Talk:Principia Moderni III/Archive 3

Yemen (Attacker)

 * Location: 15
 * Tactical Advantage : 1
 * Nations: Yemen (L): 4/4 = 1
 * Military: 14/14=1
 * Economy: 10/10=1
 * Infrastructure: NA
 * Chance: 2
 * Edit Count: 777
 * UTC time: 12:40=8
 * Chance: 777/7*pi=305.127186
 * Expansion: -5
 * Motive: 3
 * Age: -5
 * Recent Wars: -1
 * Participation: 10
 * Population: 7
 * Vassals & Puppets: *1.25
 * 30*1.25=37.5

Mamluk Sultanate (Defender)

 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage : 5
 * Nations: Mamluks (L): 4/4 = 1
 * Military: 14/14=1 
 * Economy: 10/10=1+5=6
 * Infrastructure: 6
 * Chance: 2
 * Edit Count: 3969
 * UTC time: 12:40=8
 * Chance: 3969/7*pi = = 1558.62266
 * Expansion: -3
 * Motive: 8 (Defend) + 4 (Sipported Gov) +5 (High Morale) = 17
 * Age: 5
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Participation: 10
 * Population: 8+10 = 18
 * Vassals & Puppets: *1.25
 * 87*1.25=108.75

Results
If results stand, the defending Mamlukean army can overthrow the Yemeni government in 2 years. (I have yet to decide what to do with Will. I may just repulse the attack and not carry on.)
 * ((y/(z+y))*2)-1*(1-1/(2x))
 * ((137.5/(37.5+137.5))*2)-1*(1-1/(2x))
 * 0.5714*(1-1/(2(2))
 * 0.4286

Discussion
Yeah for the sake of not killing people off and the sanity of the middle east not becomming the way the HRE and central europe was, you maintained your honor, you drove them off, i dont see any reason to carry on really.

Yes I agree with Feudal.

01:42, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

Can I switch my nation to Cyprus
Oct is threatening mp about killing his nation and stuff and it is getting stupid and annoying. If I can switch my nation to Cyprus then I can stop this and oct can get banned out of the game. - Shadow

What in hell are you trying to say? Oct is trying to kill MP's nation so you want to switch to Cyprus so that Oct will be banned? How does that sequence of event even occur?

17:50, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

I believe Genoa was conquered, Oct is playing as a government in exile in Cyprus at the moment, and now he wants to switch to Cyprus itself. Yawgmoth, Lord of the Wastes

Oct is to implausable and wants to take out mp who is a very good map game player. So by me switching my nation I can kick oct of getting the nation he wants. - Shadow

That's umm, no, that's not fair to Oct. Also, you already have a nation.

20:54, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

I want to switch my nation. - Shadow

Nooooooooooo. I keep telling you this.

23:08, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

Wow shadow spreading rumors to switch nations, if I was LG I would be like "Two Weeks to think about it". Than ban you. OCT MARIUS, HAIL HIM

Florence

 * Location: 20
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations: Florence (L), Siena (LV), Pisa (LV), Modena (LV), Sovana (MV), Roman Empire (L), Naples (L), Swiss Con (L) = 28/19= 1
 * Military: 78/50= 1
 * Florence: 14
 * Siena: 10
 * Pisa: 8
 * Modena: 4
 * Sovana: 0
 * Roman Empire:14
 * Naples:14
 * Swiss con: 14
 * Total: 78
 * Economy: 78/52= 1
 * Florence: 14
 * Siena: 10
 * Pisa: 8
 * Modena: 4
 * Sovana: 0
 * Roman Empire:14
 * Naples:14
 * Swiss Con: 14
 * Total: 78
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: (Aiding Social/Moral/Ideological/Religious Kinsmen who are being oppressed): + 7 x 8= 56
 * Chance: (2931/15)*pi= 613.8 6 2= 6
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 10
 * Participation: 10
 * Wars: 0
 * Vassals/Puppets: -4
 * Result: 102

Savoy

 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage: 0
 * Nations: Savoy (L) Piombino (MV) Dodecanese (MV) Provence (L) Anjou (MV), Avignon (S) = 16/24= 0
 * Military: 50/64= 0
 * Savoy: 10
 * Piombino: 8
 * Dodecanese: 4
 * Provence: 14
 * Anjou: 14
 * Avignon: 0
 * Total: 50
 * Economy: 52/64= 0
 * Savoy: 12
 * Piombino: 8
 * Dodecanese: 4
 * Provence: 14
 * Anjou: 14
 * Avignon: 0
 * Total: 52
 * Expansion: -1
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: (Defending Core/heartland from possibly fatal attack) 9 + (aiding ally) 5 = 14
 * Chance:(53/15)*pi= 11.099966 = 9
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 10
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Vassals: -3
 * Result: 65

Results

 * ((y/(z+y))*2)-1*(1-1/(2x))
 * ((102/(65+102))*2)-1*(1-1/(2x))
 * 0.22155*(1-1/(2(2))
 * 0.165 = 16.5% = 16.5%

Discussion
Corrected the algorythm.Just because you can say you update military and economy in a same turn, does not mean that both will be counted in the algorythm.either one counts or the other.The motive was also done wrong.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 19:24, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

Algo needs to be updated following the entry of the Swiss into the war. "This is not your grave   but you are welcome in it. " 19:35, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

add me in too. Spartian300 (talk) 20:42, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

Ok, since the war appears to be concluded, unless others join in, let us now begin the treaty provisions of the war. Any objections? "This is not your grave   but you are welcome in it. " 23:12, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

Fine by me Quashi (talk) 23:25, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

Roman Proposal: Other proposals will be considered. If this is too harsh (and I know it can be), let me know proposed changes.
 * Savoy shall yield the Duchy of the Dodecanese to the Roman Empire.
 * Savoy shall yield the Duchy of Piombino to Naples.
 * Savoy shall cease any and all claims on Cyprus or Montferrat, and also Savoyard influence shall not pass into Greece or the Eastern Med.
 * Savoy will not imped Neapolitan diplomats or donations to other nations, save for those that enter Savoyard territory.
 * Savoy will turn over its trade fleet to Naples, its military fleet to the Roman Empire.
 * Savoy will turn over Swiss land to the Confederacy.
 * Florence will receive reparations for damages in the war. Small amounts of territory can also be ceded to Florence, in a way that Florence and Savoy can jointly decide.
 * There will be a 15 year truce between all signers of this treaty.

"This is not your grave   but you are welcome in it. " 23:54, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

I feel like I got ripped off bit time in my own war. CrimsonAssassin- I have special eyes 00:47, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

I hate to point out this fact, Crimson, but our victory was not total, and without our help, you would have lost. If you want, I can transfer their naval fleet to you, unless Naples objects. "This is not your grave   but you are welcome in it. " 01:14, February 16, 2014 (UTC)


 * The algorithm had been botched. I would have won. Banner_of_the_Holy_Roman_Emperor_with_haloes_(1400-1806).svg Labarum.jpg CrimsonAssassin- I have special eyes 05:50, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

I agree with all Quashi (talk) 00:19, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

None of his vassals would technically be leaders unless he stated that they were leaders in the game. This point was made very clear last game. CrimsonAssassin- I have special eyes 01:06, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

I will accept the Roman proposal if all of you give me a 15 years truce. --Zengu (talk) 04:14, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah, knew I was forgetting something. That was part of it. Done deal then. "This is not your grave   but you are welcome in it. " 05:02, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Done Quashi (talk) 05:10, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Naples

 * Location: 20
 * Tactical Advantage: 2
 * Nations: Naples (L), Genoa (LV), Corsica (LV), Mantua (LV), Ferrara (LV), Zeta (LV) = 19/4 = 4.75 = 5
 * Military: 74/12= 6
 * Naples: 14
 * Genoa: 10
 * Corsica: 10
 * Mantua: 14
 * Ferrara: 14
 * Zeta: 12
 * Total: 74
 * Economy: 74/12= 6
 * Naples: 14
 * Genoa: 10
 * Corsica: 10
 * Mantua: 14
 * Ferrara: 14
 * Zeta: 12
 * Total: 74
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: (Aiding Social/Moral/Ideological/Religious Kinsmen who are being oppressed): + 7 x 5 +  (troop morale) 5 x 5= 35 + 25 = 60
 * Chance: (392/64)*pi=19.241 = 4
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 10
 * Participation: 10
 * Wars: -1
 * Vassals/Puppets: -5
 * Result: 117

Rome

 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage: 0
 * Nations: Rome (L) 4/19 = 0
 * Military: 12/74= 0
 * Economy: 12/74= 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: (Defending Core/heartland from possibly fatal attack) 9 (troops morale) - 10 = -1
 * Chance:(428/64)*pi=21.008 = 0
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Population: 6
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals: 0
 * Result: 35

Results

 * ((y/(z+y))*2)-1*(1-1/(2x))
 * ((117/(35+117))*2)-1*(1-1/(2x))
 * 0.769736*(1-1/(2(1))
 * 0.38 = 38%

Discussion
After 1 year of war, the Pope is held in the Vatican City and forced to abdicate his position. Thus begins the search for a new Pope who is at the level of the post, and to bring all believers to a new church. Quashi (talk) 22:01, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

With the pope(s) deposed, I hope that we can meet at the Council of Constance and elect a sole one. Mscoree (talk) 22:06, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

Exactly Quashi (talk) 22:16, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

You're forgetting the vassals of the Papal States, who will undoubtedly help their master. CrimsonAssassin - I have special eyes 00:37, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

This seems flawed to me. Also, ShadowKnight is Naples right? I think he is doing this cause he hates me.Spartian300 (talk) 08:57, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

No, the last turn he annex all his vassals, so is only Rome Quashi (talk) 00:48, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Solution to the Russian Question.
Why you Don't Bring a Razor to a Guns Fight

Russia (Attacker)
Total: 39*1.25 ~ 48.75 ~ 49
 * Location: 15
 * Muscovy: 10
 * Novgorod: 20
 * Tver: 10
 * Pskov: 20
 * Tactical Advantage: 1 (attacker)
 * Nations: Muscovy (L) Novgorod (L), Tver (L), Pskov (L), Ukraine (MV), Pereslavl-Ryazanski (MV) = 20 + 4/6, 20.66/7 ~ 2.9 ~ 3
 * Military Development: 36/14 ~ 2.5 ~ 3
 * Muscovy: 11
 * Novgorod: 13
 * Pskov: 6
 * Tver: 6
 * Economic Development: 40/14 ~  2.8 ~ 3
 * Muscovy: 8
 * Novgorod: 10
 * Pskov: 14
 * Tver: 8
 * Expansion: -8
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 11 (Econ, Support, morale)
 * Chance: 9
 * Edit count: 453
 * UTC: 11:13= 6
 * Total: 453/6*(3.14159265359) = 237.190245346
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Muscovy: Maturing, 0
 * Novgorod: Maturing, 0
 * Pskov: 0
 * Tver: 0
 * Population: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: -6
 * Moscovy: -4
 * Novgorod: -2
 * Vassals and Puppets: 41-2 (Ukraine, Ryazan)*1.25

Golden Horde (Previously UNC) (Defender)
Total: 62
 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage: 2 (capital)
 * Nations: UNC (LW), Golden Horde (L), Schleswig (MVW) Holstein (MVW)  Perm (MV) Bremen (MVW) Lubeck (MVW) = 7 + 0
 * Military Development: 14, 0
 * G-H: 14
 * Economic Development: 14, 0
 * G-H: 14
 * Expansion: -6
 * Infrastructure: 8
 * Motive: 8 (Defending heartland)
 * Chance: 6
 * Edit count: 6804
 * UTC: 11:13 = 6
 * Total: 6804/6*(3.14159265359) = 3562.56606917
 * Nation Age: 5
 * G-H: 5 (mature)
 * Population: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Vassals and Puppets: -1 (Great Perm)

Result
((62/(49+62))*2)-1 = 0.11711711711

(0.11711711711)*(1-1/(2(6)) = 0.10735735735

Discussion
The UNC will take 15% of Novgorod, including the city itself.

The G-H will take 5% of Muscovy.

PEACE I'M OUT I'M GUNS

23:23, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

No. Guns, you can't just decide unileteraly that you dont like that Russia is fighthing against you and you are now loosing, so you decide to delete them and post them on another algorithm. THat is not how life works. be of going away now, you are not fighting with the golden horde, they are fighting their own war, not yours, you have nothing to do with the G-H, and you cannot just remove them from the algorithm because you want to win. This is very infantile behavior-Lx (leave me a message) 23:55, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

It was actually decided by the moderators that there would be different algorithms for each region, sort of like different theatres of battles, for plausibility reasons. They are all basically part of the same war, just divided into certain areas. I will work to fix this algorithm. Mscoree (talk) 04:34, February 16, 2014 (UTC)


 * And we will also let Guns edit. Only to keep it fair. :) [[Image:1.png|23px]] Imp (Say Hi?!) 14:34, February 16, 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course. Mscoree (talk) 14:43, February 16, 2014 (UTC)
 * Added all my vassals. Sorry, forgot to yesterday.
 * Anyway, still a victory. By quite a margin. May I enquire how the fuck Tver is leading in this war?
 * 18:08, February 16, 2014 (UTC)
 * You guys do realize that by doing this you are esentialy giving Guns an advantage because it is like he is not fighting two fronts, and that one has NO impact WHATSOEVER on the other?-Lx (leave me a message)Azarath Flag.png 20:07, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

So nope. So utterly nope.

Anyway, things to fix: Since 2 nations are on the UNC side, the maximum ammount of Development turns counted should be 30(the total should add to 30), there are 13 and 9 in military and economic, that adds to 22 turns...another 8 for saami expansion...that gets to 30...the maximum...and then you add 7 for infrastructure bringing the total over the limit to 37...Also, we should define "heartland" as I do not believe that Finland, into which Russia is invading the UNC, does not seem like a "heartland". Anyway, pskov was de-facto independant since 1328 anbd even when moscow appointed their Namestnik for like what, one year, the veche still held power, the namestnik was simply the veche did not chose the prince, no real change in the legislative capacity...anyway if that counts as recent change of gov. pskov gets +5, also, why does muscovy and novgorod have odd score is military or economic... since those each turn gives you 2...same with the G-H and UNC scores, they are odd numbers...anyway, TL:DR odd numbers need to be fixed, UNC side development scores need to be fixed(either remove infrastructure or fix the military/economic) and the question: Since there was minimal governement change(in terms of legislative body, the onily change is how the comparatively weak Head of State is chosen) since pskov's de facto independance from Novgorod was in 1328, does 1328(instead of the treaty that formaly recognized and granted Pskov de jure aswell as de facto indpependance in 1348?) count as "Governement change" therefore granting pskov a +5 in age.-Lx (leave me a message) 01:14, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

I have just found out today that I'm still in the war with the Golden Horde in this algo. However, I have also noticed that the UNC has collapsed and is in a civil war (Denmark and Norway vs Sweden). Due to their domestic issues, should the UNC be taken out of the algo? I am only asking moderators and players not affiliated in the war due to keep out bias opinions. Toţi în unu; Nihil Sine Deo

Yea for the sake of it all the UNC did collapse and there really isnt any way for them to continue a war as i bet the unified army started killing eachother or would be more worried about going home to their respective countries. Just my two cents but seriously most nations pull out of wars when the collapse.. IE Russian empire in WW1

I agree. The UNC is dead.--Yank 02:26, February 19, 2014 (UTC)

That is how coalition algos work, apparently.

"This is not your grave   but you are welcome in it. " 02:32, February 19, 2014 (UTC)

These are my calculations, correct me if I'm wrong. Fed  (talk)  03:03, February 19, 2014 (UTC)

so what does any of this actualy mean? and does Russia get to take UNC/Swedish/Danish/Norwegian territory, considering that Russia started fighting them in the first place?-Lx (leave me a message) 04:44, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

Kono confussion
The daimyo of Kono dies, and his daughter, who is married to the Hosokawa ruler, is forced to give her lands to her husband, merging the two Daimyos under the Hosokawa.

This is what the mod event states, yet Kono is a vassal according to the nations list.

Kono (Vassal of Hosokawa)

I'm not sure if this is correct, maybe I'm wrong. But I think I'm literally controlling Kono, why can't I integrate into my daimyo?

Don't forget to sign your posts.

Normally, it would take ten turns for a vassal to merge with its liege nation. If this is in fact what the mod event says, and the Kono Daimyo has no heirs, then I guess it wouldn't be too far fetched of an idea.

"This is not your grave   but you are welcome in it. " 15:25, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Ulster (Attacker)
Total: 46.25
 * Location: 20
 * Tactical Advantage: Attackers Advantage +1, Capital is in a central region in your nation +2, = 3
 * Nations on Side of War: Ulster (L), Munster (S), England (S) Wales (S) =
 * Military Development: 15/5=3
 * Economic Development: 15/5=3
 * Expansion: -10
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: Taking territory of similar culture but not part of nation: + 5
 * Non-democratic Government supported by people: + 4
 * Chance: 0
 * Edit count: 1440
 * UTC: 0 (0) =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: -10
 * Population: +5, +2 = 7
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 37*1.25

Breifne (Defender)
Total: 37.5
 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage: +1
 * Nations: Breifne (L) = 4, 0
 * Military Development: +5. 0
 * Economic Development: +5,0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: +9
 * Chance: 0
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 (0) =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: -15
 * Population: +
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 30*1.25

Result

 * ((71/(125))*2)-1 = 0.136
 * (13.6)*(1-1/(2*2)) = 6.8

Discussion
Probably wrong. Can someone fix it?

We are all union members so wales, England and Desmond should be thereBowties are Cool (talk) 20:34, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Munster (Attacker)
Total: 111
 * Location: 20
 * Tactical Advantage: Attackers Advantage +1, Capital is in a central region in your nation +2, = 3
 * Nations on Side of War: Munster (L), Ulster (S), England (S) = 8
 * Military Development: +8
 * Economic Development: +18
 * Expansion: +0
 * Infrastructure: +1
 * Motive: Taking territory of similar culture but not part of nation: + 5, Economic +3
 * Non-democratic Government supported by people: + 4
 * Troop Morale High + 5
 * Results=17
 * Chance:
 * Edit count= 960
 * nonzero digit in time*nonzero digit in time=18 (10:36 UTC)
 * 960/18*PI= 167.5 5 1608191
 * Chance= +5
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Population: +5, +2 = 7
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: -1
 * Vassals and Puppets: *1.25

Thomond (Defender)
Total: 85
 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage: 2 (Capital in Central Region)
 * Nations: Thomond (L) = 4
 * Military Development: +8
 * Economic Development: +10
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: +5
 * Motive: +9 (Defending heartland from possibly fatal attack)
 * Non-Dem government supported by people +4
 * Troop Morale low -5
 * Total: +8
 * Chance:
 * Edit count= 960
 * nonzero digit in time*nonzero digit in time=18 (10:36 UTC)
 * 960/18*PI= 167.55 1 608191
 * Chance= 1
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Population: +0
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: *1.25

Result
((111/(85+111))*2)-1=0.13265306122

(0.13265306122)*(1-1/(2*4))

0.11607142856

Discussion
Finished! Finally! Need a mod to review it. Yawgmoth, Lord of the Wastes

MS is killing PM3
Thanks to the delusions of grandeur from one MScoree PM3 is going the way of the dodo quicker than PM2, proving that the worst enemy to map games is a corrupt mod.
 * 1) He clearly uses his position as a mod and player to galvanise his nations grip on the HRE and is doing ASB things to try and ensure it is his own little kingdom to rule.
 * 2) He is manipulating algorithms and is making the war with the UNC and its allies and their allies (that's where I come in) biased in his favour all because he is terrified of losing. The whole splitting up the algorithm defeats the point of coalition wars and is coming across (whether it originally was intended or not) as a way for MS to have the HRE fight with their full power three different groups of opponents.
 * 3) He is deliberately manipulating people, telling people lies and making promises he can't keep and is even threatening people. I've been told he has threatened new players such as the player of the Swiss Confederacy.

He has even stooped so low as to force a unification event on the player of Bayern-Landshut (who didn't want nor agree to it but now clearly feel stuck), which is completely ASB, to weaken the UNC side in the coalition war.

All these three things are harming the game. They are harming what should be a map game with minimal conflict, they are harming the community of the map game and just making people argue and they are harming the reputation of moderation concerning the map game. Of course some people are going to have a breakdown over certain things that happen but what is currently happening is threatening to kill PM3 in its crib or severely cripple it into the future.

MS must be removed as a mod. Final. End of.

Giving him a chance has already been done and he has continued to abuse powers.

If there are any mods out there I suggest you deal with this before it really does implode. Kunarian TALK 17:49, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

This very turn we just had a moderator event that weakened the Holy Roman Empire. I'm not terrified of losing, in fact it is clear that we did not win the algorithm and I am fine with that. The splitting up the algorithm was Fed's idea, and agreed upon by several moderators and a bunch of other people. It is done for plausibility since in the early 1400's it makes no sense to have a giant multi-alliance coalition war. Venice has no relations with Scandinavia, except that they are co-belligerents, and so on. It should also be noted that me or the HRE is not even in all of the algorithms, so it' not like we're just dividing one side, but rather we are dividing everyone into a specific theatre of war. Whether or not I'm manipulating people in game is kind of irrelevant since in-game kings and rulers will manipulate eachother. It's not like people didn't threaten each other in real life. Also Switzerland and I are allies who are working together, and Dae isn't exactly new here. I didn't write the unification event for Bavaria, Dean did, who has no interest in this area. I was actually the one who contested all of those events and questioned their plausibility. I hope that helped to clear some things up. Mscoree (talk) 18:08, February 16, 2014 (UTC)
 * I seriously doubt that MS, you are not the one to do such things. And justifying being destructive to the game by saying "in-game kings and rulers will manipulate eachother". IN GAME IS VERY DIFFERENT TO OUT OF GAME. Concerning my war that I am part of with Bavaria and the UNC. How come Bavaria can fight a war in the north but I can't? How come Bavaria called me into the war but I have to fight a separate front?  Kunarian TALK 18:34, February 16, 2014 (UTC)
 * I was in the mod page when the event about Bavaria was created.Mscoree wasn't even there when it happened.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 19:31, February 16, 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe you are in two wars currently. Mscoree (talk) 18:36, February 16, 2014 (UTC)
 * No. I am in one, you are trying to manipulate things to be your way however.  Kunarian TALK 19:40, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Splitting up the algo helped us, in a way.

But we won both regardless. 16% in the HRE, undisputed, and 14% in Russia, not yet confirmed.

18:12, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

All the things you mentioned tend to help you more than they help ms. Tr0llis (talk) 18:17, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

For

 * Cour *talk* PMII_Mayan_Flag.pngCaborr_Flag.png 20:48, February 16, 2014 (UTC) Sorry to do this, but it is a constant issue. We can't afford to have this kind of leadership in the game.
 * Banner_of_the_Holy_Roman_Emperor_with_haloes_(1400-1806).svg Labarum.jpg CrimsonAssassin- I have special eyes 21:46, February 16, 2014 (UTC) Ms is a hell of a guy and I want him on the mod team. I really do. However, the amount of times this has come into question makes me believe that he may not necessarily be the right choice at this time. In my opinion, these mod votes should have been based on unanimous decision anyway.
 * Fed  (talk)  14:14, February 17, 2014 (UTC)
 * ~Scraw (Ms, removing votes is cheating, stop)

Against
05:22, February 17, 2014 (UTC)
 * Sims -The Rainbow Machete Piq 28524 400x400.png
 * Scandinator (talk) 05:37, February 17, 2014 (UTC)
 * "This is not your grave   but you are welcome in it. " 17:28, February 22, 2014 (UTC) Make it stop, for the love of god. End the damn feuds.

Abstain
(Meaning you forefit your right to vote)

Discussion
Scraw, you are not a mod, as it states, you are ONLY A MAPMAKER, therefor you may and cannot vote in the mod section of this impeachment. Sims -The Rainbow Machete   05:47, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Crim, you voted twice.i had to remove one of the duplicates.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 07:45, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Whoops. Signed name after the commentary by accident. Thanks for catching that. CrimsonAssassin- I have special eyes 13:33, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Against

 * this is stupid, are you guys that disappointed that you're not world empires?
 * NonEuclidean ツ (Talk) 20:34, February 16, 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Edboy452 [[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|25px|border]] [[Image:Flag of German Reich (1935–1945).svg|25px|border]] [[Image:Flag of Israel.svg|25px|border]] [[Image:Flag of the Soviet Union.svg|25px|border]] (talk) 20:41, February 16, 2014 (UTC)
 * Razor (talk) 20:42, February 16, 2014 (UTC)
 * Tr0llis (talk) 20:46, February 16, 2014 (UTC)
 * Teh Squirrel (talk) 21:11, February 16, 2014 (UTC)
 * Millgy (talk) 21:22, February 16, 2014 (UTC)
 * Mapd00d (talk) 21:31, February 16, 2014 (UTC)
 * SwankyJ (talk) 00:17, March 13, 2014 (UTC)

Abstain?

 * 06:47, February 17, 2014 (UTC)
 * Voting is too mainstream.
 * Local Mafia Boss (Talk) (Blog) I never wanted ms as mod, and all the controversy has been constant from the start, but there is no point voting, as the Msgang dominates. Also, what Rex said.

Discuss
For all the reasons I listed above, plus every other one on this page including practically forcing guns to leave. Kunarian TALK 20:04, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Who is forcing Guns to do anything? You guys are just showing that you people have a vendetta.

Guns beat me in a war, therefore I am forcing him to leave? Mscoree (talk) 20:08, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

I was not aware that player votes had value in these mod impeachments. Either way, I abstain.

Ms, you would not be banned from the game.

"This is not your grave   but you are welcome in it. " 20:21, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Player votes don't count, we just want to see what the general populace thinks. Cour *talk*  20:26, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Is he being impeached because you're mad at him? You realize how childish that sounds, right? NonEuclidean ツ (Talk) 20:34, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Considering this is the third time this issue has come up, it's not just one person. Ms is very polarizing, and it's causing chaos. Cour *talk*  20:36, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Does Euc even play the game?

20:42, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

If he isn't, then he can't vote. Cour *talk*  20:44, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

I play as the Electorate of Trier. NonEuclidean ツ (Talk) 20:48, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Would like to point out that only the Ms gang is opposed to his impeachering..

20:50, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

^^^

At Cour, honestly certain people just hate ms personally. As long as he is a mod, people who dislike him will find reasons to complain, but so far every single one has been resolved. Tr0llis (talk) 20:52, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

^ Totally untrue. Nothing has been resolved.

20:53, February 16, 2014 (UTC)


 * What issue do you have? I'd be happy to resolve it. Mscoree (talk) 20:56, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that every time some one votes similarly to ms and friends the "ms crew" apparently grows. Tr0llis (talk) 20:55, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

It's a coincidence how the entire "Ms crew" voted against impeachment within half an hour of it being posted. Cour *talk*  20:56, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

It's a coincidence that everyone so far against MS voted within a half an hour too. Tr0llis (talk) 20:58, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Because they were, I don't know, on chat at the time? Besides, Ms magically has internet connection back.

20:59, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I just restarted my router and am able to reconnect again. Earlier I was having trouble loading the site.I am not sure about ms but he might be having similar issues. Tr0llis (talk) 21:01, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

I thought Ms was the one having connection problems.Cour *talk*  21:02, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

You just added that last part, distinguishing between you and Ms. What's going on? Cour *talk*  21:05, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

I believe more than one person can have internet connectivity problems. Mscoree (talk) 21:12, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

That's not untrue, but I find it interesting that Euc, speaking as if he were you, had internet problems right after you had them, and then Trollis magically had them while confusing himself with you.

Also, who in hell is Teh Squirrel?

21:14, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

He's a new user who joined on the 11th. No connection that I see. Cour *talk*  21:16, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Things are not looking good.While Kunarian seems to have a personal feud against Ms for some reason, Ms's actions continue instigating controversy, which seems to lead to those feuds, and there is also the sockpuppet issue.i'm not saying that you guys are sockpuppets, but you are acting very suspiciously.The only thing you guys did right now was to reiterate things that Ms has already said, or would say, or try to answer to the suspicions.Nothing was proved last time, but, seriously, you are just attracting suspicion to yourselves and Mscoree by now, notwithstanding the fact that four of you five play as electors of the HRE and you four voted for Austria last election.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 21:39, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Ok, this is insulting. You think I'm a sock puppet of Ms? Do you realize how incredibly ridiculous that sounds?
 * Who said i was talking about you?And i don't remember saying that i think you (Non Euclidean and the last four) are sockpuppets.i'm saying that in light of Mscoree's past accusations of having sockpuppets, you five act in a way that attracts suspicion.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 21:57, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Most of the other players have ignored this section or declined to vote at this point, but the overwhelming majority of those who have voted against. Now why is that? Cour *talk*  22:03, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to note that all those nations voted for my ruler in OTL. Also we're in a skype call right now, as Local, NK, and Crim can vouch for. Mscoree (talk) 22:04, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

And in any case, those votes don't count. The score is currently 2-0 in favor of impeachment.

22:05, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we need an abstain section, since not voting is basically abstaining. Mscoree (talk) 23:50, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

There's a difference. If you vote to abstain, we can have some form of closure, instead of just blatantly not voting. Cour *talk*  23:55, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

The majority of the mod events in the HRE have been done by mods with no connection to it (aka moi). Ms Has done few, if any of the events. In addition he is absolutely correct with the split algorithms, the two fronts are a world away at the time and thus support to one would take months or years from the other. I'm voting against impeachment since Ms contributes heavily on the mod page in discussion and general organisation. Scandinator (talk) 05:37, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

With the insight from Scand, I vote, as a non-mod, who doesn't count for anything, to abstain. I can see both sides of the issue with equal clarity. Ms is definitely alienating me, and I think, people like me who used to be happy to associate with him, by his newfound association with players under 200 edits who claim to be IRL friends. I am curious - does Ms have any of your accounts' passwords?

I also think Ms is a constant source of controversy and that a great deal of this could be avoided should Ms be relegated to just an important nation. I have said it before, and I'll say it again: Important Players should not be Important Mods. A great example of this would be Collie, who is (almost) always neutral. Another would be Scand, who, while controlling powerful states, is unbiased in most all situations. These are players who have moved beyond conquest. Ms wants to unite the HRE, which is an admirable goal, but would place a great deal of possible God-Modding (which NotLAH was infamous for, in the later years) in his hands.

Now, with all that being said, I am abstaining not because I think Ms should remain as a mod, but because I lack all information. Being a regular player w/o access to the mod page, I cannot comment on the level of activity Ms has put forward to make the game better. I can only imagine he has worked hours to better the game in just the first two or so weeks. As a result of an innate respect for most authority, and a lack of complete understanding, which Scand brought up, I hereby abstain. I would urge all non-mod players to do the same, seeing as we lack all vital knowledge which could make a difference. 06:47, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Just to reiterate, the Player Vote is meaningless, right? Local Mafia Boss (Talk) (Blog)
 * Yes.  Kunarian TALK 23:03, February 18, 2014 (UTC)


 * At this point, I would like to state that this impeachment has failed, as it has only garnered a 60% majority, not the 66.6% supermajority required by the rules.\
 * 23:24, February 18, 2014 (UTC)
 * Never the less, the point is made clear. MS MUST be clear and transparent in his actions as mod and should directly avoid further mishaps by large margins. Otherwise I do not think next time he shall have such a close shave.  Kunarian TALK 23:31, February 18, 2014 (UTC)
 * So can we close this vote for good then? Mscoree (talk) 15:06, February 22, 2014 (UTC)
 * Not over until this is resolved Local Mafia Boss (Talk) (Blog)

Can I point out that the vote is not even close to being over. Most of the Mods have not voted, they either need to vote, or abstain, I think. Also, why does it need a supermajority? A majority of the voting Mods are against him. Shouldn't that be enough? Local Mafia Boss (Talk) (Blog)

We have already had the Scraw discussion, further down the page. Local Mafia Boss (Talk) (Blog)

Ms and his total Bull
I'm done. I can't deal with his metagaming anymore. Fuck him, and fuck this game. As Oscar Wilde said, either he goes or I do.

19:52, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Guns we still have 600 years to go. Plenty of time to achieve greatness. Maybe you didn't collapse all of Germany yet, but you still have plenty of time to do so. You don't have to conquer the whole world in a day. You won the war, and be happy about that. Mscoree (talk) 20:11, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Ms, could you please stop acting like you had nothing to do with this? It's not that he won; it's how he won, and tbh, you kind of screwed around a bit,

20:13, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

A bit, my a$$. You're worse than the Caliphate. In 15 days you did what it took the combined efforts of the entire Caliphate over 100.

20:14, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Ms, it's not your fault. Let me put it this way.

All this game has caused is never-ending arguments that make this wiki a nightmare, for me at least.

And since I'm the one who always calls your bullshit, I'm the one who gets flagged as "Anti-Ms", I get flagged as an a$$hole, and I don't want that. Nor do I want to be involved in continual arguments. I use this wiki as a place to relax is free time; having a screaming match with you is not my idea of relaxing.

If I stay here, I will end up calling your BS, so fuck this. I'm done. I'm out of the game and I don't want to argue with you or anyone else over this.

Call me selfish, call me childish, I don't care. I'm done with you, and I'm done with this fucking map game.

20:33, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I'm the caliphate, given I haven't expanded at all through war (with algorithms) at all. Also I'm the one who can't even go on chat with out having to deal with all caps yelling cursing at me. If you don't want to be flagged as "Anti-MS" then don't make things like this section where you literally say "Fuck him" and " either he goes or I do". Why can't we just end the war. Relax man. (MS asked me to post that) NonEuclidean ツ (Talk) 20:38, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Why is Ms speak though Euc?

20:40, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to add the thing at the end. MS is apparently having connection problems and asked me to post for him. NonEuclidean ツ (Talk) 20:44, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Mm.

20:50, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Scraw, I think we have already proved that they are not sockpuppets. maybe NE left his account logged in on a computer and Ms edited it? Or maybe NE was telling the truth? Now is not the time for insinuations, methinks.

BYE BYE GUNS, GTFO! Sims -The Rainbow Machete   05:26, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

And here we see a shining example of the species known as Optmius maximus modimus or Mod the Best and Greatest.

05:31, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Oh do shut up. This is more of a Guns vs Dean issue, not one which concerns mod powers, just as you and I dont get along. Personally i think you are both so up in your own little egos that you cant stand to lose, no matter if in real life or in a petty little map game such as this. If PM3 dies, its becasue of the likes of you. Sims -The Rainbow Machete   05:36, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Going to warn you once guys - cut the behavior out. Lordganon (talk) 05:50, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Cr*p, I didn't see this. I'm done then. Last comment at the end of this page was posed when I didn't see this. I'll leave it there for reference.

05:52, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Dean, you are not helping. Furthermore, I would like to take a chance to defend Scraw. He lost his nation in PM2, and what did he do? He rebuilt. That is more than what I can say about you, after losing your Turkish state. (Ironically, both of you betrayed me, and then were betrayed within 2 weeks). Anyhow, Guns won the war, but was forced into a massive loss via the Treaty of Danzig.

Calling either of them poor losers is not only a personal attack, but also untrue. 06:57, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Guns won the war by 1% then agreed to a treaty that was basically white peace, as written by Bavaria (who is on his side), then quit before he had a chance to debate it. I too was destroyed in PM2, at the time a small Atlantic city state of a thousand people, and by Collie of all people. Mscoree (talk) 13:28, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

I can't recall you playing in PMII.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 22:43, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

I played twice. Once as the island nation of Cape Vert that you conquered, and a second time as Nouvelle France. Mscoree (talk) 22:49, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Roman-Neapolitan Coalition (Attacker)
Total: 75*1.25 = 93.75 = 94
 * Location: (15+20)/2=17
 * Tactical Advantage: Attackers Advantage +1, Capital is in a central region in your nation +2, = 3
 * Nations on Side of War: Roman Empire (L), Naples (L) = 8/4= 2 <this should be 4 and shouldn't there be vassals?
 * Military Development: 24/10= 2
 * Roman Empire: 12
 * Naples:12
 * Economic Development: 22/10= 2 <shouldn't this be 28/10 and therefore 3? you round up
 * Roman Empire: 14
 * Naples: 14
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: (Political Hegemony) +7 (Morale) +5 (Supp Gov) +4 (Aiding Ally) +5 (Morale) +5 (Supp Gov) +4 = 30/2 = 15 <you don't divide the motive by the other side either this should be an average of the motives of the Roman Empire and Naples
 * Chance:
 * Edit count= 6128
 * nonzero digit in time*nonzero digit in time=15 (0:35 UTC)
 * 6128/15*PI= 1282.7 9 46666
 * Chance= 9
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Population: 7 + 10 = 17
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: -7
 * Naples: -2 (Morocco), -2 (Genoa), -1 (Savoy), -1 (Rome) = -6
 * Byzantium: -1 (Savoy) = -1
 * Vassals and Puppets: *1.25

Cyprus (Defender)
Total: 81*1.25 = 101.25 = 101
 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage: 4 (Capital in Central Region, High Ground)
 * Nations: Cyprus (L) = 4/8=0 <this should be 4
 * Military Development: 10/30=0
 * Economic Development: 10/30=0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 5
 * Motive:
 * 9 (Defending heartland from possibly fatal attack)
 * Non-Dem government supported by people +4
 * Troop Morale High +5
 * Total: 18
 * Chance:
 * Edit count= 2,206
 * nonzero digit in time*nonzero digit in time=15 (0:35 UTC)
 * 960/18*PI= 461.7 8 933333
 * Chance= 8
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Population: 6 This is not your grave   but you are welcome in it. " 23:51, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so a few things need to be changed. I've gone ahead and made the following changes. Thanks,  00:48, February 17, 2014 (UTC)
 * Defender Tact. Adv. - Need to add 2 for High Ground, Nicosia is on the large Cypriot plateau, and has a high elevation. They are also a freaking island, so you are going from 0m to 220m high in a steep march.
 * Defender Mil/Econ/Infra. Dev. - Since Cyprus was a NPC prior to Oct's take over, they get the NPC development bonuses until the first turn Oct played as them (1414).
 * Attacker's Infrastructure - It sounds funny saying that; only defenders get infrastructure.
 * Defender's Motive - They have higher scores in Infrastructure, so Cyprus has everthing needed for High troop morale.


 * Since when you can change other player algo? You are no Mod Rex Quashi (talk) 03:33, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Didn't see that one coming.

Shouldn't the fact that cyprus is in the middle of vassalization be taken into account somewhere? Jbwncster (talk) 01:30, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I really suck at this.

I didn't realize this was a coalition until now, lol.

I should never do algos again.

St. John's needs to be added.

"This is not your grave   but you are welcome in it. " 03:36, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Who is he? Quashi (talk) 03:45, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

An ally of mine. Someone joined as them today, and apparently noticed this.

"This is not your grave   but you are welcome in it. " 04:20, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Quashi, I am simply correcting many integral errors in your algo. I am also being considered for possible nomination for algo moderator, so there's that. Anyhow, more errors include: So, with a total of 7 years of war between you two, there are 23 years where you could develop econ/mil scores. This amounts to 46 total points, which we can split 22/24.
 * Attacker's Mil/Econ Scores - If 1 year of development is 2 pts, how did you get 15 points each? It would be 14 and 16, but you cannot develop in a war, so that would reduce Naple's scores.
 * Defender's Mil/Econ Scores - The nation of Cyprus expanded its military/econ/infrastructure every year since 1400. It matters not if a player joins; Cyprus still developed every year prior to (and after) Oct's assumption as the new player.
 * Attacker's Motive - The average of your two nations' motives is what your score should represent. Same with Attacker's Location.

Please do not revert back to the old version without explaining the changes back. As far as my knowledge of the algo goes, this is currently accurate... 07:33, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

This algo is wrong btw... The nations per side score is not divided by the other side. I've highlighted the issues. Kunarian TALK 08:54, February 17, 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it is divided. The rules say: "The aid scores for both sides will be completed, then the larger side will be divided by the smaller one. The result, rounded to the nearest whole number, will be the number of points the higher scoring side gets on the algorithm. The lower scoring side gets none."--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 10:02, February 17, 2014 (UTC)
 * That's for military aid and supplies. Not for the leaders.  Kunarian TALK 10:11, February 17, 2014 (UTC)
 * This makes no sense.After all, it would only encourage everybody who enters to be a leader to avoid this.I attribute your confusion to bad wording of the rule in itself.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 21:52, February 17, 2014 (UTC)
 * I would think that the head mod would understand the algo. Thanks, though, Kun, for your input.  21:30, February 17, 2014 (UTC)


 * Someone has changed the result of the algo, and as such I have changed it back. The net result would likely not be different, as the current algo neglects the involvement of the Knights of St. John.
 * "This is not your grave   but you are welcome in it. " 01:38, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

Vijaynagar (Attacker)

 * Location: 20
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations: Vijaynagar (L), Venad (LV), Bengali (M) 3
 * Military Development: 3/26 = 0
 * Economic Development: 2/30 = 0
 * Expansion: -7
 * Infrastructure: NA
 * Motive: Economic (Gains land, resources, etc): 3
 * Chance: 1
 * Edit count: 174
 * UTC: 8:42 = 64
 * Total: 174/64*pi (3.14159265359) = 2.7 1 875
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Population: 8
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars:-1
 * Vassals and Puppets: -1
 * Total: 39

Maldivian Defensive Coalition (Defender)

 * Location: (15+25+10)/3 = 17
 * Tactical Advantage: 2 (Coordinated)
 * Nations: Timurid Empire (L), Maldives (L), Mamluks (M) 10/7=1
 * Military Development: 3 (Maldives) + 12 (Timurids)/3 = 5
 * Economic Development: 3 (Maldives) + 14 (Timurids)/2 = 8+7 (City bonuses) =15
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 3 (Maldives)
 * Motive: 10+5+5 (Defending, High Morale, Non-Dem Supported) = 20
 * Chance: 8 (NPC as main leader, so thousandths place used)
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Population: 8+2 = 10
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: *1.25
 * Total: 196*1.25= 120

Result
In two years, the defensive coalition can overthrow the government of Vijaynagar.
 * ((126.25/(42+126.25))*2)-1 = 0.50074
 * (0.50074)*(1-1/(2*2)) = 0.37555

Discussion
I need help with this algo please, I've never done this before Jbwncster (talk) 01:44, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Just a warning, the Timurids and the Mamluks will get involved if you do not withdraw at once. 01:12, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

It's implausible for you to even know they exist at this point Jbwncster (talk) 01:23, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Yes we do, and were coming for you. Although technically were just going to help fortify the Maldives. Sims -The Rainbow Machete   07:13, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so here are the Indian state's actions since Jb took over: So, according to the rules, mil/econ development cannot take place in the same year as expansion. Prior to Jb taking over the Indian state, however, there were 10 years, which is the same as 4 years of Infrastructure, 3 years of econ, and 3 years of mil.
 * 1410 - Expansion
 * 1411 - Expansion
 * 1412 - Expansion
 * 1413 - Expansion
 * 1414 - Mil/econ
 * 1415 - Expansion

Yes, and these should be divided by two.The chance is also being done wrong.i don't know how you all are getting into your heads that you are supposed to sum the numbers of the UTC time instead of multiply them.The Maldivian coalition also don't get high ground.The Timurids and Mamluks are invading by sea, and the Maldives are nowhere near getting high ground for themselves.And the Larger Empire refers to Colonial Empires.none of you have them.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 10:16, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

I was told that the timurids can't help them yet by 2 mods but someone erased their post.

Also Bengal is my ally and they sent 1,000 Mercs but I guess you all didn't see that. I am also told that the Timurids don't have a navy right now. Jbwncster (talk) 15:10, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

The Timurids do not have an appropriate navy for such an expedition, although I guess you guys figured that out.

Bengal can do whatever it damn pleases. Jb never said his plan was to kill all the Muslims there, just to stop Islam from expanding in its own nation. If Yemen and the Mamlukes can go to war with each other, then Bengal and the Maldives can as well.

I do think this warrants further consideration by the mods, since two said otherwise, unless there is something I am unaware of. I think Viva may have changed his mind, but I am unsure.

"This is not your grave   but you are welcome in it. " 15:20, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

My Islamic soldiers were sent to defend Vijaynagar, not to help exterminate Maldivians. They were sent to return the favor of them helping Bengal against Jaunpur. Eiplec - ಠ_ಠ (talk) 15:21, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't going to exterminate anyone besides the casualties of war lol, Just wanted to change the government and take land. Jbwncster (talk) 16:24, February 17, 2014 (UTC) 
 * Nkbeeching: it had trading ties with most of the islamic world but it was way to out of the way for them to help the islands
 * dean might be able to help though i dont know, but no way rexi can help

<p class="continued" data-user="Nkbeeching" style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:-15px;padding-right:15px;padding-bottom:16px;padding-left:55px;min-height:0px;position:relative;top:-15px;"> I was told I could post this on chat Jbwncster (talk) 19:25, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Collie, we are not invading via sea. As we have been told regularly, we lack a navy able to capable all of our troops, so we are invading via land. Samarkand has a high enough elevation to count for high ground. In addition, we have larger empires (both colonial and otherwise). I am simply sending aid, not going to war, to boot. 21:05, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Explain to me how can you invade a group of ISLANDS by land? Jbwncster (talk) 21:15, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

We are not invading the island. We are invading your nation (however you spell it!) by land in order to stop your invasion of the island. Once we have wiped out your nation and overthrown your government, we can force the cessation of your invasion, at which point we will have successfully defended the Maldives. 21:35, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Still, you do not get high ground.just because you are on the defender's side doesn't mean that nothing you do can be considered a invasion.You youself just said you are invading Vijayanagar.you don't border them, and the Timurids neither, so you'd have to reach them by sea.Vijayanagar is not even attacking you directly, for your high ground to be considered valid.The nation for which high ground would be vaild has its capital on a low spot, if it has any capital at all.And you are not realizing you and the Timurids do not have colonies.You yourself tried to say you did not have colonies when i said it was implausible just three turns or so ago.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 22:03, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Several issues with what Rex has previously said. "<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave   but you are welcome in it. " 01:33, February 18, 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Samarkand is no longer the capital of the Timurids, since it has been moved.
 * 2) If you claim that you can't attack them by sea, then how can you by land, when there are several large nations in the way. You have at least three or so nations in the way, and that would prevent you from bordering them and invading them.
 * 3) Neither of you have colonial empires. No one in the world does.

So does this mean dean and rex cant attack? Also eip add yourself to my side as military aid. I'll post more after i get off work Jbwncster (talk) 02:01, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

If you are attacking me and not helping in the Maldives war where is the separate algorithm anyhow? Jbwncster (talk) 04:09, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that there is need for a separate algorythm.The Timurids joined the Maldives in the war as leaders.And,they can attack.the means by which they'll do that is what disqualifies them from high ground.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 06:38, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

Yay:

 * Quashi (talk) 02:50, February 17, 2014 (UTC)
 * Razor (talk) 03:21, February 17, 2014 (UTC)
 * "<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave   but you are welcome in it. " 04:21, February 17, 2014 (UTC)
 * 06:01, February 17, 2014 (UTC)
 * Eiplec - ಠ_ಠ (talk) 15:13, February 17, 2014 (UTC)
 * Jbwncster (talk) 15:15, February 17, 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Edboy452 [[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|25px|border]] [[Image:Flag of German Reich (1935–1945).svg|25px|border]] [[Image:Flag of Israel.svg|25px|border]] [[Image:Flag of the Soviet Union.svg|25px|border]] (talk) 21:32, February 17, 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Edboy452 [[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|25px|border]] [[Image:Flag of German Reich (1935–1945).svg|25px|border]] [[Image:Flag of Israel.svg|25px|border]] [[Image:Flag of the Soviet Union.svg|25px|border]] (talk) 21:32, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Nay:
Sims -The Rainbow Machete   05:33, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Comments:
Examples of my maps Civilizations: The Dawn, New Darkened Ages and Some in the map contest. Sine dei gloriem "Ex Initio Terrae" (talk)

And this one, I missed it Civilizations: The Dawn Geography

While the content of the maps are good, you have been kinda late with CTD maps, so you really have to push yourself to be on time with PMIII. Cookiedamage (talk) 02:44, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

If you actually read our posts and update the map when nations expand, you have my vote. Someone, changed the map several times but neglected expansion in the map updates. Razor (talk) 02:55, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Excuse fucking me, I have not laid a single damn finger on the map because of the unholy shitfest that is known as Europe. Don't even.

02:57, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Is it a decision for the public, or the mods? And I agree with Scraw, it's a bit of a complicated process. Though, I'm not objected to adding another person to help. Cour *talk*  03:01, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Scraw, then don't work on the map. Razor (talk) 03:06, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

I don't. That's what I just said.

03:11, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Then why are you listed as "(Mapmaker only)" on the Main page? Just wondering.Razor (talk) 03:13, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Sine if you promise me to update map whenever nations expand I will vote for you. I trust you, that you will do this. Have my vote. Razor (talk) 03:19, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

I am a mapmaker but the map is very complex and I'm not even sure of the identities and locations of some nations.

03:18, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Scraw, ah makes sense. I apologize. Razor (talk) 03:20, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Scan asked Scraw and others not to work on the map as of yet on the moderator page until they had gotten a chance to get used to the job. Also the map is a very difficult job, so I don't blame Scraw for being hesitant to edit in complex areas like Europe. Mscoree (talk) 03:27, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

I realized that and I apologized. Razor (talk) 03:28, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Accepted. I also apologize if I came off as too harsh.

04:07, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Is Scand going to post a map for 1415? Because I feel that it is important that we do not get too far behind. To help, I am happy to vote Sine to the Mapmaker post! 06:01, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Almost done. I had a migraine yesterday and there is a lot of territorial changes but I'm almost through. Scandinator (talk) 07:48, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

A Thought on the MS Controversy
MS, he has done a magnificent job on this wiki, a great job. He helps, he does great timelines. Yet ever since his clash with LG everyone has treated him like crap, thinking him unfit for much of anything. It is not right for you to treat a person so helpful, its like how all people treat there mothers when growing up, you treat them like shit when all there trying to do is help you do the right thing, or to teach you something. My point is all of us are acting like children here. We need to think, let us not treat MS as a disobedient child treats its parents, lets treat him as a freind treats a freind. Should you not learn to calm down, and treat him with the respect he deserves, I will nominate myself for impeachment and see where it takes us. Sims -The Rainbow Machete  05:32, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Ms, Sr. has spoken. Ms is no parental figure. If anything he is that troublemaker in school who always convinces you to do something wrong and then tucks in his shirt and puts on his scholarly face when you get caught by an authoritative figure. I am not unsure that most people here will agree that you might as well be impeached, considering that you don't do mod things.

/Ye I just saw what LG said. I'll just step out of here now.

05:51, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

LG, i care nothing for your opinion, and your thought of as an ass by a large chunk of this wiki. Step out now. All you do is try and bash someone for sticking up to you. Get out, and make it seem like your tail isnt between your legs. Sims -The Rainbow Machete   05:56, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

And LG, it seems your trying to bash me as well. Dirty there reputation so they cant stand up to you? You would make a fine politician. And since when did you give a damn about map games anyway? Was it when it involved your rival, MS, or when it apeared you could knock him down a few pegs and make yourself look better to the crowd which has tried numerous times to impeach you, an act I would love to see suceed. Sims -The Rainbow Machete   06:03, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Dean, that's enough. LG was trying to calm a fight in a section labeled 'Ms and his shit'. I think we all could use a second or two to catch our breaths here and calm down. CrimsonAssassin- I have special eyes 13:35, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

A formal apology
I feel that after having calmed down after the whole terrible incident that occured over the past days that I have been a little out of hand. I'll make this apology only once, as I'm sure my temprament will get the betterment of me at least one more time over the course of my time in this game. I stand resolute in my belief that MS should not be a mod for his own sake as much as everyone elses. What I do regret is that I simply lost control. I would have followed Guns out of the game had I not just left this alone last night and rested, so I'm still in it for the meantime.

I hope that we can all recuperate and pick up the pieces, as this game should be one of the best ways to make a fun and varied timeline in a way that involves everyone. Rather than a ground for bickering, grudges and upset. Kunarian TALK 09:36, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

I accept your apology. Mscoree (talk) 13:24, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Not entirely sure it was aimed at you, Ms, but hey. Local Mafia Boss (Talk) (Blog)
 * Truthfully it was aimed at everyone and anyone.  Kunarian TALK 17:57, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

We need more of this. This is a game, remember, and the point is to write history, not become the strongest nation in the world.

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave   but you are welcome in it. " 17:46, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Italian League discussion
In the interests of fleshing this out so that we can properly use it as part of the game, I'm opening this discussion section. I propose setting up a constitution for the league so we can have a methodology for the league

Venice's Proposals
Many of these are taken from the original post and then expanded upon.

Concerning defining the members
 * 1) Florence, Milan, Naples and Venice shall be known as chief members of the Italian League.
 * 2) All vassals of the chief members shall be considered protectorate members of the Italian League.

Concerning defining the methods of the League
 * 1) When border and claim disputes occur, any chief member may call a council of the League. Each chief member will send a representative to discuss the issue until it is resolved. Upon resolution of the issue, all respresentatives of the chief members must sign the resolution to make it valid.
 * 2) All chief members must agree to an economic deal between the members of the League. When a chief member wants to make a revision to the economic deal they may call a council of the League. Each chief member will send a reprentative to consider revisions. Upon consideration of the revisions, all chief members must sign the new economic deal to make it valid.
 * 3) All chief members must agree to an alliance to defend all other chief members and protectorate members of the League.
 * 4) When concerning other matters, any chief member may call a council of the League. Each chief member will send a representative to discuss the issue until it is resolved. Upon resolution of the issue, a supermajority of the respresentatives of the chief members must sign the resolution to make it valid.
 * 5) All valid resolutions, economic deals and alliances must be defended by all chief members.

Discussion (league players)
Here is a section for the nations that are invited to be part of the Italian League.

This will be a good league, but at this time we lose Florence, and Milan is not very active, so we only have 2 real players here. I hope we can make it work anyway Kun - Quashi
 * We can, technically me and Florence are in the league. But Florence might be joining with me soon properly so we don't have to worry on that front. But we shall make the league work, even with 2 players.  Kunarian TALK 18:32, February 19, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion (non-league nations)
Here is a section for the nations that are not invited to be part of the Italian League.

Scandinavia and England
How is it exactly plausible for England to rule the Kalmar. England can't plausibly play as the Kalmar, as they are two whole separate nations with barely any cultural ties. Furthermore it is pretty much meta gaming if a player just leaves the game and says something like: "I quit! Let <Insert Name> play as me." and then proceeds to write in their turn that their king and all their heirs die, so this means <Insert nation name here> can rule over my nation. User:Edboy452     (talk) 22:20, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Indeed.

23:07, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

I also agree that it is implausible for the UNC to hand its nation to England. Mscoree (talk) 23:19, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

It seems odd to me too. I'll gladly assume control of the KU if needed. CrimsonAssassin- I have special eyes 23:21, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Crim plz. I think it's best for it to become special NPC.

23:22, February 17, 2014 (UTC)
 * No joke, the KU was going to be my first choice before Guns took it. Banner_of_the_Holy_Roman_Emperor_with_haloes_(1400-1806).svg Labarum.jpg CrimsonAssassin- I have special eyes 00:08, February 18, 2014 (UTC)
 * But will you drop Florence?


 * 01:36, February 18, 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd have to, but it's not like Italy'll be totally empty without me. We have plenty of good players there. Making the KU an NPC nation seems silly when someone (me) is very willing to play it. Banner_of_the_Holy_Roman_Emperor_with_haloes_(1400-1806).svg Labarum.jpg CrimsonAssassin- I have special eyes 01:44, February 18, 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought you wanted to unite Florence and Kalmar. K that's way better. No objection.
 * 01:47, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

Very funny Crim.

The King of England, though not the closest in Line to the individual thrones, was related to Eric of Pomerania- and there would be no other claimants, as Eric himself had no family, save for his adoptive mother, Margaret. Who is dead as of 1412.

And seriously, STOP CALLING IT THE KALMAR. Do you call the USA the Philidelphia Union, because the Constitution was written there?

23:24, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

It was kalled the Kalmar Union in OTL.

23:31, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

No, that's what historians called it, because it's no longer around, so we aren't sure what they actually would call themselves.

23:43, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

They called it The Youmaycallusthekalmarunioninthefuturebutwecallourselvesomethingdifferentbutwealsomostcertainlydidnotcallourselvestheunitednorsecrownbecausethathasinitialsandwedonotlikeinitialsoracronymization Kingdom.

01:36, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

Just like MP and his Romans. Yawgmoth, Lord of the Wastes

Hey now, that is completely different, lol

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave   but you are welcome in it. " 03:48, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

'''I would like to defend my control over the former UNC, the English Royal family is the only other nation in Europe with ties enough to assume control, also I do not plan on retaining control indefinitely they will eventually be released under the condition that they remain friendly with Albion and maintain alliances. I know I cannot possible hold those regions indefinitely, though when the split does occur( probably within the next 20-30 years) I will retain Iceland and a Crown holding and possibly Denmark, everything else will revert to being independent.'''Bowties are Cool (talk) 13:01, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

In OTL the end of Eric of Pomerania's reign ment the start of one of many civil wars in the union. Considering that this event happened twenty years earlier, it seems like this war would start early as well. When you leave the game you can't just hand your nation to someone, even if they are losely related. Mscoree (talk) 13:09, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

Then I will let them go, though I do request I at least retain Iceland. I assumed things would still go as otl, just possibly delayed. Unlike the other European nations I have a claim, it was not unusual for other nations to make a royal claim when no other heir is present. I would very much like to hold them for a time then let them rebel away. I didn't plan on keeping them forever.Bowties are Cool (talk) 13:13, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

Currently Norwary, Denmark, and Sweden are all rebelling and at war with each other. If you want to swoop in and seize Iceland from Norwar then go ahead. Mscoree (talk) 13:15, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

I love how you rebel away all these territories without even deciding to ask me about it. There was nothing terribly implausible about me retaining, then letting them go their merry way, you made a ruling without me being present to defend my side, forgive me for being a little irritated. You go vassalising the HRE and yet I'm the implausible one for holding on to a nation for a short period of time WHO IS RELATED TO MY KING? This is ludicrous. I told you, they will rebel, but I feel like my claim is a legitimate claim, and I'm not done arguing my case( forgiveness if this sounds rough or crass it is quite early hereBowties are Cool (talk) 13:20, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

All three of those nations elected their own king (like OTL) who they hoped could be the sole king. I was under the impression that England never actually acquired the UNC since that was deemed implausible yesterday, as several mods agreed. Just because your king is loosely related to their king does not mean you can take their entire nation when they leave the game. If that was the case I could inherit all of Europe. Even if you did acquire the entire UNC somehow, it is quite clear that none of the three kingdoms would recognize you; some Norman who is just now adopting the use of a Germanic language. For all intents and purposes assume that you never did own the UNC, but now that they are in upheavel you could attack and seize some stuff, like Iceland possibly. Mscoree (talk) 13:25, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

Ok. I agree that they might not recognise a Norman claimant I forgot about that rid bit of history( pretty big oops if you ask me, must be the morning) is it possible for me to war with Norway then? Also as they are npc and in a civil war, how does one work this? Do I use an algorithm? I'm a bit foggy on the rules at the moment, a long night.Bowties are Cool (talk) 13:30, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

Yes all three are NPC's that you can declare war on. You still need to use an algorithm, and I think since they were recently a player nation that you use the UNC's score. If not you use one third of your scores for each. Mscoree (talk) 13:44, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

NOVA IS BEING ASB
Nova is being completely ASB with this war she forced her way into. Also in 1411 she went and reditted her post to add herself into the war that Bengal started and I was never added into the algo as helping. Nova has been deleting posts and forcing her way into wars when several mods have told her not to. Is there anything that can be done? Jbwncster (talk) 03:50, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

oh god, not this again...

First things first, keep it damn civil, you two. First person to break civility will suffer my wrath.

Second, i will explore the validity of your claims tomorrow, when I will be able to, unless another unbiased mod wishes to take on this task before hand.

I swear, this game has created more rivalries and feuds than any other...

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave   but you are welcome in it. " 03:54, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

Also, use correct pronouns and name, considering Nova recently came out as transgender. Cookiedamage (talk) 03:56, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

No one officially said you had my land yet either, I'll be on chat if anyone wants to discuss anything civilly as well. Jbwncster (talk) 04:01, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

I will allow the both of you to post your respective arguments here and ONLY here. ONE SINGLE POST EACH. NO INSULTS OR ANYTHING. Lay out why you think you should be allowed to do something or why someone should not be allowed to do something. If I return and find out that there is more than that here, I will not be amused, and actions will be taken that will not be kind.

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave   but you are welcome in it. " 04:10, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

Jbw, you were defeated in the war. Writing this in cap locks because you lost the war will not change its outcome, true, it may damage my reputation, but thats neither here nor there. If you have an issue, simply open a new section stating Problems With Sims or whatnot, or message other mods about it. This isnt the way to go. Nova   04:12, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

I just wish she'd wait until the disputes are taken into account before I'm wiped from the game. Jbwncster (talk) 04:23, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

In a war you wouldn't have a reason to join. the maldives are a bunch of small islands that are far enough from you to not to care about them you have more issues on your own lands than in there, and Vijaynagar is too far from you to annex it and too big for the Maldives to annex it, I mean, if it was a bigger Muslim state and or closer to you i would see you joining the War, but they are just a puny island in the middle of nowhere that can't be reallistically in any harm to you, You just want to take over india and starting with Vijaynagar is a good choice, but that is Metagaming specially for the implausible alliance part Sine dei gloriem "Ex Initio Terrae" (talk) 18:10, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

Nations have used crazier alliances, its a casus bella and a good one. Nations in OTL have jumped at chances like this, when the enemy launches an attack agaisnt a helpless state, and they attack in order to help "save" the little state, taking spoils of war without much international backlash. Considering how turbulent politics and war are, it makes sense. Nova   18:18, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah,but you are not an ally of them. and Vijaynagar is not a sworn enemy of yours, your sole intention to help someone you didn't care of is implausible, and the maldives is  an example of that. You have no reason outside of metagaming to join the maldives side. Sine dei gloriem "Ex Initio Terrae" (talk)

Recent wars had them joining the war against the Timurids vassals, therefor making them an enemy of the Timurids. Nova   19:08, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

Technically it didn't count as I wasn't added into the algorithm Jbwncster (talk) 21:57, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

I calling BS on this... there is no plausible explanation for you to be involved in the maldives other than you share an overarching religion (as does 95% of europe which still goes to kill eachother). You have no reason and would liek a true mod consensus on whether its plausible. Dean cant even hold the territory if he does take it....

GUESS WHO'S HERE TO RUIN EVERYTHING
I'd like to become more active and play as the kingdom of Georgia, beautiful caucus nation. OreoToast555(Talk)(Sandbox) 04:14, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

Good Luck Oreo, I have always wanted to see an Empire arise from the Caucasuses. This will be interesting to say the least. Nova   04:25, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

Oh... uh, sorry, didn't realize you wanted Georgia before I signed up for it. I'd offer to retract and hand you the spot, but I already input this year's orders and got a response from Muscovy. Please accept my humblest apologies! TankOfMidgets (talk) 02:34, February 19, 2014 (UTC)

I have decided to not play... rip   OreoToast555(Talk)(Sandbox) 21:05, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

Ashikaga

 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations: Ashikaga (L +4)
 * Military Development:= 14/3 = 5
 * Economic Development: = 16/3 = 5
 * Expansion: -1
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: Economic 12 (Gains land, resources, etc): 3, Pre-emptive Strike against a nation rapidly building military forces: + 5, Non-democratic Government supported by people: + 4
 * Chance: 9
 * Editcount: 363
 * UTC time:21:02
 * 363/4 x pi = 285.099533
 * Nation Age: -15
 * Population: 8
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars:-1
 * Vassals and Puppets: x1.25
 * Total: 62x 1.25 = 77

Hatekeyama

 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage: 2 
 * Nations: Hatekeyama (L +4)
 * Military Development: 3 = 0
 * Economic Development: 3 = 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 3
 * Motive: Defending Core/heartland from possibly fatal attack + 9
 * Chance: 0
 * Nation Age: -15
 * Population: = 6
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: x 1.25
 * Total: 53 x 1.25 = 67

Result

 * ((77/(67+77))*2)-1 = 2,74%
 * (2.74)*(1-1/(2*2)) = 10.965

Discussion
So I win 11% of the Hatekeyama's land right? - Shadow

No.You won only 6,9%.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 07:19, February 19, 2014 (UTC)

Venetian Civil War (1417-14??)
And so the long planned civil war begins. Finally the nobles have had enough and wish to unmake Michiel as Doge, however he has consolidated his power so much that he cannot be removed by traditional systems. His struggles to eliminate dangerous enemies and aim to reform the governments across the Empire have erupted into a full blown conflict. Giovanni Pieromo sits exiled in a hall in Aquilia, masterminding his allies schemes while the Doge sits in his Palace, digging his hands deeper into the Republic one day at a time. Nobles in Venice are divided but side more with Giovanni but the rich city merchants are fully in Michiel's lap. Across the Empire people declare their allegiances and make bold moves to help their allies. But who will win? I don't know. But I do know that it'll be quite the ride.

Here's something to keep track of the conflict. I'll also add people that join in with their nations.


 * Declarants and their allegiances
 * Doge of Venice, Michiel Roscol:
 * Venice
 * Nobles of Venice (minority) - having secured Veneto, they rest in Venice
 * Merchants of Venice - in Corfu, helping to defend it
 * Aegina
 * Rettore of Aegina and Venetian Poténsa of Athens, Frederico Doro - in Athens with an army
 * Rettore of Aegina, Geragio Doro, son of Frederico - with his father in Athens
 * Athens
 * Venetian Poténsa of Athens, Jacopo Dal Sol - killed in the 2nd Battle of Athens
 * Attica
 * Nobles of Attica - in Athens, fortifying the city
 * Kingdom of Candia
 * King of Candia, Egidio Morosini - imprisoned by forces loyal to Pieromo in Candia
 * Epirus
 * Governor General of Epirus, Christofo Roscol, younger brother of Michiel - in western Epirus with an army and forces from Prevezo
 * Epirus Free Ports
 * Nobles of Epirus (majority) - Titani locking down in their city, Preveza staying alert
 * Naxos
 * Duke of Naxos, Giovanni II Crispo - under guard in Naxos
 * Negroponte
 * Gastàldo of Negroponte, Rizardo Lacaris - in Negropont, turning the capital over to Roscol
 * Foreign Support
 * Hamburg - help sent was defeated by the Free Port Saranda
 * Knights of Saint John - 500 knights of the order have captured Naxos, further forces are arriving to assist
 * Hungary - showing support
 * England - showing support
 * Exiled Noble, Giovanni Pieromo - killed in the 2nd Battle of Treviso
 * Exiled Noble, Viti Pieromo:
 * Venice
 * Nobles of Venice (majority) - leaders imprisoned by forces loyal to Roscol in Venice
 * Athens
 * Claimant to Aegina and Poténsa of Athens, Teodor da Vale - killed in the 3rd Battle of Athens
 * Kingdom of Candia
 * Nobles of Candia - ruling through the captured king, waiting to evaluate the situation
 * Epirus
 * Southern Nobles - deafeated and killed or imprisoned
 * Epirus Free Ports
 * Nobles of Epirus (minority) - in Saranda they are fortifying
 * Naxos
 * Duke of Naxos, Giacomo I Crispo - killed in the Battle of Naxos
 * Negroponte
 * King of Negroponte, Nicolo Zorzi - Marching on Negropont
 * Peloponnese territories
 * Nobles of the territories - Fortifying their holdings
 * Foreign Support
 * Naples - sending their fleet to support Pieromo and blockade Venice, a small force has been repelled from Corfu by lies on another nearby island ready to attack
 * Neutral:
 * Athens
 * Roman Poténsa of Athens, Alexios Psellus - freed once more by forces loyal to Roscol
 * Corfu
 * Nobles of Corfu - in Corfu, recovering from another sudden invasion
 * Son of Napolitan noble - imprisoned by forces loyal to Corfu in Corfu
 * Kaffa
 * Governor General of Kaffa, Victor Borozzi - in the town of Kaffa, having crushed the rebels
 * Rebel leader, Grisigon Mamoli - fleeing to Genoa across the Black Sea, hoping to gain support
 * Self-proclaimed Protector of the Crimea, Stephen of Theodoro - protecting Kaffa


 * Battles (in chronological order)
 * 1418
 * 1st Battle of Treviso - decisive Roscol victory
 * 1st Siege of Saranda - Pieromo victory
 * Battle of the Aeginetan Gulf - Pieromo victory
 * Siege of Rethymnon - indecisive
 * Battle of Santi Apostoli - Pieromo victory
 * 1st Battle of Athens - decisive Roscol victory
 * 1419
 * Battle of Pieromo House - decisive Roscol victory
 * 2nd Siege of Saranda - Pieromo victory
 * Battle of Corfu - Corfiot victory
 * Seige of Prevezo - Roscol victory
 * 2nd Battle of Athens - Pieromo victory
 * Battle of Marathon - Pieromo victory
 * Battle of Candia - decisive Pieromo victory
 * Battle of Naxos - Roscol victory
 * 1420
 * Battle of the Ionian Sea - decisive Corfiot victory
 * Battle of Kaffa - Kaffan victory
 * 2nd Battle of Treviso - decisive Roscol victory
 * Battle of Titani - Roscol victory
 * 3rd Battle of Athens - Roscol victory
 * Battle of Thebes - Pieromo victory
 * 1421
 * Battle of Venice - decisive Roscol victory
 * Battle of Othonoi Island - decisive Roscol victory
 * Battle of Negropont - Roscol victory
 * 3rd Battle of Seranda - indecisive
 * Battle of Sitia - Roscol victory

Discussion
So Michiel. Very Roscol. Wow Venice.

02:05, February 19, 2014 (UTC)

Currently I'm gunning for Michiel, although it does concern me that Pieromo is winning many battles. Especially I didn't expect them to conquer Aegina. Currently Pieromo does outweigh the Roscol supporters in sheer military strength however I don't know how long that will last. Btw I am using a randomiser with modifiers to represent the strength of certain forces to decide the battles, so ultimately I don't know who'll win. I'm not just messing with you. :L  Kunarian TALK 15:43, February 19, 2014 (UTC)

Can we have a third candidate? Naples will send support soon! XD Quashi (talk) 18:09, February 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * Who knows, a third may arise. Currently there is only Michiel Roscol and Giovanni Pieromo and they have support of most of the Venetian nobles. Only Corfu and Kaffa remain in the middle, and Corfu is considering becoming seperatist (which may or may not happen depending on whether they think they can get away with it, and its too soon to tell that) but Kaffa is dealing with a rebellion. Where would a third candidate come from?  Kunarian TALK 18:29, February 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure, but remember that corfu was napolitan until 1398... because the internal crisis, but now that the kingdom prospers... who kwnos. From corfu may come the new candidate, but i hope no a separatist one. Pieromo will restore the nobility? left the republic? Quashi (talk) 20:52, February 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * However Corfu experienced plagues of despair under the rule of Naples and placed itself under the protection of Venice, who knows maybe adventurers will threaten it again now that the eyes of Venice do not watch its children so closely... Giovanni Pieromo is against the lesser nobles (most of whom support the Roscols) and believes in establishing a more hereditary republic, preferably with him at the head.  Kunarian TALK 21:25, February 19, 2014 (UTC)


 * I myself are leaning mostly towards Roscol, only because the Doge has helped out the Empire greatly so far. It is thought by several Roman nobles that joining the war on the side of the Doge will allow the Empire to regain several Pieromo territories in Greece. However, some do find the idea of a "hereditary republic" alluring. While unlikely to cause the Romans to enter a civil war on their own, it may garantee their eventual involvement. And what is the story of the rebellion in Kaffa?
 * "<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave   but you are welcome in it. " 00:24, February 20, 2014 (UTC)
 * Roscol has certainly made many friends and many enemies but his treatment of the elder Giovanni Pieromo and the Bastards rebellion shows that he cannot tolerate rivals. In Kaffa, a Genoan noble who was part of the old regime has revealed himself and plans on retaking the colony and is marching on Kaffa itself, he still has support as the colony is freshly Venetian however the good Governor General is fortifying as we speak and so who knows the rebellion may be crushed or Kaffa may be temporarily occupied.  Kunarian TALK 08:26, February 20, 2014 (UTC)
 * Concerning the areas Naxos has occupied being considered neutral on the map. We must wait for the various players to declare or not declare allegiance to the new Duke of Naxos.  Kunarian TALK 10:31, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have may some Godmodding
Recently, in the 1417 turn, I posted a diplomacy asking for a reply by a mod since it was to NPC nations. For an odd reason, Garjat turned down my alliance offer due to my war with Jaunpur. That however, makes no sense since Garjat AIDED me in my war AGAINST Jaunpur. Next, three relatively small nations declined my alliance proposal, offering trade instead, but I control the trade of two of those nations, and they also said they could "Hold their own" against the Timurids. So I got to checking what mod replied and I was met with a bit of a problem. The person who added the diplomacy was not logged in at the time, and had the IP of 216.157.209.62. By asking around, Scraw comfirmed the IP to be Nova's, and a search on the IP determined it to be from Michigin, the same state Nova lives in, as confirmed by MP, which is considerable evidence already.

Assuming this is Nova who made the edit, I detest it for a number of reasons.
 * 1) Nova has made multiple statements of wanting to conquer India, both publicly and privately to me, offering me a place in Iraq and support in conquest if I was to switch from Bengal to Iraq to favor her preferred conquests.
 * 2) Nova's recent controversial interventions in India against Vjayanagar confirm this suspicion.
 * 3) Depriving Bengal of allies for reasons that make no sense (See above about Garjat especially) further proves the point of wanting to conquer India, as little allies for Bengal would make Bengal a very easy target for Nova's Timurid's.
 * 4) The act of logging out and not posting with username information, and allowing only IP to show only proves guilt and the knowledge of wrongdoing, rather than absent-mindedly forgetting to log in. (Post before the mod diplomacy addition, and Post  that created the diplomacy.) Eiplec - ಠ_ಠ (talk) 02:03, February 19, 2014 (UTC)

<p style="margin-top:0.4em;margin-bottom:0.5em;">I have also had several posts, along with other mods, deleted by dean. My 1415 post was removed and dean just removed feds post about not having my nations just yet.

Examples of Deans not so handy work:
 * http://althistory.wikia.com/index.php?title=Principia_Moderni_III_%28Map_Game%29&diff=926388&oldid=926385
 * http://althistory.wikia.com/index.php?title=Principia_Moderni_III_%28Map_Game%29&diff=922902&oldid=922899
 * http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Principia_Moderni_III_(Map_Game)?s=wldiff&diff=0&oldid=926447

Jbwncster (talk) 02:05, February 19, 2014 (UTC)

So deleting posts, posting without a username (aka posting with your ip) attempted or possible godmodding, Implauso invasion of Vijanagar (a Timmie invasion is logistically impossible i did all the factors up and it doesnt equal out to a hospitalble way for the Timmies to plausibly take them) Screwing other players out of their nations by essentially leaving them weak... isnt that the grounds for a certain action to be taken??

Impeachment of Nova
You've seen the evidence. I don't think there's any way you can deny that Nova is not mod material.--Yank 02:44, February 19, 2014 (UTC)

Only mods vote Jbwncster (talk) 02:47, February 19, 2014 (UTC)

Aye

 * I see some pretty damning evidence. I must side here I am afraid Bowties are Cool (talk) 03:53, February 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * Jbw is right. Sine dei gloriem "Ex Initio Terrae" (talk) 07:21, February 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * Stop removing my votes.
 * Banner_of_the_Holy_Roman_Emperor_with_haloes_(1400-1806).svg Labarum.jpg CrimsonAssassin- I have special eyes 04:00, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

Nay

 * Scandinator (talk) 04:42, February 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 14:00, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
Scraw please move your vote. You technically aren't a moderator. Thanks, Mscoree (talk) 02:51, February 19, 2014 (UTC)

I have voted in other impeachments thus far. I don't see why you're voicing your objection now.

03:24, February 19, 2014 (UTC)

Deanova you can't vote. It's about you. Plz.

03:26, February 19, 2014 (UTC)

You cant vote. Your only a mapmaker. It states so. And jbw is only doing this becasue i destroyed him in a war. Also i was logged out because they were changing my username and my account was locked. And for gods sake its NOT DEAN. Deanova is an even greater insult, its like calling me some half and half beast. -Nova  03:30, February 19, 2014 (UTC)

OK fine, Nova. Jeez, calm the heck down, will you? I have to get used to calling you nova out of the blue. Also, you should've objected to my voting when Ms was on for impeachment. Enough with double standards. Please point out where it states that a mapmaker cannot vote. I would also like to point out that I have access to the mod page and am treated as a mod in all respects save that I cannot make mod events, which I don't want to anyways.

03:45, February 19, 2014 (UTC)

He can vote nuff said, hes on the list under moderators which entitles him to a vote. That is a double standard at its finest if Scraw couldnt vote. and considering neither collie nor scan have said anything about scraw voting before this i think you need to calm it down

I've viewed the evidence and I do not believe it is grounds to remove her as a mod. She has a proper explanation for several of the accusations. However I would ask her to refrain from modding in India due to controversy. Garjat is also a vassal of Orissa and thus that is the real reason of the decline. Posting without a username is due to the current migration of her account. And the examples of her removing posts are most likely due to edit conflicts and attempting to correct your post (Jbw's) changing the page to source mode. Scandinator (talk) 04:42, February 19, 2014 (UTC)

The issue is resolved. All sides have come to an understanding and agreement. Scandinator (talk) 05:03, February 19, 2014 (UTC)

This is literally the third impeachment of a mod to occur in PMIII (fourth if you count the re-impeachment of Ms) and it hasn't even been a month yet. :/ Cookiedamage (talk) 05:44, February 19, 2014 (UTC)

My opinion: people are too quick to impeach mods. The problems should be discussed civilly as much as possible with the mod in question.

I agree with I Am That Guy. An effort should at least be made to reconcile the issue, as it appears Scan has done. Mscoree (talk) 11:37, February 19, 2014 (UTC)

Resolved? Still haven't gotten a reason on why Ava, Koch and Aohm refused my alliance other than "It's explainable", and they "Can hold their own" versus the Timurids. Hold their own, you know, Koch and Aohm, the two nations rely on me just so they get enough food to feed their people? (And just to clarify, I wasn't the one who did this impeachment, I attempted to resolve it by posting on the talk page about why I thought it was unjust of Nova to do mod actions in India, considering it looks very bad when the person that wants to take over all of India starts depriving a person of allies with shoddy reasons through mod powers.) Eiplec - ಠ_ಠ (talk) 13:16, February 19, 2014 (UTC)

I really should take up Orissa again and kick Timurid ass... Imp (Say Hi?!) 18:38, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

No thanks lol.

04:06, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

Aye

 * Jbwncster (talk) 03:26, February 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * Eiplec - ಠ_ಠ (talk) 05:36, February 19, 2014 (UTC) (Still haven't gotten a response on why Ava, Koch and Aohm refused my alliance other than "It's explainable". And Nova saying that she deleted Fed's post about crossing out the Vijayanagar vassal posts because "Rex told her Fed was out to get her" doesn't sit right with me as a reason.)
 * Eiplec - ಠ_ಠ (talk) 05:36, February 19, 2014 (UTC) (Still haven't gotten a response on why Ava, Koch and Aohm refused my alliance other than "It's explainable". And Nova saying that she deleted Fed's post about crossing out the Vijayanagar vassal posts because "Rex told her Fed was out to get her" doesn't sit right with me as a reason.)

Nay

 * <span style=" border:4px ridge grey; -webkit-border-radius:2em 0em 0em 0em; padding-left:8px; padding-right:0px;"> ... <span style="background:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(red), to(aqua));border:6px outset yellow; -webkit-border-radius:0em 0em 0em 0em;"> Razor   - the Razor Nabil.png  03:48, February 19, 2014 (UTC)

Wohoo 2k!
Yeah!

Yey! <span style=" border:4px ridge grey; -webkit-border-radius:2em 0em 0em 0em; padding-left:8px; padding-right:0px;"> ... <span style="background:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(red), to(aqua));border:6px outset yellow; -webkit-border-radius:0em 0em 0em 0em;"> Razor   - the Razor

Treaty terms

 * The Maldives will remain independent
 * Vijaynagar will pay tribute to the Timurid Empire for 15 years
 * Vijaynagar will recognize the Maldives and Jaffna as sovreign states

Signatories
Timurid Empire Vijaynagar Maldives (MOD-signed)
 * -Nova
 * I will only accept this if nova can behave like a civilized person Jbwncster (talk) 16:58, February 20, 2014 (UTC)
 * Scandinator (talk)

Meta-game Treaty

 * The impeachment of Nova will be removed as it is a) not approved prior by two mods. b) had insufficient and misunderstood evidence
 * Nova will no longer mod in India.

Discussion
I support this treaty. I think it's better to talk out disputes then try to quickly impeach someone. Mscoree (talk) 15:32, February 19, 2014 (UTC)

It helps in talking out problems with a persons actions when all things are addressed, but instead it seems that only a few things have to be addressed for the whole thing to be resolved. And let me be clear again, nobody who posted about the problems with Nova's actions created the impeachment. Yank created the Impeachment. Eiplec - ಠ_ಠ (talk) 16:03, February 19, 2014 (UTC)

Firstly the Treaty is implausible and its biased towards Nova, Which i can't allow. Last time things like this turned PM2 into a shithole of ASB which was the reason we started this earlier. and he can't gain anything at all from a war he shouldn't have won, because he shouldn't have joined. Laws are for Everyone and Metagaming is Certainly outlawed. Including to us mods. Sine dei gloriem "Ex Initio Terrae" (talk) 17:02, February 19, 2014 (UTC)

Scan wrote it all. I didnt write the thing. And how is it biased, I wrecked JBWs nation, the only reason Im not annexing it is becasue I cant hold it. -Nova

I don't think I should lose Jaffna, I won't sign if I do, also nova keeps saying I don't have Venad as a vassal and keeps erasing my claims.Jbwncster (talk) 19:13, February 19, 2014 (UTC)

I'll do everything else but give up jaffna Jbwncster (talk) 03:35, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

To late now. You wouldnt accept the treaty, so im taking a northern strip of your land. -Nova  03:45, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

I have been at work since 5pm eastern so I couldn't do anything and I just got home 30 minutes ago Jbwncster (talk) 03:54, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

Well since you have proven you hate me and are taking it out on me via chat and my nation and you aren't going to stop no matter how many people tell you to or how many things people are willing to compromise on maybe I should just leave the whole wikia and never come back if that's how the community is treating people Jbwncster (talk) 04:01, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

Come on, Jb, don't be like that. We still have Steam Age in the works.

I guess I can't reason with someone who just takes things into his own hands and does what they want. Jbwncster (talk) 05:18, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

'''since nova won't do any negotiations and has already tried to take land without proper reasoning can we scrap this war and go back and I won't attack them? Jbwncster (talk) 06:03, February 20, 2014 (UTC)'''

'''He's going to just take them by force so if any mod wants to do something they can. Jbwncster (talk) 06:07, February 20, 2014 (UTC)'''

'''Nova, consider this a first warning. In addition, the treaty terms will hold. Jaffna is a stable state and thus land seized from it would mean war, that term is to smooth out continuity. You should be able to take all of Lanka soon. Just give it a little while. Scandinator (talk) 08:38, February 20, 2014 (UTC)'''

'''Nova, you have seen what Scan said, have been warned by LG, and now you just posted a new picture taking even more land... Eiplec - ಠ_ಠ (talk) 15:07, February 20, 2014 (UTC)'ii'''

'''i was warned about swearing, not PM3. And as it seems jbw still hasnt signed the treaty. Henceforth I dont have to follow it. I have logs proving i tried to negotate with him and you can ask Andrew and Rex both that i tried to negotiate and he would not. -Nova  15:56, February 20, 2014 (UTC)'''

It was all one sided, you kept trying to take land and even more land and you won't even consider that you shouldn't have bothered in the first place, now you keep taking everything and won't accept the fact that you can't just take anything until everything is settled Jbwncster (talk) 15:58, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

'''You wouldnt accept a fair treaty that took nothing. So i had to take land. You continue to insult me and call me ASB instead of offering a reasonable counteroffer. You just say implausible when the mods are split half and half on the war, making it valid. You scream in order to be heard, bashing me and turning the wiki agasint me. Now for all your trouble Im taking you over. -Nova  16:02, February 20, 2014 (UTC)'''

Nova,  '''I have logs of Crim telling you to just entertain the idea of his counter-offer, for the sake of negotiations, for at least thirty minutes, and all you said is "No". I also have logs of you harassing Jb to the point of him wanting to quit, to where you in fact encouraged him to leave the wiki. Ask Feud, ask Jb, ask Crim, ask anyone who was on when we all tried to get you to negotiate, but you spent then entirety of the time saying "No, he won't sign." Eiplec - ಠ_ಠ (talk) 16:05, February 20, 2014 (UTC)'''

'''Yeah, i did encourage him to leave. He harrases me as much if not more than i do which i have logs of. He said "i should just leave", rage quitting because he lost. So yes, i said he should leave, ive been told as much in the past, yet no cared then. Why does it matter now. -Nova  16:11, February 20, 2014 (UTC)'''

'(NEW POST) Nova, you threaten to quit the wiki very often, and all people do, is encourage you to stay on, to not feel bad, to not feel sad. All we try to do, is keep you on when you rage so you don't quit. Please, attempt to show the same compassion we show you. I believe I've sent you PM's in chat twice before, to say everything I could to keep you on the wiki when you want to leave it for good. Eiplec - ಠ_ಠ (talk) 22:07, February 20, 2014 (UTC)'

Now he won't listen to scan and is saying he's just going to take the land and move on and won't talk more about it Jbwncster (talk) 16:17, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

'''You wouldnt listen to Scan and sign the treaty in which you lost nothing at all. A dumb move on your mark. -Nova  16:20, February 20, 2014 (UTC)'''

'''I'm fine with the original treaty just not losing my expansion in jaffna, that was the only thing I wasn't ok with and when dean found out he assumed I didn't like the whole thing and wouldn't even negotiate. Now if dean is willing to negotiate on this page for everyone to see and not in chat I'll be willing to continue talks Jbwncster (talk) 16:22, February 20, 2014 (UTC)'''

N'''ow he wants to ban me from the whole game because he can't negotiate. I have posted a screenshot of DEAN banning me because he can't be civil.'''



I knew you were gonna try that. You edited another players post twice. You were warned. Then you did it again. Now your banned. -Nova  16:49, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

Dean keeps crossing out posts and saying he's going to take land no matter how and won't even listen to Scan about accepting the treaty Jbwncster (talk) 17:12, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

I have a suggestion to both of the players. Due to the recent information I have gained whilst observing the argument between Jbwncster and NovaSims I have noticed two important things. Nova's argument is that Jbw took too much time to sign the treaty, which was according to Jbw physically impossible due to him having real life duties. Yet, according to Jbw, he also did not sign the treaty due to him not wanting to lose Jaffna. Now, since Nova is technically the winner of the war, (s)he should be the one who is able to change the treaties. After another discussion with the partakers in the war, I have come up with a reasonable suggestion for both players. All terms that have been decided beforehand remain, and multiple ones are added. First of all, Jbwncster, henceforth known as the loser, will also have to give up Venad, due to the fact that he has lost between a nation multiple times bigger than him and I myself do not believe the leader(s) of Venad would choose to stay. Second of all would be that the loser is forbidden to vassalize nations for the next fifteen years. Thirdly, NovaSims, henceforth known as the winner, will not be able to vassalize or conquer any nation that the loser lost untill the loser pays off his tribute. Last but not least, both the winner and the loser are not allowed to in any way insult eachother on the PMIII map game or its talk page, or they will be punished accordingly by the moderators of said map game. That would be all ladies and gentlemen, I hope you give it a thought or two. Thank you in advance.

Cheers -

Im for it. -Nova  17:36, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

If I'm not allowed to have a marriage then this game is over for me, Also if I can't have vassals or anything for 15 turns by then all the europeans will be in india and can destroy me anyhow. Jbwncster (talk) 17:40, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

The comments above have been taken into consideration. Jbwncster's vassalization ban could be lowered to 10 years rather than 15 and marriage has not and shan't be prohibited by the treaty.

If the proposal is accepted, I will also, as its creator make sure its terms are followed.-

Also can we just have a mod decide what to do? Since nova won't reason with me. Jbwncster (talk) 18:36, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

Im trying to reason with you. You wont budge  -Nova  19:01, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

You don't try to reason, you are trying to halt his expansion by using your mod powers, and Scan doesn't want to slap your hand from doing it because you are a mod, But i believe this treaty and the war should've been retconned from the beginning, and the continuous discussion about this proves my point. IF YOU ANNEX HIM I'LL THUNDERSTORM YOU. Sine dei gloriem "Ex Initio Terrae" (talk) 00:32, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

I keep getting my posts crossed out and I feel dean just wants to abuse his mod powers and just cheat all the way. He won't reason with anyone unless they bow down to him and give him everything. Jbwncster (talk) 01:14, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Godmodding/Bias Rule
I believe we all have seen the recent events involving Nova, previous to that Scan alleged De facto 1-turn vassalage period and Ms Russia's invasion which dragged a Huge part of the HRE. I believe that some of this issues could have been easily solved if the mods were not to meddle in their regions or regions where they show direct pretentions (Saying for an Example that i can't post something like Bourbon collapses and its absorbed by France, nor Bourbon joins the side of france against a war with the Castilians or Aragonese) this would be to avoid any further crisis from coming out of people fighting over implausible events or biased events that for now have given an advantage or influence of the mod nation. In this case the rule could be applied in a fairly simple way. For an instance France cannot be involved in any mod event in the french states and or about the french unification process. the Timurids can't be involved in events relative to persia or northwestern india, the rule also would imply that mods can't use their modhood to like Nova allegedly did halt everyone else expansion within india. To be short
 * 1) Mods can't meddle in the events related to their nations or to nearby nations that are within the claimed area or territory that's targeted to expand.
 * 2) Mod nations can't join wars implausibly to nations historically ignored by most of the nations or a relatively ignored by the nations nor enemies being attacked by Player nations (at least not without previous plausible vassalage attempts)
 * 3) No hyper vassalizations to NPC nations, Interventions are plausible without algorithms if there's is no intention to annex them or vassalize them immediately, or initiating this way the vassalization. a minimum period of vassalization for a nation half of your size would be 5 to 6 turns, However this may change depending if other mods agree.
 * 4) No mod-puppeting. This implies that no nation NPC or Player can be forced by a mod to join a war, and that even if alliance, there has to be an implicit declaration by the player nation for them to be considered in the algo. or a message from itself in the algo discussion to be accepted as part of the algo.

Mods may agree on this and vote if you like to do this and players can ( and please do it) give me their opinion in order to fix and expand this rule. Sine dei gloriem "Ex Initio Terrae" (talk) 17:45, February 19, 2014 (UTC)

Yay:

 * Good proposal; well thought out.
 * Bowties are Cool (talk) 23:50, February 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * Not Bad. Note that this rule may be undone by a mod vote if necessary. Cour *talk* PMII_Mayan_Flag.pngCaborr_Flag.png 00:41, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

Yay:

 * Quashi (talk) 18:09, February 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * Kunarian  TALK  18:29, February 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * Jbwncster (talk) 19:23, February 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * Eiplec - ಠ_ಠ (talk) 21:55, February 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * Cookiedamage (talk) 00:40, February 20, 2014 (UTC)
 * <span style=" border:4px ridge grey; -webkit-border-radius:2em 0em 0em 0em; padding-left:8px; padding-right:0px;"> ... <span style="background:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(red), to(aqua));border:6px outset yellow; -webkit-border-radius:0em 0em 0em 0em;"> Razor   - the Razor Nabil.png  04:53, February 20, 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not know why this was not accepted earlier.  05:42, February 20, 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not know why this was not accepted earlier.  05:42, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
Fun fact, in England, voting is done in Ayes and Noes rather than Yays and Nays. Kunarian TALK 18:34, February 19, 2014 (UTC)

No wonder their Empire fell apart *lamepun*

The HRE has never invaded Russia. Mscoree (talk) 22:02, February 19, 2014 (UTC)

Japanese civil war
As we all might know, Shadow has been attacking multiple daimyos since the beginning of the game. Now, due to the fact that he is destabillizing his authority within a region where the local leaders held on to their independence very strongly.

Therefore I suggest a mod event in 1419 that would start the Japanese civil war, and maybe even create alliance between multiple daimyos, for example an alliance of the southern daimyos. Also I'd be happy if mods checked shadows posts more often as nearly every one of his posts contains something ASB.

That would be all, thank you in advance ladies and gentlemen.

i whole heartedly agree with this idea. Nkbeeching (talk) 19:25, February 19, 2014 (UTC)

im for it. Ill take care of the issue. -Nova  19:41, February 19, 2014 (UTC)

There is no need for a civil war. How else would I get more land without war. Sti this stupidness now. - Shadow

it isnt stupid its the natural result of your bloody expansion. every action has a consequence. Nkbeeching (talk) 23:49, February 19, 2014 (UTC)

massive chinese fleet?
i can understand alot of things in pm iii but you know if its impossible for westerners to reach the orient dont you think it should be the same in reverse. i mean sure the chinese had the money to support a massive fleet at the time, but to make it all the way past the cape of good hope with current tech is a bit impossible dont you think. Nkbeeching (talk) 00:30, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Having the Chinese fleet arrive in Europe might be a bit too much, too soon. Mscoree (talk) 00:46, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. The Ming Dynasty was a huge funder of exploration voyages. Their principle commander, Zheng He, lead the fleets all throughout the Indian and Pacific Oceans. It is even believed he reached North America sometime in otl 1420s. I see no reason why they can't reach Europe.

I find it plausible. As previeouly mentioned, it is believed that Zheng He reached the Americas, Europe is not out of the qeustion.Bowties are Cool (talk) 01:06, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

Well, reaching the americas is not as vast a distance as crossing the Indian ocean, then rounding africa, and then sailing up the same continent, all without ports capable of supplying or supporting such a fleet.

It was difficult for the Portuguese to do it at first, and that was with single ships. Having a massive fleet would have a lot of logistical and supply problems.

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave   but you are welcome in it. " 01:13, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

Just going to say, Zheng He did not discover America. The claims that he did all come from one of those "popular history" books and have mostly been debunked IIRC. Fed  (talk)  01:18, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

Grant, hard evidence supporting a Chinese voyage to North America is scant. Most of it comes from stones found off California congruent with Chinese anchors from the time. But it is believed that the Chinese were more than capable of traversing open ocean to North America.

Treasure ships can have enough supplies to last them a year, if they restock in one of the many ports of the Indian ocean trade network, they may be set for long voyages, however Europeans were attempting to circumnavigate africa since 1425 but only succedded when Vasco de gama did it in 1498...so ya...if they succeded in 1425 then it could have been possible but in 1419...well, treasure ships do have MUCH more supplies, so its'' theoreticaly possible... ''considering Europeans hade MUCH MCUH smaller hulls therefore less supplies(ceveral months max) compared to the YEARS lifespan of Treasure ship food if dried...so maybe but now would be stretching it...but not by much...-Lx (leave me a message) 03:45, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

There is a fleet of over 500 ships, they've failed to circumnavigate Africa twice already but figured out they can get supplies in Mozambique. The supplies there can last a year and the ships are twice the size of European ships in the 16th century that went to the Americas. Massive fleets also mean that they can supply each other. Scandinator (talk)

He did not even make a voyage in the general direction of North America. Quite literally, that "author" is a fraud. So, for that matter, is those "stones."

Zhang He did not reach the Americas. Simple. Even trying to say that he, or any other Chinese explorers, sailed in that direction is an outright lie.

Overall, far too soon for Chinese explorers to be anywhere near Europe.

On the contrary, the Chinese vessels did not have the ability to supply each other. In truth, they consumed far more than their European counterparts.

There is a very good reason why Europeans made it first, even ignoring the Ming shutting down exploration - European ships were far, far, far easier to supply, and resupply. Remember, smaller ships, but also far smaller crews, and far easier to repair/maintain. Sure as heck didn't have to cannibalize ships like the Chinese did on their voyages.

European ships were also much faster, and far more seaworthy. Comparing the Atlantic Ocean to the waters Chinese ships sailed in is like comparing a tiger to a housecat.

Basically, African stops on coastline without ports was feasible with regards to resupplying for the Europeans, but not the Chinese.

Lordganon (talk) 09:52, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

based on what lg stated can we get a rollback on the chinese passing the cape of good hope. Nkbeeching (talk) 18:02, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

Well, uhm, not sure why LG is getting involved in map games, but since he is pretty much the senior historian of the wikia, I assume we shall follow his judgement?

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave   but you are welcome in it. " 03:16, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how they could not support each other using the smaller boats. In this ATL the Ming have not had to shut down naval exploration and a naval focus, the Mongols have not attacked nor the Timurids. Considering these ships are built to weather typhoons then its not too hard to imagine them sailing the south Atlantic. And supplying in Mozambique which was a Swahilli trading port, for the voyage to Oyo is plausable. The length and difficulty of the voyage means it is unlikely to occur again in the PM3 ATL in its current form but its just a nice shake up of the old Euro-centric POV. Scandinator (talk) 04:10, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

I do try to keep half an eye on the big games, if for no other reason than I can have half a clue in advance when problems are coming. Hence, why almost all of my posts on these talk pages are warnings.

This case, could not stand to see people preaching that bull as fact.

Scan, you can't "support" them with smaller boats. All that really does is shift supplies around the fleet, which does nothing. If you're referring to them sending smaller boats to the coast to try and get supplies, it's still the same problem. A question of scale, if you would - just not possible to get the needed supplies. You'd end up consuming more sitting there gathering them than you would get by gathering more.

The Ming not shutting that down is more or less irrelevant. Solves more or less nothing about the problems with the ships and naval methods.

Actually, they weren't really built to weather typhoons, so to speak. What they were built to do is, in that regard, not take too much damage or sink because of them while sitting at anchor in port. Those ships, imo, have a really bad track record when hitting storms/bad weather while at sea. Heck, they didn't really tend to even be out all that much, by comparison, at that time of year.

The ocean that the Chinese ships normally traveled in is also far shallower than what the western Europeans sailed in. Normal conditions out that way are pretty tame. The Atlantic is not.

With regards to Oyo, they would be incapable of supplying a Chinese fleet with more than water (even that somewhat iffy) on a real level. You're also exaggerating the Swahali trading ports - they were small ports, little more than glorified trading posts. On the edge of the world, so to speak. While they could probably get some supplies there, especially water, the amount would be severely limited.

Lordganon (talk) 08:48, February 22, 2014 (UTC)

New event
Hello, recently i'ben notified that soon I will be traveling for work and apparently I'm going to Manaus, so i will not be present to be posting. So I created an event in my last post, it was something that had already been planned some time ago, but it was not going to give in these conditions, but the general idea of the event remains. Provence will pass through a small crisis of succession, where the lower Angevin line will disappear, and a personal Union is created. I hope that through this can consolidate the Angevin family. I already ask Quashi that he post for me, and not destroy my nation XD, i hope i can come back soon. Mawilda (talk) 04:02, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

Page of the Week/Month
Hi fellow PMIII'ers! I am just wanting to toss around an old idea which has been incubating in my mind (and I am sure that of others, since I got the idea from them) of having a Page of the Week (or Month)!!! This would operate similarly to the wiki-wide TL of the Month, except we would want to keep on top of it.

We can make pages for our nations, our vassals, our colonies  (later on), our wars, our treaties.... so many pages!!! Now, the page of the week could be determined by the mods, or the players, or both (or we could rotate it).

Now, what would this do, should you have the page of the week? Maybe a couple of good mod events, a "Get out of a Mod Event" -free card, or a bonus in the algorithims. That is all up to you... I just wanted to get the idea out there, in order to help encourage development of pages. 08:22, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea of a page of the month, as it motivates people to develop some cool pages. I don't think it would carry a bonus to get out of a mod event or add points to an algorithm however. More like a honor to have than a bonus. Mscoree (talk) 11:38, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

I like this idea although I don't think we should reward people with something like that. Maybe only that they have their chance on the max in their next algo, but that should be it. If we give them too useful rewards people will just start making and editing pages in order to get the reward.

I personally like that idea, as some map games have "Pages of the Month", and due to the high amount of pages that spawn off of a Principia Moderni game, I think that there will be no shortage of material. <font color="#29AB87">Bow To Your Sensei.  <font color="#002366">BOW TO YOUR SENSEI!!!

Okay so how about we start proposals here? Mscoree (talk) 20:01, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

We are supposed to nominate pages below, are we?--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 19:51, February 22, 2014 (UTC)

Proposals

 * Portugal Family Tree (Principia Moderni III Map Game) (perpetually under construction)--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 19:50, February 22, 2014 (UTC)

Hesse (Attacker)

 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage: 3
 * Nations: Hesse (L) Nassau (LV) Frankfurt (LV) 10/4=3
 * Military Development: 20/3 = 7
 * Economic Development:  16/3 = 5
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure Development: 0
 * Motive: 10
 * Chance: 4
 * Editcount:117
 * UTC time: 08:42
 * 117/64 x pi = 5.74322407
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Population: 16
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Vassals and Puppets: -2

Score: 84

Brunswick-Gottingen (Defender)

 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage: 2
 * Nations: Brunswick-Gottingen (L) 4/7=0
 * Military Development: 3/30 = 0
 * Economic Development: 3/30 = 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure Development: 3
 * Motive: (8-5)=3
 * Chance: 3
 * Nation Age: 0 (1387 - Take over by Burghers)
 * Population: 6
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals And Puppets: x1.25

Score: 65

Result
84/149 - 0.5 x 2 = <span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:30px;line-height:30px;white-space:nowrap;">0.43624161073

<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:30px;line-height:30px;white-space:nowrap;">0.43624161073  x 1.5 (civil disarray bonus) = <span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:30px;line-height:30px;white-space:nowrap;">0.6543624161

Hesse can take 65% of Gottingen's territory, depending from how much the war lasts.

Discussion
Went ahead and tidied this one up, from both formatting and error standpoints. 08:55, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

Other errors corrected.Brunswick-Gottingen must be about half your size, so i'd estimate they have half your population, so your bonus is only a two.And population is not like development, meaning that the smaller side does not get 0.And i had to fix the chance.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 13:56, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

@The half the size part, just wondering if you included Nassau. Also, what do you mean depending on how long the war lasts for the results? Do I get more land if it continues longer, or? Blocky858 (talk) 06:01, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but since Gottingen is in civil disarray, the calculations for war years will be (p)*(1-1/(x)).--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 07:06, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

So how much land do I get each year? Just add another 9%, or? Also, is it where I need 33.33% land to annex someone or do whatever I want to their government? Or is that a score thing? Blocky858 (talk) 23:34, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

It's like that:If your war lasts 5 years,k the calculations go like;(9)*(1-1/(5))

Which will give out: 7,2%.

The maximum lands you get is 9%, regardless of how much the war lasts.If you want to topple their government, you should declare another war in less than 30 years.Then you join the results of this war with the ones of the other.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 18:27, February 22, 2014 (UTC)

Okay thank you. I just gained a bunch of land so do I will put that in. Blocky858 (talk) 07:38, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

A Question
With Yemen, my former nation, now a part of the Mamluk Sultanate, I'm thinking of choosing a new nation. I wanted to ask if the nation in southern Hokkaido the Ainu nation? If that is so, I've basicly decided between either choosing one of the Rajput states in Northwestern India, the Ainu nation, or the Uesugi clan. Willster22 (User talk:Willster22) 10:15, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

Apparently Yemen is coming free soon. Wait maybe? Up to you.

15:48, February 20, 2014 (UTC)'

I wouldn't bother with india, nova won't let anyone have it and he'll find a way to make your life hell Jbwncster (talk) 16:08, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

If you would wait, you will find that your nation will actually have the revenge of a lifetime...more or less...

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave   but you are welcome in it. " 03:23, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

Another Question
Are there still spaces open in this map game? If so, I would definitely be interested in joining. RevenantAscension (talk) 17:17, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of spaces open. But you should choose your position wisely.

New players are always welcome. Just take a look in the nations list on the main page for a list of still open nations. Mscoree (talk) 20:00, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

Go for it. Lots of slots open, expecially if you are inventive. Obviously a lot of the power slots are taken but you could have plenty of room to spread out in, say, Sub-saharan Africa, South America, parts of North America, Oceania. Sky is the limit - although I would caution aginst jumping into Europe at the moment given the situtation. Commandante Lemming (talk) 21:25, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

Don't bother with India, Nova can't be reasoned with. I quit if nothing is done to make this game better. I can't even have a nation because someone keeps land grabbing and won't listen to anyone. Jbwncster (talk) 03:11, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

So if someone took Tibet how would they protect themselves? Jbwncster (talk) 03:35, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

60 Editors
What. The. Fux. PitaKang-  My Life for Aiur!   En Taro Tassadar  03:32, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

PITA! :D We beat the record, so yay. Jump in if you want to. Fed  (talk)  03:35, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

Ye we have between 59 to 62 at any given time although it may (read: will) drop down to 20 - 30 range.

03:36, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you should stay a while, lol.

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave   but you are welcome in it. " 03:38, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

I tried last time but school was too much... I think I will stay this time tho. PitaKang-  My Life for Aiur!   En Taro Tassadar  03:44, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

Also I found the mod google doc and requested access... are you guys using it? PitaKang-  My Life for Aiur!   En Taro Tassadar  04:09, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

Of course.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 12:14, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

I have added you to the document. Mscoree (talk) 15:08, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

Mod Response for Bavaria
Hey guys. Can a mod please write up a response to this offer I wrote the NPC Pfalz (copied straight from game):

"In dynastic news, Heinrich XVI sends letters to the various lords of Pfalz (with whom Bavaria is linked via dynastic union), offering them assistance in setting up a government. In return, they would accept Heinrich as their true lord under a personal union. ''' Can a mod respond to this, maybe in the next mod events?" '''

I already asked the past few turns but I don't think any mods saw it, so I decided to put it here. Typing up a mod event for 1421 would be fine too.

Thanks!

Cookiedamage (talk) 05:49, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

I already asked on the moderator page. I would accept but I need to make sure everyone else is in agreeance first. Mscoree (talk) 11:41, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for responding! Sorry if I sounded pesky, didn't know you needed wider agreement :P Cookiedamage (talk) 00:53, February 22, 2014 (UTC)

Impeached
Mscoree has been. I don't know where people got the "supermajority" thing from, but it is not on the Rules Page. To vote a Mod in needs a Supermajority, but to vote them out mentions nothing of the sort, so I assume it is a straight up Majority. In which case, 3 - 2 is a Majority. Ms has been impeached. So... Shouldn't he not be a Mod now? Local Mafia Boss (Talk) (Blog)

I was under the impression that it needs a supermajority, just like the TSPTF. Mscoree (talk) 21:23, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

There is no mention of it, so I don't think it does. Local Mafia Boss (Talk) (Blog)


 * There should be a sufficient number of moderators at all times.
 * Anyone may comment on a post believed to be implausible, but only moderators may roll them back or cross the post out.
 * Moderators are in charge of inducting new members.
 * Moderators should be active often to inspect moves for historical implausibility.
 * Moderators may cause natural events, revolts.etc. Moderators may cause events affecting all players of a certain region or only players who have expanded implausibly.
 * Moderators may have specific roles, which they are in charge of.
 * Inactive moderators may be removed.
 * Moderators may be impeached. The impeachment procedure can be initiated by any player but must be approved by at least two other mods. Only moderators (minus the one being impeached) can vote on whether the impeached mod will or will not be removed.
 * A moderator may propose that an user be banned from the game, either temporarily or permanently. The moderators will vote upon this.
 * The above can be avoided if an user has broken the rules in a severe way (e.g. sockpuppeting), then the said user can be automatically banned by any moderator.

The bolded rule is the relevant one, and as can be seen, does not require a Supermajority.

Local Mafia Boss (Talk) (Blog)

That would mean Nova would also need removing, since that vote had a majority against her.

Didn't see that. I guess so, then Local Mafia Boss (Talk) (Blog)

Although not specifically stated in the rules I think a supermajority should be necessary for the same reasons it is used by the TSPTF. Mscoree (talk) 22:31, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

We are not the TSPTF.

22:34, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

I'm not just saying this because I voted for ms. I have to say that from what LG explained to me, I think that a supermajority is important. If there is no quorum then anyone can just spam through something. Seems like a logical thing to follow. Tr0llis (talk) 22:39, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

These are not the mods you are looking for.

22:38, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

Anyone can just spam through something... Because that has never happened on PM3 before. No one got into Modship by Spamming through... Especially not Ms. Not at all. Not even slightly. Local Mafia Boss (Talk) (Blog)

Also, LG was explaining why the TSPTF should vote, not why they should have a supermajority.

22:43, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

Guns, he was explaining why it was important for TSPTF votes to be counted separately, not where they should vote at all. Of course they should be able to vote. He talked about a precaution set up, so that TSPTF members had to have a 2/3 vote to ensure that nothing was spammed through. Mscoree (talk) 22:54, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

I think it'd be quite a murky act and one that truly stinks to change the rules resulting in a different result than what was voted for. Kunarian TALK 09:06, February 22, 2014 (UTC)

This isn't really changing the rules. The rules don't state how the voting must be conducted, so I am just proposing that we use the wiki's rules. Seems that would be a fair thing to do, and so far most of the moderators seem to be in agreeance. Some who even voted against me (such as Scraw) wrote in the discussion that we need a supermajority. Mscoree (talk) 16:10, February 22, 2014 (UTC)

If it does not say that it is a supermajority, it is a majority. That is... pretty obvious, TBH. Local Mafia Boss (Talk) (Blog)

Also, the page states explicitly in the places where it is a supermajority, and it does not do so here, so it is not relevant.

Nova's Gotta Go!
I don't know why we need to continue to go over this, but Nova's recent behavior should make this clear. She's not mod material and everyone should know this. --Yank 00:56, February 22, 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It is a shame that our own head mods cannot realize this.

01:06, February 22, 2014 (UTC)

Based on what? It's my understanding Nova and Jbw worked out their crap.

The fact that it got that bad to begin with should be a sign that Nova simply does not have what it takes to be mod. Nova's abusing her mod powers to further her personal goals, and that should be absolutely unacceptable. Mods should be above harassing other players to get what they want.--Yank 01:40, February 22, 2014 (UTC)

Although I'm a neutral player in this feud, I agree with Yankovic, her mod events are bias. Toţi în unu; Nihil Sine Deo

Can you point them out to me?

we didn't settle anything I just gave up cause you can't reason with an immature person. Jbwncster (talk) 04:53, February 22, 2014 (UTC)

I havnt made any mod events recently. If you want me gone Yank, make another impeachment attempt. Otherwise, please stop griping on the talk page, its cluttering it up.And I recently tried reconcling with JBW, I offered my nation to replace his, as a peace offering. It wasnt accepted. -Nova  04:59, February 22, 2014 (UTC)

I think he rejected cause that's meta as shit.

05:10, February 22, 2014 (UTC)

For God's sake people, can we stop putting up impeachement attempts because of the most inconsequential reasons? The problem between Jb and Nova is being worked on, and honestly this just works to fuel the flames. Fed  (talk)  05:20, February 22, 2014 (UTC)

I didn't directly set up an impeachment because at this point those tend to fail regardless of how deserving the recipient is. You do realize that your metagaming is one of the reasons why you get nominated for impeachment. And weren't you quitting anyway? --Yank 05:20, February 22, 2014 (UTC)

Im not leaving the game. And honestly, I just want this whole mess to be done with. Its caused more issues than its worth, seeing as I have to give up the spoils anyway. -Nova  05:24, February 22, 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how giving Jbw his country is meta-gaming. And I'm with Nova, this thing should be done with.

Mod response
can someone respond to tibet 1420? Jbwncster (talk) 06:22, February 22, 2014 (UTC)

I have replied to it. Mscoree (talk) 13:25, February 22, 2014 (UTC)

Treaty Terms

 * 1) The Ashikaga clan returns all lands conquered after attacking the Shiba, Toki and Hatekeyama daimyos.
 * 2) In order to stop halt the Shogun from trying to start the war again he will submit his navy to the Hosokawa-Kono Clan.
 * 3) The Shogun's army mustn't be stationed near the the daimyos border (atleast 5 miles/kilometres?) for the next 15 years.

Toki, Shiba, Hatekeyama and Emperor (Mod-signed)

 * -Mscoree (talk) 15:41, February 22, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
I will not begivin up my land that I won fair and square! I will not give up my navy. You are out of your mind. This is the worst treaty I have seen in my life. I would rather give you some of my money and some goods instead of land. - Shadow

First of all, if you don't accept you have 3 angry clans around you waiting to attack. Secondly, because of you messing with Vietnam there is now a chance of Ming China sending military to Japan. Finally, if you don't sign it I can easily as Kampaku get not only the daimyos but the Emperor too against you.

Also my treaty isn't the worst you've ever seen and I am surely NOT out of my mind so please don't insult me.

One, I am not in Vietnam so China is not a problem. Two, I can kick you out of your position any time I want. Three, The Emperor is on my side. Four), I am not giving up my land final. - Shadow

shadow, you cant remove sky from his position without instigating a war with him. at that point youll be dragged into a war you can not win its either accept the treaty or face the lose of your position and lands. and the emperor can choose to side with the kampaku should he wish to. Nkbeeching (talk) 21:03, February 22, 2014 (UTC)

Roman Empire
Total: 128.75
 * Location: +20
 * Tactical Advantage: +3
 * Nations: Roman Empire (L) Knights Hospitaller (L), Theodoro (MV) = +5
 * Military Development:
 * Romans: +15
 * Knights: +6
 * Economic Development:
 * Romans: +18
 * Knights: +5
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: +7
 * Chance: +7
 * Edit count: 27
 * UTC: 0*9*4*9 = 324
 * Total: 27/324*pi (3.14159265359) = 0.2617993877991667
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Population: +8 (180,000)
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: -1
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Achaea
Total: 85
 * Location: +25
 * Tactical Advantage: 2
 * Nations: Achaea (L) = +4
 * Military Development: +2
 * Economic Development: +2
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 2
 * Motive: +9
 * Chance: +1
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Population: +6 (100,000)
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Discussion
Here you go SwankyJ. Vivaporius:  "I don't need a slogan"  20:59, February 22, 2014 (UTC)

You need to add the motive modifier, and also Roman Empire is joining Quashi (talk) 21:13, February 22, 2014 (UTC)

Saved for a later turn, lol. "<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave   but you are welcome in it. " 23:23, February 22, 2014 (UTC)

This was for Roman Empire, I was supporting. I edited it and need the finishing touches.

Knights Hospitaller (Attacker)
Total: 77 x 1.25 = 96.25
 * Location: 20
 * Tactical Advantage: 3
 * Nations: Knights Hospitaller (L), Roman Empire (L), Castile (L), Granada (MV), Georgia (M) = 17/4 = 4
 * Military Development: 50/10 = 5
 * Knights: 10
 * Roman Empire: 16
 * Castile: 24
 * Economic Development: 36/6= 6
 * Knights: 0
 * Roman Empire: 14
 * Castile: 22
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: + 12 (aiding oppresed kinsmen, High Morale)
 * Chance: 9
 * Edit count: 17
 * UTC: 15:49 = 180
 * Total: 17/180*pi (3.14159265359) = 0.296705973
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Knights: +5
 * Romans: +5
 * Castile: -5
 * Population: +8
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: -5
 * Vassals and Puppets: x1.25

Cyrpus (Defender)
Total: 60 x 1.25 = 75
 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations: Cyprus (L)  = 4 = 0
 * Military Development: 0
 * Cyprus: 10
 * Economic Development: 0
 * Cyprus: 6
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: 9 (Defending Core/heartland from possibly fatal attack)
 * Chance:
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 (0) =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Population: 6
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: *1.25

Discussion
Correcting many mistakes in the algorythm.Does Cyprus have a player?--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 07:11, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

So, this algo is partially wrong still, as I told Ms, who was in charge of the algo, that Trebizond no longer exists and cannot be a part of the algo, and I never once mentioned Theodoro sending troops to this fight. Therefore, unless I am mistaken, which is very possible, we should not get a minus 2 but instead get the 1.25 multiplyer. Also, my motive is not to get land, but to free the Greek population of cyprus from Serfdom, which is a policy that the Latin government of Cyprus supports. I hope this changes things.

As of now, the only thing I have changed is the vassal multiplyer and the vassal minus two. I have no idea how the nations thing would change, so if someone could help with that, I would appreciate it.

Also, just suggesting this, since it is not obvious to me, but the government of Cyprus was not really supported by the Greek population, and in OTL the Latin government had to put down several rebellions. Not sure if that modifyer is already factored in, but I want to hear people's opinion on it.

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave   but you are welcome in it. " 17:39, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

First of all you get the x1.25 even if Theodoro was aiding. That modifier is only not used if they are fully in the war (L). Having (MV) is fine. Second, it was my impression (unless I misinterpreted the rules) that only the aid on each side is divided by the other, not all nations per side. The rule state "he aid scores for both sides will be completed, then the larger side will be divided by the smaller one," which I assumed meant military and supply aid, not L. Mscoree (talk) 21:09, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

Knights of St John are my Protectorate... I can still easily be involved in this war. (Im Castile and i offered to him 1 or 2 turns ago.) So technically Castile could easily be involved in this algo.

So what is the result? Our score turned out better, so is Cyprus finally declared defeated? SwankyJ (talk) 21:51, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

If it matters, and it's not too late to join, Georgia is also sending supplies to help the Knights' coalition. TankOfMidgets (talk) 21:54, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

Cyprus is malmuks ally and you are malmuks ally you should not dare. <font color=Purple face="Algerian">OCT MARIUS, HAIL HIM

Casstille can not help in this becuase the war has started AND there has not been a post of invasion. <font color=Purple face="Algerian">OCT MARIUS, HAIL HIM

Actually Oct, Castile and the Kingdom of Georgia are both allowed to help adding to my attack, so upping the score even more, you lost. You died. SwankyJ (talk) 23:17, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

According to the rules, the way coalitions work is that anyone can join in at any time and leave at any time they so please, so yeah, he can join.

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave   but you are welcome in it. " 23:32, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

Fixed the thing with Georgia and the Canaries Sine dei gloriem "Ex Initio Terrae" (talk)

Knights Hospitaller (Attacker)
Total: -- x 1.25 = --
 * Location: 20
 * Tactical Advantage: 3
 * Nations: Knights Hospitaller (L), Roman Empire (L), Castile (L), Granada (MV),  Canaries (MV), Georgia (S), Theodoro (MV) = --/-- = --
 * Military Development: --/-- = --
 * Knights: 12
 * Roman Empire: 17
 * Castile: 25
 * Economic Development: 40/-- = --
 * Knights: 2
 * Roman Empire: 15
 * Castile: 23
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: + 12 (aiding oppresed kinsmen, High Morale)
 * Chance: 9
 * Edit count: 17
 * UTC: 15:49 = 180
 * Total: 17/180*pi (3.14159265359) = 0.296705973
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Knights: +5
 * Romans: +5
 * Castile: -5
 * Population: +8
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: -5
 * Vassals and Puppets: x1.25

Cyrpus (Defender)
Total: --  x 1.25 = --
 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations: Cyprus (L)  = 4 = 0
 * Military Development: 0
 * Cyprus: 10
 * Economic Development: 0
 * Cyprus: 6
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: 9 (Defending Core/heartland from possibly fatal attack)
 * Chance:
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 (0) =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Population: 6
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: -1
 * Vassals and Puppets: *1.25

Result
So, obviously, not the most unbiased mod here, but since I don't know how the algo averaging works, and the last algo resulted in a victory and we have only gained supporters, I think we can assume that we win again, unless some other faction comes to Oct's aid. Let me know what you think.

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave   but you are welcome in it. " 21:42, February 24, 2014 (UTC)

I crossed the canaries for an obvious reason, but yeah you pretty much fucked up Oct again lol Sine dei gloriem "Ex Initio Terrae" (talk)

Where in the World...
...is northern Mesopotamia? I mean no offense - I'm just genuinely confused as to where these rebellions my doomed glorious kingdom has apparently inspired are happening. I'm currently guessing that "northern Mesopotamia" means the former Emirate of Mosul, which Mesopotamia annexed in 1419 - which I'm interpreting as the light-gray region wedged between Mamluk-teal Mesopotamia, Timurid-red Persia, and the Timurid-red White Sheep Turks on the 1415 map. Is that an acceptable approximation? If not, please let me know ASAP - my plans for this turn hinge on where northern Mesopotamia is relative to me. TankOfMidgets (talk) 01:28, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, I figured out how to read a map. TankOfMidgets (talk) 03:48, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

...I'm assuming the White Sheeps, right? ChrisL123 (talk) 05:33, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

Current State of Affairs in PMIII-ville
So, what's going on in the world? I really don't have to have to read through like 1000+ posts to figure it out, so could someone tell me just a very brief outline of what's happening? Like in Europe and Asia. Also, is China inactive? I keep posting things about China and China isn't posting anything back. Thanks y'all  PitaKang-  My Life for Aiur!   En Taro Tassadar  04:32, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

Also, why did PMII end? PitaKang-  My Life for Aiur!   En Taro Tassadar  04:35, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

We all voted to end PM2. Generally it was because of ASB and implausibility, which had made the game less fun for many. Mscoree (talk) 04:39, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

Two things Pita, I'm currently having connectivity issues with the net. Thus the lack of time to reply to most things since I have to catch the ten second window my internet works in. Two, Korea is my vassal, you can't just grab if without asking or signing. Scandinator (talk) 10:56, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

No rules against taking vassals. Hell, Guns took a vassal of Denmark as his nation. PitaKang-  My Life for Aiur!   En Taro Tassadar  15:30, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

I will admit it was my mistake in not signing, however. PitaKang-  My Life for Aiur!   En Taro Tassadar  15:32, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

Actually Guns quit the game a while ago, and he forgot to remove his name from there. That is supposed to be Crim's. Mscoree (talk) 17:25, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake again. But still, there is no rule against taking control of a vassal, no? Again it was my mistake not to sign up, but I don't see anything wrong with singing up as a vassal. PitaKang-  My Life for Aiur!   En Taro Tassadar  23:38, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly, but you have to ask the player of the suzerain nation first.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 20:53, February 24, 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... may I see the rule that states that? PitaKang-  My Life for Aiur!   En Taro Tassadar  22:54, February 24, 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you mean Pita, as all the reading of past posts turned me off to PMII after I left early on. Basically Europe is full of wars, as most of the power players are there. Poland-Lithuania took over Muscovy early on, but later got trampled. Naples conquered much of Italy, save the north. The Timurids have their eyes east, on India, conquering in that region, while revolts happen in the west. Oyo is one of the few player nations in Africa and the only one in Sub-Saharan Africa, and they are trying to become Catholic and Europeanized rapidly. Austria is working on creating a tighter HRE, while they fought a war with the Kalmar Union turned United Norse Crown in the north. Castille took over Gibraltar, and the Mamluks are looking to become a major power in the Middle East and Africa. The Golden Horde and Four Oriats (Horde between Mongolia and the Golden Horde) are slowly settling down, and the Golden Horde has pushed west. Venice is a powerful trading power across Europe, but England and the UNC are looking to establish their own trade empires. Holland is expanding and religiously reforming and Byzantium/Eastern Rome continues to hold on, and with the aid of other European nations, is able to take back land from the Ottomans. Two nations in Ireland, Munster and Ulster are expanding, and they have joined the United Kingdoms of Greater Albion, a UK-esque organization with England and Scotland, though tensions do remain. Catholicism has split into Western and Eastern, with Eastern being the traditional form, and Western being the new form that is widespread in the British Isles and Western Europe. Cahokia is expanding heavily in America, as are the Zapotecs. That's basically it. <font color="#29AB87">Bow To Your Sensei.  <font color="#002366">BOW TO YOUR SENSEI!!!
 * Venice is a powerful trading power across Europe <that's me, right there :D  Kunarian TALK 20:25, March 3, 2014 (UTC)

Just because I'm wondering, how was my summary? <font color="#29AB87">Bow To Your Sensei.  <font color="#002366">BOW TO YOUR SENSEI!!!
 * Pretty damn good, I want moar. Its great to just have these little moments of recognition when in game a majority of players don't get involved with you.  Kunarian TALK 20:41, March 3, 2014 (UTC)

Ottomans

 * Location: (15 + 20 + 20)/3 = 55/3 = 18
 * Tactical Advantage: 1 (attacking) + 2 (central coordination) + {[2*2]/3 = 4/3} (high ground - Georgia and Armenia only) = 4.333... ~ 4
 * Nations: Ottomans (L), Golden Horde (M), Georgia (L), Armenia (LV)= 14/10 = 1
 * Military Development: (10 + 2 + 8)/20 = 20/20 = 1
 * Economic Development: (8 + 2 + 3)/16 = 13/16 = 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: [11 (Ottomans: enforcing political hegemony, non-dem popular government) + 11 (Georgia: liberation of Orthodox Assyrian kinsmen, non-dem popular gov't) + 11 (Armenia: liberation of Orthodox Assyrian kinsmen, non-dem popular gov't)]/3 = 33/3 = 11 (not counting morale/guerilla factors)
 * Chance: 5
 * Edit count: 2528
 * UTC: 4:21 = 8
 * Total: 2527/8*pi (3.14159265359) = 992.350579
 * Nation Age: [5 (Ottomans) - 5 (Georgia: 12 years since independence) - 5 (Armenia: 12 years since independence)]/3 = -5/3 = -2
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: -1; Ottomans get x1.25 bonus for only fighting with main nation, 25%/3 = 8.333%.
 * Total: 54 * 1.083 = 58.48 ~ 58

Mesopotamians

 * Location: 25+15/2 = 20
 * Tactical Advantage: 5
 * Nations: Mesopotamia (LV), Mamluks (L), Cyprus (M) = 10/12 = 0
 * Military Development: 6+14/20 = 1
 * Economic Development: 2+14+6/16= 1
 * Expansion: -5(Mesopotamia)-8(Mamluks) = -13
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: to be explained.claimed 14.
 * Chance: 4
 * Edit count: 2910
 * UTC: 7:47 =
 * Total: 2910/196*pi (3.14159265359) = 46.6430338
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Population: 9
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Vassals and Puppets: -1
 * Total: (39+motive)

Results
Ignore the war algorithm; this war has been resolved by the Treaty of Adana and ended in 1427. TankOfMidgets (talk) 19:33, March 1, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
Sorry about this going on top of the page. This was done on mobile, so it is probably messed up. Please fix it, if you can. 07:00, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

The Ottoman are being aided by Georgia (M) and Jochid Ulus (M). The economic development, according to the rules, should only add +4 with those city bonuses for the Mesopotamians (Aleppo, Baghdad, Alexandria). Also, where did the -7 motive come from for the Ottomans? We're fighting for territory of similar culture (+5), fighting for political hegemony (+7), I'm supported by the people (+4), and I'd have high troop morale (+5) if my chance is greater than +4. ChrisL123 (talk) 07:11, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

As this is my first time using this algorithm, I'm not sure I understand the rules correctly, but I get the impression that you have to recalculate the algorithm every time someone actually joins the war directly. Is that correct? TankOfMidgets (talk) 07:55, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

Also - and without intending to make any accusations about anyone's character - I think it'd be best if we got a moderator from outside our region to run the numbers on this. That way, regardless of how the war ultimately turns out, no one can complain about the outcome being "biased." TankOfMidgets (talk) 08:07, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

And while I'm at it, how about we wait until the aforementioned mods show up and determine the war's final outcome before we go around dictating the "results" of an unfinished conflict? Because retroactively applying the results of 2 years of war seems a bit much to me. TankOfMidgets (talk) 08:12, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

Two things: 1. I am on mobile, so it is kind of difficult for me to get into any real discussions. 2. I fixed the military aid issues, and the economic bonus of 9 comes also from the Red Sea, Mogadishu, and Mombasa bonuses (which my states control, and have been accepted in the past).

As for motive, how can you be popularly supported when you are getting sparked this badly??? Would your people support lengthening of an aggressive war which you are getting DESTROYED in? You have low morale, because you meet that motive's criterion. You also only get one main motive, which is economic (you want land). Finally, I am waging a guerrilla war. 08:27, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I will be tomorrow night. As for the current war, the algo is correct by my full understanding. Until then,  08:34, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I'd contest some of your judgments here - most notably, that it's a bit difficult to fight a guerilla war when you're advancing into enemy territory - but as I'm about to force you to recalculate your algorithm anyway, it seems like overkill. I'll probably add this to my list of orders tomorrow morning (it's past 3 AM here, and I need some sleep), but I'll post this now, before the chance totals are calculated and the outcome of the conflict is actually decided, to demonstrate that I intended to join the war before learning who won:

'''When word of the ongoing Assyrian genocide reaches T'bliisi, a furious King Giorgi immediately mobilizes the entire Georgian army and declares war on Mesopotamia; the Georgian logistical train suffers due to the lack of preparation time, but the King will brook no delays. While there is some doubt as to whether the Ottomans or the Mamluks committed the atrocity, the Georgians decide that securing northern Mesopotamia will stop the slaughter regardless. The Armenians, with whom Georgia has formed a dynastic union, are called into war by the Georgians.'''

Here are these two nations' stats and the motives I intend to use, for the record:

Georgia: Capital close (+15), Attacking (+1), Coordination (+2), High Ground (+2 - debatable, I will try and get heights to justify this tomorrow), Leader (+4), Development (6 military, not counting this turn's as it's canceled by my DoW; 4 economic = +12/+8 to the relevant scores), Motive (liberating oppressed religious kinsmen = +7; non-democratic gov't supported by people = +4, guerilla war -5; total +6), possible High Morale (Georgian infrastructure > Mesopotamian/Mamluk infrastructure; base motive > 5; would add +5); Young Nation (independence from Timurids in 1411 = 11 years old; -5); Population 364,431 (don't know your pop, can't give pts.); no war/expansion penalty (only gave supplies to Venetians, no military aid); no vassal/puppet penalty or bonus (fighting alongside Armenia, not exclusively main nation).

Armenia: Capital close (+15), Attacking (+1), Coordination (+2), High Ground (+2 - debatable, I will try and get heights to justify this tomorrow), Leader (+4), Development (4 military, 4 economic = +8/+8 to the relevant scores), Motive (liberating oppressed religious kinsmen = +7; non-democratic gov't supported by people = +4, guerilla war -5; total +6), possible High Morale (Armenian infrastructure > Mesopotamian/Mamluk infrastructure; base motive > 5; would add +5); Young Nation (independence from Timurids in 1411 = 11 years old; -5); Population 346,209 (don't know your pop, can't give pts.); no war/expansion penalty; no vassal/puppet penalty or bonus.

This post was completed at 09:27 UTC, and was my 27th edit. TankOfMidgets (talk) 09:28, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

Corrections in many places.Since the war started in 1420, only development from 1404 to 1419 will be counted.Coincidentally, you started playing in 1404.

So,You didn't post in 1417, which means that you can only have 28 points at max for the Mamluks.Since Mesopotamia only appeared in 1411, it would only have 9 turns worth of development.Since you didn't post for three turns, this number is reduced to six.Since you developed nothing in Mesopotamia in 1411 and in 1414, this number is reduced to four.from those, you only developed economically once, in 1419, and of all the other turns, you expanded your military three times.Aside from that, you expanded directly as Mesopotamia in 1412, 1413 and 1419 and expanded by vassalization (because it still counts as expansion) in 1416 and 1413.

As to the Mamluks, you expanded directly in 1404 and 1405, expanded by vassalization in 1405, 1406, 1407 (in which you vassalized two states at once, 1412 and 1414.

And as for the Ottomans, they didn't post in 1406, 1408, 1412, 1413, 1418 and 1419.

And please, explain how did you obtain the motive scores.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 10:05, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

The motive scores are very wrong. So are the development scores (I don't see how would he get 11 points). Also, if Georgia and Armenia are joining the war, that needs to be factored in. I don't want to, given that I'm involved and I might appear biased. Fed  (talk)  17:41, February 23, 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course.And the 9 is because pf the sum of the 2 with the alleged 9 in bonus that he has.Of course, since he lost Mombasa and Mogadishu by mod event, and maybe the Red Sea opening, he'd only have a 3 or 6.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 19:27, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

I am placing this war on hold. This algo is totally f*cked up and needs to be fixed immediatley. -Nova  18:20, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

Hey, i already kind of fixed it.It used to be a lot worse before i touched it.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 19:27, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

Cyprus is helping its ally the malmuks because the king thinks that if the Ottomans win the catholics cannot go safely into Juerslum. <font color=Purple face="Algerian">OCT MARIUS, HAIL HIM

Cyprus doesn't exist anymore. Mscoree (talk) 20:42, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

The Ottomans are invading Mesopotamia (modern day Iraq), not the Holy Land. ChrisL123 (talk) 20:44, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

If catholics cannot go safely to Jerusalem with the Ottomans, the Mamluks would make it equally, if not more, unsafe.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 22:11, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

CYPRUS IS GONE Jbwncster (talk) 22:35, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

no jb u r really funny, one of your greatest aspects. Cyprus and Malmuks have a safe catholics deal. <font color=Purple face="Algerian">OCT MARIUS, HAIL HIM

You do realize that the Mamluks have openly declared their intent to genocide the Christian Assyrians? Because you seem to be fighting this war on the logic that the Ottomans are a bigger threat to Christianity than the Mamluks, which doesn't really make sense in light of the aforementioned declaration.

Of course, if you're fighting this war because the Ottomans are a bigger threat to Catholics than the Mamluks, you might possibly be right... but I feel obligated to point out that neither the Papacy nor your Catholic subjects are likely to be overly impressed by that logic, O mighty "Crusader" king. TankOfMidgets (talk) 22:47, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

I agree as well, the Mamluks are a much more poseable threat to Christianity than the Ottomans. I will be joining the Kingdom of Georgia sense they are a Eastern Orthodox nation, mainly the fact that they are Christian at all. SwankyJ (talk) 23:20, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Georgia welcomes the famous and noble Knights of St. John to the battlefront, and offers the Grandmaster whatever supplies and assistance he may need in his campaign of liberation. TankOfMidgets (talk) 00:48, February 24, 2014 (UTC)

You do not know about the genocide!!! Every nation on earth thinks that the Ottomans killed the Christians, the State went to great lengths to make this clear. Furthermore, Mesopotamia is not a vassal, rather independently governed in a PU. 07:09, February 24, 2014 (UTC)

One more thing -- my post about the massacre was actually crossed out. Therefore, I never committed the genocide and Georgia/Armenia cannot plausibly join in the war. 07:15, February 24, 2014 (UTC)

It was crossed out because your whole post was claiming victory before its confirmation.that didn't happen, because the algorythm that said you had won was wrong in just about everything except participation.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 13:56, February 24, 2014 (UTC)

I tried to make it as clear as I could in my war declaration that - regardless of what actually happened - I'm using it as an excuse to liberate northern Mesopotamia. Either you tried to repress the Assyrians, and I need to liberate them from you, or you failed to protect them from the Ottomans... in which case, I (being a good, Christian ruler) clearly need to liberate them from you and protect them myself. The only thing a successful "blame the Ottomans" strategy would accomplish is maybe stopping me from making a coalition with them... but I can assure you that Georgia's royal  propagandists  heralds are hard at work convincing my population that  we have always been at war with Eurasia  you're responsible for the Assyrians' misery, because that's the story that better suits my geopolitical goals. TankOfMidgets (talk) 15:06, February 24, 2014 (UTC)

A mod event stated that "Protests begin in the mostly Assyrian North Mesopotamia, with the Assyrians wanting their own Christian kingdom as they have seen the success of independent, Christian Armenia and Georgia." So the Georgians can easily join the war to ensure this region is stable from the Mesopotamians, it's not implausible. Not sure why they were removed from being a leader in the coalition. I'm assuming that St. John will still be sending aid? ChrisL123 (talk) 21:00, February 24, 2014 (UTC)

In light of Collie's comment above explaining why your post was invalidated, I've restored my nations as leaders and recalculated the equations accordingly. Thanks, Chris, for pointing that out. Word of advice, Rex: next time you decide to change my half of the algorithm, get a mod's approval first. TankOfMidgets (talk) 21:39, February 24, 2014 (UTC)

While waiting for this conflict to be resolved, I went ahead and added the Ottoman coalition's claimed motive scores and redid the nation ages for ease of moderator calculations. Chris, let me know if I've made false assumptions about your motives; mods, let me know if I'm claiming anything that I can't support.

I'd also like to ask a few questions about issues that confuse me a bit on the algorithm scoring: No hurry on responding - we seem to be fairly deadlocked anyway. TankOfMidgets (talk) 03:39, February 25, 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Do Dynastic Union and/or Personal Union states count as vassals? I'm assuming they both do.
 * 2) Can you claim the x1.25 score bonus if you're fighting with multiple nations that are unified rather than vassalized/puppetized? Or is it exclusively restricted to one-nation-per-player? I'm assuming the latter rule is in effect here, which is why I didn't claim the bonus for myself.
 * 3) What thresholds are there for "government/war supported by people?" I'm guessing it's a subjective, mod-determined value rather than an objective one.
 * 4) Is equality in development fields enough to claim the high morale bonus? I'm assuming not. If not, does infrastructure count for determining superior development for that bonus? I'm still assuming it doesn't.

--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 07:03, February 25, 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, they count.
 * No.
 * 1) I don't know.
 * 2) I also don't know.

I went ahead and added the high ground bonus for Georgia and Armenia (Tbliisi's lowest point is 380m; Yerevan is 989m; Cairo is 23m and Baghdad is 34m). It only changed the equation by 1 point, but it's there. On a related note: curse you, rounding functions! TankOfMidgets (talk) 19:32, February 25, 2014 (UTC)

As Rex hasn't posted lately, it'd be a big help if a neutral party could step in and finish his half of the algorithm. The war's reached turn 4, and it's a bit hard to describe it or make plans for the future when I don't know the outcome of the fighting. TankOfMidgets (talk) 03:51, February 26, 2014 (UTC)

BTW, can somebody please explain to me how does the Mamluks get a 10 in economic development? Fed  (talk)  03:57, February 26, 2014 (UTC)

I think the logic behind that was [16/13 = 1] (Development) + 3 (Red Sea) + 2 (Alexandria) + 1 (Aleppo) + 1 (Mombasa) + 1 (Mogadishu) = 9, with another point getting thrown in from somewhere - rounding, maybe.

The thing is that the rules say you "get economic bonus points for controlling crucial trade routes and locations"... right beneath the section that says you get "+2 for each turn dedicated to improving the economy in the last 15 years."

Which means the equation should probably be [16 (Development) + 3 (Red Sea) + 2 (Alexandria) + 1 (Aleppo) + 1 (Mombasa) + 1 (Mogadishu)]/13 = 24/13 ~= 2 rather than 10. There's also the fact that the Mamluks lost control of Mombasa and Mogadishu by mod event while this war raged, and debatably lost the Red Sea Opening (depends if you need control of the southern short of not - if you don't, they still have it.)

That being said, I'm not going to change his side of the algorithm without explicit mod approval - given that I complained about it earlier in this discussion, I'd rather not make myself a hypocrite over this issue. -- TankOfMidgets (talk) 04:41, February 26, 2014 (UTC)

What do you think the Mamluk-Jalayrid motive should be?--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 06:46, February 26, 2014 (UTC)

For the Mamluks, I'd say aiding an ally: they're in this war to defend their vassal Mesopotamia, but as they're not defending their own land per se, I don't think any of the land-defense motives apply. I would say that the Mamluk government is still supported by its people - we haven't heard of any uprisings in Egypt, after all, so the Mamluk Sultanate itself is still stable.

For the Jalayrids/Mesopotamia, it's a bit more complicated, and dependent on whether Assyrian/Kurdish northern Mesopotamia counts as "heartland" territory. If it's not, then the Mesopotamian motive is defending non-heartland territory held for more than 20 years; if it is, then their motive should be defending heartland territory from a non-fatal attack (as my coalition has neither the will nor the ability to take all of Mesopotamia). I'd also say that the Mesopotamians should get the "war not supported by people" penalty, in light of the Assyrian/Kurdish (are the Kurds still rebelling?) unrest - it's not enough to constitute a full loss of support for the government, but the fact that the Assyrians are fleeing to the invading countries rather than from them suggests which side of the war they'd rather be on.

Assuming all these motives are acceptable, the calculations should provide the following result if I've done the math right:

Motive: [5 (Mamluks' motive: aiding an ally) + 4 (Mamluk non-dem popular gov't) + [5 or 8] (Mesopotamian motive: either defending non-heartland territory held over 20 years or defending heartland territory from a non-fatal attack) + 4 (Mesopotamian non-dem popular gov't) - 2 (Mesopotamian war non supported by people)]/2 = [16 or 19]/2 = 8 or 9.5 ~ 10

Also, a couple of minor points: as Cyprus was conquered by the Knights Hospitaller last turn, and has thus far not re-entered the war, does Cyprus now count as withdrawn from the war? If so, that would raise my side's nation score by 1 (14/10 = 1.44 ~= 1 --> 14/9 = 1.55 ~= 2) and our overall score by 2 (54 * 1.083 = 58.48 ~= 58; 55 * 1.083 = 59.65 ~= 60).

Finally (and my apologies for asking so many questions!), how are we going to resolve the territory changes at the end of the war? -- TankOfMidgets (talk) 21:18, February 26, 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so I am back from mobile, and I will now be able to really argue my points. Prepare yourselves... 22:16, February 26, 2014 (UTC)



Ok, so here is what I was thinking....I will concede defeat at the hands of the coalition. The following map will be the official map of all holdings for all parties. involved in the war. The algo will be disregarded. Instead, the

Ottomans will gain all lands that were in contention (Dulkadir and the Turkomen) as well as the secure claims on Erzincan and be granted Mardin.

Armenia will gain Azerbaijan, Leks, Avars, Dido, and Ossetia.

Mamluk expansion will be recognized, and the mod events of 1419 will be invalidated. (They were implausible, as explained by myself and Viva, and then promised to be corrected by Ms.) In addition, Tekke will be recognized as owned by Cicilia, not the Hospitallers. (It isn't plausible for the Christian knights to take them in one year.

In addition, the Mamluks will cede 50% of all economic boons for 30 years (This means, I will give you the economic bonuses from Mogadishu, Mombasa, Red Sea Opening, Alexandria, Aleppo, and Baghdad for 15 years). The Mamluks will also be forced into defensive alliances with the Ottomans and the Georgians, while the Ottomans and Georgians will only have to agree to a Non-Agression Pact.

The Mamluks also promise to grant the Assyrian/Chaldean/Babylonian Christians their own nation, near OTL Mosul. It will be merely a puppet state, with minor oversight by the Mamluks. All Muslims currently there will be requested to relocate, and the Georgians will be able to have oversight over the new state.

22:46, February 26, 2014 (UTC)

Only thing I will point out, as an outside observer, is the Tekke issue. Technically they can, as the state was disorganized and therefore could not mount any effective resistance. It's in the rules, and as such it is valid.

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave   but you are welcome in it. " 22:57, February 26, 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to agree, but I need time to evaluate the provisions in detail, this turn's deadline is in an hour, and I'd like to grab some grub before I start analyzing the viability of each point. So I'd like to extend a provisional cease-fire between all parties to this war while we hash out the points of the peace treaty. -- TankOfMidgets (talk) 23:13, February 26, 2014 (UTC)

MP, Tekke is 3x the size of the Hospitallers. In addition, I expanded there prior to the turn of the Hospitallers. Finally, it is crazy to think they would let themselves be taken over by Crusaders, so they would welcome the Cicilians (their ethnic, religious, and cultural counterparts) over the Hospitallers. I would be happy to let him have a small part of the region. 23:29, February 26, 2014 (UTC)

As for you, ToM, come onto chat once you consider it, and I'll make it worth your time. 23:32, February 26, 2014 (UTC)

Rex, the rules clearly state that any nation can expand into any disordered nation by 200 pixels a turn. Tekke is less than that, and as such the Knights can expand into it. And regarding the ethnic population, I think they might not want to be a part of you. There are Armenians, Greeks, and Turks down there. Two of those are christians and the Turks would more likely than not align with the Ottomans.

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave   but you are welcome in it. " 00:03, February 27, 2014 (UTC)

MP, ok, that is all great and everything... but I expanded into Tekke first. My post was first, so I did it first. Tekke is a Muslim state, as is Cicilia. Both are primarily Turkish/Armenian. Cicilia expanded there first, not the Hospitallers. 00:09, February 27, 2014 (UTC)

See this: Treaty of Adana (Principia Moderni III Map Game). 01:58, February 28, 2014 (UTC)

I've seen, and added a counter-proposal on that page. Jump on chat if you're free and we'll talk. -- TankOfMidgets (talk) 02:17, February 28, 2014 (UTC)

central asian alliance (name up for debate)
would it be plausible to have a central asian alliance type thing for military and/or trade near tibet and the surrounding nations? Jbwncster (talk) 23:32, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

Nope. They pretty much all hate each other. PitaKang-  My Life for Aiur!   En Taro Tassadar  19:37, February 25, 2014 (UTC) What about all the former and current Khan countries? <span style="background:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#B8860B), to(#DEB887)); border:4px ridge grey; -webkit-border-radius:0em 0em 0em 0em;">  <span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 2px brown, 0 0 1em #000, 0 0 0.2em #0FF; color: white; font: 1.5em Cambria, serif; text-align: center; font-variant: small-caps;">Jbwncster  <span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 2px brown, 0 0 1em #000, 0 0 0.2em #0FF; color: white; font: 1.0em Cambria, serif; text-align: center; font-variant: small-caps;">(Talk)

Nope. The Khan countires if you havnt noticed have been warring with eachother. You have a better chance of the Detroit Lions winning the superbowl 5 years in a row. -Nova  20:09, February 25, 2014 (UTC)

Won't be able to post tonight as bavaria
Hey guys I wont  be able to post tonight as bavaria. If anyone can post for me please mention it under this topic and i'll give you permission. Thanks a lot guys! :) 70.192.72.11 20:53, February 24, 2014 (UTC)

forgot to log in whoops :p Cookiedamage (talk) 21:27, February 24, 2014 (UTC)

I can post for you. Do you want me to just post the same turn you wrote for the previous turn? Mscoree (talk) 23:35, February 24, 2014 (UTC)

Korea
Alright, I have just found out that I cannot take control of a vassal of another nation. I apologize Scandinator, although please note I was unaware of that rule. I hope I haven't offended you too much. Effective now, I take control of Brittany and relinquish Korea. Thank you! PitaKang-  My Life for Aiur!   En Taro Tassadar  23:03, February 24, 2014 (UTC)

No problem! Good luck with Brittany and apologies for booting you into the melee in Europe! Scandinator (talk) 09:27, February 25, 2014 (UTC)

Draka
Far be it for me to criticize plauisbility, but why is there a South African supernation taking over half of India and the Mid East?

00:01, February 25, 2014 (UTC)

Draka isn't from South Africa. It is basically the renamed Timurads, and basically only controlls OTL Timurad territory and northern India. Whether they can hold onto all of that though is another matter, and I believe some moderator events and actions by the player have already been planned to eventually collapse/reform this large nation. Mscoree (talk) 00:08, February 25, 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, ok. Can I ask why the Timurids have been named after an SM Stirling novel?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Domination

00:10, February 25, 2014 (UTC)

I asked Nova the same thing when I saw it the other day. It's a tribute to Stirling from what she tells me. Mscoree (talk) 00:16, February 25, 2014 (UTC)

it's deriative. And insanely implausible. What are you mods doing? ... cocaine?

00:28, February 25, 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I just noticed the entire "Draka" BS... I don't think it's not allowed per se, but it is frowned upon. If Battle for Earth can have Star Wars stormtroopers called Regenetech, Nova can have his (her?) Dominion of Draka. It is very impluasible though. PitaKang-  My Life for Aiur!   En Taro Tassadar  01:24, February 25, 2014 (UTC)

Easy guys. It was just a tribute to Stirling, as his books are interesting regardles of there plausibility, and as youve noticed, Ive returned to Timurids. Its not as if I was going to try and take over the planet. Id be slaughtered. That and the King is named Draka, so it wouldve ended after Draka died and returned to Timurids.

-Nova  20:05, February 25, 2014 (UTC)

Still, I don't think that's allowed/plausible.

Pita, just want to say that some German soldiers were also called stormtroopers.

21:45, February 25, 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know the Germans had clones, battle droids, star destroyers, and Death Stars too. Man, they must have been busy trying to win that war. Vivaporius:  "I don't need a slogan"  22:02, February 25, 2014 (UTC)

I'm just saying that there have been instances like this before. The entire Battle for Earth map game franchise is a giant nerdgasm where people pit their favorite sci-fi universes against each other with different names. PitaKang-  My Life for Aiur!   En Taro Tassadar  02:16, February 26, 2014 (UTC)

Mod Responses
I think when Mods respond to player events they should leave their name so we know who's criticizing our post. Anyone else think the same? It's like the judges at Sochi, who were allowed to vote anonymously so were able to give a 0 to Kim Yuna. Anonymity creates corruption. Not that I'm saying it's a big problem here. It's just a mod recently made a mistake on my post and it would be helpful to know who he/she is. PitaKang-  My Life for Aiur!   En Taro Tassadar  02:10, February 25, 2014 (UTC)

We have a few dedicated ASB sniffers that run around catching what mods dont catch and reporting it. Sorry if i came off like an asshole ive just been reporting everything i see as ASB or implauso. Dont take it personally please :(

Good idea Pita... I'll bring it up on the mod page, if you haven't already that is. And maybe have the mod events tagged? I'm all for it (although as the bringer of chaos I think a lot of people will criticize me for it...) Scandinator (talk) 09:29, February 25, 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. It sets up some accountability for actions. PitaKang-  My Life for Aiur!   En Taro Tassadar  02:17, February 26, 2014 (UTC)

Royal Marriages
How do they affect nations and how do they affect vassalization and annexing and war and invading nations? This hasn't been really clear. <span style="background:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#B8860B), to(#DEB887)); border:4px ridge grey; -webkit-border-radius:0em 0em 0em 0em;">  <span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 2px brown, 0 0 1em #000, 0 0 0.2em #0FF; color: white; font: 1.5em Cambria, serif; text-align: center; font-variant: small-caps;">Jbwncster  <span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 2px brown, 0 0 1em #000, 0 0 0.2em #0FF; color: white; font: 1.0em Cambria, serif; text-align: center; font-variant: small-caps;">(Talk)

Well uhh... Let's look at an example. There are two nations. Nation A and Nation B. Leader A has a son and Leader B has a daughter.

If son A marries daughter B and Leader B dies, daughter B inherits the kingdom and through extent so does her husband. Once the two have a child he will be Leader of both nation A and nation B, effectively uniting two nations. I think... 17:35, February 26, 2014 (UTC)

Healing the Schism
So, reflecting a possible scenario discussed on chat, I thought we could possibly bring this issue forward to the community in order to see what they think.

So, as the title suggests, this concerns the mending of the East West Schism between the Roman Catholic Church of the West and the Eastern Orthodox Church of the East. With the recent resurgence of the Orthodox church under the Roman Empire and the recent troubles of the Catholic church, it could be conceivable that the two could try to reconcile differences between them in order to face their threats together, some of which include the Muslims in the Middle East and the "heretical" Albion church.

And so, Quashi and I were bouncing some ideas around in chat about how to do this, and we thought of some ideas. I will list them below. I would like to know what you think. Alright, those are my basic ideas for the political reconciliation. I know not much about the religious differences, but this is a start. Let me know what you think.
 * The two heads of the churchs will become part of a Pentarchy (named in reference to the Pentarchy of old) that at this time will only comprise the two leaders of these churchs. Over time, if more classical Pentarchy cities are reclaimed by Christianity, they may join as well, or if a city is important enough it can join the Pentarchy as well.
 * The two leaders will be de facto equal, but the Pope of Rome will be de jure superior, due to the idea of Rome being the "First among Equals."
 * Each will have a title of "Patriarch" of their respective city.
 * The two leaders will meet at times of crisis or controversy in order to find common resolutions that will be acceptable to the two churchs.
 * Regarding the power of the Roman Emperor over the Patriach of Constantinople, the Emperor will be forbidden from intervening in such meetings in order to find a purely spiritual conclusion.

On a side note, this may mean that we need no Reformation, since we will have a united church in the south and the Albion church in the north.

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave   but you are welcome in it. " 02:56, February 26, 2014 (UTC)

This may prevent the reformation as we know it, but Albion's separation may eventually lead to a different reformation in the west. Sounds interesting to me. Mscoree (talk) 03:00, February 26, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah MP we have these crazy nutters in England, France, and the Netherlands going off to make their own churches.

03:21, February 26, 2014 (UTC)

We ain't any more crazy you and Scan were in PM2, AND SCAN WAS ITALY, which should've stayed catholic. Sine dei gloriem "Ex Initio Terrae" (talk)

Considering Venice invaded the Papal States in PM2 and booted the pope to Avignon, nope. The Italian Church is best church!. Scandinator (talk) 07:45, February 26, 2014 (UTC)

yeah the netherlander nutters are breaking away from the roman catholic church no matter what. seeing as the reapporachment still does not cover the fundamental issues of the church. Nkbeeching (talk) 17:29, February 26, 2014 (UTC)

Ye what Scan said also Avignon collapses on itself so everyone flocked to Germanic. So plz, it's not like we were making three new churches when three were currently in operation.

22:41, February 26, 2014 (UTC)

Well, I have my own fun Reformation events that will soon be racking the Middle East... Not to mention republicanism and other things typically not associated with the Middle East. I intend to secularize, relatively, so it'll be interesting to see how things turn out in the West. 23:26, February 26, 2014 (UTC)

Japan and The Timurids
Seeing how Japan is becoming overcrowded (Shadow, Ratc and probably soon enough Scan) and seeing how Nova is planning to leave the wiki the Timurids will be an open spot. So I'm asking if I can switch from Hosokawa to Timurids. 16:35, February 26, 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Go ahead and take the Timurids. Hosokawa will become an NPC. -Nova  16:37, February 26, 2014 (UTC)

Seems reasonable enough SwankyJ (talk) 21:23, February 26, 2014 (UTC)     but I dont decide.

Is Shadows Last Post Plausible?
Its in 1425 turn, tell me if he is plausible or not, as he will not stop challengin me and the parts I crossed out. -Nova  18:09, February 26, 2014 (UTC)

No, it isn't.but seriosuly, no matter how implausible his post is, he keeps arguing viciously with everybody who contests the plausibility of his post.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 20:24, February 26, 2014 (UTC)

Could I just add something? Better say yes cause I'm doing it anyways. Shadow has been implausible nearly every single turn. You should at least give him some sort of punishment cause he obviously doesn't learn anything out of you crossing his turns out. 20:29, February 26, 2014 (UTC)

I am not implausible at all, I will stop all of this crap you say I am doing ok. No need to ban me for this. - Shadow

You have made the same implausible turn after Nova already crossing it out multiple times (i.e. the building of six ships). Just saying. 14:11, February 27, 2014 (UTC)

State of PMIII Address
I was wondering if we could create a State of PMIII Address every month, basically outlining the events of the past month in game for those who don't read many posts, or are new and are not looking to go through archives of posts. I believe they should be not long, but short enough to outline in detail the past events. Any comments? <font color="#29AB87">Bow To Your Sensei.  <font color="#002366">BOW TO YOUR SENSEI!!!

This is something that the moderators could possibly arrange. Sounds like a good idea and could be a useful tool to inform people of important announcements. Mscoree (talk) 22:11, February 26, 2014 (UTC)

Good idea Quashi (talk) 23:50, February 26, 2014 (UTC)

I personally thought of this because I never rejoined PMII after I left because of all the reading and catching up I had to do. This will help immensely. <font color="#29AB87">Bow To Your Sensei.  <font color="#002366">BOW TO YOUR SENSEI!!!

This would definitely be a good idea. I'll support it. Cookiedamage (talk) 06:01, February 27, 2014 (UTC)

Brittany
May I be added to the map? Please note that I have just absorbed Penthièvre. PitaKang-  My Life for Aiur!   En Taro Tassadar  01:02, February 27, 2014 (UTC)

Tekke
So in 1414, the Mamelukes posted that Cicilia expanded into Tekke fully annexing its government, this isn't allowed, right? -- SwankyJ (talk) 01:05, February 27, 2014 (UTC)

No. i think that Tekke is already being controlled by some other player, and even if it wasn't he would need a war.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 07:02, February 27, 2014 (UTC)

Collie, Swanky was a bit misleading in what he said. Firstly, nobody was playing as Tekke when Cicilia expanded into the unorganized state. Swanky said "annexing its government," but seeing as how it was unorganized, it could not have a government.

As your fellow mod, MP, said, "Rex, the rules clearly state that any nation can expand into any disordered nation by 200 pixels a turn. Tekke is less than that". So, I was able to expand 200 pixels into Tekke, and effectively annex it as a result of taking all of its land by expansion into an unorganized state. 08:47, February 28, 2014 (UTC)

Then why were the Knights controlling them, then?--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 12:58, February 28, 2014 (UTC)

I, my bad, failed to remove the state of Tekke from the list of nations. As such, I can only assume that Swanky was under the impression that he controlled those states. I was actually posting mobilely during that time period, so I informed him as soon as I could access chat.

I also did not read any posts other than my own, and as such I was unable to detect his claims. It was a misunderstanding, but now that he is gone, I wish my claims to be the only legitimately recognized claims. Thanks,  22:24, February 28, 2014 (UTC)

Brittany (Attacker)
Total: 65+TBD
 * Location: 20
 * Tactical Advantage: 1+2+0= 3
 * Nations: Brittany (+4)= 4
 * Military Development: (TBD)
 * Economic Development: (TBD)
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: (TBD)
 * Motive: Economic (+3), taking territory of smiliar (+5), non-democratic government (+4), Morale (TBD)= +9+TBD
 * Chance: 0
 * Edit count: 8928
 * UTC: 1*3*1= 3
 * Total: 8930/3*pi (3.14159265359) = 9351.47413219 =7
 * Nation Age: Mature nation (+5)= 5
 * Population: Digits (+5), More population (+2)= 7
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Maine (Defender)
Total: 67+TBD
 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage: 0
 * Nations: Maine (L+4) = 4
 * Military Development: TBD
 * Economic Development: TBD
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: +5
 * Motive: Defending Core/heartland from possibly fatal attack (+9)= 9
 * Chance: 4
 * Nation Age: Mature nation (+5)= 5
 * Population: 5
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result

 * ((Winner/(Loser+Winner))*2)-1 = 0
 * (0)*(1-1/(2*0)) = 0

TBD

Discussion
This is my planned invasion of Maine... can a mod help me? Since I wasn't here, will my nation count as having done theh NPC military/economy/infrasturucture development thing? And can a mod whose experienced in this algo see if everything I have done up to here is correct? Thanks. PitaKang-  My Life for Aiur!   En Taro Tassadar  02:02, February 27, 2014 (UTC)

Since you are not an NPC I believe you have to start from zero and start expanding. I could be wrong about that, and it could be that you start the game with NPC values. As for Maine the NPC rule should apply to them based on yours. I will look over the algorithm, although I ask that a few others look it over since I am not the best at algorithms. 02:18, February 27, 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you start with the NPC values,a nd then add the player values as time goes on.and plus, wasn't Maine controlled by a player nation?--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 07:05, February 27, 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay so he gets whatever the NPC values would be, plus his development as a player. Mscoree (talk) 11:33, February 27, 2014 (UTC)

i think maine is part of france or part of Provence and anjou. and Pita don't war with me. Sine dei gloriem "Ex Initio Terrae" (talk)

Ming (Attacker)

 * Location: ~21.5
 * ​Ming: 15
 * Korea: 20
 * Hosokawa: 20
 * Oda: 25
 * Toki: 25
 * Takeda: 20
 * Kamakura: 20
 * Isshiki: 25
 * Kamakura: 20
 * Hatakeyama: 20
 * Shiba: 25
 * Tactical Advantage : 3
 * Nations: Ming (L), Korea (LV), Haixi Jurchens (MV), Tainan (SV), Hosokawa (L), Oda (L), Toki (L), Takeda (L), Kamakura (L), Isshiki (L), Kamakura (L), Hatakeyama (L), Shiba (L) : 46/32 = ~1.5
 * Military: 11+0+13+3+3+3+3+3+3+3+3/35 = 1.5
 * Economy: 0+11+1+3+3+3+3+3+3+3+3/25 +4 = 5.5
 * Infrastructure: NA
 * Chance: 7
 * Opponent Edit Count: 385
 * UTC time: 9:24
 * Chance: 385/72*pi=16.798794050445422177890523646703
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: 9.5 +5 (troop morale high) =14.5 
 * ​Ming: 11
 * Korea: 7
 * Hosokawa: 9
 * Oda: 9
 * Toki: 10
 * Takeda: 9
 * Kamakura: 9
 * Isshiki: 10
 * Kamakura: 9
 * Hatakeyama: 10
 * Shiba: 10
 * Age: 3
 * Ming: 0
 * Korea: 0
 * Hosokawa: 5
 * Oda: -5
 * Toki: 5
 * Takeda: 5
 * Kamakura: 5
 * Isshiki: 5
 * Kamakura: 5
 * Hatakeyama: 5
 * Shiba: 5
 * Recent Wars: -1
 * Participation: 10
 * Population: 9+20=29
 * Vassals & Puppets: -3
 * Total =  91.5

Ashikaga Shogunate (Defender)

 * Location: 20.5
 * ​Ashikaga: 25
 * Ouchi: 20
 * Amago: 20
 * Yamana: 20
 * Akamatsu: 20
 * Shimazu: 20
 * Kikuchi: 20
 * Shoni: 20
 * Otomo: 20
 * Tactical Advantage : 1
 * Nations: Ashikaga (L), Ouchi (L), Amago (L), Yamana (L), Akamatsu (L), Shimazu (L), Kikuchi (L), Shoni (L), Otomo (L): 32/42 = 0
 * Military: (11+3+3+3+3+3+3+3+3)/52 = 0 
 * Economy: (1+3+3+3+3+3+3+3+3)/36 +1 = 1
 * Infrastructure: (0+3+3+3+3+3+3+3+3)/1 = 24
 * Chance: 3
 * Opponent Edit Count: 2324
 * UTC time: 21:17
 * Chance: 2324/14*pi=521.5043804959056775847988016244
 * Expansion: -1
 * Motive: 7-5 (troop morale low due to lower scores in both development categories) = 2
 * ​Ashikaga: -8
 * Ouchi: 9
 * Amago: 9
 * Yamana: 9
 * Akamatsu: 9
 * Shimazu: 9
 * Kikuchi: 9
 * Shoni: 9
 * Otomo: 9
 * Age: 3
 * ​Ashikaga: 5
 * Ouchi: 0
 * Amago: 5
 * Yamana: 0
 * Akamatsu: 5
 * Shimazu: 5
 * Kikuchi: 5
 * Shoni: 0
 * Otomo: 5
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Participation: 10
 * Population: 8
 * Vassals & Puppets: *1.25
 * Total = 69*1.25 =  86.25 

Results

 * ((y/(y+z))*2)-1*(1-1/(2x))
 * ((91.5/(91.5+86.25))*2)-1*(1-1/(8))
 * 0.02953586497890295358649789029536*(7/8)
 * 2.5844%
 * Ming China annexes all outlying Japanese Islands controlled by the defending side. Other Daimyos reclaim lands from the Ashikaga. The Ashikaga coastline is layed waste to. Overall confidence in the Shogun falls further.

Discussion
This should be a flawless algorithm. If there are problems can I be notified of them? Scandinator (talk) 12:58, February 27, 2014 (UTC)

You forgot to add the Shiba clan to yourself. They've been Hosokawa allies and should be against the shogun too. 13:09, February 27, 2014 (UTC)

Okie dok. Scandinator (talk) 15:52, February 27, 2014 (UTC)

Also I as Hosokawa ruled both Hosokawa and Kono. They were connected through a ruler (his regent to be exact)

Does this mean that I lost all of my land and can't play as the Ashikaga anymore. - Shadow

You only lost 2.5844%. You need to lose atleast 33% or 34% to lose as far as I recall.

Hailstormer
It frustrates me that Hail can expand so fast and still have the gall to call any attempt to slow his overly-speedy expansion "god-modding". --Yank 17:37, February 27, 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed that... how the hell did he get his nation all over the Midwest that fast? PitaKang-  My Life for Aiur!   En Taro Tassadar  22:00, February 27, 2014 (UTC)

I agree.

02:12, February 28, 2014 (UTC)

It has much to do with the fact that even then North America was sparely populated, and much of the region controlled by Hail was dominated by a single super-culture that collpased shortly before Europeans arrived in the region. Most of the natives are located along the more fertile East Coast. Besides, Hail is expanding according to mod-sanctioned events, and hasn't done anything implausible as far as I have been able to find. Everything he has done thus far has been entirely within the reasonable limitations of the Cahokian civilization. Vivaporius:  "I don't need a slogan"  04:39, February 28, 2014 (UTC)

Just because they were "mod sanctioned" doesn't mean that they should have happened. Giving Hail the ability to gobble territory ridiculously fast isn't something a plausible map game should do. And now because of how huge his "vassals" are he's going to need to spend most of the upcoming century trying to get them back.--Yank 22:23, February 28, 2014 (UTC)

Genetics
Is it plausible to have someone discover basic genetics at this point? It doesn’t take technology to notice such things, just a sharp mind. By basic I mean Mendel-level study where they grow plants and record traits. Nothing more than that. Thanks! PitaKang-  My Life for Aiur!   En Taro Tassadar  21:47, February 27, 2014 (UTC)

I'll take the silence as approval and have Hansen de Vois discover Mendel's Laws 400 years before OTL :)  PitaKang-  My Life for Aiur!   En Taro Tassadar  01:31, February 28, 2014 (UTC)

I believe there is a rule that inventions/discoveries need to be roughly fifty years early at max than from OTL. Mscoree (talk) 01:33, February 28, 2014 (UTC)

But really, basic genetics like this isn't useful at all practically; and anyone could have discovered it earlier if they were smart enough. Of course, Mendel was helped out by Darwin and others he built on, but I feel like anyone could really have thought about this if they had been interested. I don't know, if the rest of the mods say I can't I'll retract it. PitaKang-  My Life for Aiur!   En Taro Tassadar  02:07, February 28, 2014 (UTC)

Ms is right. Discoveries cannot be this far removed from their place in OTL. Cour *talk*  02:09, February 28, 2014 (UTC)

All right, I'll post something next year about how de Vois was killed in a tragic monastary fire. :)  PitaKang-  My Life for Aiur!   En Taro Tassadar  13:18, February 28, 2014 (UTC)

Can I Choose A New Nation Please
I am f*cked in japan, because of the war with Ming China. Ming China will attack me again and I will lose anyway. So to make it easier I will give my land to Ming China and choose a new nation. - Shadow

Language please. I fixed it to make it (slightly) less obscene. This is a high quality map game, not one for punks who cannot watch their toungue. Thanks,  22:43, February 27, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that. - Shadow

What Rex said. Why do you think I quit? (Sorry, but this was just perfect..)

23:24, February 27, 2014 (UTC)

I am not a quiter like you guys no offence. I still want to play, but as a different nation - Shadow

There have been a few requests like this lately. I thought the rule was that you were not allowed to switch unless your nation was destroyed. It may very well have changed, but that was the last that I had heard of it. Cour *talk*  02:08, February 28, 2014 (UTC)

He lost 2.5%. I think that should clear stuff up. 13:38, February 28, 2014 (UTC)

That war was the first of the Ming invasion. Ming China will crush me in the next attacks. Why can't I just give my land to him and choose a new nation please. - Shadow

Just make an event where a Ming sympathizer takes power in a coup and makes his nation a Chinese vassal.--Yank 02:04, March 1, 2014 (UTC)

Yank is right let Ming China take me over. I really want to switch my nation. I will be more plausible in the next turn I can come back in from this ban or you could let me be a new nation in this turn 1428 and I will be less stupid and not bother you with implausible posts and stuff. I already lost due to China so why not let me start fresh again. I would like to turn a new leaf. - Shadow

The rules are the rules. Plain and simple. No acceptions. Unless your nation is destroyed, you cannot switch. Cour *talk*  17:10, March 2, 2014 (UTC)

The Map...
I am playing as the Aztecs. And the map was updated but not fully yet. I don't know if it is still being worked on or not, but I am not colored in on the map. And I would like to be. Also Tibet also has not been colored in. I may be mistaken as I only glanced at it. But a few minor things are missing. I am aware that the mapmakers have a difficult job. SwankyJ (talk) 01:29, March 1, 2014  (UTC)


 * I have colored Tibet and the Aztecs. Let me know what other errors there are. Mscoree (talk) 13:16, March 1, 2014 (UTC)

Cuzco has expanded quite a bit.What is this????Is this a signature??? (talk) 02:21, March 1, 2014 (UTC)


 * How far has Cuzco expanded?  Mscoree (talk) 13:16, March 1, 2014 (UTC)
 * 400km into the Ayrmaras territtory (I was told i would not need an algo because they are fractured) and to the coastline east of the Ica Naza.

I unfortunately cannot make the current map due to internet issues. I can't upload anything more than a turn and that is iffy as it is. Scandinator (talk)

Don't worry Scan. I've handling the map for now. Mscoree (talk) 13:12, March 1, 2014 (UTC)

Hey Ms, u miss the Modena border in Italy! Quashi (talk) 15:19, March 1, 2014 (UTC)

Hey so the Aztecs have expanded 200 pixels equally around my starting place. And then 200 more pixels north west. SwankyJ (talk) 17:38, March 5, 2014 (UTC)

Ming (Attacker)

 * Location: 20
 * ​Ming: 20
 * Qara Del: 20
 * Tactical Advantage : 3
 * Nations: Ming (L), Korea (MV), Haixi Jurchens (MV), Tainan (SV), Qara Del (LV): 12/4 = 3
 * Military: 11+0/21 = 0
 * Economy: 0+11/1 +4 = 15
 * Infrastructure: NA
 * Chance: 6
 * Opponent Edit Count: 2324
 * UTC time: 9:24
 * Chance: 2324/72*pi=101.40362954087054841926643364919
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: 9 
 * ​Ming: 11
 * Qara Del: 7
 * Age: 0
 * Ming: 0
 * Qara Del: 0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Participation: 10
 * Population: 9+20=29
 * Vassals & Puppets: -4
 * Total =  91

Mongol Khanate (Defender)

 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage : 0
 * Nations: Mongol Khanate (L): 4/12 = 0
 * Military: 21/11 = 2 
 * Economy: 1/11 = 0
 * Infrastructure: 1
 * Chance: 2
 * Opponent Edit Count: 2324
 * UTC time: 9:24
 * Chance: 2324/72*pi=101.40362954087054841926643364919
 * Expansion: -0
 * Motive: 9-5 (troop morale low due to war penalty) = 4
 * Age: 0 (1368)
 * Recent Wars: -12
 * Participation: 10
 * Population: 6
 * Vassals & Puppets: *1.25
 * Total = 38*1.25 =  47.5 

Results

 * ((y/(y+z))*2)-1*(1-1/(2x))
 * ((91/(91+47.5))*2)-1*(1-1/(8))
 * 0.31407942238267148014440433212996*(7/8)
 * 27.481949458483754512635379061372%
 * Ming China restores the pre-war Oirat/Mongol border. The Mongol Khanate is forced to sign a truce with both parties to not war with either side while the Oirats and the Ming will respect Mongol terriotorial soverignty.

Austrian Vassalization
Hey guys

Do the basic vassal rules still apply? As in, does your target for vassaliztion still have to be contiguous to your own, considering that Austria is vassalizing/influencing nations like Burggrafschaft who have a border with Bavaria rather than Austria. Also, the nation of Burgau is colored with Austrian orange on the 1427 (???) map even though I began vassalizing it in 1416, to which I finished vassalizing in 1422.

Cookiedamage (talk) 16:26, March 1, 2014 (UTC)

Vassals have to be continuous with your own borders, which mine are. In my turns I list a few states that I have interest in, but vassalize them one at a time, starting with the one connected to me. I also have been influencing Burgau since 1416 and finished in 1419/20, so it is my vassal. Mscoree (talk) 16:40, March 1, 2014 (UTC)

If you check the 1416 section, you'd see that I had begun vassalizing Burgau before you did. Yes, you had mentioned influencing them, but I claimed it earlier than you. Also, you declared Burgau your vassal in 1418, not 1419 or 1420. Since there is a three year minimum, it still is my vassal since I not only began earlier but I actually followed the rules. Cookiedamage (talk) 16:57, March 1, 2014 (UTC)

I have been influencing them since 1416 to the present. I might have gotten the date wrong in which I should have officially vassalized them, but given my size it was either one or two turns before you. Speaking of which I was thinking our two nations could disucss borders in the future. If you give me Burgau I will relinquish claim over Oettingen and Burggrafschaft for you to take for example. Mscoree (talk) 17:00, March 1, 2014 (UTC)

I have already begun vassalzing Oettingen and you have no legitimate claim on Burggrafschaft because of non-continguity. I still claim Burgau to be mine since your declaration of suzerainty over them was still against the rules, and in my opinion, your suzerainty should be nullified. Cookiedamage (talk) 17:07, March 1, 2014 (UTC)

It's nut null just because I accidently miscounted. I've still been influencing it just as much as you have, and since I am larger I would have finished before you. Mscoree (talk) 17:12, March 1, 2014 (UTC)

So be it. I say we wait until a non-biased mod advises us on what to do, because it's obvious that the vassal rules need to be updated. Cookiedamage (talk) 17:18, March 1, 2014 (UTC)

GQM sayeth Austria cannot vassalize Burgercraft. Only puppet. Also Burgau is Bavarian. That is all.

18:05, March 1, 2014 (UTC)

Scraw you're not a moderator. Mscoree (talk) 18:10, March 1, 2014 (UTC)

As the first unbiased mod in this situation, I think it would be fair for the vassalization to take longer for both parties, since there are competing influences in the nation.

What say the other mods?

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave   but you are welcome in it. " 18:48, March 2, 2014 (UTC)

This sounds fair. Maybe even a civil war in the nation between the competing factions within said nation. If you both are influencing one nation, they won't just drop everything and choose one side just because that side has been there a year or two in advance. Cour *talk*  18:57, March 2, 2014 (UTC)

Okay that sounds fair. I'll try to find some way to set up this crisis in-game. Mscoree (talk) 18:59, March 2, 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and I say an unbiased mod create a mod event, preferably in the upcoming five turns, - Someone

I'd just like to point out that something like this actually happened in OTL to some degree. Burgau created tensions with the Bavarian Wittelsbachs, who wished to annex the region. The Bavarians attempted to purchase the territory in 1418, but this was resisted by the Imperial Cities of Augsburg and Ulm, with the support of several other cities. For that reason, being one of a long line of attempts for Bavaria to annex the region, I'd imagine that the locals would not be happy with Bavaria acquiring Burgau. Mscoree (talk) 23:39, March 3, 2014 (UTC)

Cookie and I have been talking this over and we have decided a plan for the future. Here's the summary: Over the next few days I will be making moderator events about the Burgau civil war, eventually allowing them to go to Bavaria probably within the next five years. Mscoree (talk) 01:41, March 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * Burgau has civil war and eventually joins Bavaria as vassal.
 * Oettingen remains an Austrian vassal, although cut off and unable to vassalize from it.
 * Bavaria will continue to vassalize Burg and Bamberg.
 * Hohenhole will continue to be vassalized by Mainz.

Hamburg (Attacker)
Total: 72 x 1.25 = 90
 * Location: 18
 * Hamburg: 20
 * Brunswick-Lüneburg: 15
 * Tactical Advantage: 3 (attacker, connected Capital)
 * Nations: Hamburg(L), Brunswick-Lüneburg(L) = 8/4 = 2
 * Military Development: 16/3 = 5
 * Hamburg: 10
 * Brunswick-Lüneburg: 6
 * Economic Development: 16/3 = 5
 * Hamburg: 10
 * Brunswick-Lüneburg: 6
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 8 = 0 (Attackers don't get infrastructure)
 * Hamburg: 5
 * Brunswick-Lüneburg: 3
 * Motive: 15
 * Hamburg:17 (Hegemony, Troop Morale, Support, Similar culture)
 * Brunswick-Lüneburg: 22 (Hegemony, Morale, support, aiding ally, similar culture)
 * Chance: 3
 * Edit count: 680
 * UTC: 19:58
 * Total: 680/360*pi = 5.93411946
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Hamburg: +5
 * Brunswick-Lüneburg: +5
 * Population: 8
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: only nation * 1.25

Saxe-Lauenburg (Defender)
Total: 64 x 1.25 = 80
 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage: 2
 * Nations: Saxe-Lauenburg (L) : 4 = 0
 * Military Development: 3 = 0
 * Economic Development: 3 = 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 3
 * Motive: 9 (defending from potentially fatal strike)
 * Chance: 4
 * Nation Age: Mature Nation: + 5
 * Population: 6
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: Only nation * 1.25

Result
90/170 -0.5 x 2 = 0.05882353

Brunswick-Luneburg can take up to 5,8% of Saxe-Lauenburg, depending in how long the war lasts.

Discussion
Your algorythm had many mistakes.i corrected them.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 09:44, March 2, 2014 (UTC)

Hesse (Attacker)
Total: 90
 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage: 2
 * Nations: Hesse (L), Nassau (MV), Frankfurt (MV), Austria (L), Salzburg (MV), Gorizia (MV), Augsburg (MV), Burgau (MV), Aquila (MV), Chur (MV), Württemberg (MV), Bohemia (L), Moravia (L), Brandenburg (L), Luxembourg (L), Trier (L), Spoonheim (MV), Brieg (MV), Falkenburg (MV), Glogau (MV), Liegnitz (MV), Oels (MV), Opole (MV), Rativor (MV), Severien (MV), Strehlitz (MV), Teschen (MV), Troppau (MV), Palatine (MV), Oettingen (MV), Mainz (L), Cologne (L), Heinsburg (MV) =84/4, 21
 * Military Development: 56/14 = 4
 * Austria: 16
 * Hesse: 30
 * Trier: 12
 * Economic Development: 32/12 = 3
 * Austria: 14
 * Hesse: 0
 * Trier: 18
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: 7 (Attacking to enforce political hegemony)
 * Chance:
 * Edit count:
 * UTC: 0 (0) =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Austria: 0
 * Bohemia: 0
 * Brandenburg: 0
 * Moravia: 0
 * Luxembourg: -5
 * Hesse: +5
 * Population: 2
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Vassals and Puppets: *1.25

Saxony (Defender)
Total: 48.75
 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations: Saxony (L), 0
 * Military Development: 14 = 0
 * Economic Development: 12 = 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: 9
 * Chance: 0
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 (0) =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Population: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: -1
 * Vassals and Puppets: *1.25

Result

 * ((Winner/(Loser+Winner))*2)-1 = 0
 * (0)*(1-1/(2*0)) = 0

Discussion
Burgau and Oettingen are technically independent, esp. Oettingen. Oettingen should not get an MV considering it does not border any Austrian lands and will be my vassal upon 1430. Cookiedamage (talk) 21:58, March 3, 2014 (UTC)

Burgau and Oettingen are Austrian vassals for all intents and purposes, although Burgau will eventually not be. Oettingen was vassalized when it bordered Austrian land. When it ceases to border Austrian land then Austria will no longer be able to vassal off of it. Also moved your comment to the correct section. Mscoree (talk) 22:07, March 3, 2014 (UTC)

Oettingen never bordered Austrian land. Ever. Unless of course you mean the border with Burgau (which is, as far as I know, disputed between Bavaria and Austria.) So, I don't think you should be shadily adding disputed vassals to your war algo in the midst of a dispute. Cookiedamage (talk) 22:10, March 3, 2014 (UTC)

It's not that shady. Burgau was considered Austria's vassal for years since he finished vassalizing it first, upto when you started claiming it was yours. During that time he vassalized Oettingen via this link, and this only became a problem when you gained interest in that area as well. It seems like Austria is now basically relinquishing those vassals to you after this point, and you're not even in this war, so what's the problem? NonEuclidean ツ (Talk) 22:22, March 3, 2014 (UTC)

Oettingen wasn't mentioned at all until 1427 when I FIRST mentioned it as being vassalized by Bavaria. If you don't believe do an F3 word check and type in Oettingen and you will find that Oettingen was first mentioned by me in 1427. MS literally threw Oettingen in his massive pile of vassals in 1429 WITHOUT ever mentioning it by name ever before. It was literally annexed within one year and if that's not shady AND a breach of the rules I don't know what is. Cookiedamage (talk) 22:34, March 3, 2014 (UTC)

Actually I first began vassalising them 1421, it's just that I spelled the name wrong for several turns. Mscoree (talk) 00:55, March 4, 2014 (UTC)

Vassalization Rules (Straighten 'em out)
Hello! It's me again! I was just questioning the rules of vassalization of NPC's. I see many different nations simply saying "We begin influencing/vassalizing x", "We start the process of vassalizing y". I believe that posts like that are completely unfair to players to who play plausibly when vassalizing, such as by begining trade relations, creating alliances, gaining military access, placing advisors, and giving gifts. A person playing plausibly like that will end up taking up to 3 or 4 turns to START vassalizing (Assuming mods respond to their diplomacy on time). A player who does not play plausibly like that will have a vassal in just three turns, making it completely unfair to players who wish to build relations over time and plausibly, and will in fact encourage good players to forgo the route of relation building in favor of simply saying "We begining influencing/vassalizing x". Eiplec - ಠ_ಠ (talk) 22:03, March 4, 2014 (UTC)

I agree, should take someone at least 3 turns to start to vassalize because they have some sort of presence or influence on a nation. <span style="background:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#B8860B), to(#DEB887)); border:4px ridge grey; -webkit-border-radius:0em 0em 0em 0em;">  <span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 2px brown, 0 0 1em #000, 0 0 0.2em #0FF; color: white; font: 1.5em Cambria, serif; text-align: center; font-variant: small-caps;">Jbwncster  <span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 2px brown, 0 0 1em #000, 0 0 0.2em #0FF; color: white; font: 1.0em Cambria, serif; text-align: center; font-variant: small-caps;">(Talk)

Although I agree that it is important to build relations before vassalizing, the rules sort of already cover this by deeming that vassals need to be plausible candidates. Also if you're requiring three turns before vassalizing, that's essentially the same as just requiring six to vassalize. Mscoree (talk) 04:25, March 4, 2014 (UTC)

I personally think that the vassalisation period should be doubled. With 6 at the minimum turns for vassalisation.

Either that or vassalisation should be something that requires a full turn. That way you have to choose between vassalisation and development points or border expansion or colonisation instead of having people develop and vassalise to crazy amounts. Kunarian TALK 06:53, March 4, 2014 (UTC)

But there are also the size rules.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 07:05, March 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * Size rules are good and all but makes no difference if you can just vassalise and develop at the same time, otherwise why not always be vassalising? which is a pretty ridiculous notion. Change the name to Principia Vassallos if you're content with the game just becoming a race to vassalise all nations on the map.  Kunarian TALK 08:54, March 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * Principia Clientium rather. Mscoree (talk) 13:17, March 4, 2014 (UTC)

Also it might not be a bad idea to create a mini-algo to deal with conflicts of influence, such as when you are trying to vassalise a nation someone else is too. Kunarian TALK 09:02, March 4, 2014 (UTC)

That's a possibility. Nations definitely competed for vassasls in real life. Algorithm or not it let to some interesting situations, like the one in Burgau, which I thought was handled pretty well. Mscoree (talk) 13:19, March 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, aside from the various issues raised about bias, that one's looking interesting and fun (<this fun is possible through mediation). i still think a mini-algo would at least sort out issues people have if they both want to vassalise one nation, further on top of this it would reward players who take an active interest in realistically RPing vassalisation but would of course need to be wholly grounded in realism.  Kunarian TALK 15:41, March 4, 2014 (UTC)


 * Well I mean, I'm sitting here developing friendships with nations by sending gifts, getting trade influence, creating converts, getting alliances, and military access. And then I end up going through a 20 turn vassalization procedure AFTER doing all that (It takes so many turns, lack of mod responses). Then there are other nations that literally have had no diplomatic relations with any nation until they simply say "We influence x (Turn one of three)". I mean, if that's all it takes, I'll gladly stop trying to build relations with nations that have no players and simply state I'm vassalizing them. Eiplec - ಠ_ಠ (talk) 22:03, March 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * If the mods are so complacent to allow for such a pathetic method of roleplaying (the "we influence this and that for x number of turns") take primacy over actually building relations then if I were you I'd stop putting so much effort in.  Kunarian TALK 08:52, March 5, 2014 (UTC)


 * We aren't that complacent. If you vassalise too fast and too much expect events. The only reason there aren't as many is that a lot of the other mods are blocking some of my severe events and pandering to keep players in... Scandinator (talk) 12:11, March 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, maybe Mods need to let some of these events happen, after all players can smack down events (if its plausible) and just forcibly or diplomatically revassalise in a single turn. However not having these events can cause issues, one thing I've noticed with the new map is that Austria alone seems to be vassalising half of Germany, which is crazy! Of course if there's no war, good economic relations and vassal-leige relationships are stable there's no reason for vassals to try and break away BUT if a leige has just dragged vassals into a war they don't want (for cultural/economic reasons or simply too much war has occured recently) or if a leige is not economically important to a vassal to any significant degree (or even is inhibiting a vassal economically) or if a leige is simply not on good grounds relations wise (violently crushing a rebellion in a vassal is such a thing as this) THEN something should happen.


 * Of course events shouldn't be random and for the lols, a players actions should decide whether their vassals are going to break away.  Kunarian TALK 12:47, March 5, 2014 (UTC)


 * Players need to accept that events happen. The timurids and mamluks need to be put in check <span style="background:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#B8860B), to(#DEB887)); border:4px ridge grey; -webkit-border-radius:0em 0em 0em 0em;">Flag_of_Tibet.svg  <span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 2px brown, 0 0 1em #000, 0 0 0.2em #0FF; color: white; font: 1.5em Cambria, serif; text-align: center; font-variant: small-caps;">Jbwncster  <span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 2px brown, 0 0 1em #000, 0 0 0.2em #0FF; color: white; font: 1.0em Cambria, serif; text-align: center; font-variant: small-caps;">(Talk)  RustySilverGear.png 13:13, March 5, 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to say that my newly acquired territroy is not comprised of vassals. Those lands I inherited. As for events, someone attempts my impeachment everytime I try to do something. Mscoree (talk) 13:08, March 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * Then you should avoid doing confrontational events for nations that are near Austrias sphere, which is the HRE and neighbours of the HRE. Also about the inherited thing, if they are not your vassals are you in personal or dynastic union with someone? Still it looks like a lot of vassals for Austria...  Kunarian TALK 14:40, March 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * I have a good amount of actual vassals too. The ones I inherited from Bohemia I am merging into Silesia soon enough. Bohemia, Moravia, Luxembourg, and Brandenburg I believe are in personal union, since my king is their king currently. Mscoree (talk) 21:32, March 6, 2014 (UTC)

Aymara State question.
So I noticed that in response to my Alliance with the Ica-Naza, the Aymara have formed a centerlized state around Lake Titicaca, the map for has not added Cuzco expansion yet, and my alitly to aprroximte in Kilometers is bad, So can someone tell me how close I am to that, because ive taken 800km from the Aymaras while they where fractured.A more centerlized state means that I have to use an algo now right?What is this????Is this a signature??? (talk) 20:02, March 4, 2014 (UTC)

Savoy (Attacker)

 * Location: 20
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations: Savoy (L) 4, d'Asti (MV) 2, Montferrat (MV) 2 = 8 -> 8/16 = 0
 * Military: 10 -> 10/48 = 0
 * Economy: 10 -> 10/42 = 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 3 (Gains land) -5 (low morale)
 * Chance: (64/8)*pi= 25.132 = 3
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 6
 * Participation: 10
 * Wars: 0
 * Vassals/Puppets: *1.25
 * Result: 47

Genoa and Friends (Defenders)

 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage: 0
 * Nations: Genoa (LV) 3, Corsica (MV) 2, Tuscany (MV) 2, Ferrara (LV) 3, Modena (MV) 2, Naples (L) 4, Zeta (MV) 2 = 16 -> 16/8 = 2
 * Military: 48 -> 48/10 = 4.8 = 5
 * Naples: 16
 * Genoa: 16
 * Ferrara:16
 * Economy: 42 -> 42/10 = 4.2 = 4 + 2 (Genoa)
 * Naples: 14
 * Genoa: 14
 * Ferrara: 14
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 8 + 8 + 8 = 8
 * Chance:(472/8)*pi= 185.3485 = 4
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 9 +10
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals: -3
 * Result: 76

Results

 * ((z/(z+y))*2)-1*(1-1/(2x))
 * ((76/(76+47))*2)-1*(1-1/(4))
 * 0.235772358 * (1-1/(4)) = 0.176829268 = 17,6%

Discussion
Added to the 16% from the last war, Savoy is now part of Naples. Quashi (talk) 02:06, March 6, 2014 (UTC)

Corrected some mistakes in the chance (the chance number is supposed to be the second number after the point.the third number is only used for NPCs.)--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 07:13, March 6, 2014 (UTC)

I only declare war on Genoa, not Naples, why is he attacking me? --Zengu (talk) 01:36, March 7, 2014 (UTC)

Genoa is a vassal of Naples, so you essentially attacked Naples by invading Genoa. Mscoree (talk) 01:40, March 7, 2014 (UTC)

Signatures
Could everyone make sure their signature doesn't mess up the page. I don't know whose it is but I think Jbwncster is the guilty one at the moment when it comes to making the page go spaz. I've had to put 8 of these things: < / span >, to make this section readable. Kunarian TALK 14:42, March 5, 2014 (UTC)

Firearms, Hand Cannons and Arquebus
People seem to be equipping entire armies with these. As if the firearm/hand cannon was the turning point in warfare at this time, as if firearm/hand cannons are economical for armies at this time and as if the firearm/hand cannons are even effective for large scale warfare at this time.

It worries me that people seem to either be being silly and thinking that these weapons are the kill all or just being asb (as in preparing for the future when firearms are actually effective for equipping to entire armies).

The real game changer of this time was the Pike, it effectively countered the dominance of heavy cavalry, whereas firearms did not. They were too slow, too inaccurate and didn't actually have the punch to go through quite a lot of armour. The term bullet-proof comes from when smiths would shoot a bullet at their armour to prove it could stop a bullet.

A bow is way way more effective than firearms at this time, it not only shoots faster, it is accurate, longer range and the power you can put behind one can punch through armour (although normally requiring a special armour piercing arrow).

Please remember this, especially considering that when you come up against an army of heavy horse, armoured men-at-arms and bowmen. I really don't want to see any ASB this side of 400 year long game saying that your army of hand cannoneers slaughtered them down to the last man, even a phyrric victory in such a battle would be asb. The hand cannoneers would be riddled with arrows while getting into position, then maybe they'll get one shot off, it'll fail to weaken the enemy and then the hand cannoneers'll get charged by the cavalry and viciously killed while fumbling with bags of powder.

At the very least put Pikes in front of them, then I can somewhat accept the lunacy of trying to equip your armies with firearms at this time. The pikes uber effectiveness will balance out against the firearms ineffectiveness. Firearms will be a weapon

Of course I am just talking about the people who are equipping their armies en mass with this, hand cannons and arquebusiers are appearing now and should be but not at the main weapon of warfare.

TL;DR:
 * Firearms are not the kill all. Pikes, bows and horses are still the main thing and each is better than a firearm at this time. They will remain better than a firearm up until around 1650.
 * Around 1650 the standard army will be Pikes, firearms and horses, because firearms are now much more effective as they do actually become accurate with the invention of the flintlock musket.
 * Around 1690 plate armour will become so inneffective it will leave use almost completely. On top of that the roles of Pikeman and Musketeer will join together with the invention of the bayonet.
 * Then it'll be pew pew and neigh neigh with little armour for around 100 years until we get to the industrial revolution with BOOM BOOMS.

Could the mods take note and keep an eye on players trying to rush a few hundred years ahead in technology. Kunarian TALK 14:13, March 6, 2014 (UTC)

well kun while they werenta game changer they did infact affect the way the battles played out one could outfit a arquebus army in a matter of months, mixed with cannons it allowed for a terrifying force, and dont forget by the 1500s firearms were alot more coming, in large groups they could be destructive as was shown by the japanese during the sengoku period. also the hungarians employed mass firearms to devastating effects during the hungarian ottoman war. while they were inferior in rate of fire to arrows they were faster then cross bows, and they had a greater pysch affect Nkbeeching (talk) 14:22, March 6, 2014 (UTC)
 * Arquebus were innaccurate, cannons are a different matter as they fired large enough balls to be effective but even then they were used primarily against castles until later for a good reason. And you must link me to these battles that you quote where they were the main fighting force because I can't find any! Don't try and argue against history, history will beat you down! Do not try and argue that it is logical to have armies wholly of cannons and arquebus at this time, economically and militaristically its not practical and it's incredibly ASB especially if these armies are somehow beating armies of bowmen, pikemen and horse. Please don't try and jump a few hundred years ahead because you think guns are cool.  Kunarian TALK 14:51, March 6, 2014 (UTC)
 * kun i never said exclusively made up of firerms im saying that during this period there were being incorperated into infantry forces. And i used 2 very strong historical examples which you just tossed aside. The Hungarians employed firearms to be used by one in every three men within their army to be used as the troops approached their enemies. Im  not saying that firearms replaced swords, pikes, and all of that im saying that their importance in warfare began to geow in this period. my dutch forces for instance, are infantry, with firearms, swords, pikes, etc, while supported by archers, and light calvary. The traditional midevil warfare was on a decline already in this period though it would not go away completely until much later. Also the Sengoku periood in japan was from 1460s to 1580s Oda Nabunaga employed mass arquebus tactics followed by strong swordsman charges to devastating effects. Firearms in mass use at the time may have been inaccurate at a long distance, but close up they were devastating to infantry, when properly used and followed up by solid attacks from other types of troops.  Nkbeeching (talk) 14:59, March 6, 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't worry if you're not making armies exclusively of firearms and if you're not substituting firearms for bows. My issue is only with those that are doing those things. And you're right the importance did grow but they never became revolutionary until around 1650, until then they were just another type of weapon in the armoury of an army. Also traditional medieval warfare was on the decline because of Pikemen at this time, not firearms, pikemen were ending the dominance of the knight.


 * Trust me, you're not the person I look at when this issue arises in my mind. You're actually doing the development well. And by the looks of what you're writing you understand how they work as part of warfare. Which is not as the bread and butter of your army.  Kunarian TALK 15:18, March 6, 2014 (UTC)
 * oh im know they werent revolutinary until the rise of muskets and bayonets, but those forces that did embrace them had a decisive advantage when used properly against a purely traditionally armed force. Nkbeeching (talk) 16:41, March 6, 2014 (UTC)
 * Bows are still a better artillery weapon at this time. Guns are good for shock tactics, you are right.  Kunarian TALK 21:54, March 6, 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am.  22:37, March 6, 2014 (UTC)


 * The first recorded mass use of the Arquebus was in the Hungarian Black Army in the late 1400s, so no one should really be having those yet.
 * As far as I know, most armies are just saying that they are introducing them as a regular weapon, not a weapon used by all, but I could be missing some stuff.
 * "<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave   but you are welcome in it. " 00:26, March 7, 2014 (UTC)
 * "<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave   but you are welcome in it. " 00:26, March 7, 2014 (UTC)