Talk:Principia Moderni III (Map Game)

=Resources=

Archives

 * Archive 1
 * Archive 2
 * Archive 3
 * Archive 4
 * Archive 5

Algorithm Template
Because the current algorithm looks like s***, I've taken it upon myself to do the players a favor and create an algo template that is more becoming of a map game of PMIII's caliber. Enjoy. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 18:40, February 3, 2014 (UTC)

Nation One (Attacker)
Total: 0
 * Location: 0
 * Tactical Advantage: 0
 * Nations: 0 = 0
 * Military Development: 0
 * Economic Development: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 0
 * Modifiers: 0
 * Chance: 0
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 (0) =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 0/0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Nation Two (Defender)
Total: 0
 * Location: 0
 * Tactical Advantage: 0
 * Nations: 0 = 0
 * Military Development: 0
 * Economic Development: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 0
 * Modifiers: 0
 * Chance: 0
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 (0) =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 0/0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result

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

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




 * onte needs to be expanded 5 pixels northward, by 3 pixels eastwards from the coast on the 5 pixels norhward.   Saamwiil, the Humble 14:09, May 22, 2014 (UTC)

You guys forgot the 219px Marrikuwuyanga expanded along the western coast since 1500 or so.. . I also expanded 5 px South RexImperio (talk) 14:46, May 22, 2014 (UTC)

There were a few Japanese islands missed out on the 1510 map, three off the northern coast and one in the Ryukyu Kingdom. (see right) Ozymandias2 (talk) 21:50, May 22, 2014 (UTC)

My nation still needs to be added to the map. Here is a map of where my nation essentially is on the map:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hyrcania.PNG. Willster22 (User talk:Willster22) 22:25, May 22, 2014 (UTC)

Please add the Natigosteg L'nu. These borders should be accurate for 1510.Krasnoyarsk (talk) 22:40, May 22, 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I own 10% of the Mali Empire, yet no one has added that gain to the map for thirty turns. Could someone please add it? Thank you. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 16:58, May 23, 2014 (UTC)

Pskov isnt part of "Russia" yet...also, its more of an HRE-style union or, if you prefer, like the Grand Russian Federation in PMII, so something like colour-borders instead of a single nation colour would be more apropriate...at least for the moment...-Lx (leave me a message) 18:59, May 24, 2014 (UTC)



Oyo's claimed 1,000 km of land in Gabon. Given the competition in the region and the interesting colonization rules of game, I'd very much like to claim land in strips one pixel wide, to stretch my claims and enclose my lands. Like so. Thank you. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 20:14, May 24, 2014 (UTC)



Eire has been expanding in Nuaphail (Eire's colony in OTL New Brunswick) by 1000km every year since 1501. Bfoxius (talk)

Fusahito gains from the Treaty of Kyoto (see left). The map shows the region between China and the Manchu Empire if it's not clear.Ozymandias2 (talk)

The landlocked nation between the Mughal Empire and Marwar should be colored Mughali green now. Sky Green 24 19:01, May 26, 2014 (UTC)

I have expanded 269 px along the western coast, 5px South and 50 px along the Eastern coast since 1500. My nation is Marrikuwuyanga RexImperio (talk) 12:15, May 27, 2014 (UTC)

Labelled


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

Religious Map
If you want to update the map, please list the changes you've made in the Notes section, along with your signature; this enables me to update the color key and change log accordingly, preventing confusion for readers. TankOfMidgets (talk) 19:58, March 24, 2014 (UTC)

The map is now up to date for 1475. TankOfMidgets (talk) 19:48, April 21, 2014 (UTC)

Color Key

All regions are shown according to their plurality religion.

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

Notes Issues and Discussion
 * Added coloration for the Mastorava, Assafi, and Paganist-Islam sects.
 * Switched pale yellow from Sedevacantist to independent-Catholic.
 * Venice is still "Catholic" for the time being, but it will be shown as independent-Catholic when the Venetian player announces that his church takes orders from him instead of Rome.
 * Ayutthaya and its vassals are now Buddhist.
 * Tartary and its vassals are now Mastoravic.
 * Added Ludwigism Blocky858 (talk) 00:45, May 17, 2014 (UTC)

Spain has expanded in south africa, and buenos aires, has expanded kongo, and Morocco, and has conquered part of the Mayans. Please add this to the map MS

Scratch the mayans being partly conquered, they were outright conquered. Also Mapuche were taken by Spain, and their color needs to be moved to OTL Sau Paulo in Brazil as im moving them since me and Sonar are at an understanding. -Feud



Mod Event Grievances
Just so that it doesn't clutter the page, please post your mod event questions, comments and grievances here. This -should- be archived every five years.

1485

 * These Batman events are not funny and don't seem to be contributing a single thing to the game that can't be achieved through actual creative/original events. Cookiedamage (talk) 01:06, April 29, 2014 (UTC)
 * ^ Exactly. You're not being funny, all you're doing is making this game implausible. I mean, FFS, WE HAVE A GOTHAM.  01:14, April 29, 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think they're being made to be funny or implausible, they're just creative/original events. Gotham, from what Andrew tells me, if a plausible name for an English town. Keep in mind though that Gotham has nothing to do with Balthasar, and he just made that in his turn, not a moderator event. From what I've seen they've actually contributed a lot to the game, progressing actual major events, like wars. Mscoree (talk) 01:39, April 29, 2014 (UTC)
 * Events aren't made to amuse you. If you don't like them just don't read them, but the events themselves serve a purpose in the area. You can't remove an event just because it affects your area and you don't like it. NonEuclidean ツ (Talk)
 * It doesn't affect me. And seriously if you want to serve a purpose is it possible to actually create mod events instead of create derivitive, implausible events?Cookiedamage (talk) 02:17, April 29, 2014 (UTC)
 * No one will answer my question of what's implausible. Assume they weren't named similarly to Batman, then what? You'd notice that the events are actual events that create a lot of tension and circumstances in Germany. NonEuclidean ツ (Talk)
 * It doesn't matter, this problem has already been resolved. Mscoree (talk) 13:50, April 29, 2014 (UTC)
 * By deleting them and making ACTUAL events?  21:17, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

1508

 * Just wanted to say that that Japanese land under Chinese control was the Hosokawa daimyo, which was in a personal union with China, so they weren't actually ever controled by the chinese directly Sky Green 24 14:52, May 20, 2014 (UTC)

1510

 * Saxony and Thuringia are both Bavarian vassals Blocky858 (talk) 01:00, May 22, 2014 (UTC)

=General Discussion=

Australian Aboriginal Tribes
European nations were not allowed to come into contact with the Aborigines of Australia until the 18th Century, this made Australia pretty much undiscovered. I think the Aboriginal tribes were controlled by moderators by now, which is why most of Australia is black which I think signifies unexplored areas. Now unlike the Europeans, the Aborigines however do know a little about Australia and where what tribe is settled so would it be possible for me to utilize this map of Australia? (I'll edit it so as to unite the northern tribes into Marrikuwuyanga)

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2cfphle&s=8

- RexImperio (talk) 10:56, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

Black signifies areas which are in a tribal, non-state-like form of government, as the Aboriginal groups were prior to European colonisation. You'll notice that on the map, the Marrikuwuyanga are light grey, to signify that (thanks to mod events) they are essentially an organised, state-style government (although still quite underdeveloped). After you've played as the Marrikuwuyanga for a while, it will be coloured in a distinctive colour to show that it is a player-controlled nation. You'll notice that around where Sydney is otl, there is a dark grey section of land which represents the Tharawal, who are semi-organised, but still essentially tribal.

A much better and more accurate map is this one from the ABC's Indigenous site.

Oh, and in future, please sign posts on the talk page by leaving four ~ in a row (or pressing the "Signature" button in the top panel). Callumthered (talk) 10:11, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

Edited in my signature + thank you -RexImperio (talk) 10:56, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

Hungary
Result: 87
 * Location: 3
 * Tactical Advantage: 7
 * Nations: Hungary (L), Poland (MV), Croatia (MV): 9/3 = 3
 * Military: 20/3: +7
 * Economy: +20 +15 (Much larger economy, Larger Trading Empire): 35/3 = +12
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +6 +4 + 5: 10
 * Chance: 7
 * Edit count: 10,213
 * UTC Time: 00:40 = 4
 * (10,213/4) * pi = 8021.27144278
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Population: 27
 * Participation: 10
 * Number of troops: 55,000/10,000 = 5.5 = 6

Banu Sulaym
Result: 28
 * Location: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: 1 + 2 (being invaded from the sea, open ground)
 * Nations: Banu Sulaym (L) = 5
 * Military: 3/20 = 0
 * Economy: 3/20 = 0
 * Infrastructure: 4
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +9 -5: 4
 * Chance: 1
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Population: 6 (no more than 500k)
 * Participation: 10
 * Number of troops: 10,000/55,000 = 0

Result
((87/(87+28))*2) - 1 = 8

Hungarian Victory. Hungary can claim 8% in their war against Banu Sulaym.. They can burn. It will take  years to tumble them:

*(1-1/(2(12))) =

Due to negotiations with Alexandria, lands shall be transferred to the nation in the east as per this map.

Discussion
Negotiation, not "negociation".

Also, "they can burn"?

The Anon Grammar Nazi Who is certainly NOT Guns

Don't like em. Imp (Say Hi?!) 22:35, May 6, 2014 (UTC)

Really? You seemed so friendly towards them! (This is sarcasm).

22:57, May 6, 2014 (UTC)

No two motives over 5 are allowed. Saamwiil, the Humble 20:56, May 7, 2014 (UTC)

Both sides only have one nation. I'm not sure what you're talking about.

20:58, May 7, 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind. I think I understand. But to avod fuure confusion, they should be labelled, instead of just numbers. (Like what are your goals). There are some problems with the algorythm that I'm tweaking, but he should still be able to conquer them. Saamwiil, the Humble 21:08, May 7, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Impo, Modifiers are a seperate section than motive- look at the rules.

21:23, May 7, 2014 (UTC)

The war will not be taking 12 years, nor will Banu Sulaym have *1.5 - the first revolt happened 25 years ago. Imp (Say Hi?!) 22:38, May 8, 2014 (UTC)

12 year war between a major regional power and a bunch of disorganized rebels who have no serious weaponry (like artillery, etc).

2/10 would not call plausible.

(Also, before you draw up comparizons to the Vietnam war, the Viet Cong and the NVA were heavily armed, outnumbered the US troops, were extremely well organized, had huge amounts of popular support, knew how to fight in the terrain, and were supported by the OTHER major world power).

22:50, May 8, 2014 (UTC)

Resignation
Sorry everyone, I have not been able to post for the last week or so due to an illness in the family, and with exams and everything coming up I do not have the time to post. I think it is best that I take time off and resign from the game. I will probably be able to come back in about 50 turns or so, as a different country of course.

I have one request: please do not chew up and spit the Ottoman Empire up in less than a decade. The Ottomans at this time were at a high point in their political and territorial influence, and it is unfortunate that I will have to miss out on this. Obviously they're destined to fall, but at least try to be plausible about it (I remember my nation was taken over in less than one turn last game, lol.)

Hope to be back soon. Good luck to everyone in Arabia, may you give the Europeans a hard time--just don't attempt to create another Caliphate ;)

ChrisL123 (talk) 02:58, May 6, 2014 (UTC)

Oh no, Chris :(

I hope you're back soon, and I wish you good luck. Fed (talk) 03:03, May 6, 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, pity. See you next time. I recommend something in India or SE Asia, it's amazing.

22:07, May 6, 2014 (UTC)

Bye Chris! Cour *talk* 23:00, May 8, 2014 (UTC)

France

 * Location: close the location of the war +4
 * Tactical Advantage: Siege equipment +5
 * Nation Per Side: France (L), Africa(LV), Sardinia (MV)= 9/5 = 1.8 - 2
 * Military development: +20/7 = 2.85 =+3
 * Economic: +20/7 = 2.85 = +3
 * Motive: Attacking to enforce political Hegemony +11 (Non demo,supported by people)
 * Chance:6
 * Edit count 2445
 * 2443/10: 188.0769
 * 188.0769*pi :590.861
 * Nation age:+5
 * Population:+28
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of troops: 200.000/ 40.000 = 5
 * Total: 82

Tunisia

 * Location: +5
 * Tactical Advantage: +3 Fortifications?
 * Nation Per Side: Tunisia (L) = 5/13 = 0
 * Military development: +7/20 = 0
 * Economic: +7/20 = 0
 * Infrastructure +7
 * Motive: Defending from total annihilation +10
 * Chance:1
 * Nation age:+0
 * Population :+6
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of troops: 40.000/200.000 = 0
 * Total:42

Result

 * If this is alright (Which i'm dubious of) i should get 32% which added to the 18% i got from tunisia last time should mean 50% and allow me to topple the tunisian hafsid government, which means that the wars of north africa are over with me lol!

Discussion
Anything?? Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 04:31, May 9, 2014 (UTC)

Grats Sine. You deserve it after 3 whole wars. Just wait until the next round of Jihad is declared, lol. 07:35, May 9, 2014 (UTC)

Attacker (Marrikuwuyanga Empire)
Total: 163
 * Location: +4
 * Tactical Advantage: +2
 * Nations: Marrikuwuyanga (L), Ayutthaya (M) = 8/5 = 1.6 ~= +2
 * Military Development: 24/12 = +2
 * Economic Development: +12
 * Economic Bonus: -2
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +5
 * Chance: +119
 * Edit Count: 38
 * UTC: 10:11(1*1*1)
 * Total: 38/1*3.14 = +119
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 5 (40 000) +2 = +7
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 1800/180 = +10 (800 Marrikuwuyanga, 1000 Ayutthaya)
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Defender (Yolngu)
Total: 54
 * Location: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations: Yolngu (L) = 5/8 = 0.6 ~= 1
 * Military Development: 12/24 = 0.5 ~= +1
 * Economic Development: +14
 * Economic Bonus: +5
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: +7
 * Motive: +9
 * Chance: 0
 * Edit Count: 0
 * UTC: 0
 * Total: 0
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: +4 (9000)
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 180/1800 = 0.1 ~= 0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result
((163/(163+54)*2)-1 = 0.5023 %

So basically 50.23% of Yolngu territory is conquered. The state soon collapses and is declared part of the Marrikuwuyanga Empire

War lasts for 2 years in which Marrikuwuyanga conquers 37% of Yolngu territory

Discussion
Anything wrong?

http://www.abc.net.au/indigenous/map/

This is the Aboriginal Australian Map All of Australia North [Including Tiwi] is under Marrikuwuyanga control. In Arnhem, the following states are NOT under Marrikuwuyanga control

Reximperio
 * Nunggubuyu
 * Ngalakan
 * Dangbon
 * Rembarnga
 * Ngandi
 * Ngalkbun
 * Wardilninyakwa

Troop numbers seem a bit low.

Please write in what motive and modifiers you're giving yourself and your opponent (also, modifiers and motive are different sections).

Apart from that, looks good- but I'm not a mod.

23:29, May 9, 2014 (UTC)

I think the troop numbers are probably about right. Remember the tribes they are fighting are stone-age bands (I don't mean that in a derogatory way, it's just a fact). Callumthered (talk) 02:06, May 10, 2014 (UTC)

Exponential population growth
After some random discussion on the chat, I wanted to know what formula is used to determine the growth of population.

I mean, it could increase by a few percent every year, but as far as I know it should be this

Pt=P0*e^(r*t)

With Pt being the current population

P0 starting one

e being... well e

r growth per year

and t being time.

I wish to ask the mods, what is the % of r for nations?

Sky Green 24 15:15, May 9, 2014 (UTC)

Depends on the nation and the time period.

Any algo for population would be either very innacurate or ridiculously complex, so I don't think there's any point.

The mods will correct implausible population growth. Think about 1% for this time period (not counting additions, of course- for instance, my nation has expanded quite a bit over the last 40 years, which is why it's population has doubled.

23:23, May 9, 2014 (UTC)

ASB Mod Event
My sultan did denounce Christianity in 1497. So can you cross out this event for 1498.Since the assassination of my leader the new leader went to fix the proble and put things back to normal in my country. - Scarlet

Even if you did happen to denounce Christianity in your nation, the Muslim zealots would still be infuriated by your alleged freedom and tolerance for the heathens. Upon further inspection however it's clear that you never actually did denounce Christianity, in fact in the turn right after the assassination you claimed you were converting to Orthodox. Mscoree (talk) 14:54, May 10, 2014 (UTC)

They wouldn't be infuriated by tolerance because jizya, but Ms is right. 201.233.153.178 15:43, May 10, 2014 (UTC) ^That was me. Fed (talk) 15:46, May 10, 2014 (UTC)

Fed, he removed Jizya, that is what I was talking about when I said he was giving greater freedom to the them. Mscoree (talk) 19:35, May 10, 2014 (UTC)

Castile
Location:  +2


 * Castile: 2


 * Aragon: 2

Attacker: Nations Per Side on the War: +5 Military Development ​Economic Locations Bonus: +9 Economic Bonus Expansion N/A
 * Seige Equipment: 5
 * Castile (L) Aragon (L) 10/2
 * Castile: 20 Aragon: 20= +40/6 = +7
 * Castile: 20 Aragon: 20 = +55/6 = +10
 * Economic bonus +15
 * +5
 * Straits of Gibraltar
 * +2
 * −Seville (Castile)
 * −Barcelona
 * Much Larger Economy +10 Castile, Aragon
 * Larger Trade Colonial Empire +5: Castile, Aragon

Motive Chance Nation Age Population  +8 Participation  +10
 * Attacking to enforce political hegemony: +7 (Castile)
 * Aiding Ally (+3) =
 * Modifiers:
 * Non-democratic Government supported by people: + 8
 * Edit count=x
 * nonzero digit in time*nonzero digit in time=y
 * x/y*pi=z
 * Chance=Hundredth place of z
 * Castile: +0
 * Aragon: +0
 * +2 less than 5 times

Recent Wars: N/A

Number of Troops: +0 Total: 76
 * 12,300 / 25,000 =
 * Castile: 12,000 (Includes recruited auxilaries)
 * Aragon: 300

Mayans
Location:

Defender:
 * +5

Nations per side: Mil development: 
 * +2 (high ground ambush)
 * Maya: +5

Econ Dev:
 * +12/2 = +6/40= 0

Infra Dev: Expansion: N/A
 *  12/2 = +6/55 = 0
 * -2 (smaller economy)
 * +8/2 = +4

Motive: +9 (they are being conquered lol) Nation Age: 
 * Non dem supported +5

Population: +7
 * Antique nation (-15)

Participation: +10

Troops:  Total: 34
 * 25,000/12,300 = +2

Discussion
((76/(34+76))*2)-1 = 0.3818181818181818

(38.18%)*(1-1/(2*4)) 0.334075 = 33%

Mayans lose resoundingly and Castile conquers them

I have a question.. Doesn't the defender get location bonus? Because the attacker got location bonus in this one. Also, is it possible to develop both Military and Economy in one turn because I have been developing my Military only - RexImperio

German Coalition (Attacker)
Total: 92
 * Location 3
 * Hamburg: 5
 * Magdeburg: 3
 * Bavaria: 2
 * Trier: 2
 * Tactical Advantage: 5
 * Nations: Hamburg (L5), Mecklenburg (L5), Magdeburg (LV3), Bavaria (L5) Munich (LV3), Wurzburg (LV3), Trier (L5), Julich (LV3), Zweibrücken (LV3), Brandenburg (LV3), Bohemia (L5), Silesia (LV3), = 46/8 = 6
 * Military dev: 240/260 = 0
 * Hamburg: 20
 * Mecklenburg: 20
 * Magdeburg: 20
 * Bavaria: 20
 * Trier: 20
 * Munich: 20
 * Wurzburg: 20
 * Brandenburg: 20
 * Silesia: 20
 * Bohemia: 20
 * Zweibrücken: 20
 * Silesia: 20
 * Julich: 20
 * Econ dev: 240/140 = 2
 * Zweibrücken: 20
 * Silesia: 20
 * Julich: 20
 * Hamburg: 20
 * Mecklenburg: 20
 * Magdeburg: 20
 * Bavaria: 20
 * Trier: 20
 * Munich: 20
 * Wurzburg: 20
 * Brandenburg: 20
 * Bohemia: 20
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +55
 * Hamburg: 7+4
 * Mecklenburg: 5
 * Magdeburg: 5
 * Bavaria: 3+4
 * Trier: 3+4
 * Munich: 3
 * Wurzburg: 3
 * Brandenburg: 3
 * Bohemia: 3
 * Zweibrücken: 3
 * Silesia: 3
 * Julich: 3
 * Chance:
 * Nation Age: 2
 * Hamburg: 0
 * Mecklenburg: 0
 * Magdeburg: 0
 * Bavaria: 5 (unified 1415)
 * Trier: 0
 * Munich: 0
 * Wurzburg: 0
 * Julich: 5
 * Zweibrücken: 5
 * Brandenburg: 0
 * Bohemia: 5
 * Silesia: 5
 * Population: 7
 * Recent wars: 0
 * Participation: 10
 * Troops: 115,300/60,000 = 2
 * 20,000 from Hamburg and Mecklenburg
 * 5,000 from Magdeburg
 * 10,000 from Trier
 * 30,000 from Bavaria
 * 1,300 volunteers from Buxtehude
 * 3,000 lansquenets from the Luneburg area
 * Black Guard, numbering 6,000
 * 20,000 from Brandenburg
 * 20,000 from Bohemia

Russian Coalition (Attacker, Russian front)

 * Location: 4
 * Pskov: 5
 * Novgorod: 5
 * Lithuania: 4
 * Ukraine: 4
 * Tver: 4
 * Yaroslavl: 4
 * Tactical Advantage: 5
 * Nations: Pskov (L), Novgorod (L), Lithuania (LV), Ukraine (LV), Tver (LV), Yaroslavl (LV) = 20/14= 1
 * Military dev: 120/20 = 6
 * Pskov: 20
 * Novgorod: 20
 * Lithuania: 20
 * Ukraine: 20
 * Tver: 20
 * Yaroslavl: 20
 * Econ dev: 120/20 = 6+1=7
 * Pskov: 20
 * Novgorod: 20
 * Lithuania: 20
 * Ukraine: 20
 * Tver: 20
 * Yaroslavl: 20
 * Motive: 5
 * Pskov: 7+4
 * Novgorod: 3+4
 * Muscovy: 3+4
 * Lithuania: 3
 * Ukraine: 3
 * Tver: 3
 * Yaroslavl: 3
 * Chance:
 * Nation Age: 2
 * Pskov: 5
 * Novgorod: 5
 * Lithuania: 0
 * Ukraine: -5
 * Tver: 5
 * Yaroslavl: 0
 * Motive: 6
 * Pskov: 3+4
 * Novgorod: 7+4
 * Lithuania: 3
 * Ukraine: 3
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Troops: 50,000/20,000 = 3

Total: 58

Scandinavia (Defender)

 * Location: 3
 * Nations: Scandinavia (L), Schleswig (LV), Leubeck (LV), Bremen (LV), Albion (L), Scotland (MV), Wales (MV), Brittany (MV), Netherlands (L), Prussia (L), Courland (LV), Ossel-Wiek (LV), Eire (LV) = 38/13 = +3
 * Military dev: 260, 1
 * Scandinavia: 20
 * Schleswig: 20
 * Leubeck: 20
 * Bremen: 20
 * Netherlands: 20
 * Prussia: 40
 * Courland: 40
 * Ossel-Wiek: 40
 * Albion: 20
 * Eire: 20
 * Economic dev: 140, 0 (Albion and netherlands are added, Prussia is too cool for economic dev)
 * (Sorry their scores were never posted -Feud)
 * Motive: +59
 * Scandinavia: 5 +4
 * Schleswig: 5
 * Leubeck: 5
 * Bremen: 10
 * Netherlands: 3
 * Prussia: 3 +4
 * Courland: 3
 * Ossel-Wiek: 3
 * Albion: 3 +4
 * Eire: 3 +4
 * Infrastructure: 3
 * Expansion: 0
 * Chance:
 * Nation Age: -2
 * Scandinavia: 0
 * Schleswig: -5 (founded 1058)
 * Leubeck: 0 (independence in 1226)
 * Bremen: -5 (founded 1180)
 * Population: 7
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Participation: 10
 * Theaters of war: -5
 * Troops: 60,000 (Disputed)
 * Troops: +35,200
 * 25,000 from Prussia (half of army, other half sent to Russia)
 * 10,000 from Hungary
 * 200 from Roman Empire
 * Total: 79

(For Russian front) Please note I did not include the Scandinavian vassals, reasons below
 * Nations: Scandinavia (L), Prussia (L), Courland (LV), Ossel-Wiek (LV) = 14
 * Military dev: 140, 0
 * Econ dev: 20, 3
 * Motive: 14
 * Scandinavia: 5
 * Prussia: 3
 * Courland: 3
 * Ossel-Wiek: 3
 * Nation Age: (again, all 0s)
 * Participation: +10
 * Troops: +25,000 from Prussia and co. added to what ever plausible sized army is at the front.
 * Total: +42

Result
Do we need to do the equation?

Discussion
Sorry but the Russians may not join this war, they would need to wage their own war on Scandinavia and as they are 1. Russian and this is an HRE war not a Russian one. 2. They are located on the Eurasion front and not the Eastern European front. Russian forces would need their own algo against scandinavia as well as their own war. This is non negotiable.

I believe that this war isn't separate. We declared war as a direct result of the war in Germany to aid our allies against a mutual enemy. I don't see why we would make a separate algorithm. We basically made two and put it in one, using the new fronts system that you yourself pioneered. If you don't want us to use that then remove it from the rules, but we will follow the rules and use the front system. Fritzmet (talk) 22:09, May 10, 2014 (UTC)

For one, 10,000 troops are coming from Hungary - so less points there. Plus, Hungary will be an (M) too, so this algo needs to be changed. Imp (Say Hi?!) 22:30, May 10, 2014 (UTC)

Two algos are definitely necessary. ~Fed, whose internet is acting up and logging in is nightmarish

England, Scotland, Wales, Dublin, Brittany the Kingdom of the Eire and the French vassals of Burgundy and Loirraine are in, if you could add them to the algoALLONS-Y!!,Basically, RUN!! 22:35, May 10, 2014 (UTC)


 * Due to deliberating, Albion should not be added to the algo just yet. Cookiedamage (talk) 23:22, May 10, 2014 (UTC)

the netherlands are also joining as leaders on scandinavias side. With Blood and Iron (talk) 22:50, May 10, 2014 (UTC)

Not that I'm involved, but we need to define "non-lethal". As the one who wrote that motive section, I meant that the difference between the scores is less than the lower value. To put it in another sense, winner/loser is less than one.

Course, I defer to Feud here.

23:51, May 10, 2014 (UTC)

Is it really possible for Scandinavia's vassals to send support to the Russian front? And why are they listed as fives and fours when their capitals (including Scandinavia's) are a thousand miles away? It's also impossible for Scandinavia to send 50,000 to both fronts, let alone 60 or 70. Scandinavia also clearly has four vassals, and Bremen should at most be 9, not 10. Also, what's with all these 5 motives when at most they should be three?

I haven't got to the Russian algorithm yet, as that may be removed, but I fixed some things in the German one. Mscoree (talk) 00:25, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

Burn Scandanavia. Bring back the UNC.

Also, burn Hamburg. I've done it twice, I figure third times the charm.

00:36, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

After much delibration I have decided to declare my full support for Scandinavia. Both military and supplies. I also beleive Eire will also support me in this solemn endeveour. ALLONS-Y!!,Basically, RUN!! 01:06, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

^So Albion would under (M) and (S)? Cookiedamage (talk) 01:21, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

M all vassals I can put in without penalty are also MALLONS-Y!!,Basically, RUN!!

Let's start out by saying that Ms deserves to be impeached for starting this powder keg when he not only knew that one of his cronies wanted to attack me, but for subsequently having nations under his own watch (Brandenburg and Bohemia) attack me. Ms is a corrupt mod. I have pointed this out time and again. Not sure why other people haven't listened to me. Secondly, the other nations on my side need to be added. Andrew said that Albion, Wales, Scotland, and Brittany are supporting me against the Germans. Netherlands and all of her vassals have declared war as well. Prussia and Mazonia also need to be added. All of these guys are leaders. Hungary is aiding me with troops, as is the Byzantine Empire. There are the sides of the war. Sigh... Bananananananana BAT-CRIM 03:02, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

MS didn't start anything. He made an event that was later removed anyway, so its involvement is irrelevant. Austria isn't even involved, nor are his "cronies" (although every time you disagree with someone that definition grows). Based on the behavior I've seen from you this evening I'm not sure who the real bad mod is. You spent all this time insulting, harassing, and "acting drunken", to the point where Feud and everyone else in chat had to ask you to stop. And now the algorithm is locked for the night until you can calm down thanks to your immature behavior. Overall this is not the behavior I'd expect from a moderator, let alone an admin, and I recommend you spend the time this algorithm is locked to actually take a step back from things, lest you make things even worse for yourself. Fritzmet (talk) 03:09, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

^^ Plus Albion's support and the Neth. will be added tomorrow. Cookiedamage (talk) 03:11, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

Note how I said Brandenburg and Bohemia. Not Austria. I don't think you know what I mean by cronies. As explained MANY TIMES, they are people who follow Ms constantly, not people I disagree with. I spent absolutely zero time harassing anybody. The sorts of insults I flung were, to be honest, earned and deserved due to peoples' inability to actually read. If you think that was bad, you are not going to like LG. I was, to be honest, being an ass. The algorithm is locked because Ms is biased and you people think I'm biased. It's to prevent a shitstorm. If you would read into a situation instead of just scratch the surface, you would know this. I know your reading comprehension is not top-notch, however, so I'll sum it up. Fritz, you're wrong about everything that you said. Bananananananana BAT-CRIM 03:22, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

There's literally no point in arguing with you when you try to justify rude, insultive behaviour as well as trying to get us to believe you're not biased. Cookiedamage (talk) 03:30, May 11, 2014 (UTC)
 * Here we go again, but whatever. Here feud I saved you some trouble:
 * (for German front)
 * Nations: Scandinavia (L), Schleswig (LV), Leubeck (LV), Bremen (LV), Albion (M), Scotland (MV), Wales (MV), Brittany (MV), Netherlands (L), Prussia (L), Courland (LV), Ossel-Wiek (LV) = 34 -12 (six vassals) = 22, 0
 * Military dev: 220, 0
 * Scandinavia: 20
 * Schleswig: 20
 * Leubeck: 20
 * Bremen: 20
 * Netherlands: 20
 * Prussia: 40
 * Courland: 40
 * Ossel-Wiek: 40
 * Economic dev: 100, 0 (just Netherlands is added, Prussia is too cool for economic dev)
 * Motive: 5
 * Scandinavia: 5
 * Schleswig: 5
 * Leubeck: 5
 * Bremen: 10
 * Netherlands: 3
 * Prussia: 3
 * Courland: 3
 * Ossel-Wiek: 3
 * Nation age: (I believe they're all 0s)
 * Troops: +35,200
 * 25,000 from Prussia (half of army, other half sent to Russia)
 * 10,000 from Hungary
 * 200 from Roman Empire
 * (for Russian front) please note I did not include the Scandinavian vassals, reasons below
 * Nations: Scandinavia (L), Prussia (L), Courland (LV), Ossel-Wiek (LV) = 16, 0
 * Military dev: 140, 0
 * Econ dev: 20
 * Motive: 4
 * Scandinavia: 5
 * Prussia: 3
 * Courland: 3
 * Ossel-Wiek: 3
 * Nation Age: (again, all 0s)
 * Troops: +25,000 from Prussia and co. added to what ever plausible sized army is at the front.
 * First, I would like to point out the implausibility associated with Crims vassals, currently being invaded, sending support to the Russian front.
 * Second, I would like to point out Prussia is now also fighting a two-front war, as they are fighting both Brandenburg and the Russian states.
 * Third, there's almost no possible way Crim can have 70,000 troops fight on the Russian front. His entire army might, and that's a big might, be 70,000 strong, which comes out to around 3% of a population of 2.5 million, which I doubt Scandinavia has. The prospect of using the entire army numbers for a single front, when it can't possible accomplish, is insane.

albion also joined the war this turn so they also need to be addedWith Blood and Iron (talk) 10:53, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

I'm sending 10 dragons to aid Scandinavia, +10 for each dragon (jk). But as far as I've read on the 1498 turn, Novgorod is attacking to aid Hamburg (Motive: Aiding an ally), which doesn't really seem like a good reason to break a treaty. But anyways, another thing is that I don't see why the rest of Russia would suddenly rush to aid Novgorod in aiding Hamburg. And furthremore, Scandinavia is in some trade/military alliance with Albion and Netherlands. So no matter how the war ends most Russian nations would have issues when it comes to trading with the west. I just think it's a fool's move to do what they are doing Sky Green 24 11:26, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

Um Akbion should be a leader as well, I have a vested interest in retaining the status quoALLONS-Y!!,Basically, RUN!! 16:25, May 11, 2014 (UTC)
 * You just said you're sending military aid.
 * ^^ Sending military aid and/pr declaring support does not make you a leader in a war. Cookiedamage (talk) 16:45, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

Let him do what he wants with his nation. Also, add in Azov and Perm, as it seems Fritz's deal does NOT include vassal states. Fed (talk) 16:45, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

We're not going to randomly add Albion to leader status when he has not explicitly declared war. What that is is essentially manipulating the algo based on decisions said in chat or on talk pages. So no, he cannot just do what he wants with his nation unless he details it on the main page first. Cookiedamage (talk) 16:48, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

Novgorod isn't just aiding an ally. Their primary motive is taking back lost territory. Tr0llis (talk) 16:49, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

Bah ok, this is muh more calmALLONS-Y!!,Basically, RUN!!

KARMA, BITCH!

Told you to keep calling it the UNC.

Oh, no!

Hehehehehe

21:08, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

Ayutthaya (Attacker)
Total: 94
 * Location: 4
 * Tactical Advantage: +5 (siege weaponry, I've talked about it each turn since, like, 1485)
 * Nations: Ayutthaya (L), The Majapahit (LV), Siak (LV), Holland (M) = 14/5 = 3
 * Military Development: 52/4 = 13
 * Ayutthaya: 10 turns: +20
 * The Majapahit: 8 years: +16
 * Siak: 8 years: +16
 * Economic Development: 61/3 = 20
 * Ayutthaya: 10: +20
 * The Majapahit: 7: +14
 * Siak: 7: +14
 * Much Larger econ: + 10
 * Straits of Malacca: + 3 (You guys need to update that section, BTW)
 * Expansion: - 2 (War of Pre-Emption)
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: Taking Territory of Similar culture but not part of nation: +5
 * Modifiers: Support: 4
 * Chance: 3
 * Edit count: 7884
 * UTC: 12:05 = 10
 * Total: 7884/10*(3.14159265359) = 2476.83164809
 * Nation Age: (5+5+0)/3 = ~3
 * Ayutthaya: Mature (+5)
 * Siak: Mature (+5)
 * The Majapahit: Old: +0
 * Population: 8+20 = 28
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 65,000/20,000 = 3
 * Recent Wars: -2 (War of Pre-Emption)
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Pagaruyung(Defender)
Total: 27
 * Location: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: +2 (high ground, since some of my invasion is seabased, though not all.)
 * Nations: Pagaruyung (L) = 5/14 = 0
 * Military Development: 4/48
 * Economic Development: 3/61 = 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 4
 * Motive: +9 (defending from fatal attack)
 * Modifiers: Low Morale: -5
 * Chance: 1 (see above)
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 (0) =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: +5 (mature)
 * Population: 6 digits
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 20,000/65,000 = 0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result

 * ((94/(94+27))*2)-1 = 55.4%
 * (55.4)*(1-1/(2*2)) = 41.55 % after two years WHOA LOOK SAME RESULT

Discussion
This algorithm needs a lot of work. Mscoree (talk) 02:15, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so I have gone ahead and taken care of a few things. Firstly, you messed up the location. You would get a 4 and he would get a 5. You get a 14 for 5+5+5-2-2+3 for nations per side.

Then there are development scores. According to the NPC bonus, the NPC gets dev. scores for each year not in a war, so they get 20 years worth of dev. 7 years go into infra., 7 towards econ., and then 6 into mil.

You do not get high morale seeing as your chance is under 4. Furthermore, I'd assume the other nation would have support in defending the motherland. I had a mod's ok to do this, but all decisions can be debated, in theory. 02:46, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

Read the rules Rex. For the 20 years, the scores are then divided by 2 and rounded to the nearest whole number. The military score will not be 14, but in fact 4. Imp (Say Hi?!) 16:55, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

And I am having serious worries about the counting ability of some. Imp (Say Hi?!) 16:58, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

^ Same. I'm not sure what you're counting, Rex.

Agh, I forgot that about the Location.

This new rule is extremely stupid; it allows for Vivimpires once more.

I'm fixing it.

Furthermore, as the rules clearly state, NPCs don't get support unless the mods say so in a mod event.

20:06, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

Alexandria (Attacker)
Total: 64 so far
 * Location: 5+3+3+2+5 = 3.6 = 4
 * Tactical Advantage: +1
 * Nations: Alexandria (L) +5, Roman Empire (M) +3, Mughal Empire (M) +3, Ethiopia (MV), Alexandrian Aiguptia (LV) = 11/3 = 4
 * Military Development: 8 turns = 16/10 = 1.6 ~ +2
 * Economic Development: 2 turns = 4/5 = .8 ~ +1
 * Economic Bonus: +2 Alexandria, + 10 Much Large Economy, +5 Larger Trade +17
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 6 turns = 12 NA
 * Motive: +7 Enforcing Political Hegemony
 * Modifiers: 0
 * Chance: 3
 * Edit count: 2790
 * UTC: 810= 8
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =1095. 630437939513
 * Nation Age: 0 (mature)
 * Population: +18
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 49/10 = 5
 * 15,000 Alexandria
 * 10,000 Christian Aiguptia
 * 10,000 Ethiopia
 * 10,000 Roman Empire
 * 4,000 Mughal Empire
 * Recent Wars: Aiguptia -4 (Ls), Ethiopia -2 (L), Aiguptia (-2) -8
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Islamic Aiguptian (Defender)
Total: 22 * 1.5 Popular Revolt Bonus = 33
 * Location: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: +1
 * Nations: Aiguptian rebels (L) +5 = 5
 * Military Development: 10/16 = 0
 * Economic Development: 5/4 = 1
 * Economic Bonus: -2 Smaller Economy
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: +3
 * Motive: Aiding religious kinsmen who are being oppressed +7
 * Modifiers: -5 Troop Moral Low
 * Chance: 0
 * Nation Age: -10 Newborn
 * Population: 1,000,000 +7
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: TBD/10,000 =0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result

 * ((64/(33+64))*2)-1 = .319587 so far.
 * (.32)*(1-1/(2*0)) = 0
 * Rebellion is halted. I was told by mods that i only have to win a popular revolt rebellion in order to hold onto control.

Discussion
This is only the start, feel free to add the rest Sky Green 24 19:32, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

Do I even need an algo? g greg e  (talk)  19:41, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I think you are done. As far as I know if you win a rebellion you win.ALLONS-Y!!,Basically, RUN!! 20:40, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

You did screw up a bit.

For economy, you can only recieve ONE of those bonuses; ie, +5 OR +10, not both.

Furthermore, Ayutthaya sent you some supplies and some ships to aid with transport.

21:17, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

Ayutthaya (Attacker)
Total : 109
 * Location: 4
 * Tactical Advantage: +5 (siege weaponry)
 * Nations: Ayutthaya (L), The Majapahit (LV), Siak (LV), Holland (M) = 14/5 = 3
 * Military Development: 52/4 = 13
 * Ayutthaya: 10 turns: +20
 * The Majapahit: 8 years: +16
 * Siak: 8 years: +16
 * Economic Development: 61/3 = 20
 * Ayutthaya: 10: +20
 * The Majapahit: 7: +14
 * Siak: 7: +14
 * Much Larger econ: + 10
 * Straits of Malacca: + 3
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: Taking Territory of Similar culture but not part of nation: +5
 * Modifiers: Support: 4, Morale: +5 = 9
 * Chance: 9
 * Edit count: 7893
 * UTC: 8:36 =  144
 * Total: 7893/144*(3.14159265359) = 172.198547325
 * Nation Age: (5+5+0)/3 = ~3
 * Ayutthaya: Mature (+5)
 * Siak: Mature (+5)
 * The Majapahit: Old: +0
 * Population: 8+20 = 28
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 85,000/20,000 = 4 (I explained the troop increase in my turn)
 * Recent Wars: -4 (War of Pre-Emption, Pagaruyung)
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Selebar (Defender)
Total: 33
 * Location: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: 0 (Not attacking by sea this time)
 * Nations: Selebar (L) = 5/18
 * Military Development: +3/52 = 0
 * Economic Development: +4/61= 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: +4
 * Motive: 9 (defending against lethal attack)
 * Modifiers: Low morale: -5
 * Chance: 8 (see above)
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 (0) =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: -5 (Ancient)
 * Population: 7 digits
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 20,000/85,000 = 0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result

 * ((109/(33+109))*2)-1 = 53.5%
 * (53.5)*(1-1/(2*2)) = 40.125% 2 year war.

Ayutthaya (Attacker)
Total : 114
 * Location: 4
 * Tactical Advantage: +5 (siege weaponry)
 * Nations: Ayutthaya (L), Siak (LV),  The Majapahit (LV), Aru (LV),Holland (M) = (5+5+5+5+3-2-2-4)/5 = 3
 * Military Development: 62/4 = 16
 * Ayutthaya: 10 turns: +20
 * The Majapahit: 8 years: +16
 * Siak: 8 years: +16
 * Aru: 5 years: +10
 * Economic Development: 71/3 = 24
 * Ayutthaya: 10: +20
 * The Majapahit: 7: +14
 * Siak: 7: +14
 * Aru: 5: +10
 * Much Larger econ: + 10
 * Straits of Malacca: + 3
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: Taking Territory of Similar culture but not part of nation: +5
 * Modifiers: Support: 4, Morale: +5 = 9
 * Chance: 6
 * Edit count: 7903
 * UTC: 12:36 =  36
 * Total: 7903/36*(3.14159265359) = 689.666853926
 * Nation Age: (5+5+5+0)/3 = ~5
 * Ayutthaya: Mature (+5)
 * Siak: Mature (+5)
 * The Majapahit: Old: +0
 * Aru: +5 (Mature)
 * Population: 8+20 = 28
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 90,000/20,000 = 5
 * Recent Wars: -6 (War of Pre-Emption, Pagaruyung, Selebar)
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Tulang Bawang (Defender)
Total: 21
 * Location: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: 0 (Not attacking by sea this time)
 * Nations: Selebar (L) = 5/15 = 0
 * Military Development: +3/52 = 0
 * Economic Development: +4/61= 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: +4
 * Motive: 9 (defending against lethal attack)
 * Modifiers: Low morale: -5
 * Chance: 6 (see above)
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 (0) =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: -15 (Antique)
 * Population: 7 digits
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 20,000/90,000 = 0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result

 * ((114/(21+114))*2)-1 = 68.8889%
 * (68.889)*(1-1/(2*1)) = ~34.4445% One turn, What's it called FALLS.

Possible Treaty-breaking penalty
In the recent war, two non-aggression pacts were broken: Novgorod->Scandinavia, and Prussia->Hamburg. Issues (especially the Novgorod one) were raised on chat, ranging from "they can't do that", to "they can break the treaty". Either way, I believe this will set a dangerous precedent, therefore, I'm suggesting a penalty be put in place if a nation breaks a non-aggression pact. The amount will be up to the mods.

Aye

 * Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 10:48, May 12, 2014 (UTC)
 * Callumthered (talk) 12:14, May 12, 2014 (UTC)
 * Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 13:02, May 12, 2014 (UTC)
 * Mscoree (talk) 14:10, May 12, 2014 (UTC)
 * Tardis.pngS-Y!!,Basically, RUN!!Tardis.png 14:35, May 12, 2014 (UTC)
 * Batmanlogonobackground.pngananananana BAT-CRIMBatmanlogonobackground.png 19:06, May 12, 2014 (UTC)
 * Fed (talk) 11:59, May 13, 2014 (UTC)
 * Fed (talk) 11:59, May 13, 2014 (UTC)

Aye

 * I completely agree. In OTL, when an alliance was broken nobles would be greatly distraught. Futhermore, other nations would stop respecting a nation, an effective death notice for some time in the future. Think of what would happen if the US elected a new leader and he declared war on traditional leaders. In EUIV, a pretty historically accurate game, stability drops when a treaty is broken. 06:40, May 12, 2014 (UTC)
 * With Blood and Iron (talk) 11:40, May 12, 2014 (UTC)
 * If people are allies as well you should also have the penalties. [[Image:Flag of Russian Alaska (HR).svg |40px|link=User talk:Octivian Marius]] OCT MARIUS, HAIL HIM  [[Image: Flag of Italy (Federalist Italy).svg|40px|User talk:Octavian Marius]]
 * One of the major problems I have with this game. Bfoxius (talk)
 * One of the major problems I have with this game. Bfoxius (talk)

Nay

 * I like the principle, but we already have a modifier that can be adapted for this- the War and Government not support by people mods. Just apply em here.
 * As the point above, however, broken treaties are a fact of history. Some nations do it more repetitevly than others.  Saamwiil, the Humble 02:27, May 13, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
I assume we're just going to add a subtraction in the algorithm. Another alternative would be to have some sort of revolt if a nation does it twice within a certain amount of time. I think it should also be dependent on the level of treat. Breaking a trade agreement or something minor should be no effect, and maybe from a minor war (less than a certain amount of points in the previous algorithm) can have a lesser affect than a major war. Just some ideas there. Mscoree (talk) 14:47, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

A points hit in the algorithm could work, and for repeat offenders, possible revolts. It is a logical step, there are several games like EUIV that illustrate the instability of breaking a treaty, not to mention OTL instances in which the aggressor nations were looked on with distrust following the event. I don't think penalties should exist for breaking something minor like a trade agreement or cancelling diplomatic relations, only if they break alliances and Non aggression pacts.ALLONS-Y!!,Basically, RUN!! 14:50, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Probably something like this:
 * Minor Agreements (Trade, Relations, etc): 0
 * Minor War (Victory less than 15%): -1
 * Major War (Victory over 15%): -2
 * Second Offense within current reign and/or ten years (Of either of the last two): -4

The numbers may be tweaked, but I think something like that makes sense. Also possible revolts, apply as needed, for two or more offenses, and of course the general distrust other nations will surely feel. Mscoree (talk) 18:20, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

or the nations could get an automatic "War not Supported by People" in their motive? with stacking in the past 15 years?-Lx (leave me a message) 00:02, May 13, 2014 (UTC)

Guys- as Lx said, there is already a modifier for this.

00:20, May 13, 2014 (UTC)

Guns we aren't sure of the system yet. You basically just voted no but yet in the comments described how we could implement this with the already existing system, so which are you? Mscoree (talk) 10:40, May 13, 2014 (UTC)

I'm saying "we already have this, there's no reason to change the rules".

20:28, May 13, 2014 (UTC)

Editing Past Turns
Hey, guys. Something that I noticed that was happening big time during the last major war: people editing past turns. We used to crack down on this hard in Principia Moderni II and I'm not sure why we aren't now. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons why a user may want to edit a past turn. However, it's up to a user to make sure that his/her post remains on the page. Mods will help you out on this, but it ultimately falls on your shoulders. During this war, I saw people posting in turns that were over, adding things to their posts or even adding posts in general. We allow a window of opportunity after midnight UTC to add or edit your posts. Let's stick to this window.

We are going to start cracking down on this again. Apologies to anybody who was unclear on this rule.

Thanks,

Bananananananana BAT-CRIM 19:20, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

As it stands, nobody is allowed to edit a previous turn after 06:00 UTC (about midnight in some areas). However, since many may not have been able to make their edit before that time, some go ahead with it either when they wake up, or when they have the time (since many of the players have jobs, at least I hope they do). So it truly depends on the situtation of the player. It would be up to the mods to figure out the time tables of each player, and depending on their circumstances, I can possibly see some allowances to the rule. But like I said, it all depends on the individual player's circumstances. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 19:28, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

The accepted norm since Lurk cracked down hard on past turns' is you are allowed ~1 hr after the end of the year to post. Not much more. Imp (Say Hi?!) 12:24, May 13, 2014 (UTC)

Uhh... not to nag, but for some ~1 hr after the end of the year is 3 A.M. What I would like to suggest is that for players with that issue, they are allowed to post their turns 'till 6 A.M. UTC, but aren't allowed to declare war, offer treaties, trade agreements etc. if they post after the new turn starts Sky Green 24 15:24, May 13, 2014 (UTC)

May i have Michigan?
I would like Michigan as a nation soon, after it gains independence. Is this alright? In the mean time, with the mayans dead, i would like to be the Vatican City again. May i?

There will be no jumping around to different nations. The rules technically don't allow it, unless the user's first nation is destroyed. Once you commit to a nation, you cannot change. If you're waiting for a nation, you may not sign up as another nation in the meantime, you will just have to wait. Cour *talk* 21:44, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

Location
Look, I'm not trying to be annoying about this- and it works fine for now- but this kind of "location doesn't matter" attitude is what led to the Caliphate and the Vivimpires (no offense intended, Viva; it's just the common lingo). At the present moment, Castille could probably annex the Fusahito Theocracy, or at least get a percentage north of 33%.

However, I do see some of the reasoning for the switch from multiple of five, so instead let me suggest this:

Location is done in PENALTIES, of power of two. Alternately, multiples of four. Thoughts, anyone?
 * At Location of War: -(2^0) = -1 (You still have to move your troops, after all)
 * Bordering Location of War: -(2^1) = -2
 * Near Location of War: -(2^2) = -4
 * Close to Location of War: -(2^3) = -8
 * Far from Location of War: -(2^4) = -16
 * Other side of the world: -(2^5) = -32
 * At War: +20
 * Bordering War: +16
 * Near War: +12
 * Close to War: +8
 * Far from War: +4
 * Other side of the world: +0

I have to say, it matters less right now, but in the next couple of centuries- especially in the 1600s and 1700s, before industrialization- location implausibility will become huge.

23:04, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

The Caliphate was, besides Ethiopia, completely contiguous and only declared war on contiguous states, so no, that doesn't support you, but I do see a need for distance to become a factor. Being able to lead a war half a continent away should be made harder. A continuous penalty of one though wouldn't make sense, as it would basically make participation a 9. Saamwiil, the Humble 02:21, May 13, 2014 (UTC)

The penalty system is much better/plausible/makes sense. The invader is the one that has to deal with transporting soldiers, resources, provide shelter thus it would be simple to say that the invader must suffer penalties. But that's only my opinion

~ RexImperio

I prefer the penalty option. The defender will always get a minus one- but hey, they have to move their troops too; and the attacker can get a -2 at best, since they still have to move across the border.

20:59, May 13, 2014 (UTC)

I think the penalty system is fine, but somebody who can conceptualize math better should make sure that the lower overall scores will not mess up the algo formula for results. 23:31, May 14, 2014 (UTC)

No, I calculated. It still will not be possible to get negative scores, unless you are attacking from the other side of the world with absolutely no development- which would never be done, of course. To completely forestall that, participation could be raised to 15 for both sides.

23:39, May 14, 2014 (UTC)

Teraty-Breaking Proposition...and something more
as you guys know, History is not all sunshine and butterflies, and, sometimes, despite some nations' best intentions, and learders' competance, sometimes politics, intrigue, and downright bad luck ruin crops, spur religious fundamentalism(decrying the governement as sinful, and detatched from devine will), or simply rival politicians looking for vengance(I'm looking at you Congressman Underwood). so I hereby propose that a system, combining ruler age, political family/dynasty, reign length, war outcome, warmongering, treaty-breaking, and base "revolt risk" and perhaps more to combine to a chance to have a negative mod event hit every nation, and, if not dealt with, be headed for full-on rebellion.-Lx (leave me a message) 01:24, May 13, 2014 (UTC)

100% agreed. Bfoxius (talk)

Questions
1) Is there a certain limit to the number of wars that may take place in let's say '10 years'

2) I have seen some people expand 1000-4000km while some expand 50km. Any particular reason for the difference?

3) How do we know which nation has a stronger military or economy other than the point system? I mean if a tribal nation and a nation in Europe develop their economy each turn, they'd end up with equal points..

4) If one army uses gunpowder weaponry whilst another uses swords, where one the algorithm would the former gain a bonus?

5) When PvP wars end and one nation gets 33% 34% land from the opponent, will the loser have all of his land annexed? Or to show plausibility and also role play; will a treaty be formed?

~ RexImperio

1. There isn't necessarily a limit, but at the same time you need to make sure it's plausible. Having too many wars will bankrupt your nation and heavily lower your stability. Having more than two in a decade, especially expansionist/offensive wars will likely collapse your nation.

2. Details on how fast you can colonize can be found on the rules page. Some nations can expand faster than others, and older colonies can also expand faster. This again comes down to plausibility too, meaning even if a nation is allowed to expand say 5000 sq mi, it doesn't mean they can/should expand by that much constantly.

3. This is something that is often criticized about the algorithm. For the most part anyway a nation that has a higher quality military will feel that effect somewhere else in the algorithm, such as number of troops.

4. That currently isn't accounted for in the algorithm, but perhaps that can be a new addition soon.

5. If a nation gets 34% or higher in an algorithm it means they topple to enemy government. From here you can theoretically do whatever you want, such as annex all their land, but in practice for plausibility the gains have to make sense, and the attacker must be capable of actually taking that particular land. Either way a treaty is usually formed.

Anyway, I hopes that helps to answer some of your questions. Mscoree (talk) 18:00, May 13, 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, it was indeed helpful - RexImperio

'''Actually, no. '''Technology IS factored in, as a country with better tech will have a much bigger economy, population, and thus more troops, etc.

When industrialization comes in, that'll grant a multiplier.

20:58, May 13, 2014 (UTC)

Ayutthaya (Attacker)
Total : 111
 * Location: 4
 * Tactical Advantage: +5 (siege weaponry)
 * Nations: Ayutthaya (L), Siak (LV),  The Majapahit (LV), Aru (LV),Holland (M) = (5+5+5+5+3-2-2-4)/5 = 3
 * Military Development: 62/4 = 16
 * Ayutthaya: 10 turns: +20
 * The Majapahit: 8 years: +16
 * Siak: 8 years: +16
 * Aru: 5 years: +10
 * Economic Development: 71/3 = 24
 * Ayutthaya: 10: +20
 * The Majapahit: 7: +14
 * Siak: 7: +14
 * Aru: 5: +10
 * Much Larger econ: + 10
 * Straits of Malacca: + 3
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: Taking Territory of Similar culture but not part of nation: +5
 * Modifiers: Support: 4, Morale: +5 = 9
 * Chance: 5
 * Edit count: 7917
 * UTC: 9:01 =  9
 * Total: 7917/9*(3.14159265359) = 2763.55433761
 * Nation Age: (5+5+5+0)/3 = ~5
 * Ayutthaya: Mature (+5)
 * Siak: Mature (+5)
 * The Majapahit: Old: +0
 * Aru: +5 (Mature)
 * Population: 8+20 = 28
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 97,000/20,000 = 5
 * Recent Wars: -8 (War of Pre-Emption, Pagaruyung, Selebar, Tulang Bawang)
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Tulang Bawang (Defender)
Total: 20
 * Location: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: 0 (Not attacking by sea this time)
 * Nations: Selebar (L) = 5/15 = 0
 * Military Development: +3/52 = 0
 * Economic Development: +4/61= 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: +4
 * Motive: 9 (defending against lethal attack)
 * Modifiers: Low morale: -5
 * Chance: 4 (see above)
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 (0) =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: -15 (Antique)
 * Population: 7 digits
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 20,000/97,000 = 0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result

 * ((111/(20+111))*2)-1 = 69.5%
 * (69.5)*(1-1/(2*1)) = ~34.75% One turn, What's it called FALLS.
 * Jakarta goes to the Dutch, the rest to Ayutthaya.

Albion

 * Location: 3
 * Tactical Advantage: Siege equipment, ambush +7
 * Nation Per Side: Albion (L), Scotland (L), Wales (LV), Eire (L), Brittany (MV), Scandinavia (M) =  23/14 = 2
 * Military development: 80/68 = 1
 * Albion: 20
 * Scotland: 20
 * Eire: 20
 * Wales: 20
 * Economic: 80/(68/2) = 3 + 15 = 18
 * Albion: 20
 * Scotland: 20
 * Eire: 20
 * Wales: 20
 * (larger colonial empire + much larger economy)
 * Motive: 26
 * +6 +5 +3 +3 = 17
 * (modifier) +3
 * +6 (morale high)
 * Chance: 9
 * Edits: 1911
 * 00:30 = 3
 * (1911/3)*pi = 2001.1945203
 * Nation age: +5
 * Population:+27
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent wars: -6
 * Number of troops: 90000/40000 = 2
 * Total: 107

Hamburg

 * Location: 4
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nation Per Side: Hamburg (L), Mecklenburg (L), Holstein (LV), Bremen (LV), Lubeck (LV), Madgeburg (LV): 22 - 8 = 14/23 = 0
 * Military development: 68/80 = 0
 * Hamburg: 20
 * Mecklenburg: 20
 * Holstein: 2
 * Bremen: 2
 * Lubeck: 2
 * Madgeburg: 20
 * Economic: (68/2)/80 = 0 -2 = -2
 * Hamburg: 20
 * Mecklenburg: 20
 * Holstein: 2
 * Bremen: 2
 * Lubeck: 2
 * Madgeburg: 20
 * Smaller economy
 * Motive: 31
 * +9 +5 +5 +5 +5 +5
 * (modifier) +3
 * -6 (morale: all categories score lower, recent war)
 * Chance: 5
 * 879
 * 01:00 = 1
 * (879/1)*pi = 2761.4599425
 * Nation age: +0
 * Population: +6
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent wars: -18
 * Number of troops: 40,000/90,000 = 0
 * Total: 39

Result
((107/(107+39))*2) - 1 = 0.465753424

Albion and Co can claim 46.6% of Hamburg and Co.

(46.6)*(1-1/(4)) = 34.95

If the war lasts 2 years, Albion can topple the government of Hamburg.

Discussion
Imp will come and fix things ~Andrew

I would seriously like to question the plausibility of Albion deciding to launch an unprovoked, amphibious, 90,000 man invasion only two years after they were involved in a full-scale war. Really think about it, would the populace be ready to launch an invasion so soon? I think not. I am that guy (talk) 03:52, May 14, 2014 (UTC)

Revenge has caused a lot of wars OTL. Its the same ATL. Imp (Say Hi?!) 13:20, May 14, 2014 (UTC)

We all just got done got done with one of the largest wars in PMIII, we all lost tens of thousands of soldiers, and now he wants to invade unprovoked only two years later? And he wants to do it in some D-Day scale amphibious invasion? There's no way any country would launch an invasion like this after only one year of peace, its insane, it's not smart economically, it's not smart politically, it's not smart militarily. Any reasonable country would wait years, wait for the people to move on from the last war, wait for his military to fully recover, and wait for his supplies to recover. I'm not saying he can't have his war of revenge, I'm saying a war of revenge after only a year of peace after the largest war he's been involved in is crazily implausible. I am that guy (talk) 13:36, May 14, 2014 (UTC)

Not really that implausible, Scandinavia is ruled by an implausible ruler. If he is, for example, as eccentric as Louis XIV, he could pull a move like this. Of course it would further hurt the Scandinavian economy, influence the trade in that are and stuff like that.

TL;DR He can do it, it's just not a smart idea. Sky Green 24 14:35, May 14, 2014 (UTC)

And how did Scandinavia come into this argument? Bananananananana BAT-CRIM 14:51, May 14, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry thought you were listed as L. Sky Green 24 15:23, May 14, 2014 (UTC)

Technically I didn't lose much but a little bit of resources in the last war. Revenge, as imp said, is a powerful motivator. Politically it make more since for me to have a retaliton strike than to wait a decade then do it. My troop strength and economy were largely uneffected. Yak and I were probably the only to nations involved that didnt get demolished economically and actually emerged somewhat ok. As for the population arguement, when you've pissed off an entire nation of people they dont listen to reasonable arguements, they want their payback.ALLONS-Y!!,Basically, RUN!! 16:11, May 14, 2014 (UTC)

Oh and calling me a bloddy crony illustrates part of the reason I am warring with you. You are an arrogant and insolent. I am noones crony I saw an oppurtunity and seized, much like you did when you attack a nation that wasn't harming you. Shut up guy. You obviously love to insult others. ALLONS-Y!!,Basically, RUN!! 16:17, May 14, 2014 (UTC)
 * I insulted no one until you attacked me (in game and personally) for no reason, turn about fair play. We just got done with this giant war, and you go attacking right out of the blue. You are just admitting you are doing this for OOC reasons. You didn't lose all that much in the war, so revenge is highly doubtful. I am that guy (talk) 17:15, May 14, 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, replace Crim with Ms, you with Fritz or Cookie, and myself with you or crim, oh my god in heaven, the crony accusations that would be flying.I am that guy (talk) 17:34, May 14, 2014 (UTC)


 * Look i will not argue with you anymore. i attacked, I won, the end. I will not call you any names, other than what i already have, which seems to describe your personality quite well. This conversation is over. I did not attack out of the blue, I made it quite clear IN CHAT and in game that I was gunning for you, all you did was lol. Your fault not mine. This is over. Now. 97.65.25.162 18:58, May 14, 2014 (UTC)
 * I did no such thing. You told me mere hours from this you though of it, but decided not. I then told you I wanted to better relations. You also lost next to nothing in the war, so revenge is a BS, cop out. Anyway, I see you don't like being called a crony, not so fun is it? Your personality also fits your accusations of me, and is accurate for deciding to launch an unprovoked invasion after only one year of peace.I am that guy (talk) 20:48, May 14, 2014 (UTC)

Actually I did say that on main chat and you and tr0ll were being really obnoxious about it. I had bee struggling with whether opto invade or not. I'm not arrogant nor a prick, I was never haughty never rude on chat, alway polite, you weren't.it isn't a cop out. Look you obviously won't see my side of things and I won't see yours just drop it, I'm not changing my mind., again it wasn't unprovoked you keep saying it was, but it isn't. Either way I'm done segueing with you. Please have a good day.ALLONS-Y!!,Basically, RUN!! 21:00, May 14, 2014 (UTC)
 * If I was rude, it was in response to being insulted myself. And while Tr0llis might've, I never was obnoxious about it, I cared not for prolonging the bitterness, but here we are by your hand.I am that guy (talk) 21:08, May 14, 2014 (UTC)
 * FINALLY! Someone burnt Hamburg!
 * 
 * 21:49, May 14, 2014 (UTC)
 * Andy, you lost nothing, you have nothing to take revenge on, you have no reason to invade, especially so soon after a giant-a** war. I am that guy (talk) 05:23, May 15, 2014 (UTC)

This war is nothing but BS, it was started over an OOC disagreement, there is nothing for Albion to take revenge on as they lost nothing. The fact that the mods decided to turn the other cheek as one of their own committed this ultimate ASB act is unbelievable. I am that guy (talk) 00:42, May 16, 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Venice (Attacker)
Total: 92
 * Location:
 * Milan: 5
 * Austria: 5
 * Roman Empire: 5
 * Crete: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: +5 (siege weaponry)
 * Nations: Milan (L), Austria (L), Roman Empire (L), Crete (L), Padua (LV), Swabia (LV), Albania (LV) = 29, 2
 * Military Development: 140/56 = 3
 * Milan: 20
 * Austria: 20
 * Roman Empire: 20
 * Crete: 20
 * Padua: 20
 * Swabia: 20
 * Albania: 20
 * Economic Development: 140/56 = 3
 * Milan: 20
 * Austria: 20
 * Roman Empire: 20
 * Crete: 14
 * Padua: 20
 * Swabia: 20
 * Albania: 20
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: 61
 * Milan: 5+4
 * Austria: 3
 * Roman Empire: 5+4
 * Crete: 9+4
 * Padua: 5+4
 * Swabia: 3
 * Albania: 5
 * Chance:
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Milan: 5
 * Austria: 0
 * Roman Empire: 0
 * Crete: -5
 * Population: 8+2=10
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 125,000/15,000 = 8
 * Milan: 20,000
 * Austria: 20,000
 * Roman Empire: 40,000
 * Padua: 5,000
 * Swabia: 20,000
 * Albania: 10,000
 * Crete: 10,000
 * Recent Wars:
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Venice (Defender)
Total: 40
 * Location: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: 0
 * Nations: Venice (L), Epirus (L), Candia (LV), Kaffa (LV) = 16, 0
 * Military Development: 56, 0
 * Economic Development: 56, 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 12
 * Motive: 9 (defending against lethal attack)
 * Chance:
 * Nation Age: -3
 * Venice - -15
 * Epirus - 5
 * Candia - 0
 * Kaffa - 0
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 15,000, 0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Discussion
At this point you can get 39%. Enjoy your piping hot slices of Venice. --Yank 00:45, May 14, 2014 (UTC)

France

 * Location: close the location of the war +4
 * Tactical Advantage: Siege equipment +5
 * Nation Per Side: France (L), Burgundy(LV), Lorraine (LV)= 11/11 = 1
 * Military development: +54/42 = +1
 * Economic: +60/60 = +1 (Much Larger economy, Larger Colonial Empire) +15 = 16
 * Motive: Attacking to enforce political Hegemony +28, (Troop morale high)
 * Chance:
 * Edit count 2445
 * 2443/10: 188.0769
 * 188.0769*pi :590.861
 * Nation age:+5
 * Population:+28
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of troops: 200.000/ 25.000 = 8
 * Recent wars:-8
 * Total: 98

Trier

 * Location: at the location of the war +5
 * Tactical Advantage: no defense, Open field +1
 * Nation Per Side: Trier (L), Julich(LV),Zweibrucken (LV)= 11/11 = 1
 * Military development: +42/54= +0
 * Economic: +60/60 = +1
 * Infrastructure:15/0 = 15
 * Motive: 12
 * Defending Heartland from attack that will not cripple/ destroy nation: +5 +5  +5 = 15
 * +3 (Non demo,supported by people)
 * Low morale -6
 * Chance:
 * Edit count 2445
 * 2443/10: 188.0769
 * 188.0769*pi :590.861
 * Nation age:+3
 * Population: +7
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of troops:  25,000/200,000 = 0
 * Recent wars:-18
 * Total:  37

Result
(98/(98+37))*2)-1 = 0.4518 45% of Trier can be annexed, therefore causing a fall in the government.

(45.18)*(1-1/4)) = 33.885

In two years, France can overthrow the government of Trier, and establish it as their puppet or vassal.

Discussion

 * Hells yeah niggas lol

Algo Editions by non authorized

 * If you arent fed or imp paste here your edits

A few changes:

France
 * Location: close the location of the war +4
 * Tactical Advantage: Siege equipment +5
 * Nation Per Side: France (L), Burgundy(LV), Lorraine (LV)= 11/11 = 1
 * Military development: +54/42 = +1
 * Economic: +60/60 = +1 (Much Larger economy, Larger Colonial Empire) +15 = 16
 * Motive: 9
 * France: 3 (Economic/territorial gains)
 * Burgundy: 3 (Aiding Ally)
 * Lorraine: 3
 * Chance:
 * Edit count 2445
 * 2443/10: 188.0769
 * 188.0769*pi :590.861
 * Nation age:+5
 * Population:+28
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of troops: 200.000/ 25.000 = 8
 * Recent wars:-8
 * Total: 79

Trier
 * Location: at the location of the war +5
 * Tactical Advantage: no defense, Open field +1
 * Nation Per Side: Trier (L), Julich(LV),Zweibrucken (LV)= 11/11 = 1
 * Military development: +42/54= +0
 * Economic: +60/60 = +1
 * Infrastructure:15/0 = 15
 * Motive: 14
 * Trier: 9
 * Julich: 5
 * Zweibrucken: 5
 * +3 (Non demo,supported by people)
 * Low morale -6
 * Chance:
 * Edit count 2445
 * 2443/10: 188.0769
 * 188.0769*pi :590.861
 * Nation age:+3
 * Population: +7
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of troops: 25,000/200,000 = 0
 * Recent wars:-3
 * Total: 55

I thought there was a tactical advantage for defenses too? I have been building defenses non stop since about the beginning of the game. NonEuclidean ツ (Talk) 00:53, May 14, 2014 (UTC)

Work and Uni
Hey guys, srry I haven't been on for a while. Uni and work are keeping me busy. I should be back in three weeks. Scandinator (talk) 10:10, May 14, 2014 (UTC)

Fusahito Theocracy (Attacker)
Total: 92
 * Location: 3
 * Tactical Advantage: +5
 * Nations: Ayutthaya (L)=5/5=1
 * Military Development: 8
 * Economic Development: 5
 * Much larger economy: +10
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: Aiding Social/Moral/Religious/Ideological kinsmen who are being oppressed: +7
 * Modifiers: Support: 4 + troop morale high:5 = 9
 * Chance: 6
 * Edit count: 186
 * UTC: 17:35 = 105
 * Total: (186/105)*pi = 5.565106986
 * Nation Age: +0 (Maturing)
 * Population: 7 + 20 = 27
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 12000/9000 = 1.33 = 1
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Ryukyu (Defender)
Total: 55
 * Location: 4 (troops are landed on northern islands)
 * Tactical Advantage: +2 (high ground, invasion from sea)
 * Nations: Ryukyu (L) = 5/5 = 1
 * Military Development: 7
 * Economic Development: 8
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 7
 * Motive: +5 (Defending heartland from attack that will not cripple/destroy nation)
 * Modifiers: none (supported gov. only for player nations)
 * Chance: 5
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 (0) =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: +0 (Maturing)
 * Population: 6 digits
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 9,000/12,000 = 0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result

 * ((92/(55+92))*2)-1 = 25.17%
 * (p)*(1-1/(2x)) = 25.17*(1-(1/2*3)) = 20.98% in three turns

Discussion
This is just the begining, although I'd like a mod to help. I've put the motive of Ryukyu +5 because this is not an expansionistic war but one that is there to stop slave trade. Done for Ozymandias2 Sky Green 24 19:17, May 14, 2014 (UTC)

Algo Editions by non authorized

 * If you aren't a PMIII mod please post your editions here.

ASB collapse of the Philidelphi
Moved from gamepage:

'''A freak storm causes several ships to collide in the canal, blocking it off. To further complicate things, large amounts of sand is dumped into the canal by the winds trapping many more ships. This incident closes off the canal with repairs expected to take at least a decade. It also calls into question the feasibility of the canal itself as yearly dredging costs seem to be higher than the benefit to the Alexandrians.'''
 * I'm sorry, but nature just doesn't work like that. A canal is a massive national project, and the idea that a "freak storm" could destroy a heavily reinforced man-made canal is both implausible and impossible. Canals are designed to weather the assaults of nature, and go so far as to cut into the land. No amount of sand will ever be able to shut down a 120 mile long canal built into the land. Even when the canal was purposefully blocked by Nasser in the 1960-70s, the Egyptians had to sink whole ships just to block off portions of the canal. Plus, that region is very stable weather-wise. Your not going to have any major storms in that region since there isn't enough cold air in the area to interfere with the warm air cells that blanket the region. So no storms unless you can plausibly explain the climate and geography that could permit such an event. ~Viva


 * 'Tis slightly different, however, there is the hydroelectric dam in Egypt that is being slowlyblocked by sand, because a flaw in the design of the architecture. A canal in 1500 A.C.E. is bound to have plentyof arcitectural flaws, not to mention the lack of the support of modern equipment.
 * Yeah, another negative mod event :/ Could you (preferably signed) explain how ships would collide due to storm. I presume that many of the ships would dock when they see a massive storm coming (especially if its someting they have never seen that bad before). I just dont really understand this event. If the storm is really that massive shouldnt it effect a lot more than just Alexandria.
 * This event is somewhat BS. Yes, it IS possible for a storm to wreck a couple of ships as they pass through the canal, but it's highly unlikely, and it would take just two or three other ships to pull said ship out of the canal. Total repair time: one week. Plus, what, ten years because if it's non-European it can't succeed? Ebul Mosslems must die? ~G

My personal opinion is that it IS somewhat ASB. 22:17, May 14, 2014 (UTC)

If the mods want to punish Alexandria (which would be the only explicable motive) then they should attack the nation, not the Canal. The Canal was already ruled plausible, and therefore any attempts to destroy it due to plausibility should be stopped. 23:47, May 14, 2014 (UTC)

And destroying a plausible canal implausibly is NOT the way to go.

I think you've punished Alexandria enough, anyway- they just had a rebellion.

00:02, May 15, 2014 (UTC)

I feel like it might be meant as a punishment for all eastern mediteranean countries, as we have just formed a trade alliance, with the intent of setting up trade ports along the african coast. Stephanus rex (talk) 01:23, May 15, 2014 (UTC)

I doubt that it is in order to punish you for the alliance, however, the consequences of the canal being blocked are damage to the economy of any nation that trades in Asia. I don't quite understand why anyone would want that, especially since most of the mods own nations that depend on the canal. Sky Green 24 13:18, May 15, 2014 (UTC)

Blocking it like that is ASB by itself - destroying it, completely and utterly ASB. Lordganon (talk) 13:20, May 15, 2014 (UTC)

I do not support the blocking of the canal, which as desribed by others above, is ASB. My nation, as well as many from Europe, have come to rely heavily on the canal for trade in Asia, which would otherwise be a long and very expensive venture.ALLONS-Y!!,Basically, RUN!! 15:57, May 15, 2014 (UTC)

Attacker (Marrikuwuyanga Empire)
Total: 114
 * Location: +3
 * Tactical Advantage: +2
 * Nations: Marrikuwuyanga (L), Ayutthaya (M), Yalngu (M), Jawoyn (M) = 14/5 = 2.8 ~= +3
 * Military Development: 80/12 = 6.6 ~= 7
 * Marrikuwuyanga: 20 turns
 * Yalngu: 10 turns
 * Jawoyn: 10 turns
 * Economic Development: +44
 * Marrikuwuyanga: 10 turns
 * Yalngu: 6 turns
 * Jawoyn: 6 turns
 * Economic Bonus: +10 [Much Larger Economy]
 * Expansion: -2
 * Motive: +5
 * Modifier: 4 + 5 = +9
 * Chance: +9
 * Edit Count: 65
 * UTC: 10:11(1*1*1)
 * Total: 65/1*3.14 = +203.9
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 5 (68000) +2 = +7
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 2620/300 = +9 (1360 Marrikuwuyanga, 1000 Ayutthaya, 180 Yalngu, 280 Jawoyn )
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Defender (Timor)
Total: 43
 * Location: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations: Yolngu (L) = 5/14 = 0.3 ~= 0
 * Military Development: 12/80 = 0.15 ~= 0
 * Economic Development: +14
 * Economic Bonus: -2
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: +7
 * Motive: +9
 * Modifier: -5
 * Chance: 0
 * Edit Count: 0
 * UTC: 0
 * Total: 0
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: +4 (15000)
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 300/2620 = 0.1 ~= 0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result
((114/(114+43)*2)-1 = 0.4522 %

So basically 45.22% of Timor territory is conquered. The state soon collapses and is declared part of the Marrikuwuyanga Empire

<p style="border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;font-style:inherit;font-weight:inherit;margin-top:1em;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:1em;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;vertical-align:baseline;">War lasts for 1 years in which Marrikuwuyanga should be able to topple Timor government/tribes

Discussion
No, it would actually take you two years.

Their population is larger than yours, far as I can see from Wikipedia, and their troops are probably larger too.

20:47, May 15, 2014 (UTC)

ASB as Hell
<p style="margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;"> '''Pirates block the Strait of Malacca and any access between the Asian mainland and Sumatra. As soon as supplies for the Thai soldiers shrivel up, the recently oppressed populations of four different kingdoms conquered within ten years by Ayutthaya launch an open rebellion. Even Aceh rebels against the Thais. The six rebellious kingdoms have near universal support and are essentially in a state of total war. (+10 in the algo) (Undoubled scores: 10, 10, 10)'''

'''Ok, this is some GIANT Bullshit. Firstly, Ayutthaya has one of the largest fleets in the world. Pirates would be smashed to pieces in a week. Next, Aceh? They've been rules by Ayutthaya for nearly 50 years, and they weren't oppressed; we vassalized them by MARRIAGE. Tualng Bawang and Selebar both have many of their nobles in Ayutthaya, and all the noble's children, AND are tied by marriage to Ayutthaya. Who's leading this rebellion? Next, there is no reason for the peasants to rebel- nationalism doesn't exist yet, and frankly speaking, we're of the same culture and general religion. Aru and Siak have basically been rebuilt by Ayutthaya. Their economies revolve around AYutthaya. Furthermore, they too have their children in Ayutthaya. Basically, only Pagaruyung and Sunda can plausibly rebel, and NEITHER would have access blocked off by this ASB "closure" of the Straits. '''

This is MAJOR BS. Ayutthayan law ensures that the nobles of all Kingdoms under Ayutthaya must have their nobles send their children to Ayutthaya for education. Admittedly, this doesn't cover Pagruyung and Sunda, but it does cover the two stable nations, whose relations with us were sealed by marriage. Aceh makes NO sense, it's like Texas revolting today because they weren't always part of the USA. No reason other than HEY LOOK WE WERE ONCE PART OF MEXICO THAT WAS FUN. Aru was basically rebuilt by us- they were extremely disorganized before be basically built their economy ground up. They rebel, they all die of starvation in week two. Siak, basically, same thing.

Oh, and let's not forget; PIRATES? REALLY? Ayutthaya has one of the LARGEST navies in the world. Maybe Castille and China have larger. There is exactly ZERO plausibility in a group of pirates- even a FLEET- doing this.

Also, this would affect the Dutch too, as they took part of Sunda in exchange for their aid.

00:14, May 16, 2014 (UTC)

ALSO, if you lot actually READ any of my turns, you'd see that I made revolts of my own without mod prompting? I had a giant civil war, then another three rebellions.

My point is, I agree, a rebellion is plausible in the conquered states. But in Aceh? It's been a Ayutthayan vassal for 50 years. It was never once oppressed. Not once have Ayutthayan troops marched into Aceh. Aceh was sealed with a MARRIAGE. Aru? The state with no economy, no infrastructure, no central government, where I spent 10 years stabilziing it and basically built it from the ground? What are they revolting against, pray tell? Prosperity? Peace? Because people HATE those. Siak? Sure! It's not like we basically fought a war for them! It's not like we tripled their economy in 20 years. I mean, gosh! Why would ANYONE like being rich?

Furthermore, I'm of the same culture as ALL of these nations. Just saying.

Basically, this is some of the most meta-gaming Bullshit I've seen since the GCC.

Feddy, you're reverting to Caliphial form.

00:33, May 16, 2014 (UTC)

I would be happy to present a settling decision as a non-biased outside participant if Fed would be so kind as to present a counterargument.

00:49, May 16, 2014 (UTC)

I second Scraw's motion, and I do think all of those states revolting at once is a bit much. Escalation over time is theoretically possible, or the rebels could become powerful enough to make siginificant progress, but all those states revolting at the same time seems a little unlikely.

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 01:22, May 16, 2014 (UTC)

For the culture, I'm sure that we can agree that Ayutthaya is a muslim country, right? Because it has the same culture as Aceh, and the rest of its empire. I think we can also agree that, in Ayutthaya, Thai cannot be spoken, because it's a Tai-Kadai language; because Ayutthaya has the same culture as its vassals, they speek some sort of Austronesian language. I think history shows that Muslims LOVE to be ruled by Buddhist, and Buddhist love to rule over Muslims as Myanmar has shown. But that is irrelivant, since Ayutthaya IS a Muslim country, as the majority of their population would suggest, who by the way, have culturally no reason to revolt. Saamwiil, the Humble 01:34, May 16, 2014 (UTC)

I have to admit, the event wasn't plausible. Many waged numerous wars of expansion, and didn't snap like a Kit-Kat. China, Rome, the Mongol Empire, and Spain are some examples. Any rebellious they faced, even large ones, were dealt with quickly, violently, and successfully, and their empires went bacck to sleep so to speak. Just because you think quick expansion leads to destruction, doesn't make it a fact. Napoleonic France was only crushed with the aid of the Russians. The British were spent by the war expenses, and they lacked the manpower to take on all of continental Europe, which was under Napoleon's control. Only when the Russians, who had to manpower to get involved supported the Fifth (or was it the Sixth?) Coalition to defeat Napoleon, that France fell. Same with Nazi Germany, it was only once the United States got involved that Hitler was defeated, as the Soviet Union was quickly exhausting its manpower to fight Hitler. So quick expansion does no correlate to quick collapse. It's only when the leaders fight the wrong enemy during a current war on several fronts that collapse becomes evident. Rome was expanding all of the time, but it was always fighting on a single front with one or two enemies. Only in the late empire when Rome was fighting on multiple fronts against multiple enemies did it collapse. Same cannot be said here. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 03:26, May 16, 2014 (UTC)
 * The invasion resulted in the beginning of the sixth coalition. And after thinking about it, I have to agree, his has been aggressive, but I think he hasn't quite overexpanded just yet. But, if this was EUIV, there would be a coalition comprising of half of SE Asia against him due to his aggressive expansion (Gotta work on coring your new territory Guns ;) ). I am that guy (talk) 03:39, May 16, 2014 (UTC)

Talk about vastly overstating the strength of pirates. Lordganon (talk) 12:39, May 16, 2014 (UTC)

I agree that perhaps priates aren't the right vehicle to start this event. Maybe a rebellious general/army instead? Either way you need an event, considering you've been expanding exponentially into hostile and disorganized territory, and have aggressively expanded through conquest several times in the last decade. Mscoree (talk) 14:32, May 16, 2014 (UTC)

This isn't 1970s Africa. Generals of this time didn't just "rebel" for no reason, and rarely did when there was much glory to be won from winning in wars such as these. In fact, you rarely, almost never, hear of a general breaking from his government during an series of conflicts, as they could gain much power from fighting for their government, instead of against it, especially given that there were many active armies that could be sent to deal with him. The only time a general rebels is typically during peacetime, when no other forces can stop him. And LG is right on this one. These are pirates for Christ's sake. Not the godd*** Locust. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 19:06, May 16, 2014 (UTC)

Ok, Can I make a suggestion?

Instead of randomly nations who have existed under Ayutthaya PEACEFULLY for 50 years, let's do this.

Each of the four conquered nations- Selebar, Pagaruyung, Tulang Bawang, and Sunda revolt. No one else.

Are there ANY objections to this?

22:44, May 16, 2014 (UTC)
 * i think parts of the events are asb  but i also think some are plausible  the non-mulim parts of your empire would not revolt  the muslim parts may though With Blood and Iron (talk) 22:57, May 16, 2014 (UTC)
 * Religious forces in historically Muslim lands have never really revolted under Muslim leaders. Often because they would have been crushed by the more fanatical Muslim forces, or because early Islam and the Islam of this period, stipulated the care for non-Islamic peoples. So a revolt against the Muslim population wouldn't happen. Flag of the Hurian Federation.png Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 01:07, May 17, 2014 (UTC)
 * Ayutthaya is weirdly designed, sort of like the American states only a little more autonomous (that's OTL, too). Muslim areas would have Muslim leaders, who in turn would be loyal to the Kingdoms as a whole, and the same for Buddhist and Hindu areas. Religious tolerance is pretty high- I dealt with that several decades ago.  13:27, May 17, 2014 (UTC)
 * Is a coordinated rebellion plausible? Generally when a bunch of disparate nations revolt, they end up fighting among themselves - especially if, in this case, they're culturally and religiously different and historical enemies. Krasnoyarsk (talk) 18:43, May 17, 2014 (UTC)
 * Such differences can be put aside in the face of an outside force, in this case the Ayutthaya. -cue Reagan's alien invasion speech- I am that guy (talk) 18:50, May 17, 2014 (UTC)

Retirement
As stated here, I am retiring from the wiki. This is likely to be the one of the two pages I edit. I'm scaling my involvement back drastically, but I will still be here. This game will be down a mod. I wish I could pass the title down, but that's not how it works around here.

Also be plausible. That'd be great.

CrimsonAssassin-See you, space cowboys 04:12, May 16, 2014 (UTC)

As I states there, I wish you the best. And, well, if a spot is open, well, I wonder who could... erm... let's see what happens! (*Looks around for possible supporters*)

On a more serious note, have a great time and we will all miss you! The HRE has lost a noble foe, the Brits have lost a strong ally, the Russians have lost a powerful rival. We will honor your legacy in Scandinavia (AP parallels?) 09:08, May 16, 2014 (UTC)

well what can i say we will miss you however before we decide on the fate of scandinavia id like to talk to mp and crim about something. With Blood and Iron (talk) 12:57, May 16, 2014 (UTC)

But.. Crim!

You can't leave us! You're the core of this wiki!

Ok, that might be overstating it.

Still, I promise, your name will stand there next to Mitro, Ben, and Brian in the ranks of the departed great.

We'll miss you. Promise to check in every now and then? Who knows, we might have made Scraw ruler of the wiki by then :D

22:50, May 16, 2014 (UTC)

What!? NO!! Cour *talk* 14:24, May 17, 2014 (UTC)

Ayutthaya vs revolting nations.
Coming soon as Feud gives me a list of what nations are  actually revolting. We had a "conversation" last night and agreed that there might be changes.

Ayutthaya
Total: 46
 * Location: 4
 * Tactical Advantage: 5 (siege weaponry) 5/2 =3
 * Nations: Ayutthaya (L) = 5/35 => 0
 * Military Development: 10 turns: 20/20 => 1
 * Economic Development: 10 turns: 20/20 => 1
 * Econ bonus: 10 = 10 (much larger econ)
 * Expansion: -4
 * Infrastructure: 0/20 = 0
 * Motive: Taking back territory recently held: +6
 * Modifiers: +4= 4 (support)
 * Chance: 6
 * Edit count: 7942
 * UTC: 2:01(0) =2
 * Total: 7942/2* (3.14159265359) = 12475.2644274
 * Nation Age: +5 (Mature)
 * Population: 8 (digits)
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 10,000 (rest are dealing with other rebellions)
 * Recent Wars: -8 (4 wars of conquest)
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Rebels
Total: 57*1.5 = 85.5 = 86
 * Location: 5
 * Tactical Advantage:2 (being attacked from the sea)
 * Nations: Aceh (L), Aru (L), Siak (L), Majapahit (L), Kedah (L), Padan (L), Sri Vijaya (L) = 35/5 = 7
 * Military Development: 20/20 = 1
 * Economic Development: 20/20 = 1
 * Econ bonus:
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 20/0 = 20
 * Motive: (Defending heartland?/Religious?) +5+7 = 13
 * Modifiers: +4 (support) = 4
 * Chance: 4 (see above)
 * Edit count:
 * UTC:
 * Total:
 * Nation Age: -10 (newborn nation)
 * Population:
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops:
 * Recent Wars:
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Discussion
I used the collective +20 for all categories instead of multiplying it by 7 which would yield 140. I also refreined from editing the population and troops section, though I would assume that the revolters would have more, as they are a majority of the territory. Saamwiil, the Humble 16:35, May 17, 2014 (UTC)

I believe Aceh was removed from this due to its closeness to Guns nation or something. I Believe that the Rebels still maintain the upper hand though Guns would lose these nations

Can Guns claim some things?

Kedah, Padang, and Srivijaya are literally part of AYutthaya. They're not in Sumatra. They should be removed too.

Aceh, as Feud said.

Neither defending homeland nor religious would apply for motive.

Number of troops, dealing with these guys, Ayutthaya is pulling out all stops. 90,000 troops, at least. And assuming we still have control over my nation (if Kedah and Padang are revolting, I imagine basically the rest of Ayutthaya should be too, just for plausibility), I outnumber the other guys.

Also, NONE of those nations were among the four conquered nations the revolt is about. Those should be added, and many of the current ones- specifically the four which are actually part of AY\yutthaya- taken off.

Tactical advantage doesn't get subtracted, IIRC. But IDK.

Ayutthaya's population (assuming we retain control over Kedah, Padang, SV, and Aceh) should be 16 million.

The combined population of Aru, Siak, The Majapahit, Selebar, Tulang Bawang, Sunda, and Pagaruyung would be on the order of 10 million.

They, as the mod event specified, get TEN each, undoubled. Not twenty.

Asumming control of Kedah, Padang, SV, and Aceh, I still control the Straits of Malacca.

Just as a note, if you take away those four, you should (just plausibly speaking) collapse my whole nation. In such a case I will be glad to move to another nation. I would, however, prefer that not to occur. See, in Ayutthaya, basically, the central King had power over the lesser Kingdoms and principalities- hence the name the "Kingdoms of Ayutthaya" rather than the "Kingdom of Ayutthaya". In fact, at many points in Ayutthayan history, lesser Kings performed coup de etats and took over. All of those four have been part of Ayutthaya for many generations, so if they revolt, then they're doing it not because they don't want Ayutthayan oppression but because they see an opportunity for self-rule. In such a case, practically every lesser Kingdom would be doing the same thing. Hell, in this state of general uproar, that might be the most likely thing. If you do rule it so, don't bother with the algo, just collapse Ayutthaya into it's individual states, and I'll take something else. I hear tiny little German states are nice this time of year. :D

Sincerely, and appreciatively, 23:07, May 17, 2014 (UTC)

Any way, if a mod could inform whether my nation is being collapsed for doing something done hundreds of times OTL without consequnces (:D), I'll get to either crushing this revolt or looking for a new nation.

Anyone? Feud? Punkin? Andy?

23:34, May 17, 2014 (UTC)

As a fanatic of the Ottoman Empire, I can tell you that the last thing you'd want to do, in the long run, is give large amounts of local autonomy to people of different cultures within an Empire. Even the Arabs, of the same Sunni Islamic religion as the Ottoman bureacratic elite, eventually had the urge to revolt. This would apply here, coupled with the fact they ARE of a different religion. Drawing from the United States, it's not necessarily the amount of time a country is apart of a nation, but rather the feel that makes it a core. The South way apart of the United States for about 100 years, but even after that time, many did not feel they were apart of the Union. India had been apart of the British Empire for a long time, they definately didn't want to stay with them. And finally people like power. They will revolt. Saamwiil, the Humble 16:59, May 18, 2014 (UTC)

Undoubled means before doubling, ie a ten produces a twenty in the algorithm. Mscoree (talk) 20:06, May 18, 2014 (UTC)

Well then, opinion is "Goodbye Ayutthaya, and f*** plausibility".

S'all good. I hear Scandanavia is nice this time of year.

00:47, May 19, 2014 (UTC)

No. CrimsonAssassin-See you, space cowboys 01:15, May 19, 2014 (UTC)

Oh.

China, mayhap.

01:36, May 19, 2014 (UTC)

Since Ayutthaya will not be conquered, there is no reason to switch nations. Saamwiil, the Humble 03:13, May 19, 2014 (UTC)

It has been ripped apart. Like, what are you talking about? Ayutthaya no longer exists. 21:07, May 19, 2014 (UTC)

Resigning
I'm sorry folks, but I'm officially resigning from PMIII. I don't have the time or energy to keep up with the game anymore, and I'll be gone all summer anyways. Have fun, and play nice.

PitaKang- My Life for Aiur! En Taro Tassadar 01:10, May 18, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, Pita! Have a great summer, and remember that it'll never be too late for you to join the action!

It's been a hard week for the PM3 community, with hits like these, but we shall overcome! 07:19, May 18, 2014 (UTC)

Why is everyone leaving?! Miss ya Pita!! Cour *talk* 02:18, May 20, 2014 (UTC)

I Asked Two Turns And Nobody Moded My Event
We ask the leader of Mansuriyya Caliphate to spare a daughter for our leader's son to marry. (Mods needed for this event) - Scarlet

Spare a daughter? Better words could be

''We question the Caliph of the Mansurriya Caliphate, if it is possible for the Crown Prince of the Safavid Empire to marry one of his daughters. The Emperor believes that only would it improve the relationship between the two Muslim nations but also open a gate that has long been sealed between the two nations following the atrocities committed at Baghdad by my foolish predecessors... For brotherly relationship between all Muslims is what any man would cherish'' ~ Sincerely, Emperor _________

RexImperio (talk) 12:54, May 19, 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I already responded days ago. Stop spamming people about this when it was already answered. Mscoree (talk) 14:11, May 19, 2014 (UTC)

I never saw this in any of the posts sorry for all the trouble. Thanks you for your time and effort - Scarlet

Nah, happened to me last game, too.

I asked for like 10 turns, because Lurk had replied to my first post... the next day.

22:50, May 19, 2014 (UTC)

Naming the New World
So, its that time of the Game again, and I believe it is time to name the new world. Since Amerigo vespuci probably will not be an exploerer this timeline, I suggest we all propose names for the Continents, and Vote on them. So, let's begin.-Lx (leave me a message) 21:11, May 19, 2014 (UTC)

North America Proposals

 * Kanata
 * -Lx (leave me a message)Azarath Flag.png 21:11, May 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * Vinland?
 * Aretrila
 * West Indies
 * Saamwiil, the Humble 22:52, May 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * WHY seriously why???!!! WHY seriously why???!!! WHY seriously why???!!! WHY seriously why???!!! WHY seriously why???!!! WHY seriously why???!!!
 * Borealis (Latin for "North")
 * I am that guy (talk) 23:03, May 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * 20:55, May 20, 2014 (UTC)
 * Krasnoyarsk (talk) 23:22, May 20, 2014 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Flag of Russian Alaska (HR).svg |40px|link=User talk:Octivian Marius]] <font color=Purple face="Algerian">OCT MARIUS, HAIL HIM  [[Image: Flag of Italy (Federalist Italy).svg|40px|User talk:Octavian Marius]]
 * Flag of the Hurian Federation.png Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 20:22, May 21, 2014 (UTC)
 * I support Borealia (the feminine version of the name. Also, majority of the mods have already voted among ourselves for this to be northTardis.pngS-Y!!,Basically, RUN!!Tardis.png 21:06, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

South America Proposals

 * Amazonia
 * West Indies
 * Saamwiil, the Humble 22:57, May 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * Australis (Latin for "South")
 * I am that guy (talk) 23:03, May 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * 20:55, May 20, 2014 (UTC)
 * Flag of the Hurian Federation.png Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 20:22, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
Wasn't the term "Hesperia" thrown around somewhere? Cookiedamage (talk) 23:09, May 19, 2014 (UTC)

Hesperia was my recommendation for the collective term for both coninents, like "The Americas" otl. According to the event (which interestingly, I didn't make), a German mapmaker began using the name on his maps. This doesn't necessarily make it the universally accepted name, but it goes some way to making it official-ish. The two individual continents have not been given names in mod events (but I think we came to the conclusion that Borealia was a good name for NA). Callumthered (talk) 23:30, May 19, 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the names were already decided upon on the moderator page many days ago. Mscoree (talk) 23:11, May 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, shoot I am that guy (talk) 23:16, May 19, 2014 (UTC)

The agreement was that Hesperia would be a general term for both and then primarily a term for South America, while Borealia would be used for North America. The moderator event established the first into use, and over time the two would develop as the official names. Mscoree (talk) 23:33, May 19, 2014 (UTC)

The Names were in fact already agreed upon and when it was presented to the Chat they seemed okay with Borealia and Hesperia. those are the Official/Unofficial names

Why do these things always happen behind closed doors away from the general population, and nobody EVER notifies the general public, EVER. Please try to make a habbit of doing these arrangements in PUBLIC where EVERYONE can be made aware. I have had the...mispleasure...of being affected by these secret arrangelements more than once, and trust me, it is not very pleasant. Please try to notify EVERYONE of any rule changes, agreements, and not just say things like "We agreed" and "consensus" that drastically change half of what is going on because nobody is aware of these agreements. Thank you for your time everyone, and please refrain from this in the future. Also, please dont forget about/ignore agreements made on the TALK PAGE, FOR ALL TO SEE, while following ones made in SECRET on "CHAT" or the MOD PAGE. Thank you for your time everyone, it seems that the topic of this page was already decided, away from the majority and behind closed doors unlike in PMII where everyone had a chance to openly propose names, this was decided on a mod page. Such is life.-Lx (leave me a message) 13:32, May 20, 2014 (UTC)

We should name it either 'Murica or Bob. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 14:47, May 20, 2014 (UTC)

Lx you didn't know about it because you seemingly don't read the moderator events (we already said that Hesperia comes into common use), and because the people don't know it in-game yet. Those names come into use because the people doing the discovering named it, and that hasn't really taken off yet. Mscoree (talk) 14:56, May 20, 2014 (UTC)


 * I do read mod events, mostly so that I can see if my nation has been affected to ajust my post accordingly. This, however, was posted while I was...let's just say up north at my friend's cottage and only got to internet at around 20:00. THis technicality still does not adress the wider point I am trying to make: i.e. decisions being made without popular knowledge of their occurence.-Lx (leave me a message)Azarath Flag.png 21:22, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

Hey guys, let's call it anything but Kanata. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 19:17, May 21, 2014 (UTC)


 * :'( Well, there goes my attempts at having the name be native in origin...-Lx (leave me a message)Azarath Flag.png 21:22, May 21, 2014 (UTC)
 * : That's seriously the most douchey comment I've ever heard Sky. What's so stupid with calling it something in a native language instead of latin for once?--Yank 14:10, May 22, 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I had not known that Kanata is native american. If it is, I fully support it. I excuse myself for this rude comment <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 18:09, May 23, 2014 (UTC)

Lucca
I was wondering if I could play as the republic of lucca, independent but not on the nation list. <font color=Purple face="Algerian">OCT MARIUS, HAIL HIM

The Republic of Lucca doesn't exist at the moment, so no. Mscoree (talk) 02:19, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

Actually it does,I have been following the game closely and it does, no greater power has done anything to it like OTL because of its size. It was founded in 1160. <font color=Purple face="Algerian">OCT MARIUS, HAIL HIM

Hesse (Attacker)
Total: 18
 * Location: 4
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations: Hesse (L), Berg (MV) = 6, 0
 * Military Development: 26, 0
 * Hesse: 20
 * Berg: 6
 * Economic Development: 24, 0
 * Hesse: 20
 * Berg: 4
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 10
 * Hesse: 7
 * Berg: 3
 * Modifiers: 0
 * Chance:
 * Nation Age: -8
 * Hesse: -5
 * Berg: -10
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 25,000, 0
 * Recent Wars: -6

Munster (Defender)
Total: 42
 * Location: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: 2
 * Nations: Munster (L), Koln (L), Cleves-Mark (LV), Paderborn (LV) = 16/6 = 3
 * Military Development: 62/26 = 2
 * Munster: 20
 * Koln: 14
 * Cleves-Mark: 14
 * Paderborn: 14
 * Economic Development: 52/24 = 2
 * Munster: 10
 * Koln: 14
 * Cleves-Mark: 14
 * Paderborn: 14
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 5
 * Motive: 18
 * Munster: 9
 * Koln: 3
 * Cleves-Mark: 3
 * Paderborn: 3
 * Modifiers: +4 (Support)
 * Chance:
 * Nation Age: 1
 * Munster: 5
 * Koln: 5
 * Cleves-Mark: 0
 * Paderborn: -5
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Number of Troops: 30,000/25,000 = 1

Discussion
The algo is wrong, I will re-do it myself Blocky858 (talk) 00:49, May 22, 2014 (UTC)

Please just explain your changes below instead of editing the algorithm itself to avoid an edit war. Thanks, Mscoree (talk) 01:22, May 22, 2014 (UTC)

Bavaria (Attacker)
Total: 65
 * Location: 3
 * Tactical Advantage: 2
 * Nations: Bavaria (L+5), Saxony (LV+3), Thuringia (LV+3), Luxembourg (L+5), Mainz (L+5), Palatinate (L+5) = 26/6 = 4
 * Military Development: 120/24 = 5
 * Bavaria: 20
 * Saxony: 20
 * Thuringia: 20
 * Luxembourg: 20
 * Mainz: 20
 * Palatinate: 20
 * Economic Development: 120/24 = 5
 * Bavaria: 20
 * Saxony: 20
 * Thuringia: 20
 * Luxembourg: 20
 * Mainz: 20
 * Palatinate: 20
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 5
 * Motive: 22
 * Bavaria: 7
 * Saxony: 3
 * Thuringia: 3
 * Luxembourg: 3
 * Mainz: 3
 * Palatinate: 3
 * Modifiers:
 * Chance:
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Bavaria: 5
 * Saxony: 5
 * Thuringia: 5
 * Luxembourg: 5
 * Mainz: 5
 * Palatinate: 5
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: -8
 * Number of Troops: 60,000/12,500 = 5

Hesse (Defender)
Total: 3
 * Location: 4
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations: Hesse (L), Berg (MV) = 6, 0
 * Military Development: 26, 0
 * Hesse: 20
 * Berg: 6
 * Economic Development: 24, 0
 * Hesse: 20
 * Berg: 4
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 10
 * Hesse: 7
 * Berg: 3
 * Modifiers: -6 (low morale)
 * Chance:
 * Nation Age: -8
 * Hesse: -5
 * Berg: -10
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 12,500/60,000 = 0
 * Recent Wars: -15

Discussion
Hesse should have a low morale modifier for over 8 years of recent wars.

Oldenburg declared war on Hesse last turn. Callumthered (talk) 04:37, May 23, 2014 (UTC)

I've left my propositions on the treaty page. What I want from this war would be a connected port or a large chunk of land bordering the North Sea which would also be connected to Bavaria propert. In essence I would not like an exclave and would prefer mainland Bavaria to not be landlocked. Also this may be one of the only times I am online so, yeah. Cookiedamage (talk) 01:17, May 24, 2014 (UTC)

Tibet
I've been wondering for the last couple weeks if Tibet is open. As if you look http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Rules_(Principia_Moderni_III_Map_Game)#Types_of_Countries It states that "Countries are disconnected after an extended period of unplanned inactivity (over a week), and only when it is nearly certain that a player will not return.". JB hasn't posted in over a MONTH. I was wondering about this if I could open up Tibet for me and so I could play PM3 finally on a consistent basis. <span style="color:Blue; font: 1.2em Palatino, serif; text-align: center; font-variant: small-caps;">❂ FOR THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA ❂ 19:59, May 22, 2014 (UTC)

Don't take this as an absolute approval, but I believe that yes, you can indeed take Tibet. Especially since IIRC he quit PM3. Fed (talk) 22:17, May 22, 2014 (UTC)

Indian League (Attacker)
​Total: 57 + scores
 * Location: 3
 * Bengal (3)
 * Orissa (3)
 * Vijaynagar (3)
 * Kamarumpa (3)
 * Tactical Advantage: + 5 (Siege Equipment) (Can't ambush me if you have to go through multiple nations)
 * Nations Per Side: Bengal (L), Orissa (LV), Vijaynagar (L), Kamarumpa (LV) Castile (M), Tibet (S) = 19, 0
 * Military Development: ?/ ? =
 * Economic Development: ? / ? =
 * Economic Bonus: Larger Trade (5) (We both trade through India, but I have trade with Netherlands, Castile, China, Alexandria, Tibet, Ayuhuttaha (Or whatever nation is the sole successor), Yemen, Oman, and Madakascar (Madagascar), and Dai Viet)
 * Since you both have used this exact line, I'll just remove it for now.
 * Motive: 20
 * Aiding Social/Moral/Ideological/Religious Kinsmen who are being oppressed (+7)
 * Aiding Ally (+3)
 * Aiding Ally (+3)
 * Aiding Ally (+3)
 * Aiding Ally (+3)
 * Mostly non-democratic nations (-3)
 * ^That's for coalition algos, which ya'll have editted this to not be, so: Non-democratic government supported by people (+4)
 * Chance: +6
 * ​Edit Count: 1,695
 * UTC Time: 4:46 = 1*4*4*6 = 96
 * 1,695/96*3.14=55.4687452899
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Bengal: 5
 * Orissa: -5
 * ^Orissa's government changed when it was vassalized, so it would be: Orissa: 5
 * Kamarumpa: 5
 * Vijaynagar: 5
 * Population:  (+7),  = +7 (+8 instead?)
 * Population would change dramatically with the inclusion of Bengal's actual allies before the mods decide what Indian nations support Bengal
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 351,000/460,000=0
 * Troop numers would change as well.

Marwarian Mughal Empire (Defender)
​Total: 58+ Scores
 * Location: 5
 * Mughal (5)
 * Marwar (5)
 * Jaisalmer (5)
 * Chagatai (3)
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations Per Side: Mughal Empire (L), Rajya of Marwar (L), Rajya of Jaisalmer (LV), South Chagatai (LV), Safavids (M), Manchu (M), Liao (M), Gwalior (L) = 30/19 = 2
 * Military Development: 42
 * Economic Development: 98
 * Economic Bonus: Larger economy (5), Larger trade (5) = +10 (Both have access to all of India, yet Mughals trade with Netherlands, Milan, Rumania, Alexandria, Safavids, Liao and Manchu)
 * Motive: 22
 * Mughals: 3
 * Marwar: 9
 * Jaisalmer: 3
 * Chagatai: 3
 * Gwalior: 3
 * Non-democratic government supported by people (+4)
 * Chance: 5
 * Edit count: 1282
 * UTC Time: 4:46 = 1*4*4*6= 96
 * 1282/96*3.14=4.25291932059
 * Nation Age: Mughal Empire (0), Marwar (0), Jaisalmer (+5), Chagatai (-5) = 0
 * Population: over 10,000,000 (8), population less than five times larger (2) = +10
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 510,000, 510,000/351,000= 1.5~2

lDiscussion (Indian War)
Oh my Eip, must have been fun to wait for this moment, but I must inform you that this war is completely implausible. Yeah, as all of you might know, this war was determined after the Indian League decided upon it, and with the support of a biased mod whom I know would likely try to establish a Spanish Raj, it passed. Now, I want a unbiased mod that isn't absolutely involved in this to decide upon the outcome of the proposal. Now, in order to avoid any bias, the following mods shouldn't be able to decide: Feudalplague (because of the status of Bengal-Castile relations and the relations between himself and Eiplec), moreover, Andr3w777 because of his trade with Mughals ingame and that would be it. Furthermore, I wish for that both Eiplec and I are given the opportunity to give a logical and plausible explanation as to WHY each nation would either disagree or agree, until this is done I cannot accept this war as valid. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 11:39, May 23, 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I've just noticed something, see, the War for Indian Hegemony united all of India miraculously, but after 50 years, and after improved relations I must inform you about another thing. Not ONLY would some nations fight alongside the Marwari-Mughali union, but I don't see any reason as to why nations that are further away than others would even get involved, nations such as Jaffna for example. My point is, the first war for "Indian" hegemony was somehow able to unite all of the League, but this happening twice is like the whole HRE uniting twice in order to fight of another nation. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 11:47, May 23, 2014 (UTC)

P.P.S I would also wish for the Marwari representative to defend himself before such a large decision is made by the Indian League. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 12:04, May 23, 2014 (UTC)

P.P.P.S. Oh my, I'm really having the ideas flow, but let's just recap which nations actually profited from the war. Delhi, Jaunpur, Bahmani, Vijaynagar and Bengal and vassals. Now, let's think about this real hard. Most of the nations which had fought against the Mughal Empire the first time gained  NOTHING  out of it. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 12:56, May 23, 2014 (UTC)

Fed also helped decide, but Feud posted, but we'll allow MP, or other non-biased, active mods decide so that you can have non-biased mods against you. Also, you've specifically asked for Feud before in approving/disapproving League things, such as stopping the League Proposal that nearly killed your Marwar/Mughal Personal Union. Do you only ask for mods that will have some chance of favoring your interests, or do you truly want non-bias? At least act consistently in asking for mod approval/help. Improved relations? Improved relations with whom? Europe? You never post about improving relations with any Indian nation, save Jaisalmer, have made one League proposal that banned a foreign nation, whom you GAVE your own land to, from joining the League. What nations would fight alongside the Mughals that went back on their public word of not wanting to control India? India was united before the War for Indian Hegemony through the League, which then, after its formation under the pretense of defending India against rampant, and existant foreign aggression, declared war upon the Mughali invaders. After this, Bengal, the one who proposed the current war against the Mughals, proposed numerous proposals that were accepted by the League and benefitted all Indian states. The HRE has no such history of proposing issues that actually benefit any member other than the Emperor, unlike the Indian League's proposals which increase trade (Free Travel of Merchants), technology (Siege Guns), and sovereign rights (Domestic Belligerence and An Upset to the Balance of Power). The whole HRE uniting is because of some large nations personal interests being infringed upon. India is uniting because the Marwar-Mughal's have gone back on their public declaration that they CANNOT take India, India is uniting because the Marwar-Mughali union have infringed upon the sovereign rights of Jaisalmer as a fellow League member, and India is uniting because they must recover their honor because they were lied to by the Marwar-Mughali union, after forgiving a nation that is back to its old tricks. Marwar can represent itself, but wouldn't it be the same as Marwar stating they are Indian, CANNOT take India, and accept all League laws; as in, just more lies to the Indian states? Finally, ALL Indian states gained from the war against the Mughals. Each nation got a portion of the spoils of war (Gold, elephants, weapons, armors, jewels, supplies, ships, statues, etc.), divided out evenly and not based on preference (That was in the Bengali post, not League proposal), freedom from tyranny, and a belief that India united is strong.

Reasons why Indian states diasgreed/agreed:

Member Decisions:
 * Bengal: Agree "SO SAYETH THE EAGLE" - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk) (Me)
 * Gondwana: Agree (Third sister to the Raja married previous Sultan, benefitted from increased trade and tech, sovereign rights defended by Bengal, and desire to have a free India that is not threatened with hostile takeover by the Mughals)
 * Bastar: Agree (benefitted from increased trade and tech, sovereign rights defended by Bengal, and desire to have a free India that is not threatened with hostile takeover by the Mughals)
 * Vijaynagar: Agree (Princess married Bengali Sultan, specifically allied, fought non-League wars together, verbally defended many times in their actions, benefitted from increased trade and tech, sovereign rights defended by Bengal, and desire to have a free India that is not threatened with hostile takeover by the Mughals)
 * Khandesh: Agree (benefitted from increased trade and tech, sovereign rights defended by Bengal, and desire to have a free India that is not threatened with hostile takeover by the Mughals)
 * Malwa: Agree (benefitted from increased trade and tech, sovereign rights defended by Bengal, and desire to have a free India that is not threatened with hostile takeover by the Mughals)
 * Mewar: Agree (benefitted from increased trade and tech, sovereign rights defended by Bengal, and desire to have a free India that is not threatened with hostile takeover by the Mughals)
 * Gujarat: Agree (benefitted from increased trade and tech, sovereign rights defended by Bengal, and desire to have a free India that is not threatened with hostile takeover by the Mughals)
 * Jaunpur: Agree (Freed by Bengal, nobles put in power by Bengal, financially supported by Bengal, benefitted from increased trade and tech, sovereign rights defended by Bengal, and desire to have a free India that is not threatened with hostile takeover by the Mughals)
 * Delhi: Agree (Freed by Bengal, financially supported by Bengal, benefitted from increased trade and tech, sovereign rights defended by Bengal, and desire to have a free India that is not threatened with hostile takeover by the Mughals)
 * Bahamani Agree (Freed by Bengal, financially supported by Bengal, benefitted from increased trade and tech, sovereign rights defended by Bengal, and desire to have a free India that is not threatened with hostile takeover by the Mughals)
 * Marwar: Disagree (Obvious)
 * Jaisalmer: Agree (Was vassalized and sovereign rights were infrindged upon, benefitted from increased trade and tech, sovereign rights defended by Bengal, and desire to have a free India that is not threatened with hostile takeover by the Mughals)
 * Gwailor: Disagree (Disputes between Bengal and Gwailor)
 * Dhundhra: Agree (benefitted from increased trade and tech, sovereign rights defended by Bengal, and desire to have a free India that is not threatened with hostile takeover by the Mughals)
 * Kathaiwar: Agree (Defended by Bengal numerous times when the ruler of Gwailor refused to acknowledge it's existence, benefitted from increased trade and tech, sovereign rights defended by Bengal, and desire to have a free India that is not threatened with hostile takeover by the Mughals)
 * Venad: Disagree (Unknown why)
 * Orissa: Agree "SO SAYETH THE EAGLE" - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk) (Me)
 * Kamarumpa: Agree "SO SAYETH THE EAGLE" - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk) (Me)
 * Andamana: Agree "SO SAYETH THE EAGLE" - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk) (Me)

Now, please, stop the sarcastic tone and speak like a normal, and respective map gamer. &#34;SO SAYETH THE EAGLE&#34; - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk)

I'm sorry, Jaisalmer, although a vassal benefits from it. It might be more influenced by Mughals but on the other hand it can freely trade with both Mughals and Marwar. Furthermore, the Mughals had not expanded in India for the last fifty years. Not only that, they also tried to improve their relations with Indian nations (Gwalior, Kathiawar marriage, Marwar gaining control over the Mughals). Moreover, this desire to have a free India that is not threatened with hostile takeover by the Mughals is kind of nonsense. No matter how much you say it, the Marwari ruler controls the Mughals, And I don't see any attempts of hostile takeover, as the Mughals haven't waged a single war against any Indian nation. About the Alexandrian Port of Katrina, althogh Greg's nation and mine are allies, the Rao of the nation of Marwar is a bit more of an Indiaphile than since he is Indian and Hindu. He prefers his allies to stay out of League business. And as to being lied to, unless I have somehow instantly annexed Jaisalmer after vassalizing it, it's still a somewhat sovereign nation. If it isn't, tell me what's the difference between it and your vassals? I understand that some have a history of relations with you and a whatnot, but having Bengal control them still, or does it not count if it's Bengal controling them. And the Marwari-Mughali union is just short for the personal union between the nation of Marwar and the Mughal Empire.

TL;DR You constantly keep mentioning the Mughals only. However, the Mughals didn't vassalize Jaisalmer, it was Marwar, neither did the Mughals lie to you, nor did Marwar as Jaisalmer is only a vassal, not annexed. Also, sure, the Bengali cannons have been given to all nations of the Indian League, however, even though the trade rights have been proposed by Bengal, it's not like trade wouldn't continue without Bengal. Also, even though you state that Jaunpur, Delhi and Bahmani were freed by Bengal, you seem to keep forgetting the other +10 nations that helped. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 14:54, May 23, 2014 (UTC)

P.S. As for me asking Feud to fill in a League proposal is wrong, MP filled in the Repeal and I think he also filled in the Port of Katrina thing <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 14:58, May 23, 2014 (UTC)

Sky you asked me to deal with the Marwar Mughal thing as well as MP we both looked at it and had a conversation about it all. As it stands Eip is correct in saying the Marwar at this point is under Mughal influence and vice versa. As for the current issue i believe Fed was consulted as well as myself and i dictated under plausibility who would accept and considering they fought a united war against you before with mass results then its safe to say they would do it again against Mughal proxies like Marwar. As for you complaining it was Marwar that vassalized them it has no bearing. You and the Mughals are in a Personal union under the same monarch. Anything one nation does is considered an action of the other. For Example if Castile and morocco invade Algiers but Aragon doesnt its still going to be considered actions of the same ruler because right now Queen Alexis rules in a Personal union over Aragon and Morocco. the Blame is spread between the entire PU Realms really. Its your rulers word, works, and Prestige. All the actions of Marwars monarch are the actions of the mughal monarch as well.

While it is true that the Marwarian Mughals have attempted to improve relations with other Indian states, isn't that what they did with Jaisalmer. The argument of improving relations, while you have just vassalized one state you improved relations with is rendered invalid because it can and has been seen by those Indian states as a Mughali attempt to build up enough influence to vassalize them as it has just done to Jaisalmer. Actually, by vassalizing Jaisalmer, you would end up with worse relations since they would be angry for your false pretenses for friendly relations. (In a moderately related note, I thought you said your Rao was Sunni Muslim?). Also, as for being lied to, your ruler said, in full view of the entire world, the League, and it's people, that You CANNOT control India, as in, you cannot vassalize League nations, or as some would say "control them". By simply saying "Somewhat sovereign nation" you acknowledge the fact that it is not completely sovereign, as my argument is stipulating that it must be. And thank you for oddly having the exact same argument against Bengal having vassal states in the League as your former Gwailor friend, so I shall dispprove it in the same manner. When Bengal took over Ahom and Koch, they were not Indian states, they were more associated with Tibet. Andamana was unpopulated, and Bengal simply brought India to the unpopulated Andamana islands. Orissa was vassalized by Bengal before the creation of the League because the line of succession of the Orissan throne fell to the Bengali Sultan through some strategic marriages, and Orissa only remains a vassal state and not fully integrated because it would prevent Hinduist anger over being fully, and suddenly controlled by an Islamic state. It "doesn't count" because there was no way of avoiding it, by not vassalizing Orissa, it would've pushed them into a large succession war that would've decimated their economy and culture. In all actuality, the personal union between Bengal and Orissa is extremely similar to the Marwarian-Mughal personal union you are arguing for. The only difference is that Orissa simply didn't have any other possible and legitimate leaders other than Bengal, and the Mughal ruler suddenly decided to abandon his throne for unknown purposes for his unproven brother. Now, the reason I say the Mughals only is because of the royal family of the Marwarian ruler. He proclaimed himself Emperor of the Mughals, and is in the Mughal Royal family, enough to warrant Marwar being called "Mughal", just as England was called "Norman" after the invasion of Duke William of Normandy. The cannons given to all the Indian states are not "Bengali", and they weren't developed by Bengal solely. They were developed by scholars from all the agreeing states that came together in Vijaynagar to develop a siege gun, each taking home blueprints. The only thing "Bengali" about these cannons is that Bengal proposed the idea. Jaunpur, Delhi and Bahmani were freed by Bengal, and it is you that seems to forget my first post in argument against you where I stated that the Indian states gained excessive amounts of spoils of war, such as gold, elephants, armor, weapons, statues, jewels, etc., unless you wish to warrant excessive spoils that bolster economies, royal family status, and furnish palaces "Nothing". Finally, I was speaking of when you asked Feud to stop my League Proposal that jeopardized your Marwar-Mughali union, which I linked previously so that you would remember it and understand my argument, the same argument that called into question whether you want mods who you believe will have some chance of favoring your interests, or mods that you have trusted before? The reason I specifically ask Feud or MP in many cases on Indian League proposals is because they are active. Most all mods I ask on chat are "too busy at the moment, I'll look at it later", and fail to look at it later, while Feud and MP will actually say something more like "Link me so I can read it", and then actually respond to my requests for their opinions. &#34;SO SAYETH THE EAGLE&#34; - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk)

I will have to say this, Feud never talked to me regarding India, at least as specific as the Mughals and Marwar. The last time we talked was two days ago and was about Cyprus, not India, so I would like to know why he said he talked to me about it.

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 16:01, May 24, 2014 (UTC)

So, Eip and I have been discussing and the main reason for the war is that the Marwari-Mughali union broke a law of the Indian League.

According to Eiplec, the law has banned vassalization. The part of the Indian league issue that banned it is this

This proposal also proposes to from henceforth ban upon the threat of war all domestic war against our brothers, and to stop petty feuds from destroying the unity of the Indian peoples.

Indian League 1.3 Domestic belligerence and an Upset to the Balance of Power

I myself honestly don't think that could be considered anything near to making vassalization illegal. So this puts in question the whole casus belli or atleast the effect it has on the nations of the League.

Another argument is that I stated that I, In character as Rao Raja Singh, cannot control India. But if the archive is checked, (Year 1496 or 1497 not sure), this is the actual argument

Let it be known, the Mughals cannot control Bharata, as they are controlled by Marwar.

As seen here, it is said the Marwari control the Mughals. Now, if we take another look at it, it doesn't say Marwar cannot control India (Bharata) since Marwar is in India.

To end it with what I think should be done: Either the war is rendered invalid, or Bengal heavily loses support from nations of the Indian League, as the Rao of Marwar has neither violated any Indian League law nor any unofficial contract he has made. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 18:33, May 25, 2014 (UTC)

Also, if you visit the Treaty of Pandua page you'll notice that Jaisalmer was one of the nations that rejected the initial alliance which would later become the Indian League. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 19:14, May 25, 2014 (UTC)

Moreover, I seem to have left out that Eip considers that the Marwari-Mughali union has a feud with the idea of Indian sovereignity. And I really wonder how this feud would destroy Indian unity. Even if Jaisalmer were to be annexed anytime soon, it would still be united with its Indian brethren, as it would be subjugated by an Indian nation, Marwar. And since the league is specifically designed to oppose foreign AGRESSION against any nations of India. I don't believe Marwar is foreign, nor is it an agressor.

Also, since the issue "In the Common Interest of Sovereignity" was repealed we have the following statements coming from Bengal.

The Mughal Empire is now controlled by a full blooded Indian, and one of our own League members to boot. Half of their population is now Indian

The time to stop living in the dark and with fears of powers that are non-existent is nigh.

This proposal is created by the Sultan of Bengal to dismiss the previous League proposal upon the basis that the Mughal Empire is no longer a threat, and that withdrawing ourselves from our brothers upon our borders only destroys us, for if India is to remain strong, it must unite all of their children together under a banner of peace, prosperity, sovreignity, and freedom.

By agreeing to this proposal, the states of India agree to recognize Marwar's rule over the Mughal Empire.

Let it be known that the greatest of the Mughal's enemies have conjured the strength to forgive them and offer them their Indian population the chance to be considered Indian once more, for these are not the same rulers and people that so mercilessly slaughtered and sought to control our homelands as before, because while we cannot forgive their forefathers for their crimes,''' we cannot punish the children for acts they had no part in. '''

This is also a proposal that passed, a proposal to which not one, not two, nay, sixteen nations agreed to.

I rest my case. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 09:20, May 26, 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Also here is what the Bengali Sultan has said during a discussion with the Marwari Rao

For now that India's greatest enemy is now controlled by an Indian, we need not be angered, nor troubled by their existence. The Sultan of Bengal announces his forgivness, not of those that slaughtered the Indian people, but of their sons who had no part  in their horrid crimes and should not be punished as a result. In order to fix relations between the Mughal Empire and the rest of India, the Bengali Sultan has created a Indian League Proposal to be voted upon by all of India to determine if India shares the same thoughts of forgivness,  restablishment of contact, and peace, as the Sultan of Bengal.

I took the liberty of bolding and underlining some of the more important parts of the argument. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 09:31, May 26, 2014 (UTC)

I'm joining late to this so I may not have all the information, but just a note, if it says "ban upon the threat of war" that would seem to indicate that Eip's actions are actually illegal, not Sky's, unless there is a clause I am not aware of. Furthermore, you may remember from the war against Scandinavia that Feud said the German states couldn't possibly enforce or force upon a NAP with some of the supporting nations like Albion. In the same way I believe Eip can't possibly enforce a treaty in which the Mughals/whoever can't inflence NPCs around it. It was stated many times that the Indian League is like an Indian HRE, and thus we should treat it as such. At this point it has been more than half a century on a treaty that they would have a hard time enforcing anyway, and I'd expect spheres to be forming within the subcontinent. As said for the real one, the HRE cannot always unite so it goes. We need to actually think plausibly here as to the states that would join (maybe even do a random.org). Maybe Bengal can claim that their causus belli is the breaking of this agreement, but considering that someone has even taken the time to dispute it, there are obvious states who would feel differently. And now that Bengal is seemingly breaking the Indian League's agreements, you'd think it would be a lot less one sided. At this point the fair thing would probably be to just have a one versus one, which would be a lot more realistic and sensical anyway. Mscoree (talk) 13:49, May 26, 2014 (UTC)

I've edited the algo from the premise that none of us gets support from any Indian nation that isn't subordinate to either player. Fed stated Spain could have sent only 1k max troops. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 14:54, May 26, 2014 (UTC)

I have also gained 40k troops from Liao, 100k from Safavids and 20,000 from the Manchu Empire. MP approved my 300k initial troops <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 15:24, May 26, 2014 (UTC)

Does no one understand what the League protects? It protects sovereignity. There would be no obvious spheres forming because nobody can control a sovereign nation without it loosing sovereignity. If we are to continue along with your supposed ideas, then we may as well retcon the whole Gwalior decision because it was to protect sovereignity. If this League does not protect sovereignity, then why would it have been  created to protect India from Timurid vassalization? Sky, I'm glad you brought out what Bengal said because that's exactly why India should feel betrayed. Rao makes a case that the Mughals should be forgiven for past crimes of trying to control India, and so everyone forgives him. Then, suddenly, the Mughals go back to the same tricks that one attempted to subjugate India, making it seem as though the Mughals were forgiven just so they would have an easier time to subjugate India, not because they had changed. Yes, I understand the Mughals and the Timurids are not the same things, but let me explain for the fifth time: Now, remember how Bengal made that case that the Mughals were to be forgiven. I see that statement being made, then the Mughali actions that show they have not changed as being more like someone making a false statement without the knowledge that it is false, then learning it was a lie and a ploy to begin subjugation of India. It hurts the unity of the League because the League is a union of sovereign states, which is hurt when some nation begins to vassalize without reason, and it becomes one nation stronger than all the others, not united, but dominated. Are you seriously making the case that you can perfectly plausibly just vassalize the League? Did you not see what caused the League to be created, when the Timurids tried vassalizing Indian nations, nor did you see how many times its been discussed that any nation gaining too much power within the League and attempting to publicly assert themselves as greatest of all with no precedent will make them a threat to the League? Do you understand what those public statements look like now that the Mughals have begun vassalizing League nations? A lie, that the Indian nations believed whole-heartidly before the rug was pulled out from under them, so it can be said they'd feel a little upset about believing lies about the Mughal Empire. Yes, foreign aggression, but if the League was to remain united without a foreign threat, the need for something, for the third time, like protecting sovereignity of states, which has been a focus for decades. Think of the Mughals lies being believed, then the truth coming forth about their true intentions as Commissioner Gordon making the public statement that Harvey Dent was a hero, then Bane pulling out the true statement about Harvey Dent. One was false, and made everyone believe he was a hero, the next one exposed the truth and then showed everyone that what they believed was a lie. You don't need to be a warmonger to be an aggressor, just start vassalizing nations that are part of a League that protects sovereignity of member states. Again, if the League wasn't created to protect sovereignity, then why would it have been created to stop the Timurids from taking it?
 * 1) The Timurids attempted to control India through vassalization and subjugation.
 * 2) The Mughals declared themselves the successors of the Timurids, with the former capital of the Timurid Empire in their lands, as well as the leader being an almost direct descendant of Timur.
 * 3) The Indian League is created to protect sovereignity, then declares war to protect the sovereignity of Jaunpur, Delhi, and Bahamani.
 * 4) The Mughals then end up controlled by an Indian for two successive successions.
 * 5) The Mughals are forgiven
 * 6) The Mughals begin to vassalize states just as the Timurids used to. Since it was declared they succeded the Timurid Empire, were warred against for the crimes of Timur, and every Indian nation went against them because of the crimes of Timur, it can be said that many Indian nations believe them one and the same.

The reason my actions are not illegal, because this war, against the Mughals for breaking League law and League code. It is justifiable that Bengal be able to break this with the support of all the Indian nations because it punishes one nation for breaking League law first, otherwise, there'd be no way to punish a nation for breaking League law and the reason for the foundation of the League, sovereignity. The League was supposed to be like the HRE, but unlike the HRE, it cannot have one nation over them as Emperor, nor do the proposals only favor the Emperor and grant him more power, so the League in current operation is more like the European Union, or the German Confederation. I'm sorry you were not able to carry out your goals of attacking Albion, but I don't understand how Europeans fighting petty wars for economic gains can be compared to Indian wars, fighting for sovereign rights and an opposition to treachery. It's been 50 years since the creation of the League, but if you were to glance once at the League page, you'd understand that there have been numerous proposals in the League so that its not a stagnant alliance. Spheres cannot develop because, as I've stipulated many times, the League protects and gurantees sovereignity of member states. You all seem to act like the Indian nations would just accept being the vassal of another nation, especially a League nation through simple influence and no other ties, despite having been part of a large history of fighting a war and numerous proposals to protect sovereignity. The HRE cannot unite because it never has a good reason to. Protecting the trade of, or gaining a city for economic purposes doesn't inspire the other HRE nations to join a war that will benefit one nation. However, protecting the sovereignity of, and stopping a process of vassaliziation, domination, and subjugation of League nations before it can fully begin (Even though one is vassalized) inspires the League nations to join because they would have their own sovereignity protected by this war, so in essence, this war guarantees they'd be able to continue ruling their own nation without having the fear of being vassalized by a nation that has throughout history shown it wishes to vassalize Indian nations. Random.org ignores that many Indian nations would like to rule themselves, rather than accept being a vassal state of another. Nobody in this time period, or after it, willingly gives up power for some "greater good". Using Random.org would actually make who joins the war implausible because it would ignore such factors as being a border nation to a state that may vassalize it, with evidence said nation they border is not above vassalization, causing fears of being vassalized, as well as ignoring close diplomatic ties to many nations that Bengal has, which can all suddenly be thrown away with the click of a button and a randomly generated number. Bengal is punishing a nation that would break an agreement. A nation that has been the enemy of the League in the past, and is back to its old tricks of violating League members sovereign rights. I assumed the League nations would be upset if their sovereignity is threatened, but yet there can be nothing done about it. At this point, the fair thing to do is let the war continue since the Mughals have lied to the Indian people and gotten the Indian people to believe it, vassalized a nation that is a member of a League that is designed to protect sovereignity, and because it's the same action the Mughals are taking, that was taken by a nation that controlled their exact same area, held the same capital, the same groups of ethnicities, the same royal dynasties, and was said to be the nation that the Mughals are succeding, therefore setting the precedent that more vassalizations and subjugations are to come. Actually, I'm the only one to explain why the Indian nations would support my side, rather than saying "They can't cause they are like the HRE, so therefore everything that happens to the HRE happens to the League" &#34;SO SAYETH THE EAGLE&#34; - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk)

Also, don't chastaise me for "playing to a moderator" then play to Ms, and then act solely on his support, without anything from any other mods. Are you seriously acting on the decision of one moderator that you've been Skype friends with for months, and assuming yourselves to be in the right without so much as reading my arugments? &#34;SO SAYETH THE EAGLE&#34; - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk)

As requested I have fixed up the algorithm. All that needs to be added is one side's scores, and whatever nations the moderators approve. Also I have yet to read Eip's above message. Mscoree (talk) 15:42, May 26, 2014 (UTC)

Since this war is being declared over suddenly, I'd like to depart on this:
 * I still don't understand why we suddenly change everything about the algo, then try to ban me for not being up to date on dramatic changes haha
 * Because this is the way I see it right now (Let me vent haha)
 * The war is brought before the League, and the League approves it
 * We deliberate for several turns on the plausibility of the war
 * Sky wants it declared implausible and retconned
 * Then, the entire bit of the war changes to one-on-one so I can't ask any nation for aid, then the war is suddenly deemed plausible when I can't ask any nation to aid me
 * Because I didn't post or ask about nations aiding me because I assumed that since it was a League proposal, and the League nations agreed to it, then they would be on my side
 * Suddenly switching it to One-on-One made it impossible to simply ask any nation to aid me, but allowed Sky to continue with all these allies.
 * If I was to deem this war fair, I would ask that I at least be given the chance to ask some nations since the entire bit of the war has been dramatically changed &#34;SO SAYETH THE EAGLE&#34; - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk)

I don't understand why did we remove the Indian League? I thought we had deemed it plausible yesterday night? Fed (talk) 00:40, May 27, 2014 (UTC)

Now, I can understand not having the WHOLE League like from the the League proposal, but I just believe that it's unfair to deliberate about the war for several turns under the guise that it's deciding if the League can support Bengal or not, then, during the 1514-1515 turn, call the war over at 1513, and give me no chance to actually ask for allies after the League joining is suddenly declared implausible. If I had known that I wouldn't have the support of the League from the League proposal, I feel as though I would've asked for nations to help. Wait, I'm reading it now. You gave Sky an NPC (Gwalior), but I'm not allowed to even ask? Seriously? If Gwalior was joining, I feel as though the two nations that Gwalior tried to war against/control would join against Gwalior. Also, I feel if Bengal was given the fair chance to ask Delhi, Jaunpur, and Bahmani for support, this would have a different outcome, because I still see it as unfair to take away all of Bengal's modded support of the League in 1514-1515, declare the war over in 1513, and not give Bengal the chance to go back and ask for allies.
 * Even if the nations I've financially supported and propped up for decades (Delhi, Jaunpur, and Bahamni), the two nations Gwalior tried to attack/annex/control would at least join to oppose Gwalior. I would think
 * At this point, I don't care about League support, I care about not being given a fair chance to ask for aid, while it's freely modded to my opposition AFTER the wars end date

&#34;SO SAYETH THE EAGLE&#34; - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk)

You're still breaking league law if you declare war to another Leauge nation <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 05:28, May 27, 2014 (UTC)

I am pleased to see that that is your only argument and that there is no disputing of my case anymore. Now, finally, as with the Gwalior issue on the League page, the reasons for disputing the actions of Gwalior was sovereignity of the nation Gwalior attempted to war against. It has been accepted that sovereignity is "is the quality of having an independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory" . Now, sovereignity is named specifically as a League focus, and not merely stated with actions and not words with the creation of the League, but with arguments and ideals that all of the Indian League agreed with. Therefore, by vassalizing Jaisalmer, Marwar has violated the sovereign rights of Jaisalmer to have independent authority over it's geographic area/territory, the idea of sovereignity being a focus of the League, and generally supported by League states through their specific agreement with the arguments of Bengal that presented sovereignity as being the right to independently rule one's borders without the threat/fear/possibility of losing one's right to govern themselves, without being forced to accept policies that are not their own, and without losing their status as a nation to exist freely and independent of rule by another. &#34;SO SAYETH THE EAGLE&#34; - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk)

I'm sorry for giving such a short argument, but after that I quickly took up a few law books and read through them (Let the fact that I have law books not surprise you, I am after all, the son of a judge). Now I'm going to explain a few things:

Firstly, here are a few arguments from the proposal you made.

That is why I am proposing that we remove the trade barriers between our nations and allow each of our nations merchants to travel across India to strengthen our economics, share ideas, and promote the unity of a common people. - The Free Travel of Merchants

So, unity, not sovereignity. Next one.

The League has been created to protect against foreign aggression , but it is time we look towards domestic aggression. - Domestic belligerence and an upset to the balance of power

Agression seems to be the keyword here. And let's see who waged wars since the creation of the first Indian war and the second one. Gwalior attempted, Bengal conquered Ava. Marwar however, did nothing.

To allow the League to function, we must not war against each other, lest we leave ourselves open to the new threats such as those from the land of Europe. - Domestic belligerence and an upset to the balance of power

So, no inter-Indian wars. Yet we have Castile aiding Bengal. And if we can have a European have such good relations with Bengal that would allow him to aid him with 15,000 soldiers who were, by the way, according to Feud, Vijaynagari and Bengali mercenaries. So the nation that has greatest suffered from an external threat and the nation that constantly presents itself as the keeper of India freedom allow their people to risk their lives for a foreigner for money?

We are not petty kingdoms who fight for power and control, no, we are a united people who fight for  our collective interests and we will not tolerate the belligerance of one kingdom against all its brothers. - Domestic belligerence and an upset to the balance of power

As you can see, there is a collective interest which according to the preaching of Bengal is the unity of Indian people. If Bengal has in fact swayed the other Indian nations towards the idea of unity, it would mean that atleast the people of India wish to be united under one banner, not 19. So any act that brings them closer would be meet with acceptance. And according to dictionaries, belligerence is a warlike of agressively hostile nature, condition or attitude. Therefore, the only one who has been belligerent was Bengal, as it has waged war without even attempting to resolve the issue through diplomatic attempts, although it has tried that with Gwalior.

For these reasons, the Sultan of Bengal proposes that the League immediately condemn and threaten with force the Kingdom of Gwailor, in order to stop it, for attacking a fellow League member and killing the people of India, not unlike the Mughal threat that this League was originally created to stop. - Domestic belligerence and an upset to the balance of power

So, before the law was passed, Gwalior was first threatened with force before it was attacked, yet Bengal was somehow able to immediately wage war against another League nation without any simillar actions.

This proposal also proposes to from henceforth ban upon the threat of war all domestic war against  our brothers, and to stop petty feuds from destroying the unity of the Indian peoples. - Domestic belligerence and an upset to the balance of power

I really had to think where to start from this one, because it's going to be quite long. Firstly, war is banned against "our brothers" which we can obviously conclude are Indians. However, you are indeed correct that some problems can only be solved through war, so let's say it is alright to wage war against someone who has started said war.

Moreover, here comes into use the reading of law books. So, there are a lot of ways to interpret a law (historical, social, cultural, etc.), however I believe the best interpretation of this was is axiomatic ergo, what the goal of the law was. It was to stop Gwalior who had been waging war, this is also the predestined interpretation. Another logical interpretation would be golden one, literal interpretation without holding onto the text in an absurd way. This would especially be logical with the and to stop petty feuds from destroying the unity of the India peoples part. You see, petty feuds can also be small-scale battles, battles which aren't officially considered a war. In medieval times, such feuds happened often and would in fact destroy the unity of people. However your interpretation is that of mischief, an erroneous, free, arbitrary and ambulatory (dynamic) interpretation. Had it not been for the vassalization, the interpretation that it also bans vassalization wouldn't even exist. Moreover, you seemingly keep on using the term unity, or unity of Indians or Indian peoples. Nobody seems to be talking about the sovereignity of rulers and their dynasties. As long as the Indian people are under a Indian ruler, they are free, and united.

And let's end it with the title: Domestic belligerence and an upset to the balance of power

I believe this one speaks for itself

Onto a repealed law (In the Common interest of sovereignity):

Not only did we prove that as one people, we are mighty, but we also proved that the only tolerable influence of Indian states were the Indian states themselves

So, Indian states can influence eachother. Marwar is Indian, therefore it hasn't done anything wrong.

This why the Sultan of Bengal has proposed to following to the Indian League in order to preserve the sovereignity of smaller border states more suceseptible to influence, and to end a threat as soon as it begins:

Smaller border states: Delhi, Jaisalmer, Kathiawar, Dhundhar and of course Marwar. At the time of the vassalization Marwar was a small border state. Although this was all in order to stop Mughal influence not Marwari.

Now onto the A formal appeal of "In the Common interest of Sovereignity"

The Mughal Empire is now controlled by a full blooded Indian, and one of our own League members to boot.

'''Half of their population is now Indian. '''

The time to stop living in the dark and with fears of powers that are non-existent is nigh.

This proposal is created by the Sultan of Bengal to dismiss the previous League proposal upon the basis that the Mughal Empire is no longer a threat, and that withdrawing ourselves from our brothers upon our borders only destroys us, for if India is to remain strong, it must unite all of their children together under a banner of peace, prosperity, sovreignity, and freedom.

Peace - Bengal seems to be destroying it

Prosperity - It's there

Sovereignity - Strictly technnically, the "children" of India are in fact sovereign even though some nations have power over others.

Freedom - We have it

By agreeing to this proposal, the states of India agree to recognize Marwar's rule over the Mughal Empire.

As seen here,  it is commonly accepted among the League memebers that Marwar rules over the Mughal Empire

Let it be known that the greatest of the Mughal's enemies have conjured the strength to forgive them and offer them their Indian population the chance to be considered Indian once more, for these are not the same rulers and people that so mercilessly slaughtered and sought to control our homelands as before, because while we cannot forgive their forefathers for their crimes, we cannot punish the children for acts they had no part in.

To end this argument: <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 08:29, May 27, 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Marwar has broken no laws, as influence over other nations is allowed, or not even Bengal would be allow to influence any nation
 * 2) Bengal has rapidly attempted to declare a war even though they had banned doing the exact act years ago when Gwalior had attempted to conquer Mewar
 * 3) If India is united as stated, it should be against the Bengali actions, since they are breaking Indian law. If we are to follow Bengal's example, the actions should be condemned and Bengal should be threatened with war.
 * 4) Bengal itself has no case against the nation of Marwar so we obviously have a situation of Actor non probante reus absolvitur combined with Bengali attempts to change Indian laws ad hoc

Sources: Indian League page (and archive), general dictionary of law (Opći pravni rječnik) by Marta Vidaković Mukić, English-Croatian dictionary of law (Englesko hrvatski rječnik prava) by Milica Gačić, the Merriam-Webster online dictionary and the Oxford wordpower dictionary edited by Miriam Steel

Another thing Eip. Most of your arguments include that you can interpret it freely because you were the one who created them. Just to inform you, you can't actually interpret anything as you like just because you created the law. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 09:56, May 27, 2014 (UTC)

Also, where exactly is Kamarumpa? I know Orissa is right below Bengal, Andamana is the island one and Ahom and Koch are the ones north of Bengal <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 12:28, May 27, 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, I noticed that it's actually Kamarupa and Kamarupa=Ahom. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 12:47, May 27, 2014 (UTC)

Another thing, the Marwari-Mughali side is miscalculated, it should be 65 (63 if I don't have a larger population). And Bengal's should be 60. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 12:58, May 27, 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for using modern law to attempt to prove yourself, while I'm using a definition of sovereignity that has stood since the medieval ages. Secondly, do you realize that why the Common Interest of Sovereignity was repealled? It wasn't because sovereignity suddenly didn't become an issue, it was because of its strict laws against the Mughal Empire. And guess what? The Indian nations agreed with Bengal's sentiments about sovereignity, and what was the repeal geared towards? While it repealed the whole of the In The Common Interest, it only mentions repealing the strict laws against the Mughals, but it NEVER mentions the issue of sovereignity of the Indian states as being invalid. So, in a recap. Now, on the issue of Castile using Bengali and Vijaynagari mercs...Those are ''' mercs. '''I don't control those. I don't control whether or not 15,000 citizens of Bengal or Vijaynagara decide to throw their lives away for coin. I've actually stated this many times when speaking to all European nations interested in trading with Bengal, specifically saying that I don't control whether or not their advertisements for buying mercinaries who are not part of the Bengali army are successful.
 * 1) Indian nations agree to both strict laws against Mughals, and to remove the threat of being controlled by any nation that seeks to remove their sovereign rights.
 * 2) Less than 15-20 years later, those Indian nations agree to repeal it on the basis that it was strict against the Mughals who were percieved to not be a threat anymore, but never was it said that sovereignity suddenly did not become an issue, and that the Indian nations did not disagree with Bengal on sovereignity.
 * 3) Less than 30 years later, while sovereignity is still an issue with no opposition, Jaisalmer's sovereignity is infringed upon while it's still very much clear that when the In the Common Interest was repealed, it was because the Mughals were no longer a threat, not because sovereignity didn't become an issue. The Indian nations don't suddenly forget what they voted for originally.

The mere existence of the League shows an Indian interest in unity, but you misunderstand what unity is in this case. India was not united as one nation until the 1800s, correct? Even today, a singular India has problems with unity. In the case of the League, unity means each Indian nation unites around a goal, be it trade, be it sovereignity, be it war. The mere creation of the League was to combat a foreign threat, the Timurids. But for what reason did India unite against that threat? I believe that it was because the Timurids were infringing upon the right of Indian nations to govern themselves, and for their attempts to subjugate Indian nations. Simply being in the League shows that the Indian nations hate foreign aggression because: Foreign aggressors take control of Indian states and attempt to subjugate them, which, while not being foreign, Marwar did to a fellow Indian state. You believe that your vassalization is THE thing that makes me use that sentence to be against vassalization of Indian states and secure my own interests. Don't you find it odd that since the creation of that law, Bengal hasn't vassalized any Indian nation, and hasn't even said "Influence turn one of blank" at all? Your ideas of my hypocrisy would only make sense if Bengal had vassalized an Indian nation, or even ATTEMPT to vassalize an Indian nation after the creation of that law, but as I understood the law I created, I did not vassalize any Indian states because I followed the law. Now, as numerous sources say, a feud is not simply small-scale battles but: "<span class="hwc" id="hotword" name="hotword" style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana;font-size:small;line-height:normal;">continuous <span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana;font-size:small;line-height:normal;">  <span class="hwc" id="hotword" name="hotword" style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana;font-size:small;line-height:normal;">hostility", and " <span class="hwc" id="hotword" name="hotword" style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana;font-size:small;line-height:normal;">a <span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana;font-size:small;line-height:normal;">  <span class="hwc" id="hotword" name="hotword" style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana;font-size:small;line-height:normal;">bitter <span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana;font-size:small;line-height:normal;">  <span class="hwc" id="hotword" name="hotword" style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana;font-size:small;line-height:normal;">quarrel <span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana;font-size:small;line-height:normal;">  <span class="hwc" id="hotword" name="hotword" style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana;font-size:small;line-height:normal;">or contention". When I speak of the unity of the Indian peoples, do I speak of them being united under one leader, or one banner? Do I say united to fight for similar interests, or do I say united to serve under one ruler? The simple fact that the League has NO singular ruler, and NO accepted leadership, means that they are united for goals, not for serving. The Holy Roman Empire, even with accepted leadership, accepted singular ruler, and many nations agreeing with the singular ruler/leadership, couldn't unite as a singular entity to be ruled because number one, people don't give up positions of power, such as ruling a nation without orders, willingly. Number two, it's because they have their own goals which would go ignored if they were controlled. Number three, the goals of another nation would be imposed upon them, meaning their own goals are unheard of.
 * The Rao of Marwar holds the title of the Mughal Emperor.
 * The Mughal Empire declared itself the successor to the Timurids, and its rulers were blood descendants of Timur.
 * The Mughal Empire retained the same capital as the Timurids until very recently.
 * By declaring itself the successor to the Timurids, having blood descendants of Timur rule it, and by keeping the same political institutions, same taxes, same almost everything, it will be said that the Mughal Empire is seen as not a completely different nation, but as the remnant of the Timurid Empire after an unsuccessful civil war where the Timurids changed their name to save face.
 * Now, because the Rao holds the title of the Mughal Emperor, while not being a blood descedant to Timur, and being an Indian, by holding the title of the Mughal Emperor, he inherits all the history of the Timurids and previous Mughals. Since his brother was declared part of the Mughal bloodline and adopted by whoever, his brother is also in the Mughal royal line, which is considered a part of the Timurid line.

Of course influence is fine. Building alliances, treaties, and trade through influence is fine. Violating sovereignity is influence too far. If we were to accept that it wasn't too far, then the whole reason for the League existence would be for naught. Smaller border states: Jaisalmer. Nations sovereignity violated: Jaisalmer.

See, those are the reasons the League feels betrayed. They forgive an age old enemy, let them in, and assume that their will to control India is gone. In fact, that's why the first war was begun, to counter the Mughali will to dominate and subjugate India. However, by vassalizing an Indian nation, they show that they have not changed, not even with an Indian in power. With an Indian in power, and continuing the same goals of controlling India, it's a betrayal of India by an Indian, an India that wishes to not be dominated and subjugated, and an Indian that wishes to dominate and subjugate them.

"On the basis that the Mughal Empire is no longer a threat" speaks for itself. It does not say "On the basis that sovereignity is no longer an issue".

Peace - A traitor and a liar is being removed, agreed upon by all of the Indian nations (And Fed, and Feud, and last night, Ms).

Prosperity - It's there. Freedom - Meh, everyone owns slaves, indentured servants, and has a caste system, but "free". Unless you account for the reasons for not having sovereignity above.
 * 1) Sovereignity (Legal Definition) : <span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;line-height:normal;"> it is a combination of all power; it is the power to do everything in a state without accountability;  <span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;line-height:normal;">to make war or peace.   We
 * By the rules of the game, the power to make war and peace reside within the liege state. The ruler of Jaisalmer is accountable to the Rao of Marwar, and therefore not free.
 * 1) Sovereignity (Wikipedia): The quality of having an independent authority over a geographic area. We
 * The Raja of Jaisalmer is not independent, and does not hold independent authority of Jaisalmer.
 * 1) Sovereignity (Merriam-Webster):  Unlimited power over a country; a country's independent authority and the right to govern itself. We
 * The Raja of Jaisalmer is not the ultimate power over Jaisalmer, the Mughali Emperor is. The Raja of Jaisalmer does not have the right to govern himself and must accept all decisions of the Mughali Emperor.
 * 1) Sovereignity (Apparently numerous law books, etc.): <span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'TimesNewRoman';font-size:medium;line-height:normal;">The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any independent state is governed; supreme political authority;  <span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'TimesNewRoman';font-size:medium;line-height:normal;">One which governs itself independently of any foreign power;  <span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'TimesNewRoman';font-size:medium;line-height:normal;"> it is the power to do everything in a state without accountability.  We
 * The Raja of Jaisalmer is not the supreme, absolute, or uncontrollable power that governs an independent sate. He is not the supreme political authority. He is not independent of a foreign power (Foreign in this sense being any nation that isn't Jaisalmer.). Must account to the Mughali Emperor.
 * 1) Sovereignity (Britannica):<span style="color:rgb(68,68,68);font-family:'OpenSans',sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:22.399999618530273px;"> the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the  <span href="http://semantic.britannica.com/accepted_headword/core/563762/state" property="about" style="font-size:14px;font-family:'OpenSans',sans-serif;line-height:22.399999618530273px;outline:none!important;background-image:initial;background-attachment:initial;background-size:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-position:initial;background-repeat:initial;">state.   We
 * The Raja of Jaisalmer is not the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of his state.

Again, more reasons as to why the Indian nations feel betrayed, as previously stated.

To end this argument:  Also, Ms said that he made a mistake in (let him explain, I'm not going to post it on talk page, too much respect), and will recalculate the algo to reflect other moderator decisions, which will be accomplished by the end of today. &#34;SO SAYETH THE EAGLE&#34; - Fascist Eagle ಠ_ಠ (talk)
 * 1) Marwar has violated the sovereignity of Jaisalmer, a commonly agreed upon staple of the League. If we are interpret influence within the law, I believe the best interpretation is axiomatic ergo, or what the goal of the law was. It was to stop the Mughals from influencing Indian states, especially small border state, to the point that they become vassals without sovereign rights under Mughali leadership. (Or in some cases, extremely devout new players that ignore game history, wish to become vassals of states they warred against recently, and then disappear suddenly when goals don't work out).
 * 2) Bengal only "rapidly" declared war once a majority of the Indian states (Approved by Fed and Feud, apparently approved by Ms last night) agreed to war against Marwar in their attempt to violate a League principle that is sovereignity, a principle they have agreed with before. Being approved by apparently three moderators, I would assume that the League decision is completely valid, and therefore you are trying to stipulate that all of the League has broken their own laws trying to punish a treacherous League member with no other available punishment other than war for lying to the Indian people and violated principles.
 * 3) Read above, mods and such. Also, Gwalior was threatened with war because they were trying to control a (two wasn't it?) League state. Marwar was threatened with war for controlling a League state, and for refusing to, and trying to state that vassalization, and violating the sovereignity of a League state is completely valid, has been warred against. You are trying to say that Bengal should be threatened with war for attempt to ensure that all League nations are free and independent of unjust vassalization?
 * 4) Read above, case proven and such.

Short argument, the common interest of sovereignity was created to protect smaller border states' sovereignity, as seen here

This why the Sultan of Bengal has proposed to following to the Indian League in order to preserve the sovereignity of smaller border states more suceseptible to influence, and to end a threat as soon as it begins:

Might look like I'm proving your point, but just this shows that sovereignity isn't a principle of the Leauge, only the sovereignity of those that currently serve as meat shields. But since there is no external threat, even this seems obsolete. And your table is wrong. Jaisalmer is under total control of the Raja without Marwar and under control of the Raja and the Rao with Marwar. Even if you consider Marwar a threat, it's still not a foreign threat. Just like, for example, Castile and Aragon have separate colonies, so can Marwar and Mughal have separate influence over other nations and separate vassals.

That is all <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 14:28, May 27, 2014 (UTC)

Oh and I believe Feud's decisions don't count since he has interest in said region. MP told me that Feud and him came to that conclusion during chat the other day -Sky

As an fyi - going by that "Treaty," a move by the Mughals/Whatever would not be in violation of it - not that they are held by it at all. Nor would one of the signatories be any of the things it is stated as a problem to incur the treaty if they were vassalized willingly, especially by the Mughals. Sky has a good point.

Next time take some time before leaving notes on my page, and go with mods first.

FYI - Paragraphs. Dear god, use paragraphs.

Lordganon (talk) 15:10, May 27, 2014 (UTC)

Yes I'd like to excuse myself for doing that and I'll try to organize any further arguments better. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 15:18, May 27, 2014 (UTC)

Note, I have yet to read the replies above, aside from Lordganon's. I agree highly with him, as what Lordganon said is essentially what I was trying to say with my initial comment. I couldn't find anything that actually binded the Mughals, and even if there was it's not like it could be accurately enforced. Mscoree (talk) 17:56, May 27, 2014 (UTC)

Explanation
Hello guys,

For the next two months, I will be working at a summer camp. I won't be as active as I am currently, but it does have internet, and I will try to make my posts. It isn't the best internet in the world though, so I don't know if I'll be able to hop on chat for more than a few minutes, if at all. But, this is my job, and it will come first before this, so I might have to miss a day or two here and there. Do not worry, I'll be more active when I come home for a day off every two-three weeks until my time is up, then I will return to my normal activity. If I miss a day or two, please don't just assume I quit.

Thanks for the understanding,


 * Guy

Tribes
Upon my attempts to fight/vassalize several tribes in the area near my nation (the Natigosteg L'nu), I was told that "'''No. i said stop doing tribes that do not exist on the map. It's not okay." '''

At the same time, the Marrikuwuyanga have vassalized two tribes that definitely didn't exist on the map (ie Yalngu and Jawoyn) and invaded Timor, also black on the map. Why are the mods talking out of both sides of their mouths here? Can you fight/vassalize tribes that don't exist on the map, or not? Or can some players do this, but not others? Krasnoyarsk (talk) 22:26, May 23, 2014 (UTC)

Nothing in the rules says its not allowed, just to clear that up. Krasnoyarsk (talk) 22:27, May 23, 2014 (UTC)

Jawoyn and Yalngu were both otl Aboriginal tribes living in Northern Australia and are present on the map of Aboriginal Australia. Calliburner [Forgot The Name] had allowed me to use the map when I had asked for it, although I usually don't.

I never vassalized any state at all. Yalngu was invaded and Jawoyn entered into a union with Marrikuwuyanga.

While it is indeed true that I add 'We continue to spread our influence into neighboring tribes', I'm afraid I do NOT do it so I can vassalize them. I do it so the tribes in Australia know about the Marrikuwuyanga Empire, that there is an Empire that has suddenly become a regional power. Obviously, people will migrate to my lands, acquire modern weaponry which I gained from Ayutthaya and soon these weapons would spread into much of Australia strengthening it, although at the cost of a war between the barbaric tribes who would use the weapons for revenge or territorial gain

You spread your influence to vassalize states. You see, I use the states just for role play so I can trade with them etc. I never have vassalized a state and never will [Takes too long]

Finally, Timor was semi- vassalized by Marrikuwuyanga when I invaded it and even at the moment I do not completely control it. If you look at my posts, you'd notice the religion 'Yadaism' isn't preached in Timor for fear of rebellion by natives [Well they do consider Emperor Yada Gulpilil as God but not the only or strongest God]. In fact, the tribal chiefs still control their specific tribes and I still have very little power over the island except control of the navy. The tribal chiefs of Timor are still being granted gifts to please them so you may refer to my invasion of Timor as a 'War on a Semi-Vassalized State' who's complete vassalization still will take some 10 more years. RexImperio (talk) 01:27, May 24, 2014 (UTC)

Plus, if I am told to stop using the Aboriginal Map.. I will stop although till now it seems no moderator has ever complained about it RexImperio (talk) 01:27, May 24, 2014 (UTC)

The point is, either interaction with tribes that don't exist on the PMIII map is allowed, as you were told, or its not, as I was told. I was told I couldn't fight a tribe not visible on the map either, so (well, actually, I was told I couldn't "do" them, whatever that means) those differences don't really apply. I have no issue with what you're doing. Could a mod clear this up? Krasnoyarsk (talk) 11:56, May 24, 2014 (UTC)

Its allowed it certain degrees. Trade and limited contact is possible as is trying to make then friendlier so when you expand into them they are okay with your expansion. However vassalizing these tribes in order to facilitate faster expansion is not. Earlier in the game we had NA players creating new vassals like this left and right and used them to implausibly and massively expand. so yeah i believe that in these situtations you could expand into them and then make a vassal out of the territory you expanded into but not just vassalizing a tribe not on the map like has been done too much. As for trade and limited contact this is no issue as this happened OTL relatively easily with small and medium sized friendly tribes.

Madagasikara (Attacker)
Total: 37
 * Location: 3
 * Tactical Advantage: 5
 * Nations: Madagasikara (L), Sofala (MVW), Mozambika (MVW), Pembara (MVW) 5/5= 1
 * Military Development: 20/20 =1
 * Economic Development: 20/12 = 2+10 = 12
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 3 (economic)
 * Modifiers: 4-5-15 =-16 (non-democratic supported by people, guerilla, multiple wars)
 * Edit count: <span style="color:rgb(45,45,45);text-align:right;">6,402
 * UTC: 9:44 = 17
 * Total: 6402/17*pi (3.14159265359) = 1,183.0519
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 7 digits = 17
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 60,000/25,000 = 2
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals: -6

Great Zimbabwe (Defender)
Total: 28*1.5 = 42
 * Location: 5/5 =1
 * Tactical Advantage: 3 (tribal ambush)
 * Nations: Great Zimbabwe (L) 5 = 0
 * Military Development: 20/20 =1
 * Economic Development: 12
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 2
 * Motive: 9 (defending core from fatal attack)
 * Modifiers: -5+4+1 = 0 (low moreale, non-democratic, supported by people, guerilla war)
 * Chance: 1
 * Nation Age: -10
 * Population: 6 digits = 6
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Number of Troops: 25,000 = 0

Result
Great Zimbabwe has a higher war score. No land is taken.

Discussion
Here are a few notes as to why Zimbabwe's scores are so low... they were in disarray for most of the past 20 years, and since then they have been expanding militarily (recent wars), which has led to no development scores.

For military size, I took 3% of my estimated population (2 million) and I took 5% of the Zimbabwean population (500,000). 21:47, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

1% is more accurate, at this time period.

22:41, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

Actually, a much higher number is accurate, since only Europe was plagued with the inability to raise large armies. Nations in Africa, the Middle East, India, and the Far East were able to raise tens of thousands of soldiers for a single battle alone since they didn't rely on the feudalistic systems of Europe. This is why the relatively small vassals states in Japan were able to raise as many as many as 25-50,000 men each, while massive nations such as Franch and Poland could push about 15-20,000 men each without destroying their economies. This is also the reason why the almost all of the Sultans of the Middle East could field armies as large as 250,000 men for a single campaign, while the Holy Roman Empire at its height and under the strong rulership of Barbarossa was able to raise 100,000 once time in its history during the Crusades, and later only never raised more than 35-50,000 man afterward. The tiny army syndrome is only relative to Europe, not the rest of the world. Fun fact. Even though the Zulu Kingdom had no more than 500,000 people, it routinuely fielded armies of 10-25,000, about the same as medieval France, which possessed a population of some 15 million people. That's sad. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 23:05, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

Wait, seriously? Then why was I limited to 1% of my population? I wasn't even remotely European... And I had sources showing my nation raised armies of about 300,000 routinely...

23:37, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

That is actually cool.

I have refrained from putting Zimbabwe as tribal. Is it a tribal nation, I know the technology for both sides should have a large gap between them. Saamwiil, the Humble 02:07, May 22, 2014 (UTC)

Please do not change the algo. All of the points have legitimate reasons. Firstly, the Zimbabweans have been around for only 3 years, all 3 of which they have been in a war and therefore they have not been developing infrastructure, economy, or military. They do not get a 1.5 multiplier because they did not have a popular revolt. Our men are convinced that it is a crusade, as our rhetoric has intensified in recent years and the priests have urged King Esteban to declare the war. The vassals penalty was already levied in the nations age section, as it should be according to precedent. 02:39, May 22, 2014 (UTC)

They have not been in a war. They've been expanding, declaring "war" on smaller kingdoms, none of which are on the map. They do, in fact, get the 1.5* multiplier, as they had a significant change of government. And it does not matter what the clergy feels, the war is for purely economic reasons. There is no way to convince a populace that in three years, a nation centralised only three years ago has found a way to seriously oppress its negligible Christian minority, and out enough propoganda out there to support such a claim as "defending oppressed Christians." Sorry, I do not stand for biased algorithms. Algorithms are algorithms for a reason, if you truly want to implausibly conquer a nation, ask for mod permission, and you can disreard the algoritm, or make it however biased you wish. Saamwiil, the Humble 14:21, May 22, 2014 (UTC)

Safavid Empire

 * Location: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: +2 Ambush
 * Nations Per Side: (L) Safavids = 5
 * Military Development: 8*2=16/14=1
 * Economic Development: 9*2=16/14=1
 * Economic Bonus: Much larger economy (10), Larger trade (5)= +15
 * Motive: 7 (Enforcing political hegemony)
 * Modifiers: +5
 * Nation Age: +0
 * Chance: 7

Total: 75
 * Edit count: 1061
 * UTC Time: 19:04=1*9*1*4=36
 * 1061/26=29.472222222222...
 * Population: 7,500,000 = 7
 * Participation: +10
 * Expansion: -1*4=-4
 * Number of Troops: 149,100/30,000=5

Shahdom Of Verkana
Total: 45
 * Location: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations Per Side: (L) Verkana = 5
 * Military Development: 7*2=14 = 0
 * Economic Development: 7*2=14 = 0
 * Economic Bonus: Smaller economy -2
 * Infrastructure: 4
 * Motive: +9 (Defending from possibly fatal attack)
 * Nation Age: +0
 * Chance: 6
 * Edit count: 834
 * UTC Time: 19:04=1*9*1*4=36
 * 834/36=23.166666666...
 * Population: 1,000,000 = 7
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 30,000 = 0

Results
(75/(75+45))*2-1=25%

25*(1-1/(2*3))=20.83%

Discussion
I have done this, there might be some mistakes. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 18:50, May 26, 2014 (UTC)

Oyo Empire (Attacker)

 * Location: +4
 * Tactical Advantage: +6
 * Nations: Oyo (L), Benin (L), Burkina (L), Ife (L) = 20/4 = +5
 * Military Development: 50/4 = +13
 * Economic Development: 30/4 = +8
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: +7 +3 +3 +3
 * Modifiers: +6 +4 +10 +5 (Trade with Europe, India, and Middle East)
 * Chance: +8

Total: 99
 * Edit count: 5,055
 * UTC: 2*1*2*0 = 4
 * Total: 5055/4*pi = 3970.187715974363
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Population: +8 (18,400,000)
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 425,000/100,000 = +4
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Songhai (Defender)
Total: 37
 * Location: +5
 * Tactical Advantage: +1
 * Nations: Songhai (L) = 4/20 = 0
 * Military Development: 4/50 = 0
 * Economic Development: 4/30 = 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: +5
 * Modifiers: +4 -3 (Recent civil war)
 * Chance: +7
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: +8 (25,000,000)
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 100,000/425,000 = 0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result

 * ((99/(37+99))*2)-1 = 0.4558823529411765%
 * (45.5)*(1-1/(2*2)) = 34.125%

Oyo and its allies may claim 34.1% of Songhai within the next two years, toppling the government of Songhai.

Discussion
For those wondering why I went with two years instead of five, in OTL, it only took Morocco one year to conquer Songhai at its height, all because it had firearms. Mind you, Morocco had to trek through the desert with only 10,000 men. I have the luxury of a border with Songhai and a much larger combined military force. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 02:27, May 25, 2014 (UTC)

Retconned for BS Causus Belli, controlling another Nation (Songhai) to fabricate said BS Causus Belli, and multiple other issues with this.

The CB isn't BS. I can invade since the foreign relations you forced on Songhai led to them naturally killing Oyo citizens. The rules state that a player can plausibly push an NPC nation into making certain choices in their lands; "Encourage the government of that country to make certain choices." By you making them hate me unconditionally (even though relations can be repaired), I can have their people kill my own, and then invade them on those grounds. So what I did was plausibly and realistic, and saying it's BS is nothing more than your opinion than a grounded fact. And stop saying "multiple other issues" when there ain't any. You make it sound as if the entire algo is corrupt, and when your finally pushed on the matter of what's actually wrong, it's only one our two minor issues. And sign your posts darn it! Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 13:07, May 25, 2014 (UTC)

I believe the agreement yesterday was that both Oyo and France would be allowed to go to war, with the best nation winning. Let Viva invade, and he will have to fight against France. Mscoree (talk) 13:12, May 25, 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 15:23, May 25, 2014 (UTC)

Mods have permitted the uncrossing of the algo. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 18:32, May 26, 2014 (UTC)

Implausibility
Without pointing fingers, it seems as though the game is getting more and more implausible. I suggest that there are some more damaging mod events in response to implasibility to try to control mod events and stop this going any further. Ozymandias2 (talk) 17:28, May 25, 2014 (UTC)

Ozy, to be honest, you should be pointing fingers. On the other hand, mods watch over the game, but this doesn't mean all implausible players will get instantly punished. Moreover, mod events cannot totally get rid of implausibility, which is why the best way to counter implausibility is by playing the game. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 09:52, May 26, 2014 (UTC)

And playing it well.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 11:00, May 26, 2014 (UTC)

Eurasian Collation (Attacker)
​Total:  82
 * Location: 3
 * Manchu (4)
 * Marwar (3)
 * SCK (4)
 * Mughals (3)
 * Dai Veit (4)
 * Safavids (2)
 * Fusahito (4)
 * Liao (4)
 * Roman Empire (2)
 * Jaisalmer (3)
 * Castille (2)
 * Aragon (2)
 * Oyo (2)
 * Tactical Advantage: + 5 (Siege Equipment) 2 (High Ground/ Ambush) = 7
 * Nations Per Side: Manchu (L), Liao (L), Tibet (L), Fusahito (L) Marwar (L), Mughals (L) SCK (LV) Roman Empire (L) Safavids (M), Jaisalmer (LV) Castille (L) Aragon (L) Oyo (M) = 55/18=3
 * Military Development = Marwar-Mughal-Chagatai (5*3*2), Japan (10*2), Manchu (9*2), Liao (8*2), Roman Empire (10*2), Jaisalmer (5*2) Castille (10*2) Aragon (10*2) Oyo (8*2) = 170/84=2
 * Economic Development = Marwar-Mughal-Chagatai (11*3*2), Japan (8*2), Manchu (7*2), Liao (6*2), Roman Empire (10*2), Jaisalmer (5*2) Castille (10*2) Aragon (10*2) Oyo (9*2) = 196/98=2
 * Economic Bonus: Much larger economy (10), Larger trade (5) = 15
 * Expansion; -2*3, -1*3 = -9
 * Motive: 39
 * Aiding social/moral/ideological/religious kinsmen who are being opressed (+7)
 * Aiding Ally (+3)
 * Aiding Ally (+3)
 * Aiding Ally (+3)
 * Aiding Ally (+3)
 * Aiding Ally (+3)
 * Aiding Ally (+3)
 * Aiding Ally (+3)
 * Economic (+3)
 * Aiding Ally (+3)
 * Aiding ally (+3)
 * Aiding Ally (+3)
 * Aiding Ally (+3)
 * Mostly non-democratic nations: -3
 * Chance: +2
 * ​Edit Count: 2069
 * UTC Time: 18:33 = 1*8*3*3 = 249
 * 2069/249*3.14=24.9277108
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Manchu: -5
 * Mughals: 0
 * Marwar: 0
 * SCK: -5
 * Fuschatio: 0
 * Liao: 5
 * Dai Veit: 5
 * Safavids: 0
 * Jaisalmer: +5
 * Roman Empire: 0
 * Castile: 0
 * Aragon: 0
 * Population:  +8 (26,000,000)
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 490,000/1,000,000 = 0

China (Defender)
​Total: 63
 * Location: 4
 * China (5)
 * Korea (4)
 * Haixi (4)
 * Mongol Khandate (4)
 * Pegu (3)
 * Lan Xang (4)
 * Khmer (3)
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations Per Side: China (L), Korea (LV), Haixi (LV), Mongol (LV), Pegu (LV), Lan Zang (LV), Khmer (LV) More than 3 vassals -2 =18/36=0
 * Military Development:  6*7*2=84
 * Economic Development: 7*7*2=98
 * Infrastructure: 7
 * Economic Bonus: +4 (various locations) Smaller economy -2 = 2
 * Motive: 23
 * China : Defending Heartland from attack that will not cripple/ destroy nation: (+ 5)
 * Korea: Aiding an Ally (+3)
 * Hiaxi: Aiding an Ally (+3)
 * Mongol: Aiding an Ally (+3)
 * Pegu: Aiding an Ally (+3)
 * Lan Xang: Aiding an Ally (+3)
 * Khmer: Aiding an Ally (+3)
 * Chance:4
 * Edit count: 4921
 * UTC Time: 19:12 = 18
 * 4921/18 * 3.14 = 858.44111
 * Nation Age: China (5), Korea (5), mongol (0), Hiaxi (0) Lan Xang (0) Khmer (0)= 1
 * Population: 100,000,000 (+9)
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 1000/490,000= 2

Result
((82/(63+82))*2)-1=0.1310344827586207

(0.1310344827586207)*(1-1/(2*3)) = 0.1091954022988505833

The Basque Terrorist organization and allies can take 10.9195 % of china

Discussion
Forgive my absence I had family matters.ALLONS-Y!!,Basically, RUN!! 22:23, May 26, 2014 (UTC)

The fact that this coallition is occurring in 1500 is ridiculous. I'm calling lockdown and potential mod retcon if other non-affiliated mods agree with me. Fed (talk) 22:39, May 26, 2014 (UTC)

Much as it pains me to agree with Feddy Bear, who not long ago killed my nation (would have happened anyway, true, since I have basically no time to edit anymore due to exams), may I enquire what you're all smoking? And, more importantly, can I get some?

Barring that, does anyone know where I can get adderol?

lel,  22:55, May 26, 2014 (UTC)

Reasons For national involvment WHY seriously why???!!! 23:04, May 26, 2014 (UTC)
 * Manchu: liberation of other manchus
 * Japan: Treaty of Kyoto
 * Mughals: fr helping in India.
 * Liao and Safavds. Allies and trade partners
 * Rome and Spain: trying to get both land and trade (Think Opium War and The US forcing Japan to drop Isolationisim.
 * Oyo: to get better trade from the orient y aiding its allies.

Manchu: Fair.

Japan: I mean I guess but why?

Dai Viet: Fair.

Those are fair, but would get their asses pwned in any  war so uh no.

Mughals, Safavids: Too far, too removed, wouldn't plausibly give a shit.

Rome and Spain: Both of those occurred in the 1800s. We're in the 1500s. I doubt either can send more than 2 or three ships there, and would anyway get far more trade off China than the other nations.

Oyo: Viva, like, actually? Why do you think the largest, richest, most populous, most powerful nation on the planet will give you less trade than a bunch of surrounding titches?

23:08, May 26, 2014 (UTC)

I support Fed's idea of mod locking to determine the legitamcy of this. it is the 1500's  not 1800, these large scale coalitions do not seem plausible to me.ALLONS-Y!!,Basically, RUN!! 23:47, May 26, 2014 (UTC)

Japan's motive is also to stop continued Chinese interference in Japan- I didn't realise that Oyo was involved... seriously? I know Viva will probably get really annoyed and go on a rant, but Oyo shouldn't be in East Asia. I don't really see the East Indies happening, but whatever. Ozymandias2 (talk) 09:43, May 27, 2014 (UTC)

One thing about the --Marwar-Mughal union tho. All nations involved (Marwar, Mughal, Chagatai, Jaisalmer) are connected to the Eurasian Trade Agreement. Seeing as how China is a possible ally of Bengal in any possible future conflicts and seeing as how the Chinese being controlled by an ally would benefit the union greatly and seeing as how according to the Eurasian Trade Agreement nations are not obliged to aid any other nation in the war however they can if they wish to do so (for any ulterior motives). And Chagatai borders Chinese-controlled Qara Del. So depending on the outcome of the second war for Indian (read: Bengali) hegemony the union might actually not only be able to attack, but also to pull a large portion of its army in. <font color="#00AAE4">Sky Green 24 09:52, May 27, 2014 (UTC)