
 * Economy: +6 -2 = +4/= 0
 * Infrastructure: +7
 * Motive: +9
 * Chance: 
 * Nation age: 0
 * Population: +4
 * Recent wars: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of troops: 0
 * Total: +63

Result

 * ((194/(257)*2)-1 = 0.5097 = 51%
 * (51)*(1-1/(2x2)) = 38.25 = 38.25 which means france can topple chahta in 2 years

France

 * Location: next to the location of the war: +20
 * Tactical Advantage: Siege Equipment: 5


 * Nations Per Side on the War: +15  France (L), Basse Bourgogne (L) Sardinia(LV) Artois (LV) 16/4 = 4
 * Military Development: 85/1 =85


 * Not lost previous last three wars +10
 * Nation Fully Mobilized +5
 * Economic: 109 /4 = 27
 * Much larger econ +10
 * Larger Colonial Empire +5
 * Has Naval Dominance: +10
 * Mogadishu +1
 * Fiji +3
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: 7
 * France:Economic Gains +3 + 4
 * Basse bourgogne: +3 +4
 * Sardinia: +3 +4
 * Artois: +3 +4
 * Chance: 
 * Nation Age: Mature nation = +5
 * Population:Total: +28 (More than 10 times larger)
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 200000 / 6000 = 33
 * Recent Wars: -20
 * Total: 204

Chickasha

 * Location:  +25
 * Tactical advantage: +3
 * Nations: Chahta (L+5) = 5/1 = +5
 * Military: +6 -5 =+1/ = 0
 * Economy: +6 -2 = +4/= 0
 * Infrastructure: +7
 * Motive: +9
 * Chance: 
 * Nation age: 0
 * Population: +4
 * Recent wars: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of troops: 0
 * Total: +63

Result

 * ((204/(267)*2)-1 = 0.5280 = 53%
 * (53)*(1-1/(2x2)) = 39.75 = 40% which means france can topple Chickasha in 2 years

Scandinavia

 * Location: next to the location of the war: +20
 * Tactical Advantage: Siege Equipment: 5
 * Nations Per Side on the War:  Scandinavia, Iceland = 5/2= 3
 * Military Development: 40+10+10+5+5+3= 73/1= 73
 * Economic: 40+10+5= 55/4 = 14
 * Locations Bonus: 3+1+1
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: 7+5+5-5= 12
 * Nation Age: Mature nation = +5
 * Population: 28
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 30,000/3,000= 10
 * Theaters of War: 0
 * Total: 157

Susquehanna

 * Location:  +25
 * Tactical advantage: +3
 * Nations: Susquehanna(L+5) = 5/1 = +5
 * Military: +6 -5 =+1/73 = 0
 * Economy: +6 -2 = +4/55= 0
 * Infrastructure: +1
 * Motive: +9-5+1= 5
 * Chance:
 * Nation age: 0
 * Population: +4
 * Recent wars: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of troops: 0
 * Total: +53

Result

 * ((157/(210)*2)-1 = 0.4952 = 49.52%
 * (49.52)*(1-1/(2x2)) = 37.14 = 34.6 which means Scandinavia can topple the Susquehanna in 2 years

Discussion
Iceland has some  cool  moves. Sky Green 24 (Party,quotes) 20:05, November 6, 2014 (UTC)

Japan and Wu (Attacker)
Total: 142
 * Location: 20
 * Location Bonus: 6
 * Tactical Advantage: 6
 * Nations: L,L = 2
 * Military Development: 40+10(has not lost previous 3 wars)+10(naval dominance)+5(more total troops)+10 (fully mobilized)=75/1=75
 * Economic Development: 40+5(larger eco)+5(larger trade)=50/12=4
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 7+3+4+4/2=9
 * Chance: 0
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 8+2
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 0/0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Min (Defender)
Total: 52
 * Location: 25
 * Location Bonus:
 * Tactical Advantage: 2
 * Nations: L = 0
 * Military Development: 12-3 (smaller armed forces)-10 (not initially mobilized)=-1 = 0
 * Economic Development: 14-2(smaller eco)=0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 7
 * Motive: 9+4-5=8
 * Chance: 0
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 8
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 0/0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result

 * ((142/(142+52))*2)-1 = 0.46391752
 * (x)*(1-1/(2*2)) = 0.34793814

Hey
Is there any decent nations I can take, by decent I mean ones that arent a colonization target and can at least expand a little bit. -Ashlee 22:41, November 9, 2014 (UTC)

The best option you have is to pick some nation in China. Why?

- Europe is full - America gonna get colonized. No hope of surviving without becoming someone's bitc... I mean protectorate - Australia going to get colonized - Africa is useless as usual (Except when Viva plays as Africa) and so, I won't suggest it - So yeah.. You got China

RexImperio (talk) 15:52, November 10, 2014 (UTC)

I think Africa isn't really useless if you play it right. But America is soon to be completely carved up, so if u are planning for the long term don't play an american nation. I'm only american nation because I wanna jump ship eventually. I'm trying to speed up american colonization and facilitate expansion.

Chinese states, Indonessian states, Cacasus states, Laos, Cambodia and African nations are basically what you have to choose from if you want your nation to last a while. I'd say go Cambodia, Zimbabwae, Tibet or Wolof. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 00:14, November 11, 2014 (UTC)

I personally think it would be too late to play as Zimbabwe, since other European nations won't let you expand properly. I really wouldn't suggest Cambodia. Tibet has already been broken into three states [Kham, idk, and idk] and is quite weak with Eiplec trying to vassalize it. I am not aware what Wolof is.. Indonesian states is another bad option because a certain European nation plans to establish hegemony in the area. I believe Swank will be invading Caucasus states soon, so not a good option.

Tbh I'd suggest China. China has been fractured, and at the moment there is no major power in China. There are 5 players in China at the moment So basically, there is no major power in China. Pita wants to unite China and form his own nationalist empire. Me and Josh plan to do the same although Josh is allied with Spain and I am allied with Japan, and Yank doesn't do much. [Preceding comment added by (I'd assume) Pita]
 * Yankovic [Ming Empire]
 * PitaKang [Imperium of Heaven + Mongol Khaganate]
 * RexImperio [Machu Empire + Hailar Khaganate]
 * JoshTheRoman [Wu Empire + Min Empire]
 * Toby [Yunan][Inactive]

The Netherlands
Total: 202+chance
 * Location: (15+20+20+20)/4 = 19
 * Location Bonus: 2
 * Tactical Advantage: 5+2 = 7
 * Nations: Netherlands (L), East India Company (LV), Jehore (LV), Brunei (LV) = 14/4 = 4
 * Military Development: 80+10+10+5+5+3 = 113
 * Economic Development: 80+10+5+3 = 98/12 = 8
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: 3+4+5 = 12
 * Chance:
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Population: 7,000,000 = 9+10 = 19
 * Participation: 10
 * Number of Troops: 25,000/7,500 = 3
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Pagaruyung
Total: 61+chance
 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage: 3
 * Nations: Pagaruyung (L) = 5
 * Military Development: 12-2-5-10 = -5 = 0
 * Economic Development: 14-2 = 12 = 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 7
 * Motive: 5-5 = 0
 * Chance:
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Population: 900,000 = 6
 * Participation: 10
 * Number of Troops: 7,500/25,000 = 0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Results
The Dutch East Indies coalition can topple the native state after two years of combat.
 * ((202/(202+61))*2)-1 = 0.5361
 * ( 0.5361)*(1-1/(2*2)) = 0.4021

Discussion
Made this at the request of Nk. 23:58, November 12, 2014 (UTC)

Sky for Mod
Recently, PM3 has been in short supply of competent or active mods, and that is a problem, as it impeds the active process of playing the game and making it move smoothly. As a result, I propose that we add another mod to the ranks, namely SkyGreen.

Sky is a competent and relatively plausible player, who understands the way algos work and some of the other more complex rules present in game. In addition, he has a calm demeanor and usually interacts with other players in a tolerant and understanding fashion. For those reasons, I nominate him as a moderator for PM3.

"This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 17:04, November 14, 2014 (UTC)

For

 * FOR THE GLORY OF THE PARTY! 17:31, November 14, 2014 (UTC)
 * 21:50, November 14, 2014 (UTC)Crim de la Crème
 * Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 22:54, November 14, 2014 (UTC) (Cause, Why not?)
 * &#34;SO SAYETH THE EAGLE&#34; - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk) 20:20, November 15, 2014 (UTC)
 * &#34;SO SAYETH THE EAGLE&#34; - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk) 20:20, November 15, 2014 (UTC)

For

 * Saturn (Talk/Blog) 18:21, November 14, 2014 (UTC)
 * -Seiga [[Image:Miko THPW2.png|30px]] [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|25px|border]] 2014 November 14, 21:13 (CET)
 * SwankyJ &#34;The Italian Stallion&#34; (talk) 19:57, November 14, 2014 (UTC)
 * CNC1 Nod Emblem.png Aternix !? Atheism.png 21:09, November 14, 2014 (UTC) I think Sky would make a good and active mod. ;)
 * Shikata ga nai! 21:57, November 14, 2014 (UTC)
 * Blocky858 (talk) 17:04, November 15, 2014 (UTC)
 * VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 20:44, November 15, 2014 (UTC)
 * RexImperio (talk) 05:31, November 16, 2014 (UTC)
 * VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 20:44, November 15, 2014 (UTC)
 * RexImperio (talk) 05:31, November 16, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
I uhh, accept this nomination. I mean I talked about it to MP, and I'm pretty much the only one who can be active 7 days a week since I'm not in college. Sky Green 24 (Party,quotes) 17:08, November 14, 2014 (UTC)

Btw shouldn't sine's vote be in mod votes? <font color="#50E0F0">Sky <font color="#50FF60">Green <font color="A00000">24 (Party,quotes) 23:24, November 14, 2014 (UTC)

It should i was distracted and put it in here lol Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 04:09, November 15, 2014 (UTC)

What duties will you perform now new mod? Getting the 1685 map would be a good start in my opinion. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 20:45, November 15, 2014 (UTC)

A lot of mapping, I'm really good at that. I'll also make a lot of events (I made a few of the recent ones too). I'll help keep the game alive then the college boys are busy, oh, and I'm hillarious. Expect entertaining and useful events (without Batman). <font color="#50E0F0">Sky <font color="#50FF60">Green <font color="A00000">24 (Party,quotes) 21:20, November 15, 2014 (UTC)

Retirement
It is with heavy heart that i tender my resignation from PM III. I simply do not have the time between jobs and school. I will remain on the wiki and will be happy to stay on in an advisory capacity. But unfortunately i must stop playing the game. I how to rejoin later but i am unsure. I ask that Britannia be treated with respect and should i return, remain a possibility. Thank you all for the wonderful time. FOR THE GLORY OF THE PARTY! 17:35, November 14, 2014 (UTC)

You will be missed Andy. Very missed. SwankyJ &#34;The Italian Stallion&#34; (talk) 20:00, November 14, 2014 (UTC)

Let it be written that there was great wailing thoughout the world on this day. Commandante Lemming (talk) 21:34, November 14, 2014 (UTC)

Today we lose a good player, a fair moderator, and an even better person. It was great fun with you Andy, I hope things get better. <font color="#50E0F0">Sky <font color="#50FF60">Green <font color="A00000">24 (Party,quotes) 21:57, November 14, 2014 (UTC)

Shame to see you leave man. I hope you come back again! <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 20:49, November 15, 2014 (UTC)

Great Powers (Attacker)
Total: 84
 * Location: 20
 * Location Bonus: 3+1+2+1=7
 * Tactical Advantage: 7
 * Nations: Damascus (L), Tartary (L), Roman Empire (L), Egypt (LV) = 0
 * Military Development: 20+20+20+20+10 (No lost wars)+10(Naval dominance)+5 (More total troops)+5(fully mobilized)=110/45= 2
 * Economic Development: 20+20+20+20+5 (Larger eco.)+5 (Larger trade)=90/68=1
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 7+5+5+3 / 4 = 6
 * Motive Modifiers: -3+6
 * Chance: 0
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 8+20
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: (150,000+65,000+200,000+200,000)= 615,000/180,000 = 3
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Caucasus Confederation (Defender)
Total: 53
 * Location: 25+20=23
 * Location Bonus: 0
 * Tactical Advantage: 2
 * Nations: Georgia (L), Armenia (L), West Azerbaijan (LV), Assyria Major (LV), Assyria Minor (LV) =19/18 = 3
 * Military Development: 12+12+12+12+12-10 (Not mobilized)-5(Much Smaller armed forces) = 45
 * Economic Development: 14+14+14+14+14-2(Smaller eco) = 68 = 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 7
 * Motive: 9+3+3+3+3 / 5 = 3
 * Motive Modifiers: -3-6
 * Chance: 0
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age:
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 180,000/615,000 = 0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result
(84/(84+53))*2-1=0.22627737226

(x)*(1-1/(2*2))=0.16970802919

Discussion
Work in progress, please do not edit. "<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 02:26, November 15, 2014 (UTC)

Need help? <font color="#50E0F0">Sky <font color="#50FF60">Green <font color="A00000">24 (Party,quotes) 08:09, November 15, 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. <font color="#50E0F0">Sky <font color="#50FF60">Green <font color="A00000">24 (Party,quotes) 20:18, November 15, 2014 (UTC)

A-J(Attacker)
Total: 63+troops
 * Location: 20+20+20+15/4=19
 * Location Bonus: 2
 * Tactical Advantage: 6
 * Nations: Ayutthaya (L), Japan (L), North Vietnam (LV), South Vietnam (LV) = 16/10 = 2
 * Military Development: 20+20+20+18+10 (No lost wars)+10(Naval dominance)+5 (More total troops)+5(fully mobilized)=108/11=10
 * Economic Development: 20+20+20+18+5 (Larger eco.)+5 (Larger trade)=88/26=3
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 7+3+3+3 / 4 = 5
 * Motive Modifiers: -3+6
 * Chance: 0
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 8+2
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 0/0
 * Recent Wars: -4
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Cambodia (Defender)
Total: 51
 * Location: 25+20=23
 * Location Bonus:
 * Tactical Advantage: 2
 * Nations: Cambodia (L), Laos (L) = 0
 * Military Development: 12+12-10 (Not mobilized)-3(Smaller armed forces) = 0
 * Economic Development: 14+14-2(Smaller eco) = 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 7
 * Motive: 9+3 /2 = 2
 * Motive Modifiers: -3-6
 * Chance: 0
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age:
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 0/0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result

 * ((63/(51+63))*2)-1 = 0.10526315788
 * (0.10)*(1-1/(2*3)) = 8.7% or roughly 8.7% of the total land owned by Laos and Cambodia is conquered in two years

For the one who made the previous algo, this is how you do the result algo (Results From 1st Algo)*(1-1/(2*Number of Year War Lasts)) RexImperio (talk) 05:38, November 16, 2014 (UTC)

Fixed the war to the correct amount of years. Saturn (Talk/Blog) 05:48, November 16, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
Japan is well... Winning. Kind of. Made at the request of Sat. <font color="#50E0F0">Sky <font color="#50FF60">Green <font color="A00000">24 (Party,quotes) 22:26, November 14, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the algo, can I please know how much land I am able to take? Aternix !?  09:16, November 15, 2014 (UTC)

Results were done wrong, therefore I shall be fixing them. RexImperio (talk) 05:33, November 16, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. Aternix !?  21:25, November 16, 2014 (UTC)

Great Powers (Attacker)
Total: 171
 * Location: 20
 * Location Bonus: 3+1+2+1=7
 * Tactical Advantage: 7
 * Nations: Damascus (L), Tartary (L), Roman Empire (L) = 3
 * Military Development: 20+20+20+10 (No lost wars)+10(Naval dominance)+5 (More total troops)+5(fully mobilized)=90/1= 90
 * Economic Development: 20+20+20+5 (Larger eco.)+5 (Larger trade)=70/12=6
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 7+3+3/ 3 = 5
 * Motive Modifiers: -3+6
 * Chance: 0
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 8+20
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 200,000/150,000 = 1
 * Recent Wars: -6
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Caucasus Confederation (Defender)
Total:51
 * Location: 25
 * Location Bonus: 0
 * Tactical Advantage: 2
 * Nations: Caucasus Confederation (L) = 0
 * Military Development: 12-10 (Not mobilized)-3(Smaller armed forces) = -1
 * Economic Development: 14-2(Smaller eco) = 12 = 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 7
 * Motive: 9
 * Motive Modifiers: -3-6
 * Chance: 0
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age:
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 150,000 = 0
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result
(171/(51+171))*2-1=0.54054054054054054054054...

0.27027027... in 1 year. With the previous war (which was changed to 1 year but someone (mp) forgot to change the algo) it's over 1/3. Caucasia falls and will be split.

Discussion
Still in progress. "<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 19:01, November 16, 2014 (UTC)

Mp wanted me to fix it, so I did. I expect a port there for Croatia for my troubles. <font color="#1C4081">Sky <font color="#00FF21">Green <font color="531F72">24 (<font color="A00000">P, Q ) 13:43, November 17, 2014 (UTC)

Well since Georgia was invaded just a while ago, I doubt its forces would not be mobilized. In fact, I have noticed that every single war that takes place nowadays has got 'Not mobilized' on the NPC's side.

This is plain wrong.. Cause if the NPC is going to have Not Mobilized then the Aggressor should also have motive as 'Lands etc' since if there is a valid casus belli, then both sides would have prepared forces. However, if the motive was being greedy, then certainly; the nation defending itself would be unaware of any incoming invasion. RexImperio (talk) 06:32, November 18, 2014 (UTC)

You are completely correct. The motive is, in its essence, greed. I just forgot to change the motive since I did a lot of changing around other stuff and when I calculated the need score for the anti-caucasus side I just summed everything up. So yes, the nation would be unaware of the invasion for that reason. <font color="#1C4081">Sky <font color="#00FF21">Green <font color="531F72">24 (<font color="A00000">P, Q ) 14:39, November 18, 2014 (UTC)

Japan
Total: 55
 * Location: +20 (Manchurian Enclave), +20 (Manchurian Enclave), +20, +15 = +19
 * Location Bonus: +2
 * Tactical Advantage: +2
 * Nations: Japan, Manchuria, Taiwan, Ainu = +5,+5,+3,+3 = +4
 * Military Development: +20,+20,+10,+10 (Naval War) = +67/118 = +0
 * Bonus: +10 -3
 * Economic Development: +20,+20,+20,+20 = +78 /115 = +0
 * Bonus: -2
 * Expansion: -3
 * Motive: +3,+3,+3,+3 = +5
 * Motive Modifiers: +4,+4
 * Chance: +8
 * Edit count: 1,019
 * UTC: 1:03 = 3
 * Total: 1019/103*pi (3.14159265359) = 31.0804166409
 * Nation Age: +0,+5,+0,+0 = 1
 * Population: +9
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 67/84 = +0
 * Recent Wars: -2,0,0,0 = -2
 * Vassals and Puppets: (Not needed)

Hispania (Defender)
Total: 65 (Spain) 55 (Japan)
 * Location: +25 +20 +20 +15 +5 = +17
 * Location Bonus: +20
 * Tactical Advantage: +2
 * Nations: Spain(L) Philippines (L) Shanghai (LV) Qingdao (LV) Greater Cochin (LV) = +3
 * Military Development: +100 +10 +5 +3 =+118/67 = +2
 * Economic Development: +100 +10 +5 = +115/78 = +1
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: +5 (not heartland but over 20 years) +3 +3 +3 +3 = +5
 * Motive Modifiers: +4 (Spain) +4 (Philippines)
 * Chance: +8
 * Edit count: 6277
 * UTC: 2:50 =
 * Total: 6277/250*pi (3.14159265359) = 78.83912
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Population: +9 +2 = +11
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 84/67 = +1
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: (not needed)

Result

 * ((65/(55+65))*2)-1 = 0.08333333333
 * (0.08333333333)*(1-1/(2*3))/2 = 0.034 = 3.4%

Discussion
Japan loses the war, Japan loses 5% - someone needs to to a pixel count, btw. I don't know how to do that XD. Saturn (Talk/Blog) 16:15, November 18, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah.. Manchu aren't going to get involved in this war. You're going to mess up my 'Won all last 3 wars' thing U_U.. Btw 84 and 67 troops? RexImperio (talk) 06:10, November 19, 2014 (UTC)

Japan has a grand total of 14,194 pixels, according to the latest map. 00:45, November 20, 2014 (UTC)

Sat don't tell me you just gave up 482 px to Feud :/

Anyways... The Manchu are not handing over any land. Sat can give up lands from his vassals RexImperio (talk) 10:41, November 20, 2014 (UTC)

Nicobar?
Hey,

just a quick question about Nicobar... After the Lankan Invasion of Nicobar (being the indpendent country), the land I noticed in the algorithm (now archived) should be owned by him. However, I have also noticed that the island (OTL Car Nicobar) is not coloured as a Lankan controlled land. This leaves me with the impression that he no longer or never did own it, and after requesting numerous times for the colour to be added and it not being added, I feel like it is still an independent country.

Is this correct? Thank-you. Aternix !?  10:18, November 19, 2014 (UTC)

By the way, that was also my 1,000th edit. :D

Well, most likely the Map makers forgot to add it RexImperio (talk) 13:40, November 19, 2014 (UTC)

Great Nicobar, in all actuality, should be my color, as I had trading posts and colonists there over a century before anyone did anything else with it. I am that guy (talk)

Well haha.. That complicates things even more. xD Aternix  !?  05:34, November 20, 2014 (UTC)

Didn't Sri Lanka guy invade it sometime during late 1500s?

Yeah that's what I'm talking about. But it was in the early 1600's. Aternix  !?  00:32, November 22, 2014 (UTC)

Bajanate Coalition (Attacker)
Total: 177
 * Location: 20
 * Location Bonus: 0
 * Tactical Advantage: 6
 * Nations: Red Croatia (L),White Croatia (L), Poland (L),Carantania (LV) = 4
 * Military Development: 80+10(Naval)+10(no lost wars)+5(mobilized)+5(m0AR troops)=110/1=110
 * Economic Development: 80+5(Larger trade)+10(Much larger)=95/12=8
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 7+5+5+3 / 4 = 6
 * Motive Modifiers: +6-3
 * Chance: 0
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 8+2
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 300,000/120,000=3
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Kliment Bohemia (Defender)
Total: 51
 * Location: 25
 * Location Bonus:
 * Tactical Advantage: 2
 * Nations: Bohemia (L) = 0
 * Military Development: 12-3-10
 * Economic Development: 14-2=12
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 7
 * Motive: 9 = 0
 * Motive Modifiers: -6-3
 * Chance: 0
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 120,000/0=0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result

 * ((177/(51+177))*2)-1 = 0.55263157894
 * (X)*(1-1/(2*2)) = 0.4144736842

Discussion
Bohemia falls in two years, idiocracy is overthrown. <font color="#1C4081">Sky <font color="#00FF21">Green <font color="531F72">24 (<font color="A00000">P, Q ) 15:18, November 20, 2014 (UTC)

Wu
Total: 73
 * Location: +20,+20,+20 /3 = +20
 * Location Bonus: N/A
 * Tactical Advantage: +6
 * Nations: Wu, Min, Yantai = 5,3,5/10 = 1
 * Military Development: 20,20,20 = 80/17 = 5
 * Bonus:+10+5+5
 * Economic Development: 20,20,20+10 = 70/22 = 3
 * Bonus: +5,+5 = +10
 * Expansion: +0
 * Motive: 7,5,5 = 9
 * Motive Modifiers: +4+5 (High Morale).
 * Chance: +5
 * Edit count: 1,291
 * UTC: = 4:48
 * Total: 1,291 / 448 * π = 9.05311632988
 * Nation Age: 5,5,0 = +3
 * Population: 8+2
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 55,000 (Wu) 15,000 (Min) 7,500 (Yantai) = 77,500/50,000 = +1
 * Recent Wars: +0
 * Vassals and Puppets: (not needed).

X and Y (Defender)
Total: 64
 * Location: +25,25 = 50/2 = +25
 * Location Bonus: +0
 * Tactical Advantage: +1
 * Nations: 5,5 = 10 = 0
 * Military Development: 6*2*2 -7= 17/60 = 0
 * Bonus: -10+3 = -7
 * Economic Development: 6,6*2 -2 = 22/60 = 0
 * Bonus: -2
 * Expansion: -0
 * Infrastructure: 7,7 = +14
 * Motive: 9,3 = -3/2 = -2
 * Motive Modifiers: -10-5
 * Chance: +3
 * Edit count: 1,291
 * UTC: = 4:48
 * Total: 1,291 / 448 * π = 9.05311632988
 * Nation Age: +5,+5 = 10/2 = +5
 * Population: 17,000,000 = 8
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 25,000 (X) 25,000 (Y) = 50,000/77,500 = +0
 * Recent Wars: +0
 * Vassals and Puppets: (not needed)

Result
(73/(73+64))*2-1=0.06569343064

(0.06)*(1-1/(2*1))= 0.03 so Wu win 3% of X + Y land after a single year at war.

Discussion
...

Its a tie what do we do? Saturn (Talk/Blog) 21:56, November 21, 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps when we take down you know who, we can aid Josh in defeating the Small Kingdoms. RexImperio (talk) 05:06, November 22, 2014 (UTC)

Voldemort joined PMIII? <font color="#1C4081">Sky <font color="#00FF21">Green <font color="531F72">24 (<font color="A00000">P, Q ) 10:35, November 22, 2014 (UTC)

.... RexImperio (talk) 11:15, November 22, 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... Don't you think the Mil and Eco scores for the X and Y Kingdoms would double? 6 + 6 = 12*2 = 24 like we do with all the algos... Unless you divide their 24 by 2 for no apparent reason for there is no mention of such a thing in the rules and addition of such a rule at this point would be blatant bias. RexImperio (talk) 11:20, November 22, 2014 (UTC)

Moreover, it is impossible for X and Y to have 12 score for Mil and Eco and 14 for Infra. It should have been 14 for Infra, 28 for Eco and 24 for Mil keeping in mind the development scores granted to NPCs and that Mil/Eco scores are doubled. RexImperio (talk) 11:58, November 22, 2014 (UTC)

Fixed the results. Wu has lost the war. Saturn (Talk/Blog) 13:48, November 22, 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure who made this algo, but I beg you not to make one ever again. Now, X and Y lose and due to their disorganized status the max amount is multiplied by 1.5. So yeah, choose how long you want it to last. <font color="#1C4081">Sky <font color="#00FF21">Green <font color="531F72">24 (<font color="A00000">P, Q ) 14:28, November 22, 2014 (UTC)

Well this was easy. JoshTheRoman (talk) 17:47, November 22, 2014 (UTC)

Josh you just won 9% of their land, not 33.3% RexImperio (talk) 17:54, November 22, 2014 (UTC)

Holidays
<p style="border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;font-style:inherit;font-weight:inherit;margin-top:0.4em;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0.5em;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;vertical-align:baseline;">Hello everyone,

<p style="border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;font-style:inherit;font-weight:inherit;margin-top:1em;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:1em;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;vertical-align:baseline;">So I graduated high school yesterday, and am going on an overseas holiday for a month to celebrate. I will try my very best to continue posting as per normal, but there is a chance I will not be able to. My current (1693) turn is fairly generic, and can be copy-pasted if someone would be kind enough to do so. Thanks, Callumthered (talk) 23:12, November 21, 2014 (UTC)

<p style="border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;font-style:inherit;font-weight:inherit;margin-top:1em;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:1em;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;vertical-align:baseline;">I envy you :(. I have to wait till June to get out and then high school is no more.

<p style="border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;font-style:inherit;font-weight:inherit;margin-top:1em;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:1em;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;vertical-align:baseline;">Congrats tho. If you want, I could copy + paste for you, and I promise I won't let my pro-Bavarian politics slip into your posts XD. Cookiedamage (talk) 00:49, November 22, 2014 (UTC)

<p style="border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;font-style:inherit;font-weight:inherit;margin-top:1em;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:1em;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;vertical-align:baseline;">I promise I won't mod event oldenburg into balkanizing... yet. Just kidding, have fun tho and see ya back in 1723/1724. <font color="#1C4081">Sky <font color="#00FF21">Green <font color="531F72">24 (<font color="A00000">P, Q ) 10:37, November 22, 2014 (UTC)

<p style="border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;font-style:inherit;font-weight:inherit;margin-top:1em;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:1em;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;vertical-align:baseline;">Congratulations, Callum! Have fun! Where are you going, and, more generally, where do Aussies go for vacation? (Haha, its summer for you.) 01:07, November 23, 2014 (UTC)

Rome (Attacker)
Total: 154
 * 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: -2
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Tuscacora, or something like that (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
Revolt is killed in one turn. (1693)
 * ((154/(154+56))*2)-1 = 46%
 * (49)*(1-1/(2*2)) = 24%

More will undoubtably follow. "<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 21:26, November 22, 2014 (UTC)

Which number is it in the Native tribes 24, 25, 26 and or 30? Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 00:30, November 23, 2014 (UTC)

None, this is actually me making up for a map error in previous ages. There are no map changes as a result of this algo.

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 00:37, November 23, 2014 (UTC)

Thimogna then? :v

Attacker: Greater Japan - Manchuria
Total:  95
 * Location: +18
 * Location Bonus: +2
 * Tactical Advantage: +6
 * Nations: Manchu Empire [L], Hailar Khaganate [L], Empire of Japan [L], Formosa [LV], Yantai [LV] Ainu [LV] = 24/5 = 4.9 ~ 5
 * Military Development:  138/10 = +38
 * Military Modifer: 120 + 5 [Fully Mobilized], +3 [Moderately Sized Forces], +5 [More Total Troops], +10 [Naval Dominance] = 138
 * Economic Development: 127/18 = 7.0 ~ +7
 * Economic Bonus: 120 + 5 [Larger Economy], +5 [Larger Colonial Empire], -3 [Receding Econony] = 107
 * Expansion:  0
 * Motive: +7 [Hegemony]
 * Modifer: -3 [Non-demo Nations], +6 [High Morale] = +3
 * Chance: +9
 * ​Edit Count:  782 + 2429 = 3211
 * UTC: 1*6*4*0 [16:40]
 * Total: 252.191
 * Nation Age:  0 [Normal?]
 * Population: +8 + 2 [Population Modifier] = +10
 * Recent Wars:  -10
 * Military Strengh (Troops): 275,000/150,000 = 1.8 ~ +2
 * Puppets and Vassals:

Defender: Ming Empire
Total:  43
 * Location: 25+
 * Location Bonus: +1
 * Tactical Advantage: +1
 * Nations: Ming [L] = 5/24 = 0.2 ~ 0
 * Military Development: 10/138 = 0.01 ~ 0
 * Military Modifer: 20 - 3 [Smaller Forces], +3 [Moderately Sized Forces], -10 [Not Initially Prepared] = 10
 * Economic Development:  18/127 = 0.01 ~ 0
 * Economic Bonus: 20 - 2 [Smaller Economy] = 18
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +9 [Defending Against Fatal Attack]
 * Modifer: +4 [Non-Demo], -5 [Low Morale] = -1
 * Chance: +5
 * ​Edit Count:  13,245
 * UTC: 1*6*4*0 [16:40]
 * Total: 1040.259
 * Nation Age: -5 [Ancient Nation]
 * Population: +8
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Military Strengh (Troops): 150,000/275,000 = 0.2 ~ 0
 * Puppets and Vassals:

Result:
((95/(95+43)*2)-1 = 0.3768 or 37.68

(0.3768)*(1-1/(2 x 5)) = 0.339 or 33.9%. So the Ming are toppled after 5 years of warfare •-•

And on 1538, the Ming Empire had revealed it's aggressive nature and invaded the Manchu Empire. Thereafter, the Manchu were treated badly and so on..

And today.. Today the Manchu shall reclaim their lost honour. Today the Ming will be taught a lesson that the Manchu never forget and the Manchu never forgive. RexImperio (talk) 11:52, November 23, 2014 (UTC)

Oh and two other nations that also aided the Ming in 1538 shall also be punished... soon RexImperio (talk) 11:52, November 23, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
So you big excuse is a war I wasn't even responsible for? Go f*ck yourself Rimp. Yank 21:15, November 27, 2014 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to pay a minimum amount of attention to the game. Enough that you notice when, say, someone declares war on you. Shikata ga nai! 21:39, November 27, 2014 (UTC)

He did not notice, Sat told him about the invasion on his Talk Page. Nevertheless, Ming would've been invaded whether Manchu were invaded in 1538 or not, because the presence of Ming blocks Manchu expansion.

Moreover, judging by your attitude; I personally believe I did a good job is conquering the Ming. Nevertheless your feelings regarding Ming are irrelevant to me for if you really cared about the Ming then certainly, you would have atleast added more than 'Ming expand Eco and Mil' to your turn, and even that is the lowest contribution you could do. RexImperio (talk) 04:06, November 28, 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry about my attitude. It was uncalled for. --Yank 00:33, December 1, 2014 (UTC)

Rome and Cherokee(Attackers)
Total: 151
 * Location: 20
 * Location Bonus: 6
 * Tactical Advantage: 7
 * Nations: Rome (L), Cherokee (L) = 5
 * 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: -4
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Mvskoke Etvlwv / Creek nation
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
Victory in two turns.
 * ((151/(151+56))*2)-1 = 45%
 * (45)*(1-1/(2*2)) = 33.75%

Disscussion
Hey so I've not done any of these new PM3 algorithms and not done an algorithm in PM2 for more than a year. Hence I'm asking for help as I'm rusty and can't really remember much about making these correctly. PLEASE HELP ME DO THIS ALGORITHM RIGHT. THank you for your help --<font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 19:08, November 23, 2014 (UTC)

Finished as far as I know, ask me if there are any questions. "<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 19:18, November 23, 2014 (UTC)

This looks good, I'm too lazy to look over it in depth. So yeah, rejoice peasants, the algo is acceptable. <font color="#1C4081">Sky <font color="#00FF21">Green <font color="531F72">24 (<font color="A00000">P, Q ) 17:09, November 24, 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Well then if that is the case the Creek are conquered! The Cherokee and the Romans will split up their nation in half equally. So the map would look like the map on the right. I have also added the Shawana to my colour to signify my dynastic union with them, which come 1700 will be a full personal union because the current Shawana King will have been killed and my Cherokee Prince and his Shawana Princess will become the new King and Queen of the Shawana. Then a few years later my current Cherokee king dies and then both the Cherokee and Shawana will have the same monarch. They will then unite the two nations together to form the United Cherokee Shawana Kingdom. Otherwise I will expand further into the former Cahokian territories which are in civil dissarray next to the Shawana nation. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 20:28, November 24, 2014 (UTC)

Britannia Events
According to several users there is some sort of plan to collapse the nation of Britannia through moderator events. Worse yet, I have been told there is a plan for certain foreign nations to "establish hegemony" in the British Isles. If this is actually the case, I ask that the moderators please consider. Britannia has a player now and I don't think it's really fair to do this. I don't really care about bad moderator events, but (assuming what these handful of people tell me is true) I ask that attention be paid to make sure they aren't bias or excessive. Thanks, Tr0llis (talk) 23:46, November 28, 2014 (UTC)

As a mod, I have to admit it is unfair to Tr0ll to force his nation to suffer a series of events that allow the other 2 powers (Hispania and France) to attempt to do what they plan. However I do suggest that Tr0ll is forced to solve this problem by marrying off the recently widowed Queen Amelia. <font color="#1C4081">Sky <font color="#00FF21">Green <font color="531F72">24 (<font color="A00000">P, Q ) 23:49, November 28, 2014 (UTC)

This is why i said we needed to wars over britannia, one to oust tr0llis and one to do the civil war. Also france won't get involved, I'm interested mostly cause of calais (lel) but my concern currently is Cahokia. Furthermore Dat Britanny must fall Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 01:29, November 29, 2014 (UTC)

That comment essentially proves my point.

In summary: Congrats, Tr0llis (talk) 01:41, November 29, 2014 (UTC)
 * Bias moderators who wish to make events "to oust tr0llis", ie kick out a new player simply because it's Tr0llis.
 * Bias moderators who are motivated by land acquisitions and personal gains.

To be Honest, No mod wanted you in that place anyway, maybe only Sky, So yes you are not welcomed in britannia and IDIOT, i said that i wasn't going to do anything any time soon, and that i wasn't in favour of bringing britannia into such civil war without a previous war on britannia (Which happened to be yours). Don't care if you are or not playing as it, I still want calais and will take it when the time comes. Don't make it any earlier. Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk)

"No mod wanted you in that place anyway" etc, at this point you have confessed to being openly bias and are targeting me because of who I am. I'm not sure if I should be mad about that, or disappointed that no one is going to care. Tr0llis (talk) 01:56, November 29, 2014 (UTC)

If the mods want you out, then they want you out. it doesn't mean they'll be biased in doing so. Furthermore, I don't see any indication they do, just that in order to create negative mod events about Brittannia they would have to first get you out, which is true. It also doesn't, however, mean that they're being biased and targeting you with mod events. I'm pretty sure the Britannia events predated your becoming Britannia. I don't necessarily agree with them, I just don't think they're a manifestation of bias, only of a general desire to cause some chaos in a nation, which is a mod's job. Let's not incite a discussion about a possible civil war and its plausibility into yet another shitstorm about bias and conspiracy. There have been enough of those already. Shikata ga nai! 02:33, November 29, 2014 (UTC)

Part of the reason I thought the moderators were being bias was because of what some of the mods told me was about to come. The 1701 event comes to mind, which because of this thread most likely, Sine has not posted. Tr0llis (talk) 02:39, November 29, 2014 (UTC)

To answer the issue here, this was a decision taken by several mods when we saw how many people wanted Britannia. We decided that this had the potential for some interesting stuff to happen in the game. In truth, PMIII (and the PM franchise) is just another alternative history. A story. It's our job as moderators to keep the story interesting and intense for everyone. We decided that, in the interest of giving these people a shot at Britain (all of whom have a fair chance at winning), we'd spark a civil war that would basically spell how the 18th century would play out. Tr0llis, it would be highly appreciated if you would play the game, try to have some fun, and not be the little boy who cried bias. Thank you. Crim de la Crème 02:40, November 29, 2014 (UTC)

Except that is all an indirect way of saying what Sine said. There is no attempt at story telling, there is no even sides, or chances. This is about removing someone you don't like through moderator events. How is someone supposed to "play the game" when they sign up and right away their nation is destroyed, and all the worlds superpowers want to invade you? Again, I am mostly going off what some of the moderators have told me, I don't know the full story, but Sky for one told me to post this here, and told me that there was bias and bad events to come. I honestly don't really care, but I was told to make this, and now you're just trying to defend an opening bias (as some people have even told me) and unfair series of events. Need I remind you how you whined for days about ms causing a revolt in a small area of your nation, one which he could understandably have interest in? Now imagine if the world's superpowers did the same thing because they want hegemony in the UK. You guys are doing the same thing that ms did times ten in terms of bias events. You shouldn't even be making events about a rival like that, let alone one that some of you openly want to conquer in part. And why Britannia? They sit here and hardly expand, while Spain conquers half the world and gets no events? This is a very unequal distribution of events, and one clearly motivated by bias/personal want. Tr0llis (talk) 03:11, November 29, 2014 (UTC)

I know I'm not really involved in this, but I read what Crim said and cringed, because it honestly sounds like trolling. It literally sounds like an EA spokesperson explaining why they had to put a feature in a game, hell the part about storytelling sounded familiar, because they did. Storytelling, are you kidding me? Please explain how randomly breaking up the UK into individual nations is a right of your creative freedoms, while the Scandinavian union, one which in OTL was almost never united, cannot ever be dissolved? Please explain how when there was a revolt in Scandinavian Germany, based OTL and well written (storytelling if you will) it was disputed and disputed by your yourself. That's heavy hypocritical. If what you're saying actually is true, I'm sure you won't mind if in a century we do this exact same thing to Scandinavia? After all it's not about breaking up a rival, it's about storytelling. Norway and Denmark secede from Scandinavia after an assassination, because storytelling. Explain how it's "fair" to collapse a brand new player and then have said new player compete against the strongest nations in the game. Let me guess, it's a coincidence that certain nations want to annex part of said new player. But don't worry this is "fair", they will have an equal chance to defend themselves...by algorithm...against the worlds superpowers. Yes, Tr0llis, "play the game" and stop being a little bitch. Clearly this is fair, just accept the loss of your nation, geez. After all you don't want to be the boy who cried out against moderator abuse while he still had a chance, woops I mean, the boy who cried bias. Harvenard2 (talk)

Here's what I think on this whole issue: On one hand, employing mod events to intentionally break up a nation, whether or not you want that nation's lands, is bad. However, on the other hand, these mod events add flavor and interest to PM3, and throwing challenges at a superpower does make the game more interesting.

From what I recall, Britain was to be warred upon by several of the great powers in order to install one of their own nobles/royals (French, Spanish, Dutch, German, whatever) on the throne. In my opinion, that's a perfectly legit way of doing things. Waging war, backed up by an algo, to achieve a goal. Now, adding mod events to destabilize a nation, such as delivering algo penalties, revolt risk, etc., is mighty unethical to me. With that said, I don't see anything necessarily bad about the Queen Amelia event, as no penalties are noted. It's just a standard event. The British King is dead, but really, Britain is still just as strong as it was in 1699 and as fit as ever to partake in a war. As it stands, Troll, no one is booting you out of Britain.

Now, do people want you out of Britain? Yes. To be honest, you have quite a reputation on this wiki, and one that is held up by constant arguments on chat and generally argumentive behaviour.

To close out what I'm trying to say: The 1700 British mod event may have whatever ulterior motives, but the fact remains that it does not technically harm Britain nor give Britain any algo penalties. If France and Spain warred on Britain today, Britain would have the same chance at winning as they did in 1699. I enjoy the mod event and I think it adds a nice narrative to the game. Just like Crim said, alternate history is about making a story, so please don't squander that opportunity.

This mod event isn't kicking you out of Britain, Trollis. A war will kick you out, one which has a great chance of occurring.

Cookiedamage (talk) 03:37, November 29, 2014 (UTC)

The 1700 event wasn't really the problem, it's the 1701 events and beyond (which weren't posted, but were described to me) which seemed to be a lot worse. Note they weren't posted, so my complaint here is a lot more diminished, and instead stands as a call to attention in regards to future events. I agree with you a lot here, that it isn't really fair to weaken a nation through moderator events who you plan to invade soon. You're right that I am not kicked out (yet), but what I was saying was that the next events in the series (which again were not posted after I made this discussion) and the fact that people were going to take advantage of them, made it quite clear that being kicked out was imminent. I'm not trying to squander the opportunity to make alternate history, or whatever the case is, but at the same time storytelling needs to be plausible and fair. I would like to bring up an important point here; Scandinavia was allowed to self write their own civil war in their turns, so I believe I should be allowed to the same, perhaps as a sort of compromise. It isn't fair that Scandinavia can avoid being collapsed by promising to "have an arc" (basically do storytelling), but I have to be forcefully collapsed. For one I know a bit more about the situation it seems, and can write a history similar to Crim. If what you say is true, and you are both just looking out for the storytelling, surely you'll agree to me taking up the responsibility to write more myself? If that was the case for one it would be a lot more developed and expansive. So with that said, I ask that if anything, I should be allowed to write in a roleplaying type civil war, not be collapsed half heartedly by my rivals. Tr0llis (talk) 03:56, November 29, 2014 (UTC)

After reading this wall of text I have the following to say: <font color="#1C4081">Sky <font color="#00FF21">Green <font color="531F72">24 (<font color="A00000">P, Q ) 13:08, November 29, 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Nobody specifically wanted Tr0ll as Britannia, but only Andrew opposed it. Moreover, both Feud and I agreed to see how he plays.
 * 2) However, Tr0llis didn't play. Although these events have some implausibility because they ignore some facts (such as the names of the members of the royal dynasty) Tr0llis has posted for the first time on Wednesday/Thursday.
 * So, although Tr0ll has a point that he is being targetted and that those events are flawed, he didn't actually react to any mod events. Mod events exist to force a player to react to them in order to avoid damage to their nation or to benefit from them.
 * 1) As far as I see it, Tr0ll still has the chance to raise Britannia from the ashes.

If I'm not mistaken I've posted about five times, missing a few in between. Regardless, as I said above, my main problem was not the events already, but the shape of the events to come. The moderators have obviously decided to give me a chance, and for that I am very grateful. The events that are already there, I will react to them to the best of my ability. As long as the moderators are aware that I am playing as Britannia, and if anything allow me to pen my own civil war in my turns. Tr0llis (talk) 14:31, November 29, 2014 (UTC)

I have a simple question.. Why does this all start happening the moment Tr0llis joins in as Britannia? There were rarely any mod events that negatively affected Britannia prior to this, and not only is this bias but is also blatant meta gaming.

'I'm pretty sure the Britannia events predated your becoming Britannia. I don't necessarily agree with them, I just don't think they're a manifestation of bias, only of a general desire to cause some chaos in a nation, which is a mod's job.'

No, these events did not take place prior to Tr0llis joining in as Britannia. Moreover, if it is a mods job to cause chaos in nations, then why was not Britannia affected by such problems prior to Tr0llis joining? In fact, the only thing Andrew would get every century or so, would be a plague and the plague used to become irrelevant an year later.

'We decided that, in the interest of giving these people a shot at Britain (all of whom have a fair chance at winning), we'd spark a civil war that would basically spell how the 18th century would play out. '

I'm afraid it would be plain unfair to target a nation because others want to play as it. If we were to go by this, should not Sweden cede from your already implausible Scandivanian Union since Eric wants to play as Sweden? Perhaps, next a couple of Mscronies could gather and declare they want to play as Spain. Then would Spain get implausibly targeted?

From what I recall, Britain was to be warred upon by several of the great powers in order to install one of their own nobles/royals (French, Spanish, Dutch, German, whatever) on the throne.

But was there any such thing before Andrew went inactive and Tr0llis joined in? No, there was not. Like I said, there is clear meta gaming for Britannia is being targeted right after Tr0llis takes over. I mean it would make sense to attack if Tr0llis replaced the British Royal Family with another or perhaps, left Westminister, but Britannia is still the same Britannia and the only change is that of the player

Just like Crim said, alternate history is about making a story, so please don't squander that opportunity.

You know, if someone were to make a Timeline regarding all the stuff that happened in PMIII, the Timeline would get more ASB Tags than Eric's Wreck It Ralph Timeline.

'This mod event isn't kicking you out of Britain, Trollis. A war will kick you out, one which has a great chance of occurring. '

And why shall there be a war? Was Britannia being invaded prior to Tr0llis taking over? No. Then why now? Will you think of an implausible reason to kick out Tr0llis from Westminister? Will you meta game to attack Tr0llis?

Now then, let Trollis play in peace. Oh and Harv, you may be next. RexImperio (talk) 14:53, November 29, 2014 (UTC)

@Rimp: Also, another thing, dear RexImperio. I might be wrong, but I doubt it. Are you doing all of this because you have some personal quarrel with some of the mods (like Feud)? Because defending someone just to go against someone else isn't really something that benefits your reputation. <font color="#1C4081">Sky <font color="#00FF21">Green <font color="531F72">24 (<font color="A00000">P, Q ) 15:33, November 29, 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) They did predate Tr0ll joining, as they are in fact connected to Andr3w777 retiring, rather than him joining. There were already ideas on the mod page prior to Tr0ll signing up. However the events were actually written down after he joined. Nonetheless, they were planned prior to that.
 * 2) I'm really not sure who else planned to take Britannia, this isn't for me to discuss.
 * 3) Because nobody wanted to mess with Andrew, because, although he was inactive, he always counted on me informing him about Britannia. On the other hand, we have Tr0llis, who didn't prove himself as a successful player, atleast not as successful as Andy... yet.
 * 4) Doubtful.
 * 5) Multiple answers:
 * 6) Because there can be a war.
 * 7) No. (look at 3.)
 * 8) Because they can.
 * 9) Doubtful, Westminster is worthless now anyways.
 * 10) Doubtful, because everyone has different goals.

Am I really that bad of a player? I was conquered by my neighbor/friend as Lombardy, I played successfully as the Netherlands for like a century before giving it back to Nk. Where did I go wrong? (Except I know the answer; it's not about my in-game actions, it's about who I am personally.) Tr0llis (talk) 15:48, November 29, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Tr0llis, but all I meant was that Andrew was a better player than you. I mean, the Netherlands didn't develop as fast as they did under Nk. You got involved in the Baltic region, while Nk would have probably continued focusing on his overseas territories etc. <font color="#1C4081">Sky <font color="#00FF21">Green <font color="531F72">24 (<font color="A00000">P, Q ) 16:22, November 29, 2014 (UTC)

How did I get involved in the Baltic Region at all? I had a single war with Scandinavia which was over his colonies, although it ended in white peace. No territory was gained in the Baltics, meanwhile Spain outright invaded and toppled Livonia and France now owns part of it. I was pretty much the major power who was least involved in the Baltics. As for developing, when I was the Netherlands I was one of the most invested in technology and science. When I was the Netherlands half of the game's inventions were by me, and I was the top in research, along with people like Pskov and Austria. So far Nk doesn't appear to be doing that. As for expanding, under me the Netherlands gained like five colonies, a whole protectorate, numerous vassals and allies in Asia, something NK was unable to do. All while expanding the South America colony just as much as Nk did (the map hasn't been updated there in like a century, mind you). I successfully defended the Netherlands when people like Sine trollishly threatened to invade me (basically what they're doing now to Britannia), among a sea of people hated me. Don't for a moment say I didn't do anything, that's completely false. Maybe I didn't conquer half of Europe, but that's obviously not what NK wanted, he just wanted someone to keep the Netherlands together until he could return. I'm sorry if that makes me a horrible player, but I was just trying to do what was right. Tr0llis (talk) 16:33, November 29, 2014 (UTC)

If all what you said is true, then I was wrong and excuse myself. You're then a good player who is underestimated because of his reputation and personal relations towards other users, which is rather unfair. <font color="#1C4081">Sky <font color="#00FF21">Green <font color="531F72">24 (<font color="A00000">P, Q ) 16:37, November 29, 2014 (UTC)

Aaaaaand the shitstorm is here. TBH, I think the best solution to this would be to have a mod with a non-European nation who could kinda manage events in Europe, free from accusations of bias. It would prevent this sort of thing recurring. Shikata ga nai! 17:32, November 29, 2014 (UTC)

There wasn't really a shitstorm, in fact this matter was pretty much settled. Now that you've commented and opened up a can of worms on moderators however I see this matter will not simmer down soon. Tr0llis (talk) 17:35, November 29, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I got to agree, if you think Britania isn't doing good and you have plans for it; then carry out those plans in-game! Have a war of succession or something. Not start using mod events to get your own way if Trollis doesn't want these things to happen like you want them to happen. You can't just force him out if he hasn't been playing very good (something which is very subjective anyway). Also I agree with Krasnoyarsk above about reducing the bias, doing something like mod events to remove kings is very naughty if the mod has a conflict of interest..... <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 17:51, November 29, 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Von, and I think I will be having some sort of succession war anyway. I have an updated family tree on my page, and hopefully there isn't any interference or made up people now that it's publicly displayed who is in my royal family. Thanks, Tr0llis (talk) 17:56, November 29, 2014 (UTC)

For the record all I own in the Baltic, is the city of Danzig, which is quite easy unless I was blockaded  by Scandinavia, it would be harder for me to have a city state in Vietnam or India than Danzig. Also I haven't read the events in 1701 :v Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 18:22, November 29, 2014 (UTC)

This really shouldn't be an issue. Yes, this is about storytelling. Harv, the same thing has happened to Scandinavia in the 1600s. The exact same thing, actually. Maybe if you weren't busy trying to make it difficult for actual progress to be made in anything ever, you'd have noticed the massive civil war I had that lasted over a decade. We wouldn't have done this if Tr0llis was the only one interested. But several others were interested. So, instead of turning players down that deserved the position, we decided to make it interesting. The starting conditions will be fair for all British nations. These events have been tailored by almost every active mod we have and several other trusted players to prevent bias, though we figured you would wail like a toddler when you didn't get exactly what you wanted, Tr0llis. Crim de la Crème 19:14, November 29, 2014 (UTC) I opened up a can of worms? Really? The hypocrisy. As I said above, there's not really any bias here. After all Britannia technically doesn't receive any penalties from the events, and there's no proposal for a civil war to kick Trollis out of Brittannia, only a civil war after he's been kicked out by a perfectly legitimate in-game war. This whole thing has been blown hugely out of proportion by the constant accusations of bias. That said, I feel that playing the "bias" card would be more difficult in the future if this type of mod events were done by a mod who wasn't immediately involved in European politics. Shikata ga nai! 19:27, November 29, 2014 (UTC)

I meant opened a can of worms by stating your opinion on moderator ethnics in a thread which at the time was kind of wrapping up. Truth be told I only said that because I really hate it when people (mostly Sat) are like "lel oh look another shitstorm". Anyway, as I said many times above, the problem was the future events which weren't posted yet. "Britannia technically doesn't receive any penalties from the events" because they weren't posted. Moderators told me about them, and because of this thread they are no longer being used. Also your thing about the order of actions is completely wrong, given that the 1701 event, again it was not posted (but would have only like a hour later), specifically made states of my nation secede. This isn't after a war with me, it's to cause one. How come when there was going to be negative events for Crim, he got a pass because he elected to write them himself, but I can't do the same? I didn't even get a chance, next thing you know, negative moderator events occur, while some users (ie the mods) are apparently able to opt out of bad events by offering to add them to their turns. Crim keeps saying the events aren't bias because "all the moderators had input on them", which prompted me to look into the matter. At this point and time half the moderators actually agree with me, and the other half (the half that is bias against me/my rivals) still upholds that they are fair and were written by both sides. Furthermore I asked some of these moderators and they confirmed that they were not written by all the mods, some have specifically told me that they had no part in them. So which is? Even if it was true that everyone pitched in on them, at this point half recant that statement, and it is clearly not non-partisan. Tr0llis (talk) 19:43, November 29, 2014 (UTC)

Even though Tr0ll does have a point, I kind of want to play as ÉIRE REBORN and truth be told, the "first come first serve" system when signing up is kind of unfair (see, Lx Russia debate before the map game). Between that and the fact that this map game is supposed to tell an interesting story, I think Britannia should be broken up, to a certain extent. —Bfoxius (talk)

What did Britannia do to be broken up? You want it to be broken up so that you can have part of it. The Russian thing doesn't really apply here since Lx signed for "something in Russia" and the only conflict came when someone signed up as Moscow and everyone assumed Lx had met Moscow. From what I can tell though Lx has had a fine time as Pskov. As for Ireland why can't you ply as Ireland within Britannia? Furthermore I don't even know if Ireland was going to be something that became independent, after all the mods were under the impression that you wanted Britannia as a whole. Tr0llis (talk) 20:38, November 29, 2014 (UTC)

Westphalia
I was told by Sky to make this discussion here, to get a certain matter sorted out for good. I believe that over the past forty years there have been unfair and illogical moderator events targeting Westphalia, and because of the discrepancies in the events no one has been really sure what is going on in this region.

I signed up as Westphalia in 1661, after Austria had been destroyed. During this time Sine briefly instigated me on chat by hinting toward a future event to "take care of that [Westphalia]" and this was followed by an event in 1662, which collapsed my brand new nation right off the bat. Beyond that it also did or led to a lot of things that don't make sense, and has caused a great amount of confusion.


 * Every time I try to ask people about this they bring up something along the lines of "why would they join under a Habsburg/they hate the Habsburgs/they will never be ruled by a Habsburg". This is misleading however because I never once mentioned the word "Habsburg" in any of my posts. People tend to assume that my nation was ruled by a Catholic Habsburg, even though neither of those things were ever specified. The idea that they would never be ruled by a Habsburg brings me to the second point.
 * Even if I was specifically Habsburg, many of these states would be perfectly fine with that. Let's remember that all these states were de jure ruled by a Habsburg for centuries, but more importantly, the majority were actually pro-Austrian/Habsburg, anti-Hessian, or even previously ruled by Austria.
 * Let's summarize the states that revolted away because they hate Habsburgs/Austria:
 * Territories that Austria has ruled literally since the first few decades of the game. Small states that have been a part of Austria for over two centuries in some cases. I see no reason why these states would suddenly hate Austria/Habsburgs.
 * Strong allies of the Habsburgs who were heavily against Hesse. States like Trier, who is actually famous for his Austrian allegiance, and was a strong enemy of Hesse. For some reason, even though these states are pro-Austrian/Habsburg, and heavily against Hesse, they rebel in favor of Hesse.
 * NPC states which rebelled/fought against Hesse multiple times. States like Munster who had a series of wars to avoid Hesse, yet for some reason rebel in favor of them.
 * All these states were recently conquered by Hesse from Austria/Austria's allies/NPC's, and had recently been liberated by Austria. Why are they rebelling in favor of Hesse when they were just returned to their rightful owners, or at the very least removed from their enemy? This is like if France was liberated by the Allies in WW2 and then revolted to join Nazi Germany.
 * Hesse revolting against the above mentioned states I could understand, but for some reason all of the people against Hesse are joining them.
 * Despite the fact that at the same time Bavaria had doubled its size, conquering a dozen nations, and coming out with only really one revolt, and the fact that Spain also just conquered a giant area, the moderators decided to revolt almost all of Westphalia away on turn one. I can understand the argument that Feud and Cookie said, where the new states wouldn't revolt right away because they were just devastated, but how come that argument doesn't apply to me? Westphalia was just devastated by war, and for the first time in centuries, with maybe an exception being part of Hesse Proper, the region is actually not being occupied.
 * Worse of all this event declares that part of Hamburg Proper, part of Hamburg for pretty much most of the last 200 years, revolts as well. Hamburg just won another algorithm to liberate part of Hamburg Proper and for some reason it revolts to join their own enemies. That's like if there was a revolt in Pskov that caused Croatia to lose part of Poland. When Sine was asked about this he said the losses from Hamburg were "collateral damage".
 * These parts of Hesse were conquered fair and square through algorithms, yet they are taken away one turn in. The moderators made events to take away land from Hamburg proper and from me that was fairly conquered for the sole purpose of creating a nation for someone to play as. What if Blocky really wanted to be the Basque, so during a moment of Spanish weakness the moderators declared Spain erupts into new nation confetti, and the Basque part of France too for some reason, just to make that new nation for Blocky in the Basque region? I'm sure a lot of people would like their nations back, the people you conquered, but are we just going to start releasing Lombardy or Italy? Why do you make an exception here?
 * People complain that a Catholic ruler/nation shouldn't be able to rule over a Ludwigist state. First of all that is again assuming my leader is Catholic, despite the fact that I made no mention of that (there are Habsburgs of many different religions). Secondly, Ludwigism isn't even a majority religion everywhere in Westphalia. Some of the states in Westphalia are even ruled by archbishops and are heavily Catholic. In some areas they are Dutch Reformist. Where did I get that from? The fact that when Tr0llis was the Netherlands he wrote for dozens of turns straight that Dutch Reformists move into Westphalia, and the fact that Blocky himself wrote on the page for Ludwigism that some of his former states are now Catholic, and Westphalia as a whole has even converted away from Ludwigism. Now let's consider the fact that Austria, and the Habsburgs, was the most tolerant nation of Dutch Reformist other than the Netherlands, and repeatedly had royal marriages with Dutch Reformists. Even if my ruler was Catholic and a Habsburg, that would meant they are being ruled by the most ideal of Catholics, as the Habsburgs were repeatedly supporters of Dutch Reformists.
 * Again, consider the fact that before I re-conquered these states, they had a series of wars against Hesse, and that Austria and Hamburg were their main supporters. Why are they revolting against the people who repeatedly looked out for their interests, in favor of the people they had numerous wars with?
 * The fact that most of Westphalia revolts and for some reason leaves Frankfurt and Nassau as a sort of enclave inside it. If your actual intention was to overthrow the Habsburgs, who you claim these people hate (even though they largely don't), then you would have said there was a civil war in which the Habsburgs are overthrown, or would have forced me to have a civil war in my posts. In no logical universe does it make sense for every state of the union except the capital to secede and then leave the capital just sitting there. If they are angry because of one single guy in the capital, they'd obviously just deal with that one guy.
 * Despite that fact that Westphalia is in personal union with/being supported by both the Netherlands and Hamburg, who are both responsible for continuing support for Westphalia's colonies, the moderators decided to uncolor certain colonies. When I asked Sine about this he said that he "didn't make the event". I replied "There was no event! Someone just edited the map one day and removed them all. Can you please fix this map error?" Despite the fact that they were supposed to still be colored, someone decided to just leave them uncolored so that people could take them. To the best of Sine's knowledge, the person who started all this, they were never taken away, and it's not like the Netherlands and Hamburg are unable to together hold up the colonies, so that should be fixed.
 * The moderators make all the rebelling states count as independent states, despite being in a confederacy like Switzerland, solely so that I cannot combat them in any form.
 * Every time I bring this up people delete it off the talk page. No one replies to my posts or answers any of my questions, they just occasionally cross them out.
 * I am beginning to believe that the moderators don't care in the slightest, and would rather the truth behind this event be ignored. I can never have a serious conversation about this without being insulted, or presented with made up facts.

In conclusion, I don't believe it is fair to collapse a nation one turn in, in a bias and illogical manner, so that revolting states secede in a gerrymandering pattern, against people they historically were a part of or in favor of, to join their most hated enemy. I don't think it's fair to get revenge on someone through moderator events, and/or give away free pieces of a nation, and neighboring nations for some reason, to a different player you favor more. I don't think it's fair to suddenly unite states which were previously owned by Habsburgs, Catholics, pro-Austrians, allies, etc against someone who is presumably those things, even though such conclusions aren't even grounded in evidence, and in either accord would not account for such a massive ideological shift. Thanks, Mscoree (talk) 23:28, November 29, 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the points of mods giving land to blocky being rather ridiculous, and one i wasn't in favor off. but the else is staying and most of the colonies would have had collapse due to hardly being the top priority. I mean for hamburg they american one would. but Africa would've died anyway. Else is staying, the revolt was essentially every duke trying to seize power and fucking up. only become the westphalian confed in order to avoid outside threats from invading. Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 00:09, November 30, 2014 (UTC)

Sine you apparently wrote the event, how are can you say you dislike part of it? I literally saw you paste it on the moderator page, I literally saw you state parts in chat as you wrote it. There are direct quotes in my paragraph above that you said on the matter. Why would the colony collapse if the Netherlands are for one supporting them, the Netherlands are right next to them. In fact Hamburg even used my colonies as trade posts/stations on occasion. It's not like they just stop going to my colonies and everyone there loses the ability to eat food and dies. Furthermore the main areas that were uncolored were in the Americas, and you just said the Americas would probably survive. Not to mention they were uncolored (by Crim?, not sure) and then immediately other people began to prepare for taking them. You even said at the time on this very talk page that you had no preference on the matter, you didn't even know who did it. They were just never fixed, but they should have. No one fixed it because my messages were ignored/deleted. Why did these states revolt in such a manner? They already had that power, they were in the Holy Roman Empire for one, and secondly I never annexed any of them. Some of them were even Habsburgs, and you mean to tell me the Habsburgs revolt from the Habsburgs because they hate the Habsburgs? They didn't make a confederation to stop foreign invasion, they did it to stop me, from taking it back, and for some reason they are all counted separately even though other confederations are not. Mscoree (talk) 00:36, November 30, 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid Ms, but little can be done to ever convince a moderator. You'd have to deal with it before Westphalia is forced to further fracture and fall into disarray. RexImperio (talk) 07:07, November 30, 2014 (UTC)

I mean you just saw it yourself


 * 1) Sine admits that the event was unfair to you
 * 2) Sine admits he made this event regardless of how implausible it was
 * 3) Sine is willing to disclose it on the Talk Page that he made an unfair implausible event, knowing that it was unfair and implausible and 'nothing can be done' now

Oh well. Not that anything can be done considering most of the moderators are in this giant alliance that stretches throughout the world and they'd definitely put their own interests ahead of those of others. RexImperio (talk) 07:44, November 30, 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) Andr3w777 (Westminister)
 * 2) Collie Kaltenbrunner (Alive Due To Westminister Generosity)
 * 3) CourageousLife (Closely Tied To Spain and Now Annexed By Spain)
 * 4) CrimsonAssassin (Closely Tied With Westminister)
 * 5) EiplecOco (Closely Tied With Spain)
 * 6) Feudalplague (Westminister)
 * 7) Monster Pumpkin (Possibly The Only One Not Completely Inside The Spanish Sphere)
 * 8) Saamwiil (Closely Tied With Spain)
 * 9) Sine dei gloriem (Westminister)
 * 10) SkyGreen24 (Closely Tied With Spain)

RexImperio (talk) 08:18, November 30, 2014 (UTC)

Mscoree, I'm not going to get into this, but I have to say something about the colonies. If I recall correctly, the Austrians already got events that caused them to halt colonization, which is probably also one of the reasons why they're disorganized. But then again, I think Feud was the one who handled your overseas territories, so maybe that's something you should talk about with him.

As for you RexImperio, your little let's-kill-spain and down-with-the-mods attitude is getting extremely annoying. If you're going to plot against us, atleast do it behind our backs like everyone else.

So yeah, we're not just here because we're plotting against non-mods. Also, me, Saam and Eip hadn't even been mods for too long. <font color="#1C4081">Sky <font color="#00FF21">Green <font color="531F72">24 (<font color="A00000">P, Q ) 08:42, November 30, 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Andr3w777 (Major power + Successful player)
 * 2) Collie Kaltenbrunner (Feud's generosity + Nation with great potential)
 * 3) CourageousLife (He got annexed, but IIRC Feud's rule was, if you were there before me you can stay or something)
 * 4) CrimsonAssassin (Successful player who had to deal with A LOT of enemies such as Russia, Prussia, Netherlands and Austria)
 * 5) EiplecOco (Extremely populous nation + Excellent player)
 * 6) Feudalplague (Major power + Scraw's inactivity + Successful player)
 * 7) Monster Pumpkin (Chris' inactivity + Crusades against Ottomans)
 * 8) Saamwiil (One of the few who plays tribal nations correctly)
 * 9) Sine dei gloriem (Major power + Successful player)
 * 10) SkyGreen24 (Making use of the Anti-Ms coalition(s) + Heavily informed about Croatia and adjacent regions + Experienced player)


 * What inactivity? Scraw will return.


 * 00:43, December 1, 2014 (UTC)

Well, first of all; I am not against Spain or the Mods but I am against destroying the nations of other players for no reason and I am against the Moderator alliance that extends throughout the world

Moreover, your 'successful player' thing makes no sense. It's the same thing. The Mods have grouped together in a giant alliance. It's a unipolar world. You either ally with them or they kill you.

Otl, France/Britain/Spain never formed a large alliance because their individual interests would clash. But it appears there's no such thing in PMIII.

Who else remembers when France/Spain/Britain pre made a map of the divisions of Americas and never had any colonial war against one another? Atleast I don't RexImperio (talk) 09:46, November 30, 2014 (UTC)

I'll have you know I completely halted the expansion of my colonies for over half a century. The only thing I am asking is that they are at least shown on the map (preferably before some of the moderator nations, coincidentally, take them all). In regards to what Sky and Rimp are saying, it seems to me like the measure of whether or not someone is a successful player is based on their loyalty/ability to be in this alliance. For example at first glance Sky said that Tr0llis was an unsuccessful player, but then when Tr0llis listed all his accomplishments it made Sky think twice. Is this alliance you speak of coincidentally all "successful players", or has it played some part in shaping their success? Regardless, let's stick to the matter at hand; Westphalia. Mscoree (talk) 13:29, November 30, 2014 (UTC)

My dear godness. Ms, you were told by two mods that you couldn't be Westphalia, you pulled off a bullshity reason to be so i pulled another equally bullshity reason to kick you off, and then you pulled another one, Instead of continuing this idiocy and honestly getting in the crosshairs for a ban (that is if this evolves into a further shitstorm) deal with stuff rather than discussing every fucking little detail. furthermore i said the only part i found to be unacceptable was when some mod was giving blocky land back after the confed was made (which by the record wasn't me), that is the only part i dislike, the rest was in essence everyone regaining their power through a civil war minus frankfurt. The event wasn't unfair, i never said it was unfair nor disclose anything of such (i said it was unfair to give land back to blocky after the confed was made which i did not) and that the only colony that i could agree would've survived was Newfoundland's colony under hamburg, else is to my eyes and that of other mods fair. Instead of bending my words do something of worth and fight to regain your power, instead of bitching around every time a mod does something. Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 02:15, December 1, 2014 (UTC)

How is signing up as a new nation bullshit? Isn't that how literally everyone acquired their nation? Also why would the other colonies leave, when they border Netherlands and Hamburg. Also if you think the Newfoundland one is legit then why is that one specifically uncolored? Mscoree (talk) 02:18, December 1, 2014 (UTC)

1. you didn't signed up as a new nation, you used a loophole to make a new nation. 2. everyone agreed then that keeping the colonies was ridiculous even i did, but at the moment i didn't made any event, it was later on that i found about that but didn't gave much concern (Meh) Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 02:25, December 1, 2014 (UTC)

The giving of land was actually approved by more than one mod and was done so after I had been influencing the said lands for years prior.And, can we please stop talking about this? Multiple mods have said "No, you can't be Westphalia." and you moan and groan and cry and complain. Just stop. You aren't Westphalia, deal with it. Blocky858 (talk) 15:37, December 1, 2014 (UTC)

Ending PM3
http://strawpoll.me/3095856 that is all. Blocky858 (talk) 14:46, November 30, 2014 (UTC)

4 people wanting the game to end isn't a consensus when there are 20+ people who play the game. Also it's not your decision to end The game. If you no longer wish to play than by all means don't post but the vast lack of what the mods do in attempting to keep order and keep the game running in a lot of cases goes totally unappreciated and you guys seems to rail against the more more in particular cause you don't get what you want rather than it being a real true issue of targeting and bias. But seriously if you are unhappy with the game then by all means don't post, but if you would refrain from posting slander here on the onion page we would all much appreciate it. THE GAME IS NOT OVER COTINUE POSTING

You can always go and start your own game. If this is how you feel then go and do it. Don't make it out as you are the only opinion and speak for the mods. What you did is a bannable offense by impersonating a mod and vandalising the page. Mods please ban them. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 17:16, November 30, 2014 (UTC)

Who impersonated a moderator? Mscoree (talk) 18:22, November 30, 2014 (UTC)

^^^ Where's any impersonation, and Von, "them"???? And yeah, I mean, PM3, imo, is in a bad state, but I'm staying till the end, whether it be today or when we reach turn 2015. However, shutting down the game will do more harm than good, and if you don't feel like you want to keep playing, then you may resign, but flat out ending the game is not a good option. Cookiedamage (talk) 18:25, November 30, 2014 (UTC)

Wait, Von, I see what bothers you now. After looking at the gigantic mega-thread on the tsptf page, I am definitely understanding why you think bans are in order.

Putting up a strawpoll isn't a crime, but changing the game banner is just plain disruptive. Yes it's vandalism, but constantly chanting the forced end of pm3 and backing it up with vandalism is honestly stupid. It's obvious you all don't care about what actually happens to the game, and really this whole "end pm3" BS is to just cause another clusterfuck, and tbh, bans, perhaps not permanent, should definitely be in order.

Cookiedamage (talk) 18:52, November 30, 2014 (UTC)

P.S. are you getting Blocky mixed up with someone else? You're talking to him as if he needs to be banned himself, when he wasn't involved with whatever Harv or Ms were doing, other than posting a strawpoll here. -Cookie

Jesus Christ, what the hell happened the past few days...

If you want to kill PM3, just dont play it. It's so simple. Saturn (Talk/Blog) 01:34, December 1, 2014 (UTC)

I want bans exactly because they are just trolls. Just don't play it if you don't like PM3. Saying not to play the game and acting like you speak for everyone's opinon and trying to destroy PM3 shows hatecrime. I can't be dealing with haters. Go to jelly-academy and business school. Learn about not being jelly, not hating, not trolling and how to compete with people in a proper manner. If you don't an online game, rather than ruin the experience for people who do enjoy it; please just  go and start another game. If its better then people will come and play it as the free market demands your new supper good game since the current games are so bad. Go make a modded version of the game to improve the apparent problems you have with it, release your new modded version and offer it out to people. If the user base likes it and thinks its an improvement, then good you out-competed the original game. But you can't go and force the original developers to destroy their game and start anew.

A strawpoll is not a crime. but vandalising the game page, chanting to end PM3, impersonating the mods (saying the game is over) and generally trolling everyone because 4 people aren't getting their own way in a GAME is just sad beyond belief. Hence ban them. They are more trouble than they are worth. That mega-thread on the tsptf page just shows how lenient the mods and admins are being with these trolls. Why bother to give them the time of day trying to have a decent convosation with them then they are neither use nor ornament? <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 04:23, December 1, 2014 (UTC)

Well Harv already gets a month for the banner thing etc etc so Yeah the main troll is in fact Fact

Von, I wasn't even apart of the group that did any of that... literally all I did was to put a strawpoll here. Cookie has it right. Also, Feud, I never said I wanted to end the game, literally all I did was put the strawpoll here. Blocky858 (talk) 15:30, December 1, 2014 (UTC)

My Return
Finals will be done in a week and I may finally rejoin the game. My concern is, it seems you lot have decided to ruin my Britannia.... I am irate. I will likely decide to attempt to reclaim my nation if possible. I didn't want to leave initiLly and all this talk of civil war and in fighting makes restless. FOR THE GLORY OF THE PARTY! 06:59, December 6, 2014 (UTC)

I am sure the mods will find a way to return Britannia to normal from the near civil war it was going to be plunged into. The mods might as well restore Britannia relations with Westminister since as recently as 1706? Or 1705, Britannia was not included in the Westminister Meeting. So don't worry.

Now that you're back, Britannia will certainly return to the right path.

Regardless, welcome back. RexImperio (talk) 07:16, December 6, 2014 (UTC)

WestminIster... lol. <font color="#1C4081">Sky <font color="#00FF21">Green <font color="531F72">24 (<font color="A00000">P, Q ) 11:18, December 6, 2014 (UTC)

Tr0llis seems to have adequately defended Britannia in the arguments regarding collapse. I think one of the main reasons for collapsing Britannia was Tr0llis being there, so you returning should end these talks theoretically. Mscoree (talk) 13:04, December 6, 2014 (UTC)

Ending PM3 Early
Now, some players have expressed the wish to end pm3. So andy, mp and I thought decided we'd allow a vote to take place to see what people think.

Feel free to vote. There's no set time when the voting ends, but I'm guessing if most players vote we'll count the votes and decide on how to go on.

<font color="#1C4081">Sky <font color="#00FF21">Green <font color="531F72">24 (<font color="A00000">P, Q ) 19:57, December 6, 2014 (UTC)

Should PM3 end?
 * Aye
 * ​RexImperio (talk) 16:19, December 7, 2014 (UTC) (I say Aye not because I want reboot, rather because I want to show it up to those who said one thing on chat and did another during this voting)
 * Nay
 * <font color="#1C4081">Sky <font color="#00FF21">Green <font color="531F72">24 (<font color="A00000">P, Q ) 19:58, December 6, 2014 (UTC)
 * -Seiga [[Image:Miko THPW2.png|30px]] [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|25px|border]] 2014 December 06, 21:58 (CET)
 * Cookiedamage (talk) 19:59, December 6, 2014 (UTC)
 * Tr0llis (talk) 20:05, December 6, 2014 (UTC)
 * FOR THE GLORY OF THE PARTY! 20:17, December 6, 2014 (UTC)
 * I am that guy (talk)
 * Yank 00:07, December 7, 2014 (UTC)
 * <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 02:18, December 7, 2014 (UTC)
 * -Lx (leave me a message)Azarath Flag.png 03:12, December 7, 2014 (UTC)
 * Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 07:57, December 7, 2014 (UTC) (why end now if we don't even have a PMIV planned?)
 * Cour *talk* 16:02, December 7, 2014 (UTC) (Now, we can't have this, can we?)
 * Shikata ga nai! 23:43, December 7, 2014 (UTC)
 * Abstain

Discussion
I propose we set some sort of voting deadline. Cookiedamage (talk) 19:59, December 6, 2014 (UTC)

How about one week OR 21 vote in total? <font color="#1C4081">Sky <font color="#00FF21">Green <font color="531F72">24 (<font color="A00000">P, Q ) 20:00, December 6, 2014 (UTC)

I like that. Why 21 though, is that the # of editors? Cookiedamage (talk) 20:02, December 6, 2014 (UTC)

The number is 23. However minus EoGuy, and let's assume one person just won't vote, I'm guessing 21 is a fine fine number. <font color="#1C4081">Sky <font color="#00FF21">Green <font color="531F72">24 (<font color="A00000">P, Q ) 20:05, December 6, 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, despite originally more people voting aye, as soon as people began voting nay the original people voting aye appear to have removed their votes. Mscoree (talk) 00:14, December 7, 2014 (UTC)

As it has been continuely said, you can end PM3 for yourself by no longer playing. If some people want to keep playing then it will continue, if everyone leaves then its over. You can't force people to stop playing if they don't want to stop. Stop trying to control people gosh, <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 02:18, December 7, 2014 (UTC).

^This. One of the reasons why I let this "vote" take place was to show that a majority of people don't want it to end, no matter what 4-6 people on chat say. And for those who'll start open this discussion again in a few days I'll say just one thing. If you don't like PM3, either do something to improve it or leave the game. It's that simple. <font color="#1C4081">Sky <font color="#00FF21">Green <font color="531F72">24 (<font color="A00000">P, Q ) 09:12, December 7, 2014 (UTC)

I could name 10 people who supported the reboot on chat. Now it is unfortunate that they are too frightened to post here. What is even more unfortunate is how some people even removed their names while others have totally refused that they wanted reboot. RexImperio (talk) 16:15, December 7, 2014 (UTC)

Then name them. I remember you, toby, ms (not 100% sure), tr0llis and that's bout it. Yank was away all the time, MP and Andr3w didn't care much, I was against it, Seiga was against it too. Sat I think might have been for, not sure tho. <font color="#1C4081">Sky <font color="#00FF21">Green <font color="531F72">24 (<font color="A00000">P, Q ) 21:33, December 7, 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) Trollis
 * 2) Mscoree (Not completely sure)
 * 3) Nkbeeching
 * Me
 * 1) Toby
 * 2) Saturn
 * 3) Liker
 * 4) Harv
 * 5) Sean
 * 6) Bfox (At times)
 * 7) Blocky (At times)

And I kinda forgot the rest. I personally believe the entire Principia Moderni series would collapse if PM3 would restart now. I was personally in favour of major changes, not reboot and the reason I voted 'Aye' was because unlike the rest; I did not fear raising my voice. The others apparently didn't care to vote, and Toby and Sat first added their votes, then removed them. RexImperio (talk) 07:54, December 8, 2014 (UTC)

The reason I said PM3 could end was mainly because I thought that if PM3 ends and then the entire Principia Moderni series goes on a pause for a while, maybe some other map games could get a chance to shine. I didn't really feel like voting, but if you guys insist I should vote I'll add my vote. Tech (talk)

Why am I associated with the rebooting crowd? Mscoree (talk) 11:47, December 9, 2014 (UTC)

"Not completely sure" RexImperio (talk) 20:02, December 9, 2014 (UTC)

Do you not understand that by not contributing to PM3 anymore you are voting against the product through market mechanisms of free choice? Stop playing, create a new product and use that as a vote. Consumer markets don't vote to decide if a video game should be ended and changed, instead they just swap to using a competitor's game. Christ imagine if they did a vote to decide whether they should reboot Call of Duty? No they just swapped to a competitor's game like Battlefield or something. This is also a game and you have no barriers to making another game, thus the democratic thing to do is to make another one and offer a new competing choice to the Alt-history wiki market of map games. The above list is a type of market forecast showing a new game would have 11 possible players likely to buy into the new game so its a good indicator of demand. The demand is there for a new product, so instead of ruining a game which has demand for its service to continue, go offer a new game to those who are dissatisfied with the current game offered on the market! God I thought you yanks loved Regan's market bullshit. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 17:09, December 11, 2014 (UTC)

Open for Royal Marriages: Bavaria
Hi guys, so I have some Bavarians open for marriage. All children listed are of the House Wittelsbach. Cookiedamage (talk) 23:02, December 6, 2014 (UTC)

Bavaria Proper:

King of Bavaria: Franz-Dominic I
 * Albert, heir apparent (born 1694)
 * Klaudia-Franzina, second-in-line (born 1701)(preference on matrilineal marriage)
 * Friedrich-Rudolf, third-in-line (born 1704)

Pomerania:

Duchess of Pomerania: Mary I
 * Margaret, second-in-line (born 1687)
 * Franz-Heinrich, heir apparent (born 1691)

Offers

 * Portugal is interested in having Klaudia-Franzina eventually marry the heir-apparent of the Kingdom of Portugal, Afonso Manrique de Lara (born in 1703).--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 08:01, December 7, 2014 (UTC)
 * Croatia is interested in having Margaret marry Aleksandar Izan of the Nelipić family (b. 1687). <font color="#1C4081">Sky <font color="#00FF21">Green <font color="531F72">24 (<font color="A00000">P, Q ) 09:15, December 7, 2014 (UTC)
 * Accepted Cookiedamage (talk) 17:23, December 13, 2014 (UTC)
 * The Manchu are interested in having Mary I marry the 90 year old Governor of Hailar Khaganate, Prince Aisen Gioro Dorgon :D RexImperio (talk) 07:58, December 8, 2014 (UTC)

I'm Back (Kind of....Sort of)
Hey all. I know I kind of dropped off the map for a while, so I'll fill you in.

I was having problems posting every day because my schedule got really busy. The final nail in the coffin was that the screen on my computer fizzled out. I chose to relinquish the control of my nation to Feud and take a break for a while.

Now I'm back. Before you ask, no, I don't plan on taking back my nation. I don't feel that I have enough time or energy at the end of the day to maintain it. Besides, I gave it to Feud. I will, however, drop by every couple of days to see how everything's going, help with any mod stuff that needs doing, and can hopefully be completely unbiased seeing as how I don't have a nation to play as.

Last note, I have been hanging around alternatehistory.com lately and making some maps. If you're interested, go check me out here.

Cour *talk* 05:28, December 7, 2014 (UTC)

Hi, welcome back!

The link seems to be broken or s/t, as when I click on it, it says "<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:verdana,geneva,lucida,'lucidagrande',arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:normal;">Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms. 

Do I have to create an account on the site to view it?Cookiedamage (talk) 23:54, December7, 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it broke for me too. Most of the stuff is posted on my user page anyway. Cour *talk* 16:13, December 13, 2014 (UTC)

Attacker: Great Manchu Empire
Total:  119
 * Location: +18
 * Location Bonus: +2
 * Tactical Advantage: +6
 * Nations: Great Manchu Empire [L], Shangjingkou [LV] = 8/2 = +4
 * Military Development:  48/2 = +24
 * Military Modifer: 40 + 5 [Fully Mobilized], +3 [Moderately Sized Forces], +5 [More Total Troops] = 48
 * Economic Development: 58/9 = 6.4 ~ +6
 * Economic Bonus: 40 + 10[Much Larger Economy], +5 [Larger Colonial Empire], +3 [Golden Economic Age] = 58
 * Expansion:  0
 * Motive: +7 [Hegemony]
 * Modifer: +5 [Non-demo Nations], +6 [High Morale] = +11
 * Chance: +8
 * ​Edit Count:  830
 * UTC: 1*8*4*6 [08:46]
 * Total: 13.580
 * Nation Age:  0 [Normal?]
 * Population: +8 + 20 [Population Modifier] = +28
 * Recent Wars:  -2
 * Military Strengh (Troops): 175,000/35,000 = +5
 * Puppets and Vassals:

Defender: Kingdom of Xi'an
Total:  51
 * Location: 25+
 * Location Bonus: +1
 * Tactical Advantage: +1
 * Nations: Xi'an [L] = 5/1 = +5
 * Military Development:  2/48 = 0.08 ~ 0
 * Military Modifer: 12 - 3 [Smaller Forces], +3 [Moderately Sized Forces], -10 [Not Initially Prepared] = 2
 * Economic Development:  9/58 = 0.1 ~ 0
 * Economic Bonus: 14 - 2 [Smaller Economy], -3 [Receding Economy] = 9
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +9 [Defending Against Fatal Attack]
 * Modifer: +4 [Non-Demo], -5 [Low Morale] = -1
 * Chance: 0
 * ​Edit Count:  830
 * UTC: 1*8*4*6 [08:46]
 * Total: 13.580
 * Nation Age: +5 [Mature]
 * Population: +7
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Military Strengh (Troops): 35,000/175,000 = 0.2 ~ 0
 * Puppets and Vassals:

Result:
((119/(119+51)*2)-1 = 0.4 or 40.0%

(0.4)*(1-1/(2 x 3)) = 0.333 or 33.3%. So Xi'an is conquered in 3 years.

Discussion:
Hmm? RexImperio (talk) 08:57, December 8, 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed something. We've been doing NPS wrong. Also Shangjingkou should be giving you 3, not 5 as it is LV (L gives you 5, but V takes away 2)

<font color="#1C4081">Sky <font color="#00FF21">Green <font color="531F72">24 (<font color="A00000">P, Q ) 09:54, December 8, 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I didn't really understand what you said with the exception of the Shangjingkou LV part. Now I personally believe that by adding 1 score to Xi'an and reducing 1 from me, would have no affect upon the result that is victory in 3 years. However, I have taken notice of what you said and will make sure that such a mistake does not take place again. RexImperio (talk) 13:32, December 8, 2014 (UTC)

Wait so are you suggesting Xi'an gets +46 in Nations since 46/1 = 46? And I get +56 in Nations since 112/2 = 56? RexImperio (talk) 13:34, December 8, 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm talking about NPS. Instead of you having your NPS score be 8/4, it's going to be 8/2 since you have 2 nations on your side, while Xi'an's will be 5/1, since Xi'an has one nation on its side. <font color="#1C4081">Sky <font color="#00FF21">Green <font color="531F72">24 (<font color="A00000">P, Q ) 14:03, December 8, 2014 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I'll alter the algo and go check whether this has an impact upon the results. Thanks RexImperio (talk) 14:58, December 8, 2014 (UTC)

Urdustan and Co

 * Location: +13
 * Urdustan: 15
 * Spain: +5
 * Italy: +5
 * Greater Cochin: +15
 * Madras: +20
 * Khambhat: +20
 * Location Bonuses: +20
 * Tactical Advantage: 6
 * Siege Equipment: +5
 * Nation Per Side: +3
 * Empire of Urdustan (L), Spain (L), Madras (LV),  Khambhat(LV), Italy(L), Philippines(L), Greater Cochin(LV), Sultanate of Deccan (MSCV), Sultanate of Sindh (MSCV), Plutocratic State of Jaunpur (SCV)
 * ​Military Development: 168/2 = +84


 * ​Urdustan: 5
 * Deccan: 5
 * Sindh: 5
 * Jaunpur: 5
 * Spain: +20
 * Italy: +20
 * Khambhat: +20
 * Madras:+20
 * Philippines:+20
 * Greater Cochin: +20


 * ​Bonuses: +28


 * ​Not Lost Any of the Previous Three Wars, Naval Dominance, More Total Troops, Moderately Sized Armed Forces
 * ​Economic Development: 155/ +31


 * ​Urdustan: 5
 * Deccan: 5
 * Sindh: 5
 * Jaunpur: 5
 * Spain: 20
 * Italy: 20
 * Khambhat: 20
 * Madras: 20
 * Greater Cochin: 20
 * Philippines: 20


 * ​Bonuses: 15


 * ​Much Larger Economy, Larger Trade
 * ​Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: +2


 * Taking Territory of Similar Culture but not Part of Nation: +5, Mostly Non-Democratic Nations -3, High Morale
 * Chance:
 * Nation Age: +5
 * ​Urdustan: 5
 * Deccan: 5
 * Sindh: 0
 * Jaunpur: 5
 * Spain (all nations): +5
 * ​Population: 30


 * ​More than ten times +20
 * ​Participation: 10
 * Number of Troops: 350,000/100,000

​Total: 204
 * ​85,000 (Spain and its empire)
 * 265,000 (Urdustani empire)

Dhundara

 * Location: +25
 * Tactical advantage: +2
 * NPS: Dhundara: +5
 * Military Dev: +7 = +0
 * -5 Much smaller armed forces
 * Econ Dev: +7 = +0
 * Smaller econ: -2
 * Infra: +4
 * Motive: +9 fatal attack
 * Chance: 0
 * Nation age: +0
 * Population +7
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of troops: 100,000/350,000 = +0
 * Total: 62

Discussion
War is open and shut pretty much thank you and goodnight.

Croatian-Roman Coalition (Attacker)
Total: 93
 * Location: +20
 * Tactical advantage: +6
 * Location bonus: +7
 * Nations: Croatia (L), Carantania (LV), Czechia (L), Poland (L), Rome (L) =23/5=5
 * Military: 100+10(No previous lost wars)+5(more total troops)+5(fully mobilized)=120/13=9
 * Economy: 100+10(Much larger eco)+5(Larger trade)=105/27=4
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: +6(Mostly democratic-supporting nations)+6(Morale)+21(Motives)/5=7
 * Croatia: +7 (Hegemony)
 * Poland: +3
 * Czechia: +3
 * Carantania:+3
 * Rome +5 (similar culture, not part of nation)
 * Chance:
 * Nation age: 4*0+5/5=1
 * Population: +8 +10=18
 * Recent wars: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of troops: 550,000/100,000 = +6

Dacia
Total: +53
 * Location: +25
 * Tactical advantage: +1
 * Nations: Dacia (L), Halych (MV), Eastern Hungary (LV), Kiev (MV) = 9/4 = 1
 * Military: 28-10(no mobilization)-5(much smaller forces)=0
 * Economy: 32-2 (smaller economy)-3(Receding economy)=0
 * Infrastructure: +7
 * Motive: +14-3-6/2=-3
 * Dacia: +5 (Not part of heartland, but held for more than 20 years)-10 (Multiple wars)
 * Hungary: +9
 * Chance:
 * Nation age: 5
 * Population: +7
 * Recent wars: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of troops: 100,000 = 0

Result
(93/(93+53))*2-1=27.387260272%

x*(1-1/(2*3))=22.931050226...%

Discussion
This is the WIP of a war, it shall not be considered official until all sides that are expected to join, do so. <font color="#FF0000">S <font color="#04690C">k <font color="#FF0000">y <font color="#04690C">G <font color="#FF0000">r <font color="#04690C">e <font color="#FF0000">e <font color="#04690C">n <font color="#FF0000">2 <font color="#04690C">4 <font color="#FF0000">( <font color="#04690C">P <font color="#FF0000">, <font color="#04690C">Q <font color="#FF0000">) 21:32, December 20, 2014 (UTC)

Done, now I have made Halych and Kiev M because they have never really shown true loyalty to Dacia (hence the Kiev revolt and also the Kievan rise of nationalism that also indirectly affected Halych). <font color="#FF0000">S <font color="#04690C">k <font color="#FF0000">y <font color="#04690C">G <font color="#FF0000">r <font color="#04690C">e <font color="#FF0000">e <font color="#04690C">n <font color="#FF0000">2 <font color="#04690C">4 <font color="#FF0000">( <font color="#04690C">P <font color="#FF0000">, <font color="#04690C">Q <font color="#FF0000">) 10:01, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

Hamburg (Attacker)
Total: 75
 * Location: +15
 * Tactical advantage: +6
 * Location bonus:
 * Nations: Hamburg (L), Mecklenburg (L), Holstein (L), Stade (LV)=18/4=5
 * Military: 80+10(No previous lost wars)+5(more total troops)+5(fully mobilized)=100/13=8
 * Economy: 80+10(Much larger eco)+5(Larger trade)=95/27=4
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: +5(Morale)+4(Non. demo)+16=25/4=7
 * Hamburg: +7 (Hegemony)
 * Mecklenburg: +3
 * Holstein: +3
 * Stade:+3
 * Chance:
 * Nation age: 5
 * Population: +7+2=9
 * Recent wars: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of troops: 175,000/100,000 = +2

Dacia
Total: +55
 * Location: 15+25+25/3=22
 * Tactical advantage: +2
 * Nations: Dacia (L), Dacian Somalia (LV), Dacian Iritriya (LV),= 11/3 = 4
 * Military: 28-10(no mobilization)-5(much smaller forces)=0
 * Economy: 32-2 (smaller economy)-3(Receding due to the canal being Roman-owned so it affected the Dacian East Africa) =0
 * Infrastructure: +7
 * Motive: +2+4-5/3=0
 * Dacia: +5 (Not part of heartland, but held for more than 20 years)-15
 * Dacian Somalia: +9
 * Dacian Iritriya: +3
 * Chance:
 * Nation age: 5
 * Population: +7
 * Recent wars: -2
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of troops: 100,000 = 0

Result
(75/(75+55))*2-1=15.384615384

x*(1-1/(2*2))=11.538461538%

Discussion
Done for IATG. <font color="#FF0000">S <font color="#04690C">k <font color="#FF0000">y <font color="#04690C">G <font color="#FF0000">r <font color="#04690C">e <font color="#FF0000">e <font color="#04690C">n <font color="#FF0000">2 <font color="#04690C">4 <font color="#FF0000">( <font color="#04690C">P <font color="#FF0000">, <font color="#04690C">Q <font color="#FF0000">) 20:45, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

Introduction
Greetings fellow PMIII players, I am here to adress an issue that seems to have been ignored for too long. It seems that LxCaucassus has disobeyed the rules of PMIII and was accused of doing that by Fritzmet, Harvenard2, Tr0llis and Mscoree. Due to believing that justice must be served. I have investigated the matter thoroughly, taking into account all arguments, and this is what I have concluded.

Facts

 * Lesser Northern War:
 * Pskov Score: 36/21
 * Prussia Score: 73
 * Expected result: ((73/(73+36))*2-1)*(1-(1/(2*4))=29.7018348% of Pskov and Narva goes to Prussia


 * Actual result: Prussian loss, extremely possible Narvan annexation into Pskov
 * Treaty of Tallin
 * Franco-Prussian War: (1651-1655)
 * No effect. This event stays the same.
 * Roman invasion of Prussian Florida
 * No effect. This event stays the same
 * The continuation war (1656-1658) (Bolded: Best possible situation for Pskov, otherwise: Best possible situation of Prussia)
 * Pskov score: 51/45
 * Prussia Score:25/37
 * Expected result: 28.508772%/0.08130082% of Prussian land goes to Pskov
 * Actual result: Full annexation of Prussia.
 * Moscovite-Pskovian War (1656-1658) and Polish-Pskovian Colonial War (1656-1658)


 * Expected result(s):


 * Pskovian division of territory between Poland and Muscovy, different outcomes of Croatian war for White Croatia

Final conclusion
To be decided

Argumentative Discussion
Note: Writing things that don't contribute to the discussion such as comments like "Is this really necessary?" or "It doesn't matter, he deserved it" etc. will be removed.

Yours truly, <font color="#FF0000">S <font color="#04690C">k <font color="#FF0000">y <font color="#04690C">G <font color="#FF0000">r <font color="#04690C">e <font color="#FF0000">e <font color="#04690C">n <font color="#FF0000">2 <font color="#04690C">4 <font color="#FF0000">( <font color="#04690C">P <font color="#FF0000">, <font color="#04690C">Q <font color="#FF0000">) 20:15, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

Might I suggest a resurgent form of Livonian nationalism? 21:00, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

ok, im confused now...say what?-Lx (leave me a message) 22:31, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

Long story short, you're temporarily banned from PM3 for cheating. @Sky Thank you for finally dealing with this issue. It's good to see some moderators are still active and willing to help solve disputes. @Rex Considering Livonia was one of the few things actually conquered fairly in this region, probably not. Plus, we're trying to solve problems, not make more. Tr0llis (talk) 22:48, December 22, 2014 (UTC)


 * When did I cheat? this is litearlly the first I hear of any of these accusations. I have a very hard time believing that a war that was locked down and then edited and reviewed countless times during the course of a few days could have a different result than the, what, 4 or 8% that was won from Pskov?(at least that's from the Lesser Northern War).  I was also very confused about the Polish-Pskovian colonial war...never heard of that happening...ever..so I looked in the archives and as it turns out, a Muscovite-Pskov and Polsih-Pskov war  is something that Fritz added a month after I the Continuation war/Prussia debacle. so ya...I am kind of confused as to what any of this is actually about other than some revisionist history.-Lx (leave me a message)Azarath Flag.png 22:53, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

If you check the history he declared war the same turn as you invaded Prussia actually. Mscoree (talk) 22:57, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

(So many edit conflicts.) The cheating part would be disregarding algorithms, to the point where you got an opposite result. The mods, Sky for one, has checked these algorithms and confirmed that yours were in error. This wouldn't be the first time this has happened, see Hamburg for example. The archive was edited because somehow the algorithms ended up in the wrong place. Check the history though, they are now in concurrent order, and match up with my declaration of war. Fritzmet (talk) 22:59, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

Just coming to note, Danzig (the city itself that is) is a French City State :v, in other news, If the Muscovite-Pskov algo wasn't posted (idk) the Part of Pskov's annexation shouldn't be thought until proven they could've taken them down with the 33.333% needed :v Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 23:01, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

No one disputes the annexations of France and Rome, that part is legitimate. The part in question is after that, and from what I can tell they annexed Pskov fair and square. Hopefully now the issue is resolved and we can all move on. Mscoree (talk) 23:18, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

afaik and remember the war was never actually carried through with.... This was what me and sine both discovered when going through this the other day. This means that Pskov wasnt not destroyed/annexed. Thats just my peice and tbh Lx is over here telling me much the same thing. Regardless of that lx just gave me proof through the editing history that it was posted in the Archive..... Which tbh i never seen before and im unsure as to how to handle this.

Arhive 8 for PMIII

the issue of Pskov and Prussia was dealt with on the 16th of october thats nearly a full month between the two edits.... Tell me again how thats fair. I dont want this to sound like it was planned or something but thats a bit crazy for that kind of timing and to hide it in an archive (from what it looks like) The stuff for pskov was finished within a full month of this thing being posted (from what i see) and just seems like fishing to bring down someone the scorned the Cronies. Unless im shown evidence to the contrary that shows the war was carried out correctly and not just posted into an archive i dont see this going any further.

P.S. nobody but mods decide a ban, Trollis if you post those kinds of things as a definite when we havent even made a real judgement or decision yet then you definitely need to check your privaledge.

That was Sky who said a ban. Sky is a moderator.

Secondly, look up what "check your privilege" means, because you are using that phrase counter to what it actually means. Mscoree (talk) 00:56, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

It was posted the same day that Lx declared war. For some reason it had to be moved on the archive, but if you check the history from back then you'll see I declared war on the same day as Lx. This isn't about "someone the scorned the Cronies" (whatever that is), it's about fixing something in the game that is incorrect. Even if you make the argument that my war didn't count, still doesn't change the fact that Lx's algorithm was never updated, meaning he still won unfairly even when I'm out of the equation. At this point several other mods have checked the situation and have verified this. As much as I appreciate your input Feud, I believe at this point the matter is pretty much settled. Fritzmet (talk) 01:00, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Declaring war requires you actually post the algo as well.. You can declare war, but if you dont post the algo until a month later alot could have changed. Regardless im still waiting for Sky to fill me in and for multiple mods to be around to make this and official decision. As far as im seeing it just looks like you were irrisponsible and didnt post your algo within a reasonable time of your war declaration

As I said, the algo was posted the same day, but I think for whatever reason Harv tried to remove it, perhaps thinking he could reason with Lx. That wasn't the case though, and it was restored. He didn't really have the authority to remove another player's algorithm anyway. It was moved back, and the archive was edited because it was somehow not in chronological order. I think Sky handled this pretty well, no need to open this back up really. Fritzmet (talk) 01:15, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

It was never closed.... these kinds of things require a decent amount mod consensus to carry out, im having Eip Read it over as we speak. You being so quick to clear this down is rather annoying, especially for a game you hardly post in anymore. Im not against this being rectified, but im against this being unanimously handled by a single mod without ANYONE else giving it a thorough look over. So please be patient and stop saying its case closed when this is not currently closed

Sorry, I was told that the case was closed. If you are still reviewing it, that is fine too. The reason I had not been playing as much is because until now no one even cared to listen to me about this kind of stuff. Fritzmet (talk) 01:29, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Well the main issue here is that, no matter what, the Lesser Northern War was never properly written out, and Harv had to sign a treaty even though there were no official results on the mod page. Yes, there were arguments, but nobody actually put down any real score. Either way I believe Lx deserves a punishment for taking amounts of land without a properly written algo. As for the issues about posting algos and declaring wars at the same time, from what I see the Treaty of Tallin was supposed to have a mutual defense term, which did call for Muscovite and Polish aid.

Also, another thing. One thing is confusing, the Continuation war was initially from 1657 to 1659, but then got moved back by a year.

I now checked the talk page edit history, and the wars were added later. This does put those who did that as victims of the one-week-banhammer, but still doesn't remove Lx's penalty.

Now, first, I'd like to apologize to Lx for not checking it better, but that does not remove the penalty for the lesser northern war. However, I believe that those who posted the two algos should also receive penalty, ranging from a 3 to 7 day ban.

<font color="#FF0000">S <font color="#04690C">k <font color="#FF0000">y <font color="#04690C">G <font color="#FF0000">r <font color="#04690C">e <font color="#FF0000">e <font color="#04690C">n <font color="#FF0000">2 <font color="#04690C">4 <font color="#FF0000">( <font color="#04690C">P <font color="#FF0000">, <font color="#04690C">Q <font color="#FF0000">) 14:14, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

I excuse myself for yet another mix up, all is explained in the first subsection. <font color="#FF0000">S <font color="#04690C">k <font color="#FF0000">y <font color="#04690C">G <font color="#FF0000">r <font color="#04690C">e <font color="#FF0000">e <font color="#04690C">n <font color="#FF0000">2 <font color="#04690C">4 <font color="#FF0000">( <font color="#04690C">P <font color="#FF0000">, <font color="#04690C">Q <font color="#FF0000">) 16:02, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

But the important part is:

I created a different perception because of statements that confused me because I wasn't fully aware of the context. Now the issue is the following: The continuation war wasn't quite correct, I looked over it again and it was oh so sloppy.

Oh, and Fritz should get banned for inserting algos in archives and changing algo results in the archives and we need to instate a rule that says that inactive nations also build up dev scores by the infra>eco>mil principle because I just remembered some stuff because of this and yeah.

Also, I'd like to say I'm sorry for the initial mix up, but I hope you all know that I had the best intentions.

<font color="#FF0000">S <font color="#04690C">k <font color="#FF0000">y <font color="#04690C">G <font color="#FF0000">r <font color="#04690C">e <font color="#FF0000">e <font color="#04690C">n <font color="#FF0000">2 <font color="#04690C">4 <font color="#FF0000">( <font color="#04690C">P <font color="#FF0000">, <font color="#04690C">Q <font color="#FF0000">) 16:11, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

I thought they were posted the same day, when I edited the archives I was trying to fix the order. If they weren't posted on time after all I guess that's another thing, but still doesn't change the fact that we declared war the same day and were never added, and the fact that we contractually obligated to declare war. Even if you don't count those other wars, the algo by Lx was still very wrong. Fritzmet (talk) 17:08, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Look, I only posted the Continuation war Algo after asking many people to check, double check, and triple check its correctness before I posted it (I believe MP and Feud were amongst them but honestly, I dont quite remember 100%, maybe they were for other wars, dont take my word for it, ask them). I had that algo checked and verrified, so I had no reason to believe there to be any errors. Even Ms went in and fixed a few things that were initially missed(like the treaty breaker), the algo was also reviewed when posted. So in any case I had nor do I still have any reason to suspect that it was done incorrectly. therefore no cheating had occured. If any errors happened they were not only mine, they were collective, and I dont believe I should be punished for malicious activity if I did not act maliciously-Lx (leave me a message) 18:05, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

I never edited the Lesser Northern War algo though. In fact I specifically left it wrong when I reported it to Sky. Banning me just allows Lx to invade Moscow now, no wonder Feud approved when he said he wanted to invade me himself. This doesn't address any of the actual problems, including the fact that Prussia should not be annexed. I don't understand how me fixing my own algo later, by moving it to the right place, means I should be banned. Ask ms himself, he helped me make my algo the same day that Pskov declared war, I don't know what happened. He even made a google document and what not. Fritzmet (talk) 16:37, December 24, 2014 (UTC)

I literally checked the edit history, so please don't lie. As for Pskov attacking Russia, that's none of my bussiness. And Ms can feel free to show me that google doc. <font color="#FF0000">S <font color="#04690C">k <font color="#FF0000">y <font color="#04690C">G <font color="#FF0000">r <font color="#04690C">e <font color="#FF0000">e <font color="#04690C">n <font color="#FF0000">2 <font color="#04690C">4 <font color="#FF0000">( <font color="#04690C">P <font color="#FF0000">, <font color="#04690C">Q <font color="#FF0000">) 16:56, December 24, 2014 (UTC)

Final verdict
Written by: Sky
 * 1) Fritz gets a 3 day ban for editing the Lesser Northern War algorithm after it got archived
 * 2) Lx receives a warning and his posts and algorithms will from now on be inspected in order to prevent further damage.
 * 3) The rule that NPC nations develop scores by the infra>eco>mil priority order will now also affect inactive nations.

Supported by: Feud.

That'd be all, the discussion is now over. <font color="#FF0000">S <font color="#04690C">k <font color="#FF0000">y <font color="#04690C">G <font color="#FF0000">r <font color="#04690C">e <font color="#FF0000">e <font color="#04690C">n <font color="#FF0000">2 <font color="#04690C">4 <font color="#FF0000">( <font color="#04690C">P <font color="#FF0000">, <font color="#04690C">Q <font color="#FF0000">) 14:25, December 24, 2014 (UTC)

Mods are also players?
Can there be a PM game someday where the mods are not invested in the game at all? Just as a casual observer, it seems pretty clear there's some bias that goes into ever one of these games. Just a thought. Nathan1123 (talk) 03:00, December 28, 2014 (UTC)

Make me a mod again, and I'm happy to oblige to this. I am always very neutral and try to be unbiased as possible in past games, though I understand due to my control of some of the most powerful nations in past games (Nippon, Caliphate and Arabian Federation) this can be hard for some of my haters to apprieate. I don't plan on having a powerful nation at all in this game. In fact I'm trying to facilitate other nation's to expand and help everyone. So if you want a candidate, I offer myself and I hope my record is a good show of my honesty for the current mods. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 03:11, December 28, 2014 (UTC)

A less bias paragraph might be a start. Mscoree (talk) 05:55, December 28, 2014 (UTC)

I may be new to these map games, but I would assume it would be best if the mods were simply not playing. (Disinterestedness is key to quelling bias, no?) It's almost as if some countries are being ruled by gods. Nathan1123 (talk) 14:27, December 28, 2014 (UTC)

I mean, just take a glance at Hispania, which happens to be run by a mod. It's currently as big as the British empire was at its height, the largest empire in the world. History has been very kind to the Spanish empire, it seems, while conveniently ignoring OTL events like: the destruction of the Spanish Armada by British pirates in the 16th century, the depletion of the Spanish silver mines in the 17th century, and the War of the Spanish Succession in the 18th century. Instead of addressing these real events at all, we constantly get ASB-esque events that knock out the competition, like: the "Disaster of 1583", taking out the completely plausible Mississippian Confederacy (and implementing a flood, by the way, that hasn't been seen since the Ice Age), the collapse of the Ming Dynasty 50 years early in the 1590s, and an 18th century war of succession in Britannia of all places. It almost feels like people are desperate to have disasters occur to every nation except Hispania. Now, we're considering the industrial revolution, and shock upon shock, Spain and France gets first dibs.

Now, let me be perfectly clear, I'm not accusing anyone of being bias (bias is human nature), I'm saying that Moderators shouldn't get to play in the same game. Nathan1123 (talk) 19:47, December 28, 2014 (UTC)

Im nowhere near the British empire at its height tbh. I control probably around Spain at its Height maybe a bit more currently. Your totally discounting the British owning at least a full third of africa, all of india, pakistan, and 1/3rd of indochina, the entire continent of Australia 1/3rd of north america if not more when looking how large canada really is. I might be a massive empire but i have dont a deceptively low amount of modding events into my favor and more because a powerhouse in europe that made it not worth challenging.. having exponential unchecked growth with no power wanting to legitimately challenge you does wonders for expansion and development.

As for mods being outside of the game... mods require vested interest in the game to even be considered and involved as mods mostly cause disinterest means people are more likely to not even try period which is a relatiely bad thing to do. As for the mississipian confederation.. no it was no plausible. it was a massive native state with little to no mass communication ability, low amounts of horses, and was probably ridiculously open to disease in general. the Flood in general was not as bad as your thinking and the more lead up of many tribes getting ticked and striking out on their own caused the death of mississippia rather than the Flood entirely on its own. As for Ming China. The Player implemented policies not plausible as china particularly those killing the eunuch aristocracy, arming the peseant masses into a ridiculous number of nearly 4 or 5 million. Lets not forget the collapse of ming years early was due a decent amount the players gross mishandling of a nation by overextending its army, its populous, and attempting to do something so expansively ridiculous with China that we were required to break it up because it was becomming ridiculously implausible.

As for the depletion of the mines... you seem to be not have read or heard anything about how i went about that. Mexico in general still produces silver and gold in those areas to this day. Along side this spain never underwent the mass inflation cause by this huge increase in bullion considering the vast majority was locked away and never input into the economy. Along with the later discovery or exploitation of various other sources (particularly in Mexico and Bolivia) the mines are very plausibly running. As for Peru. that country in general is still one fo the worlds leading gold producers... its mines have not run dry.

For Disaster not occuring in Hispania it suffered multiple major revolts, a few minor revolts. and was in general not as lethally spread in Europe as it was in OTL with most of its power base and european territories within a few days sailing distance at most. Lets not forget that a rather brutal precedent has been proven time and again by Spain that rebellion or insolence is usually met and exterminated with extreme predjudice. Industry once again occurred in Europe and lo and behold was pioneered by the worlds Great powers of the time particularly Great Britain who had.. go figure immense control over the globe and a relatively powerful and stable economy (which ironically had been built up and supplies by OTL Spains wanton spending issues and inability to develop or produce anything by itself which i have prevented) Your also citing the war of britannian sucession which WAS CAUSED BY ITS PLAYER Andrew.. he wanted a civil war to replace his german royal family citing their apparent legitimacy and Spain and France were more than willing to pick sides.

You also seem to be saying history has been kind to spain. No having a good player that knows the Spanish attitude and how to work economics, and military helps. Not to mention the 16th and 17th centuries were relatively peaceful in terms of the west fighting eachother due to a rather annoying group of threats in Germany and eastern europe that seemed to meddle quite a bit. 200 years of unusual peace is finally starting to wither out in the west particularly with the current tensions between Spain and France about to escalate into wholesale war. Once again a Spain that did not outsource everything and waste all its gold and silver on pointless wars is one that has all that gold and silver able to re-invest directly into itself. The Same thing could happen to anyone with that large amount of Gold and Silver.. you can either spend it without discretion or figure out the problems it causes and re-invest it into the manufacturing and infrastructure which is exactly what i did. The Point of PMIII is alternate history.

Yes being mod has a decent amount of perks such as making sure expansions are added and writing event, but i probably spend most of my modding time getting questions asked to me on plausibility, dealing with people who do it anyways, and people who want to have half of the African continent in the 1550's among other things. The Mods in general have produced a few ridiculous events but more than not after some period of time they have been retconned (most recently the Westphalian thing). Lets not forget most mods are hardly doing their job these days and mostly just play leaving alot more work up to 2 or 3 people who really dont have the luxury of manufacturing events for their own gain mostly cause in a good amount of time these events get called out an crossed out by other mods.

You really seem to be misunderstanding how invested i am in the game.. I was going to be a large supermassive empire whether i was a mod or not. 75% of my most dynamically powerful expansion in europe came before i was even a moderator which includes My subjugations of Aragon, Morocco, and Italy. The Arguement holds no fire when the two largest empires in the game (Urdustan, and Hispania) began their pretty large rises to power without being a Moderator (albeit both are mods and im personally looking for ways to get more depth into the game with wars and whatnot.) Bias happens its human nature but your severely overestimating how much bias is really involved when we spend 75% of our time cleaning up messes and trying to keep the game interesting. In Particular you are trying to compare things to OTL when they have diverged to the point of being Incomparable. Your also discounting the fact that multiple moderators have left perfectly large empires that were built just as plausibly. The Bias exists just not in the massive way your thinking of.

Feud plz your nation is clearly the largest the PM3 world has ever seen. Mods should have slowed you down ~150 years ago but since they didn't there's no way to put brakes on the Hispania train to Empire Station so just keep rocking that global hegemony before it comes tumbling down and explodes in your face.

20:40, December 28, 2014 (UTC)

The logic here is so broken it hurts......Spartian300 (talk) 20:44, December 28, 2014 (UTC)

Your one to talk here Spar.

As for you Scraw, a good amount of territory i own is hardly populated.. im pretty sure almost 40-50% of what i own in North America could plausibly be taken in a war cause there are literally no people. Control is nominal or nonexistant in alot of areas much like OTL's Spain in North and parts of South America. Ill get my revolts i know. but the scale of them is not going to be near what people are considering in settler colonies (which are my largest colonies to boot and are huge merealy cause most of their territory is hardly settled. The Populations are located in a few locations. There is a reason why the US was able to waltz in and ride their own empire train across the Continent OTL. I might be the Largest empire in the History of PM but im not the largest empire in terms of actual empires British empire still has numbers on me, besides the end result empire by decolonization will be alot smaller than it is now. As for global hegemony.. yeah i have it. dont know what to do with it other than just take as much as i can and make it spanish before i get stuck forcing it all to go dominion status or independent wholesale.

Feud, need I remind you that you have not had any major revolts requiring algorithms? If you look through the history most of the "major/minor revolts" you talk about didn't happen.

Scan wrote an event revolting away Italy, or at least attempting to, and you pulled some strings to have the event deleted, and Scan removed from the mod page.

Strangely every major revolt/algorithm event about you has been mysteriously removed. The most devastating event you ever got was one saying you could not expand in an area, and in that case you negotiated for it to only last a turn or so. That area? Cape Horn.

Don't act like you aren't the smallest bit privileged; your massive empire has pretty much nothing to do with skill. Tr0llis (talk) 21:12, December 28, 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you're invested in the game, Feud, is exactly the problem as I see it. I may not be terribly experienced in map games, but I do know a lot about historians, and I know that disinterestedness is very important to remove bias from history. Because you're invested in the game, you are determined to win (as anyone would). But the different is that you have the power to make yourself win. I don't know anyone who can handle that power, consciously or unconsciously (I know I wouldn't).

If you're so convinced that you would maintain this empire without being a mod (and it's entirely possible that you are), then why don't you resign, and see what happens? Prove that you can stay on top with skill alone. Nathan1123 (talk) 23:27, December 28, 2014 (UTC)

And by the way, it's not too late to put the brakes on Hispania, or any of the colonial powers for that matter. Now that we're entering the enlightenment, I wouldn't be surprised if were some outraged colonists seeking independence. Under the current panel of mods, however, I doubt that's ever going to happen. Nathan1123 (talk) 00:10, December 29, 2014 (UTC)

Considering i had a major revolt in burma and decisively crushed it id say im not even relatively close to having every algoed revolt removed I also realize the likelyhood of some things that would revolt and right now is mostly asian possessions and maybe an African one (probably oyo) and thats if the Spanish empire was weak. Also considering Colonial empires hardly had revolts worth noting that would require an algo in OTL until the late 1700's revolutions. As for resigning, the game cant really afford an active mod resigning. As for the active panel of mods not letting independence, im vehemently against revolting for the sake of revolting but more revolting due to issues that are readily apparent. one of my biggest colonies in the americas with the need to revolt would probably be the Viceroyalty of the Rio Grande for the major point of it being only aristocratically white and majority mestizo and Indian which i fully accept and im more than willing to see it go when the time comes good terms or bad. I recognize people will have revolts and or independence wars, but your accusing mods of abusing a power that more or less doesnt get abused as much as your thinking it does. Mods do not get complete omnicience in terms of the game.

As per the Scan thing.. he was and has been an honorary mod for months and him writing an event wasnt allowed by the rules of being an honorary mod. YOU REQUIRE A REVOTE BY MODS TO BE BROUGHT BACK IN. I did not write away the revolt. I had it looked at by two different mods, one of which could have easily profited from me not being in the area. They both said a revolt of that scale wasnt plausible considering events and politics of the area of the time. (These mods being Crim and Sky, with Sky being rather new to his modship)

If we had quite a few of our older players this game would be loads different but when you have a whole load of new people and your suddenly considered upper echelon player material and then go and prove yourself to the point of being voted in as a mod, id say im doing fine. I may do a questionable event from time to time, but i dont sit here and openly give my enemies some massive rebellion through a mod event, in fact im against that. But your trying to say that were so ridiculously biased that we wont let our own empire suffer from time to time. I personally only question revolts i know are implausible. A Burman noble revolting like he did or natives preventing all expansion into an area like happened in the Kongo i wont argue. I didnt even try to argue. On top of that i have territorial setbacks in north america, widescale native attacks in south america, and have revolts due to my mere presence in moving in china (that i helped put down so they explicitly wouldnt march on my newly acquired enclave). As for the size of my american colonies... i control roughly the same amount of territory as Spain did in the 1720's and 1730's that essentially wasnt fully recognized in treaty until the 1750's they still claimed control over it just liek i do. Control is the ability to fight and send troops to die over it. if you cant do that you lose it. If someone was to decide to invade me while im in the middle of a massive and draining war in asia whose to say ill win the very general thought that im unbeatable didnt even come from me.

Your trying to compare and contrast OTL history of this period, with ATL history of this period which is wholly different which most of the sane players will recognize. When other mods tell me to scale back (which i have been asked too and agreed whole heartedly) i usually do and if i dont i present legitimate counter arguements. Your support of the mississippia really clues me in to your absolute lack of understanding for what happens in this game. That was one of the most implausible nations created and it was broken up with a relatively decent series of events. Major floodings (which do happen) followed by tribes refusing to aknowledge control of the central city anymore. for a nation that DIDNT HAVE HORSES it was way too big. The Inca were not even that large at their height OTL and they were at their terminal limit by not having some fast means of communication other than a dude that ran on foot on a stone highway. It was amazing they were as big as they were and survived as well as they did. A Mississippia larger than that would not and should not be a surviving state.

Considering your not even in the game i really dont see a need for you to be commenting on a game YOUR NOT EVEN INVOLVED IN. While you have a few valid points a few have been considered alot of what you say is absolutely ridiculous and seems more just a personal opinion that a real legitimate proposal here. I may have taken you seriously

Feud, you went full Viva. Never go full Viva.

05:01, December 29, 2014 (UTC)

Nathan, you're making some valid points (for which I commend you), but I've been working with feud for quite a bit now. If you've seen how he plays and how he runs this game, you'd agree with me when I say that feud is anything BUT biased. I've been moderating these games for three or so years now and I know biased moderating when I see it. Feud is one of the most efficient and neutral we've had in this entire franchise. I know a massive power being a mod seems a bit biased, but with his playing style, he deserves every pixel he has. We've been approached with the prospect of mods not being players and we came to the conclusion that we'd just lose interest in the game.

Tr0llis, you're getting a bit out of hand with those accusations. Please tone it down. Crim de la Crème 05:04, December 29, 2014 (UTC)

Well, like I said, it is entirely possible that all these empires formed from skill alone. But because at least a lot of them are also run by mods (I'm not sure how many), it's very difficult to take them seriously.

And on another note, there's no reason why we shouldn't have major revolutions before the 18th century: the Hussite Wars (1419-1434), the Cornish Rebellion (1493-1497), the German Peasants' War (1525), the French Wars of Religion (1562-1598), and the English Civil War (1642-1651), are just to name few, although I have no idea how many were actually implemented. Nathan1123 (talk) 00:42, December 30, 2014 (UTC)

Every map game with a mod system has mods playing. It's just that way.

—Bfoxius (talk)

@Crim are they accusations if they are just true facts? Tr0llis (talk) 00:51, December 30, 2014 (UTC)

Votes to instate moderators are needed for new moderators, or honorary moderators who never ran. Scan already had and won his election, the only reason he is currently listed as an honorary moderator is because he is inactive (at least he was active enough to move his name, unlike some of thew moderators), and for that reason he does not require a vote to be readded. Scan has made several events when I was there actually, in the past few months he has practically been more active than the "active" moderators. I guess it must have been a coincidence that after he made one about Italy Feud decided to remove him, and the event.

When I was a moderator you largely prohibited me from making negative events about you anyway. If you recall Feud, I once made an event saying your expansion along the Cape Horn in winter is halted, and even that barely got through. I originally made an event saying your expansion is temporarily halted, but you edited it and removed that part, and so on.

As for Italy, since people bring that one up a lot, you got that by making up a claim to the throne. I know this because I helped you, and at the time didn't really care, but you basically made up a story in your turn about deserving to own Italy, and then you took it. Since then you've had no problems holding it, and have even claimed that the Italians are being selectively diminished in population. Next you annex several other areas near Italy, claiming that they are part of this claim, even though they are outside the Kingdom of Italy. Whatever, you conquered some things, but oddly you haven't had a single bad Italian event.

If you consider the history of Italy that seems strange. What about when the Holy Roman Emperor tried to conquer all of Italy, there was constant rebellion and resistance in Italy throughout. Oh, let me guess you conquered it with an algo and now it's fairly yours? (This is a defense people tell me a lot.) How come when I conquered Saxony fair and square with an algorithm I was pressured into peacefully releasing it? What about the event(s) that were attempted to make even more territory go? Many of those territories are owned by "Feud's Puppet/Buffer State", seemingly without consequence. Also what a coincidence the states I gladly gave up to be plausible, unlike here, were later used to conquer Austria.

Isn't it strange that the first time Scan tried to break up Italy (before you owned it), and you removed it? Then it would be a lot harder to claim out of thin air all in one go. Remember each consecutive time Scan tried to remove Italy? Good thing he's removed now, now Scan won't be any problem at all. Mscoree (talk) 01:06, December 30, 2014 (UTC)

Oh Feud, what are you saying?

In Europe, you have control over Hispania and Italy (the latter which you claim has been Hispanized and will never rebel), and an alliance/close relations with Croatia and Bavaria. As for France, you have an ongoing made up rivalry with them which obviously won't lead to any permanent 'enmity'. Moreover, could anyone forget the 300 year old 'Westminister' that had established hegemony over Europe consisting of an alliance of Hispana, Britannia, Scandivania and France.

In America, you are obviously a major power, controlling vast land. You even have what one would refer to as 'puppet state' in America, that is Peru.

In Africa, you virtually controlling much of North West Africa; having Algiers and Morocco completely under your grip. Similarly, you have land present from what are the remnants of Oyo. Meanwhile, you have Madagascar, South Africa and hundreds of islands by the coast under your control. Not to mention you virtually control all of South African coastline from the Cape of Good Hope upto Kenya? |onte another African tribal state, which is most likely allied with you in turn occupied much of South Atlantic African coastline. You also have a colony present where there is Congo

In Asia, you already posses Phillipines and Burma under your control. You maintain control over many islands in the Pacific as well.. Regardless, you have numerous enclaves in India, and most notably; the Indian state of Urdustan so closely allied with you that the only thing that separates both of you is the creation of a 'Spanish Raj'. Meanwhile, you maintain 'excellent' relations with the Chinese states of Yunnan and Wu and 4 enclaves all over China who's combined population you claim is near 1 million when most sources say otherwise. Most notably, you manipulate Chinese NPC States as to fit your desires via Mod Events. As when, the Small Kingdoms remained idol when you sought to occupy enclaves but quickly united and established order when Manchu were able to acquire a border with them, for you feared that Manchu would occupy them. Similarly, you made Chinese states rebel against the Imperium of Heaven. Finally, you made all of China boycott trade and such with all foreign nations, particularly Manchu Empire therefore they no longer traded with the Manchu (As part of your goal to isolate Manchuria which refused to be your puppet) and yet your port of Shanghai in China continued to receive its goods and there was no end to the Chinese demand for Spanish goods while at the same time boycotting all other foreign goods since Spanish are Chinese right? Should not have Shanghai collapsed?

And Australia? Where you have been expanding at a speed faster than the British. Then again, no wonder you were so opposed to a Viva setting up his Empire in Eastern Australia since you wanted it

And finally, when was the last time you ever received a rebellion? That 1 rebellion in Burma after 350 or so years?

RexImperio (talk) 07:20, December 30, 2014 (UTC)

I must admit that I am somewhat dismayed by the immense speed with which Hispania has conquered basically the entire Eastern Australian coast. After thirty years, Britain, whilst it laid claim to the entire Eastern two-thirds, still only had effective control over the greater Sydney region and the Hobart region. This is purely from an Australian history point of view, not a comment on the player. Callumthered (talk) 22:30, December 30, 2014 (UTC)

Careful Callum, you are this close to going the way of Scan. Tr0llis (talk) 22:40, December 30, 2014 (UTC)

Trollis you were told what happened, Scan stepped down and just assumed he could return without following the proper protocol (which requires re-election) im nowhere near a spanish raj tbh, and i adjusted my population in China after your provided evidence to the contrary MS (i was spitballing) As for australia, i will slow it down after the next map but as i said alot of the "control" on the map is still sparsely populated and could be taken in a war relatively easily if someone warred me for it.

As for Spanish Raj eip would vehemently oppose that statement and would probably fight me tooth and nail if i actually tried for one.

As for chinese mod events, one of them actively made an entity more powerful, another allied them against manchu/japan who have collectively waged at least 4-6 wars on them within 100-150 years all of them to take territory and conquest full warlord states. The only thing i even did that "weakened" them was a famine that didnt even kill many or detract from any scores. As for imperium i didnt write that event Saam did, Saam also united the small kingdoms in response to JAPAN AND HISPANIA acquired enclaves and then they unified and centralized fully and were just never updated on the map (cause sine fell off the map making wagon) I never made an event that boycotted the Manchu and more just unified them against a threat that was steadily advancing through china in a much more threatening and hostile way than i ever was previously. I bought 3 of my enclaves and expanded into one. NOT A SINGLE ONE was a war. Shanghai and spain supported Wu to maintain their royal family as well as my new found trade.

Italy on the happenstance of Scans original breakup was deemed extremely harsh and was retconned by a good majority of mods who agreed just cause Quashi advanced fast didnt mean he should die. Now in terms of his second attempted revolt against me, He was writing events when he was no longer considered an active mod CRIM AND SKY both confirmed his non mod status, we all discussed it, and i even spoke with MP about it later who also agreed with the verdict me sky and crim came up with. Lets go apart to mention the HRE attempted flat out conquest of Italy, and the Spanish/Austrian in general held onto Naples well into the 1800's with little consequence.

As for hispanicized italy.. no the whole thing is not hispanicized, Only PARTS of the kingdom of naples and some smaller townships up north are truly Hispanic in terms of language and culture.

As for Trollis throwing these accusations around, you were told to stop by crim please heed the warning or ill be speaking with a TSPTF member about the false Bullshit you seem to be throwing out CONSTANTLY.

Lesson number one about mods: Just because a mod posts a new turn with events, doesn't mean they wrote every single event, it simply means they're starting a turn and copy-pasting events that have been written and thought out for almost months.

Lesson number two, since Scan stepped down due to real life concerns (Like school, etc.), this does not mean he was forced out by a fellow moderator. That cannot happen without an impeachment vote and the only mod that I can recall that had an impeachment vote by the moderators was Mscoree.

Lesson number three, when a mod steps down, they are given the title of honorary moderator to highlight their contribution and dedication to the Principia Moderni games, as well as the elegence of their playstyle. This also means that they are not a true acting moderator and must be voted back into active position. Those as honorary moderators therefore cannot create events, no matter how plausible or implausible. &#34;SO SAYETH THE EAGLE&#34; - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk) 01:13, December 31, 2014 (UTC)

I'd say the difference is that Scan voluntarily marked himself honorary because he was away at the time. He was never voted out, and should not be removed, and if people are simply temporarily becoming inactive, they should be able to come and go from honorary to active. The only people who require a vote are the people who haven't had a vote before, ie the specific honorary moderators who are only there because they used to moderate PM2, not the ones who are just temporarily on vacation. You can't really penalize Scan just for taking a break, half the other moderators already do, he just had the decency to mark himself as less than active. Mscoree (talk) 01:44, December 31, 2014 (UTC)

He still left all out, resigned from his nation, pretty much said he wasnt able to mod.. We all considered him a honorary mod and more or less treated him as such, He requires the vote, just cause you see it as such and such way does not mean every single mod sees it as such and such way. Scan more or less has taken his permanent leave for the most part (speaking of which i probably need to put most of the other mods that have been gone a long time on the honorary mod spot too) We set the precedent, if you step down then you need a new vote, if you wish to reclaim your mod status in any way shape or form you need a re vote by the current active mods. this was/has been an established precedent since the very beginning of the game when dean/nova stepped down for much the same reason and tried the same thing. We decided to make it a vote. If scan wants to come back he needs to let us know and get voted back in. He is not the exception here, neither is anyone else. Fed has been gone long enough to warrant the same treatment, if he wishes to return he needs to be voted back in as well. In all aspects we should probably discuss this with Callum as well to facilitate him being voted back onto the mod squad.

You do not need to be voted out if you are inactive, if you are inactive you have forfeited your duties for whatever reason whether they be personal or just grand total disinterest. If you havent been modding for the past 4 or 5 months and have been overall wiki inactive you have not been in the loop and would need to be taking necessary steps here. MS active mods are the only ones that need to be voted for removal. Its like running a company, if you step away for 8 months for personal matters or just being disinterested your more than likely not going to be able to take your company back over. The Same applies to every mod that deals with this. If you want to return then you need the vote. The Precedent has been around for nearly a full year. The Accusations with Scan can stop, and if they continue they will be counted as baseless and harassing/slander i dont appreciate it when im not even the one that originally said he cant be writing events. Crim and Sky both agreed as does eip, sine, and mp. thats a wide majority of the mods. Shit we even told von who was immensely active in PMII that due to honor mod status he requires a vote and he understood. There seems to be a lack of understanding here.

You guys are going off on me in particular cause you seem to be throwing every single mods crappy actions right at me and accusing me of doing things that honestly were created by other mods as well. Your accusing me of biased events when quite a bit of the events you put out there to accuse me of were written by someone else. Your also saying that im stalling peoples expansion when they shouldnt be stalled... If you wage 3-4 wars or more in a singular region in the grand attempt at making an empire your going to get revolts and coalitions, Especially in china when the entire warlord system over there is geared towards MAKING IT HARD TO UNIFY. Rimp in particular you told me you EXPECTED to see the chinese states unify against you. Your throwing something in my face when you wholly expected it to happen. To be honest this needs to be cased closed cause so far i have gotten backup from two active mods who both are in agreement with the judgement.

Most of your examples aren't actually true though. There never was a vote for Nova. Von never had a vote in the first place, hence why he isn't a moderator. You are more or less describing the opposite of the precedence, which I know because I was once solely responsible for contacting each moderator to add them to the document, and for administrating its properties. If you want to be a moderator, regardless if you are a player or a former PM2 moderator (called honorary moderators) then you need to be voted in. If you are a moderator and you become inactive, you can voluntarily mark yourself as an honorary moderator as well. The difference is you already had your vote, you were always a moderator and never removed. I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at with your example with business, because I can think of several companies where the president or owner stepped down for several months and then came back in with the same position. Mscoree (talk) 02:20, December 31, 2014 (UTC)

At what point did OTL coincide with ATL? From the opening turns of PMIII, there was a huge point of divergence. We're attacking the Spanish Empire for...Being a Spanish Empire that has lasted a bit longer than the other one? I suppose, we could use OTL events in PMIII, if this was OTL, but this is alternate history. Divergences lead to divergences. You cannot expect a Spanish Armada to be destroyed two-hundred something years after a radically different history of interaction between Spain and Britannia. When Spain is using a better form of colonial administration, you cannot expect the same colonial wars and issues to pop up three-hundred something years after a divergence. If these could happen, what is the point of alternate history if we are trying to get back to OTL as if this was just some experiment to see how different we could get before we suddenly decided that OTL dictates Alternative History.

At this point, it seems as if players just want to expand and Spain is in their way. In PMIII, you cannot expect a mod event to create expansion for you because you're too damned lazy to create a coalition or network of alliances to bring down an empire. When the Timurid Empire and Mughal Empire encroached upon Burma, did I cry foul to moderators that they should collapse for putting too many cultures together? Hell no. I create the Indian League and fought back. History is dictated by those who take a stand and lead for all they are worth, not by those who complain until they get what they want. &#34;SO SAYETH THE EAGLE&#34; - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk) 02:54, December 31, 2014 (UTC)

MS my point in general is that when you own/run a company and you have a board of directors you can be voted out of your position as CEO of a company. Its happened, thats the point im making. Dean did in fact have a vote for the return to modship and was given a solid no. Von also asked wheter a vote was needed and to be honest it was just never pursued following the revelation that the precedent for a vote was needed. MS considering your not a mod anymore and your the ONLY active mod that was voted out for incompetence being one reason you seem to not have ever known that it was needed. If you go inactive at any point and you end up in the honorary position A VOTE IS REQUIRED, this is the precedent we set that you want to ignore for some reason. I have had it confirmed by almost every other mod by this point. YOU ARE WRONG. If you slip to honorary position for whatever reason a vote is required period end of discussion

CAPS. Long paragraph. Calm down a bit Feud, it seems you're taking these accusations a little too close to heart. Nothing to seriously take offense from here.

03:10, December 31, 2014 (UTC)

Why not just end these arguments? Instead of destroying PMIII with these arguments, why not just bring forward a mod event makes some of Feuds colonies rebel? And similarly, break off some of the alliances that exist which has turned PM3 into a unipolar world where friends gang up together, disregarding how their nations would never ally with one another. Such as


 * 1) Hispania and Urdustan [Personally, for Bengal to have been so keen on cooperating with foreigners and such, is highly unlikely. Most Indian states didn't take interest in cooperating with foreign trade companies until the mid 1700s or so]
 * 2) Hispania and Wu Empire [I have absolutely no idea how Spain was able to extend his influence so much in Wu, and place a Chinese family upon the throne. Regardless, while I believe that there should be no problem in Wu seeking trade and such with Spain; however Spain should not be able to extend its sphere of influence upon Wu to the extreme end. As stated by Josh [Previous Wu Player] himself, Wu would've become a part of the Spanish Crown had not he (Josh) opposed it. Basically, I am saying that Spain's influence in China should be limited and I am pretty sure Bandon (Current Wu Player) agrees with me.]
 * 3) Japan and Manchuria [Basically, the same thing as Hispania and Wu except that Japan and Manchuria even decided to enter into a Personal Union and that union is now being headed by a Japanese Emperor. Close relations should be acquired, but are not PU's and such too early?]
 * 4) Damascan Sultanate and Mansurriyya Sultanate (And most of UIN) [Personally, I am not even sure how Mansurriyya has not been overtaken by the Persians, who virtually should be dominating the state. Regardless, I really don't see how a Sunni Arab State (Damascan) is able to acquire an alliance with a Shi'ite Persian State (Mansurriyya). Both the Sunni - Shi'ite Rivalry and the Arab - Persian Enmity completely void this alliance. Similarly, I have absolutely no idea why the Damascan Sultanate is also allied to the Suri Empire, an Indo-Afghan state. What is even more strange is that the Damascan Sultanate cedes its lands and gives them over to the Suri Empire and also calls upon other UIN states to do the same. Examples include Suri ports at Hejaz and Sumatra.]
 * 5) Roman Empire and Damascan Sultanate [Not much except that these states should've gone to war very long ago. Except however, they rather 'cooperate'. As seen when they jointly invaded Aegypt, and the Damascan Sultanate gave up almost all of Egypt to the Romans. Same happened when they invaded the Georgian Confederacy where Georgia and Armenia were given up to Rome by the Damascan Sultanate]
 * 6) Croatia [I see this state as virtually the Austro - Hungary Empire of PM3 with having control over Croatia, Poland, Parts of Austrian Empire, Hungary, Parts of Romania, Bohemia, Trieste and therefore Croatia must face difficulty in controlling this multi-ethnical state. Perhaps the threat of the Ottoman Empire bound the Austro - Hungary together but is there any such threat to Croatia in PM3? ]
 * 7) Britannia [Basically, we need a player who can actually play as Britannia. That is, stand upto France and Spain instead of allying with them (Westminister) or allow itself to become a pawn in their attempts to extend their power (Britannian War of Succession) so yeah...]
 * 8) Urdustan [It appears to me that unlike most Indian Kingdoms, Urdustan rarely ever faces a rebellion. In fact, the last rebellion it faced was by Vijaynagar centuries ago and like everyone knows, apparently there's a rule that states 'If a nation rebelled once, it won't ever rebel again' and 'If you face a rebellion once, you have every right to not face another for a century'.. Strange right? Another 'rebellion' that Urdustan faced was the Secessionist League in India. And guess what? Eip himself had called for a Mod Event for this to take place so he could basically cut down half of the Indian states making it easier for him to expand in the future. Even then, Eip could not beat those Indian states so therefore in the algo HE DID NOT ADD INFRA FOR THE SECESSIONIST LEAGUE. Strangely, when the Indian states were being carved, while everyone got land in areas they bordered, Eip managed to acquire land in Mewar (In Western India) itself despite there being 1 - 2 Secessionist State in between Mewar and Bengal which ofcourse Eip swallowed as well. Even stranger was how Eip managed to get himself land all the way on the other side of India at Gujarat. One might say 'Urdustani Sind' was nearby which leads one to wonder, why did Indian states accept Bengal being granted half of Sind in the aftermath of the war against Mughals despite Bengal not having any geographical, cultural or any such link with Sind except perhaps by religion. Is this not being biased?]

I most likely left a lot of stuff out but arguing never leads to anything... As for Feud and his colonies, I didn't mention them but the point is some of them need to rebel. RexImperio (talk) 07:10, December 31, 2014 (UTC)

I was merely pointing out what I perceived to be a somewhat implausibly fast expansion; considering both otl precedents and the fact that I had invested quite a few events (re: the Tharawal and Torres Strait Islanders) whose sole purpose was to slow down future European colonisation attempts by empowering the Aborigines. I apologise for any misunderstanding. If I require a re-election to re-gain modship, I was unaware of the fact. Indeed, considering that I feel I have been unfairly inactive as a mod, if a re-election is required, I think I may decide not to stand for it. Apart from a few mod event arcs surrounding Australia, and a few small mod responses, I feel I have done very little to deserve the honour that was bestowed upon me last game. Callumthered (talk) 12:54, December 31, 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think Rex's idea is a great compromise. Nathan1123 (talk) 16:10, December 31, 2014 (UTC)

Callum you were part of the original mod squad when the game started so i believe a vote if it were to occur (its up to you) would go favorable. If youd like i will draw one up on the mod page and see what everyone thinks. As for some of these suggesstions it seems you just want revolts becase revolts. Ill admit there havent been any but its really more along the lines of people got busy than anything else with real life but has been semi active mods still. (kinda stalls events when you cant consult people on how to actually make a plausible revolt for them.) Regardless ill try to get more revolts including some for myself. As for stuff legitimately revolting away, the algo will decide. Its very rare that a single isolated revolt prevents an empire from reclaiming territory, it usually took outside intervention to bring that about. As much as revolts will happen alot more now, dont expect them all to be successful

Yes thanks, let's see what they think. Callumthered (talk) 14:01, January 1, 2015 (UTC)

Scandinavia

 * Location: next to the location of the war: +20
 * Tactical Advantage: Siege Equipment: 5
 * Nations Per Side on the War:  Scandinavia, Iceland = 5/2= 3
 * Military Development: 40+10+10+5+5+3= 73/1= 73
 * Economic: 40+10+5= 55/4 = 14
 * Locations Bonus: 3+1+1
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: 7+5+5-5= 12
 * Nation Age: Mature nation = +5
 * Population: 28
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 30,000/3,000= 10
 * Theaters of War: 0
 * Total: 157

<span style="color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:22.3999996185303px;">Erielhonan

 * Location:  +25
 * Tactical advantage: +3
 * Nations: Susquehanna(L+5) = 5/1 = +5
 * Military: +6 -5 =+1/73 = 0
 * Economy: +6 -2 = +4/55= 0
 * Infrastructure: +1
 * Motive: +9-5+1= 5
 * Chance:
 * Nation age: 0
 * Population: +4
 * Recent wars: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of troops: 0
 * Total: +53

Result

 * ((157/(210)*2)-1 = 0.4952 = 49.52%
 * (49.52)*(1-1/(2x2)) = 37.14 = 34.6 which means Scandinavia can topple the <span style="color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;line-height:22.3999996185303px;">Erielhonan  in 2 years

Hispania

 * Location: +20 (overall average of involved)
 * Tactical Advantage: Siege Equipment: 5
 * Nations Per Side on the War: +26/6 = +4  Spain, Lombardy, Italy, Savoy, Genoa, Morocco
 * Military Development: 135/14= +10  20 (Spain) 20 (Lombardy), 20 (Italy), 20 (Savoy), 20 (Genoa), 20 (Morocco)
 * Hasnt lost past 3 wars +10
 * Fully mobilized +5
 * Economic: 135/14= +10  20 (Spain) 20 (Lombardy), 20 (Italy), 20 (Savoy), 20 (Genoa), 20 (Morocco)
 * Much larger economy +10
 * Larger Trade/Colonial Empire +5
 * Locations Bonus: +20
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: 7+3+3+3+3+3 = +22/6 = +4
 * Nation Age: Mature nation = +5
 * Population: +28
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 48,000/25,000 = +2
 *   20,000 (Spain)
 * 15,000 (Italy)
 * 5000 (Genoa)
 * 6000  (Savoy)
 * 2000 (Morocco)
 * Theaters of War: 0
 * Total: 118

Lombard Revolt

 * Location:  +25
 * Tactical advantage: +3
 * Nations: Lombard Revolters(L+5) = 5/1 = +5
 * Military: +14/ 135 = 0
 * Economy: +14/ 135 = 0
 * Infrastructure: +12
 * Motive: +9
 * Chance:
 * Nation age: 0
 * Population: +7
 * Recent wars: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of troops: 25,000/48,000
 * Total: 71

Result
Heres the first one (this wasnt a 33% needed group of Algos)

Lombard Offensive Algo

 * Location: +20 (overall average of involved)
 * Tactical Advantage: Siege Equipment: 5
 * Nations Per Side on the War: +21/5 = +5  Spain, Italy, Savoy, Genoa, Morocco
 * Military Development: 115/14= +8  20 (Spain) 20 (Italy), 20 (Savoy), 20 (Genoa), 20 (Morocco)
 * Hasnt lost past 3 wars +10
 * Fully mobilized +5
 * Economic: 115/14= +8  20 (Spain), 20 (Italy), 20 (Savoy), 20 (Genoa), 20 (Morocco)
 * Much larger economy +10
 * Larger Trade/Colonial Empire +5
 * Locations Bonus: +20
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: 7+3+3+3+3 = +19/5 = +4
 * Nation Age: Mature nation = +5
 * Population: +28
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 48,000/25,000 = +2
 *   20,000 (Spain)
 * 15,000 (Italy)
 * 5000 (Genoa)
 * 6000  (Savoy)
 * 2000 (Morocco)
 * Theaters of War: 0
 * Total: 115

Lombard Revolt

 * Location:  +25
 * Tactical advantage: +3
 * Nations: Lombard Revolt(L+5) = 5/1 = +5
 * Military: +14/ 135 = 0
 * Economy: +14/ 135 = 0
 * Infrastructure: +12
 * Motive: +9
 * Chance:
 * Nation age: 0
 * Population: +7
 * Recent wars: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of troops: 25,000/48,000
 * Total: 71

Result
Second algo done. ill do the results for redundancy but i didnt need the 33% for this particular revolt. From here on out those kinds of revolts (Whole states and nations all out rebellion in an organized fashion) will be declared with the attempted mod event for it.

Oldenburg Returns
Hello chums,

I have returned from my travels, and now hope to get right back into the game. A seemingly endless summer holiday stretches before me, giving me, at long last, plenty of time for it.

If someone would be so kind as to give me a brief recount of any events of interest to Oldenburg, it would be much appreciated. Callumthered (talk) 02:04, December 30, 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back!

The only real thing of concern is the Britannian war of succession, Spain is currently supporting the Scottish claimant, and france has declared support for the House of Hamburg, and scandinavia has decided to divert trade to the baltic. There have been mod events ramping up the tension between Spain and France, but so far neither has acted on it.

Other than that, not much. I am that guy (talk)

Im just trying to make sure the correct people are back before the war happens, dont want it to be ridiculously one sided, thats not always that much fun ;P

France'n'stuff (Attacker)
Total: 104
 * Location: 20
 * Location Bonus: 2
 * Tactical Advantage: 6
 * Nations: France (L), Lower Burgundy(LV), Rhineland (LV) = 4
 * Military Development: 60+10(no lost wars)+5(mobilized)+5(more troops)=80/13= 6
 * Economic Development: 60+5(Larger trade)+10(Much larger)=75/18= 4
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 6+5+3 / 3 = 8
 * Motive Modifiers: +4+5
 * Chance: 0
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Population: 9+20
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 200,000/20,000=10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Rhineland Rebls (Defender)
Total: 46
 * Location: 25
 * Location Bonus:
 * Tactical Advantage: 2
 * Nations:  (L) = 5
 * Military Development: 20-2-5= 13 = 0
 * Economic Development: 20-2 = 18 = 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 9 = 8
 * Motive Modifiers: +4-5
 * Chance: 0
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: -10
 * Population: 6
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 20,000/0=0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result
Win in 2 years, since it isn't popular 33% isn't needed
 * ((104/(104+46))*2)-1 = 0.38666666...
 * (X)*(1-1/(2*2)) = 0.28999...

Discussion
Done for sine <font color="#FF0000">S <font color="#04690C">k <font color="#FF0000">y <font color="#04690C">G <font color="#FF0000">r <font color="#04690C">e <font color="#FF0000">e <font color="#04690C">n <font color="#FF0000">2 <font color="#04690C">4 <font color="#FF0000">( <font color="#04690C">P <font color="#FF0000">, <font color="#04690C">Q <font color="#FF0000">) 23:30, January 1, 2015 (UTC)

The Cherokee-Hamburg war
Myself and "I am that guy" have already decided upon the outcome of this war. If you want to know what will happen then please see my nation page. Basically the Cherokee will be crushed by the colonists and the current dynasty will be overthrown by a minor lord who schemes with the colonists. The United Kingdom of the Cherokee and Shawana peoples will become a vassal state of the Duchy of Hamburg. I will be going on a break from the game for a month over my university exam period and a holiday I will be going on after. So I should be back sometime in February. I will relinquish control of my nation to "I am that guy" and if I return back in February it will be with a new nation. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 01:43, January 2, 2015 (UTC)

Location Bonuses
In my opinion the location bonuses need reform. They seem to be bias to some degree, and not entirely accurate. For example notable centers of trade are not represented at all, while arbitrary locations are. Hawaii for example is a high bonus, and I have been told this is purely because Hawaii is a "natural harbor". Even if that's the case, at the moment the way the system works, someone could claim Hawaii, colonize a single pixel somewhere (not even on the big island), and instantly get +3 to a war in Greenland. The locations also seem to favor Europe and their colonies, and seem to be influenced my player nations' positions. Next, I have been told (this might not be right) that all states in the Baltic Sea get +5. This doesn't make much sense, since for one all other locations like this at least require that you control the whole thing, and also arbitrarily bordering the north sea doesn't exactly mean you're a master of trade. With that said I propose that the following cities receive some representation (I put a suggested value next to each one as well, but these are just suggestions):


 * Timbuktu (+2)
 * Lima (+1)
 * Chengdu (+1)
 * Kiev (+2)
 * Goa (+1)
 * Beijing (+2)
 * Vienna (+2)
 * Lhasa (+1)
 * Bordeaux (+1/2)
 * Sydney (+1)
 * Xi'an (+1)
 * Tunis (+1)
 * Straights of Hormuz (+2/3)
 * Krakow (+1)
 * Guangzhou (+1)
 * Astrakhan (+1)
 * Samarkand (+1)
 * Zanzibar (+1/2)
 * Basra (+1)
 * Ragusa (+1)
 * Safi (+1)
 * Aleppo (+1)
 * Kyoto (+1)
 * Frankfurt (+2)
 * Hamburg (+1)
 * Munich (+1)
 * Prague (+1)
 * Pskov (+2)
 * Danzig (+2)
 * Moscow (+1)
 * Novgorod (+1)

And others that I forgot. Tr0llis (talk) 22:50, January 3, 2015 (UTC)

I believe that this is a marvelous proposal and I support it to the fullest. Player should only get the location bonus in an algo if the location affects the war. Glad to see you're trying to contribute to the game, Tr0llis.

Cheers, <font color="#FF0000">S <font color="#04690C">k <font color="#FF0000">y <font color="#04690C">G <font color="#FF0000">r <font color="#04690C">e <font color="#FF0000">e <font color="#04690C">n <font color="#FF0000">2 <font color="#04690C">4 <font color="#FF0000">( <font color="#04690C">P <font color="#FF0000">, <font color="#04690C">Q <font color="#FF0000">) 11:25, January 4, 2015 (UTC)

Pskov not on list? Pskov sad... :(

Invading Nations

 * Location: +20
 * Tactical Advantage: Siege Equipment: 5
 * Nations Per Side on the War: France (L). Savoy (L), Africa (L), Sardinia (LV), Artois (LV), Britain (L) Scotland (L), Eire (L), Navarre (L) = 5
 * Military Development: 160+10+5+5=2
 * Economic: 160+5+3 = 2
 * Locations Bonus: 7
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive:  7+5+5+5+5+5+5+5-3+6+10 = 7
 * Nation Age: Mature nation = +5
 * Population: 8+2
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 310,000
 * France: 200,000
 * Britain: 100,000
 * Navarre: 10,000
 * Theaters of War: 0
 * Recent Wars: -4
 * Total:’’’ 69

Spain

 * Location: +25
 * Tactical advantage: +1
 * Nations: 20 (Spain) 20 (Italy), 20 (Savoy), 20 (Genoa), 20 (Morocco) = 5
 * Military: 100, 0
 * Economy: 100, 0
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: +9+4+5+5+5+5 = 7
 * Chance:
 * Location Bonus: +20
 * Nation age: 0
 * Population: +8
 * Recent wars: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Fronts: -30
 * Concurrent Wars: -15
 * Number of troops:
 * Recent Wars: -10
 * Total: 21

Invading Nations

 * Location: +20
 * Tactical Advantage: Siege Equipment: 5
 * Nations Per Side on the War: Bavaria (L) Austria (L), Brandeburg (LV), Pomerania (LV), Westphalia (L), Nassau (L), Luxembourg (L), Hesse (LV), Jülich (LV), Rome (L), Croatia (L), Hamburg (L), Holstein (L), Mecklenburg (L), Carantania (LV), Czechia (L), Silesia (L), +vassals = 5
 * Military Development: 340+10+5+5-8=352 = 4
 * Economic: 340+5++5+53-8= 350 = 4
 * Locations Bonus: 10
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive:  7+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5-3+6=5
 * Nation Age: Mature nation = +5
 * Population: 8+2
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 300,000
 * Bavaria: 100,000
 * Westphalia: 50,000
 * Hamburg: 50,000
 * Croatia: 100,000
 * Theaters of War: 0
 * Total:’’’ 68

Spain

 * Location: +25
 * Tactical advantage: +1
 * Nations: 20 (Spain) 20 (Italy), 20 (Savoy), 20 (Genoa), 20 (Morocco) = 5
 * Military: 100, 0
 * Economy: 100, 0
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: +9+4+5+5+5+5 = 7
 * Chance:
 * Location Bonus: +20
 * Nation age: 0
 * Population: +8
 * Recent wars: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Fronts: -30
 * Concurrent Wars: -15
 * Number of troops:
 * Total: 31

Invading Nations

 * Location: +20
 * Tactical Advantage: Siege Equipment: 5
 * Nations Per Side on the War: Westenland (L), Wolof (LV), Neu Bruchhausen (LV), Kamerun (LV), Dahomey (L), Port Edmundburg (L), Ghana (LV), Williamsburg (L), New Lüneburg (LV), Mali (L) = 5
 * Military Development: 200+10+5+5= 220/20=11
 * Economic: 200+5+3 /20 = 11
 * Locations Bonus: 16
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive:  7+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5-3+6 = 6
 * Nation Age: Mature nation = +5
 * Population: 6+2
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 
 * Theaters of War: 0
 * Total:’’’ 97

Spain

 * Location: +25
 * Tactical advantage: +1
 * Nations: Oyo (L), 5
 * Military: 20, 0
 * Economy: 20, 0
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: +9
 * Location Bonus: +20
 * Chance:
 * Nation age: 0
 * Population: +6
 * Recent wars: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Fronts: -10 (Since Oyo represents Spain)
 * Concurrent Wars: -15
 * Number of troops:
 * Total: 51

Invading Nations

 * Location: +20
 * Tactical Advantage: Siege Equipment: 5
 * Nations Per Side on the War: Reme (L), Cahokie (L), Nouvelle Orleans (LV), Nouvelle Bourdeaux (LV), Pearl River (L), New Bavaria (LV), Arcadia (L), German West Indies (L), Kolossland (LV), Carantanian Island (L), Nehilaw (L)= 5
 * Military Development: 210+10+5+5-4(for bavaria missing two turns)=226=11
 * Economic: 210+5+3-4(for bavaria missing two turns)=214=10
 * Locations Bonus: 16
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive:  7+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5-3+6=6
 * Nation Age: Mature nation = +5
 * Population: 7+2
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 
 * Theaters of War: 0
 * Total:’’’ 97

Spain

 * Location: +25
 * Tactical advantage: +1
 * Nations: Mexico (L)
 * Military: 20, 0
 * Economy: 20, 0
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: +9
 * Location Bonus: +20
 * Chance:
 * Nation age: 0
 * Population: +7
 * Recent wars: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Fronts: -10 (Since Mexico represents Spain)
 * Concurrent Wars: -15
 * Number of troops:
 * Total: 51

Discussion
Oldenburg has also joined the war against Hispania, however I don't know which theatre it would contribute towards. Callumthered (talk) 13:33, January 4, 2015 (UTC)

The Nehilaw have also joined the war, as have its vassals of Chisasibi and Chippawa. I'm guessing they would contribute toward the Mexican campaign. Shikata ga nai! 14:06, January 4, 2015 (UTC)

The ENTIRETY OF EUROPE seems a bit ridiculous on top of multiple coalitions elsewhere i sense so much meta its ridiculous. Guess if yall are going to be that way (when ive helped 75% of you) ill take it as it comes. I would still like to talk to a few people to check on a few things.

This war is some fucked-up-meta-ass-bullshit. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 04:10, January 8, 2015 (UTC)

If the invading nations win the war over Spain, and the Spanish Empire collapses in this war, can i play as Italy that declared Independence from Hispania?

Italy is becoming a vassal of Byzantinium, so it will be unplayable. Saturn120 (Talk/Blog) 15:25, January 9, 2015 (UTC)

Italy is being split, with lombardy staying independent from the Romans and the Romans getting a very Magna Graecia. You can ask MP or perhaps Mscoree if they can allow you to play as either of those.

Cheers, <font color="1C4081">Sky <font color="D61517">Green <font color="DFB73D">24 <font color="DC143C">( <font color="0B4EA2">P <font color="EE1C25">, <font color="FFCC00">Q <font color="DC2624">) 15:30, January 9, 2015 (UTC)

Ok dear, however its works!

Lombardy already has a player lined up. Mscoree (talk) 15:38, January 9, 2015 (UTC)

OK, so here is the new map that changed Treaty of Toledo. The dark violet color shows the newly created Kingdom of Italy and its colonies. So i have never played any nations in PMIII before, i must play any nation in PMIII to get more map games badges. This is my third time to enter this game and playing as Kingdom of Italy. Creating Italy is the home and nation of all Italian people, language and its culture.

"I must play any nation in PMIII to get more map games badges"

Hunting for badges may get you banned from the wiki IIRC. QuebecanCanada (talk) 16:17, January 9, 2015 (UTC)

I not hunting for badges now.

Uhh, yeah. You definitely aren't...

I think it's been made clear hat Italy won't become independent Eric. Why don't you listen to our comments and listen? MP might let you play as Italy, but as a Roman Vassal. Saturn120 (Talk/Blog) 18:06, January 9, 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, Even if you did got independent you would certainly not get sardinia, corsica, nor anything in north africa, Those territories are french or soon to be french as are most of the baleares, and France (Me) won't give them up, you'd pretty much be a nation waiting to get raped by byzantium or me (maybe croatia) which isn't a good idea, plus, if you wanna play PM3 there still are enough nations to play as   Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 20:13, January 9, 2015 (UTC)

If Spain's colonies are in rebellion, can I come in as one of them? (like New Spain, or something?) I've never played a map game before, but I figure this is as good a time to get experience as any.Nathan1123 (talk) 01:57, January 15, 2015 (UTC)

Invading Nations

 * Location: +20
 * Tactical Advantage: Siege Equipment: 5
 * Nations Per Side on the War: Hindustan (L), Sindh (LV), Deccan (LV), Damascus (L), Suri Empire (L), Multan (LV), Ladakh (LV) = 5
 * Military Development: 120+10+5+5=7
 * Economic: 120+5+3 = 7
 * Locations Bonus: 3
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive:  7+5+5+5+5+5+5-3+6=6
 * Nation Age: Mature nation = +5
 * Population: 9+20
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 300,000
 * Hindustan: 200,000
 * Damascus: 50,000
 * Suri Empire: 50,000
 * Theaters of War: 0
 * Recent Wars:
 * Total:’’’ 88

Spain

 * Location: +25
 * Tactical advantage: +1
 * Nations: Khambhat (L) = 5
 * Military: 20,0
 * Economy: 20, 0
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: 9
 * Chance:
 * Location Bonus: +20
 * Nation age: 0
 * Population: +7
 * Recent wars: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Fronts: -10
 * Concurrent Wars: -15
 * Number of troops:
 * Recent Wars:
 * Total: 52

Invading Nations

 * Location: +20
 * Tactical Advantage: Siege Equipment: 5
 * Nations Per Side on the War: Hindustan (L), Himalaya (LV), Vijaynagara (L), Jaunpur (LV) Sunda (L), Malacca (LV), Brunei (LV) = 5
 * Military Development: 120+10+5+5=7
 * Economic: 120+5+3=7
 * Locations Bonus: 5
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive:  7+5+5+5+5+5+5-3+6=6
 * Nation Age: Mature nation = +5
 * Population: 9+20
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 100,000
 * Hindustan: 100,000
 * Theaters of War: 0
 * Recent Wars:
 * Fronts: -5
 * Total:’’’ 94

Spain

 * Location: +25
 * Tactical advantage: +1
 * Nations: Burma (L)
 * Military: 20,0
 * Economy: 20, 0
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: 9
 * Chance:
 * Location Bonus: +20
 * Nation age: 0
 * Population: +7
 * Recent wars: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Fronts: -10
 * Concurrent Wars: -15
 * Number of troops:
 * Recent Wars:
 * Total: 47

Invading Nations

 * Location: +20
 * Tactical Advantage: Siege Equipment: 5
 * Nations Per Side on the War: Hindustan (L), Damascus (L), Yemen (LV), Marwar (LV), Delhi (LV), Sunda (L), Borneo (LV), Minahasa (LV) = 5
 * Military Development: 160+10+5+5=9
 * Economic: 160+5+3=9
 * Locations Bonus: 5
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive:  7+5+5+5+5+5+5+5-3+6=6
 * Nation AgeL’’’ +3
 * Population: 9+20
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 50,000
 * Theaters of War: 0
 * Recent Wars:
 * Fronts: -5
 * Total:’’’ 96

Spain

 * Location: +25
 * Tactical advantage: +1
 * Nations: Philippines (L) = 5
 * Military: 20,0
 * Economy: 20, 0
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: 9
 * Chance:
 * Location Bonus: +20
 * Nation age: 0
 * Population: +6
 * Recent wars: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Fronts: -10
 * Concurrent Wars: -15
 * Number of troops:
 * Recent Wars:
 * Total: 51

Resign
Since you guys deem it necessary to ally the whole damn game against me in some of the worst meta ive seen in map gaming (two coalitions and a whole host of nations ive helped and maintained good relations with) im backing out entirely. I wont even try to talk to anyone since your going to be assholes in the treaty anyways. If this is seriously what you guys have come too im disappointed.

Regardless if its at all possible i would like to remain as an in tact New Spain if anything as a protectorate of Someone. But considering how people are in this game thats probably not going to Happen.

That's what happens when you overstretch yourself. Eventually people get tired of you. Source: People got tired of me before I even got to Hispania size.

21:25, January 4, 2015 (UTC)

Been there too... (albeit, not nearly as strong as Hispania now is). Sorry for your loss (its tough), but I hope you continue to play and the victors are kind enought to grant you New Spain (or maybe a part of it).

If you don't mind me clarifying, are you resigning as a Mod (that would be quite bad for the game, in my opinion) or just as Spain? 08:45, January 5, 2015 (UTC)

...

I GO AWAY FOR TWO WEEKS AND I MISSED THE SPAIN PARTY? DAMMIT. Saturn120 (Talk/Blog) 12:17, January 5, 2015 (UTC)

The Whole game, If people seriously think you can divvy up a immense colonial empire like they did then they have no buisiness playing these games but since im the minority in this im resigning from all duties for the time being. The Game can rot for all i care right now since people cant even judge that doing what they did is just about as ridiculous as ethiopia colonizing canada. Its pitiful

Despite the fact that I have always critisized Feud for having an Empire of implausibily, why do you people not atleast take him down plausibly? If you guys are invading him, atleast do it plausibly.. Urdustan invading Spain? All of Europe against Spain? Damascan Sultanate invading Spain? RexImperio (talk) 15:44, January 6, 2015 (UTC)

Everyone's not going to Europe to invade Madrid, they are attacking parts of the empire that are close enough to them/they want.

20:55, January 6, 2015 (UTC)

I would just like to point out from my objective opinion that it's not at all unprecedented from OTL for vast colonial empires to shrink in a few years. Neither it is unprecedented for grand European coalitions to form against a dangerous rival (Napoleon, anyone?). I really wish Feud would stay in the game as a regular player. but that's his own choice. Nathan1123 (talk) 16:17, January 7, 2015 (UTC)

Invading Nations

 * Location: +20
 * Tactical Advantage: Siege Equipment: 5, Ambush 2
 * Nations Per Side on the War: Japan (L), Manchuria (L), Yantai (LV), Taiwan (LV), Japanese Manchuria (LV), Shangjingkou (L), Lanzhou (L), Hailar Khaganate = 4
 * Military Development: 140+10+5+5=160/49= 3
 * Economic: 140+10+5=155/66=2
 * Locations Bonus: 3
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: 7+3+3+3+3+3+6-3+3+3/8=4
 * Nation Age +5
 * Population: 9+20
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 1,095,000/150,000=7
 * Theaters of War: 0
 * Recent Wars:
 * Fronts:
 * Total: 94

Spain

 * Location: +25
 * Tactical advantage: +2
 * Nations: Qingdao (LV), Shanghai (LV), Henan (L), Shandong (L) = 4
 * Military: 64-10 (not mobilized)-5 (much smaller armed forces)=49
 * Economy: 68-2(smaller economy)
 * Infrastructure: 14
 * Motive: 5+5+7+3-3-6=3
 * Chance:
 * Location Bonus: +3
 * Nation age: 3
 * Population: +8
 * Recent wars: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Fronts: Two = -5
 * Concurrent Wars:
 * Number of troops: 150,000
 * Recent Wars:
 * Total: 57 (Mod Event)

Result
(94/(94+57))*2-1=0.24503311258

x*(1-1/(2*5))=0.22052980132

Discussion
Please add in Lanzhou and Hailar Khaganate, the two Manchu vassals. RexImperio (talk) 17:55, January 10, 2015 (UTC)

Fixed it, though with all of the recent mod events, me and Rimp may extend the war. Saturn120 (Talk/Blog) 01:01, January 11, 2015 (UTC)

Sat, I doubt we can muster upto a million soldiers for this war. I mean, it would have a very bad effect upon the economy. Tone it down a bit. We don't need 33% anyway. RexImperio (talk) 07:26, January 11, 2015 (UTC)

Invading Nations

 * Location: +20
 * Tactical Advantage: Siege Equipment: 5
 * Nations Per Side on the War: SiChuan (L) = +5
 * Military Development: 12 +5 (More Troops) +5 (Mobilized) = 30/7 = +4
 * Economic: 14 +2 (Equally Matched) +5 (Larger Trade) = 27/13 = +2
 * Locations Bonus: +0
 * Expansion: +0
 * Motive: +7
 * Modifier: +4 (Non Demo)
 * Nation Age +5
 * Population: +7
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 140,000/30,000 = 4.6 ~ +5
 * Theaters of War: +0
 * Recent Wars: -2 (Tibet)
 * Fronts: N/A
 * Total: 75

Shandong

 * Location: +25
 * Tactical advantage: +2
 * Nations: Shangdong (L) = +5
 * Military: 12 -5 (Much Smaller Armed Forces) = 7 = 0
 * Economy: 14 +2(Equally Matched) -3 (Receding Economy) = 13 = 0
 * Infrastructure: +7
 * Motive: +9
 * Modifier: +4 (Non Demo) -15 (Multiple Concurrent Wars) = -11
 * Chance:
 * Location Bonus: +0
 * Nation age: +5
 * Population: +8 +2 = +10
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of troops: 30,000/140,000 = +0
 * Recent Wars: -2 (Japan War)
 * Total: 60

Result
(75/(75+60))*2-1= 0.111111...

0.11111...*(1-1/(2*4))= 0.09722222... after 4 years of war

Disscussion
Made this part for Will. Saturn120 (Talk/Blog) 06:03, January 11, 2015 (UTC)

Have brought changes to the algorithm. RexImperio (talk) 08:03, January 11, 2015 (UTC)

Have fixed things, SiChuan doesn't have full scores since it was an NPC. Also, no active troops would only count if Shandong hadn't been at war, but since it's at war it is mobilized, therefore meaning it could respond to this threat quickly aswell. <font color="1C4081">Sky <font color="D61517">Green <font color="DFB73D">24 <font color="DC143C">( <font color="0B4EA2">P <font color="EE1C25">, <font color="FFCC00">Q <font color="DC2624">) 15:33, January 12, 2015 (UTC)

Removing Viva's permaban
Personally, I believe that Viva's permaban was too harsh, which is why I suggest that we put up a vote to see what the players think. Cheers, <font color="1C4081">Sky <font color="D61517">Green <font color="DFB73D">24 <font color="DC143C">( <font color="0B4EA2">P <font color="EE1C25">, <font color="FFCC00">Q <font color="DC2624">) 20:34, January 6, 2015 (UTC)
 * Moderator votes:
 * Aye:
 * Nay:
 * He's brash and rude. He singlehandedly ruined PM II and caused inumerable issues early on into this game so no I do not support his return. FOR THE GLORY OF THE PARTY! 03:12, January 7, 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Viva. You know I am. But I strongly feel that lifting the perma-ban is not wise, at least not without some major restrictions. Maybe I'll vote differently if someone comes up with an alternative plan. But straight back into the game? No. I've seen twice what those results yield. Cour *talk* 00:06, January 8, 2015 (UTC)
 * A permaban is a permaban. What sort of precedent will we set if we simply reverse it?Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 10:13, January 8, 2015 (UTC)
 * Player votes:
 * Aye:
 * Roman-spqr-flag.png  Consul Ioshua   (Talk)  SPQR_EMBLEM.jpg
 * I agree, it's seems way too harsh imo. At least restrict viva to a tribal nation of some sort. Saturn120 (Talk/Blog) 21:09, January 6, 2015 (UTC)
 * Toby2
 * Shikata ga nai! 23:26, January 6, 2015 (UTC) - Although restricting him to a tribal nation might not help, since fast expansion, and thereby mod actions and arguments, are more likely to result.
 * This was a tough call, but.
 * Yes. He should return RexImperio (talk) 05:47, January 8, 2015 (UTC)
 * Permabans should be reserved for the most grievous of offenses. One year, two, maybe, but permanant? those should be reserved for breaking wiki rules that would give the same sentance, I am a beliver in people being able to change, however people do have the right to be suspicious(forgive, but dont forget)-Lx (leave me a message)Azarath Flag.png 05:40, January 9, 2015 (UTC)
 * —Bfoxius (talk)
 * Nay:
 * Cookiedamage (talk) 20:38, January 6, 2015 (UTC) From what I've seen on chat and on talk pages, Viva can be both extremely rude, confrontational, and heavily argumentative. While I have had no sour experiences with him myself, I do see why many mods found it fit to ban him from the game.
 * No. He did the same thing in two games, and it killed PMII. He only waited like 100 days before creating problems in this game too. We enjoy debates about things, but when it gets to a map game, he will go over the top. 20:54, January 6, 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope. He argues too much and can never admit to being wrong. He ruined PM2. Never again. You say restrict him to a tribal nation, I say he will think its okay for the Australian Aboringees to start colonising Alaska... right after the Aboringees have united all of Oceania of course. Wish I had banned him myself back in PM2 before I had left. I mean christ did you see him immediately jump back to PM2? People on chat were talking about Viva and I said I'd conduct a test to show them how much of a cretin he is. WITHIN THE DAY he came and replied to my post criticizing me for god-modding and declaring war against my nation. Yep it was god-modding and those posts I did were never intended to be canon, but it just proved the shear petty, argumentativeness bullshit which constantly spews from his mouth. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 04:08, January 8, 2015 (UTC)
 * s
 * s

Discussion
No hard feelings, but from what I've seen, Viva is addicted to arguing.

However, Forgive and forget. ~ Josh

"Restrict him to a tribal nation." Those are usually the problem. Mscoree (talk) 22:54, January 6, 2015 (UTC)

I'm kinda neutral, and so ar most of the other mods. Viva is a good player, but he does tend to argue his points to the death. I would be ok with it if he agrees to not contest reasonable things that the mods fo.

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 23:21, January 6, 2015 (UTC)

To start explaining myself, from what interatctions I have had with him, Viva seems intellegent, far more intellegent than I. Yet from watching him interact with others, he can be agressive. almost exclusivly regarding map games, Viva's is stubborn and, as stated before.

To quote Scraw: "Only Viva would bother to remember how someone betrayed him in a game one year ago." My test on PM2 proves how much of an argumentative little bitch he is. I strongly advise you NEVER undo his perma-ban. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 04:08, January 8, 2015 (UTC)

If I may speak in my own defense, your statements are largely based on misinformation. I did not, at popular opinion holds, cause the death of PMII. In fact, I was far from being the source of the issue. I'll enlighten you. The game was considered ASB by the 1700s of PMII, a time during which point I was the weakest and smallest of the nations. The issue, as players stated, were the giant empires a handfull of players were building at the expense of plausibility. By the 1800s, many players wanted to end the game, at which point I had only just began getting a foothold on the global scene. I am stubborn, and I will agree argumenative, but to assume that I am the only one is factually incorrect. You need only speak to Feud on a bad day for proof of that. And Von, only you would bother to bring back a game that had been dead for more than a year and half just to prove a point. Now, to start addressing what the mods said: Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 19:43, January 8, 2015 (UTC)
 * Andy, you say I killed PMII. Well I didn't. The multiple mega-empires and biased events that favored the mods killed the game. Scan's creating events that weakened other nations but barely harmed his own angered the player-base, and the ease with which a single mod nation such as Crim's and Von's could destroy another player's nation didn't help. The funky rules and the changing explanations for certain actions that appeared to be arbitrary pushed many users out of the game, and the whole punitive war against Scraw gave many the impression that anyone who grew too powerful for a certain group of important players would be stepped on and destroyed. When Imp, myself, and Kogasa planned to unite into a single nation, it wasn't the players who spoke out against it, it was the mods. Crimson said that the union was implausible, and Yank pushed to have my empire and Imp's empire fall apart to balance the game. By that time, the players were done, and wanted the game to come to an end since the world was divided into five powers, and everybody else. So the community ended the game, you just blamed me for being the most vocal about it.
 * Courage, heavy-handed tactics that most players don't agree with won't win you any support. I understand the point your trying to make, but it simply won't work. I along with other admins back on Conworlds tried that, and tried alternatve ideas, but it only made issues worse and the projects harder to complete. Putting in place harsh restrictions may give the impression that the mods are more concerned with punishment than prevention, and may only alienate players who may already disagree with mod-policy even more. You already had a "End PM3 now" campaign, and players have already tried to end the game with a vote no more than a month ago. Add the anger many had with Feud's hyperstate, and the failure of the mods to limit his growth when they had the chance, it gives off the appearance the mods can't do their job, and simply punish offenders instead of deal with the source instead. If you continue to use force to punish players, then it will ultimately give players the view that you use force to make up for your own shortcomings in the past to prevent problems in the future. And mind you, I was the one who originally stated that if unchecked, Feud would take over the game world if the mods didn't step in. Half a year later and I was right, and now the players are doing something about it. I'm not a mod, and I saw that coming more than a mile away. Why didn't you?
 * Collie, numerous precedents have been set already in PMII, and you were one of those who helped in creating them. Look at Scraw's example. The moderators allowed Scraw to establish a base in North America during the game, when he should have been destroyed. However, Scraw was liked by many of the mods as a long-time player, and given a freebie. This set the precedent that so long as you were buddies with the mods, you would be given a favorable outlook in the game's development overtime by the moderators. This gave many players the impression the mods were corrupt, and I only voiced what everyone was thinking by then, that the mods couldn't be trusted to do their job, and were only looking out for their best interests instead, Von being the biggest offender. When Von went off to Hong Kong to study, he stated that he wouldn't be playing for a good period of time. So what did he do before he left? Against everyone's wishes and without any concensus whatsoever, Von singlehandedly created a number of biased rules to protect his nation from attack. He divided it into countless nations, established rules that made conquering them impossible, and reserved the right to unify them if he decided to return to the game. This set yet another precedent that any one of the mods could randomly create any number of rules he wanted, as well as place himself above the rules and take his nation/nations back should he decide to leave and then return to the game. So you shouldn't worry so much about precedents, as many were set under your watch. Once again, I see where your coming from, but the track record shows something else entirely.

Viva this is literally why you were permabanned. It's like you want people to vote against you.

06:06, January 9, 2015 (UTC)

He was permabanned because he wrote long walls during arguments which made perfect sense [If someone cared to read them] and others were unable to beat him in arguments due to his highly sophisticated mind which allowed him to exploit areas which are potentionally strong but historically weak? So he got banned because he wouldn't go with otl? Because he believed there was another way? Because if someone argued with him about it, he'd be able to beat those guys in arguments as well? Wow.. RexImperio (talk) 16:27, January 9, 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Von, I agree with you on this one overall, but what you did before you left for your studies was totally unfair.

After reading this, I think the main conclusion is that Viva is in fact right when talking about others, but also others are correct when talking about his implausibility. I've read through all those arguments, even those before this one and I must say that, from my perspective, the thing that's wrong about this is that Viva got punished for his actions, while other players that did similar actions didn't get banned because of irrelevant stuff, like popularity.

<font color="1C4081">Sky <font color="D61517">Green <font color="DFB73D">24 <font color="DC143C">( <font color="0B4EA2">P <font color="EE1C25">, <font color="FFCC00">Q <font color="DC2624">) 13:14, January 10, 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you to some degree, but it's hard to find sympathy for Viva when every time you go on chat, to tell him you agree with ending his perma ban, he starts arguing with you. Mscoree (talk) 13:29, January 10, 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Ms, I'm not sure where you got your information, but we never talked about my permaban in chat or anywhere else, and I didn't argue (or discuss for that matter) with anyone over PM3 since the ban. Didn't you notice how I avoided the topic for more than half a year now and distanced myself from PM3 for a reason? Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 16:40, January 10, 2015 (UTC)

The meta-gaming concerning the war against Spain and Feud's mod events
OK I'm pissed off at you all. I see that none of you like Feud's giant empire and war against him makes sense. HOWEVER this meta-war bullshit is wrong. It breaks all the rules about meta-gaming and is just a dick move you all. You accuse him of breaking all the rules, threaten everyone to gang-up on Feud and do a giant illegal meta-game campaign to oust him.

For fucks sake, why not simply impeach him? Show the evidence of his wrong-doing and remove him as a mod. Then dismantle his empire with mod events, like everything colony-wise rebelling from Spain. If you're doing this because you think he is being a bad player and mod, breaking rules and such; then use the proper process to solve the problem. I just don't get how people can't play within the rules. If Feud is breaking the rules then use the rules against him and impeach him. Use the proper process. By meta-gaming you too are breaking the rules and every-bit-as-bad as he. Did your parents never bother telling you not to stoop their level when someone has wronged you?

Ok rant over. If you are child and I offended you then I will donate some money to a child-protection charity in the hopes other children will be protected from swearing in my inevitable future internet post rants. BUt yeah message stands don't lower yourselves. If you think another player is breaking the rules, use the proper proceedings provided by the rules to solve the problem. Don't take matters into your own hands and start breaking rules yourselves.

You think Feud is breaking the rules my dear reader? Then please make a new post below this one, a mod-impeachment vote. Follow the PM3 justice system. You are not the batman of PM3, let alone PM3's anonymous group. All you were was a lynch mob. You are the masses so use your democratic right and use the tyranny of your majority to pass a vote through the PM3 mod congress.

Good gooly I thought I wouldn't need to slap you all around the ear like this. Now behave children and adhere to the rules of the game you are playing. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 04:55, January 8, 2015 (UTC)

What's the main difference between everyone invading him now and imposing a treaty upon him, or destroying his entire empire via a *cough* flood *cough* through mod events? In my opinion, the former even if meta, sounds more plausible.

Why not just think of Feud as Napoleon? Except that, his Empire collapses after the First Coalition. Regardless, most of those fighting against him have a reason to do it. In Asia, Japan and Manchuria have had a long rivalry against them and also fought a previous war. Not even sure what casus belli Eip has tho since he just helped Feud invade some Indian state. Not sure about the whole UIN either with them invading Spain with no casus belli. In Europe, France and others have had relations with Spain heated up during the recent Britannian War of Succession. RexImperio (talk) 05:54, January 8, 2015 (UTC)

I admit, the UIN part of the war does have some issues, particularly Eiplec. However the UIN should/could/would have probably/plausibly focused on aiding the Demak Sultanate, since it, due to the war that began in Europe in 1737 (Please note, the UIN now attacks in 1740), has an opportunity to expand on formerly Spanish territory. I do also believe that the Marrikuwuyangan are still Islamic, which could mean that they could also benefit from this war.

Your accussations of Feud's rule-breaking and asking us to explain why we did what we did is something I shall not discuss, since I still have some respect for the fellow.

Another thing, dear Von. I would suggest you tone that attitude down. Although I cannot force you to do so, I'd still like to remind you that your old fame (i.e. mod status in previous PM) doesn't give you any authority in the current game. So don't act like you can slap us all around the ear or force us to behave.

Cheers, <font color="1C4081">Sky <font color="D61517">Green <font color="DFB73D">24 <font color="DC143C">( <font color="0B4EA2">P <font color="EE1C25">, <font color="FFCC00">Q <font color="DC2624">) 10:23, January 8, 2015 (UTC)

Von, strangely you didn't speak out when Feud formed a massive coalition to invade me and dismantle my nation. And in that case his king was my twin brother; our parents weren't even in the ground yet. Nor did you protest when Feud was allied with every world power in the game for centuries, having pre-divided up the whole world as to avoid any plausible conflict whatsoever, using (meta) pre-knowledge of the world's geography. In fact no one spoke out against any of the nations that Feud invaded and destroyed, but now when people act accordingly to him, it is meta.

Spain caused the fall of relations with France, he wrote that himself in the hopes of planning a war. France called its allies in Europe, who all sought to gain from the dominant power in Europe falling. Nations in India and the Middle East sought his territory in those respective areas, and became co-belligerents. His apparent "breeding out" (ie perhaps genocide) of every ethnic minority (together a majority probably) in his empire; the removal of every Italian subgroup, Catalans, Basque, etc didn't exactly make Feud popular in his own nation.

As for impeaching him, until this war I honestly didn't see that as possible. Many people were on Feud's side, gripping on to his large empire and obtaining their own piece of the pie. Us players have no power to impeach anyway, the moderators would have to agree, and it was starting to seem like Feud had a large amount of power in that respect. People started calling him "head moderator" and "owner of the PM series", and I can't say for sure if he ever disagreed. Attempts to write moderator events against him had failed, see the giant conversation above. Feud had managed to systematically remove 90% of every bad event about him (when I was a moderator I wrote many of them). Some of the most outspoken moderators against him, coincidentally, were removed by Feud for inactivity. Whether legitimate or not, these removals meant that there was very little opposition to Feud.

If you think we should impeach, dear Von, then make it yourself. Watch it get taken down because you don't have moderator approval. Even if you do, watch it get voted against, because you don't have unanimous approval from the moderators; most of whom remaining were Feud's allies. That is, until this war, which changes everything. Now I feel that such a movement would actually be successful, Feud's giant meta alliance is no longer in power. That being said, I'm not going to impeach Feud, I've done enough harm as it is. Mscoree (talk) 11:53, January 8, 2015 (UTC)

The UIN had every reason to join when one member is involved. Also it isnt like a giant coalition attacked a nation in OTL before, except a lot of times.

Also when were you saying things when Austria got invaded by a massive coalition or when anti-spain mod events were strangely dissapearing. hypocracy much? i guess meta is in the eye of the beholder Toby2: THEY CALL ME Mr. Awesome!!!

I think a part of this issue is Feud not actually getting any revolt mod events, and compared to the rest of the game, which is practically 0 imo, and that's for a game that doesn't have many to begin with. I, myself was wondering why I didn't get a revolt while I was converting Vietnam from Buddhism to Shinto, but there was either a) there wasn't anybody who noticed or b) yhe mods were just lazy, even know they were clearly aware of what I was doing. Eip attacking after Feud helping him in a war? Uh... Ok... That doesn't make sense at all. Same with Edge and the Inca(?) The rest are European reasons which probably are plausible, but I'm scraping my head over those two. Saturn120 (Talk/Blog) 12:21, January 8, 2015 (UTC)

@Saturn Yes, because no Indian state ever resisted European colonization/hegemony in OTL. Oh, and attacking people after they had helped you makes no sense? Tell that to Austria and Lombardy, who Feud attacked and/or annexed with Italy, right after they had helped to get him Italy. As for the Inca, don't tell me you think it's implausible for a Native American nation subjugated by Europeans to resist or revolt. Mscoree (talk) 12:53, January 8, 2015 (UTC)

The Inca NEVER loved the Spanish, the tolerated them because destruction was the alternitive. THe only time they would have been close was Post-Franco Spanish war in like the early 1600s. So, when war broke out, the Inca would have gotten involved in some way. Of Course, it has been 4 or 5 Inca since then.

Now Von, get off the highhorse for a minute and listen. Feud got revolts, but never to the scale that other nations got them. Second, Feud was the most active moderator (at least from what I can tell), checking algorithms and other such things. So impeachment would fail. Third, the mods of this game, read nothing. Lets flash back to the late 1400s, I was still inactive on chat, popping on and off only when there was 1 or 2 others on. Between 1430(ish) and 1490, the Quechuea and Nazca-Led Non Quecha where locked in a cold war. Besides the fact taht the Nazca player was able to influence a disorginzed state, he also MOVED HIS CAPITAL TO A VASSAL. Did the mods have a problem with this? No. DId they know of it? No. Secondly I and sevral other copy posters have had Monarchs that lived for periods of 100+ years. Mods notice? No. Not their fault yes, but it is their job to keep the game regulated.

I will stay on a high horse for as long you all don't use the proper proceedure to resolve your problems with other players. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 20:22, January 8, 2015 (UTC)

You can stay on your high horse as long as you want, and you can continue to act like you have some power to stop us. But the thing is, we all involved in this war have taken steps to improve the plausibility of the war and make sure the state of PM3 isn't damaged by this war. Also, you're not a mod at all, and you can't really expect to get anywhere from bossing us around, nor somehow stopping the war. If you believe that your modship from previous PM games or your place in the TSPTF is going to convince or coerce us to take a different path in this war, you're mistaken. Cookiedamage (talk) 22:10, January 9, 2015 (UTC)

I am not commonly seen making such a statement, but I agree with Mscoree and others here. Feud fucked up big time by pissing everyone off except the people who saw benefit from siding with him. Regardless, the real big problems we had were that Feud faced little opposition from the mods, constantly wrote shit that didn't make sense (ex: "breeding out" every single Italian), and creating some sort of world hegemony with the three biggest nations in the world. And why is no one on Feud's side? He literally drove everyone away, in game and out of the game. It would, in fact, be more implausible if Feud had allies, because he has none.

22:20, January 9, 2015 (UTC)

Resignation
Over the past few weeks and even months I have quite clearly been inactive, and I personally am losing interest in the map games, and in particular PMIII. What has kind of thrown me off is the fact that I can play EU4 and basically do the exact same thing. Haha. In all honesty, I believe that this will be my final time to leaving the map games, but I hope I can keep in contact with everyone and even play on some online games together. :P I may pop up on the wiki a few times more but I doubt I will everbecome an ative member again. Besides, the years I have been on the wiki I have definently enjoyed playing the map games and I have learnt A LOT over the time, which will help with my scores for college.

I am also wondering if there is any steam group that I could join bcoz I don't want to be gone completely haha... Thanks for the fun and I wish you the best with the game.

Aternix !?  11:48, January 8, 2015 (UTC)

Sad to see you leaving, you had potential. Ah well, your time has come. As for the steam group, I guess you should perhaps talk about that with some users, I believe Mscoree owns a steam account and has contacted many others during the Secret Santa thing, so it's safe to say that it'd be a good idea to contact him about that.

Live long and prosper, <font color="1C4081">Sky <font color="D61517">Green <font color="DFB73D">24 <font color="DC143C">( <font color="0B4EA2">P <font color="EE1C25">, <font color="FFCC00">Q <font color="DC2624">) 11:19, January 9, 2015 (UTC)

We haven't made a steam group yet, but perhaps such a thing would be a good idea. Mscoree (talk) 11:31, January 9, 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Sky, I will always appreciate being part of this great community. And Ms, I think it would be great if a Steam group would be made. I thought someone already said there was a Steam group >.> haha. Oh well, get back to me please if one does form. ;) Aternix  !?  06:38, January 11, 2015 (UTC)

Pskov and co.

 * Location: 20
 * Nations: Pskov(L), Eesti(LV),Loyalist Belarus(L), Latvia(LV): 5
 * Advantage: 6(siege engines+regular)
 * Military: 32+32+10 (No lost wars)+5 (More total troops)+5(Large Military) = 79/14 = 6
 * Economy: 32+32+5 (Larger Economy)+5(Larger Trade) = 74/14 = 5
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Other stuff I need to fill in
 * Chance : 8
 * Editcount: 3526
 * Time: 3:15 UTC (3*215 = 15)
 * 3526/15*pi = 738.483714
 * Motive: 6
 * Pskov: Maintain hegemony, obviously: 7
 * Eesti: Aiding Ally? : 3
 * Loyalists: +9(if they loose, they no longer have state)
 * Latvia: +3 ally
 * Modifiers:10
 * Democratic bonus: 5(Pskov),
 * High Morale: 5
 * Population: 7+10 (4M population, 800K revolt)
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: (sent volunteer batallions to aid in war hispania) -1
 * Troops: 150K/40K = 4
 * oh, and I get *1.1 because industrialization I believe.
 * Total: 96*1.1= 106

Alexandr Lukoshenko's Forces

 * Location: 25
 * Nations: Kievan Rus' Loyal Belarus(L): 5
 * Advantage: 1 (defender)
 * Military: 14-5(much smaller Military)+3(moderate Military) = 12, 0
 * Economy: 14-2(smaller economy) = 12, 0
 * Infrastructure: 7
 * Other stuff I need to fill in
 * Chance: 3
 * Editcount: 3526
 * Time: 3:15 UTC (3*1*5 = 15)
 * 3526/15*pi = 738.483714
 * Motive: +9 (Defending from possibly fatal attack)
 * Modifiers: +4 (Non. demo), -5 Low Morale
 * Population: 6(800K)
 * Nation age: -10
 * Participation: +10
 * Troops: 40K, 0
 * Other tings I forgot
 * Total:55*1.5=83

Result
I guess I win?

(106/(106+83))*2-1=0.12169312168

Discussion
As you all can see, this algo section is very sloppy, done very late at night, and incomplete. if anyone wishes to add or edit things, sure, do that, its not like the thing is complete anyway, or that I am not even doing anything more thatn a general outline, and citing my intention to go to war to keep belarussia. Also, could somebody with experience doing revolts fix a few things for me, like the motive and advantages afforded to people-Lx (leave me a message) 04:00, January 14, 2015 (UTC)

You can't take Lukoshenko or whatever his name is, this isn't something about being pissed off at not winning that you can pull out of your ass, it's a revolt led by people who want to be a part of the renewed Kievan Rus'. But yeah it's non-demo for them. As for the industrialization, we haven't implemented that yet tho. I'm not sure if it could count. Loyalist Belarus isn't staying, since if I recall it isn't the practice to do so.

I worked on it as good as I could, you finish it up and then I'll look it over later on. <font color="1C4081">Sky <font color="D61517">Green <font color="DFB73D">24 <font color="DC143C">( <font color="0B4EA2">P <font color="EE1C25">, <font color="FFCC00">Q <font color="DC2624">) 14:15, January 14, 2015 (UTC)

Still not complete 100%-Lx (leave me a message) 20:11, January 14, 2015 (UTC)

Colonial Nations?
Hello, I'd like to assume power in a nation in the map game, and would it be possible to be either a Chinese state or a colonial government in (His)Spanish California, or Mexico or something? Sorry, I'm new to wikia, but I've experience RPing as nations... how do I make this not under "Alexander's" subject?

CaptainRyRi (talk) 21:04, January 15, 2015 (UTC)

If you go to preferences and disable visual editor, you can go to source mode and see this:

==Colonial Nations?==

You on the other hand wrote the following:

===Colonial Nations?=== The number of '='s affects the size of your title

As for picking a nation, if you want colonial you'll probably have to ask the owner of said colony, if you want to go and play in China you just sign up if it's empty.

Personally I'd suggest a colonial nation which will then allow you to be under the tutelage of a more experienced player and give you a rather safe nation in which you can develop your map game skills.

However, everything can be fun if played right. It's up to you.

Cheers, <font color="1C4081">Sky <font color="D61517">Green <font color="DFB73D">24 <font color="DC143C">( <font color="0B4EA2">P <font color="EE1C25">, <font color="FFCC00">Q <font color="DC2624">) 14:10, January 16, 2015 (UTC)

China may be interesting... But, it's easy to play, hard to master there. There isn't any really dominant power in China, so if you play, you'll have to work hard from the ground up.

I played as a colony for a while, It did me good. I learned how to manage time and power, which I think I've never really thanked MP for XD. I recomend it to younger players, and newer people to get the hang of things, but in the end, it's up too you. Saturn120 (Talk/Blog) 14:53, January 16, 2015 (UTC)

If I come in as a colony, when exactly would I post? Would I wait for the motherland to post and then post under it as a bullet point? If so, there may be a difficulty taking a Spanish colony, being that Feud seems to have quit the game. On the other hand, perhaps the Treaty of Toledo grants some of the colonies sovereignty? I'm just not sure how this works.Nathan1123 (talk) 15:12, January 16, 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, Feud has resigned from the game, so he is not in the picture at all. Secondly Spain does not have any colonies. Any former colony from Spain that you want to play as would be an independent nation. And if you decide to play as a colony or territory of another nation, you would just post normally, as posting below the main nation is not required. Mscoree (talk) 15:27, January 16, 2015 (UTC)

Japan
Japan in PM3 is really ASB. For one they are supposed to be exiting a medieval period, yet are apparently westernized/ing, seemingly with no resistance. At the same time they're the largest state in China, own all of Vietnam and Taiwan, Papua New Guinea, and worst of all, parts of North America. Even if he is partially modernized (somehow, even though he apparently killed all foreigners in his turn) it makes no sense that he is colonizing that fast (or at all) and holding on to a giant piece of China. He has had no revolts, to the point where Sat himself even commented on how odd that is. And it's not like he's a benevolent ruler, he writes in his turns how is oppressing their religions and cultures, and forcefully converting people to Shinto. This needs to be toned down massively, and I propose something like this:


 * Manchu, as a debateably more powerful state than Japan, attempts to secede, along with all its Chinese vassals.
 * The North American and Australian colonies are collapsed, or at least heavily wrecked.
 * Unrest or minor revolts in Taiwan that are manageable.
 * Vietnam revolts (both states) because he is forcefully converting the area and oppressing people.

Just some suggestions, Harvenard2 (talk) 17:30, January 16, 2015 (UTC)

Japan and Manchuria are seperating soon, rest assured. I was supsired at the mods (at the time) or now, that there were no revolts against me. Not one. But, we are separating within the next 5 years. As for Taiwan, that was actually a colony of Japan in OTL. Japan won it in a war against the Min sometime in the 1600's. I don't have any "Australian" colonies, only one on Paupa New Guenia. Because I was friends with Spain atm until we had our first war, I was able to establish some settlements on the island. As for North America I was looking for alternate trade routes during the war, and I founded a colony that is only 25px in size. Vietnam is actually 1 state, and, again, that should've revolted. Also, I think the mods would notice if a thing is ASB or not. They can tell, so I don't think you need to bring this up to them. I find it even more interesting that, since your the Tartary, a state north of Manchuria and Japan. Just a teeny bit funny, imo. Saturn120 (Talk/Blog) 18:42, January 16, 2015 (UTC)

Papua New Guinea is in Australia (the continent) and was apart of Australia (the country) until fairly recently.

You overestimate the moderators.

I doubt Harv is saying this because he wants to profit, he hardly even plays the game now as it is. Mscoree (talk) 21:17, January 16, 2015 (UTC)

And you underestimate the gravity of our plans and oversight.

We do, in fact, acknowledge what is going on in the far east, and we do have a game plan to deal with it, which is already in progress, actually. It will be handled.

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 21:33, January 16, 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, that is all I wanted to hear. Harvenard2 (talk) 22:03, January 16, 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, his empire will fall abruptly. Or something like that, but no fear, communism is here.

Cheers, <font color="1C4081">Sky <font color="D61517">Green <font color="DFB73D">24 <font color="DC143C">( <font color="0B4EA2">P <font color="EE1C25">, <font color="FFCC00">Q <font color="DC2624">) 22:40, January 16, 2015 (UTC)

Mansuriyyan Sultanate

 * Location: 25
 * Nations: Mansuriyya, Oman = 4
 * Advantage: 2
 * Military: 28+10+10+5=53/17=3
 * Economy: 28+10+5=43/18=2
 * Infrastructure: 14
 * Chance :
 * Motive: 7+4+4+5+5/2=13
 * Population: 7+2
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Participation: +10
 * Troops: 150K/40K = 4
 * Total: 91

Yemen

 * Location: 20
 * Nations: Yemen (L): 5
 * Advantage: 1
 * Military: 20-3
 * Economy: 20-2
 * Infrastructure: 10
 * Chance:
 * Motive: 9
 * Modifiers: +4 (Non. demo), -5 Low Morale
 * Population: 7
 * Nation age: -10
 * Participation: +10
 * Troops: 40K, 0
 * Recent wars: -4
 * Concurrent war: -15
 * Total: 18

Result
Do I even need to write it?

Mansuriyyan Sultanate C

 * Location: 20
 * Nations: Mansuriyya, Oman = 4
 * Advantage: 6
 * Military: 28+10+10+5=53/17=3
 * Economy: 28+10+5=43/18=2
 * Infrastructure:
 * Chance :
 * Motive: 7+4+4+5+5/2=13
 * Population: 7+2
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Participation: +10
 * Troops: 200K/40K = 5
 * Total: 77

Yemen C

 * Location: 25
 * Nations: Yemen (L): 5
 * Advantage: 1
 * Military: 20-3
 * Economy: 20-2
 * Infrastructure: 10
 * Chance:
 * Motive: Similar culture but not part of nation +5
 * Modifiers: +4 (Non. demo), -5 Low Morale
 * Population: 7
 * Nation age: -10
 * Participation: +10
 * Troops: 40K, 0
 * Recent wars: -4
 * Concurrent war: -15
 * Total: 33

Result C
(77/(77+33))*2-1=0.4

0.4*(1-1/(2*3)=0.33...

Discussion
Done. <font color="1C4081">Sky <font color="D61517">Green <font color="DFB73D">24 <font color="DC143C">( <font color="0B4EA2">P <font color="EE1C25">, <font color="FFCC00">Q <font color="DC2624">) 17:12, January 18, 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], Kingdom of Lanzhou [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: 92/12 = 7.6 ~ +8
 * Economic Bonus: 80 + 10 [Much Larger Economy], +5 [Larger Trade], -3 [Receding Econony] = 92
 * Expansion:  0
 * Motive: +4 [Average]
 * Establish Hegemony: +7
 * Aiding Ally: +3
 * Aiding Ally: +3
 * Aiding Ally: +3
 * Modifer: +4 [Non-Demo], +6 [High Morale] = +10
 * Chance: +9
 * ​Edit Count: 912
 * UTC: 0*1*5*8 [01:58]
 * Total: 71.592
 * 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: Uighur Khanate
Total: 61
 * Location: 25+
 * Location Bonus: +0
 * Tactical Advantage: +1
 * Nations: Uighur 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:  12/92 = 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: +2
 * ​Edit Count: 912
 * UTC: 0*1*5*8 [01:58]
 * Total: 71.592
 * Nation Age: +5 [Mature Nation]
 * Population: +8
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Military Strength (Troops): 120,000/260,000 = 0.4 ~ 0

Result:
((147/(147+61)*2)-1 = 0.4134 or 41.34%

(0.4134)*(1-1/(2 x 3)) = 0.3445 or 34.45%.

Therefore, it shall take 3 years of war to topple the Uighur Khanate

Discussion
Sat.. Don't mess this up >_> RexImperio (talk) 15:54, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

Wu

 * Location: +20
 * Location Bonus: +6
 * Nations: Wu, Min, Japan, Shanghai, Formosa, Heinan = +4
 * Advantage: 6
 * Military: 60+10(No lost wars)+10(Naval dominance)+5 (more total troops)+10 =85
 * Economy: 60+5+5+10/12= +7
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Chance :
 * Motive: 7+3+3+3+7+5+4+5+4/6=7
 * Population: 8+2
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: -2 (Vietnam Revolt)
 * Troops: 200,000(Wu)+50,000(Min)+45,000(Japan)+35,000(Shanghai)+30,000(Formosa)+20,000(Heinan)/100,000=4
 * Total: 162

Yue

 * Location: 25
 * Nations: Yue: 5
 * Advantage: 2 (defender)
 * Military: 12-10(Not mobilized)-3(Smaller armed forces)
 * Economy: 14-2
 * Infrastructure: 7
 * Chance:
 * Motive: 9
 * Modifiers: +4 (Non. demo), -5 Low Morale
 * Population:8
 * Nation age: 5
 * Participation: +10
 * Troops: 100,000
 * Total: 70

Result
(162/(162+70))*2-1=0.396551724

X*(1-1/(2*4))=?

Discussion
Done for Bandon, it's up to him to decide how long it will last. SkyGreen24 16:33, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

P.S. It'd take 8 years to topple Yue.

Someone forgot to divide the military score for Wu, so,I fixed it. They don't topple them now, I think. I'll take a closer look at it if atm and see if an fix it. Saturn120 (Talk/Blog) 21:35, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

My mistake. It was supposed to be like that XD. Saturn120 (Talk/Blog) 21:37, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

A 4 year war just fyi.

Colonies
Hi, I am interested in returning to PMIII (I appologize if my unexpected leave caused disruption, especially to SwankyJ). Since colonies can attain inependence in 1775 (20 years) I was wondering about the general situation of the colonies are, particularly which ones are most likely and least likely to revolt, as well as having permission to play a colony. KawaiiKame (talk) 03:58, January 22, 2015 (UTC)

Well.. Basically much of Argentina/Bolivia/Uruguay/Paraguay region is a mess. They were Spanish colonies, now control of French and Brits and the people are having some guerilla war or something. Same goes for everything North of Panama and West and Texas [Including Texas]. So those are volatile regions.. Other than that, theres Spanish South Africa that is now under Dutch control and I think thats it for now.. RexImperio (talk) 15:53, January 22, 2015 (UTC)

I belive the Congo is already open. Buenos Aries and Voryloclayr are also open, though as stated, that region is a mess (More So Buenos Aries).

Nations List
Seeing as Feud quit and his empire was rekt, I am taking it upon myself to remove it from the nations list when I get home. Later, I am going to remove anything else that jumps as being outdated. Should I make a mistake, someone else fix it. It is better than the current state of the list.

Ethiopia

 * Location: 20
 * Advantage: 6
 * Nations Per Side: Ethopia (L)=+5
 * Military: 20+10 (Has not lost past 3 wars)+5 (more troops)+3 (20k to 60k troops)+ 5 (Fully moblized)=43/3=14
 * Economy: 20+5=25/18=1
 * Motive: 5+4+5=14
 * Population: 8+2
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Chance: 7
 * Edit Count: 2756
 * Time:3:47=84
 * Result: 2756/84*pi=103.074159
 * Troops: 300,000/200,000 = 2
 * Total: 89

Nubia

 * Location: 25
 * Advantage: 2 (defender)
 * Nations Per Side: Nubia (L)=+5
 * Military: 20-2 (small armed forces)-5 (much smaller armed forces)-10 (Not moblized)=3,0
 * Economy:20-2=18,0
 * Infrastructure:
 * Motive: 5+4-5=4
 * Population: +7
 * Nation age: -5 (meging of Nubia just before the Spanish war)
 * Participation: +10
 * Troops: 200,000
 * Ships:0
 * Chance: 3
 * 2148
 * 3*4*7 (3:47 UTC)=84
 * Result: 2148/84*pi=80.33501214
 * Total: 51

Result
As of now:

((89/(89+51)*2)-1=0.271428571

22.6190476% in 3 years.

Discussion
Gustimated on ships, could be dead wrong. I used the rules page and my knowledge for the most part. If sky could look this over, that'd be great. This is Edge, He is a cool guy when he isn't too lazy to sign his real sig. Hit him up. 03:57, January 23, 2015 (UTC)

Does this seem good for a map of the outcome?

<font color="Green">Upvoteanthology ( Talk | Sandbox )



If I am not wrong, Ethiopia is a rather 'ancient' nation. So it's Nation Age thing is in negative. Moreover, why does Ethiopia have 'Has won last 3 wars'. As far as I know, the last war Ethiopia fought was the Ethiopia - Eritrea War and Ethiopia lost it. RexImperio (talk) 05:49, January 23, 2015 (UTC)

One I have more troops then 10,000. My population is 7 million we talked about it. I should have a standing army of at least 100k. Another thing is my troops are moblized fix it. This war is bs. Also mthe Roman empire (mp) is my allie so he would have to come in and help me protect my lands. If I do lose with all of the fixed stuff then I would rather keep more coast line then land on the desert, because I do not like this map at all. - Scarlet Outlaw

I used the information I was provided. And the last major reform/ change in government was about 200-300 years ago, giving it a 0. Regarding the "has not lost the past 3 wars" thing, I was using the information I was provided. Now onto Scar. No, after talking about it and looking at OTL populations, 7 million is way to much. Second, there was no mention of mobilization in your post, yet if Sky or a mod wishes to fix it than they may. 3rd, I was talking to MP while I did this. He is well aware of what is happening and is chosing to stay the fuck out. 4th, Up gets to decided what he wants from your nation.

So i can't offer anything to Upvote at all so we can avoid war and noboby dies? Also idk if MP was in our out. If 7 million is too large then what do you say it is edge? We agreed in a chat talk that i would have 7 million and Upvote would be at 20 million. I have a boarder control team on the boarder of me and Upvote's nation so my troops are there already when the attacking army comes into my nation.

Hmm... if I get 20%, can I take most of his coastline, instead of pushing farther into the desert land? <font color="Green">Upvoteanthology ( Talk | Sandbox )

Oh God.. I made an entire list on how this algo was wrong.. :/ Too lazy to make it again, so instead I am going to make my own version of this algo which can perhaps be used for a comparison. Btw, I really doubt that the population of Ethiopia is 20 million. RexImperio (talk) 16:33, January 23, 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Also, Ethiopia's nation age is 0 since the last government change was when scar played as Ethiopia and then Greg conquered him. SkyGreen24 19:59, January 23, 2015 (UTC)

Your algo is wrong for multiple reasons. I won't be stating all but a few are
 * 1) Giving yourself +6 in Advantage, even though you guys did NOT mention Siege weapons in your turn. Doing it now would be considered cheating.
 * 2) You guys did NOT won all last 3 wars. I told you to remove it and yet you guys won't. In fact, the last two wars that Ethiopia fought; Ethiopia lost both. First to Eritrea and then to Alexandria (Thanks Sky)
 * 3) There is no 'Modifier'
 * 4) Nubias existence is at stake yet it isn't given +9 in Motive
 * 5) Chance is being constantly altered which has resulted in Scar getting +3 (He originally had +9) and Upvote getting +7 (He originally had +5)
 * 6) Giving Nubia 'Not mobilized'. If you think over it, a nation that spent its last 20 years developing its military definitely won't get not mobilized.
 * 7) Finally, the map UPvote uploaded showing Nubian land conquered definitely isn't 22% of Nubia. Rather 40% - 45% of Nubia. RexImperio (talk) 06:59, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

Attacker: Kingdom of Ethiopia
Total: 61
 * Location: +20
 * Tactical Advantage: +3
 * Nations: Kingdom of Ethiopia [L] = 5/1 = +5
 * Military Development: 30/20 = 1.5 ~ +2
 * Military Modifer: 20 + 5 [Fully Mobilized], +3 [Moderately Sized Forces], +5 [More Total Troops] -3 [Lost Last 2 Wars] = 30
 * Economic Development: 25/18 = 1.3 ~ +1
 * Economic Bonus: 20 + 5 [ Larger Economy], = 25
 * Expansion:  0
 * Motive: +7 [Establish Hegemony]
 * Modifer: +4 [Non-Demo]
 * Chance: +5
 * ​Edit Count: 1925
 * UTC: 0*3*4*7 [03:47]
 * Total: 71.9583
 * Nation Age: +0 [Old Nation]
 * Population: +8 + 2 [Population Modifier] = +10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Military Strength (Troops): 300,000/200,000 = 1.5 ~ +2

Defender: Nubia
Total: 47
 * Location: 25+
 * Tactical Advantage: +2
 * Nations: Nubia [L] = 5/1 = +5
 * Military Development: 20/30 = 0.6 ~ +1
 * Military Modifer: 20 - 3 [Smaller Forces], +3 [Moderate Sized Forces] = 20
 * Economic Development:  18/25 = 0.7 ~ +1
 * Economic Bonus: 20 - 2 [Smaller Economy] = 18
 * Infrastructure: +0
 * Expansion: -7
 * Motive: +9 [Defending Against Fatal Attack]
 * Modifer: +4 [Non-Demo] -5 [Low Morale] = -1
 * Chance: +9
 * ​Edit Count: 1415
 * UTC: 0*3*4*7 [03:47]
 * Total: 52.8940
 * Nation Age: -5 [Young Nation]
 * Population: +7
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Military Strength (Troops): 200,000/300,000 = 0.6 ~ +1

Result:
((61/(61+47)*2)-1 = 0.1296 or 12.96%

Discussion
And no injustice must be done against Scarlet Outlaw who has suffered enough. RexImperio (talk) 16:56, January 23, 2015 (UTC)

1) You don't get anything if you have a lower score in miltiary, economy, or numbers.

2) You make chance a precent (as stated on the rules page)

3) Why do they both have +8 for population? Nubia does not have <10 million, even if you use the inflated numbers.

4) Expansion should be more than -1, at least -7 for 7 years of expansion. I completly forgot that in my algo however.

Now, for population. Looking at OTL numbers for the region, I estimated Nubia's pop to be around 2-3 million. Now, Ethopia is roughly 10 million. So, using these numbers, Ehtopia 8+10 while Nubia gets +7. Now if you want to use Viva's numbers, which are based off of the idea that Eygpt has/had 20 million people, Nubia has 7 million while Ehtopia has 35 million. Both of those could be dead wrong but their is no way that Nubia has more then 10 milllion. This is Edge, He is a cool guy when he isn't too lazy to sign his real sig. Hit him up. 19:45, January 23, 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) From literally all the algos I have done, numbers like 0.5 and above do get rounded to +1.
 * 2) Why did you round Scars chance? Chance is never rounded about. From what I saw, it was a blatant attempt to avoid giving Scar his +9 which he deserved
 * 3) Yeah that's a mistake. Scar gets +7
 * 4) Has Scar expanded continually for 7 years? If so, then make it -7
 * 5) I believe Ethiopia has 10 mil while Nubia has 3 mil. Now you got +2 because 10 mil is less than 5 times of 3 mil which is 15 mil. You're trying to give yourself +10 in Pop Bonus but 10 mil isn't 5-10 times of 3 Mil. RexImperio (talk) 06:34, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

Nehilaw et al. (Attacker)
Total: 149
 * Location: Avg. +18
 * Tactical Advantage: +5
 * Nations: Nehilaw (L), North Ojibwe (LV), Chisasibi(LV), Gojijiwininag (LV), Nipissing (LV), Mackinac (LV), Odawa (LV) =  +7 - 3 (Leading vassals) = +4
 * Military Development: Nehilaw (L) +20, North Ojibwe (LV)+20, Chisasibi(LV)+20, Gojijiwininag (LV)+20, Nipissing (LV)+20, Mackinac (LV)+20, Odawa (LV)+20 =  140/7 = 20
 * Military mods: +10 (Hasn’t lost any of previous 3 wars), +10 (Naval dominance),+5 (More Total Troops),+5 (Nation fully mobilized)
 * Economic Development: Nehilaw (L) +20, North Ojibwe (LV)+20, Chisasibi(LV)+20, Gojijiwininag (LV)+20, Nipissing (LV)+20, Mackinac (LV)+20, Odawa (LV)+20 = 140/7 = 20
 * Economic mods: +5 (Larger economy), +5 (Larger trade)
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: +5, +5, +5, +5, +5,+5, +5 = +35/7= +5
 * Motive Modifiers: +4
 * Chance: x/y*pi = 216.8642 = +4
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: +8 +10 = +18
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 25,000/5000 = +5
 * Number of Ships= 8/0 = +8
 * Recent Wars: -2

Winnebago(Defender)

 * Location: 25
 * Location Bonus:+0
 * Tactical Advantage: 2
 * Nations: Winnebago (L) = +5
 * Military Development: 7 = 0
 * Military Modifiers = -10, -2
 * Economic Development: 7  = 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: +7 = +7
 * Motive: +5
 * Motive Modifiers: +4
 * Chance: x/y*pi = 216.8642 = +2
 * Nation Age:= 0
 * Population: +6
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: + 5000/25000= 0
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0
 * Total: 50

Results
((149/(50+149))*2)-1 = 0.49748743718 (0.49748743718 )*(1-1/(2 x 1)) = 0.24874371859 Winnebago die after two years.

Nehilaw et al. (Attacker)
Total: 145
 * Location: Avg. +18
 * Tactical Advantage: +5
 * Nations: Nehilaw (L), North Ojibwe (LV), Chisasibi(LV), Gojijiwininag (LV), Nipissing (LV), Mackinac (LV), Odawa (LV) =  +7 - 3 (Leading vassals) = +4
 * Military Development: Nehilaw (L) +20, North Ojibwe (LV)+20, Chisasibi(LV)+20, Gojijiwininag (LV)+20, Nipissing (LV)+20, Mackinac (LV)+20, Odawa (LV)+20 =  140/7 = 20
 * Military mods: +10 (Hasn’t lost any of previous 3 wars), +10 (Naval dominance),+5 (More Total Troops),+5 (Nation fully mobilized)
 * Economic Development: Nehilaw (L) +20, North Ojibwe (LV)+20, Chisasibi(LV)+20, Gojijiwininag (LV)+20, Nipissing (LV)+20, Mackinac (LV)+20, Odawa (LV)+20 = 140/7 = 20
 * Economic mods: +5 (Larger economy), +5 (Larger trade)
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: +5, +5, +5, +5, +5,+5, +5 = +35/7= +5
 * Motive Modifiers: +4
 * Chance: x/y*pi = 201.97322 = +2
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: +8 +10 = +18
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 25,000/5000 = +5
 * Number of Ships= 8/0 = +8
 * Recent Wars: -4

Menominee(Defender)

 * Location: 25
 * Location Bonus:+0
 * Tactical Advantage: 2
 * Nations: Winnebago (L) = +5
 * Military Development: 7 = 0
 * Military Modifiers = -10, -2
 * Economic Development: 7  = 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: +7 = +7
 * Motive: +5
 * Motive Modifiers: +4
 * Chance: x/y*pi = 216.97322 = +2
 * Nation Age:= 0
 * Population: +6
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: + 5000/25000= 0
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0
 * Total: 52

Results
((145/(52+149))*2)-1 = 0.47 (0.47)*(1-1/(2 x 1)) = 0.34 Menominee die after two years.

Discussion
These are a work in progress...

Dumb question
I'm sorry, but why doesn't any of the colonies seem to expand when the map is updated? In fact, the last couple of map updates seem to have been very minor. Nathan1123 (talk) 19:29, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

That's a very good question, tbh. Either you have to pester the mods to update the colonies for you, or ask permission from a mod yourself. I'd do the latter, and make sure your expansion is correct, and for you, I'd say that expansion can be either 1000 to 2000 sq km, depending on how old your colony is and how powerful I, as Bavaria, am.

Check with the mods to see how much you can expand. Of course, New Austria is newly annexed by Bavaria, but the land in which it rests on has been an older Spanish colony stretching back to the dawn of the 17th century. Ask a bunch of mods to judge how old New Austria is, whether they judge by recent annexation, or European annexation in general.

Another thing to note is the power of your mother nation, which is Bavaria. I'd say I'm a major nation, and thus, I'm able to expand New Bavaria by 2000 sq km per turn. You, if we all agree you occupy an old colony, can indeed expand by 2000 sq km as well. If any or multiple mods say that you're a new colony, that number will drop down to 1000 sq km.

Anyways, ask the mods, and if you have trouble updating the map, pester the mods further lol.

Cookiedamage (talk) 19:46, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

I'd say you need to treat New Austria as if it was created after the war with Spain. That is when the Bavarian settlements began, and the Bavarian government was put in place. Also remember that before that the area was relatively low population (to the point where part of it was even made into wilderness), so you're essentially starting from scratch. Mscoree (talk) 21:25, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

Croatia and co.

 * Location: +20
 * Nations: Croatia, Silesia, Czechia = 5
 * Advantage: 1
 * Military: 12+10+5=27/17 = 2
 * Economy: 18+10+5=33/18 = 2
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Chance :
 * Motive: 6+3+3+4+4+4-5/3=6
 * Population: 8+2
 * Nation Age: -10
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: -8
 * Troops: 150,000/100,000=2
 * Total: 40

Poland

 * Location: 25
 * Nations: Poland 5
 * Advantage: 2 (defender)
 * Military: 20-3 = 0
 * Economy: 20-2 = 0
 * Infrastructure: 10
 * Chance:
 * Motive: 9
 * Modifiers: +4 (Non. demo), -5 Low Morale
 * Population: 8
 * Nation age: -10
 * Participation: +10
 * Troops: 100,000
 * Total: 58

Result
I think this is obvious.

Japan
Total: 101
 * Location: +10
 * Location Bonus: +2
 * Tactical Advantage: +6
 * Nations:  Japan [L] = +5
 * Military Development: 16+23/13= 3
 * Military Modifer: 10 (Naval dominance) + 5 [Fully Mobilized], +3 [Moderately Sized Forces], +5 [More Total Troops] = 13
 * Economic Development: = 16+15/8 = 4
 * Economic Bonus: + 10[Much Larger Economy], +5 [Larger Colonial Empire], = 15
 * Expansion:  0
 * Motive: +6 [Reclaiming lost lands]
 * Modifer: +4 [Non-demo Nation] +5 (Morale) -5 (Guerilla war)
 * Chance: 0
 * Nation Age:  +5
 * Population: +8 + 20 [Population Modifier] = +28
 * Recent Wars:  -2 (Yue War)
 * Military Strengh (Troops): 30,000/1,500 = +20
 * Puppets and Vassals: [Not Needed]
 * Participation: +10

Kiamigutai
Total: 55*1.5 = 83
 * Location: +25
 * Location Bonus: +0
 * Tactical Advantage:  +1 [High Ground], +3 [Unconventional Warfare] = +4
 * Nations: Kiamigutai [L] = +5
 * Military Development: 13/23 = +0
 * Military Modifer: 16 - 3 [Smaller Forces] = 13
 * Economic Development: 8/28 = +0
 * Economic Bonus: 10 - 2 [Smaller Economy] = 8
 * Infrastructure: +7
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +9 [Defending Against Fatal Attack]
 * Modifer: +4 [Non-Demo] +1 (Guerrila War)
 * Chance: 0
 * Nation Age: -10 [Newly Formed]
 * Population:  +5
 * Recent Wars:  -0
 * Military Strengh (Troops): 1,500/30,000 = +0
 * Puppets and Vassals: [Not Needed]
 * Participation: +10

Result:
(101/(101+83))*2-1=0.097826086

Discussion:
Look above. Saturn120 (Talk/Blog) 03:02, January 25, 2015 (UTC)

Nope, it's a popular revolt, you need 33% to put down a popular revolt. SkyGreen24 09:04, January 25, 2015 (UTC)

Do I need 33% to put down my Lanzhou Revolt? RexImperio (talk) 11:07, January 25, 2015 (UTC)

No, the event doesn't state it's popular. Don't worry, if a revolt is popular it will be stated in the event. However since I've made yours a bit different, unless you win 33% you won't have a chance at getting any Jin land. So, everything below 33% means you reclaim Lanzhou, above means you not only reclaim Lanzhou but also get Jin. SkyGreen24 16:17, January 25, 2015 (UTC)

Attacker: Great Manchu Empire
Total: 84
 * Location: +20
 * Location Bonus: +0
 * Tactical Advantage: +6
 * Nations: Great Manchu Empire [L], Lanzhou Loyalists [L], Shangjingkou  [LV], Uighur Khanate [LV], Kingdom of Shijiazuang [LV] = 14/4 = 3.8 ~ +4
 * Military Development: 123/34 = 3.6 ~ +3
 * Military Modifer: 100 + 5 [Fully Mobilized], +3 [Moderately Sized Forces], +5 [More Total Troops] +10 [Has Not Lost Prev 3 Wars] = 123
 * Economic Development: 112/31 = 3.6 ~ +4
 * Economic Bonus: 100 + 10 [Much Larger Economy], +5 [Larger Trade], -3 [Receding Econony] = 112
 * Expansion:  0
 * Motive: +6 [Average]
 * Establish Hegemony: +7
 * Taking Back Recently Held Territory: +6
 * Taking Back Recently Held Territory: +6
 * Taking Back Recently Held Territory: +6
 * Modifer: +4 [Non-Demo], +6 [High Morale] = +10
 * Chance: +6
 * ​Edit Count: 931
 * UTC: 0*9*5*1 [09:51]
 * Total: 64.963
 * Nation Age: +5 [Mature Nation]
 * Population: +8 + 20 [Population Modifier] = +28
 * Military Strength (Troops): 360,000/150,000 = 2.4 ~ +2
 * Recent Wars: -4

Defender: Xi'an Kingdom and Jin Empire
Total: 54
 * Location: 25+
 * Location Bonus: +1
 * Tactical Advantage: +1
 * Nations: Xi'an Kingdom [L], Jin Empire [L] = 10/2 = +5
 * Military Development: 34/123 = 0.2 ~ 0
 * Military Modifer: 36 - 5 [Much Smaller Forces], +3 [Moderate Sized Forces] = 34
 * Economic Development: 31/112 = 0.2 ~ 0
 * Economic Bonus: 36 - 2 [Smaller Economy], -3 [Receeding Economy] = 31
 * Infrastructure: +14
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +9 [Defending Against Fatal Attack]
 * Modifer: +4 [Non-Demo], -5 [Low Morale] = -1
 * Chance: +3
 * ​Edit Count: 931
 * UTC: 0*9*5*1 [09:51]
 * Total: 64.963
 * Nation Age: -10 [Newborn Nation]
 * Population: +8
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Military Strength (Troops): 150,000/360,000 = 0.4 ~ 0

Result:
((84/(84+54)*2)-1 = 0.2173 or 21.73%

'Stuff happens. Lanzhou falls and is incorporated into Kingdom of Shijiazuang. Jin lives. '

Discussion
Hmph... RexImperio (talk) 17:02, January 25, 2015 (UTC)