Talk:Principia Moderni (Map Game)

Map


Wasn't Tibet divided up between Hanthawaddy and China? Also, I can't believe I forgot about two Khanates! CrimsonAssassin 20:19, July 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * Claimed, but not fully controlled. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 18:45, August 5, 2011 (UTC)

New map uploaded 5 August. Contact me if you want to edit it, as it would be very difficult without the original source image. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 18:45, August 5, 2011 (UTC)

War
Okay, so it appears we have our first real conflict between players. Japan vs. Brandenburg. So I have a rough outline of how we determine the outcome. It will be by points. The proportion of points will determine who keeps what territory. For example, Portugal and Nepal go to war (random example). Portugal has 5 points and Nepal has 40. Thus, it is Nepal's victory. Since Portugal got only 5/45 total points, that means it will lose 35/45 (the total number of points minus twice that much) of its territory. Note that if someone invades another country and loses, the defenders do not get to annex the attackers' territory unless it is nearby. If a country is victorious over a colony, it needs to take over 50% of that country's colony, which may be compounded over multiple wars as long as the wars occur within a hundred years. The formula makes more sense once you see how it works. Points will be awarded as follows. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 03:12, March 27, 2011 (UTC)

Location
Location goes by capital city.
 * at the location of the war: 5
 * next to the location of the war: 4
 * close to the location of the war: 3
 * far from location of the war: 2
 * other side of the world: 1
 * Antarctica: 0

Tactical Advantage

 * attacker's advantage: 1
 * high ground (capital is on higher ground than fought-over territory by at least 300m): 2

Strength

 * each country on a side of the war: 3
 * side with greater population: 2
 * country has developed military: 1 for each turn dedicated to military or military technology in the last 15 years
 * expansion: -1 for every turn used for expansion in the past 10 years

Motive

 * motive is life or death (country's sovereign existence is threatened): 10
 * motive is religious: 7
 * motive is social or moral: 6
 * motive is political: 5
 * motive is economic: 3

If there are multiple motives, the one told to the army will be selected.

Chance
0 to 9 points will be awarded to each person based on chance. Factors will be the opponent's edit count (on Althist's main articles) and the precise time when the country declares war or acknowledges the other's declaration of war. The product of the non-zero digits of the time by UTC (0:00 yields 1) will be written as a percentage of the opponent's edit count at the exact time of the declaration. If the resulting number is less than one hundred percent, the reciprocal is taken. The result is multiplied by pi and the hundredths digit is the amount of points that person gets (e.g. 123.8377% yields 3). The algorithm is online for fairness, but I will be the moderator.

Other

 * participating in the war: 10
 * said country does not rule said area: 0
 * said country has ruled said area for 0-5 years: -5
 * said country has ruled said area for 6-15 years: 2
 * said country has ruled said area for 16-30 years: 5
 * said country has ruled said area for 31-80 years: 10
 * said country has ruled said area for 81-150 years: 4
 * said country has ruled said area for 151+ years: -5

Multiply

 * times 2/3 (country has vassals or is in personal union with another country)
 * times 1.5 (country is in civil disarray)

Discussion
Everyone okay with the rules? They should apply until we get into global wars. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 03:31, March 27, 2011 (UTC)

I strongly suggest in wars where the main nation targets a nearby colony of another far away nation that the main nation gets some sort of bonus. Anyone agree? Scandinator 12:59, July 31, 2011 (UTC)

We've had this issue before during the Brandenburg-Japan War. What we decided was that a) faraway countries get lower points, b) if a country causes a colony to lose 50% of its land, the colony is fully annexed. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 16:39, July 31, 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... Maybe we should factor in inactivity??? e.g every five years inactive since the war is -1 point...153.107.33.161 00:33, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

Wars?
I was just wondering... If this is going to be a feasible alternative history, shouldn't their be more conflicts? We are all (me included) trying to avoid even minor wars like it is the nuclear age. We have only had (correct me if I'm wrong ) two conflicts which have gone to an algorithm in the entire game! This is far less than would be expected in an actual history!Zagoria 14:23, July 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, Inca is under Chinese occupation (when they took it over, there was no War Algorithm, so I had to use colonization rules. Taking forever to annex though!) -CrimsonAssassin
 * There is a lot of territory not occupied by the chinese, is completely feasible for some user to control the Inca.However, you should estabilish a new colony to expand quicker in Inca territory.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 16:23, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * I attempted to make the Russo-Mughal phony war flame up, but to no avail. I think there will be some conflicts in the future as there certainly seems to be 2 seperate "alliance blocs" and nothing good can ever come from that. I've got some things up my sleeve in terms of radically changing my particular political spectrum, which in turn of course changes my particular alliance structure, but that is still quite a few years away. I also attempted to make the Iberian conflict flare up, but it ended pretty quickly since Emperor Fuiroz was assassinated. I've tried twice to start up a war, but both times the other sides backed down. Eh, hopefully it will happen sooner or later. JonAllenMichael 15:53, July 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * I attempted to make the Russo-Mughal phony war flame up, but to no avail. I think there will be some conflicts in the future as there certainly seems to be 2 seperate "alliance blocs" and nothing good can ever come from that. I've got some things up my sleeve in terms of radically changing my particular political spectrum, which in turn of course changes my particular alliance structure, but that is still quite a few years away. I also attempted to make the Iberian conflict flare up, but it ended pretty quickly since Emperor Fuiroz was assassinated. I've tried twice to start up a war, but both times the other sides backed down. Eh, hopefully it will happen sooner or later. JonAllenMichael 15:53, July 19, 2011 (UTC)

I agree but I can't think of a feasible way to carry it out. I don't expect any world wars, it's way too early to do so. Around this time, to my knowledge, wars are mostly limited to a few feuds and the general roar of war in Europe. I may plan to break up the power bloc in Southeast Asia sometime soon but my country is not ready. Also, people should not overlook civil wars as a realistic event. So I'll leave this to the Europeans to create small minor conflicts by invading each other. Part of the problem is our power blocs are too big. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 02:05, July 20, 2011 (UTC)

I guess a lot of it is my fault, for uniting Germany. Most of the wars of the time came from Germany and Italy. Maybe we should invite any new players to play as a minor Italian nation. Italy seems kind of neglected at this point.Zagoria 15:51, July 20, 2011 (UTC)

Well, the wars happened in Germany not just because it's Germany, but around this time they were mostly wars of religion, and Germany was just the melting pot of European religion. Since most nations have Freedom of Religion (which by the way, is a pretty foreign concept pretty much globally at the time) then they also have no real reason to fight religious wars. If a state doesn't endorse a religion, then why bother invading nation "x" because they are persecuting a particular faith? The 1600's was also characterized by Dynastic and Secessionist wars, which were basically just power plays by a major nation to alter the balance of power in their favor by either marrying into and forming a dynastic link with another nation, or by becoming pretenders to a throne. (See the War of Spanish Succession and the War of Austrian Succession.) Honestly, we have done exactly what the powers in Europe and Asia did at the time, we've established a balance of power, and we are maintaining the status quo. What would be interesting is if there was a royal crisis that perhaps divided Europe or Asia and destroyed the balance of power in either of those continents... I couldn't see a World War happening here as Europeans really didn't care what happened in Asia and visa versa at this time. Just a thought. JonAllenMichael 19:33, July 20, 2011 (UTC)

Im pretty sure many countries are avoiding most wars because of the complex net of alliances that are probably more complicated than the ones that started WWI! If one country attacks another half the world is either neutral because of mutual alliances with both combattants or of allies of allies of either side and if they support one ally they are attacking another one that is helping the other side.(btw this is Lx, i cant seem to log on here)85.237.50.123 07:09, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

Very true as well. I dunno, maybe having mod created political disasters as well as the enviromental disasters could perhaps change the landscape a little? JonAllenMichael 15:43, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

Flag Creation
So I'm attempting to expand the details of my nation, and I was wanting to be able to create some flags instead of reusing and rehashing old flags from the OTL. Is there a "how to" or anything like that for how to go about creating your own flag and coat of arms?? JonAllenMichael 01:22, July 21, 2011 (UTC)

1 2. There are many places online to find resources on making a good flag, but sometimes you just have to improvise. For coats of arms, a good idea to study Heraldry. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 03:08, July 21, 2011 (UTC)

Is there a good place that I can go to that will also teach me how to actually make the flags also, ie Photoshop?? JonAllenMichael 16:04, July 21, 2011 (UTC)

Jon's Rant on Rifles
So yeah, I know I'm not a mod, but there is one thing that bugs the heck out of me. I really hope I don't create enemies but... it bugs me that entire armies have been using Rifles since the 1550's. Look, I know that rifles have been around since then, but just because a technology has been around since a certain time period it does NOT mean that in an ATL countries can magically adopt it. First off, the technique to actually produce a rifle during this time period takes MUCH longer than producing a musket. Since everything is handcrafted, it makes it close to impossible to actually equip an entire army of a nation with just a rifle until the Industrial Revolution.

Even if you were able to explain in our ATL how you could manufacture such a complex firing system for an entire army, you would have to take into fact that the quality of gunpowder and metallurgy actually destroyed most rifles after around 50 shots. The residue of the gunpowder in 16th and 17th century rifles would foul the rifle and make it useless. Muskets didn't have to worry about this problem since they didn't have any grooves. Also, the fact that a pointed projectile hasn't been invented (that was invented in the early 18th century) means that ball ammo is absolutely going to destroy the rifling of your weapons.

So let's assume you have found a way to increase industrial production time, created a sufficient metallurgical process, found the secrets to modern black powder, and created a shaped round. Now that your army is completely equipped with rifles, I would honestly still go to war with you and I could probably guarantee that I would win. My army still uses matchlock muskets, so we have a firing rate of about 1 shot per minute, but if I adopt flintlock, I can fire on average about 2 a minute. If you are using a matchlock rifle, it would take about 3 minutes to load a round, and a flintlock rifle would take about 2. It takes this long not only because you have to ram the bullet down a rifled barrel, but also because you have to take extra steps to ensure you aren't fouling your gun. That means I'm sending twice as much lead down the field as you. Your argument then would be "Well, my guns are much more accurate!!" which you would be absolutely correct about, for about the first volley. We are firing 17th century black powder. You know in the movies how the smoke just whips away off the battlefield? Yeah that's because they are using about a hundred actors. Imagine tens of thousands of soldiers, firing their guns for hours on a battlefield. I promise you, you would lose any advantage of accuracy after about a minute, at which point more lead flying down the battlefield becomes all the more important. Why do you think it took so long for armies to adopt the rifle anyways? JonAllenMichael 16:20, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

Archive
This talk page is getting pretty big. I think we should archive it.

-CrimsonAssassin

You're right, I was waiting until it reached 100,000 and it has. Do me a favor and create the page Talk:Principia Moderni/Archive 1 and copy-paste everything above "Wars?" into the article but don't delete it from this article. I will do that myself. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 18:33, July 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * I already did that.-Collie Kaltenbrunner 22:10, July 23, 2011 (UTC)

who messed up the page?

An unregistered user I think. CrimsonAssassin 01:52, July 30, 2011 (UTC)

doesnt matter i fixed itLxCaucassus 02:14, July 30, 2011 (UTC)

Algorythm #3 (China/Vietnam/Commonwealth/Sweden vs Hanthawaddy/Russia)
Somebody can do it?--Collie Kaltenbrunner 07:50, July 30, 2011 (UTC)

I'll do China/Hanthawaddy and Sweden/Hanthawaddy. Would you be okay with following suit and doing Russia/China and Vietnam/Hanthawaddy? Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 16:14, July 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 17:11, July 30, 2011 (UTC)

Hanthawaddy

 * close to the location of war: 3
 * attacker's advantage: 1
 * Hanthawaddy/Russia/Kazakhstan: 9
 * military development: 5
 * expansion: 0
 * motive is religious: 7
 * 1061/336*pi = 992.032682% >3 pts
 * 18:17:32 > 1*8*1*7*3*2=336
 * Editcount: 1061


 * participating in the war: 10
 * country does not rule said area: 0

Total points: 3+1+9+5+0+7+3+10=38 pts

China

 * far from location of the war: 2
 * China/Vietnam/Commonwealth/Sweden: 12
 * side with greater population: 2
 * country has developed military: 1
 * expansion: 0
 * motive is life or death (country's sovereign existence is threatened): 10
 * 790/160*pi=1551.16137% >6 pts
 * 21:12:58 > 2*1*1*2*5*8=160
 * Editcount: 790


 * participating in the war: 10
 * said country has ruled said area for 151+ years: -5

2+12+2+1+10+6+10-5=38 pts

Result
Stalemate: Hanthawaddy is expelled from China, but borders revert to status quo ante bellum, unless additional concessions are made via treaty.

Discussion
kazachstan also was fighting china, does this count as a participant(it was a vassal state) in the algorithm or does it count as the amin country or as part points?(i know they pulled out but for some time they were fighting china they only fully pulled out in 1610 just before the algorithm so I think it should still count, i dont want to be unfair, this is curiosity, if it counts as full nation, then it sould be equal points and it should be status quo ante bellum or unti possedis treaty)

Yeah they count, sorry I missed that. For the sake of simplicity let's just apply it to this war and not the other two. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 17:56, August 1, 2011 (UTC)

Vietnam/Hanthawaddy War
Territory in question: OTL Thailand and Laos.

Hanthawaddy

 * close to location of war: 3
 * Russia/Hanthawaddy: 6
 * side with greater population: 2
 * country has developed military: 5
 * expansion: 0
 * motive is life or death (country's sovereign existence is threatened): 10
 * participating in the war: 10
 * said country has ruled said area for 151+ years: -5
 * 1067/24*pi=13966.9973% >9 pts
 * 1*6*1*2*1*2=24
 * Editcount: 1067

3+6+2+5+0+10+10-5+9=40

Vietnam

 * close to the location of the war: 3
 * Sweden/China/Commonwealth/Vietnam: 12
 * country has developed military: 0
 * expansion: 0
 * motive is political: 5
 * 3596/54*pi=20920.679967%>7 pts
 * 23:10:45 > 2*3*1*4*5=54
 * Editcount: 3596


 * participating in the war: 10
 * said country has ruled said area for 151+ years: -5

3+12+0+0+5+7+10-5=32

No Full Unity: 32 times 2/3 = 21.3333333

Result
40/61.3333333=0.652173913

2(Ans-0.5)=0.304347826

Decisive Mon victory. Hanthawaddy may annex 9,390 px (469,532 sq km) of Vietnamese territory from ante bellum, or arrange additional concessions via treaty. The Kingdom of Singburi is abolished and may be partitioned or fully annexed by Hanthawaddy or Vietnam.

Hanthawaddy

 * other side of the world: 1
 * attacker's advantage: 1
 * Russia/Hanthawaddy: 6
 * side with greater population: 2
 * country has developed military: 5
 * expansion: 0
 * motive is life or death (country's sovereign existence is threatened): 10
 * participating in the war: 10
 * said country has ruled said area for 31-80 years: 10
 * 1067/24*pi=13966.9973% >9 pts
 * 16:12:12 > 1*6*1*2*1*2=24
 * Editcount: 1067

1+1+6+2+5+0+10+10+10+9 = 54 pts

Sweden

 * close to the location of the war: 3
 * Sweden/China/Commonwealth/Vietnam: 12
 * country has developed military: 1
 * expansion: -3
 * motive is political: 5
 * participating in the war: 10
 * said country has ruled said area for 0-5 years: -5
 * 90/57*pi = 496.0409% > 4 pts
 * 00:35:32 > 3*5*3*2 = 90
 * Editcount: 57

3+12+1-3+5+10-5+4=27 pts

Result
54/81=0.66666

0.6666-0.5=0.1666666

0.166666*2 = 0.333333

Clear Mon victory. Hanthawaddy may annex 9,895 px (494,766 sq km) of Swedish territory from the point of ante bellum as part of its Toeh Ngoa Nyoing administration, or make additional concessions via treaty.

Can I be Naples?
Can I join the game as Naples? - Wijata Mateusz 14:23 (UTC), August 4, 2011

Of course, they say, "the more the merrier."

BTW Sweden would like an alliance if you join :)

Thanks for message !!! - Wijata Mateusz 14:35 (UTC), August 4, 2011

I changed decision, i wouldn't join the game, because i have no time - Wijata Mateusz 20:52 (UTC), August 24, 2011

Expansion NEEDS to pick up.
It's 1620, when colonialism really picked up. Yet, most territories are tiny circles and the expansion is really slow. I think, at least during the mid to late 1600s, that there should be an increase in expansion. There was a huge landgrab at around this time. -CrimsonAssassin

I like that idea...I agreeLxCaucassus 02:46, August 12, 2011 (UTC)

I agree too. Expansion is way too slow. Also everyone on this map game is also scared shitless by the alliance webs that even involve inactive players. I suggest if a player is inactive and someone declares war on them then noone can support the inactive player. Scandinator 00:17, August 13, 2011 (UTC)

How about we temporarily double expansion rates for the duration of the period?

Yank 01:11, August 13, 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. but maybe until 1700 or before, if the colonies start declaring independence in 1776--Collie Kaltenbrunner 11:01, August 13, 2011 (UTC)

Good idea!!! Maybe double till the start of the 19th century and then triple until the start of the 1920s (scramble for Africa).Scandinator 03:01, August 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * Now this is exaggerating.all Africa would be conquered in less than 50 years like that.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 11:01, August 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly what happened!!!! Scandinator 14:18, August 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * You can't call something "implausible" when it actually happened. Yank 17:17, August 17, 2011 (UTC)

Africa was not colonized by 1850. Again, hardly anyone was colonizing by 1600, and only Spain and Portugal had more than like 3 colonies. Right now, people should focus on creating coastlines, which was the focus of the time period. Don't worry on inland expansion, that comes later. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 19:13, August 17, 2011 (UTC)

Inactivity Vote of '11
As a mod, I would like to propose a vote to open up (make their nations available for entering users to officially claim) the nations of all inactive (has not posted for at least a week unnanounced or a month of announced inactivity) users effective September 1st. This does not mean that alliances are void, it simply means another user can control the nation.

-CrimsonAssassin

Observations
Been gone a little while. Just a few things i thought I would note:

1) No way submarines are going to be used widespread or for anything remotely military until at least the 1620s. Guys, don't jump the gun on technology.

2) Expansion is not going to pick up in the 1600s, because this is still the time when countries are basically colonizing coastlines for trading purposes, not creating entire new societies. I will consider raising expansion in the 1700s, and then in the 1850s, but for now, be patient. The thirteen colonies are still barely taking form, and we perceive it as slow because it is not a fast process like conquering territory, but rather it is mainly an economic deal.

3) As for inactive users, I'm going to wait until mid-September. It's OK that users are taking a break for summer.

4) Sweden may invade Doitsuchihou but they have to use the algorithm.

5) There is no "most/best xxxx in the world" in this game. In fact don't even use the word "world" at all. Think of it as a taboo until at least the 1800s. Even "New World" and "Old World" are highly cautioned.

6) NIE expansion is too fast. In addition to there being a plague there right now, the NIE has neither the resources or military power to expand across the pampas like that. There needs to be an incubation period of military and economic upgrades. For starters, the NIE doesn't even have a port.

Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 23:14, August 13, 2011 (UTC)

Algorithm #4 (Sweden, Anglo-Germany, Poland vs Japan and China)
Is this correct?? Can someone check it?? And can someone do the chance and result it is too complicated for me to really understandScandinator 12:19, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

Sweden

 * close to location of the war:3
 * attackers advantage:1
 * Sweden, Anglo-Germany, Poland: 9
 * country has developed military: 5
 * expansion:0
 * Motive is religious:7
 * participating in the war: 10
 * said country does not rule said area: 0
 * chance: 7

3+1+9+5+0+7+10+0+7=42

Japan

 * other side of the world:1
 * Japn, China:6
 * side with greater population: 2
 * country has developed military: 0
 * expansion:0
 * Motive is life or death: 10
 * participating in the war: 10
 * said country has ruled said area for 81-150 years: 4
 * chance: 2

1+6+2+0+0+10+10+4+2=35

Result
42/(42+35)=42/77

42/77-0.5 = 0.045454545

Swedish victory. Sweden annexes 12 pixels of Doitsuchou around Amsterdam.

Discussion
Note I'm using random.org for chance because the declaration of war was really long ago and Japan never really responded to the declaration. If anyone is unhappy with the results, they can feel free to go back and do the chance system the orthodox way. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 19:26, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

I have developed my military for 9 turns in the past 15 years not 5 turns onlyScandinator 21:41, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I didn't make it clear but it resets back to zero after major conflicts, and military expansion during conflicts doesn't count. Also, turns that said both the military and economy were expanded, I counted as 1/2. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 23:15, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

Ah well we'll just try again in 15 years...153.107.33.161 00:30, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

I tried the formula for chance... Sweden got 7 and japan got 2Scandinator 04:43, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

You did everything right it seems (I didn't check the math myself), you probably should show your work next time so there is no question of whether you are lying or not. Also, you haven't fully annexed Doutsuchihou, only about 4.5%, so you can account for that by calculating the number of pixels of Doutsuchihou and finding the percentage. Let me know if you need any help with that; I can perform those calculations relatively quickly. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 05:06, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I would have showed working but my laptop is REALLY slow so I ran out of time. If you wish I'll upload it. Scandinator 06:06, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

What about the Commonwealth and Poland? Should we do our own algorithm's for territory east of the Dutch-German border?Zagoria 15:12, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, do so. @Scandinator you may have won, but chances are you're not going to be annexing the capital and largest city at Amsterdam. Probably somewhere marginal like Frisia. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 15:46, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

News
Deansims has asked me, Bobalugee1940, to take control of his nation because he is gone for a week. You may read the message on my talk page. (-unsigned)

Please don't disrupt the format like that. That's what the talk page is for. <small style="color:#004400">Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 02:14, August 23, 2011 (UTC)

Interested in Joining
I have wanted to join a map game, and this one seems to be the best. I am assuming that all nations in grey are availbable? If that is correct, then I wish to join as Naples. Must I do anything other than mark that I did so in the list, add a color to the map and create a page for the nation? Also, does Naples control Sicily in this? LurkerLordB 22:47, August 23, 2011 (UTC)

OK, so I will add my name to the list and create the page, but I won't edit the map until I am sure exactly what the borders will be. LurkerLordB 00:37, August 24, 2011 (UTC)

Glad to have you here, good sir. Naples controls Sicily, Italy, and the southern half of Sardinia. There's no need to edit any previous maps, but you're just in time so that you can be on the 1635 Map. It is nice to have someone in Italy, as not many people have played as Italian states. <small style="color:#004400">Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 01:51, August 24, 2011 (UTC)

You, or whoever makes the map, can pick the color if you wish. The only problem is that there are not many distinct colors left. Perhaps some combo-thing?LurkerLordB 01:56, August 24, 2011 (UTC)

I don't forsee a problem. Since it's harder to edit combo-colours, we use single colours. We have any shade of brown, maroon, some shades of green, some shades of blue, light pink, or the dark teal of Ethiopia that just went inactive. If you have a preference, go ahead. <small style="color:#004400">Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 02:14, August 24, 2011 (UTC)

Brown would be good. LurkerLordB 02:22, August 24, 2011 (UTC)

The yellow color is even better LurkerLordB 23:18, August 24, 2011 (UTC)

Who owns Sardinia? It is not listed as a playable nation, so I assume the northern part is owned by Genoa (as Genoa owned Corsica, it makes since it would be them)LurkerLordB 23:20, August 24, 2011 (UTC)

No, Sardinia is a independent country.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 17:49, August 25, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought Genoa owned Sardinia, but I looked back a bit and I guess it was independent after all. My mistake on the map. <small style="color:#004400">Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 21:04, August 25, 2011 (UTC)

What can be done one turns
On the rules, it said that diplomacy that is not against another nation counts as a zeroth of a turn, therefore, I assume that stating that I accept the treaty with Vietnam is legit?Previously this turn I did diplomacy with another nation (0) and built up the military (.5 or 1, I am still confused) LurkerLordB 23:18, August 24, 2011 (UTC)

build up the military is a full turn and i think that accepting a treaty counts as "diplomacy not against a player nation"--Collie Kaltenbrunner 17:51, August 25, 2011 (UTC)

Borders
For expanding, do the pixels that are in the borders count as being owned by you, or you opponent? I need to calculate how long it would take to conquer all of Sardinia (because the war is just going to sort of go on until the time it would take to move in piece by piece happens, then it all joins all at once)LurkerLordB 21:02, August 25, 2011 (UTC)

Pixels is only for colonial expansion, and Sardinia is not under that category. Thus I think you could conquer Sardinia relatively quickly, seeing that the kingdom is otherwise pretty weak. In fact you could practically just annex it. <small style="color:#004400">Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 21:08, August 25, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that's good. By next turn I should have it, that will be a year and a half war (otherwise it would take like 80 years). LurkerLordB 21:16, August 25, 2011 (UTC)