Talk:Principia Moderni II (Map Game)

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Algorithm Format
This is to make things easy for everyone since I find myself doing a heap of algorythms and its a pain in the ass to flp back and forth with the rules.

Nation X
Total:
 * Location:
 * Tactical Advantage:
 * Strength:
 * Military Development:
 * Economy:
 * Infrastructure:
 * Expansion:
 * Motive:
 * Chance:
 * Edit Count:
 * UTC Time:
 * Nation Age:
 * Population:
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars:
 * Recent Wars:

Maps
Maps will be updated every 5 years.

Map Issues
''' Please address any map issues here. They will be wiped at the start of each turn the map is updated. '''
 * The Mayans vassalized the Mangue and Mixtec, so will those nations be the Mayan color or will they remain a light gray? And why are the Incans the same color as Naples?  CourageousLife (talk) 22:04, December 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * Because the Incan player gave up his nation to Naples as a vassal.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 06:48, December 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * If Mixtec and Mangue are vassals, they should have the Mayans' color. 77topaz (talk) 21:17, December 6, 2012 (UTC)

What's the pinkish state in southwestern Australia? 77topaz (talk) 21:17, December 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * The Aborigines, who do not post since the 1460's, and should already have been removed from the map.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 22:15, December 6, 2012 (UTC)

Colonization Order
Tada! Here is a list of nations and the year they can start colonizing away from this main continent. Australia and Oceanic islands are not open to colonies yet.


 * European nations (including Moscovy and Novgorod) can establish colonies in the Americas from the first date, then can start colonizing in the rest of Africa and Asia 30 years later
 * Middle Eastern nations + Ethiopia & India can establish colonies across the rest of Africa and Asia from the first date, then they can start colonizing the Americas 40 years later.
 * Asian nations can colonize the West Coast of America, New Guinea and the East Coast of Africa from their first date, the rest of the world is opened 40 years later.
 * Tribal nations can colonize other continents after naval tech reaches a suitable level.
 * No coastline? Bad luck. DEAL WITH IT!

Europe

 * Aragon 1505 (mid navy, ok position)
 * Austria 1535 (tiny navy, terrible position)
 * Bavaria
 * Brandenburg 1512 (mid navy, bad position)
 * Burgundy 1509 (mid navy, ok position)
 * Cyprus 1545 (tiny navy and a bad position to boot)
 * Denmark 1504 (large navy, ok position)
 * England 1502 (large navy, good position)
 * Florence 1510 (mid navy, bad position)
 * Georgia (about to get owned)
 * Granada 1507 (small navy, good position)
 * Milan 1520 (vassal navy, bad position)
 * Moscovy 1560 (recently established tiny coastline)
 * Naples 1508 (mid navy, ok position)
 * Novgorod 1525 (mid navy, terrible position)
 * Ottomans 1522 (mid navy, ok position)
 * Papal States 1525 (small navy, bad position)
 * Poland 1515 (mid navy, bad position)
 * Portugal 1499 (large navy, prime position)
 * Saxony
 * Scandinavia 1509 (rebuilding navy, good position)
 * Scotland 1506 (small navy, good position)
 * Switzerland
 * Venice 1503 (large navy, good position)

Middle East

 * Ag Qoyunlu 1522 (mid navy, ok position)
 * Ethiopia 1536 (small navy, good postion)
 * Mamluks 1511 (mid navy, good position)
 * Oman 1515 (mid navy, good position)
 * Vijayanagar 1532 (mid navy, ok position)

Asia

 * China 1527 (mid navy, ok position, retarded naval growth thanks to emperor's land focus)
 * Japan 1502 (large navy, prime position in Asia)
 * Korea 1514 (mid navy, ok postion)
 * Majapahit 1518 (large navy, ok position)
 * Manchuria 1533 (small navy, good position but new nation)
 * Siam 1528 (mid navy, bad position)

Other (must wait 30 years before reaching the rest of the globe)

 * Aztec
 * Inca 1530 (poor navy, can colonize Pacific areas)
 * Lakota
 * Maya 1560 (naval tech still terrible, can colonize Atlantic Areas)
 * Zulu 1550 (naval tech still terrible, can colonize Indian and Southern Atlantic Areas)

Discussion

 * And América? aztec, chiche itza, inca? we have navy too Zetsura (talk) 17:31, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * YTour navies are rowboats, sailboats with very small sail, and rowboats. No colonial power there.[[Image:IMPERIAL NY-SPQR 1.png|25px]][[Image:Regen Flag.png|30px|border]] Hasta la vista, baby. (I'll be back.) 18:08, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * im not sure about aztec and mayas, but the incas have ships, and they go to polynesia, acording the spanish cronist in 1460 aprox, the inca Tupac Yupanqui make a trip with 10,000 man to polynesia, and the Kon tiki voyague make in 1960 (in not sure the year) is an expample the this is totally real.Zetsura (talk) 20:51, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * And what about the Zulu?--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 17:56, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Austria can colonize sooner than the Papal States, despite the fact that the States have been improving military on both sides of the peninsula, have been establishing territories through with the encouragement of the navy, while Austria has a tiny sliver of coastal land and would have to go around an entire peninsula to get to the Americas? Other than that, perhaps we should make a sort of algorithm so we have a bit more reliability, not just mod assumptions. ChrisL123 (talk) 18:00, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Anybody have noticed how all complaints until now have started with the letter A?--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 18:01, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Austria, America, Aragon. XD [[Image:IMPERIAL NY-SPQR 1.png|25px]][[Image:Regen Flag.png|30px|border]] Hasta la vista, baby. (I'll be back.) 18:08, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * And Aragon? Isn't Aragon in a good position to colonize Africa as well as in an insanely perfect place to colonize America? [[Image:IMPERIAL NY-SPQR 1.png|25px]][[Image:Regen Flag.png|30px|border]] Hasta la vista, baby. (I'll be back.) 18:08, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Aragon would be in a good position, but Portugal is still the best by far. LurkerLordB (Talk) 18:16, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, but where is Aragon on the list? [[Image:IMPERIAL NY-SPQR 1.png|25px]][[Image:Regen Flag.png|30px|border]] Hasta la vista, baby. (I'll be back.) 18:42, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that it would be somewhere around 1505 and 1510.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 19:54, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyways, I changed the Papal States and Austrians around, because the Austrian position is worse than the Ottomans really, and the Papal states would have a bietter military. On the subject of having an algorithm, that seems a bit hard to make, one of the major factors is location, and that is hard to create any algorithm for. This is making me think that the position of having the first sailor to arrive in the Americas from Europe should be Portugal. Not only are they currently the ones with the earliest possible date, but Collie has had the Portugese to quite a bit of exploring already, more than many other nations with early dates. LurkerLordB (Talk) 18:16, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * I could try to make an algorithm, with all the key factors needed. Just note that tallying the results would probably be like golf, where a lower score means they get to start earlier. Sounds confusing, but hopefully I'll make it work. Stay tuned! ChrisL123 (talk) 19:06, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, but then again, most of the time, i'm just repeating here what the Portuguese explorers actually did during this period of time, and when it come to explorers, Colombo presented his exploration project to Portugal twice.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 19:48, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * well he did but i think you should make that colombus is represented by an rng with all the nations in western europe, the one with the highest score and the best points in the system in here can get being the first in reaching americas, after all i think it should be like in OTL, just a random lucky guy and a random lucky nation like spain Sine dei gloriem (talk) 19:54, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Few European nations are powerful enough to get Columbus to come to them. Moreso there was nothing lucky or random about it in OTL. [[Image:IMPERIAL NY-SPQR 1.png|25px]][[Image:Regen Flag.png|30px|border]] Hasta la vista, baby. (I'll be back.) 19:57, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * i say lucky because as far as every european the world was flat and as it seems to happen in otl colombus was rejected a few times, because no one would pay for something they didn't thought possible such as this travel, and he was lucky enough to have convinced the kings of spain of doing it as far as i know Sine dei gloriem (talk) 20:00, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the first time that Colombo presented his project to Portugal, João II refused it after consulting experts, who told him that the travel distance that Colombo had planned was too low.in the second time, in 1488, he refused because a way to India (arond Africa) had already been discovered.Then, even the Castillian experts also told their monarch, when Colombo presented his proposal there, that the distance planned was too low.However, to keep Colombo from taking his ideas elsewhere, and perhaps to keep their options open, the Catholic Monarchs gave him an annual allowance of 12,000 maravedis and in 1489 furnished him with a letter ordering all cities and towns under their domain to provide him food and lodging at no cost.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 20:07, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought China had a large navy. CrimsonAssassin (talk) 21:42, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * HAD is the crucial word. Thanks to your emperor's idea that naval exploration is a waste of time after Zheng He's voyage, the Chinese navy has suffered to the point where Japanese pirates could shut down most Chinese shipping.Scandinator (talk) 00:59, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * What about the Zulu. We have a coastline and have developed are Navy from the beginning. Enclavehunter (talk) 21:59, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Developing a navy from scratch=shitty tiny naval with no capacity even after 20 years. Your best chance is to reverse engineer a modern ship. Scandinator (talk) 00:57, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * If Muscovy gets a coastline, it can colonize, right? (hint, hint) The Royal Guns (talk) 22:42, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * look, you wont have to worry about not having colonies as long as the the Commonwealth of Great, Little, and White Russia(Commonwealth/Confederation of All the Russias)[hint-hint invasion of poland]-Lx (leave me a message) 23:28, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes you can but I would recommend via Poland, You would have to beat and take over all of Poland and Lithuania... Go through the Crimea if you can. (hinthint, nudgenudge) Scandinator (talk) 00:57, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well Novgorod has control over most of the baltic via the hanseatic league, and has de-facto control over the Hanseatic Navy, and the navy will be built up continuously as long as there are people that sign up, we will build more ships...although we do need to broker an alliance with Danemark or Sweden to pass through the baltic with warships, but we have no problem passing through the baltic with explorers or traders, all we need to do is install Hanseatic trade posts along the Kattegat strait, and we have de facto free passage, so long as the league has interest, and resources of a new continent are a strong motivator and I believe that the hasea will help a novgorodian expidition leave the baltic.-Lx (leave me a message) 23:16, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * You and what league? Burgundy has no wish to be in a trade league considering they have the largest port on the Atlantic, Friesland is Burgundian now, Denmark trades through Stockholm, Brandenburg through Venice, Poland through Venice. All you have is Prussia trading through you. Even Scotland and England with their Novgorodian trade posts still send most of their goods to Antwerp. Scandinator (talk) 00:57, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * Stockholm is a member of the Hansa, the hansa has an actual navy that patrols the baltic sea, Burgundy has trade agreements with novgorod and is still part of the league, and In northern germany, it is not venice who holds influence(eh-hem how can you control trade that far away eh?) in northern germany, but the New Hansa controled by Novgorod and the Imperial Trade Guild of the HRE(I think that is what it is called), that was formed because of the apparent demise of the Hansa...an oportunity novgorod took to take control of it. I think it was Lurker that said that it was impossible for venice's influence to reach that far north if novgorod was keeping the league alive, not to mention i spent the last 10 years at least trying to undo the dammage you did aswell as reorgonize the Hansa-Lx (leave me a message) 01:20, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * Since I now have Manchuria, do we get the "good position" perk? Thanks. Flag_of_South_Korea.png PitaKang- (But here's my number | So call me maybe) 12:22, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * You didn't take enough of Manchuria to make a difference. LurkerLordB (Talk) 17:07, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely Korea is in a better position than Manchuria, Manchuria has very few warm water ports... VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 23:10, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm planning on eventually crossing the Bering Strait to colonize the sleeper property known as Alaska. I'll just have to expand my territory until I can get to that point. Yank 02:52, October 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * We Muscovians now have a coastline. Uncross us please. (We have one on the baltic as part of the Poland treaty, and have a treaty with Novgorod allowing us to put our ships through their ports (and vice versa)). The Royal Guns (talk) 20:16, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey I think as Granada I deserve to be on this list. I have a pretty good position and my navy may be F'ing terrible but I'm working on it. Willster22 (User talk:Willster22) 21:51, October 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * Could I also have my navy updated? I've been continually expanding my navy for at least 15 years. Airlinesguy (talk) 09:51, October 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you add Bengal??? Tipakay (talk) 15:11, October 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * Since Russia(novgorod) took over Prussia, do we not get a better position?-Lx (leave me a message) 13:22, October 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Muscovy has been working flat out on the nav since we got a coastline. Can we be upgraded?The Royal Guns (talk) 23:18, October 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * China's been exploring for some time and expanding its navy. Doing the algorithm for colonization, the numbers came out to be 1521 (lol June 1521). May I change the order to reflect this? Also, what about Hawaii? Since China's been exploring in that area, do they have to wait until 1521 or may they do that earlier? CrimsonAssassin (talk) 01:41, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

Colonization Order Algorithm (Proposal)
As promised, I have written up an algorithm proposal that lists several key factors needed in order to successfully colonize. While it is mostly for American colonization, I have included some for south Asian nations. The algorithm works by tallying numbers that can be found through common sense, geographical details and player's turns. Unlike most algorithms, I'd assume players would want a lower score, because the algorithm determines the year by tallying up the results and adding 1500 to the total. I have included an example for Portugal and the Papal States.

Location
Add all that apply (e.g., Southern Europe and Central Mediterranean)
 * In Southern Europe (i.e., below the ): -3
 * In Eastern Asia: -2
 * In the western Mediterranean: -1
 * In Northern Europe (i.e., above the ): 0
 * In the center of the Mediterranean: +1
 * In Southern Asia: +2
 * In the eastern Mediterranean: +3
 * In Northern Africa: +4
 * In Western Asia: +5
 * Touching the Atlantic: *1.5
 * Touching the Pacific: *1.5

Travel

 * Traveling to Eastern Africa: +5
 * Traveling across the Indian Ocean: +8
 * Traveling across the Atlantic: +10
 * Traveling across the Pacific: +12
 * Traveling to Southern Africa: +15

Availability
Add all that apply
 * Ships must travel through a straight (e.g Gibraltar, Bosphorus): +5
 * Nations rely on a vassal for navy (e.g. Milan): +6
 * Ships must travel around a peninsula to colonize: +7
 * e.g., Novgorod around Scandinavia, Venice around Italy, Brandenburg around Denmark
 * Amount of coastland:
 * Miniscule coast (e.g. Austria) : +10
 * Little coast (e.g. Poland): +7
 * Nation's border halfly consists of a coast (e.g., Portugal, Papal States): +3
 * Majority coastal (e.g. England): -1

Naval establishment

 * Navy was created __ years ago:
 * 1-10: +40
 * 10-20: +30
 * 20-50: +15
 * 50-100: +5
 * 100-400: -3
 * More than 400 years: -4
 * Naval expansion: (-0.5*x), where x is the number of turns of naval expansion
 * New to colonialism: +8
 * Have a territory in the same continent: +1
 * Vassals/territories: (-0.5(x)), where x represents the number of vassals/territories
 * Islands colonized: (-0.25(x)), where x represents the number of islands (on the map?)

Navy size

 * Tiny navy: +15
 * Small navy: +10
 * Medium navy: +5
 * Large navy: -3

Motive
Add all that apply:
 * For exploration: +2
 * Religious reasons: +3
 * For profit: +3
 * For land: +4

Other
Add all that apply
 * Won a war using the navy: -1
 * Lost a war using the navy: +2
 * In economic ruin: +8
 * Lack of funding due to wars: +5
 * Economically stable: -2

Examples
Note that these examples are for colonizing the Americas, as shown by +10.


 * Portugal: 1500-(3*1.5)+10+3-3+(-0.5*8)-1+(-0.25(9))-3+3-2 = 1496.25 or 1496
 * Aragon: 1498 to 1507
 * England: 1500+(0*1.5)+10-1-4+(-0.5*11)+1+(-0.25*3)-3+3-1+2-2= 1498.75 or 1499.
 * Venice: 1500-3+1+10+5+7+3-3+(-0.5*10)+1+(-0.5*3)-3+3-1-2 = 1511.5 or 1512
 * Papal States: 1500-3+1+10+5+3+(-0.5*10)+(-0.5*3 territories)+1+10+3-1+5 = 1523.5 or 1524
 * Refer to this for a better detailed analysis.

Must say, it works out pretty well. But it's always opened to other factors. ChrisL123 (talk) 00:07, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
This needs some tweaking, We have Middle Eastern and Asian nations that need their own little algorithm for travel. Those numbers also have to separate for even the Europeans. Suggestion: BTW this is for reaching, NOT establishing colonies, you can establish a colony in an area after 40% of the number for the region in years has passed. e.g. For Europe: 4 years after reaching America, 10 years after crossing the Pacific. Rough numbers still. Scandinator (talk) 01:11, September 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * You're right, I never considered the other continents for that. Very nice. ChrisL123 (talk) 01:54, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

For Aragon, using this, I get -3.5 plus whatever the motive is, so earliest would be 1499.5 and latest would be 1501.5 for the Americas. Fascinating. Hasta la vista, baby. (I'll be back.) 01:20, September 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * Not quite, by my calculations it's 1500-3*1.5+3+10+6 (unless you want to the ships to go through Gibraltar) +3-4+(-0.5*9)+5-1-2 = 1511 for the Americas, plus the motive. Might be confusing, but if we get to accepting the algorithm, I could make a page for each nation for us to know the justification of the numbers. ChrisL123 (talk) 01:54, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do touching the Altantic and Pacific have *1.5 modifiers, if the lowest score is the best? Also, the straights and peninsulas should compound. For example, Moldova would have to go through the Bosporous, and through Gibraltar.
 * Also, I should really hope no one would get early than Portugal for Europe, with Norway and Castille's players being pretty much gone (I'm going to actually remove them from the list soon), there really isn't any serious competition. LurkerLordB (Talk) 02:46, September 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * This is what I calculate for Aragon:


 * Location: (-3)+(-1)*1.5 = -4.5
 * Travel: Across the Atlantic: +10
 * Availability: Amount of coastland: +3 (Aragon's entire southern coast is longer in pixels than the border with France and Bearn, but the puny northern coast which borders Navarre (Navarre is NOT a vassal, it is a STATE of the Crown of Aragon, just like Aragon and formerly Naples and the such, which borders the Atlantic.)
 * Naval establishment: -3 (Navy was established in the late 12th Century, although comparable to the current Chichen Itzan navy then.)
 * Naval expansion: (-0.5*9) = -4.5
 * Islands colonized: (-0.25(3))= -1 (The islands off the coast.)
 * Navy size: Medium? +5 (Navy was pretty big, conquering half of the Mediterranean coastline countries, but I'll go with 5)
 * Motive: Depends. In most cases it would be 2 or the second three.
 * Other: Economically stable, -2; have a territory in the same continent; +1
 * The "won a war with the navy" one only counts in-game. ChrisL123 (talk)
 * Total: (Motive is 2, Navy size is 5) = 1506 (Motive is 2, Navy size is large) = 1498 (Motive is three, navy size is medium) = 1507 (Motive is 3, Navy size is large) = 1499

So at best, 1498, and at worst, 1507. Not bad. Hasta la vista, baby. (I'll be back.) 03:26, September 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * Whoops, I did say military expansion, it should say naval expansion. And I counted 9 turns of naval expansion by Aragon, so (-0.5*9). I also fixed your calculations. Not bad indeed. ChrisL123 (talk) 03:54, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

Those *1.5 are multiplying numbers that are negative, so it would increase their value negatively, which would benefit them. (e.g., southern Europe [-3] touching the Atlantic [*1.5] means [-2*1.5] = -4.5) As for Portugal, they should still be the winner. I've done Venice and Aragon, two big players that I could think of, and they're over, though England will still have to be calculated. ChrisL123 (talk) 02:52, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

Note that I was referring to Portugal, assuming they don't get devestated by some war. LurkerLordB (Talk) 02:59, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

England would have...

England = 1500 + (0 x 1.5) + 10 - 1 - 4 - (1.5 x 11) - (0.25 x 3) - 3 + 3 - 1 + 2 - 2 =

1500 - 0 + 13 + 17 - 1 - 1 = 1528 I consider this algorithm brilliant, thoguh some things may be should be changed (something to make me reach America first, if possible ^^) in somethings, but I think is fair enough. --Galaguerra1 (talk) 03:59, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I expand my navy almost everyturn, I suppose it would be around 11 to 13 in the last 15 years... I calculate 11.
 * 2) I count Ireland, Man and the Dodecanesian Islands as colonized, that's 3.
 * 3) I expand for profit, to find a way to India.
 * 4) All my wars I have won with the navy, thoguh also every one that I've lost.
 * 5) I consider myself as economically stable.
 * 6) I round 16.5 (1.5 x 11) to 17.
 * 7) I round 0.75 (0.25 x 3) to 1.

You did a few things wrong. I'll show you:
 * In Northern Europe: 0
 * Touching the Atlantic: *1.5
 * Crossing Atlantic: +10
 * Majority coastal: -1
 * Naval origin: -4 (More than 400 years)
 * Naval expansion: (-0.5*11) = -5.5
 * Have a territory in the same continent: +1
 * Islands colonized: (-0.25(3)) = -0.75
 * Large navy: -3
 * For profit: +3
 * Won a war using the navy: -1
 * Lost a war using the navy: +2 (I think the English-Scottish incident counts as a loss?)
 * Economically stable: -2

-unsigned post by someone
 * Total: 1500+(0*1.5)+10-1-4+(-0.5*11)+1+(-0.25*3)-3+3-1+2-2= 1498.75 or 1499.

The English-Scottish incident never turned into a full on war. However, I wouldn't know if the English navy should be counted as lasting for more than 400 years, they didn't have a full-on, modern navy until the reign of Henry VIII in OTL. LurkerLordB (Talk) 12:46, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

Also, I think we might want to change the islands colonized thing to specify that it is islands a significant distance away from the mainland, like at least the north-south-length of Italy away, islands just off the coast shouldn't count. LurkerLordB (Talk) 12:51, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, If you control an island a few km from your main nation, its not a colony. England for example can only claim that Greek isle. Scandinator (talk) 13:36, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

Also for the Venetian calculation, Venice is a coastal state, the entire nation is based off an archipelago off the Italian Peninsula. The navy has been around since the 9th century where it was used against Dalmatian pirates. We also have vassals and islands which a located far away from the main section of Venice.. Scandinator (talk) 13:49, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I still don't really see the need for this algorithm, the people who are going to be leading the list either way are going to be the same really. Also, I think that both this algorithm and the other list might be accelerating the process too much, this would have all of Europe colonizing the New World by 1540 or so, when historically only a handful of nations were able to colonize at all. LurkerLordB (Talk) 14:55, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

Yes. look at Courland.they were pretty much as well-located as Novgorod, and only were able to colonize in the mid 17th century.and this having a large merchant fleet.and they failed eventually.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 16:39, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

The problem is if we forced players to wait months and months to expand they would not be happy. Scandinator (talk) 04:39, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

Reworking the Algorithm (primarily for coalitions)
This is to make things easy for everyone since I find myself doing a heap of algorythms and its a pain in the ass to flp back and forth with the rules.

Saamwiil brought up a really good point about the coalition algorithm currently putting a lot of very small states at an advantage compared to a single large one. Thus, I have come up with a new algorithm idea.

List of leader nations
Good? LurkerLordB (Talk) 02:23, October 9, 2012 (UTC)
 * Location: Works the same, (4 for close, 2 for far, etc.) in getting the numbers. Each leader has their own number. All the leader numbers are averaged (then rounded to the nearest whole number)
 * Tactical Advantage: The +5 for larger colonial empire goes to whatever side has the larger combined empire. The +1 for attacker's advantage remains. The +2 for high ground remains for whatever side has more cases of high ground
 * Strength: Remains the same
 * Military Development: Combined military development for each leader nation in the coalition for the past 15 years. 1 year is still +2
 * Expansion: Combined expansion for each leader nation over the last 15 years
 * Motive: Works the same
 * Chance: Works the same, whichever player nation declares war the first.
 * Nation Age: Average of the nation age bonuses rounded to the nearest whole number (so if one side has 2 normal nations (+0) and one old nation, they get 5/3 which is rounded to 2)
 * Population: The digits for the combined population of each side are used. The ratio bonus is the same as well.
 * Participation: Same
 * Recent Wars: Would use my proposal I have for all wars, -1 for each war you send military aid to in the last 15 years, non-compounding, -1 for the first year of a war as the leader, doubling each turn (so a 1 year war as leader gets -1, 2 years gets -2, 3 gets -4, etc.)

Sounds good. Saamwiil, the Humble 03:20, October 9, 2012 (UTC)

Awesome!  Doctor261  (Talk to me!) 03:29, October 9, 2012 (UTC)

How about we also add an economic development, and an infrastructure development, working the same as military, only 1 year= +1?

Also, about that compounding thing... won't that mean some major problems? A 6 year war would wipe out most nations... which it wouldn't OTL.

The Royal Guns (talk) 20:30, October 9, 2012 (UTC)

Economic development doesn't benefit the military though. People need to have a choice between building up their military and improving their economy. The problem is that currently we don't have any real in-game incentive for focusing on your economy instead of your military.

As for the compounding you are right, -64 for an 8 year war is bad, perhaps we should just have it be -1 for 1 year, -2 for 2 years, -3 for 3 years, then -3 for each additional year? LurkerLordB (Talk) 20:37, October 9, 2012 (UTC)

The compounding thing is more for a modern war. Back in those days, wars were fought by tiny professional armies. This is the reason America and France won their revolutionary wars - more people to zerg rush with! Scandinator (talk) 00:21, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

But having long wars always weakened people. The Byzantines and Sassanids lost to the Muslims because they were fighting for so long. LurkerLordB (Talk) 02:08, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

On the same note, wars in the earlier days lasted for decades. Wars in the modern era (the last two centuries) tend to last only a few years, and can be recovered from. Need I remind you about Japan's miraculous recover after WWII? It all depends on how long the war is.There needs to be strict punishments for wars that last over a decade or so.

Yank 02:21, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

True.. but if you're in the middle of a economic breakdown, you can't pay your soldiers, you can't afford to feed them, so you can't field an army. I like your idea with the compounding though.

Infrastructure, there should be one if you are attacked, because it's the single most important factor in getting troops to where they need to be to fight.

The Royal Guns (talk) 23:26, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

But I can't think of any incentive for people to build economy or infrastructure that would be different from military expansion. We need a way to differentiate between the three. LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:39, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

Massive Algorithmic changes
There has arisen a plausibility and fairness problem that I did not foresee. In the current war of the Caliphate and the Holy Roman Empire, the problem of people counting vassals and nations they are in union with as full nations, and adding their military development to the war, creates a problem.

I will state that the example given on this page, as to why the old coalition algorithm was bad, that convinced me to overhaul it was Saamwiil's; he brought up the good point that a league of San Marinos could overpower a China. And that is true; for every algorithm, each nation at least gets like 30-40 points at minimum, with several of these added together, China's +20 in population would be feeble, and the San Marinos would triumph. So I made the new algorithm, in which, I hoped, the problem would be solved. And it did help in regards to the population, and to nations giving aid, and chance, and many other aspects of the war. Yet there was one that I did not foresee.

Alas, for I realized that due to military buildup, the problem remained. The league of San Marinos, having built their military up for the past 15 years, would get a military buildup bonus in the hundreds. The same situation, which Saamwiil described, could occur. I had failed to prevent the implausibility and unfairness. I should have considered this when making the new algorithm for coalitions.

I thought of several solutions. I could make it so that military buildup has to be averaged, or something of that nature, but that would be unfair to players who spent many turns building up their militaries. I thought of making military buildup only be +1 instead of +2, like it was in the last game, but unfortunately that would only make it so that the League of San Marinos would require to double their numbers to overpower China.

And then a solution came to me, a radical solution, that could potentially alter the entire algorithm with huge consquences. We prevent the algorithm from simply becoming a game of adding numbers, of whoever can add and add the most 2's and 3's to their lists of allies and military buildups.

We keep the current score systems for military buildup, number of allies sending supplies or military aid, or expansion. However, for the actual number that goes into the total that will go into the results, we will not use the raw number of allies or military buildup. Instead, we will use the ratio between the two nations.

For example, let's say that China has, on its side of the algorithm, a combined ally score totalling to 22 and a combined military buildup totalling to 24. Meanwhile, the League of San Marinos combined total is 20 for allies and military buildup of 88. We would find the larger score divided by the smaller one, and round to the nearest whole number, and give that number to the side with the larger number. Zeroes, for the sake of this, will count as ones.

Allies: 22/20=1.1=1, so China would get +1 for having just barely more allies than the League.

Military Buildup:88/24=3.666...=4, so the San Marinos get +4 for building up their military more.

This type of system would have several benefits for the game: Also, on the subject on economic buildup and infrastructure: Economic buildup would function exactly like military buildup: +20 for each year involved in a war. However, players would still want to alternate between improving their military and their economy, because if a player only improved their military for 10 turns, and their economy for zero, and their opponent improved their military for 5 and their economy for 5, the player would only get +2 for their military buildup, while the opponent would get +5 for their economic buildup. Infrastructure would be a +1 for each turn, adding in total to the algorithm but only for defensive wars.
 * 1) It makes motive, location, chance, and expansion, currently dwarfed by the huge numbers generated by military buildup and number of allies, into play for the end result.
 * 2) It makes that population number the biggest number for most wars, which makes sense since population is a big factor.
 * 3) It allows us to differentiate between economic buildup and military buildup if we want to add economic buildup to the score.

To finalize a solution for the past wars problem: every war in the past 15 years that you or a vassal sends military aid to war, you get -1 for that war. Every war that you led in the past 15 years you get -1 per year. With the lower scoring algorithms (thanks to using ratios instead of enormous ally and military buildup numbers), these smaller penalties would work.

Would the players of this game be willing to implement such a drastic change? LurkerLordB (Talk) 02:13, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

I'm in. Sounds all good to me. But can it be implemented after the Caliphate war? It's already confusing enough as it is. Hasta la vista, baby. (I'll be back.) 02:37, October 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course, this would be for future wars. LurkerLordB (Talk) 04:06, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

Well what if China doesn't have any allies (or hardly any)? What do we do when we need to divide by zero? I assume you'd swap China & San Marino around as numerator & denominator, but still 20/1 = 20. Just because the league of San Marinos have more allies doesn't mean that they should be stronger than China. Now the bias towards large alliances is emphasized more. A more relevant comparison might be if the HRE decided to invade France. The HRE would still get a huge ally boost as they are all fragmented but as a single state still in terms of all the other factors similar to France. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 02:58, October 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * China, and all other nations, would get at least +4 for ally score, as it would have +4 for leading. So to get a score of 20, you would need to have allies totalling up to 80, which is usually unlikely. Even then, you getting an 20 point bonus for 80 ally points still makes the emphasis towards large alliances less than getting 80 points for that.


 * I really did not understand that last HRE and France sentance at all, I'm sorry. Can you try rewriting it? LurkerLordB (Talk) 04:06, October 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * The HRE & France example I was using instead of the league of San Marinos vs China example. The HRE would have a lot more allies/nation leaders in the event of a HRE-France war, and they'd get a lot more points than France because they are separate states. Even though a couple of HRE states vs France in terms of common sense would mean France should win but the algorithm would favour the HRE simply because they are separate states. As you say, this is made even worse because France is NPC so they have few allies. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 15:28, October 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * The thing is that problem exists in the current set up even worse. If we changed it to this, the problem would be less problematic than it is currently, though still existant. I can't think of any way to mitigate it without jacking up the population factor to be utterly powerful. LurkerLordB (Talk) 02:08, October 22, 2012 (UTC)

I have noticed that this will make NPCs incredibly weak though. Perhaps we should give NPCs some sort of bonus to prevent them from being steamrolled? (but still being weaker than player nations). LurkerLordB (Talk) 04:06, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, we could put a NPC bonus, but that should only apply to NPC nations which actually have a chance.

You used my idea =D

The Royal Guns (talk) 19:12, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

Also, I recommend we take out the Nation age thing, except for very new nations (0- 25), and very old nations (750+). Other than that, it shouldn't grant or take away points, because at that point it makes no difference.

Don't forget to add the changes to the rules page...

The Royal Guns (talk) 19:25, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

I don't get the economy part... Also, I'm thinking: shouldn't we also cut down the amount of points given by allies. Ex. Military aid is now three, we should reduce it to two. Supplies is now 2, and it would be reduces to one. I believe this would be benificial because as said, they're not actually leading, it's just a few troops. Saamwiil, the Humble 19:33, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

i like the idea to remove nation age until it becomes a major factor(see Guns post) I also am for evening out the amount of points that NPC's would get so they don't just get steam rolled, as for the massive changes Lurk mentioned above, I agree that it is necasary, although I'm a little lost on how it works in relation to the current alogrithm, is the math any drastically different? And before we just all blindly vote on it, will it remove the nastyness that is the HRE-Caliphate war?Andr3w777 (talk) 20:57, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

The nation age thing is to encourage people to change their governments every so often, so that governments don't last forever.

Can you be more specific as to what you don't get about the economy?

If we did that, Saamwiil, we wouldn't be able to differentiate between vassals and major nations, and we wouldn't be able to show nations withdrawing from a side.

Does anyone have any ideas how to give the NPCs a slight advantage?

Andr3w777, I'll try to make a sample algorithm tomorrow or the next day.

It would not remove the HRE-Caliphate war. LurkerLordB (Talk) 02:08, October 22, 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how working on the economy say for 5 and military on 5, vs economy for or military for 10. Saamwiil, the Humble 14:35, October 22, 2012 (UTC)

For NPCs, I guess you could give them an NPC boost, based on population (eg, +5 for 5 digits, +6 for 6 digits)

Still, as it is, it doesn't encoyurage the changing of government, because if they stay ancient they get minus 5, if they change they get minus 10.

The Royal Guns (talk) 19:05, October 22, 2012 (UTC)

Saamwiil, if you work on the economy for five and military for five, and your opponent works on the military for 10 and economy for 0, He gets 10/5 for the military, so 2 points, while you get 5/1 for the economy, so 5 points. So you get 3 points more than if you just worked on one.

But after the -10 expires, you get -0, and then after that you get +5. LurkerLordB (Talk) 20:58, October 22, 2012 (UTC)

Well, should we implement this for all future wars? (starting with the Indian war that just began)? LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:19, October 24, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, there has been no large resistance to this change being enacted. The way I see it, this is the new algorithm. I would say the rules page could do with being updated with the new algorithm and the other new rule changes since the game's start. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 23:36, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

OK, this is now implemented, and will go into effect for all wars starting 1502 or later. The rules page should be updated, I will try to do it tomorrow if I can. LurkerLordB (Talk) 02:26, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

Bengal
Total: 66
 * Location: ((4+4)/2) = +4
 * Tactical Advantage: +6 (Larger Colonial Empire & attackers advantage)
 * Strength: Bengal (L), Lanka (MV), Brunei (M), Deccan (L), Koli (M), Gujarat (M), Balochistan (M), Afghanistan (M), Yemen (M), Hadramaut (M), Shaybah (M), Oman (M), Persia (M), Tibet (M), Kashmir (MV), Nepal (MV), Bhutan (MV), the Shan Sultanate (MV), Ava (MV): 53 - 53/21 = (2.52) +3
 * Military Development: (7 years each - 14 + 14) = 28 - 28/6 = (4.6) +5
 * Economic Development: (0 years for Bengal and 7 years for Deccan - 0 + 14) = +14
 * Expansion: -2
 * Motive: +5
 * Chance: +7
 * Edit Count: 113
 * UTC Time: 21:27 - 2*1*2*7 = 28
 * 113/28*pi= 12.678570352
 * Nation Age: (5 + 0): +5
 * Population: +10
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: -1 (Dimurats -1)

Hindustan
Total: 42
 * Location: +5
 * Tactical Advantage: 0
 * Strength: Hindustan (L), Gajapati (MV), Muscovy (S), Poland (S), Novgorod (S), Baltica (SV), Moldova (SV), Ruthenia (SV), Luthuania (SV), Polish Prussia (SV), Ukraine (SV), Brandenburg (M): 22 - 0
 * Military Development: (3 years so score of 6) 0
 * Economic Development: 0
 * Infrastructure Development: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +10
 * Chance: +9
 * Edit Count: 9,428
 * UTC Time: 00:56 - 5*6 = 30
 * 9,428/30*pi= 987.297851268
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: +8
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: 0

Result
Following the 8 year long war, a Bengali-Caliphate victory was achieved.

((66/(42+66))*2)-1 = 0.22222222222 = 22.22%

Combined with the victory from the first Bengali-Hindustan war, a total of 34.22% has been achieved meaning that the Hindustani government is overthrown.

Hindustan and its vassals are therefore split between the Hashemite Caliphate and the Sultanate of Bengal.

Discussion
Just a quick rough algorithm for this war.

Well, as Hindustan seems to be shown as a union of 3 countries - I will use that in the algorithym. Imp (Say Hi?!) 12:32, November 17, 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to add in the Caliphate stuff tomorrow, I'm too busy tonight to be able to. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 19:34, November 17, 2012 (UTC)

If the Caliphate interferes in any way, I will forced to call upon my other allies. Imp (Say Hi?!) 19:40, November 17, 2012 (UTC)

You are completely ignoring the technological constraints and geopolitics of the 1500s if you think its plausible for Russia and Europe to get involved in an Indian war. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 19:49, November 17, 2012 (UTC)

WAIT WHAT? THAT WAS NOT ME! I DID NOT POST THAT. The Royal Guns (talk) 15:15, November 18, 2012 (UTC)

K, guns! Imp (Say Hi?!) 16:54, November 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry, I thought someone was trying to pretend to be me. Sorry The Royal Guns (talk) 23:40, November 18, 2012 (UTC)

And you guys do not have the larger population. Hindustan easily would. Imp (Say Hi?!) 17:10, November 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * We discussed last war that the difference of populations is not as large as you put it to be, and since this is Bengal and the Deccan I would believe we could have the largest population. Fed (talk) 20:28, November 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * The Deccan has a lot of barren land, while Hindustan and its union country would infact have more as Hindustan's union country has the Yamuna flowing through it easily giving it a higher population than Deccan. So no, they would not have a larger population. [[Image:1.png|23px]] Imp (Say Hi?!) 21:45, November 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * What's more, you control part of the Deccan. The Royal Guns (talk) 23:40, November 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * Bengal has most of the Ganges running through it! Plus Deccan is a union country in the Caliphate. Our two countries have more people. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 00:30, November 19, 2012 (UTC)

Three fleets from the Brandenburgian Phillippines have travelled to Hindustan to supply men and arms, on land only. M or MV? Fegelein! Fegelein! Fegelein! 20:40, November 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * M mate. [[Image:1.png|23px]] Imp (Say Hi?!) 21:12, November 18, 2012 (UTC)

Russia can sends part of their South atlantic(african) trade flotilla and can easily sends upplies through the khanates as they are in civil unrest and not very central.-Lx (leave me a message) 20:57, November 18, 2012 (UTC)

That's extremely implausible; Russia and Brademburg wouldn't care, as it would be "wolves killing each other", and since both supply spices through them and Syria is closer than Orissa they wouldn't be affected. You're just metagaming because you don't like the Caliph. Fed (talk) 21:16, November 18, 2012 (UTC)

How can that be metagaming? And no, for Brandenburg and Russia, if Hindustan wins then they will have an ally in the region so when they (Europeans) colonise they will have Hindustani backing. Plus, I did warn the Caliphate that if any of its member states interfered I would use my allies. Imp (Say Hi?!) 21:45, November 18, 2012 (UTC)

Russia can't possibly send any supplies through the Khanates. The Russians and Brandenburgians could send supplies to Hindustan, but military aid seems a bit much (maybe Brandenburg, but not Russia). LurkerLordB (Talk) 23:25, November 18, 2012 (UTC)

Why? Russia has land not more than a few thousand km north of the Lands here. They are all fractured Khanates, who will be conquered over the next 15-20 years. A massive shipment of troops and weaponry would OBVIOUSLY be allowed through.

And in any case, Both Brandenburg and Muscovy have worked on their navies for 50 +years, AND we now control the Caspian, so via the Tigris-Euphrates we can get to the Persian Gulf, and once we're there... The Royal Guns (talk) 23:40, November 18, 2012 (UTC)

No the Caliphate controls the Caspian, we wouldn't let you through. And the Khanate territory is lawless, your army would be destroyed by bandits.

Plus Bengal-Caliphate has a large population than Hindustan. Also Hindustan has not worked on their economy in the past 15 years at all, so you get no points for it.

Furthermore it is meta-gaming because prior to this war, Russia and Brandenburg had no contact with Hindustan and have no influence in the region. Those two countries are trying to join solely because the players told each other about it, so since your nations had no relations prior to the war it is meta-gaming as your only getting involved via out-of-game activity. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 00:16, November 19, 2012 (UTC)

Au contraire, my finely feathered British friend. Brandenburg has been to Hindustan and Bengal nearly ten times in the past, each time pushing for a trade right and/or an alliance. Only recently was the offer accepted by Hindustan, eliminating Bengal's chance for getting aid. Also, I have missed no more than seven turns throughout the whole games, and each had a little piece dedicated to building up the navy, since the army was already massive. On top of that the Teutonic Knights are under my command and they do have a navy. And I have a fleet in Japan for exploration of East Asia and three in the Phillippines, all can easily be sent off. Fegelein! Fegelein! Fegelein! 01:17, November 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you noticed my plumage but you still ignore European countries don't get involved in Indian wars with so little on offer to themselves. The amount of money it costs you to send these exploration fleets is astronomically high compared to the benefits you'll get. Especially considering they'll be going up against the massive Caliphate Indian Ocean navy, so would loose almost instantly. It makes no economic sense. But I'm glad you agree Russia has no business there. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 16:29, November 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Who said the fleets were fighting? Just men and supplies to die in Indian hell. Most Kappelists and some Catholics. They're coming from the Phillippines anywho. And I get the Bengal Phillippines and some of Bengal's ports if we win by enough. [[Image:IMPERIAL NY-SPQR 1.png|25px]][[Image:Regen Flag.png|30px|border]] Fegelein! Fegelein! Fegelein! 00:02, November 20, 2012 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for not being here this weekend. Now: in what time Hindustan became a confederation or something, if in the previous war was one country with a vassal, and I have not seen his post in which part becomes a confederation to present so many leaders.... he lost the war, and a part of its territory, and was not playing for several days, so do not have much developed, then the difference in the score should be higher. Now that Brandenburg and Russia want to get into conflict is very unrealistic, and ask a MOD to rule. Russia must pass through nations and deserts and mountains, far from their territory to send troops or resources, meaning through kingdoms that he has no diplomatic relationship like the sultanate of Delhi (islamic country!!), while Brandenburg that only 10 years ago has left Europe and colonized a piece of Antillia, and it makes war on a foreign kingdom iroquis, decided to send a journey to faraway India with army and supplies? Impossible in every way to the year 1525 and also his imaginary colony in philipines against the rules..... so just let it end like this war must end, and stop doing post incredibly impossible. Tipakay (talk) 14:43, November 19, 2012 (UTC)


 * Brandenburg is also Aragon. That answers all your questions. I don't control it, yes, but the Elector does, and the Elector I am and the Elector I shall be. And I will add that my nation is far more powerful than Bengal's. If it were plausible, I would go all out in a one-on-one war on you, no restraints to prove my point. But it's not plausible. There is no "imaginary colony" in the Phillippines, just a colony. My fleets take the Kappelists from there to India to fight, and the rest of the fleet goes to your Phillippine colony, kills anyone who tries to fight, pulls down your flag, and raises ours. Simple. [[Image:IMPERIAL NY-SPQR 1.png|25px]][[Image:Regen Flag.png|30px|border]] Fegelein! Fegelein! Fegelein! 00:02, November 20, 2012 (UTC)

Bengal doesn't have any economic development score Tipakay as Bengal hasn't devoted any turns to economic development in the past 15 years. However I have just noticed by mistake that I've been counting each year of economic / military development as only being +1 when its actually +2 to the score. The algorithm has been updated and my mistake is now gone. So unless anyone else is sending aid, this war is over. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 16:49, November 19, 2012 (UTC)

A) Russia is sending supplies, at the very least- LURK said that was possible.

B) Russia Controls the North Caspian, and has, again, been working on the navy for 50 years.

C) 50,000 men versus a few thousand ragged bandits? Yeah, big challenge.

The Royal Guns (talk) 19:22, November 19, 2012 (UTC)

Your point B is moot, you only just got a Caspian sea port and you can hardly just carry your " 50 year old navy" over land to it from the Baltic. Plus the rest of the Caspian is controlled by the Caliphate. You think we'll just let you past? And these bandits are same ones which a few decades ago had an empire stretching to the Black Sea and you're on their turf: they'd tear you apart via constant raids and attacks. Plus after Russia declares that its going to take over that entire region in the next 20 years (which ain't gonna happen either) the main armies of the region would attack you too, not just bandits. You would not get through at all. This is the 1500s not the 1800s. Not to even mention the Caliphate ships in the Indian Ocean hopelessly outnumber you and wouldn't let you even reach India. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 21:15, November 19, 2012 (UTC)

All the states in Europe without seacoasts can't send supplies, they are too far away. They need coasts to do so. The Caspian Sea doesn't count, its a giant lake surrounded by the Caliphate and Muslim Khanates. The Tigris and Euphrates are nowhere near any Russian or other European nation or the Caspian sea, Guns that is simply not geographically true.

The Khanate armies would not let Russian forces go through their lands. You'd have to fight them in a series of wars first. LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:21, November 19, 2012 (UTC)

Seeing that the Sultanate of Bengal was founded in 1352, it is an old nation so the Bengal-Caliphate alliance gets another +5. This means that our Muslim coalition get 22.22% of Hindustani territory, which combined with the 12% won by Bengal in the last war, we get 34.22% which is enough to overthrow the Hindustani government. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 00:12, November 20, 2012 (UTC)


 * Too bad the two wars were seperated by a good twenty years, so Iam pretty sure even after your take a godamn fifth of my country, I'll still be around. We will wait, 50 years, or a 100, but when we re-emerge, things are going to be a heck of a lot different. [[Image:1.png|23px]] Imp (Say Hi?!) 22:00, November 20, 2012 (UTC)

So, we go the long way around.

Fine, then, overthrow them. But don't be an ass- let Imp stay as a player for that geographic area, even if it is withnthe Caliphate.

And why won't it happen over the next 20 (fine, 30) years? The Royal Guns (talk) 00:23, November 20, 2012 (UTC)

Because I think your over-estimating your own war capabilities and under-estimating the capabilities of those Khanates.

As for Imp, its entirely up to him. We have not discussed what territory change overs are going to happen yet, but I'm welcome to let him have a province or two in the Caliphate assuming he doesn't try to sabotage us from the inside. But I thought he might want to use this opportunity to take over another nation instead. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 00:34, November 20, 2012 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same person here? The Royal Guns (talk) 20:19, November 20, 2012 (UTC)


 * We should be, my first paragraph was referencing to you/Russia and my second paragraph was about Imperium Guy (Imp). Who are you on about? VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 23:03, November 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Umm- no. I was making a reference to Imp and India. Which he seems to play quite a bit. Also, not the ENITRE reason, just a portion- that controlled by Russia and little bit more. ? The Royal Guns (talk) 20:27, November 21, 2012 (UTC)

Okay I declare this war to be over. The Hindustani government is overthrown and becomes subordinate to Bengal and the Caliphate. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 22:03, November 24, 2012 (UTC)

France?
By picking France, which parts of OTL France do I get? Stewdio333 (talk) 17:42, November 21, 2012 (UTC)

Well, there are two claimants to the throne of France.(Auvergne and Bourbon) it is up to you to decide which faction you want to play.Auvergne was the ruling house until the 16th century, but the Bourbon faction usurped the throne, and there's been a civil war, which cooled down sopme time ago, mostly because those factions were too exhausted to keep fighting then.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 19:55, November 21, 2012 (UTC)

Breif Wikibreak
I'll be off until Sunday - Mayans. Keep expanding. CourageousLife (talk) 20:54, November 21, 2012 (UTC)

Problems
There's a certain problem with Catholocism, and that's that everyone supports it. To date, almost no major Catholic state has even attempted tolerance, forget conversion- and the one that did, Saxony, then was forced to swiftly backpedal and destroy the Kappelist population due to the HRE threatening to send in the troops. Bavaria plans to become Kappelist, but seriously, some other states need to do this too. Otherwise, the reformation will be screwed off. Remember that the Reformation was one of the biggest keys to the eventual Imperial age of Europe.

Also, forget ye not that the majority of the population will be Kappelist, if Kappel protested the same things as Luther. The common people also think the Church is getting corrupt and extravagant.

The Royal Guns (talk) 21:06, November 22, 2012 (UTC)

Well, as a Catholic nation, Portugal at least tried to not to go to the extremes that Brandenburg went to.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 21:30, November 22, 2012 (UTC)

Bavarian War (1529 - ????)
This war is retconned, it may occur for real if no reasonable agreements can be met.

=== Holy Roman Empire (led by Brandenburg) ===
 * Location:? 4 (surrounding Bavaria on all sides)
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Strength: Brandenburg (L), Luxembourg (MV), Saxony (M?), Austria (M), Tyrolia (MV), Salzburg (MV), Venice (M?), Serbia (M?), Naples (M?), Savoy (M?), Bosnia-Montengro (M), Florence (M), Milan (M?), Swiss Confederacy (M?): Currently 40/25=,1.6~2 unless some people decide to go from M to L or S, and if others join the war
 * Military Development: Brandenburg (+28),
 * Economy: Brandenburg (+1),
 * Infrastructure: Brandenburg (+1),
 * Expansion:
 * Motive:
 * Chance:


 * Edit Count:
 * UTC Time:

Total:? 58 flat, excluding possibilities and chance.
 * Nation Age: +5 (Brandenburg),
 * Population: +9
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: -3 (It's three per war, right?)

Bavaria

 * Location 5
 * Tactical Strength 2
 * Strength: Bavaria Munchen(L), Bavaria Straubing(L), Thuringia(MS), Milan?, Genoa?, England? Calais? Naples? (25?)
 * Military Development: Bavaria (+23), Thurngia(+13?)
 * Economy: Bavaria +1
 * Infrastructure: +1
 * Expansion
 * Motive: 10 Survival
 * Chance:

Total?
 * Edit Count:
 * UTC Time:
 * Nation Age +5
 * Population +10(historically more people than Brandenburg)
 * Recent Wars: no recent wars

Discussion:
I'm not good at this stuff so somebody please go over it

Also isnt technically wrong to put up people to fight unless they said they would? Alot of those people up top are my allies, so............ anyway just to let yall know it is complete hogwash for the HRE to declare war over a differnet branch of Christianity in the midst of the DME, never happened in OTL. I am doing what the mods wanted, having a KAppelist state, the reformation was supposed to win you know.

~ Andrew

Well, you did leave the HRE, which was unrequited for. Secession means war, plain and simple. Also, I think the ATL Brandenburg has more people than Bavaria, taking into account Courland and the such. I'm not even counting the colonies, and I don't think your population has 8 digits. Anywho, the HRE obviously has more peopl that you anyhow. Fegelein! Fegelein! Fegelein! 17:20, November 23, 2012 (UTC)

Tis true thought you were doing individual states, anyway Munich is the OTL 3rd largest city, Bavaria today has about 12,595,891by contrast Brandenburg in OTL only has 2,495,635 The city of Berlin is independent but if you add it will only be 3,501,872 so that is about 6 mill or so, clearly Bavaria is more populated, even in this time.Anywho, if I lose will I be forced out of PM II? I do like this game.Andr3w777 (talk) 17:29, November 23, 2012 (UTC)


 * No, you can play as either a vassal state of Brandenburg or another country, if we win by enough, cause it looks like I'm the only leader at present. [[Image:IMPERIAL NY-SPQR 1.png|25px]][[Image:Regen Flag.png|30px|border]] Fegelein! Fegelein! Fegelein! 17:44, November 23, 2012 (UTC)

forgot to add Baden Wurttemburg into population in OTL around 10,786,227 here is the website http://www.citypopulation.de/Deutschland.html

These are present day numbers. The HRE hardly has over 20 million right now, if I'm correct. I'm sure you don't account for well over 50% of that. Fegelein! Fegelein! Fegelein! 17:44, November 23, 2012 (UTC)

 Just for the record, Saxony explicitly stated that it did not invade Bavaria. Only if I am actually obliged to as a member of the HRE (if so, please give me the reference), will Saxony, grudgingly oblige. Callumthered (talk) 17:50, November 23, 2012 (UTC)

<p style="margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;"> See the game page, right below Bavaria's post. The Acting Imperial Government has declared war on the secessionist state of Bavaria. Fegelein! Fegelein! Fegelein! 17:53, November 23, 2012 (UTC)

<p style="margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;"> I'm not sure I want to be anyone's vassal, would that be temp? if not then I'm out. maybe I'll play as a tribe in America or Hungary, or something. I admit I'm a little pissed off, but what can you do? go with the flow.

<p style="margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;"> true very true, my point was I would probably still have a good number of people, I'm currently trying to find numbers for the 1500's, pretty difficult.

<p style="margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em;"> YOu did the military, economic, and infrastructure development wrong.--AP

Implausible Tolerance
As I had feared, players' dislike of getting into wars with each other has produced several examples of implausible religious toleration. I know that you all don't want it to happen, but people and rulers and religious officials are downright religious bigots at this time, and if the Catholic Church doesn't try to crush Kappelism violently, it means that the current Pope is insane. LurkerLordB (Talk) 00:25, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) No Pope during this time would say anything like "tolerate those of different religions".? He would be calling for Catholic rulers to burn Protestants at the stake and to invade and subjugate Protestant nations.
 * 2) No nation is going to establish religious freedom, that idea is alien.? The idea of a secular state would be downright laughable.? ? ? A bare tolerance of minorities is the maximum, and that would only occur when it became brutally apparent that they would not be able to force them to conform.
 * 3) The current emperor of the HRE appears to be a do-nothing, who is barely lifting a finger to stop half his nations from going Protestant.

Meh, as soon as elections finish in the HRE, the Acting Emperor, who will become the Emperor, will go super tight on everyone, die, and then the HRE will be split apart as the states split apart based on religious sect around the same time the Caliphate collapses, allowing everyone to pick up the pieces. Fegelein! Fegelein! Fegelein! 00:31, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * The same time the Caliphate collapses 'ay? How convenient... ~Von.

Also, I would start a Counter-Reformation if I could, but I can't. If I tried, I would be accused of more blasphemy than the Kappelists. Fegelein! Fegelein! Fegelein! 00:38, November 25, 2012 (UTC)

The Pope never once said anything along the lines of being "tolerant to other religions." He said that Jesus was tolerant and never once waged war on the non-believers, unlike the constant Crusaders. You can continue the discussion under the Papal States' post. ChrisL123 (talk) 00:51, November 25, 2012 (UTC)

I think we might need to do a mod event to force this reformation to happen... <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 02:10, November 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I think we might need to do a mod event to force the implausible Caliphate into plausibly collapsing. Btw, who said you could control all of India? You only won 22% anyways. [[Image:IMPERIAL NY-SPQR 1.png|25px]][[Image:Regen Flag.png|30px|border]] Fegelein! Fegelein! Fegelein! 02:49, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * The Caliphate is four-fold more plausible than the HRE in its current state, turning into a federation with one treaty and there is no civil war because of it, while the Caliphate has had numerous wars, mod events and marriages. On topic though, there should be some mod-events. I think the simple post of just keeping the Kappelist down isn't really enough considering how successful Luther was.? Saamwiil, the Humble 02:58, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Furthermore we already have the plan all lined out, your plan to collapse though during the reformation though seemingly isn't happening. Plus if you bother to read the results section and my posts in the discussion, you'll clearly see that it is the combined results with the last war against Hindustan. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 03:00, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Is that even allowed? [[Image:IMPERIAL NY-SPQR 1.png|25px]][[Image:Regen Flag.png|30px|border]] Fegelein! Fegelein! Fegelein! 03:12, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it has been done before if you noticed. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 03:36, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * It is? It has? That kind of sounds ridiculous. [[Image:IMPERIAL NY-SPQR 1.png|25px]][[Image:Regen Flag.png|30px|border]] Fegelein! Fegelein! Fegelein! 03:40, November 25, 2012 (UTC)

Even though I agree with all of the above, I do cite the Mughals as a counter-example. ? Saamwiil, the Humble 02:42, November 25, 2012 (UTC)

The idiot who controlled the Mughals had his Emperor be restored to life something like three times because he was too lazy to either think up a new name or call him "the third". Not only that but he had ridiculously implausible posts fillled with rubbish like ghosts and other astronomically implausible things. It was only though the efforts of the saner users that he didn't devolve PMI into a ASB game like what the States of America games inevitably turn into. Only Eldwolf did more damage to Principia Moderni. Yank 02:55, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Eldwolf's stuff was all rolled back instantly, so he really didn't damage it at all.? ? ? LurkerLordB (Talk) 11:47, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

And I object to the States of America Slur. The first few were, apparently, impluasible, but the 5th was pretty good.

The Royal Guns (talk) 20:32, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Muscovy

 * Location: 4
 * Tactical Advantage: 2
 * Strength: Muscovy (L), Novgorod (L?), Poland (M), Baltica, (MV), Rostov (MV), Moldova (MV), Sibir (MV), Pskov (MV), Ruthenia (MV), Ukraine (MV), Lithuania (MV), Prussia (MV), Ryazan (MV): 31/4=7.75, so 8


 * Military Development: Muscovy (10), Novgorod (20)= 30/1= 30
 * Economy: Muscovy (20), Novgorod (20)= 40/1= 40
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Expansion: -1
 * Motive: 3
 * Chance: 6

Total:124
 * Edit Count: 2566
 * UTC Time: 20: 29
 * 43.663203
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 28
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: -5

Khoshut

 * Location: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: 2
 * Strength: Khoshut (L):4
 * Military Development: 0
 * Economy: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: 4
 * Chance: 3

Total: 34
 * Edit Count:
 * UTC Time:
 * See above
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 6
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: 0

Result
Russia can take ((147/(147+34))*2)-1= 62.43% of the Khnate of Khoshut, annexing it, dividing it down the middle (and yes, I want this shown on the map). The war wil last 2 years, annexing 46.8225% of the Khanate. And the rest of it, too.

Discussion
No the Khanate of Khoshut is right next to China, there is no way you can attack Khoshut. However the Khanate controlling the Eastern Caspian is the Khanate of Mangystau. Be warned, war with Mangystau means a war with the Caliphate as Mangystau are an ally of the Caliphate and we have been since 1520. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 23:44, November 27, 2012 (UTC)

You can't reach Khosut. LurkerLordB (Talk) 00:04, November 28, 2012 (UTC)

He states pretty clear in the title of the section, the one controling the East Caspian, hinting that he has some ignorance to the names of the khanates. -Lx (leave me a message) 03:19, November 28, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Suppose I'm not invading Mangystau either,. The Royal Guns (talk) 20:17, November 28, 2012 (UTC)

Turns
OK, I think that the current turns set up needs some clarification and simplification. I was thinking of replacing the current section with this:

The following actions can only be performed once per turn: Only main player nations can perform these actions, vassals and NPCs in dynastic union cannot. If someone performs multiple actions on this list in the same year, only one of the events will be counted. Wars will supersede expansion which will supersede military, economic, or infrastructure build-up. Of the last three, whichever improvement/buildup is performed first in the post will be counted for the algorithm
 * Economic Improvement
 * Infrastructure Improvement
 * Military Build-up
 * Non-colonial expansion
 * Fighting in a war

This is to prevent people from maxing out their algorithm scores using vassals and dynastic union. It also would prevent people from doing 2-3 of these things in the same year and having unreasonably high algorithms. LurkerLordB (Talk) 01:45, November 28, 2012 (UTC)

So only 1 of those actions in a turn? Okay duly noted. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 13:43, November 28, 2012 (UTC)

So I can expand a colony and develop my economy/military at the same time... but I can't develop my economy/military and my infrastructure? Then what's the point of infrastructure? No one will use it because it only gives a plus 1 per turn. maybe you should make it plus three, but only defensive.

The Royal Guns (talk) 20:19, November 28, 2012 (UTC)

No then infrastructure would be over-powered, infrastructure already has the advantage of not being divided by the opponents score. Plus those were the rules anyway, Lurk is just clarifying & simplifying the current rules so players can understand these rules more easily as a few people seem ignorant to these rules. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 20:23, November 28, 2012 (UTC)

I thought that the original proposal for infrastructure was that you could develop infrastructure and Economy/military in one turn, thus accruing +3 rather than +2. Maybe we should go to that? Becuase frankly, not being divided is that much of an advantage. The Royal Guns (talk) 20:27, November 28, 2012 (UTC)

We need something to prevent people from building their infrastucture every turn. Perhaps have infrastructure be +2 as well, but not divided? LurkerLordB (Talk) 01:19, November 29, 2012 (UTC)

Right, but if you do that (buildup infrastructure every turn, along with military/economy) then it is useless if you want to attack, and will accrue only a small advantage anyway. Defender's advantage? Spreads to more than just a 5 vs 4 on the location thing.

By the way, about location, let's say I have a large empire, with my capital at one end. And opponent, with a capital closer to the far end of my territory attacks it. Does he get higher in location, even though it is my nation (not a clony or vassal, the main nation)?

The Royal Guns (talk) 20:07, November 29, 2012 (UTC)

Ah, Paraguayan War in 1864.Our capital was still on Rio de Janeiro, and they attacked at OTL Mato Grosso, and it took six months for the news to arrive to Rio.Well, this doesn't look like it has anything to do with your question, but it has. the example that i just gave is the best.your adversary gets a higher score in location, as his capital is almost on the battlefield, and thus, he will know what is going on faster.you, with a spread-out nation, with the capital far away from the battlefield, the news will take longer to arrive, and you will inevitably react more slowly.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 22:06, November 29, 2012 (UTC)

The problem with allowing you to do both, Guns, is then everyone would update infrastructure every single turn, so it would become pointless since everyone would get +15 for every war unless they missed a turn or didn't put infrastructure for some reason. LurkerLordB (Talk) 23:59, November 29, 2012 (UTC)

Yes... ok, maybe if you update infrastructure then you cannot expand, colonially or not, because the money for expansion goes into the infrastructure. The Royal Guns (talk) 00:24, November 30, 2012 (UTC)

Colonies expand constantly because the colonists themselves settle new areas, the main government doesn't spend any money. If they spend money on infrastructure, it will either come out of the economy or military budget. LurkerLordB (Talk) 01:13, November 30, 2012 (UTC)

I for one think the current rules are okay, if you use a mix of them then its good and you can fight off your opponent on multiple fields. I'd maybe up infrastructure to 1.5 so every second turn of updating infrastructure you get an extra point. We would not round up infrastructure scores in my plan BTW e.g. 3 years of updating infrastructure gives you 3 points plus 1 bonus point, whereas 4 years gives you 4 points and 2 bonus points. Thus meaning the maximum score you could get for infrastructure would be 15 points plus 7 bonus points (+22 points in total).

Also wouldn't building up your infrastructure help you expand your nation? Perhaps you are allowed to expand and build up infrastructure too. Perhaps using a similar system to stop being from negating their expansion penalty with the infrastructure points. So again every 2 years of infrastructure expansion in a row you get a year's worth of expansion. So basically you can use your infrastructure bonus points to either expand or build up your defending nation's algorithm score. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 01:59, November 30, 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain the infrastructure idea again? What you you mean by use the infrastructure points to expand? LurkerLordB (Talk) 03:52, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

Okay good infrastructure makes it easier for a country to expand right? E.g. railroads and telegraphs in the wild west USA in 1800s. That the base of my idea.

My idea is that you get +1 for improving infrastructure in a year as normal, and if you do it two years in a row then you get a bonus, this can be used to build up your infrastructure score with a +1 bonus or allow you to expand while you build up infrastructure at same time.

So build up your infrastructure for two years in a row and you get +2 infrastructure score for sure, your infrastructure bonus can then be spent on an additional +1 to your infrastructure score (so +3 for two years in a row of infrastructure expansion) or the bonus can be spent on expanding (so +2 infrastructure and one year's worth of expansion, -1 score).

Therefore you can build up infrastructure and expand at the same time, but expansion is limited to only 1 of the two years (or 1/2 a year at a time while you build up infrastructure if you'd rather think of it that way). This allows players to expand at a reasonable pace while being protected in the algorithm with infrastructure points, rather than having to expand one year and then build up infrastructure the next. This would protect players who want to expand their nation (e.g. Yank's Manchuria) in algorithm wars and still let them expand their nation too, without having the expansion penalties and infrastructure scores completely cancel one-another out in the algorithm - which is bad because it'd remove the negative effects of expansion. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 02:40, December 2, 2012 (UTC)

So what you would have would be to build up infrastructure for 10 turns, and for 5 of those turns also expand, giving you a final score of +10 infrastructure and -5 for expansion? Sounds reasonable, if we can enforce it. LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:33, December 4, 2012 (UTC)

Yes or alternatively you'd get +15 infrastructure if you didn't want to expand. I see it as quite reasonable but we'll just have to make sure that players see these new revised rules and we explain them in a simple manner. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 23:28, December 4, 2012 (UTC)

Brandenburg - Mecklenburg War (1532)
Can someone do this for me please? Thanks. Fegelein! Fegelein! Fegelein! 22:53, November 29, 2012 (UTC)

lol laziness (which I now beat by not doing your algorithm) The Royal Guns (talk) 00:23, November 30, 2012 (UTC)

If the war began in 1532, how come you've been building up your infrastructure, economy, and military every year (which is against the current rules even) with no mention of any war in your short copy-paste posts? LurkerLordB (Talk) 01:12, November 30, 2012 (UTC)

Your short copy-paste post in 1532 didn't even mention a war. You want me to make up that a war has gone on for 1532 and retcon four years of peace for some reason? LurkerLordB (Talk) 01:15, November 30, 2012 (UTC)

Oh wait, I got the year wrong. If you look at the year 1534 it's there. I only intend(ed?) the war to last for that year. And what do you mean that infrastructure, economy, and military every year is against the rules? Fegelein! Fegelein! Fegelein! 01:45, November 30, 2012 (UTC)

Anyone? Fegelein! Fegelein! Fegelein! 02:30, December 2, 2012 (UTC)

Brandenburg
Total: 71.5
 * Location: +4
 * Tactical Advantage: +6 (Larger Colonial Empire & attackers advantage)
 * Strength: Brandenburg (L), Luxembourg (MV), Bavaria (M) = 10/4 = +2.5
 * Military Development: (14 years - 28) = 28 - 28/1 = +28
 * Economic Development: (6 years - 12) = +12
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +7
 * Chance: 4
 * Edit Count: 8016
 * UTC Time: 1957: 9*5*7 = 315
 * (8016/315)*pi = 79.942.....
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Population: +8
 * 6 digits
 * larger 2
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: -1

Mecklenburg
Total: 34
 * Location: +4
 * Tactical Advantage: 0
 * Strength: Mecklenburg (L): 4
 * Military Development: 0
 * Economic Development: 0
 * Infrastructure Development: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +10
 * Chance: 2
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: +4
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: 0

Result
((71.5/(39+71.5))*2)-1 = 0.342723... = 34.27%, enough to take over all of Mecklenburg. DEATH TO KAPPELISM!

Discussion
If the war lasts one year, I think you only get *quick mental calculation* 17.135%. Sorry. The Royal Guns (talk) 19:48, December 3, 2012 (UTC)

What? I thought the year rule applies only after two or more years. Fegelein! Fegelein! Fegelein! 22:33, December 3, 2012 (UTC)

If that was the case then why bother with the war years rule? Of course it applies, all algorithms have to do the second part of the algorithm! <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 01:14, December 4, 2012 (UTC)

OK. Fegelein! Fegelein! Fegelein! 01:46, December 4, 2012 (UTC)

So 17.135%. I see how it is. Can someone explain how many pixels that is? Fegelein! Fegelein! Fegelein! 01:47, December 4, 2012 (UTC)

Mecklenburg is 352 pixels large and 17.135% of 352 is 60.3152. So you win 60 pixels from Mecklenburg. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 23:24, December 4, 2012 (UTC)

It's not so bad. You conquered *another quick mental calculation* 300 sq km from Mecklenburg...

Wow. That is kinda small. Sucks for you, I guess.

The Royal Guns (talk) 20:28, December 6, 2012 (UTC)

Caliphate (Led by Tunis)
Total: 78
 * Location: +4
 * Tactical Advantage: +6 (Larger Colonial Empire & attackers advantage)
 * Strength: Tunis (L), Tripoli (M), Egypt (M) = 12/4 = +3
 * Military Development: (10 years - 20) = 20 - 20/1 = +20
 * Economic Development: (6 years - 12) = +12
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +5
 * Chance: 8
 * Edit Count: 5147
 * UTC Time: 19:03 - 27
 * 5147/27*pi = 598.880643888555556
 * Nation Age: (0): +0
 * Population: +10
 * 8 digits
 * larger 2
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: 0

Algiers
Total: 39 (pending)
 * Location: +5
 * Tactical Advantage: 0
 * Strength: Algiers (L)
 * Military Development: 0
 * Economic Development: 0
 * Infrastructure Development: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +10
 * Chance: 6?
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: +8
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: 0

Result
((78/(39+78))2)-1 = 0.33.... = 33.33..., which I believe is just enough to annex the Algerian nation.

Discussion
Did I do this correctly? Because I have the impression that I did quite a few things wrong. Fed (talk) 03:12, November 30, 2012 (UTC)

No. population, for starters.you can't have 10 in population, as this would mean that your country has one billion people.even if counting the caliphate as a whole, one billion is more than the whole planet's population at this time.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 06:48, November 30, 2012 (UTC)

Tunis didn't help in the war against Hindustan so no points lost for recent wars. Also expansion only counts if Tunisia has expanded in the last 15 years which it hasn't. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 19:49, November 30, 2012 (UTC)

Bonman
Total: 41
 * Location: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: 0
 * Strength: Bonoman (L): 4
 * Military Development: 0
 * Economy: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: 10
 * Chance: 6
 * Edit Count: 2590
 * UTC Time: 20:16
 * 42.526
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 6 (fact courtesy wikipedia.)
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: -0

Muscovy/Poland
Total: 109
 * Location: 2
 * Tactical Advantage: 2
 * Strength: Poland (L), Muscovy (L), Novgorod (M), Baltica (MV), Rostov (MV), Ryazan (MV), Pskov (MV), Moldova (MV), Sibir (MV), Lithuania (MV), Ruthenia (MV), Ukraine (MV), Belarus (MV) : 31/4= 7.75~ 8
 * Military Development: 10 + 10= 20/1 = 20
 * Economy: 20 + 20 = 40/1 = 40
 * Infrastructure:NA
 * Expansion: -1
 * Motive: 3
 * Chance: 2
 * Edit Count:
 * UTC Time:
 * see above
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 28
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: -5

Result
Russia can conquer ((109/(109+37))*2)-1 = 49.31% of the Bonoman, depending on the duration of the war. The war will be 2 years, Russia will conquer (49.31)*(.75) = 36.2325% of the Bonoman, doing the same, it is split evenly between Aukso Zeme, the Polish Colony, and Zelta Zeme, the Muscovian colony.

Can't annex anything, implausible to do so anyways. LurkerLordB (Talk) 14:08, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
Do colonies count for strength?

Now, to swiftly address any problems here;

According to wikipedia, the Bonoman have a population in 6 digits, until the 17th century, when it climbed, then collpased along with the state.

Muscovy and poland have sopent the better part of the decade shifting sizable protions of their army over to Africa.

And all those states can send military aid because Russia is, de jure, one nation, as a result, I, Muscovy, caould invade a country I do not border, as long as it borders the Federation and I don't take any land. This si how they send aid; through Muscovy/ Poland/ Novgorod.

The Royal Guns (talk) 20:31, November 30, 2012 (UTC)

No this doesn't feel right to me, regardless of the algorithm. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 20:40, November 30, 2012 (UTC)

As we said various times already: Muscovy can't have colonies yet.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 21:04, November 30, 2012 (UTC)

This war may be now stricken from the record, but still once Muscovy is allowed to make colonies in a few wars, then this war again will still yield the same similar questionable results. I mean a Russian state becoming a colonial power and defeating a major West African power (who is allied with Portugal) in the 1500s? No that isn't right in my eyes. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 22:53, November 30, 2012 (UTC)

Without counting the fact that the Russians only would be able to control the coast, and areas not far from it.the only country that i know that estabilished a colonial presence inland on Africa before 1850 was Portugal with Moçambique.And, you know that Bonoman extends quite far inland.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 07:10, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah exactly but this algorithm would have allowed Russia to take over all of Bonoman regardless of plausibility and Russia's poor colonial prowess. This algorithm didn't include the mod-given bonus points to Bonoman though so is incomplete but it wouldn't take long for Russia to annex it via the war algorithm.

I think we need to some rules to regulate wars against native powers as the current situation is very unbalanced as it is much easier to attack and annex a native nation then expanding a colony into unknown territory. For Russia to get a colony the size of Bonoman they either can invade & annex a native nation or expand inland for decades. I think this imbalance needs to be addressed. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 12:51, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

Ah, and remember that some of the states helping here are so small that their help would be insignificant.(Pskov, Ryazan, Rostov)--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 14:03, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

You can't make colonies yet, and you won't be able to make a colony on Africa for I think 30 years after your main colonies, so you can't win any territory from the war. LurkerLordB (Talk) 14:07, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

Poland can do so in 1515. It is now 1535. Only 20 years, yes, but the fact is, Africa is much closer than America.

The Royal Guns (talk) 16:50, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

We never said nothing about Poland.we are talking to you as if you are controlling Muscovy.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 18:24, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Well, either way I think I'm just going to forget this war :P. The Royal Guns (talk) 13:53, December 2, 2012 (UTC)

China
Total: 68
 * Location: +4
 * Tactical Advantage: +1
 * Strength: China (L): 4 = 0
 * Military Development: +12
 * Economy: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +3
 * Chance: +9
 * Edit Count: 2812
 * UTC Time: 36
 * 2812/36*pi= 245.39329283
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Population: +20
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: 0

Khoshut
Total: 36
 * Location: +5
 * Tactical Advantage: +2
 * Strength: Khoshut (L):4 = 0
 * Military Development: 0
 * Economy: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +10
 * Chance: +3
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: +6
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: 0

Result
Chinese victory. War will last for four years. (calculations still being done)

Discussion
You did chance wrong for NPC, I have corrected it. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 01:53, December 2, 2012 (UTC)

You get 37%. Yank 02:05, December 2, 2012 (UTC)

Plan for NPC bonus
There have been calls for NPCs to have some sort of bonus in a war. My simple idea is that every year where the NPC is not mentioned as doing anything in an event, we count them as improving their infrastructure. So generally, that would give them around 15 bonus points each war. (note that the Mestizo and Zapotecs have been devestated by the plagues and can't build their infrastructure). LurkerLordB (Talk) 14:13, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

Well, it seems probable that they also would be building up their militaries sometimes.so i think that we would need to include this,but without them getting too overpowered.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 15:46, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but its also probably that they would be building up their economies too.

How about this: every year that they are not at war or expanding, or having a disaster, NPC nations will build up one of the three. The number of total buildups will be divided into the three categories as evenly as possible, with preference going infrastructure>economy>military. However, so they don't get overpowered, their final score would be divided by two then rounded to the nearest whole.. So lets say that in the past 15 years the NPC only expanded by mod event once, so they had 14 blank years. That would mean 5 infrastructure, 5 economy, and 4 military. DIvided and rounded, that would give the NPC 3 infrastructure, 3 economy, and 2 military. LurkerLordB (Talk) 01:44, December 2, 2012 (UTC)

I like it! We can always do mod events if they're building up just their infrastructure, military or economy for something special too. But yeah I'm all for this. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 01:52, December 2, 2012 (UTC)

i support this suggestion.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 08:05, December 2, 2012 (UTC)

OK, so the next year (1542), this will be implemented. LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:20, December 4, 2012 (UTC)

Satomi
Total: 52
 * Location: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: 1, +5 (Colonial Empire?) =6?
 * Strength: 4 Satomi (L)
 * Military Development: (1534-1538 = 4 years) 8
 * Economy: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: 10
 * Chance: 0
 * Edit Count: 7,887
 * UTC Time: 08:50 = 40
 * 7,887/40*pi = 619.44353147156748179387170909814...
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 6
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: -1

Kagawa
Total: 38
 * Location: 5
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Strength: 4 Kagawa (L)
 * Military Development: 0
 * Economy: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: 10
 * Chance: 3
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 6
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: -1

Result
((52/(38+52))*2)-1 = 0.15555555555555555555555555555555...; 15.55%

(15.55)*(1-1/(2x5)) = 13.995 %

Satomi Clan wins and takes some land.

Discussions
Not sure weather or not to use an algorithm or not, seeing as it was my whole nation and I'm trying to unify it. -Kogasa 2012年12月02日 18:18:21 (JST)

Yeah you control all of the clans in Japan so you can decide how they interact and you can simulate wars yourself. Perhaps you also do some posts for the other clans as well because they're bound not to be just sitting around not doing anything while this is all happening. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 14:18, December 2, 2012 (UTC)

I could, but Scan said that most of it should be done with mod events.

Hmm... maybe I'll try doing that then. I want to have Japan reunite by around 1585-1590 so... -Kogasa 2012年12月03日 00:13:02 (JST)

Copy /Pasting
Is it acceptable to copy paste turns? I've noticed a substantial amount of people doing so.Andr3w777 (talk) 13:27, December 4, 2012 (UTC)

I think it's only unnacceptable when you refuse to accept the changing conditions of your nation and the game itself. It's when your posts become increasingly divorced from the game's "reality" that you should really do something original.

Yank 14:56, December 4, 2012 (UTC)

Is acceptable, but not recommended, and what Yank said above.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 17:14, December 4, 2012 (UTC)

When I do it I'll keep the same base format but I'll change around the areas my country is amping up and also usually have one or two nations with more interesting things going on rather than just building up the military. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 23:33, December 4, 2012 (UTC)

And other thing that i have been noticing is people posting on a turn well after it has ended.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 07:33, December 5, 2012 (UTC)

Inactivity
I've got finals coming up and a speech analogous to a term paper in my public speaking class soon. I've got to cut my time on this site (miniscule as it already is) down until appx. December 14th. If it isn't too much to ask, I'd like to have China expand its military every turn, though focus on the navy every other turn. Thanks and sorry for the inconvenience, everyone. CrimsonAssassin (talk) 16:27, December 5, 2012 (UTC)

Lakota
Total: 60
 * Location:4
 * Tactical Advantage:3
 * Strength: 5
 * Military Development: 3
 * Economy: 1
 * Infrastructure: 5
 * Expansion: -4
 * Motive: Expansion, Political.
 * Chance:0-9=6
 * Edit Count: 336
 * UTC Time: 12:08=16
 * 336/16xpi=65.97344573=7
 * Nation Age:18+?
 * Population: 5
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: 0

Ute Tribes Total:43
 * Location:4
 * Tactical Advantage:5
 * Strength: 5
 * Military Development: 0
 * Economy: 0
 * Infrastructure: 1
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: Life and Death
 * Chance:0-9=3
 * Nation Age:0
 * Population: 5
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars:0

Mayans
Total:
 * Location:
 * Tactical Advantage:
 * Strength:
 * Military Development:
 * Economy:
 * Infrastructure:
 * Expansion:
 * Motive:
 * Chance:
 * Edit Count:
 * UTC Time:
 * Nation Age:
 * Population:
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars:
 * Recent Wars:

Aztecs
Total:
 * Location:
 * Tactical Advantage:
 * Strength:
 * Military Development:
 * Economy:
 * Infrastructure:
 * Expansion:
 * Motive:
 * Chance:
 * Edit Count:
 * UTC Time:
 * Nation Age:
 * Population:
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars:
 * Recent Wars:

Korea
Yeah, I officially resign from the game. Sorry but I have absolutely no free time to really post any creative posts on PMII. I can barely manage AvARe, with all the headaches about Turkey and all that. So yeah, until next time!

PitaKang- (But here's my number | So call me maybe) 23:43, December 6, 2012 (UTC)

HRE Election
Hey, it must be a new election for Emperor, because Bradenburg is doing to much and is not respecting the rules of the empire, he cant declare war and order any ination of any kingdom. several times i read he is making orders to invade, attack, and in his position he cant do it, so nothig he orders is legal. A election must be done for a new Emperor. Quiari (talk) 04:48, December 7, 2012 (UTC)

I'm the Emperor. I tell the states what to do. Fegelein! Fegelein! Fegelein! 04:52, December 7, 2012 (UTC)