Talk:Lobositz's Lamentable Loss (Map Game)

Algorithm
This algorithm is very important in this game, because we will be having a war. Here is the algorithm:

Location

 * At the war: 5: At the War means that the battle is in your nation.
 * Next to the war: 4: Next to the war means that the battle is on or near your border.
 * Close to the war: 3: Close to the war means that the battle is inside your neighboring country. (This only applies is the country is Poland sized or really close to you in the case of a Russia size nation.)
 * Far from the war: 1: Far from the war means that the war is nowhere near your country or its capital cirty.
 * Halfway around the world: -1 (By negative, I mean it loses one, due to wasting massive supplies, poor main comands, and wariness from troops from the mainland.) Halfway around the world means that your are not on the same continent. However, if you border an ocean (the Atlantic, perhaps), then you can send troops to the other side of that ocean. No loss, no gain.

Strength

 * Every ally/nation participating in the battle with defenders or attackers: 3
 * Side with greater population: 6
 * Side with greater industry: 6
 * Control of the Seas: 3+ attackers, or 5+ defenders. (The nation with a superior navy in that area, that has control of the seas of the areas, has a major advantage, due to blockading ports, or cutting off the enemy's supplies.
 * Tired Military: If defending nation is fighting another war already somewhere else: -2
 * If attacking force is fighting another war somewhere else: -2
 * Size of Army: (Nation with a larger army) If attacker has a larger army: 3+
 * If attacking army is smaller -3
 * Vice versa for defenders.

Tactical Advantage

 * Attacker’s advantage: 1
 * Defender’s advantage: 2
 * Home is desert: Defenders +3, attackers -3
 * Island: 4
 * General:
 * (Depending on who is leading the army, if he is detailed and the general is historically sucessful.)
 * Attacker: 1+ Defender: 1+
 * Note: In this game island and defender advantage points are COMBINED

Random

 * Done using random.org from one to ten

Motive

 * Provoked: 8
 * Life or death (country’s sovereign existence is threatened): 7
 * Social/moral: 6
 * Religious: 4-7 (if government is based on a religion, 7, if not, 4)
 * Political: 5
 * Economical: 3
 * To Gain Land: 2
 * To Look Nice in the Eyes of Big Nations: -2

The possibility of perhaps making an exception to Rule 7
I know, I know, the rules say only one nation, but if I played as a ridiculously small nation (like, say, the Principality of Waldeck), could I perhaps play as another small nation somewhere else (like in Italy)?

Regards, Callumthered (talk) 10:21, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to break it to you, but no. --RandomWriterGuy (talk) 16:21, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. On another note, should the British, Dutch and French East India Companies be playable nations? They did exercise much self-government. Callumthered (talk) 22:11, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Mind getting their respective flags? --RandomWriterGuy (talk) 00:19, August 3, 2012 (UTC)

Actually, scratch the Dutch. They did not have any major influence in India. However, there's the Dutch East Indies Co. And they controlled most of the archipelago at the time.

BTW, I added new nations to Europe. mind getting their respective flags? --RandomWriterGuy (talk) 08:46, August 3, 2012 (UTC)

I''ll try my best! ''

(...I did say the Dutch East India Company...) Callumthered (talk) 09:43, August 3, 2012 (UTC)

Mod Event-Controlled Nationa
I have been wondering something that pretty much was also a flaw in a Principia Moderni. NOT all states have expanded or did any major achievements. My thought is that can we allow some nations to be either controlled by mod events for the sale of plausibility? --RandomWriterGuy (talk) 08:48, August 3, 2012 (UTC)

China and Flags
Again, whoever made that Althistory.com map did absolutely no research whatsoever into the history of China, the Uyghurs, or Tibet during this time period. I will correct the inaccurate map once more. LurkerLordB (Talk) 15:47, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

Also, once again, the Qing flag was not invented until 1862, and even then it was in triangle shape. The Japanese Rising Sun flag was not invented until 8 years after the Qing flag. LurkerLordB (Talk) 15:50, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

Also, I think it would be a good idea to do what we did in the last game and uncolor NPC nations with no colonies that have colors and give all player nations colors to help tell the difference. LurkerLordB (Talk) 16:03, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

Also, Vietnam did not have a flag until the same year as the Qing, and the Thai flag was just the blank red one until 1790. LurkerLordB (Talk) 16:15, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

Can I join the game?
I would like to join the game as the Dutch East Indies, is it fine if I play? I just joined Althist wiki and in the months before I joined I read map games, so I wont be implausible. I Am Walrus (talk) 00:47, August 5, 2012 (UTC)I Am Walrus

No restrictions into joining. Go ahead. --RandomWriterGuy (talk) 01:55, August 5, 2012 (UTC)

ASB Tag?!
Why is this game tagged ASB?! And how can we fix it? --RandomWriterGuy (talk) 01:28, August 5, 2012 (UTC)

While I'm not too sure (you should ask LG, since he was the one to categorise it) I do believe it's because of the whole "Frederick dies causing the Brits to entirely collapse" thingy, to which I'd suggest just killing off Frederick (erase all the "Four Years' War" thingy, leaving how long would the war last and its outcome open). Fed (talk) 04:20, August 5, 2012 (UTC)

OK. Look. The inspiration came from this Fed. If you showed this to LG, would he reconsider? RandomWriterGuy (talk) 04:25, August 5, 2012 (UTC)

Well, RWG, it'd be far better if you made it different from the TL, since derivative works in this wiki are against the rules (and LG is rather keen on deleting said derivative works). Fed (talk) 04:30, August 5, 2012 (UTC)

So what do you suggest? --RandomWriterGuy (talk) 05:16, August 5, 2012 (UTC)

Change it a bit so that only Frederick dies, and leave who wins and what time does it take open. That would be enough of a difference I believe. Fed (talk) 05:18, August 5, 2012 (UTC)

Anything else? --RandomWriterGuy (talk) 05:54, August 5, 2012 (UTC)

I got somewhat of a good idea. Maybe if he dies in Lobositz. Similar outcome? --RandomWriterGuy (talk) 18:33, August 5, 2012 (UTC)

...

RWG, you asked me before you made this about how plausible that timeline was. The answer was "not in the least" then. It has not changed.

The whole thing - though everything associated with the Brits is the worst - is why it is tagged ASB.

Lordganon (talk) 05:42, August 5, 2012 (UTC)

Is there any plausible way for the French to win the Seven Years War? LurkerLordB (Talk) 15:21, August 5, 2012 (UTC)

Well, sure, but it would be a lot earlier than a lamentable loss at leuthen.

RWG, why are you surprised? You put up a nexus page, got a firm 'implausible'....

The Royal Guns (talk) 15:27, August 5, 2012 (UTC)

It's a map game. Really, all map games are implausible. Let's just let it be and try to enjoy it. ChrisL123 (talk) 02:12, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Lurk, the answer is more or less no. Best they can hope for is to gain a few towns in Europe, bankrupting themselves in the process, while holding their ground in North America.

Lordganon (talk) 08:45, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

When does the game start?
Sorry, im new here, I'm not sure if I just didn't see it or something, but when do we start?I Am Walrus (talk) 04:12, August 5, 2012 (UTC)I Am Walrus

Once things are prepared. RandomWriterGuy (talk) 04:26, August 5, 2012 (UTC)

Can I pick another country?
I don't know whether to pick Brazil, a Portuguese colony, or Sweden, which I play as in another game, or even Denmark-Norway? (to make amends for what happened in that game) Stewdio333 (talk) 08:46, August 5, 2012 (UTC)

Troop Numbers
I saw that in the last game you guys had a lot of argument about troop numbers. The troop numbers were waaaaayyyyy too high. The only countries that could have that many troops would be Japan, maybe Korea, and China. (China once had armies of up to one million before all this happened). PitaKang- (But here's my number | So call me maybe) 16:01, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

I doubt Korea and Japan can muster an army this big. I think that until empires are large enough and/or population is high should this be possible. But for now China has the advantage. --RandomWriterGuy (talk) 21:25, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Trust me- they could. PitaKang- (But here's my number | So call me maybe) 01:22, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

during the tokogawa shogunate japan couldnt but prior they could the japanese under hidoyeshi mustered an invasion of korea 50,000 strong and lorea i have no idea but i think 20000 or 30000 would the largest armies any nation save china, the idian states, the persian empire could muster until the french revolutionary wars were the idea of conscription was invented. nkbeeching

I think that there should be a list of the player-controlled nations and their potential troops numbers. Just a thought. Callumthered (talk) 02:07, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

Err-- Forced conscription was probably the most common form of "recruitment" in the East... PitaKang- (But here's my number | So call me maybe) 13:06, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

Also, the Japanese invading army was about 200,000, not 20,000. China was actually less than Japan or Korea, at 90,000 ish. Korea was in the hundreds of thousands as well because of all those militas. PitaKang- (But here's my number | So call me maybe) 13:16, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

Generally, China kept their various armies in the tens of thousands, and they were stationed all across the border. In the case of total war, they could muster up millions of troops. LurkerLordB (Talk) 13:33, August 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I meant in the Japanese invasion of Korea. Flag_of_South_Korea.png PitaKang- (But here's my number | So call me maybe) 14:19, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Still, I feel that this is still going to be pretty ASB in terms of troops numbers. But hey, as long as it is... believable... I feel it should be allowed.

The Royal Guns (talk) 13:48, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

Out of self-interest, the African states in West Africa were able to muster 80,000 to 250,000 men for combat. The Benin Empire had nearly 90-125,000 men for combat, and the Ashanti themselves were able to maintain an army of 80,000 men at any given time, and upwards of 250,000 during a full-scale war. Once again, mearly interjecting... --"Truth fears no questions..." 14:12, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

I've already found approximate troop numbers from New France by merely finding those who fought in the (around 20,000). Perhaps instead of just stating numbers, we should get a reference before we claim troop numbers. ChrisL123 (talk) 15:37, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

shall we make a caps for the troops numbers maybe until the french revolutionary war were we can up it for japan, korea, and the western nations 50,000 for colonies 20,000 except the carribean islands which maybe 8000 at most, for china 100,000 and the rest of the world 30,000 sound goods? i know these numbers arent all historically corect but to make it fair and atleast slightly balanced. Nkbeeching

Plenty of tiny African nations would be incapable of mustering more than some of the larger colonies, which themselves would be able to gather armies of different sizes. Furthermore, if the fighting is going on in a nation (invaded, civil war), they could constript troops amounting to much higher numbers. A better idea would be to tie it into the situation, and into the percentage of the population. Like say 0.2% of the population for the maximum amount of troops possible to be mustered, unless you are being invaded or in civil war, then you can muster up to 5% of your population. LurkerLordB (Talk) 18:33, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Lurker; the number of troops wasn't fixed at all and really should depend per nation (for example, the Ottoman Empire's strength at the start of the XVIII Century was slightly above 50,000, but during the Ottoman-Russian War the Otts and their allies mustered over 400,000 troops according to Wikipedia). There should be a population percentage limit but leave it at that. Fed (talk) 22:01, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

It would be until the Napoleonic Wars when nations, specifically in Europe, started using much larger armies. Small nations in the Napoleonic Wars could muster armies as big as armies of major European Nations in the Seven Years war. That should be an estimate of troop numbers. Ianian58 (talk) 14:39, August 8, 2012 (UTC)

Lets go with the SOA5 idea proposed toward the end of the game. 4% tops during peace or minor war (mods rule on the difference). 6% in major war (again, mods rule on the difference). 8% tops if your country is about to die with enemy troops being shoved down your throat (I don't think there will be much need for mods to rule on this).

The Royal Guns (talk) 09:55, August 9, 2012 (UTC)

Those numbers are too high in general. LurkerLordB (Talk) 11:17, August 9, 2012 (UTC)

The percentage system could work in some instances, but the german countries (Hesse-Kassel, Waldeck and more) which hired out mercenaries had very large armies for their small populations. Callumthered (talk) 01:06, August 10, 2012 (UTC)

I looked as this discussion, and I definitely believe this is a problem we would have to solve. I believe countries with high populations are capable of mustering the largest armies. Small countries cannot. They can only do this in times of civil wars, separatist rebellions, or mercenary-hiring. --RandomWriterGuy (talk) 05:38, August 10, 2012 (UTC)

Hesse-Kassel was in a state of almost constant hiring-out of mercenaries otl. Waldeck (somehow) managed to have two whole Regiments hired out to the Netherlands for like, thirty years. Whilst the size is not large compared to other countries, it was, somehow, do-able for some of the small German states. Anyway, unless a country's economy relies on a large military (like the hiring-out countries), then I think they should be pretty small. Especially considering the world only just got out of a war, and will be in debt. Callumthered (talk) 23:24, August 10, 2012 (UTC)

3-Day Dissapearence
I will be gone for three days starting tomorrow. And I know the start of the game will be delayed. I assure you it will be Saturday. What time? When I tell you so. RandomWriterGuy (talk) 05:43, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

ASBness?
I think this game is a tad bit ASB/implausible. Mostly because Britain still has possessions in North America. I think that the Ohio River Valley should go to France, at the least. That was amajor goal for both sides in North America.

Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 05:49, August 13, 2012 (UTC)

I thought the war ended in a stalemate, with pretty much status quo ante bellum in America and India. (In-game, of course) Callumthered (talk) 06:21, August 13, 2012 (UTC)

Britain was too strong for France to beat them soundly enough to take all their colonies. LurkerLordB (Talk) 00:20, August 14, 2012 (UTC)

But I think they could at least take the Ohio River Valley. Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 00:53, August 14, 2012 (UTC)

It does. I dunno why. --RandomWriterGuy (talk) 04:52, August 14, 2012 (UTC)

The Ohio Valley was New France's, from what I've read up on. In fact, one of main reasons for the war was because French colonists wouldn't leave the region, and the Thirteen Colonies claimed it as their own. If anything, I'd bet they'd get the island of Labrador. There would be no way New France could gain any major British land in North America without widespread rebellion. ChrisL123 (talk) 05:43, August 14, 2012 (UTC)

Simply put, there are millions of British colonists, and less than a hundred thousand French ones. Do the math. This whole "Game" has been ASB from day one. Lordganon (talk) 19:39, August 18, 2012 (UTC)

A Short History of Australian Colonisation
Okay, understandably, many of you do not know much/anything at all about the process by whch Australia was discovered, claimed and colonised. That is why I, Callumthered (talk), self-appointed Mod for Australian Matters, am going to give a brief explanation of Australian Discovery and Colonisation.

Australia was first settled 40,000-60,000 years ago, when the ancestors of today's Aborigines arrived from Southeast Asia. They lived in isolation from the outside world, in the stone age, but developing a very complex and interesting culture.

The first recorded visitation of Australia by Europeans occured in 1606, when the Dutchman, Willem Janszoon, ran into the northern part of Australia. The Dutch (most notable, Abel Tasman) continued to map and chart the Northern, Western, and Southern coasts of Australia for the 1600s, and the entire continent was called New Holland.

The Dutch did not establish any sort of colony in New Holland. Why? Because the [vast majority of] Western and Northern coasts of Australia are very inhospitable places, unable to sustain large, European-style settlements. Also, the Dutch were too busy colonising the lucrative Spice Islands to bother colonising a dusty, barren rock with no apparent riches.

The only British exploration of New Holland by the POD was by William Dampier, who hated the place, and called its inhabitants "the most wretched people on Earth."

So, at the POD, Northern, Western ans South-West Australia had been charted, and was universally known as New Holland.

In otl, the Englishman, Captain Cook, was the first European to discover the Eastern Coast of Australia [in 1770]. The East, compared to the barren West, is lush, with rolling pastures and great Eucalypt forests. However, Cook had not been sent by the British to map it. His actual mission was to observe the Transit of Venus from Tahiti, and he merely found the East coast on his way home. The entire East coast was named New South Wales, and claimed for Britain.

Despite this, it took the British government 18 years before they did anything with their new posession. By that time, jails in Britain were overflowing with petty criminals. Since the American War of Independence meant that convicts could no longer be transported to America, a new solution had to be found. Joseph Banks, botanist who travelled with Cook, suggested New South Wales as the ideal situation for a penal settlement.

And so eleven ships set sail from Britain carrying convicts, soldiers, and a very small number of settlers. It took them eight onths to get there, and once they did, they were not all-too-pleased with what they found. Two years later, when the Second Fleet arrived, the colony was still only just starting to find its feet: many people still lived in tents, and almost all food consisted of the rations brought over from Britain, which were, of course, going off.

So, in conclusion: Before the POD, Australia was known as New Holland, and was regarded as a most inhospitable place. Only after the discovery of the lush Eastern coast in 1770 was there any sort of small interest in using the land. Even then, the British government had to force people to go there!

So, if you plan on colonising Australia in the game, please take into account the previous history of the land. And again, it's completely understandable that non-Australians don't know about Australian history: we're not everyone's top priority!

Callumthered (talk) 10:15, August 16, 2012 (UTC)

I knew abit of this history but not the whole thing mainly about it being a penal colony thanks for the summarized history. Nkbeeching

Game-Killing Glitch
Anybody explain the glitch that's appearing on the game? ~Stew

Someone screwed up an edit, and RWG didn't care enough/notice it to fix it.

I've done so.

Lordganon (talk) 07:53, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

I did. I had a very difficult time with it. RandomWriterGuy (talk) 03:49, August 20, 2012 (UTC)

Map
Mapmakers, when uploading a new map, don't just upload it over the old one, as then it is wrong. Just click on upload a new image and upload it new. LurkerLordB (Talk) 21:36, August 22, 2012 (UTC)

You mean replace the map? What I was doing was uploading the changes, so that way we have a chronology of the map.

Monster Pumpkin (talk) 22:24, August 22, 2012 (UTC)

Upload the new maps as a new file. Replacing the old map with a new one creates confusion, especially when it is labelled as being the map of 1760.

Generally, I dislike the trend among the Axis vs. Allies Revised-style games that have no maps being posted throughout the text, with old maps either being deleted or totally removed. It ruins the point of a map game, in my opinion, to be inable to go through the game and look at the various maps to see the chronology over time. LurkerLordB (Talk) 23:22, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

Terms

 * 1) The Marathas will give up all eastern territories to France whil the Mughals gain the norhteastern portion.
 * 2) The Marathas are now under the mercy of the Mughals (aka puppet state).
 * 3) The Marathas are responsible for the war costs.

Signatures

 * France RandomWriterGuy (talk) 04:14, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

Tributary States
I am planning for China to demand tribute from the various south-east Asian nations. They aren't being vassalized or having alliances made, China is just going to threaten them into sending tribute. Should an RNG be done, and if so, what should it count as? LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:32, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

I guess that can be possible. RandomWriterGuy (talk) 05:19, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

China
Location:5 (at the war)

Strength:China, Tibet:6

Population:6

Industry:NA (not industrial yet)

Control of the Seas:?? Both have worked on their navies quite a bit

Size of Army:3 (undisputable)

Tactical Advantage:2 (defending Sakhalin territory)

Random:Need moderator

Motive:5 (political)

Total:37+Control of the Seas+Random

Japan
Location:5 (at the war)

Strength:Japan:3

Population:0

Industry:NA (not industrial yet)

Control of the Seas:?? Both have worked on their navies quite a bit

Size of Army:-3

Tactical Advantage:5 (attacking+island)

Random:Need moderator

Motive:5 (political)

Total:15+Control of the Seas+Random

Discussion
Actually, never mind the algorithm, I am letting Japan take Chinese Sakhalin and Korea. However, this war is going to drag on (like at least until 1779) LurkerLordB (Talk) 13:37, September 9, 2012 (UTC)

Terms

 * 1) British India is given to France.
 * 2) Britain will recognize the independence of the Southern Union
 * 3) Everything else is status quo ante bellum.

Signatures
Great Britain (We forgot to sign the Treaty.) Stewdio333 (talk) 07:15, September 12, 2012 (UTC) France --RandomWriterGuy (talk) 04:10, September 14, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * The 13 Colonies would like to get independence from Great Britain and have the Southern Union region join the 13C under one equal nation called the United States. Enclavehunter (talk) 04:24, September 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * If not unified in one nation. Can the 13 Colonies become independent with the border between the Southern Union and United States to be Virginia. Enclavehunter (talk) 04:30, September 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * Usually, we would want to keep our colonies. However, this war has seriously drained us, and as long as the 13 Colonies remain faithful to the British (Like OTL Canada and Australia), and form something like a Commonwealth, than we will accept the independence of the 13 Colonies. (Unlike OTL, I don't think the British would have the resources to fight to keep the Americans) Stewdio333 (talk) 05:34, September 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * We are willing to agree to the terms of the Treaty of Paris, under these conditions:
 * British India will be given to France, as long as British colonists will be promised safe passage out.
 * We will acknowledge the existence of the Southern Union, though will not guarantee their protection, should war break out between them and the future nation of the 13 Colonies.
 * The British can keep the Channel Islands, however, the French will be welcome to enter and leave as they please. The English Channel must also remain neutral ground, and allow ships of all Navies to cross through.
 * That we have a right to exercise full neutrality in a future all-out European War, with the exception of the Treaty of Windsor, which dates back all the way to 1386, where we have a longtime alliance with Portugal.
 * As long as these conditions are permitted, we will accept the treaty. Stewdio333 (talk) 05:34, September 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * Waldeck would like it's expansion officially recognised, and the Prince to gain the title "Landgrave of Lower Hannover" to add to his current one, "HSH ___, Prince of Waldeck, Pyrmont and Kassel". Callumthered (talk) 06:27, September 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow! I just realised that we did an entire world war wthout an algorythm! AND IT WORKED! I must congratulate both France and the UK on their self-restraint and non-godmodding! Callumthered (talk) 08:42, September 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * The United States (13 Colonies) is independent after being granted by Britain, and states the southern Union is part of the United States, and asks the nations of the world to not recongize it. Enclavehunter (talk) 03:46, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * France agrees to the British conditions. And BTW Callum, yeah. We really need our alogorithm heads. RandomWriterGuy (talk) 04:27, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

African involvement in Chinese-Japanese Conflict
this is a local war that is strictly in east asia, impossible for the two african nations to get involved for simple logistics among other things. im just modernized true but im fighting against my neighbor not across the bloody world. even though im a mod i wont strike it out since i dont want to be biased but i find this quite impossible at this time maybe in a few more decades of their development maybe but now no. whats everyone elses opinion.

Nkbeeching

As I've already stated on the main page, it would only take another decade for the Ashanti to reach the same level as you. Ashanti were exposed to European technology for some time, but never utilized it effectively in time to make a difference. I'm keen as to how long until somebody finally agrees that I've modernized. Is there some sort of clock, somebody I need to talk to to acknowledge the Ashanti modernized enough to interact on the world stage? I mean, I have tons of gold, ivory, iron, copper and bronze, diamonds, millions of people, a large navy and even larger army. When will I be declared a modern nation? ((ლ( (ಠ益ಠ) ((ლ(22:46, September 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * And for Christ's sake! Will somebody put my claims on the map already? ((ლ( (ಠ益ಠ) ((ლ( 22:47, September 11, 2012 (UTC)


 * Im not denying your modernized i am to but their are a number of factors neither our nations have that allows us to rage war across the globe its that simple also even though you are modernized your not one race your a multicultural empire thats been built in less then thousand years and most of your subjects wouldnt been completely loyal to you. Nkbeeching
 * True I'm a multi-cultural nation, but I do hold the majority in my empire. The Ashanti are part of the Akan people, and the Akan are generally a homogenous group. The Akan are also the most populous in my empire to a degree, just barely, and form the core of the military and government. The menials consist of the other groups, but the iron fist of the Asantemene keeps them in line less they end up on a slave ship. ((ლ( (ಠ益ಠ) ((ლ( 23:09, September 11, 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry about starting all this. I'd just like to say I'm fine with staying out of the war. Ozymandias2 (talk) 23:18, September 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * i ment in less then a decade not thousands of years XD also lets just accept it while trade and diplomacy is possible at this point war in asia for you is impossible and war for me in africa is beyond imagination plus our people would have no interest one in the other its that simple i cant imagine japanese ships managing a war in west africa or mounting an invasion for that matter even in world war 2 can you? Nkbeeching
 * I agree. ((ლ( (ಠ益ಠ) ((ლ( 23:24, September 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * no problem oz Nkbeeching but look at what im saying it does make some sence dont you think.

The beauty of me waging a war overseas is this. While it is implausible for me to involve the Ashanti in Asia, it is very possible for me to get involved in South America. Asanteman is positioned perfectly for a trip to and from South Africa, since the wind currents between West Africa and South America are blown from the east to the west, making travel between the two faster and safer. The Ashanti empire is position slightly above the northern part of South America, and the space between them is rather small, making an invasion highly likely in a decades time (modenization wise). ((ლ( (ಠ益ಠ) ((ლ( 23:21, September 11, 2012 (UTC)

im not saying anything about the americas i have no interest their anyways, my concern is th asia question. Nkbeeching


 * Well, in that case, let me shut up. ((ლ( (ಠ益ಠ) ((ლ( 23:32, September 11, 2012 (UTC)

Ashanti (Aggressor)

 * Location: 1 (Ashanti in West Africa)
 * Strength: 12
 * Greater Population: 6
 * Greater Industry: 6 (A bit iffy on this one)
 * Control of the Seas: 3
 * Larger Army: 3
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Chance: 1
 * Motive: 5
 * Total: 20 (26 with industry)

The Netherlands

 * Location: -1 (Dutch in Europe)
 * Strength: 4
 * Greater Industry: 6 (Smaller nation, still iffy about it)
 * Tired Military: -2 (Population got genocided by the French)
 * Tactical Advantage: 2
 * Chance: 5
 * Motive: 3 (Only because the colony was run by the Dutch East India CompanY)
 * Total: 14

Result
Crushing Ashanti victory. Cape Colony annexed.

Discussion
Mods, I'm not sure about the correctness of this algorithim, so if anyone would like to go over once again, please feel free to do so. ((ლ( (ಠ益ಠ) ((ლ( 03:16, September 16, 2012 (UTC)

Map Update
Unless one of the three mapmakers can update the map for the ten years they have missed, I am leaving this game. They have clearly failed in their duties thus far. LurkerLordB (Talk) 14:39, September 17, 2012 (UTC)

Ia anyone ever going to get round to sorting out this map?Ozymandias2 (talk) 14:48, September 23, 2012 (UTC)

I posted one about two turns ago...If more needs to be done to it, I'd be happy to oblige. Callumthered (talk) 21:12, September 24, 2012 (UTC)

how are you guys