Talk:Principia Moderni II (Map Game)

Archives
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |

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 flip 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. '''

Prussia has expanded to the east and has also established a vassal to the north east of itself as a result of the 1760-61 war with Lithuania, this isn't show on the map. Here is a map of the new expansion and vassal. Thank you. Kunarian TALK 07:16, July 17, 2013 (UTC)

Selk'nam borders should look like this, I posted maps of the land deals in the original post. No one objected.

Commandante Lemming (talk) 17:51, July 17, 2013 (UTC)

The Arabian Federation bought Wale's colonial territory on Madagascar, who in turn sold it to Comchellak so all of Madagascar is now Comchellak. I also won 67 pixels of Bima which have been annexed into my Kupang colony and Tanimbarki should be in my colours as it was my protectorate at the time (now vassal so still my colours). I also fixed the 3 small islands inbetween Java and Borneo to be in the colours they should be in. I also fixed Com-Lem and Kun's problems too. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 09:23, July 18, 2013 (UTC)

Labelled Map






























<p style="font-size:13px;">

<p style="font-size:13px;">

<p style="font-size:13px;">

<p style="font-size:13px;">

<p style="font-size:13px;">

<p style="font-size:13px;">

<p style="font-size:13px;">

<p style="font-size:13px;">

<p style="font-size:13px;">New labelled maps :P Scandinator (talk) 16:43, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

<p style="font-size:13px;">I think it may be time to update the maps as a lot of territory changes have occurred in the last 50ish years.Andr3w777 (talk) 01:00, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

I have updated the Europe labelled map. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 10:09, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

Religion Map


<p style="font-size:13px;"> Colors:

<p style="font-size:13px;">Catholic - Light Blue

<p style="font-size:13px;">Reformed Churches - Blue

<p style="font-size:13px;">Kappelists - Dark Blue

<p style="font-size:13px;">Eastern Orthodox - Mustard

<p style="font-size:13px;">Islam - Green

<p style="font-size:13px;">Nestorianism - Light Green

<p style="font-size:13px;">Hinduism - Teal

<p style="font-size:13px;">Buddhism - Pale Green

<p style="font-size:13px;">Animism/Indigenous - Yellow <p style="font-size:13px;">I made this map, using the latest 1730 map, and the old Religion Map as a guide. I do not claim this to be official, but please add/edit/update it as you feel needed to do so. If the mods don't like this, please take it down, but I only want to help. Reximus55 (talk) 10:35, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

<p style="font-size:13px;">Since Callumthered had asked me what was the situation of Catholicism on Europe, i went to do a coloured map of this.it got big, so now this became a incomplete world map.dark blue represents Kappelists, blue represents breakaway churches, light blue represents Catholicism, light green represents Nestorianism, green represents Islam, and yellow-brownish represents orthodoxy.it is still incomplete.Obviously, this is political too, as some nations will have some state religion, but the population will follow other one.Anyway, i don't know the Arabian Federation's state religion, to start with.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 07:48, March 9, 2013 (UTC)

<p style="font-size:13px;">The Arabian federation doesn't have a state religion, its dominantly Islamic though. Many branches of Islam though, but I'd say Sunni or Ibadi Islam to be dominant. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg  (talk to Von!) 11:51, March 9, 2013 (UTC)

<p style="font-size:13px;">There would be a lot more ortododox wrong...-Lx (leave me a message) 19:30, March 9, 2013 (UTC)

<p style="font-size:13px;">What do you mean?--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 08:36, March 10, 2013 (UTC)

<p style="font-size:13px;">Well, Russia is very wrong on that map. just look at the russia I made, and then you will see the real face of orthodoxy. you did your annexations horibly wrong. you made moscow a seperate state, and now Minsk is not longer in personal union. You should realy use my map, because at this point I think you just want an excuse to piss me off so you can purposefuly get me banned.-Lx (leave me a message) 23:07, March 10, 2013 (UTC)

<p style="font-size:13px;">The latter is not the case.in fact, i sometimes think that Scraw is being implausible just to have something to complain about, so he can get me to quit.We might be able to work this out, when it comes to Minsk.are you a hereditary monarchy?--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 08:48, March 11, 2013 (UTC)

<p style="font-size:13px;">Russia has an old novgorodian style Elective Monarchy. The Tsar was a firm believer in Russian unification, and once he gianed the title of Tsar of Minsk through marriage, since he wanted at the least unified russian realm under one Ruler, and he did not want his efforts to be in vain when he died in case his son did not become the next Tsar(elective monarchy) so he had the two Crowns linked, although he kept the title of duke of minsk to his own family, the title of Tsar of Minsk and Tsar of Novgorod and Russia were linked. I find it is good logic, but If that's too complicated you can consider it like an act of union/annexatoin and ignore the part about a seperate Duma being built in Minsk.-Lx (leave me a message) 20:32, March 11, 2013 (UTC)

<p style="font-size:13px;">Yes, this sounds like a good logic.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 21:27, March 11, 2013 (UTC)

<p style="font-size:13px;">Just saying, but shouldn't Bijaur be hindu? Considering I have expanded my influence there and introduced anti-muslim laws and the Trimurts have been converting people like crazy? :L  Imp (Say Hi?!) 07:52, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

<p style="font-size:13px;">Update time? Imp (Say Hi?!) 13:38, March 24, 2013 (UTC) </li>

Industrial Algorithm Modifiers and Industrial Era areas and rates.
I have a proposal to modify the algorithm to put into perspective the colonial wars of the 18th-20th century. An algorythm multiplier would be applied to all wars with the side with a higher stage gaining 10% extra for each stage higher they are. Nations with two stages use the higher when defending and the lower when attacking. Scandinator (talk) 04:59, April 28, 2013 (UTC)



Stage 1

 * The Air Furnace is developed
 * Agriculture begins to rapidly shift with fertilizers and rest years for the fields
 * Chemistry develops in leaps and bounds

Stage 2​

 * Steam Power is developed and water wheels are heavily utilized
 * Various chemicals are produced in large amounts
 * Health care and anatomic understanding improve, birth rates still high but death rates on a massive decline
 * Urbanisation begins on a significant scale

Stage 3

 * Paper mills develop with the tech to produce large reels of paper
 * Cloth factories begin using machines and steam power to increase productivity massively to keep up with population boom's clothing demand
 * Railways appear
 * Some revolutionary rumbles appear

Stage 4​

 * Civilian railways appear allowing easier access
 * Stronger cements are produced
 * Steel and Glass are avaliable
 * A few colonies and nations will have rebellions in this period

Stage 5

 * Ironclads and Artillery become widely used in combat
 * Revolutions by poorer citizens in cities become frequent

Stage 6​

 * Tanks and planes appear
 * Total War emerges with populations also targetted
 * Nationalism appears in larger multicultural nations

Stage 7

 * Atomic age begins a decade before the start of this age with certain nations able to make nuclear weapons
 * Wars between atomic powers CEASE, due to the threat and consequences of nuclear war
 * Colonies rebel for independence

Discussion
I'm extremely confused. Also, I think the industrialization chart should be corrected, as Scandinavia has been vanquished.

16:08, April 28, 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see no need to remove them, as they have already been removed.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 17:07, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

I like this one better than it's predecessor, mainly beccause there are more divisions here, allowing for a more accurate representation of the country's standing. Albeit, there are a few things that could be amended. CourageousLife (talk) 16:22, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

Same here. Much better. And what is confusing Scraw? It is pretty simple to understand once the map is up showing industrialisation levels. :D  Imp (Say Hi?!) 16:27, April 28, 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, it's for the map.


 * 17:16, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

It needs some corrections, as some characteristics are too late or too early for their times.Such as: We should move the appearing of railways to stage 4, and their spread to 5, to start with, After all, when we talk about railways, this implies steam locomotives, necessarily.And, steam locomotives in 1770?--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 17:04, April 28, 2013 (UTC)


 * That isn't too far-fetched. A viable steam engine existed in 1782, it just took a while(about 20 years) before people to realise it could be used for rail transport. A two-cylinder steam engine was invented by a Russian in 1766...it had great potential, and could have perhaps accelerated the development of the steam locomotive by a phew decades(maybe only 10 years to say: put it on a fracking train) but The Empress ditched the designs in favor of a more "Brittish" system(i.e. hydraulicaly cooled that required close water supply...this lagged locomotive construction). So...RUssians could have built locomotives in the 1770s...but the empress wanted to stay close to brittain, and brittish-style tech, so that slowed many things...and because of that, the twocylinder stam engine was scrapped.-Lx (leave me a message) 23:42, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

Well, unlike the last game, the East is on better footing with the West, and thus will breed even more competition. I think this is completely fine if you ask me. Imp (Say Hi?!) 19:42, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

I've done the research in the industrial era. For whomever industrializes first, these technologies do not suddenly appear. It is gradual in within each stage. Scandinator (talk) 11:42, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

I would think that, like in PMII, crimson would be a fraction of the main natino around the nation's "heartland/capital" area, and the rest of the nation would get industry red. And colonies would industry get a colour under their founding nations, etc... However, I am worried about the ammount of colours...in any case, I do believe that orange and yellow(or at the least orange) should get planes at the same time as red and crimson...technology and trade would change to the point that...well...those nations could do thema t the same time...-Lx (leave me a message) 18:43, May 1, 2013 (UTC)

I feel like one of these (red, yellow, orange) should be removed. Also, shouldn't Europe (closer to Italy) be receiving industrialization faster than the Middle East?

21:21, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

Not that the map is bad, but I would say that the coast and Dehli should be joined up as they are prime industrial locations. Doesn't really change anything, but it looks nicer, lol. :D  Imp (Say Hi?!) 21:33, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

The Arabian Federation should really industrialize earlier than its vassal of Baghdad I think. Albeit just industrializing along the coastal regions like Oman and Qatar where the majority of my urban population lives. The Nejd won't see industrialization for many years later. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 00:15, May 21, 2013 (UTC)

China would industrialize quicker than the yellow rate due to their extensive trading, especially with Orissa and Italia. CrimsonAssassin (talk) 17:20, May 21, 2013 (UTC)

I too feel that China should be in orange.

I also find it strange that both Georgia and Austria are in orange while Germany itself is in yellow. Not to mention that Germany was higher than Russia on the chart and closer to Italy than Russia.

21:25, May 22, 2013 (UTC)

Aren't any of these going to be addressed?

17:25, May 25, 2013 (UTC)

I'd so something about it since I'm a mod, but I'm not sure if I have clearance for this map. CrimsonAssassin- "You can't handle this egg roll" 18:20, May 27, 2013 (UTC)

You know, I'll edit it since, not only does it seem like the plausible thing to do, but worst-case scenario, they'll revert it and yell at me a little. CrimsonAssassin- "You can't handle this egg roll" 16:53, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

I think there should be less of orange China, as lots of those areas would be presently unsuitable for industrialization.

22:58, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

It's just a buffer between red and yellow.

CrimsonAssassin- "You can't handle this egg roll" 05:44, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

I like how Germany is on the same level with the Dimurat and Siberia.

23:06, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

As per my post on the page I'd like to propose that the point on Steel and Glass is changed to "Steel and Glass become mass producible". Also I now have both light green and yellow industrial stuffs in my nation so how does this affect my industrialisation? Kunarian TALK 06:54, July 17, 2013 (UTC)

Nation pages & PM2 awards?
Hey I was cleaning up the PM2 category just now and noticed a lot of the pages (especially for nations) are lacking content. Some pages have lots of content and are fantastic. I'd like to see all of the pages to the same standard and hence I'm thinking we do a PM2 awards to motive people into doing it.

'''Regardless of these awards, all players should update their nation pages so that nation history is easier for other people to learn about. It also helps in building the PM2 world too.'''

But these PM2 awards are just a for fun idea I had, we think up some categories for the awards (e.g. best nation page, greatest war, funniest post, largest nation, etc.) and then we all vote for which player, nation, etc. deserves the award. This game does have many months of content and I think we should highlight this more, and give credit where credit is due.

I was thinking maybe double colonial expansion rates for a year or a small algorithm bonus could be the prizes, which would be given out via mod event once the awards are given out.

What'd you guys think to the awards? Also please do update your nation pages!

--<font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 12:07, June 24, 2013 (UTC)

I'll be doing a full re-write and re-structure of the Venice page in my holidays. I think the algorithm bonus would be good. Maybe out of 5 for a nation's organization, with NPCs assigned the first decimal digit of the chance score divided by 2 as theirs. Scandinator (talk) 12:28, June 24, 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking just like +3 economic development or something like that, nothing major. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 20:12, June 24, 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I've fully updated my page and have been fairly detailed.Andr3w777 (talk) 02:43, June 25, 2013 (UTC)

I support double colonial expansion.

03:12, June 25, 2013 (UTC)

If we do double colonial expansion it will only be for a short while. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 12:09, June 26, 2013 (UTC)

Alleged PMII ASB - ness
i have seen for a few times already Collie's post about Daxus labelling PMII as asb, taking this idea, what do you find ASB In the game, or that you find odd, that you think would never in any way have happened in OTL after the POD in 1450, i would like to know what you say guys. Sine dei gloriem (talk) 22:47, June 27, 2013 (UTC)

Well Tyrol, a majorly German state, being a French vassal, especially when in OTL they had a much stronger relationship to Bavaria and Austria. I'm still somewhat bitter I couldn't get Tyrol:(Andr3w777 (talk) 02:51, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

What I find a bit ASB was the Koori Union, allowing a massive colony in Australia. Also implausible was the Caliphate, and the exile states in Antillia/Atlantia.

03:10, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

i agree with the koori union, and the caliphate and must to point out the fall of spain, and the ottomans, i mean, both were the strongest nations of europe and the islamic world at their times and the english and french balkanization and later welsh supremacy on britain. Sine dei gloriem (talk) 06:40, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

<span style="color: rgb(58, 58, 58); font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 21px; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; display: inline !important; float: none;">There's also a line between that which is implausible and that which is impossble. There are a lot of OTL events that sound crazy in hindsight but every now and then you get black swan events. That and I have some sympathy for the Koori - if you make it possible to play tribes, chuckleheads like me will give it a shot, and we kinda have to write our own rules in terms of how to develop ourselves quickly without getting bounced. I know I crafted the Selk'nam strategy only AFTER reading all of the Koori, Apache, and Lakota history - and I still worry about getting dinged on the realism. Part of the problem is I think we don't have a lot of REAL history regarding tribes attempting to aggressively Eurpoeanize before the colonists reach them (which is the key "what if" of our entire game). By the way - I'm happy to accept any input on the conduct of the Selk'nam, as I am well aware of the fact that they have a lot of ASB potential...of course I'm still going to play hard and excecute my plans, but I'm always open to input seeing as past tribal players have been controversial. Commandante Lemming (talk) 21:29, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

<span style="color: rgb(58, 58, 58); font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 21px; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; display: inline !important; float: none;">Look. We found a cross-roads in time. Many had travelled down the most used path, yet some 25 of us were brave enough... to venture on the path less travelled on. The fun is in the journey, and the end is a bonus. So enjoy my fellow companions, for time is not done with us. Imp (Say Hi?!) 21:34, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

<span style="color: rgb(58, 58, 58); font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 21px; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; display: inline !important; float: none;">If you are really strict with it, almost every map game is implausible. So don't worry about it, but some of the more implausible events include: the collaspe of England & the rise of Wales as the dominant nation in the British isles, the Mayan empire still existing, everything to do with the Koori, the Ethiopian colonial empire, the Indian colonial empire, the Cypriot colonial empire, the Caliphate (especially invading Russia), Italy's unification, the Balkans being a series of Italian vassals and other small states having colonial empires (japan, saxony, etc.) <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 11:26, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

<span style="color: rgb(58, 58, 58); font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 21px; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; display: inline !important; float: none;">Those are basically due to the lack of idiot emperors. When there are less idiots, there are more empires. History showed us that with Rome, the Mongols - even Oman. Plus, if this universe looked at ours, then they would say the stopping of Hitler was implausible, and a small chain of islands becoming the largest colonial power in history lunacy. Its just you viewpoint - and events which youthink will never happen, happen. Koori and Wales are the only two I would say are the worst ones. The Capilate could have happened if there were less idiots in OTL. Here they were - therefore it happened. India has had some good emperors if you know what i mean, lol), and has backed Ethiopia expanding. Ethiopia is like Russia - a developed country gets the chance to expand into the uncivilised lands around it. So critics like Dax should notice these points before commenting. :D  Imp (Say Hi?!) 12:46, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

I think Dax, like many others, just criticize because other map games that have come, and done events like PMII have been called ASB, even though the reason of how things came to be are like the ones here, so he is following the ASB standards of this wiki. and Like Von, i find odd cyprus, The maya empire and Englands collapse, though i find italy and germany's unification just a event caused by the Caliphate threat. Sine dei gloriem (talk) 23:20, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

Allies
Well, I just want to establish a comprehensive list of who's allied with who. I think this would serve all the players well when it comes to player vs player wars. I'll start off by listing my allies.

23:24, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

Germanic Reich (Brandenburg)

 * German Union (Bavaria, Saxony)
 * Russia
 * Welsh Empire
 * China
 * Cyprus
 * Arabia
 * Mayans
 * China

Cyprus

 * Brandeburg
 * Venice
 * Levantine Kingdom
 * Mayan Kingdom
 * Bavaria
 * maybe some others? I don't remember :P

Wales

 * Greater Germanic Union
 * Brandenburg
 * Saxony
 * Bavaria
 * Italy
 * Portugal
 * Spain
 * Maya
 * Selk'nam

Mononobe Shogunate

 * Italy
 * Myanmar
 * Orissa

Great Haruwin of th Selk'nam

 * Mononobe Shogunate
 * Wales
 * Magedeburg (which is now German Union, right?)
 * Friendly contact with Orissa, Netherlands, Portugal via their Atlantian colonies. We've also had indirect interaction with the Pope.

The Empire of Bavaria(German Union)
States that have pending Alliance requests from in game
 * German Union members(Saxony, Rhineland)
 * Brandenburg
 * Italia
 * France(trade deal)
 * Russian Federation
 * Arabian Federation
 * Cyprus
 * Levantine Kingdom
 * Maya Empire
 * Wales
 * China

United Maharajya

 * Ethiopian Empire
 * Italia
 * China
 * France
 * Japan

The Mayan Empire

 * Brandenburg
 * Cyprus
 * Wales
 * Bavaria
 * France
 * Anyone else I forgot...

Russian Realm

 * Italia
 * China
 * Germanic Reich
 * Bavaria

Kingdom of Italia

 * Bavaria
 * Saxony
 * Orissa
 * Nippon
 * China
 * Russia
 * Arabian Federation
 * Ethiopia

United Monarchy of Saxony, Hesse, and Magdeburg (German Union)

 * German Union (Bavaria, Brandenburg, Prussia, Switzerland, Anhalt)
 * Italia
 * Wales

Posting for Wales/Rex?
Hey all  - Rex asked me to post for Wales while he's away. Happy to do so but I'm not a mod so I wanted to double check that I didn't need special dispensation for that.Commandante Lemming (talk) 15:09, July 1, 2013 (UTC)

Protectorate rules
Seeing how some nations are getting protectorates I think we should make the rules about them clear. As far as I'm concerned they aren't as good as vassals so they should be treated as NPCs in the algorithm, but the protecting nation should always help out their protectorate in any wars they are in and if you don't then the protectorate treaties will end as you failed to protect them.

Extending there treatment as NPCs you can't post turns for them either, and they can only give +1 to algorithm strength scores as (P) and they must be close to where the war is happening otherwise they don't get involved (e.g. Normandy's Mogadishu protectorate can't send aid to Normandy's wars in Europe).Protectorates get a -3 algorithm penalty in all wars due to their reliance on their protector.

They are shown in the colour of the protecting nation on the map so players know if other PNs are protecting them, and also you can only have a maximum of 5 protectorates. If you have 3 or more protectorates you also get a war algorithm penalty of -2 for having protectorates as your military will be stretched trying to protect these far off nations. It'll take a 4 year minimum to establish a protectorate too. You can also then peacefully turn your protectorate into a vassal or puppet after 15 years of that nation being your protectorate. You can do it sooner than 15 years if you like but an algorithm will be needed.

Thoughts on these new rules? <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 18:24, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

I think that this is good enough.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 06:51, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

Okay and also they should expand like NPCs since players can't post for them and because the protectorate is weak relying on another nation for protection.

I'll add this stuff to the rules page in a few days to give other people a chance to comment on these new rules. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 21:30, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

Prussia
Okay I'm back but unlike last time (and the time before) I actually have time now to do things. So I was wondering if I could take over Prussia, the user is inactive and it's grey on the map, I'd enjoy creating a rich history as the nation (maybe being a go between for Russia and Germany or something just as interesting) and I'd love to have something to do over the holidays that appeals to my more mechanical rules based side than creative writing I'm doing on other wikias. Kunarian TALK 20:05, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

I was going to invade it as soon as I was done with Napoleon...so, er...you choice. Also Germany and Russia are long standing allies and share the same monarch for now.

20:17, July 6, 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting... Well I hope to survive that brief encounter! Kunarian TALK 20:20, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

Congress of Avalon


Much like the OTL Congress of Vienna, I would like to propose to all leaders of all nations effected by Strellok to attend the Congress of Avalon. There are a few great perks of attendance:
 * See beautiful Avalon!
 * Decide the fate of Europe!
 * Create a new Map!
 * Prevent future Strellokian Generals!
 * Celebrate the end of the Strellokian Wars!
 * Work to prevent the rise of an Eastern Empire!

My propsosed agenda involves: New Map, New Alliances, and New Goals.

Invitees
and signing in for the conference.
 * Brandenburg -
 * Bavaria - Andr3w777 (talk) 05:04, July 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * Saxony - Callumthered (talk) 11:30, July 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * Prussia -  Kunarian TALK 06:37, July 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * Netherlands - Quashi (talk) 02:02, July 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * Switzerland - This is UglyTurtle, Signing off. 01:18, July 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * France -  Sine dei gloriem (talk) 16:00, July 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * Wales - Prince Evan II Pugh, Heir to the Kingdom of Wales and the Welsh, Albanic, and Brythonic Empires. Reximus55 (talk)
 * Italy - (sit in for Scan cause he's on holiday) [[Image:1.png|23px]] Imp (Say Hi?!) 11:45, July 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * Russia - -Lx (leave me a message)
 * Rhinish Confederation -
 * Berg - NPC
 * Limburg - NPC
 * Bar/Metz - NPC
 * Munster - NPC
 * Stassburg - NPC
 * Sundgau - NPC
 * Cologne - NPC
 * Westpahlia - NPC
 * Mainz - NPC
 * Palatinate - NPC
 * Lorraine (France) - Sine dei gloriem (talk) 16:00, July 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * Luxembourg (Brandenburg) -
 * Cleves (Netherlands) - Quashi (talk) 02:02, July 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * Papal Provence - (France) (Its been french for about 20 years now) Sine dei gloriem (talk) 16:00, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

New Map
My new Map consists of the following changes:
 * Unification of Welsh Lands
 * Unification of French Lands
 * Unification of Dutch Lands
 * Unification of Brandenburger Lands
 * Unification of Saxon Lands
 * Unification of Bavarian Lands
 * To the Netherlands - Cleves
 * To Switzerland - Sundgau and Strassburg
 * To Wales - Bar/Metz, Mainz
 * To Saxony - Westphalia, Berg
 * To Brandenburg - Munster, Cologne
 * To France - Papal Provence
 * To Italy - Papal Provence

The Rhinish Confederation
The Rhinish Confederation is to be broken up. The idea was a great one, masterminded by Saxony, and they have as such received a large portion of the former Confederation. It is evident from our experiences, however, that the Confederation, when unified, can pose a threat to all of north-central continental Europe. If we allow the Confederation to continue in existence, we risk allowing another threat, another Strellok, to rise up.

Furthermore, the Confederation increases problems caused by vassals, and causes a notable tension between the King-Duke of Saxony and whichever nation moves to vassalize the region in the Confederation. (ie, Luxembourg, Lorraine, Cleves.) This undermining of regional authorities causes the instability in which a Strellok-type general can emerge.

Each nation of the Alliance will, therefore, gain lands in the former Confederation. The idea is to give lands geographically near to the original holdings of each nation.

The Luxembourgish Question - Part 2
Luxembourg is a valuable asset to any nation, It posses a notable land area. It has a sea border with the Brythonic Channel. It has a mixed French and German population, with decent Alban influence near the sea ports.

During the Wars, the primary liberating forces fo Luxembourg were Wales and Brandenburg. The combined navies of these two nations liberated its coasts, and then 100,000 Welsh troops moved to liberate the countryside, from 1757 to the Wars' end. Furthermore, ethnic-French peasants rose up against the Rhinish armies in support of the Welsh invading forces and French forces south of the Luxembourgish border.

Therefore, a 3-way division of the lands would be most beneficial. The Brandenburgers will retain the primarily German Luxembourgish portions of the nation. This will be connected to their mainland, through Cologne. The central farmland, French region shall be ceded to the French. And the coast, already under a Welsh governor, shall remain Welsh following the Wars, since this region was liberated by the Welsh.

Venaissin
Considering the recent decline in the influence of the Papacy, the region controlled by the Pontifical Majesty shall be reduced by a considerable amount.

This is for His own good, especially with semi-hostile Italian interests really closeby. The only terms of this agreement is that the Pope doesn't become a Vassal, Protectorate, or Puppet-State of any nation in Europe, and that, if attacked by a hostile power, all nations will retaliate and defend the Holy City of Avignon.

Discussion
Germany wholeheartedly opposes to the Welsh control of Central Germany (Bar, etc) and also the lack of a hardwon coast from Burgund nearly 200 years ago. In fact, all of Luxembourg is essentially German. Also, the region was not "liberated by the Welsh" who are simply seeking to steal land on the continent. Also I will not unite my lands just because you say so. I have several distinct ethnic groups within it. Also, if Wales get the Luxembourgish coast, which is THE MOST IMPORTANT PART of it, Aquitane demands the southern French regions which it intervened in in 1756/7/8. Again, I am very much opposed to most of the Welsh gains in this war. The current Welsh occupation of the Luxembourgish coast is an occupation of German territory, not Rhinish, nor French. This potentially calls for war. You have reduced Luxembourg to a rump state that is smaller than it originally was in 1450, and Germany will not tolerate this. Germany win also not protect Avignon in any case as Germany is not Catholic and has not been for well over 100 years. 00:53, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

to be correct 155 years/turns ago and Your claims in Southern france have no reason as your intervention was to france itself, not Occitania or Papal provence which is vassal to france administrated from carthage, and i agree with you, although not due to Luxembourg being german ( they are Franco-germanic peoples rather than german or french) and even so the point of luxembourg would be that in the case that luxembourg was to be partially given to france it should mean that either the netherlands cede some of flanders to keep luxembourg's coast ,and per se i say status quo antebellum for the allies that fought strellok, and a division of the rhenish land between Germany,France,Switzerland,Bavaria, the netherlands  and Saxony as they were the affect, italia, wales and other involved nations shouldn't gain anything because they were not directly affected by the war. Sine dei gloriem (talk) 02:38, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

My idea behind giving the land in Central Germany to Wales was not to give the land to Wales proper, but the Palatinate, a nation which is in Dynastic/Personal Co-Union with Brython. Also, pegging Wales in with Italia and other nations (ie Russia), isn't fair. Strellok declared war on Wales. King Arthur II himself led a naval battle that eliminated Strellok's navy. He also led a landing in Normandy and an attack on Luxembourg with an army numbering 100,000 when Germany was engaged defending its capitals. We put him on the defensive in the north. Reximus55 (talk) 04:44, July 11, 2013 (UTC)


 * Palatinate is already with Bavaria, and has been so for very long.


 * 16:11, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

Switzerland agrees to the new map This is UglyTurtle, Signing off. 04:56, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

Where are Bavarian gains, we helped turn the tide of war yet we haven't been given anything??? Bavaria will not defend Avignon, there is no reason as a Germanic Church member we should aid the Papacy. I am opposed to Wales gaining land, and from a Bavarian perspective as a founding member of the Germanic Union, a Welsh occuping force can be seen as an invasion, in which Bavaria and Germany will respond in kind. Andr3w777 (talk) 05:07, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

That is a good point, yet I fail to see where you can gain any lands... maybe Strassburg can go to Bavaria in place of Switzerland, or maybe France will willingly relinquish Tyrolia since they are now distantly connected and you can gain Tyrolia. You border Mainz-Palatinate (Welsh Union), Switzerland, Tyrolia (French Vassal), Strassburg, and Westphalia. I think we can all agree that Saxony was hit the hardest, and therefore they deserve Westphalia. An alternative may involve you trading Slovakia for Austria?

On a seperate note, what occupying force on behalf of Wales do you see? The only Welsh force I know of is the one in Luxembourg, and that one is to liberate the region. If you are referring to the military governor, it is commonplace for a General to assign a Governor of the regained territory during the war to prevent war crimes, and to enforce pre-war law. Reximus55 (talk) 05:54, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

Well first of Palatinate is Bavarian, I vasslaized almost a decade ago and annexed to my main nation, it was a part of a deal i made awhile back. you have technically taken it from me through your union thing. i was under the impression that you were refusing to relinquish hold of liberated areas back to Germany, which is what I objected, I have long wanted Tyrol and Straussburg. I can relinquish my claim on Palatinate if I gain those two.Andr3w777 (talk) 06:36, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about the Palatinate! It has never been on a map that I have seen, so I deeply apologize. I would like to maintan my possesion of the Palatinate, however (if possible). I think it would be more than reasonable for you to gain Tyrol (up to France, not me). As for Strassburg, I think a 50-50 split with the Swiss would be fair. If the Palatinate is truly off limits, I will edit my posts to say Mainz. Reximus55 (talk) 08:24, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

The King-Duke applauds Wales' initiative in beginning a Concert of Europe. Saxony agrees with most of the proposals, but has three objections and one request. Firstly, We wish to gain Cologne (or some other part connecting Saxony with the Netherlands), as we wish to share a border with the Netherlands and not to be entirely hemmed-in by Brandenburg. Sacondly, we wish to be able to allow Anhalt to retain independence (if we want to), as is our right as overlord. Thirdly, Prussia should remain independent. It has contributed to the anti-Strellokian alliance as much as it can, considering its size, general backwardness, and distance from the war. If it is not, then the rulers should be compensated with either the proposed "Palatine" nation, or Anhalt, if the civil war stops. Callumthered (talk) 11:30, July 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * We thank Saxony for pointing out the effort that Prussia has put into the war and we reinforce the point on our independence. Kunarian TALK 11:54, July 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * Germany (Br.) offers to give that thin piece of land between extended Saxony and the Netherlands.
 * 16:11, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

Also, could the Confederation's loyalist Government-In-Exile take up permanent residence in Rhinish Guinea and establish a Boer-style country there? They could be a member of the GU. Callumthered (talk) 11:39, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

'''I have already decided on how this event will end and how the Rhinish confederation will be divided. Wales you get nothing. This discussion is rather unneccessary. I had already put how the Rhine Confederation will be divided between the German Union nations on the Greater Germanic Union page a week ago.''' The other talks about Avingion and stuff however are okay, but the Rhine question has already got an answer a week ago and even longer ago when I was thinking through these events to do with Strellok. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 17:35, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

I do not think that the partition is fair, at least for me. Cleves is located inside Netherlands, and long ago was vassal... Then came the mod events that formed the confederation, taking my 2 vassals: Cleves and Munster, and at the end of this war I have not received practically nothing, since I am one of those affected. I think at least the top of Munster should return to my control. Quashi (talk) 20:21, July 11, 2013 (UTC)


 * I (Saxony) will happily give you the top of Munster. Callumthered (talk) 20:29, July 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah that does make sense, sure parts of North and western Munster will go to the Dutch then. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 21:18, July 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * Let it be known. War is coming. :D
 * 21:22, July 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * Let you be warned that any war, will be bad for both sides Sine dei gloriem (talk) 01:40, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * War...with...me??? I was happy to accept your initial terms, Brandenburg, before I was handed Munster. Callumthered (talk) 05:05, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say its more likely that the war would be with me as i get picardy which he wants to keep a coast to luxembourg Sine dei gloriem (talk) 15:25, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * Why would I war with you, Callum? I was talking about France.
 * 21:09, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * A war with France? I hope you dont attack  Netherlands... Quashi (talk) 22:13, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I wouldn't do that. You're an important trading partner.
 * 22:20, July 12, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
I, Lithuania, would like to have an alliance with Germany against Prussia. I would like a share of Prussian territory. including the capital of Konigsburg if possible. OOC: I hope to slap. Lithuanian name on Konigsburg.Yank 00:29, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

Accepted, this time. Last time I was in a huge war. Sorry.

00:53, July 11, 2013 (UTC)


 * I as Prussia ask for a guarantee of my independence in the form of alliances from Lithuania and Brandenburg. I am shocked to hear of this as we have been allied with Brandenburg and the rest of Germany for a few years now and have sent some of what few soldiers we have to try and assist Germany, including Brandenburg. This is not an alliance against Brandenburg Kunarian TALK 06:41, July 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * Metagaming. You would not know about these secret arrangements.
 * I don't think this would be metagaming. The supposedly secret arrangements were made in a general discussion at the Avalon Congress. Just saying... Reximus55 (talk) 03:11, July 13, 2013 (UTC)

Alongside our request for an alliance simply to guarantee our independence, we would ask for an alliance against Lithuania to reclaim the lost Prussian lands, anyone who would join with us may take any amount of territory beyond the area (basically all the teal land) shown in the map as we would simply like our homeland rejoined once more. Kunarian TALK 07:05, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

Alliance maybe?? Sine dei gloriem (talk) 15:29, July 12, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
May I as Prussia, express the insult we feel for not having been invited to the conference despite being a relatively minor power we are a member of the alliance. Kunarian TALK 23:45, July 10, 2013 (UTC)


 * You were not part of the Wars. Its not that we want to exclude you, it is just that you are not part of the ongoing Wars in the capacity that the other nations have been. I have decided to invite you anyway. Reximus55 (talk) 00:18, July 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand that our contributions are mainly economic and not military however we feel that this could affect us greatly and so we would like our albeit small voice to be heard, so thank you. Kunarian TALK 06:38, July 11, 2013 (UTC)


 * If Brandenburg enters into an alliance with a foreign power against a fellow member of the GU, Saxony (and Bavaria) will have to consider whether Brandenburg is truly committed to the "stability of central Europe" or whether it is merely committed to its own personal gain. We  sincerely  hope that Saxony will not have to do any such considering, as Brandenburg is a long-standing friend and ally, with morals &c. Callumthered (talk) 11:30, July 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * We thank Saxony for the reinforcement of the idea of unity behind the GGU. Kunarian TALK 11:52, July 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * Since when was Prussia a GU member? This never happened.
 * 16:11, July 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * We joined in 1755. Saxony and Bavaria have understood this, we joined on the terms agreed: That I would convert to the Germanic Church and that I would be open to arrangements towards a protectorate in the future. Kunarian TALK 16:29, July 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was of the mind that he had been accepted in 1755, hence the objection to an alliance against him. Callumthered (talk) 20:33, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

If you must reduce Venaissin (which is the proper name), then at least allow the Pope control over the holy city of Avignon. It houses the only proper papal residence other than the one the Italians forced the papacy to evacuate in Rome.Yank 00:23, July 11, 2013 (UTC)


 * Feel free to edit that. Also, please sign in? Reximus55 (talk) 00:18, July 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * It's Provence. You can check the labelled map as well as the nations list.
 * 01:33, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

Pretty sure that was just used in order to Not have to type the more complicated name of Venaissin. That was the name it had when the Papacy was there in the 1300's and its the name now. Also the labelled map has been wrong before. I'm also sure "Beja" had another name that was forgotten. Yank 01:23, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * Nubia?--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 07:21, July 13, 2013 (UTC)

Prussia
Total: 39*1.5 (revolutionary government)= 58.5 = 59
 * Location: +4
 * Tactical Advantage: +1
 * Strength: Prussia (L) = +4
 * Military Development: 8/0 = +8
 * Economy: 4/0 = +4
 * Infrastructure: +0
 * Expansion: +0
 * Motive: +7
 * Chance: +0
 * Edit Count: 900
 * UTC Time: 06:56 = 6*5*6 = 180
 * 900/180 * Pi = 15.70796327
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Population: +6
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: +0

Lithuania
Total: 39=39
 * Location: +4
 * Tactical Advantage: +0
 * Strength: Lithuania (L) = +4
 * Military Development: 0 = +0
 * Economy: 0 = +0
 * Infrastructure: +0
 * Expansion: +0
 * Motive: +5
 * Chance: +5
 * Edit Count: 10,786
 * UTC Time: 06:56 = 6*5*6 = 180
 * 10,786/180 * Pi = 188.2512131
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Population: +6
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: +0

Result
Mod help pls.

Discussion
Feel free to comment. Kunarian TALK 08:55, July 12, 2013 (UTC)

The edits thing is different. I'll do the proper one for both of you. Imp (Say Hi?!) 12:23, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * Can I have a mod help please. It's a little late and btw I'm back! :D Kunarian TALK 20:17, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * You get 20%Yank 14:33, July 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * Right well I only want the area that I claimed which is less than 20% I believe. Kunarian TALK 15:08, July 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd take the 20% while you still have the 1.5 x bonus. Reximus55 (talk);;
 * Give me a minute I'll throw up a map of what's going on with that 20% then. Kunarian TALK 16:03, July 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * Lithuania is 437 pixels large so 20% is 87 pixels. And Yank is a mod Kun, so he is perfectly fine to do this algorithm. And it is +5 nation age for Lithuania as its government ain't changed. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 19:45, July 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * PM2PruLitTerritoryChange1760.png Here we go then. And are you sure you're right about Lithuania being 437 pixels in size, that'd make it smaller than Prussia. :P Kunarian TALK 19:50, July 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * Woops, Prussia is 437 pixels and Lithuania is 1397 pixels. I got the nations mixed up. Your map there helped me spot my mistake and the 1700 named map confirmed my error. I'm using the 1760 map btw for these pixels sizes. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 20:13, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

I doubt that the current Prussian government could be classified as a revolutionary government. At best it would be -10 for Prussia with the last government change being entrance into the Germanic Union. 05:45, July 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * No, Government change refers to a change in the whole government not of policy therefore the overthrow of the previous government was the time of the last government change. And the current Prussian government overthrew the previous government and established a type of republic, quite revolutionary for the time most certainly, close to Napoleon (who is used as an example of revolutionary government in the rules). Kunarian TALK 06:41, July 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * Eh, that's taking the definition very far. I'd say it shouldn't count as the definition also includes Hitler. The fact with Hitler and Napoleon is that they replaced their respective governments with something almost as bad. 20:44, July 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * Then tell me at least three points that define a revolutionary government. Kunarian TALK 21:21, July 17, 2013 (UTC)

Absence
I won't be here for 1761, so be nice, and also I've put generally what will happen for my 1761 turn bold in below my 1760 turn. Be back soon! Kunarian TALK 15:02, July 12, 2013 (UTC)

perhaps lol <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 23:24, July 12, 2013 (UTC)

Arabian Federation
Total: 70*1.1 = 77
 * Location: +2
 * Tactical Advantage: +6
 * Strength: Arabian Federation (L), Arabian Caliphate (M), Kuwait (MV), Baghdad (MV), Maldives (MV), Comchellak (MV), Levantine Kingdom (M), Tanimbarkai (P): 19/4 = +5
 * Military Development: 26/3 = +9
 * Economy: 4/3 = +1
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +3
 * Chance: +2
 * Edit Count: 4,305
 * UTC Time: 10:38 - 24
 * (4305/24)*pi= 563.523182238
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Population: +27
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: 0

Bima
Total: 41
 * Location: +5
 * Tactical Advantage: 0
 * Strength: Larantuka (L): 4/19 = 0
 * Military Development: 3/26 = 0
 * Economy: 3/4 = 0
 * Infrastructure: +3
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +10
 * Chance: +3
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Population: +5
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: 0

Result
((77/(41+77))*2)-1 = 0.30508474576 - 30.51%

(30.51)*(1-1/(2*3)) = 25.425%

25.43% of Bima's 265 pixels is 67 pixels. These 67 pixels of territory will be annexed by the Federation into the Kupang colony.

Discussions
I finish this algorithm when I wake up tommorow, I am le tired now. Feel free to add ur nations to this algorithm if u are being nice and sending me military aid :) <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 23:24, July 12, 2013 (UTC)

Okay it is finished, victory is mine. I'll be following it up with a second invasion soon. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 11:13, July 13, 2013 (UTC)

Woops forgot my industrialization bonus! <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 16:29, July 13, 2013 (UTC)

Russia's Eventual War with the Kazakh Khanate...
Russia will have this war...eventualy, once I buff up my military and economy stats...-Lx (leave me a message) 16:42, July 13, 2013 (UTC)

Algorithm Industry Bonus
I saw that Von mentioned some Industrialization bonus for the Algorithm, and I have not seen, or at the very least don't Remember any Industry bonus discussed, can sombody please clarify on what it is, if it exists, and, well, put in up on the rules page because there is no mention on what exactly the Industry bonus is, it just mentions it in the Coalition section.-Lx (leave me a message) 22:06, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

Well, according to Von, you only get the bonus if your fighting against one very primitive nation. Har. If your fighting against several unindustrialized nations, you still don't get the bonus even if you can outproduce them. ChaCha! Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 22:28, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

You get it if your more industrialized then the other nation - e.g. they are stage 1 industrailized and you are stage 2. If you are in a coalition then the majority of the leader nations in the coalition need to be more industrialized than the other side. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 19:41, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

yes, ok, I think I understand that part about coalitions, but that still does not answer my main question(sorry if I was not more clear): What form does the bonus take? I still dont understand what is added or how the bonus is calculated.-Lx (leave me a message) 20:24, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

10% for each stage higher. So 1 stage higher its 1.1 and two stages higher its 1.2, etc. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 20:35, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks-Lx (leave me a message) 22:44, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Tribal Vassalization Rules
I wanted to kick start a discussion as a result of the Chono-Huarpe dispute in the Map section regarding the vassalization of Tribes in the black area. I think this may have some potential as a strategy to help close up the black areas quicker (and for those of us playing somewhat isolated nations ourselves) but there should probably be some rules on how to do this rather than just haphazardly inventing new states on the map. This goes to another point, which is that just becasue a tribal "nation" was real (an area of common culture), central GOVERNMENT did not exist among these groups and they first had to be united into a STATE (which we would show as gray areas). It's entirely possible for a colonial power to set up a local puppet chief and centralize his authority, so here's a proposal for how I think it could work.

''1. In order to vassalize a tribe, you must first  use your influence to centralize their government. This takes five years at the cost of half a turn per year, the tribe MUST border either your nation or your colonies (They could also be on the borders of a vassal, but the new state will be a vassal of the vassal not the main nation). If the tribe is placed on the borders of another nation, that other nation has the right to immediately begin influencing the tribe at no cost to them.''

2. At the end of five years, the new state will be placed on the map in a PRE-SPECIFIED location in gray and will be exactly 5,000 sq km in size.

''3. It will take another five years to fully vassalize this new nation, other players are free to interact with this new nation, and it is NOT controlled by the player that created it. (It also becomes a playable nation on the off chance that a new player signs up in the five year gap.)''

''4. Once vassalized, this new nation is classified not as a full vassal but as a "Tribal Vassal." Tribal vassals may expand at a constant rate of 2,000 sq km per year - to a MAXIMUM SIZE of 20,000 sq km.''

5. Tribal vassals may never be merged with colonies, vassals, or your main nation for the duration of the game - and they must become fully independent upon decolonization.

This is a start - but I think it may help us fill in the black areas and populate the map for later in the game. I think it also provides significant barriers against the idea of "vassal dumping" (inventing a large nation right next to another player in order to halt their expansion).

Thoughts?

Commandante Lemming (talk) 16:27, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

I think the tribes should be able to annexed into a colony or nation, I mean this was done very often with the USA, Brazil and Australia to name a few. We also need to make sure that the tribe actually exists and is in the location specified. Maybe we do a new labeled map with the black areas divided into the tribal regions? Or perhaps we allow nations to expand at a greater rate if they are invading a "non existant on the map" tribal nation by penalizing them with a war penalty of -1 in the algorithm? <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 19:54, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

That might work, although I think It would be really hard to make a labelled boundary map with a set list of tribes. For instance, in my part of South American, the "Chono culture" was pretty widespread and there could easily be multiple Chono states. On the other hand, the Selk'nam culture could be lumped in with the wider "Fuegian" distinction along with the Alacaluf, Yaghan, and Huash cultures (despite cultural differences)...OR it could have been subdivided into smaller independent units such as the Ona (who shared Selk'nam culture and language but were not really united with the other groups that shared Selk'nam culture - I ended up using the whole Selk'nam culture but it's debatable).

Personally I like the idea of leaving the black area undefined and letting players place tribal nations becasue it enhances the creativity and randomness of the game (which is why we are all playing a Wiki-based game rather than any number of pre-packaged geopolitical strategy games that we could buy). I wouldn't have been able to invent the Great Haruwin without the randomness, becasue the area likely would have been lumped into a "Mapuche" or "Chono" region.

As for the absorbtion thing I suggested it as a way of ensuring this isn't used as a backhanded way to expand colonies faster than they should expand. I was thinking that if you set up a puppet regime it's hard to fully absorb it, like the princely states in India, or the fact that Lesotho is still an enclave in South Africa becasue the British made it a protectorate rather than absorbing it. That and I think it would make things really interesting later.

Just my two cents though.

Commandante Lemming (talk) 20:15, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

They are still expanding faster than they should but its not their colonies but their puppets. Which is worse because puppets are more useful in the war algorithm than colonies. Plus like you say the debates on where these tribes live is difficult. No I think we should keep it how it is, with mods deciding when a tribe rises up to become a nation. So if players want to mention the tribes they have conquered, they can mention these tribes in their posts. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 09:55, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

Could I, say, go to a large-scale war to unite the Chono, although I am not the Chono, thereby making them my vassal? Reximus55 (talk)

Well no because you are not the Chono and they lack a nation state too. You could do your expansion as normal and mention in your posts how your expansion is part of your mission to unite the Chono. But why would the British care that a native populace is now united? They just want their resources and to profit from them. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 17:04, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

Well it would be convoluted but not unprecedented to try to prop up a local regime rather than outright colonoization. There aren't a lot of examples of this in Latin American because in real life that was early colonization by the Spanish and they just ran roughshod. However, we're in the 1700s her and talking about Enlightenment-age Welshmen. The British empire in particular, and especially in this historical period, did a LOT of propping up locals and moaking them pseudo-protectorates, both to soothe their own consciences and to keep and established authority with local credibility in place. They did this to great effect in India and later in Southern Africa. It would not be entirely out of character for PMII Wales to attempt something like that in a version of history where South America is still largely unsettled frontier (wheras in the real world I was one of the earliest places colonized) Commandante Lemming (talk) 17:13, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

Arabian Federation
Total: 74*1.1 = 81
 * Location: +2
 * Tactical Advantage: +6
 * Strength: Arabian Federation (L), Arabian Caliphate (M), Kuwait (MV), Baghdad (MV), Maldives (MV), Comchellak (MV), Levantine Kingdom (M), Tanimbarkai (MV): 20/4 = +5
 * Military Development: 20/2 = +10
 * Economy: 4/2 = +2
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +3
 * Chance: +7
 * Edit Count: 4,329
 * UTC Time: 10:12 - 2
 * (4329/2)*pi= 6799.9772987
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Population: +27
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: -3

Bima
Total: 41
 * Location: +5
 * Tactical Advantage: 0
 * Strength: Larantuka (L): 4/19 = 0
 * Military Development: 2/26 = 0
 * Economy: 2/4 = 0
 * Infrastructure: +2
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: +10
 * Chance: +7
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Population: +5
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: -3

Result
((81/(41+81))*2)-1 = 0.32786885245 - 32.79%

(32.79)*(1-1/(2*1)) = 16.395%

Won 25.43% in the first war and 25.43 + 16.395 = 41.825 so the Federation topples Bima's government after 1 year of war.