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 |

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
bMaps 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. '''

Ive been in a personal union with Mangyastau for a while now, so how come it isnt on the map?
 * I forgot.and apparently, again.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 21:05, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

The Saxon Africa Company established a small colony in Africa in 1688. It is located in the black bit of coastline on the West coast, between the small olive (Ethiopian?) colony and the whitey-pinky blob to the south. It is quite small, consisting of only two forts and one trading factory. Could it please be added to the next map? Thank you, Callumthered (talk) 11:50, May 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * It is there.But is only two pixels in size.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 21:05, May 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, right, I hadn't seen them. Thanks. Callumthered (talk)


 * I have 2 colonies in OTL British Columbia and SE Africa, parrallel to the Madagascar coast. I established them a while ago, and i kept putting them on the map but I guess they've been too big because they have been removed a bunch of times. Can you put them on the map and put their correct sizes on? I'm sure they would be very small, but I think you would be best at putting them on the map Shawnguerra (talk) 21:14, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

Hey sometime this week I'll fix the whole division of Persia thing as it should be shown how it was on the latest version of the 1695 map. But please keep these changes on when you make the 1705 map. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 21:16, May 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * "How it was on the latest version"? i used the latest version as a base for the part about Persia.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 22:05, May 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh that is weird, I'm sure I updated it. NVM then, sorry for the confusion I'll just update this map for 1700 then. My error for not updating 1695 and thinking I did. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 16:53, May 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay I've updated it to show the middle east how it should be. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 14:39, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

Collie, I stopped expanding into sibiria for the moment to prepare for war...so can you please just...umm...push those dates untill I start expading again(so 1705 becomes say 1715 and then roll with that)? that would be great. Also, why do you keep reverting the finland things and me controling the baltic states once more? for some reason the divisions of persia, that I posted on My map(because I was asked to) with the propper division of scandinavia me and Germany agreed to, and on this map(1700) the Division of Scandinavia is reverted...yet everything else is kept in place(basicaly Russia in europe got reverted but everything else got upgraded and whatnot), I just want to know why that happened, even though I am just going to fix it anyway.-Lx (leave me a message) 22:05, May 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * The part about the Baltic, i didn't know.But about Scandinavia, well, blame Von (the mapmaker for 1670-80, so he was in charge of putting the Scandinavian partition on the map), and plus, how was i going to know that you had reached an agreement?--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 22:09, May 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * We had agreed to a division between Russia and germany in the "maps of Scandinavia" section for but ok, fine,I will admit it was a bit ambiguous with people just asking for things and whatnot, but hey, now you know for sure what the propper divison is, right?-Lx (leave me a message) 22:17, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

Just to say, but Orissa, Bengal and Bihar united into the United Maharajya in 1697. Also, Negara Daha was incorporated into Mataram in 1697 too. Kuch and Assam was vassalised in 1695 after 6 years of subduing. Fixed all of this, btw. :D  Imp (Say Hi?!) 22:27, May 12, 2013 (UTC) Can i make a request? When the map is updated, can the Koori Union be left at whatever current borders it is at. I have already had to tell two people they cannot colonise somewhere because of the falty map. Also, why is it even being reverted to around 1660 anyways? Hailstormer (talk) 23:26, May 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * I just noticed part of that now.But Negara Daha and Mataram are in separate islands.it doesn't even need to be corrected.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 22:31, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

Could someone please fix Cyrenaica now? I've fixed up the algorithm. Airlinesguy (talk) 11:43, May 13, 2013 (UTC)

The Shan Stares became Chinese vassals a little while ago. CrimsonAssassin (talk) 02:31, May 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * They have a player now.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 19:12, May 15, 2013 (UTC)


 * That doesn't mean they can't play, nor does it mean they were automatically removed from vassalship when they joined the game. CrimsonAssassin (talk) 00:52, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

It appears that Wales somehow has the Faroes now, when Saxony did have them before. Could they be shown as Saxon on the map again? If there's an in-game reason for this which I missed, I apologise.Callumthered (talk) 06:24, May 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * It must be Reximus' correction.He must have confused the Faroes for the Hebrides.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 19:12, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

Just a point of clarification (if we have time with all the Great War stuff going on), What are the formal boundaries of the Maori Union? I've only seen them claim the North and South islands of New Zealand, but the map shows them controling other Islands that have not been mentioned (Chathams {inhabited byt non-Maori}, Stewart islands, etc.). I'm not trying to be a fly in the ointment, and I'm not trying to take anything away from the Maori (they'll take it back long before I get there anyway), but I do have long-term interests in the Pacific that require knowledge of the exact borders. Thanks. Commandante Lemming (talk) 23:09, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

Labelled Map


So I was bored and updated the labelled map. BTW this is as of 1630.AP (talk) 01:10, March 9, 2013 (UTC)

How do you put the subtitles on it? so i could make my own maps later.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 07:16, March 9, 2013 (UTC)

There are some mistakes on that map in terms of territories, e.g. Comchellak is much larger and Arabia own all of the Tanzanian spice islands. But other than that it is good. Also Comchellak is a vassal of the Arabian federation and its full name is the Republic of Comchellak. VonGlusenburg  (talk to Von!) 11:46, March 9, 2013 (UTC)

Its a great map. Just Bijapur is part of Orissa proper so it would be Orissa to. But great map. :D  Imp (Say Hi?!) 13:53, March 9, 2013 (UTC)

For Japan, there's a misspelling. It should be Mononobe, not Monobe. -Kogasa   2013年3月09日 23:06:13 (JST)

Thanks so much. It looks awesome! CourageousLife (talk) 16:28, March 9, 2013 (UTC)

I just fixed all of the things you guys pointed out.AP (talk) 22:42, March 9, 2013 (UTC)

Religion Map


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)

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. 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)

Proposal for 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)

Industrialization
Due to meeting all of the twelve estabilished criteria for industrialization, the antion to be the first to industrialize is going to be Venice.Meanwhile, other nations (Orissa and China) are close, which ended up on somebody suggesting of having two simultaneous industrial revolutions, one in Venice and other in Orissa, the latter some years after the first.I'm not sure about this suggestion, so what somebody else thinks of this?--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 07:03, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

I think the chart should be updated first. Some of the nations listed are more advanced than the mods give them credit for. Venice and China are both moderators, giving them the ability to edit the chart whenever they earn some points. The rest of us have to sit and wait and beg to get points put up. CourageousLife (talk) 10:16, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, CourageuousLife. In fact, Venice is also a Mod. So, I think there needs to be a massive check before we do anything - and it will need to be soon. Personlly, 2 Industrial Revolutions seems like a good idea to me. Once it gets going in Venice (say 10-15 years), then China and Orissa are both moved up to crimson. Reximus55 (talk) 11:02, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that current list isn't set in stone, we need to critically evaluate whether it is a fair scoring of nation's ability to industrialize. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 11:18, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

If I may interrupt. Ethiopia has been pushing for each of the criteria, developing a large middle-class, promoting industry, developing general education (Ethiopia's first major goal that was accomplished), expanding industrial potential. There was also my development of the transportation system which spanned some ten years of expansion, and the demand for coal which Ethiopia was producing for a while until I stopped mentioning it. All of my previous post indicated this. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 15:13, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

I have done extensive research on how industrialization started and the general consensus is that Italy and Germany were closest OTL apart from Britain mostly due to class structure and urbanization. The problem there was the individual states where too small and constantly warring. This research also allowed me to pinpoint those 12 points as critical to a nation's ability to industrialize first (Britain OTL would have scored an 11 or a 12). Ethiopia, the Mayans and Persia frankly do not have the urban base nor the colonial reach to begin industrializing first. And while I have tried to update other nation's positions on the chart, other mods and often other players just edit it on their own.

Finally, some nations may be developing schools and a "middle class" but you need a reason for it otherwise it would be metagaming and that would not be allowed (we are very lenient with these and really weak reasons are usually still accepted). Example: Venice's middle class is a result of the heavy trade and banking industries that allow many people to rise to the middle class though the roles of bankers, merchants or even crew on some of the long haul trips to Asia. Scandinator (talk) 15:46, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

As the Mayans, I've accepted the fact that I'm not going to industrialize first. The issue that I'm dealing with is that my potential isn't shown. But, if the Industrial Revolution is going to spread more quickly to China and Orissa because their positions on the chart are higher, then I want all of the points that I can muster. Do you see what I'm trying to say? CourageousLife (talk) 20:59, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

Once again, I completely agree with CorageuousLife. If Orissa industrializes, then its neighbor (once removed) will probably also industrialize more quickly. Also, if Persia is in the top 5, odds are that industrialization will go east faster. Reximus55 (talk) 23:58, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

On the matter of the middle-class, I stated that it was do to a chain effect of more Ethiopians learning do to the expanded education system, lead to them moving to cities to find better paying jobs. This led to the demand for more work, in which industrial centers were built with coal as a major resource to employ more people. This in turn led to the development of a larger road network which made trade easier. Expanded wages and abudant resources from the cities resulted in the growth of the middle-class, which in turn led to the wholesale expansion of major cities throughout Ethiopia. Look at the last two archived games. I urbanized the empire a while ago. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 00:17, May 3, 2013 (UTC).

Okay, I did the run down and here is Ethiopia's position on the matter. Ethiopia should have five point more than it does at the moment for reasons that shall be outlined below. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 02:55, May 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * Education: I made it an early priority of the empire to expand education during the early-1600s. Ethiopia was in a close relationship with Orissa and had been expanding generation education to all parts of the empire as part of the modernization program, which had been underway for quite a while before and after the Caliphate era.
 * Resource Demand: Ethiopia had plenty of fuel reserves in the form of coal, and building materials such as wood and iron. As education increased, many Ethiopians; moved into the cities (as I state before and in the game), and this led to the increased demand in raw materials to fuel industrial growth in the cities that were spreading across the empire. I even made mention of the construction of industrial centers in the empire between 1640 and 1650.
 * Transport Capacity: From the beginning of the game to the years Ethiopia escaped the Caliphate's grasp, I made it very clear Ethiopia was expanding its road network, and did so for several decades if anyone  wishes to look. This matter shouldn't even be a dispute since it was basically the one and only thing I worked on over and over again even though I didn't have too long after that goal had been accomplished.
 * Mass Produced Resource: Ethiopia has a huge population of sheep, which has been the deciding factor for the large number of Ethiopians wearing shema, the white cloth that nearly all men and women wore for centuries under it was invaded by Italy (and to a large degree still worn by many today).
 * Religious Freedom (Science & Technology): Most of Ethiopia's scientific development has been in cooperation with Orissa, and even without Orissa, Ethiopia has never mixed science with religion though I've not spoken of the matter much. While this is a sketchy matter, Ethiopia's view on it is that religion is to control the people, not the science needed to make life better. There is a clear line there.

Buddy, transport capacity means a huge network of ports and ships to transport goods... Everything else is fine. But it still is not the 12 that Italia has...

You mean like Mombasa, Malindi. Lamu (the historical Swahili port-cities), Massawa, Assab, Manila, Saigon, Dagupan, Luanda and Port-Gentil? I have plenty of ports. In fact, I have territories that were historically known as major ports. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 16:09, May 11, 2013 (UTC)

Back to the original question-

I think it defeats the purpose of the table if we have two or three nations indusrializing at the same time. Better to just do one

CourageousLife (talk) 22:17, May 11, 2013 (UTC)

It makes plenty of since given that Britain had the resources to other nations didn't. Having multiple nations industrialize at the same time at different periods sounds pretty fair to me. And back to the matter of Ethiopia, I do have the ports, so does that not mean I get that point along with the other four as well? Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 22:50, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

I think it is highly unfair to have multiple industrial revolutions happen at once. Hailstormer (talk) 23:09, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of the chart was to pick one winner CourageousLife (talk) 23:09, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

Then you'll have to choose Venice then since it took over most of the globe and destroyed Persia recently. However, that doesn't do anything to solve the problem with the other nations that have met all of the requirements, albiet lower that Venice. You have China, Orissa, and hopefully Ethiopia (provided you actually put it up there given my statements), and then Brandenburg and Rome followed by everybody else. Surely we get to kept our points right? Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 23:14, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

Industrialization spreads geographically, not by points CourageousLife (talk) 23:17, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be just as unfair as the multiple nations industrializing at once? Why would Orissa have to wait for industrialization to reach its borders while Russia far below it gets to industrialize beforehand? Orissa had made industrial successes than Russia, yet because it isn't close to Venice it has to wait for a nation with less development to industrialize first? Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 01:26, May 13, 2013 (UTC)

We (Collie and I) have decided to allow Orissa to industrialize one stage after Venice. It quickens the process in Asia dramatically and Ethiopia is likely to be Yellow or Light Green. Scandinator (talk) 14:52, May 13, 2013 (UTC)

Why should Ethiopia industrailize that fast? There are other countries that are closer geographically and have more points. CourageousLife (talk) 19:49, May 13, 2013 (UTC)

Industry stuffs
Industrializaiton...that's a thing...regardless of the war we are having right now...bloody idiocy if you ask me OOC, in Character however, Russia has a schizophrenic Tsar and a dept to Rome. IN any case, I would like to know when the Industry map is comming out...and when the industr table will be made...I know industry is set to be soon, but I find it unfair that the top 3 nations are all mods, who can put up points  whenever they cose, and the rest of us have to wait...I'm not accusing anyone of anything other than not realy paying attention to anything but their own nation(oh god that came out wrong)...what is better I guess is not paying enough attention to other peoples natinos...ya...that's better...please update industry table before industry map please...so that all doubts as to the validity and unbiasedness of the table and map be put to rest.-Lx (leave me a message) 21:01, May 13, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the chart does reflect modship status. The mods and their allies in-game are all represented higher up on the chart. CourageousLife (talk) 21:11, May 13, 2013 (UTC)

Em no. People who talk about what happens in their nations and work on it are represented higher up. And its all locked now, it does not really matter. And for a fact, the Mayans will probably be Orange or Yellow. :P  Imp (Say Hi?!) 21:21, May 13, 2013 (UTC)

But it is true the people running this thing have an unfair advantage but that is to be expected as it is in all walks of life. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 21:25, May 13, 2013 (UTC)

Its not like we don't have our own lives outside of PMII. I have a full time job with uni so I can just post points up continuously. I tried to update as many of the other nations as I could but I obviously missed things in their posts. The map will be done in a couple days along with the labelled map. Scandinator (talk) 03:40, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

I realise that, all I wanted was a status update...and to ask that you update the table before posting the map.-Lx (leave me a message) 15:40, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to do one on Sunday then. Scandinator (talk) 05:55, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

Koori Union/Rome Coaltition
Total: 44
 * Location: (2+1+1+3+1+2)/= +2
 * Tactical Advantage: +3
 * Strength: (Koori (L), Maori (MV), Normandy (L), Maya (L), Apache (MV), Miskito (MV), Rome (L), Azerbejian (MV) Georgia (MV), Turkey (MV) Perisa (MV), Tehran (MV), Armenia (MV), Quoyunlu (MV), Russia (L),Saami Autonomous Oblast (MV), Grand Principality of Suur-Suomi (MV), Minsk (MV), Astrakhan State (MV), Riga (MV), Tartar State (MV), Hungary (L), Duchy of Wallachia (MV), Kuban (MV), York (M), Somali Sultanate (S), Aquitaine (M), Carthage (M), Cyrencia (MV)): 73/89 = 0
 * Military Development: 8+4+30+12+22+0/6 = ~13
 * Economy: 6+8+30+18+0+0/6 = ~10
 * Infrastructure: N/A (attackers get no infrastructure score)
 * Expansion: -13-1-9-1-0-0/6 = -24/6 = -4
 * Motive: +3
 * Chance: 5
 * Edits: 429
 * Time: 20:43 = 24
 * 429/24 x Pi= 56.155968682917554137519750476121
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 7+6+8+7+8+7/6 = ~7
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: -4

United Maharajya Coalition
Total: 66
 * Location: (5+3+3+3+2)/= +3
 * Tactical Advantage: +5
 * Strength: (Maharajya (L), Rajputana (M), Assam (MV), Kuch (MV), Nepal (MV), Mataram (M), Brunei (M), Khmer (M), Cebu (M), Germany (L), Mysore (MV), Luxembourg (M), Italia (L), Yugoslavia (MV), Greece (MV), Bulgaria (MV), Nya Gyptios (MV), Aymaras (MV), Siam (MV), Malacca (MV), Albania (M), Montenegro (M), Levantine Kingdom (M), China (L), Formosa (MV), Tibet (MV), Vietnam (MV), Laos (MV), Shan States (MV), Ethiopia (L), Adal (MV), Warsangali (MV), Yemen (MV), Maynila (MV), Khmer Koch (MV), Wales (L), Scotland (MV), Lincoln (MV), Cornwall (MV), Ulster (MV), Connacht (MV): 103/73 = Approx. 1.41
 * Military Development: 14+20+10+8+10/5 = ~12
 * Economy: 16+18+8+10+0/5 = ~10
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: 10
 * Chance: 8
 * Edits: 6,487
 * Time: 21:13 = 6
 * 6487/6 x Pi = 3396.5852573061647896511946045557
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 9+9+8+7+7+7/6 = 8
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: -2-5-2-0-0-0/6 = ~-1.2

More Discussion
I advise you people not to waste time changing development scores and stuff back and forth as this war inevitability expands. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 22:03, May 13, 2013 (UTC)

No matter how this war ends, I'm just going to call it the Fail War.

22:50, May 13, 2013 (UTC)

yes! the "fail war" it is!-Lx (leave me a message) 23:32, May 13, 2013 (UTC)

This needs to be a COALITION ALGORITHM. Hailstormer (talk) 01:14, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

This is a coalition algorythm.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 07:03, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

Now, there are too much leaders.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 07:03, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

You can't time it so that you get nine on the chance and we get zero. Collie will do the chance. Hailstormer (talk) 11:48, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

Thats what the numbers said when I did them. The post times are set but the edit count may change if you post more... Scandinator (talk) 12:00, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

hey, for the Military dev/economy Russia has been updating alternating them both for the past forever, and isnt it 2 pts per year of dev. As far as I know, LoD motive is only given if the nation invading has teh express purpose of completely killing the other nation, otherwise, motive is 5, being invaded does not entitle you to a 10 in motive. However, neither side has their developments done right, one would think that they both be higher, expansion also ony goes back 10 years.-Lx (leave me a message) 15:29, May 14, 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey what happened to our treaty? If you're fighting with the enemy Germany will invade Russia...


 * 21:53, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

My motive is definately LoD, I'm set to lose Constantinople, my third largest city... as well as a swathe of territory in Eastern Europe. Scandinator (talk) 16:14, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

I would lose my capital and industrial heartlands. No way am I not getting a 10. Imp (Say Hi?!) 16:18, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

no were not going to kill you Scan, just weaken you. youl be around when done, its not your capitol though, so no LoD, were taking a valuable port, not your capitol. Your not gonna be destroyed though, were just fighting to weaken you, you dont get 10s. you get a 5. DS|Fear the Mutated Dean Sims Bomb, Fear It 16:20, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

And this is a preemptive strike becasue you would do the ultiamte destruction to us, so we can also have it as 10, so shut up and be happy you got 5. NO ONE is getting a 10 DS|Fear the Mutated Dean Sims Bomb, Fear It 16:22, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

Em no. It would be 5 is you invaded Mataram or my colony. You invaded my mainland. Hmm, if its not survival, what is it? Imp (Say Hi?!) 16:32, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

Pre-emptive invasion of heartlands is still an invasion of the heartlands. If China was to annex LA and SF would that not be 10? They are the largest centres for the US on the West Coast similar to Constantinople for Italia. Also Lx, you have been expnding into Siberia till 1700. Thus your military and economic score are not counted and only expansion is since doing all three is regarded as multiple turns. You are only allowed one action per turn and in the priority that they go into the algorithm. This priority is expansion>military>economic>infrastructure. Your score is therefore -14 or -15 for expansion. I reckon that we should lay off the poor algorithm and let Kogasa or Collie whom are neutral mods, take over it. Scandinator (talk) 16:55, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

And the opposition location needs to be added up due to all their new allies in the coalition. Imp (Say Hi?!) 17:18, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

No it wouldnt be 10, there not taking thewm over, just taking bits. Were not conquering all of you, just parts and were leaving your heartlands to you, im not taking Italia, the Italian Penninsula is staying under Venetian rule. India your fine, we cant ever conquer all of you, wed nevver be able to hold you downfor more than afew decades. You two are both being insolent and ignoring the algorithm unless it suits you, grow up or well have elections to impeach you until the wars end DS|Fear the Mutated Dean Sims Bomb, Fear It 17:42, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

You cannot edit the algorithim. And the Koori made the mistake of invading my heartlands. Its like the Germans invading the French in WWI. Sure, they only wanted its colonies, but France's existance was still threatened because of the Germans won they could muck about with France. Imp (Say Hi?!) 17:45, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

I just did cuz your cheating DS|Fear the Mutated Dean Sims Bomb, Fear It 17:49, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

I am not cheating. And where did you get the +10 from in population? That is cheating. I have easily 20 times to population of the Koori, they do not get a +10. Could Seiga please change it? Imp (Say Hi?!) 17:51, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

Whomever did chance made a mistake, it is the product of the digits in the time so 21:13 is equal to 6... Scandinator (talk) 18:21, May 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought it was supposed to be 21 times 13? Hence how I got 273. So I should change it to six then? -Kogasa [[Image:Miko THPW2.png|50px]] [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|23px|border]] 2013 May 14, 20:29 (CET)
 * Yes.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 20:23, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

And Constantinople is part of Italia itself. It is an Italian city with hundreds of thousands of Italian citizens. If that and the invasion of the subcontinent do not constitute a 10 then I do not know what does... Also, all players involved in the war are ''' STRICTLY PROHIBITED FROM ALTERING THE ALGORITHM. ''' Only Collie and Seiga are allowed to fix and patch it. Any issues go in the discussion thread aka here. Scandinator (talk) 18:24, May 14, 2013 (UTC)


 * Seiga gave up. Found it too tough. :L [[Image:1.png|23px]] Imp (Say Hi?!) 18:26, May 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, this is going to be hard.for a start, i'll have to get all the development scores of every leader and then dividee it by the quantity of leaders.still, this can be done.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 20:26, May 14, 2013 (UTC)


 * Lol. Good luck Collie. Its only 15 turns. :D [[Image:1.png|23px]] Imp (Say Hi?!) 20:27, May 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * That was complicated.it might not even be right.still, i tried my best on that.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 21:28, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

were not taking your capitol, you will surivive the war GET IT THROUGH YOUR SKULL DS|Fear the Mutated Dean Sims Bomb, Fear It 18:24, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

Surviving and life in LoD are two very different things. If I invaded Germany as said I wanted all of Germany except Berlin would it only be 5? No! It would be 10. Now stop altering the algorithm Dean and Imp. Scandinator (talk) 18:28, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

ok thats different, thats obliterating, Scan will keep Italia and Sicily

India will keep a large chunk of India

were not destroying you or trying to kill you

DS|Fear the Mutated Dean Sims Bomb, Fear It 18:30, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

Why are you talking about dividing in the algo? The rules make absolutely no mention of this.

'''For a coalition algorithm, all of the nations that have declared full-on war would have their own algorithm section (with them being the leader, their nation age and military buildup, etc.) The real change is for the results. Then, all the nations on each side would be added up together, and the winning side gets to take territory from each nation. However, the nations that do better on each side would get more, while nations that did really bad may be temporarily occupied.'''

I based this attack on these rules, and if they are being disregarded and or are wrong, then this whole thing is extremely unfair. Hailstormer (talk) 20:41, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah...someone forgot to update the rules page.

21:53, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

I think this war just highlights Dean's stupidity. Yank 21:58, May 14, 2013 (UTC)


 * There's a sensible voice I haven't heard in a while.


 * 22:02, May 14, 2013 (UTC)


 * It was a combination of boredom and not knowing how big one of my colonies should be. Anyway, "I just did cuz your cheating". Evidently Dean thinks cheating means "any action I personally don't like". I personally am hoping for him to go AWOL for five days so I can punt his godforsaken Rome out of the game. Yank 00:39, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

Well we won in the end. And where is that +20 for population. We have an average of 8 digits, while their's is 6. :D  Imp (Say Hi?!) 21:59, May 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * I don 't think that the averages would count for the multiplication.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 22:10, May 14, 2013 (UTC)


 * Why not. 900,000 is much smaller than 10 Million... :L [[Image:1.png|23px]] Imp (Say Hi?!) 22:16, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

Not that I'm getting involved in this war I notice that the recent war sections seem to be wrong as does the expansion sections. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 23:34, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

Also let me just mention a few things highlighted in my chats with some of the players: Anyway, yeah, just my 9 pence - <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 00:16, May 15, 2013 (UTC).
 * Since when was development scores (military, economy and infrastructure) done as an average of coalition leaders? I thought you only did averages of nation age, location and motive as averages. I mean nations in a coalition will have differing nation ages and locations and their reasons for war differ too. But development scores as well? This sort of defeats the purpose of a coalition as say if a strong nation is helping a weak nation against a medium nation, then they'll be equal in an average regardless of the stronger nation's much stronger power. E.g. if USA joins a war to protect the Philippines from Japan, then the scores will be averaged to be equal disregarding the USA's dominance over Japan because it is dragged down by Philippines.
 * Development scores have not been divided by the other side
 * Expansion scores seem to be incorrect
 * Recent war scores seem to be incorrect
 * Bonuses for population and high land haven't been given
 * If players don't agree to cancel this war then I recommend building a table to easily display each nation's individual scores so we can recognise mistakes easier
 * If players decide to cancel this war and return to the status quo, then each nation will have a recent war penalty just no land will change hands.
 * If both players agree, then possible changes to the status quo could be agreed upon. E.g. Rome wants to take Constantinople and Italy wants Persia, then they could agree to swap the lands and we act in game as if they were seized in war. Note that example is bad but it was the first thing I thought of :P
 * If players withdraw from the war, then all they can lose is war reparations. Unless you manage to convince them into giving you something else and they agree as well.

Saxony has joined the war on Italia's side. Callumthered (talk) 00:40, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not giving this war up. Too much at stake.

00:41, May 15, 2013 (UTC)


 * Spoken like a true warrior. Flag of the Hurian Federation.png Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 00:59, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

Several issues with the algorithm. The military and economic scores need to be divided by each other. The Orissa-Italia coalition has a +10 population bonus and a +5 larger colonial empire bonus. Leaving the scores at 23 for the Koori coalition and 54 for the Orissa-Italia coalition. The war has to last 5 years and then all leaders on the Koori coalition collapse. (Sources: Rules and Math) Scandinator (talk) 04:17, May 15, 2013 (UTC)


 * Holy balls CrimsonAssassin (talk) 06:52, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

I added Wales to the war! Reximus55 (talk) 11:15, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

Can someone who has the time please add Saxony and the Confederation of the Rhine to Italia and Brandenburg's side? I am no good at algorithms ;) Callumthered (talk)

Can we cancel the war, i mean the Koori are the ones who got everyone into there alliance in the first place. And my stupidity YES IM AN IDIOT FOR EVEN LISTENING ok. DS|Fear the Mutated Dean Sims Bomb, Fear It 11:26, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

I don't think its fair that you can lead in a war and then bail if you think you are losing regardless if the other side allows it or not. It's like France declaring war on Germany in WWII and then saying in May 1940: "Sacre bleu, the Germans are winning, can we have status quo ante bellum?" Scandinator (talk) 14:26, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

Heck no, I like this war! Why do the losers always whine and complain about the score and this ditch the conflict when they lose? You picked a bad side and you lost. Get over it. Select another nation and just start off over. And to Rex and Callum, the war is over, your nations can't join in the conflict. Besides, the mods locked the algorithim already. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 15:00, May 15, 2013 (UTC)


 * Exactly. In the real world, there are no algorithms. You fight it out to the end and then you find out who's winning. In the 1700s, anyone who dropped out of the losing side of a war had basically disgraced themselves and deserved no respect. Not to mention that we have troops in almost all of you countries.


 * 23:59, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

Um, Scandinators a mod. DS|Fear the Mutated Dean Sims Bomb, Fear It 16:17, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

And? The rules stated plainly that all players must agree to the retcon, and I as well as Imp and Scraw are against it. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 17:44, May 15, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yep. [[Image:1.png|23px]] Imp (Say Hi?!) 18:44, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

The rules also weren't updated, weren't clearly defined, as well as the fact that there is no precedent to this kind of war. Besides, we shouldn't be bickering about it when it's Collie's decision anyway. CourageousLife (talk) 18:51, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

So let me see if I can understand this. Now that you've lost, all of a sudden you want to "update" the rules? There was appearently nothing wrong with them when people were taking territories all over the place with little problem, but since your nation is at risk of getting annexed, you what the rules to be fixed? And I seriously don't understand how much clearer "Wars can only be retconned if all players involved agree to do so" can be. And there have been many other wars similar to this one. Need I remind you of the war between the Holy Roman Empire and the Caliphate? In that conflict, the losing side said the rules were broken and had to be "fixed", while the winning side said there was nothing wrong with them. Different wars, same bulls**t. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 19:36, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

Please try and be professional about this, because everyone's additudes are flaring up. The fact is that if there is going to be a retcon, the winning side will not consent. The decision whether or not to retcon the game will come from Collie, the only person with the power to override the rules in these circumstances. CourageousLife (talk) 19:54, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

I will. But I believe the whole idea of retconning the conflict solely because one side made a bad decision which would result in the loss of the nations is total unfair for the winners, all of whom entered with the same knowledge of the win or die situtation of fighting another group of players. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 19:58, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

Not all of the nations entered with much previous thought. Even though I did declare war on two nations, I was dragged into a gigantic war with other nations who, regardless of whether I declared war or became neutral, would automatically declare war on Normandy and proclaim it a vassal or annex it.It's kind of unfair to the losers as well, when I am being invaded by Wales who may or may not have more of an advanced military than I, but I would never know because this algorithm just piles up the nations in one giant block. With that said, even if Wales had the smallest military in the world, them being apart of the winning coalition autmatically means they can annex whatever they please. Cookiedamage (talk) 20:02, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't a bad decision when looked at in the perspective of the old rules. It got complicated when the rules were not the same, and it went downhill from there. It's not like we declared war because we wanted anything from the other side. Some of our more radical members *cough couch* maye have had their own motives, but most of us were fighting because we needed a solid trade group, and one of our members felt threatened. CourageousLife (talk) 20:07, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

Well, i have noticed that this format of algorythm can't handle world wars.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 20:09, May 15, 2013 (UTC)


 * So what does that mean for us? CourageousLife (talk) 20:11, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

On this case, Nothing.even if we turned back to the old way of doing the coalition algorythms, it only would be enforced after this war.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 20:13, May 15, 2013 (UTC)


 * So after this war, all other wars would use the old algorithm? Cookiedamage (talk) 20:22, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

I don't know.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 20:44, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you use the old algorithm for all future wars, then all the countries lost in this war because of the messed up algorithm now would be lost in a totally unfair situation. You might as well keep the current algorithm, for a while at least, or make a totally new one. Going back to the old one following this war would be terrible, and if you do that why not retcon this already convoluted, messed up war?Cookiedamage (talk) 20:49, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we will necessarily turn back to the old way of using the coalition algorythm.i was just saying that this way has been proven kind of flawed for such cases.it seems to work well on other kinds of wars, but it can't handle well wars with too much leaders.what will happen later, is uncertain.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 20:55, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

So will the war continue for now?Cookiedamage (talk) 21:00, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

I refer back to one of my 9 points made earlier: in coalition algorithms have development scores (military, economy and infrastructure), recent wars, expansion and motive done as a total of the scores for each one of coalition leaders. Don't do an average. Keep using an average for nation age and location, but nothing else.

I mean nations in a coalition will have differing nation ages and locations and their reasons for war differ too. But development scores as well? This sort of defeats the purpose of a coalition as say if a strong nation is helping a weak nation against a medium nation, then they'll be equal in an average regardless of the stronger nation's much stronger power. E.g. if USA joins a war to protect the Philippines from Japan, then the scores will be averaged to be equal disregarding the USA's dominance over Japan because it is dragged down by Philippines. It also fairly represents the intentions for each coaltion leader in the war for joining a side.

That's what I'd do anyway --<font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 21:01, May 15, 2013 (UTC).

I kind of agree with this point.In fact i just divided because i thought that we were supposed to divide the development scores too.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 21:03, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

Should we update the rules page then? <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 21:08, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean?--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 21:15, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

The rules page where all of the rules are, add in these ammendments I suggested concerning when to do averages in coalition algorithms. Then people know these rules for future wars. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 21:24, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

Yes?--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 21:55, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be established that withdrawal should only be possible in wars where the winners are receiving less than 5% of the land and it is a coalition war or only winners can withdraw from a coalition war. Why? Because it's just plain metagaming for losers to withdraw in fear of losing so much.

00:12, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

So Long (For Now)
I'm done with PMII for now. I was getting bored with Manchuria, given that all I'd think up to post was colonial expansion. I'll be back in a few days. I just want something different. Yank 20:10, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

Noo! Oh man, hope you return soon. :L  Imp (Say Hi?!) 20:45, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah your posts did seem rather "forced". I hope you find more inspiration and motivation for a exciting new nation soon. <font color="#000000">VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 20:55, May 15, 2013 (UTC)