Talk:Principia Moderni III (Map Game)

Archives

 * Archive 1

Map Issues
I still haven't received the land that I got through expansion, as stated below by Ms. I saw the map get added, but I haven't seen my nation(Novgorod) expand up north. I was wondering if this could be resolved in the next post for the map. Thank you and sorry for being a bit of a pain. Keep up the good work, mapmakers. Razor (talk) 00:54, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the expansion of the UNC and Novgorod. The UNC expanded north into the space between Norway and Sweden. According to his turns he fought the Saami who are to the north in that area. Meanwhile Novgorod has been expanding straight north of OTL St. Petersburg, along the border of Finland according to the old map. Mscoree (talk) 15:36, February 12, 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll fix that next map. Scandinator (talk) 14:34, February 13, 2014 (UTC)

The map issues for the last map need to be erased, and the nations of Dorpat and Riga need to be combined and vassalized by Prussia.--Yank 16:07, February 12, 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll fix that next map. However you are vassalising too fast. Slow it a bit. You are not a unified ethnic grouping. Scandinator (talk) 14:34, February 13, 2014 (UTC)

Vijaynagar isn't colored on the map it's a nation now, also my expansion into Jaffna wasn't put on either Jbwncster (talk) 17:29, February 12, 2014 (UTC)
 * The policy is to wait a few turns beofre adding in players. I will do so next map. Scandinator (talk) 14:34, February 13, 2014 (UTC)

I expanded pretty much every turn, but my size has not changed. Local Mafia Boss (Talk) (Blog)
 * I shall add that next map. My apologies for missing it. Scandinator (talk) 14:34, February 13, 2014 (UTC)

My expansion has not been added at all. I even sent a map to Scan to make it easier. Could my expansion be added please. -- Hailstormer (talk) 18:37, February 12, 2014 (UTC)
 * That map had you expanding too fast, your civilisation is in decline. I added lands along the Wabash (I think thats the name) river for you. Scandinator (talk) 14:34, February 13, 2014 (UTC)

Modena should belong to Florence. Also, that piece of Milan near Siena should have gone to Florence with Siena. CrimsonAssassin- I have special eyes 23:02, February 12, 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll fix that next map. Scandinator (talk) 14:34, February 13, 2014 (UTC)

The island in the Aegian sea belong now to Savoy --Zengu (talk) 00:33, February 13, 2014 (UTC)
 * Which islands? They are all controlled by some power or another. Was there an agreement with the Ottomans, Venice, the Knights of St John or Byzantium? Scandinator (talk) 14:34, February 13, 2014 (UTC)
 * Next to Naxos, use to belong to Genoa, but never show in the map, and now I own those islands. --Zengu (talk) 05:16, February 14, 2014 (UTC)

Austria has now vassalized the following areas, so they should be shown the same color (Gorizia will be done by the time the map is done, and becomes inherited by Austria eventually anyway). Also if possible, please use this color for Austria. This is the color I originally asked for (Golden Poppy), darkened slightly to differentiate better from the UNC. Mscoree (talk) 05:05, February 13, 2014 (UTC) Things:
 * I'll add the expansion, I'll see what I can do for the colour. Golden Poppy is a bit too similiar to the Golden Horde. Scandinator (talk) 14:34, February 13, 2014 (UTC)

My LIbya territory is in the Hungarian colors.

Colors were not corrected as promised in 1405.

My color is ambiguous to the point where it seems I control land in southern and northern France as well as all of China.

16:48, February 13, 2014 (UTC)
 * The colour thing is inevitable.the only thing to do is to wait until some players drop out and you get a new colour from them.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 10:47, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

Wales was defeated and has rejoined the Kingdom. The Kingdom of Desmond, while still entirely it's own, is now a member of the Kingdoms of Greater Albion. Is it possible to have a colour represent the union? I'd personally want it to be red, but we are a union of federated kingdoms so I don't know if we should be listed as one nation on the map, like otl UK( which is in fact three kingdoms) or should remain separate. Clarification is needed please.Bowties are Cool (talk) 18:54, February 13, 2014 (UTC)

The wrong Russian state that I've vassalized was filled in on the map. However, I'll just vassalize the nation right next to it so that way you don't have to reupload the map. User:Edboy452    (talk) 19:06, February 13, 2014 (UTC)

Chagatai Khanate was added in as a color but no name is on the list as a player 108.232.8.243 20:39, February 13, 2014 (UTC)
 * Chagatai has no colour.the state with color is the Four Oirats, above it.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 10:48, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

Labelled


These great and wonderful maps have been made and labelled by Scandinator. Please be sure to thank him for his intense dedication and deep-level research that he put into these maps.

Cultural
This map, made by Reximus, shows the rough cultural divides that make up the Principia Moderni III universe.

Note rough, this image is far from perfect, but attempts (I feel effectively) to convey the different cultures within the PM3 world.


 * Dark Brown - North American
 * Light Brown - South American
 * Dark Red - Central African
 * Red - Southern Africa
 * Light Green - Arab
 * Dark Green - Turkish
 * Light Yellow - Mongol
 * Yellow - East Asian
 * Olive Green - Indian
 * Teal Blue - Indonesian
 * Dark Purple - Greek
 * Light Purple - Slavic
 * Dark Blue - Celtic
 * Light Pink - German
 * Dark Pink - Scandinavian
 * Red-Pink - British
 * Light Blue - Italian
 * Perwinkle - French
 * Blue - Iberian

Why is Bulgaria turkish? They were an indepentent nation with a long history until 1396, only a short time before our start date, surely they are still Bulgarian culturaly? (Yes I get that the balkans are a pain to map because of the different cultural groups, but it is an important distinction)Stephanus rex (talk) 04:11, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

Because this map doesn't take into account individual areas, just the countries as a whole.A map with individual cultural areas would be endlessly complicated.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 11:01, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how to classify Mangut Nivkhgu - the base culture is Paleosiberian (Nivkh is a language isolate) - but I'm guiding the Nivkhs to adopt East Asian customs. Commandante Lemming (talk) 18:34, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

Religious
Another unofficial map by Reximus, this map shows the primary religion of the state. Again, this is roughly sketched from what I think the world's religions looked like in 1400. Feel free to re-color your state(s), but please do not add colors to the map.

A color key!


 * Red - Animist, Pagan, or Other
 * Green - Islam (No Shiite/Sunni distinction made)
 * Yellow - Catholic
 * Orange - Orthodox
 * Blue - Hindu
 * Purple - Shinto
 * Mustard - Buddhist

Mangut Nivkhgu (Nivkhia) has become Buddhist. -Commandante Lemming (talk) 18:32, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

Can we do a catholic politics distiction? like show who follows which pope? Jaumet (talk)

We don't even need a map.only Aragon, Cyprus and Provence follow the Avignon Antipope.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 13:44, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

Ermm, the Middle East is almost entirely Sunni Muslim, save for Azeria/Azerbaijan (Shia), Georgia (Orthodox), and Trebizond and Sinope (Orthodox). It was probably just a mistake. ChrisL123 (talk) 22:07, February 12, 2014 (UTC)

Oyo's official religion is Catholicism. Most of the educated population follow the Church, while a considerable portion stick to the older animistic beliefs. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 01:10, February 13, 2014 (UTC)

Scan is back
I'm back guys, started continuing on the map, rules and nation list. To make things easy for me please don't edit things and post your grievances here. In addition, I do suggest a mod chat on something like facebook or skype or another messaging service.

No way, i don't have none of these.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 07:17, January 17, 2014 (UTC)

Skype may work. Collie, it's a free download here. Mscoree (talk) 11:28, January 17, 2014 (UTC)

I already have it, but i don't use it. The Great and Powerful Collie Kaltenbrunner doesn't trust social networks.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 12:05, January 17, 2014 (UTC)


 * Now there's a statement I can agree with. Oh yeah, and I'm not dead. Flag of the Hurian Federation.png Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 18:18, January 17, 2014 (UTC)

Hm. What about a google doc? It's essentially the same as a wiki page, and if you people don't have gmail accounts, it's pretty easy to do. Fed (talk) 12:48, January 17, 2014 (UTC)

Skype doesn't require social networking, although I think I like the idea of a Google doc better actually. Mscoree (talk) 15:06, January 17, 2014 (UTC)

Google Doc is much better. Commandante Lemming (talk) 16:15, January 17, 2014 (UTC)

Here is a Google Doc I created if we want to use it. Either send me your email (preferred) or request access after clicking on that link so I can add all the moderators access. Mscoree (talk) 19:06, January 17, 2014 (UTC)

Okay several people have been added to the document. Would the moderators mind clarifying who they are on the doc? Mscoree (talk) 00:26, January 18, 2014 (UTC)

Add me on the list. andrew.cribb777@live.com. I'm on an iPhone so I can't do it meself. Bowties are Cool (talk) 04:49, January 19, 2014 (UTC)

Added. Mscoree (talk) 04:50, January 19, 2014 (UTC)

If we have an email other than google, is it still valid for use on google docs? CourageousLife (talk) 05:12, January 19, 2014 (UTC)

I was looking over the early mod events for England and they don't quite fit. Sine and I will end the Hundred Years' War during its lull, making at least the first mod event null and void.Bowties are Cool (talk) 05:48, January 19, 2014 (UTC)

Theoretically, it could be removed, or... do you think that there was ever any chance of the Epiphany Rising being successful?--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 08:00, January 19, 2014 (UTC)

We should probably take the discussion to the page, but to answer your questions, I wrote the moderator event so that it hints that England has a choice. It says he wants to invade France again, but has reasons not to. Secondly the Epiphany Rising was pretty much over by the start of the game so I think it's too late to change that. It was pretty much over by January of 1400 after being largely unsuccessful. Mscoree (talk) 14:01, January 19, 2014 (UTC)

Is this discussion already going on in the Google Docs discussion, because I feel kind of left out. CourageousLife (talk) 16:10, January 20, 2014 (UTC)

I added myself.

Misuse my information, and I will track you down and kill you, lol.

"This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 16:23, January 20, 2014 (UTC)

Questions about claims and nations available.

Still working on the map, been dead tired from work these last couple days. It'll be done soon with the rules too. Scandinator (talk) 14:42, January 23, 2014 (UTC)

Hey Scan - MS told me topost the following from the Mod Page, I figure in this case it's worth posting:

"Try to get as much done as you can, but if you don’t finish in time feel free to upload it so that others can help out. - MS"

Commandante Lemming (talk) 21:48, January 23, 2014 (UTC)

I'm just touching up Asia now. I'll have everything done for the map soon, Europe and Africa are mostly done with Africa needing cosmetics and the Americas are like no work at all. Scandinator (talk) 16:08, January 26, 2014 (UTC)

The nations list is almost complete with only Africa missing. I'll touch up on the last few things today and tomorrow in the rules and the final map will be uploaded tomorrow night. I request that no-one edit the main page from 00:00 UTC on 2 February till 01:00 UTC on the same day as I require time to upload the mod response to the first turn. In addition can mods start sending messages to players to warn them of the 1st of February start? Scandinator (talk) 07:17, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

No, Seriously.
Can we make the changes I proposed in a few sections prior, to the algo?

22:42, January 23, 2014 (UTC)

I think it is a great idea. 00:45, January 24, 2014 (UTC)

Since Scan is making the rules, you'll have to ask his permission first. and i, for one, do not understand what you tried to propose.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 07:04, January 24, 2014 (UTC)

I said:

I propose the following Algorithm changes.


 * 1) Location should be done in Multiples of 5. Currently, it doesn't matter at all what the location is. Over time, the differences should get smaller, but frankly, currently, it's ridiculous.
 * 2) The Motives are somewhat hopeless. I can think of many wars that would be hard to fit into these categories. Instead, may I recommend using the Motive system from AvA: R-word?
 * 3) Military aid. It's the same penalty for military aid and leading in a war?? What??
 * 4) Nation Age. This just encourages players not to switch governments, because otherwise they get a -10 in everything.

Currently-


 * 1) Location barely matters at all. A country right across the world can easily annex another thousands of miles away, if they have some strength. What's a 4 point difference when you have every other advantage?
 * 2) The motives only apply to certain circumstances, and cannot really be applied everywhere. The motive system I suggested, from AvA R-word, is far better.
 * 3) Recent wars give a penalty of the same size for leading a war- as in sending a giant army- and giving military aid, as in sending noncombatant trainers or arms or anything of that sort. Makes NO sense.
 * 4) Currently, players do not change governments, as would be plausible, because they do not wish to incur a -10 penalty. That penalty should be lowered to the same as the "Ancient nation" one.

Well, then, this is the talkpage- Scan can reply here.

I have some experience writing algos, if that helps...

22:10, January 24, 2014 (UTC)

The third point is not true.If you lead a war, on the recent wars, you are going to have a penalty of one point for each year you fought in it.However, if you just give military aid, you get a one point penalty for the war as a whole.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 08:29, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

Ahh- I understand. The others still stand, however.

23:59, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

I have changed 1. In regards to 4, the -10 is only for 5 years and is to demonstrate the vulnerability of a new governing system. I have added a new category to ensure at least one change this game for every player. I hope that should suffice. And lastly, is an example for number 2 possible? Scandinator (talk) 16:35, January 26, 2014 (UTC)


 * If I may:


 * We need more diversified motives that could easily fit different wars. Last game, some wars were confusing because the motives were very limited, and easy to take advantage of. This game, we need a better system of motives. I, for one, am not a fan of the motive 'because I wanted to'. I think there needs to be a clear and consice motive behind every war. CourageousLife (talk) 17:09, January 26, 2014 (UTC)

I don't know.But we should have something like a 5 for ideological motive, because last game, some players (Viva) were resorting to claim ideological motive for their wars, and there were no rules for ideological motives.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 16:42, January 26, 2014 (UTC)

Ideological motive should only be for the attacker, and only if all attackers on the attacking side share the same ideology. So no fascists and communists fighting republicans. Also, fascist and republicans vs republican is big no.

17:16, January 26, 2014 (UTC)

Here is the AvA motive system...


 * Economic (Gains land, resorce, etc): +2
 * Defending territory not owned by nation more than 20 years: +3
 * Defending territory not part of heartland but held for more than 20 years: + 4
 * Taking territory of similar culture but not part of nation: + 4
 * Aiding an Ally: + 5
 * Pre-emptive Strike: +5
 * Taking back territory recently held by nation but since lost: + 6
 * Aiding Social/Moral Kinsmen who are being oppressed: + 6
 * Attacking to enforce politcal hegemony: +6
 * Defending Heartland from attack that will not cripple/ destroy nation: + 7
 * Major Ideological/Religious beliefs
 * Defending Core/heartland from possibly fatal attack + 8
 * Defending from nuclear armed nation that has a motive over 5 and has not yet used their weaponry: + 8
 * Defending from nuclear armed nation, regardless of motive, that has used said weaponry: + 9
 * Defending from attack that will wipe out nation and culture: + 10
 * Modifiers:
 * Non-democratic Government supported by people: + 3
 * Democratic government supported by people: + 4
 * Government not supported by people: -5
 * WAR not supported by people (democratic) : -3
 * WAR not supported by people (non-democratic): -2
 * Troop Morale high (requires motive over 5, chance over 6, and stronger development scores in at least one category): + 5
 * Troop Morale low (any of the above: chance below 1, lower development scores in all categories, recent war penalty over 8): -5
 * Fighting Guerilla War: -5 attacker, + 1 defender
 * Warning: Negative motive scores are possible!!
 * Lead nation's motive, not average.

 18:58, January 26, 2014 (UTC)

You have to admit, it is much more thorough.

Can I also recommend giving NPCs automatic chance scores of 5?

19:07, January 26, 2014 (UTC)

I think I'd be more willing to support this new motive chart, for the reason being it is much more specific and intricate, meaning it can more accurately be applied to more scenarios. CourageousLife (talk) 20:09, January 26, 2014 (UTC)

I would like to recommend that a non-democratic government gain an edge over the democratic government. Democratic nations tend to suffer from public unrest over prolonged wars, while dictatorships are able to keep the people under control during equally long conflicts. Also, in dictatorships, the population is often conditioned from youth to accept the war (depending on the age of the government) or highly supportive of their nation (nationalism at times), while democracies often spin into debates over whether or not the conflict is worth the risk. Given the more open and more vocal media in democracies, the people will often complain faster than those in nations where the press is censored or at the very least, moderated. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 02:31, January 28, 2014 (UTC)


 * That is by and large not true. A government, democratic or non-democratic will be on the same footing, a democratic government not supported by the people however is on a better footing than a non-democratic one as in a democratic nation they can simply change the government in an election whereas people will just go directly to overthrowing a non-democratic one. Further one conditioning youth to accept war in non-democratic/democratic nations, please look to the USA (pronounced Oo-sah).


 * You are right however people in democracies will complain quicker but that is because that is their outlet, the equivalent in a non-democratic nation is them joining a rebel movement or planting a bomb near an officials home. Non-democratic governments really don't wear and tear as well as democratic ones. Kunarian TALK 09:59, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

That is bullshit.

02:38, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

Further if you really want to highlight the differences between a democratic and non-democratic government, then as soon as a non-democratic government loses a war it should immediately face internal rebellion and revolt. However I think that the real reason the issue is being brought up is so that the algorithm can be played off by people wanting to create world spanning empires. Kunarian TALK 10:01, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point, Viva- but if the people didn't support the war- if they weren't in favor- then you wouldn't get the Democratic advantage, for instance. I've added in another modifier which gives a -3 if the WAR is not supported. :p

This should fix the problem.

22:06, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

Coallition of the North
Total: 182*1.25 = 227,5+CHANCE
 * Location: 14
 * Denmark: 10 (far from location)
 * Sweden: 15  (close to location)
 * Norway: 15  (close to location)
 * Poland: 15  (close to location)
 * Lithuania: 15 (close to location)
 * Golden Horde: 15 (close to location)
 * Tactical Advantage: 1 (1 (Attacker's advantage)
 * Nations in Side of the War: Denmark (L), Sweden (L), Norway (L), Poland (L), Lithuania (L), Golden Horde (L), Smolensk (MV), Chernigov (MV), Mazovia (MV), Moldavia (MV) Hunagary (M), Timurid Empire (M): 38/12 = 3
 * Military Development: 6
 * Denmark: 2
 * Sweden: 2
 * Norway: 2
 * Economic Development: 10
 * Golden Horde: 2
 * Poland: 2
 * Lithuania: 2
 * Scandinavia: 4 (Øresund, Stockholm)
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure Development: 0
 * Motive: +66
 * Denmark:  Aiding an Ally: + 5 Modifiers: High Troop Morale + 5 = 10
 * Sweden:  Aiding an Ally: + 5 Modifiers: High Troop Morale + 5 = 10
 * Norway:  Aiding an Ally: + 5 Modifiers: High Troop Morale + 5 = 10
 * Poland:  Attacking to enforce politcal hegemony: +7 Modifiers: High Troop Morale + 5 = 12
 * Lithuania:  Attacking to enforce politcal hegemony: +7 Modifiers: High Troop Morale + 5 = 12
 * Golden Horde: Attacking to enforce politcal hegemony: +7 Modifiers: High Troop Morale + 5 = 12
 * Chance: tba
 * Nation age: -2
 * Denmark: -5  (Young nation)
 * Sweden: -5  (Young nation)
 * Norway: -5  (Young nation)
 * Poland: -5 (Young nation)
 * Lithuania: +5 (Mature nation)
 * Golden Horde: +5 (Mature nation)
 * Population: +28
 * Participation: +60 (+10 * 6 Leaders)
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: -4
 * Poland: -2 (Smolensk, Chernigov(vassals))
 * Lithuania: -2 (Mazovia, Moldavia (vassals))
 * Denmark:  *1.25 (only nation)
 * Sweden:  *1.25 (only nation)
 * Norway:  *1.25 (only nation)
 * Golden Horde: *1.25 (only nation)

Muscowy
Total: 52+CHANCE
 * Location: 25
 * Tactical advantage: 2 (Coordination)
 * Nations in Side of the War: 1 (Muscowy (L), Great Perm (L), Ustyug (MV), Pskov (MV))
 * Military Development: 0
 * Economic Development: 0
 * Infrastructure Development: 0
 * Motive: 9 (Defending Core/heartland from possibly fatal attack)  not counting modifiers  Low Troop Morale : - 5= 4
 * Chance: tba
 * Nation Age: +5 (Mature nation, 117 years)
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: -2 (Ustyug, Pskov (vassals))

Results
(((227/(227+52))*2)-1)*100= 62.724014336%

The Coalition can take up to 62.7% of Muscovy.


 * (62.7)*(1-1/(2*2))= 47.025%

After 2 years, the Coalition can take 47.025% of Muscovy, resulting in an overthrow of government.

The new government will be a Grand Duchy under Personal Union with Lithuania.

Ustyug and Great Perm will go to the Golden Horde as Vassals.

Pskov will be granted its independence.

Discussion
Before you join in favor of the underdog (Muscowy) realize that we have over 33%, (we actually have 55%) and that your joining in on the war would be suicidal. 01:30, February 2, 2014 (UTC)

I did the basics for the algo, but Rex modified it a bit after I showed it to him. Do you guys think that Sweden and Norway should get a L or an LV? Fed (talk) 01:33, February 2, 2014 (UTC) According to the changes to the Norse governance as set out by Guns himself last turn, there appears to be a great deal of equality between the nobles of the different nations. This would suggest equal status, and therefore no vassal status. 01:38, February 2, 2014 (UTC)

Added Modifiers, will add chance in half a mo, and change the result.

18:51, February 2, 2014 (UTC)

Given that Great Perm declared war and thus is an (L), can it be annexed too? Fed (talk) 02:18, February 3, 2014 (UTC)

Venetian Empire
Total: 187
 * Location: 16 (average)
 * Venice: 10 (far)
 * Aegina: 15 (close)
 * Athens: 15 (close)
 * Corfu: 25 (at location)
 * Naxos: 15 (close)
 * Negroponte: 15 (close)
 * Tactical Advantage: 11
 * Venice: 4
 * Attackers Advantage: 1
 * Larger Colonial Empire: 3
 * Remote Capital: 0
 * Aegina: 1
 * Attackers Advantage: 1
 * Remote Capital: 0
 * Athens: 1
 * Attackers Advantage: 1
 * Remote Capital: 0
 * Corfu: 3
 * Attackers Advantage: 1
 * Central Capital: 2
 * Naxos: 1
 * Attackers Advantage: 1
 * Remote Capital: 0
 * Negroponte: 1
 * Attackers Advantage: 1
 * Remote Capital: 0
 * Nations: 19
 * Venice: 4 (L)
 * Aegina: 3 (LV)
 * Athens: 3 (LV)
 * Corfu: 3 (LV)
 * Naxos: 3 (LV)
 * Negroponte: 3 (LV)
 * Military Development: 0
 * Venice: 0
 * Aegina: 0
 * Athens: 0
 * Corfu: 0
 * Naxos: 0
 * Negroponte: 0
 * Economic Development: 2
 * Venice: 2 (venice)
 * Aegina: 0
 * Athens: 0
 * Corfu: 0
 * Naxos: 0
 * Negroponte: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Venice: 0
 * Aegina: 0
 * Athens: 0
 * Corfu: 0
 * Naxos: 0
 * Negroponte: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Venice: 0
 * Aegina: 0
 * Athens: 0
 * Corfu: 0
 * Naxos: 0
 * Negroponte: 0
 * Motive: 50
 * Venice: 12 (enforce political hegemony, democratic government supported by people)
 * Aegina: 11 (enforce political hegemony, non-democratic government supported by people)
 * Athens: -6 (enforce political hegemony, government not supported by people, war not supported by people)
 * Corfu: 11 (enforce political hegemony, non-democratic government supported by people)
 * Naxos: 11 (enforce political hegemony, non-democratic government supported by people)
 * Negroponte: 11 (enforce political hegemony, non-democratic government supported by people)
 * Chance: 18
 * Venice: 6
 * Edits: 1090
 * Time: 1+5+2+5+3+5=21
 * Calc: 1090/21*pi=163.0636186863381
 * Aegina: 3
 * Athens: 3
 * Corfu: 3
 * Naxos: 3
 * Negroponte: 3
 * Nation Age: -3 (average)
 * Venice: -15 (antique)
 * Aegina: 0 (old)
 * Athens: 0 (old)
 * Corfu: 0 (maturing)
 * Naxos: 0 (old)
 * Negroponte: 0 (old)
 * Population: 29
 * Venice: 6 (digits in population)
 * Aegina: 4 (digits in population)
 * Athens: 6 (digits in population)
 * Corfu: 4 (digits in population)
 * Naxos: 4 (digits in population)
 * Negroponte: 5 (digits in population)
 * Participation: 60
 * Venice: 10
 * Aegina: 10
 * Athens: 10
 * Corfu: 10
 * Naxos: 10
 * Negroponte: 10
 * Recent Wars: -12
 * Venice: -2 (1400-01)
 * Aegina: -2 (1400-01)
 * Athens: -2 (1400-01)
 * Corfu: -2 (1400-01)
 * Naxos: -2 (1400-01)
 * Negroponte: -2 (1400-01)
 * Vassals and Puppets: -5
 * Venice: 0
 * Aegina: -1 (vassal)
 * Athens: -1 (vassal)
 * Corfu: -1 (vassal)
 * Naxos: -1 (vassal)
 * Negroponte: -1 (vassal)

Epirus

 * Location: 25
 * Epirus: 25 (at location)
 * Tactical Advantage: 2
 * Epirus: 4
 * High Ground: 2
 * Central Capital: 2
 * Nations: 4
 * Epirus: 4 (L)
 * Military Development: 0
 * Epirus: 0
 * Economic Development: 0
 * Epirus: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Epirus: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Epirus: 0
 * Motive: 13
 * Epirus: 13 (defending heartland from fatal attack, non-democratic government supported by people)
 * Chance: 3
 * Epirus: 3
 * Edits: 1090
 * Time: 1+5+2+5+3+5=21
 * Calc: 1090/21*pi=163.0636186863381 (this is for all other nations now)
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Epirus: 0 (maturing)
 * Population: 6
 * Epirus: 6 (digits in population)
 * Participation: 10
 * Epirus: 10
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Epirus: -2 (1400-01)
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0
 * Epirus: 0

Total: 61*1.25=76.25

Results



 * Calc: (0.4193548387096774)*(1-1/(2*3))=0.3494623655913978% of territory can be taken by the Venetian Empire


 * P: ((187/(76.5+187))*2)-1=0.4193548387096774
 * Years: 3

In 1402 the government of Epirus will fall.

Key ports will become part of Venice (to be demonstrated on a map here).

While the rest of Epirus will become a vassal ruled by the doges relative appointed as governor general.

Discussion
Please comment. Kunarian TALK 13:18, February 2, 2014 (UTC)

Insert doge joke here.

18:12, February 2, 2014 (UTC)


 * God no. Kunarian TALK 18:33, February 2, 2014 (UTC)

Kalmar and the UNC
In the first turn, Guns has taken a four year old personal union between three nations and turned it into a singular nation. I would not have a problem with it if I saw it as plausible, but currently I do not. After reading the conditions of his treaty to unite the three crowns of Norway, Denmark, and Sweden, as seen here:
 * The Kingdoms of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, and all their holdings, shall be ruled by a single Crown;
 * Said Crown shall rule from the City of Copenhagen;
 * No Noble from any Kingdom shall be sufferred to lose land or life;
 * All Nobles shall send delegates to a Grand Council, which shall meet Annually, to check the power of the Crown;
 * All Kingdoms shall combine their carmies and navies into one;
 * All Kingdoms shall agree to unite their forces against any enemy, internal or external, that threatens this Union;
 * All Kingdoms shall agree to follow the Laws set by the Crown and by the Grand Council;
 * Upon the death or abdication of the Monarch, the Grand Council shall elect a new Monarch from amongest themselves;
 * The Grand Council may impeach the Monarch in extreme cases, and shall require a three quarters majority for this act;
 * The Crown Charter shall be renegotiated and reestablished every 25 years;
 * Thus Established, the United Norse Crown.

​I have determined that it appears implausible for the following reasons.

1. The Swedes were against the Danish superiority in the Kalmar, to the point that they openly rebelled and established their own leader of the Kalmar OTL in the 1430s.

2. The Danish nobility was against a singular crown authority.

3. It has been speculated that the Kalmar Union document was only a draft document and never ratified by "constiutional" bodies of the three kingdoms.

4. The treaty creating the United Norse Crown assumes Norway, Denmark, and Sweden wish for a "greater good", but however, most every ruler in this current age did not care for a greater good and would only look to expand their own power, not sacrifice it at the expense of creating something greater.

Let my clarify by saying that I am not against a plausible uniting of the Kalmar Union. I just see this first-turn unity in the ATL ignoring problems that affected the attempts at uniting the Kalmar OTL. I hope this can be discussed civilly Eiplec - ಠ_ಠ (talk) 02:31, February 3, 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Eip, and was actually thinking so myself. I was planning to have rebellions (which occured in OTL for something far less severe than this) break out all over the Kalmar Union eventually. I completely agree that this is implausible and should be removed. Mscoree (talk) 03:15, February 3, 2014 (UTC)

I do not think the idea of a unified state should be forgotten, but there are certainly some issues with this particular treaty, it takes years to merge nations for one. For instance. I, England plan on jointly merging with Scotland to form the United Kingdoms of Greater Albion. but it will take time. You need to set up a plausible chain of events leading toward the goal, for instance i need a new leader, which conviently in OTL actaully happened in 1413. in my case it will take almost 20 years in game before my union can be realized with some degree of plausibility. Of course the Kalmar Union is more organized than rivals Scotland and England, but the principle remains the same. It takes time.Bowties are Cool (talk) 05:03, February 3, 2014 (UTC)

Look, a said union and a true union are very different. Guns, here, has made a said union - something which happened in 1603 when the Scottish and English crowns came under one monarch. The union was only made into a true union with the Union Act of 1707!

Although the flag and stuff changed post-1603, and a joint navy was established - the true union only came about after a long time and a lot of work by the monarch.

Therefore, it is safe to presume Guns will work on this for atleast 5-8 decades before a true union legislature can be passed through his "parliament". Imp (Say Hi?!) 12:52, February 3, 2014 (UTC)

Wow, Eip. Almost NOTHING you said there was actually the case here. Congratulations.


 * 1) There IS no Danish Superiority, as all the Nobles are thrown into one "Grand Council", so the Swedish and Norwegian (who, note, also control Iceland) Nobles will easily outvote the Danish ones if they are actually united.
 * Oh, you mean that crown that has NO bearing on ANYTHING? Whose abilities are limited to asking the Council to consider something? Yes, wow. Real threat to authority there.
 * 1) And some historians also believe that Elvis was captured by aliens. General consensus is that they did.
 * 2) It is NOT one bloody nation. It is three. Notice how they are referred to as the "Three Kingdoms"? They share a monarch. That's what the UNC refers to. I just didn't want to make three seperate posts.
 * 3) In fact, these nations are even less united than OTL. Apart from a joint military and the fact that they pay lip service to the same- powerless, note- King, they share nothing in common. All civil affairs are dealt with by the Nobles in the area, and those bridging larger swathes of territory are dealt with by the Grand Council.

In conclusion; apart from the fact that I have been posting only once per turn, these are basically three nations. Under one monarch, and one Council. They can't declare war on each other, and they share a military.

Thank you for not metagaming in your own favor to get rid of a potential threat, Ms.

22:11, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

No problem Guns. Anyway, as I clarified on chat, these rebellions may or may not happen, depending on how you handle the situation. So good luck. Mscoree (talk) 14:18, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

HRE Casus Belli
I propose the following casus belli be added to the algorithm that are specific to the Holy Roman Empire. Feel free to discuss each one and how many points it should be below.


 * Aiding a prince under attack: 6


 * If a duchy is under attack by a foreign threat then the emperor can intervene to save them.
 * Revoke an Electorate:
 * War to remove a state's status as an elector.
 * Imperial Liberation:
 * War to free a duchy that was annexed by a foreign power and/or another member of the empire.
 * Enforce religion:
 * Forcefully convert a nation in the empire (does not work on electors, or past 1650)

Mscoree (talk) 13:37, February 3, 2014 (UTC)


 * I really think these are going to be used and abused if they are just for HRE, I think we've already had the discussion that the HRE is not buddies united OTL and so why would they be ATL, further why should the HRE get special preference for motives. The first one can come under assisting an ally, the second political hegemony, the third comes under Aiding Social/Moral/Ideological/Religious Kinsmen who are being oppressed or Taking territory of similar culture but not part of nation and the final one might also be the political hegemony although it might be worthwhile adding a motive for religious motives. Kunarian TALK 15:45, February 3, 2014 (UTC)


 * Many of these somewhat fall under pre-existing ones but I think it would add a sense of realism if the Holy Roman Empire had these region specific ones. In OTL the Holy Roman Empire had plenty of empire-specific motives that were used to justify wars within and around the empire, sometimes rooted in old law and other documents that wouldn't apply to ther nations. Mscoree (talk) 18:45, February 3, 2014 (UTC)


 * Then I want one for Venice. I get 9 points in Motive for Establishing/Enforcing/Defending Trade Monopoly. That would apply very strongly to Venice and not the HRE, I can has? and only for me and other trade republics of course. Kunarian TALK 12:23, February 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe not 9 (since that would be near life or death) but that definitely sounds like a fair addition. Mscoree (talk) 13:11, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

Venice should get its own special ones too. They are the only nation of their type currently in Europe, and should have more value given on trade. Not only this, they should also have it given for defence, as invading Venice in history was almost always suicide due to its naval strength and location but the algorithim does not represent that. Imp (Say Hi?!) 12:43, February 4, 2014 (UTC)


 * Motive: Venice +100000000, cannot be used by anyone other than Venice, can be used against mods. < I propose this format Kunarian TALK 22:25, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a few for the merchant republic government type in general. Also I believe Venice is one of the strategic points in the algorithm, which adds some points. Mscoree (talk) 13:10, February 4, 2014 (UTC)


 * Strategic points are a bit different to this. Adding bonuses to government types is always a bit iffy. Kunarian TALK 22:25, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how ANY of these apply. They are all covered by existing motives. #1 is under "Aiding an Ally", #2 and #3 would probably be under "Political Hegemony", and for #4 I believe there is already a religious motive. 22:13, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

Majapahit (Attacker)
Location: 20 Tactical Advantage: 1 Nations Per Side on the War: 0 Military Development: 0 Motive: 7 Chance: 9 Nation Age: 5 Population: 16 Participation: 10 Recent Wars: - Vassals and Puppets: *1.25 Total: 62
 * Close to the location of the war
 * Attackers Advantage
 * Development: 0
 * Economic (Gains land, resorce, etc)
 * Declaration of war: 15:04 UTC
 * 213/10*π= 66. 9 159235214626
 * 1403-1293= 110
 * Mature nation (75-200 years)= +5
 * 150.000
 * +10 if the larger nation is between five and ten times the population of the smaller
 * 1.25=77.5

Bami
Location: 25


 * At the location of the war:

Tactical Advantage: 2


 * 2: If your capital is in a central region in your nation or near the border where the war is occurring

Nations Per Side on the War: 0

Military Development: 0

Economic Development: 0

Infrastructure Development: 1

Expansion: 0

Motive: 13


 * Defending Core/heartland from possibly fatal attack
 * Non-democratic Government supported by people

Chance: 1


 * Declaration of war: 15:04 UTC
 * 213/10*π= 66.91 59235214626

Nation Age: 0
 * Maturing nation (50-75 years)= 0

Population: 5

Participation: 10

Recent Wars: -

Vassals and Puppets: *1.25

Total: 57


 * 1.25=71.25

Result: After 3 years the 'government' is toppled and Bami is annexed in the Majapahit Empire.


 * ((77.5/(71.25+77.5))*2)-1=0.0420168067226891
 * (0.0420168067226891)*(1-1/(2*3))=0.0350140056022409167%

Discussion:
My first Principia Algo. Can the mod chek it if everything is right? Mr YOLO (talk) 15:33, February 3, 2014 (UTC)

Next time please paste algorithms in source mode. The page was heavily messed up by you posting it in visual. Thanks, Mscoree (talk) 18:43, February 3, 2014 (UTC)

Ok, will do. Sorry about that. Mr YOLO (talk) 20:19, February 3, 2014 (UTC)

There is a basic mistake on the results.You are not getting 35% of their territory.you are getting 3,5%. you are nowhere near toppling their government.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 20:21, February 3, 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that sucks. Mr YOLO (talk) 20:24, February 3, 2014 (UTC)

I'm beginning to feel that I do something wrong. Because even if I let the war last 1000 years, it is still only ca. 4.1%. Any help?

I don 't think you are doing anything wrong.this is because the original result only yielded 4,2%.The quantity of years will limit the amount of land you take farther than that.No matter how many years you spend in the war, you won't get more than 4,2%.Your only way to get more territory is to go to war with them again.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 22:07, February 3, 2014 (UTC)

Algorithm Template
Because the current algorithm looks like s***, I've taken it upon myself to do the players a favor and create an algo template that is more becoming of a map game of PMIII's caliber. Enjoy. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 18:40, February 3, 2014 (UTC)

Nation One (Attacker)
Total: 0
 * Location: 0
 * Tactical Advantage: 0
 * Nations: 0 = 0
 * Military Development: 0
 * Economic Development: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 0
 * Chance: 0
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 (0) =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Nation Two (Defender)
Total: 0
 * Location: 0
 * Tactical Advantage: 0
 * Nations: 0 = 0
 * Military Development: 0
 * Economic Development: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 0
 * Chance: 0
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 (0) =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Result

 * ((Winner/(Loser+Winner))*2)-1 = 0
 * (0)*(1-1/(2*0)) = 0

Discussion
Cheers Viva -- Hailstormer (talk) 00:13, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

Why thank you. :) Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 01:09, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

Timurids/White Sheep Turkmen/Erzincan

 * Location: +20


 * Erzincan: +25
 * White Turkmen: +25
 * Timurids: +10
 * Tactical Advantage: 8/3= +2.66667= +3


 * Erzincan: +1, +1 =+2
 * Timurids: +1, +3, +1 =+4
 * White Sheep Turkmen: +1, +1 =+2
 * Nations: Erzincan (+4), White Sheep Turkmen (+4), Timurids (+4)= +12/7= +2
 * Military Development: +24/4 =+6


 * Erzincan: +8
 * White Sheep Turkmen: +8
 * Timurids: +8
 * Economic Development: +1 (Samarkand) 1/0= 1
 * Infrastrucure: +0
 * Motive: +32


 * Timurids: +7, +5 =+12
 * Erzincan: +5 +5= +10
 * White Sheep Turkmen: +5, +5=+10
 * Chance:


 * 8626/(1*9*3*2)*pi=501.8403375901028977
 * 501.8 4 03 =+4
 * Nation Age : +0
 * Participation: +10x3= +30
 * Population: 4,583,000= +7, +20 = +27

Total: 122

Georgia

 * Location: +25
 * Tactical Advantage: +2 (Coordination, Tbilisi is pretty damn close to the border)
 * Nations: Georgia (+4), Ottoman Empire (+3) =+7/12 = +1
 * Military Development: +4/24= +1
 * Economic Development: +2
 * Infrastrucure: +1
 * Motive: +9 (Defending Core/heartland from possibly fatal attack), +4 (Non-democratic Government supported by people) =+13
 * Chance: +0
 * Nation Age: -5 (392 years)
 * Participation: +10
 * Population: 286,000 = +6, =+6
 * Total Without Chance: +56

Result
((122/(54+122))*2)-1= 0.3863636363636364

(0.3863636363636364)*(1-1/(2(4)))=0.32558139534883725 -> 34% after 4 years of war, enough to topple the Georgian government

Was the Ottoman aid considered? I haven't used/experienced algorithms in a while so I just wanted to make sure lol. ChrisL123 (talk) 01:40, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

The Ottoman aid was not considered, nor were a few other things which I'll mostly fix soon (first and foremost the losing side does not get +0, but rather +1, motive is almost definitely life or death). Fed (talk) 01:45, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

Colour Picker
Choose your colour for the map in 1405!

Section titles in bold mean that shades of the boldened color are no longer available.

Could we have the little picture to show which nation is which color, like in PMI? Cour (talk) 01:20, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

Yellow (max 4)

 * Gold... Golden Horde... must be connected, lol. Fed (talk) 12:07, February 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * Specifically I would like the color Golden Poppy (Hex: #FCC200; RGB: 252, 194, 0). Thanks, Mscoree (talk) 13:14, February 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * Can I have just normal Yellow?  23:12, February 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * Can I have this color for Yemen:


 * 1) DAA520 Willster22 (User talk:Willster22) 00:11, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

Orange (max 3)

 * Saxon federation can into Orange ~Toby=)
 * can Andorra have #FA9A50 Jbwncster (talk)


 * This guy might be a flasher.
 * Don't know if the above countied as a sign up, but i would like Cuzco to be orange. What is this????Is this a signature??? (talk)

Red (max 4)

 * Muscovy (Currently Muscovite Rebels, but if I win the revolution I will choose this) - User:Edboy452 [[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|25px|border]] [[Image:Flag of German Reich (1935–1945).svg|25px|border]] [[Image:Flag of Israel.svg|25px|border]] [[Image:Flag of the Soviet Union.svg|25px|border]] (talk) 11:02, February 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * I am hoping there is more than one red? Because I want england to be a red colour, not too picky on the shade.Bowties are Cool (talk) 13:33, February 4, 2014 (UTC)


 * ​England needs to the the shade of red that the Brit Empire always is on maps! [[Image:1.png|23px]] Imp (Say Hi?!) 15:54, February 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * Well it says max of four, so I believe upto four people can be a shade of red. Mscoree (talk) 16:26, February 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * Spatian300 wants the Papal States to be red. Spartian300 (talk) 15:11, February 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually the Venetian flag is red... Kunarian TALK 15:52, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

Crimson (max 3)

 * Hainaut and Holland  Nkbeeching (talk) 11:20, February 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * Uhhh... duh? Banner_of_the_Holy_Roman_Emperor_with_haloes_(1400-1806).svg Labarum.jpg CrimsonAssassin- I have special eyes
 * Timurids  Sims -The Rainbow Machete Piq 28524 400x400.png  17:42, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

Pink (max 2)

 * Bosnia supports a cure to breast cancer LefthandedLunatic (talk) 11:43, February 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * Cookiedamage (talk) 23:55, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

Purple (max 4)

 * The Bengali people demanded to be treated as Royals. Eiplec - ಠ_ಠ (talk) 13:37, February 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * Ulster can into Royal.
 * I want the purple I had as Vietnam.--Yank 19:55, February 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * Byzantines...always are purple... "This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 22:14, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

Dark Blue (max 3)

 * Ninjasvswarriors (talk) 13:13, February 4, 2014 (UTC)


 * I wanted red for Hamburg, as it's the main color on the flag, but this will do
 * As previously started, I want #0000FF or 0, 0, 255.
 * Some Dark blue for me too. Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 00:05, February 5, 2014 (UTC)


 * Did you not see the bold title which says max 3 and the 3 undersigned?

Light Blue (max 3)

 * Scandinator (talk) 06:12, February 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * [what from this moment on shall be known as] Russia blue from PM1!-Lx (leave me a message)Azarath Flag.png 14:16, February 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * Novgorod Light Blue RazorFangZ14 (talk) 23:46, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

Light Green (max 3)

 * The Cahokian Civilisation will have a shade of light green. In particular I would like R:G:B - 145:186:20 -- Hailstormer (talk) 14:02, February 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * Japan will take this one. - Shadow
 * Desmond STRONK! Desmond Shamrock Green! phyrexia_symbol.png Yawgmoth, Lord of the Wastes phyrexia_symbol.png

Dark Green (max 3)

 * Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 06:54, February 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * Callumthered (talk) 08:19, February 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * VENICE MUST BE GREEN! Kunarian TALK 08:55, February 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * Can i have the hungarian green (pastel i beive) in pm 2, at the first map? Quashi (talk) 17:54, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

Brown (max 4)

 * I feel brown is an appropiate colour/color for Majapahit.Mr YOLO (talk) 15:33, February 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * Lighter brown, if you please, for the Zapotec. Cour (talk) 22:34, February 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * Tanish please for the Swiss Daeseunglim (talk) 00:33, February 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * Ottoman Empire. Best for last I suppose! ChrisL123 (talk) 00:13, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

Teal

 * Mangut Nivkhgu should be illustrated in the color "Tropical Rain Forest" - Hex triplet #00755E Commandante Lemming (talk) 17:23, February 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * Castile i guess The Unchallenged Conqueror #FP (Talk to Me) 00:36, February 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Flag of Russian Alaska (HR).svg |40px|link=User talk:Octivian Marius]] OCT MARIUS, HAIL HIM  [[Image: Flag of Italy (Federalist Italy).svg|40px|User talk:Octavian Marius]]
 * Scotland - LightningLynx89
 * can Vijayanagara be 37FDFC? Jbwncster (talk)

Maroon or Indigo (max 2)

 * FOR GREAT JUSTICE!!! >:O Flag of the Hurian Federation.png Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 17:09, February 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * That creamy colour Hungary had in PMI. I want that colour, Thanks. [[Image:1.png|23px]] Imp (Say Hi?!) 12:37, February 4, 2014 (UTC)


 * Um, that color was more of a lighter colour than yellow.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 14:20, February 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * ae6d6d - just give me that. The colour of Hungary. [[Image:1.png|23px]] Imp (Say Hi?!) 15:50, February 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * Hope you don't mind i corrected your mistake.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 19:40, February 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * PS.S - Sorry, Viva, but he claimed maroon first, so i had to make space for you two on the same color area.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 19:40, February 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I'll take indigo then. Flag of the Hurian Federation.png Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 20:22, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

Development in Wars
Does the rule for development of nations during war time not being counted still apply? It was a great rule and isn't it still around? Imp (Say Hi?!) 20:36, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

The Chinese Question
I am wondering how on the 1403 turn in PMIII is Ming China able to siege a city without an algo, win said siege, topple a dynasty after one non-algo victory siege, and then control the nation that is not Ming China (Dai Vet) and make it offer itself as a vassal to Ming China. Eiplec - ಠ_ಠ (talk) 21:13, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

Really, there should be a algorythm.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 21:40, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

Maybe this should be posed as "什麼他媽的？" :D Kunarian TALK 22:12, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah seriously i got utterly crucified when i first joined map games and didnt do an algo... You really need to do an algo thats not cool/fair to anyone else

Feudal, get your signature together. I don't want to write in a fucking red box or be forced to go into source mode for a short message.

I think an algo is definitely needed.

19:25, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

Scan definitely needs an algo. You can't just vassalise states four turns from start without a war. Fed (talk) 03:40, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

It was an event that occurred in OTL, Dai Viet had just undergone a dynasty change with the Tran Dynasty forced to abdicate for the Ho dynasty in 1399/1400; then the Ming Dynasty invaded in this time period under the same pretext of reinstalling the Trans. Although in OTL they installed their own governor. If you all agree an algorithm is needed then I'll happily reverse the event. Scandinator (talk) 10:25, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

The war for Dai Viet never occurred until 1406, and the only reason for Ming intervention OTL was not because they wanted to help the Tran Dynasty, but because the Ho dynasty attacked a Ming convoy escorting a Tran pretender, who was killed in the attack. Eiplec - ಠ_ಠ (talk) 13:33, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

In this TL the Ming Emperor are more outward focused. The Yongle Emperor decided to help re-install the Tran Dynasty. Is it not possible without an algo? Either way, the fact that I would have some Tran loyalists helping and that the Ming population is huge basically results in a win for the Ming Dynasty with or without an algo. And lets see... other states that have vassalised without war... Naples... Hungary, Savoy, Saxony, Desmond, Mamluks, Timurids... Austria, Switzerland... hmmmmm Looks like a lot of algorithms to me... And honestly, out of all of these, The move on Dai Viet has an actual casus belli some of them. Scandinator (talk) 14:47, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

Some of those were direct mod events, and some were diplomatic, not by sieging a single city and defeating an entire country by doing that. But if everyone is doing it, by all means, continue. Eiplec - ಠ_ಠ (talk) 16:02, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

Ashikaga

 * Location: +25
 * Tactical Advantage: +1 ( Shiba is pretty damn close to the border)
 * Nations: +4 Ashikaga
 * Military Development: +2
 * Economic Development: +0
 * Infrastrucure: +0
 * Motive: +5 (Non-democratic Government supported by people), and Economic (Gains land, resource, etc)
 * Chance: +0
 * Nation Age: 2,000 = +10
 * Participation: +10
 * Population: 65,000 = +15
 * Total: 72

Shiba

 * Location: +25
 * Tactical Advantage: +0 ( Ashikaga is pretty damn close to the border)
 * Nations: +4 Shiba
 * Military Development: 0
 * Economic Development: 0
 * Infrastrucure: 1
 * Motive: +9 (Defending Core/heartland from possibly fatal attack), +4 (Non-democratic Government supported by people) =+13
 * Chance: +0
 * Nation Age: 2,000= +10
 * Participation: +10
 * Population: 10,000= +5
 * Total: 68

Result
72/140 -0.5 x 2 = 0.028571428

The Ashikaga Shogunate gets 2.8% of the territory of the Shiba daimyo.

Invaders

 * Location: 17

Total: 245+Chance
 * Muscovy: 25
 * Novgorod: 20
 * Pskov: 20
 * Austria: 20
 * Trier: 20
 * Cologne: 15
 * Bohemia: 20
 * Switzerland: 15
 * Saxony: 20
 * Teutonic Knights: 25
 * Mecklenburg: 20
 * Tactical Advantage: 2 (Coordination)
 * Nations in Side of the War: Muscovy (L), Novgorod (L), Pskov(L), Austria (L), Trier (L), Cologne (L), Bohemia (L), Switzerland (L), Saxony (L), Hamburg (L), Teutonic Order (L), Mecklenburg (L)
 * 48/11=4
 * Military Development: 30
 * Muscovy: 2
 * Novgorod: 3
 * Pskov: 2
 * Austria: 3
 * Trier: 4
 * Cologne: 3
 * Bohemia: 2
 * Switzerland: 2
 * Saxony: 2
 * Teutonic Order: 0
 * Hamburg: 3
 * Mecklenburg: 2
 * Economic Development: 7
 * Muscovy: 0
 * Novgorod: 1 (St Petersburg / Vyborg)
 * Pskov: 2
 * Austria: 0
 * Trier: 0
 * Cologne: 0
 * Bohemia: 0
 * Switzerland: 2
 * Saxony: 0
 * Teutonic Knights: 0
 * Hamburg: 2
 * Mecklenburg: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure Development: 0
 * Motive: +6
 * Muscovy: 10 (Defending from attack that will wipe out nation and culture)
 * Novgorod: 7 (Aiding Social/Moral/Ideological/Religious Kinsmen who are being oppressed)
 * Pskov: +7(Aiding Social/Moral/Ideological/Religious Kinsmen who are being oppressed)
 * Teutonic Order: 7 (Aiding Social/Moral/Ideological/Religious Kinsmen who are being oppressed)
 * Austria: 5 (Aiding an ally)
 * Trier: 5 (Aiding an ally)
 * Cologne: 5 (Aiding an ally)
 * Bohemia: 5 (Aiding an ally)
 * Switzerland: 5 (Aiding an ally)
 * Saxony: 5 (Aiding an ally)
 * Mecklenburg: 5 (Aiding an ally)
 * Not counting modifiers
 * Chance: tba
 * Nation age: 5/12 = 0.41 = 0
 * Muscovy: +5
 * Novgorod: 0
 * Pskov: +5(de facto independance in 1328? 1329? 75 years whichever number it is so +5 yay!)
 * Austria: 0
 * Trier: -15
 * Cologne: -5
 * Bohemia: 0
 * Switzerland: +5
 * Saxony: 0
 * Teutonic Knights: +5
 * Mecklenburg: 0
 * Hamburg: +5
 * Population: 9
 * Participation: +120 (+11 * 10 Leaders)
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: x1.25

Poland

 * Location: 25
 * Tactical advantage:1
 * Nations in Side of the War: Poland (L), Lithuania (L), UNC (M): 4
 * Military Development: 0
 * Poland: 0
 * Lithuania: 0
 * Economic Development: 2
 * Poland: 1
 * Lithuania: 1
 * Infrastructure Development: 0
 * Motive: 9 (Defending Core/heartland from possibly fatal attack)

not counting modifiers Total: 41+CHANCE
 * Chance: tba
 * Nation Age: -10
 * Poland: -5 (Young nation)
 * Lithuania: +5 (Mature nation)
 * UNC: -10
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: -3
 * Poland: -1
 * Lithuania: -1
 * UNC: -1
 * Vassals and Puppets: -4
 * Poland: -2 (Smolensk, Chernigov(vassals))
 * Lithuania: -2 (Mazovia, Moldavia (vassals))

Results
(0.713286)*(1-1/(2(2)) = 0.53

Discussion
At this point we would get 75%.--Yank 23:55, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

WOAH WOAH WOAH! I have noticed that the motive score on several of these algos are all wrong! You're supposed to AVERAGE the motives, not add them! What are you guys DOING?

23:55, February 4, 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually guns the only things that are averaged are the location and age when fighting as a coalition. Kunarian TALK 19:46, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

I'm putting this in the discussion section for the algorithm, and thank you bringing this to my attention. I will fix it. Mscoree (talk) 00:37, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to lie, this algo is probably needing some major rework...

It will need some major rework. It includes several things way out of order, including the reasons (there's frankly no oppression by the Poles in Muscowy, and Muscowy is using a defensive cassus belli while it's attacking), the adding up (participation and reasons, as Guns has said before), the location (you can't possibly tell me that Trier is next to Ruthenia, the location of the war), the fact that the HRE has a COORDINATION BONUS (that's just ludicruous), and many others. Fed (talk) 01:50, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

For the location, I noticed that you said the distance between the Golden Horde and Muscovy was a 15, at 3,808.68 mi. Therefore I thought places like Vienna, at 345.17 miles, and Trier, at 646.52 mi, would be a 20. Mscoree (talk) 02:16, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

... Did you measure it from the farthest edge of the Horde? Saray is 971.5 kilometres (603.662 in your ridiculous measuring system) and, furthermore, the Horde has a border with Muscowy, something which Cleves does not. Fed (talk) 12:09, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

There is the minor problem that Trier can't really be a leader.

19:27, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

3 motive scores for Teutonic Knights because... They have group Schizophrenia? Local Mafia Boss (Talk) (Blog)

Well, it looks like you guys won. Good game, I resign as P-L, feel free to split it into vassals as you should chose. I will not be leaving PM3, just shifting nations. Good work on the 33%, and I hope you all do well.


 * Ed - Go get Russia!
 * Ms - Go get Germany!
 * Everyone Else - Go have fun!

Bye, bye Europe!!! 20:20, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

UNC(Attacker)

 * Location: 20
 * Tactical Advantage: 3 (attacker, connected Capital)
 * Nations: Denmark (L) Sweden (L) Norway (L) Holstein (LV) Holland (M) Castille (S): 20/4 =5
 * Military Development: 4 => 0
 * Economic Development: 12/0 = 12
 * Expansion: -3 (Saami) (Though I was in the War on Muscovy, please note that I didn't actually gain any land.)
 * Infrastructure: NA
 * Motive: 15 (Hegemony, Troop Morale, Support)
 * Chance: 7
 * Edit count: 6612
 * UTC: 11:03 = 4
 * Total: 6612/4*3.14159265359 =
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Denmark: -5  (Young nation)
 * Sweden: -5  (Young nation)
 * Norway: -5  (Young nation)
 * Population: 7+10(over 5x as large)=17
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: -4
 * Vassals and Puppets: 3 only nations * 1.25 - 1

Total: 144.5 145l

Hamburg(Defender)

 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage: 0
 * Nations: Hamburg (L) : 4 => 0
 * Military Development: 8/4 = 2
 * Economic Development: => 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 9 (defending from potenitally fatal strike)
 * Chance: 7
 * Edit count: 445
 * UTC: 11:02 = 4
 * Total: 445/53.14159265359 =
 * Nation Age: Mature Nation: + 5
 * Population: 5
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: Only nation * 1.25

Total: 69*1.25 = 89

Result

 * (145/(145+89))*2)-1 = 23.9%
 * (23.9)*(1-1/(2*3)) = 19.91%

Discussion
So I get 20% of a city. Umm.

23:11, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

Can I "vassalize" them?

23:15, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

How does one take 20% of a city?

Exactly. So can I suggest this? I "vassalize" you, meaning you can continue doing your own thing, except during wars you'll aid us, and you'll pay some basic Lip Service to the Crown. Who has no real power. Idk.

23:20, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

Counter-proposal: I give you money for a few years (until 1413? 1418?) and remain neutral in wars you're involved in?

Umm... Well, if that money counted as Supplies in wars, and helps me take down the Hanseatic league... but not just 10 years. 1450.

23:27, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

Not war supplies, just plain cash(?).

Not war supplies; I mean, as in hard cash- which is used to buy supplies. Basically, in the algo, would be counted as supplies.

So till 1450.

Look out Hansa, here we come.

23:33, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

Hainaut and Holland is willing to help shoulder the debt of hamburg in exchange for control over hamburg finances, and for control over a prtion of their exclusive trading routes.

Nk

Participation
WOAH WOAH WOAH!

Participation isn't mutiplied by the number of nations on each side of the war! It's a flat ten, regardless! Ms! WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?

Seriously, this is like the second algo porblem I've noticed. Can I have mod approval to fix them? Ask MP or Scraw- I'm really good at them.

00:52, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

Post your fixed version(s) below, and the mods will deliberate. Cour (talk) 01:51, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

That's how you did it in your algorithm Guns. User:Edboy452    (talk) 02:12, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

On the subject of algorithms, they are required for invading/pacifying a grey area, aren't they? Callumthered (talk) 08:22, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

Guns on coalition algorithms it appears you are supposed to multiply the number of leaders by ten. That is what you did for yours against Muscovy. Mscoree (talk) 13:30, February 5, 2014 (UTC)


 * Have to agree here. It's +10 for every leader when concerning coalitions because they are considered nations that are actually involved in the fighting. Kunarian TALK 19:48, February 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that's covered in the nations section. Also, if that's how it was done against Muscovy, that was WRONG. I did not do that algo, Rex did. Look at all the algos ever done in PMII- the participation section has not changed.  22:17, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

Von
It's been five days and Von hasn't posted yet. I think we need to take him off of the list of mods. Would it be presumptuous of myself to nominate myself to fill the resulting seat in the Mods?--Yank 22:34, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

Von is kind-of mod-emeritus anyway. Thoughts everyone? Commandante Lemming (talk) 22:41, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

It was pretty much well established at the time of the moderator selections that Von would be inactive, but has a sort of honorary position. Therefore I don't think it's really a matter or replacing him, although if you would like to nominate yourself we can give you a proper election just like everyone else. Mscoree (talk) 22:46, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

I think that we've established, though that the number of mods will not change. Why don't we just make a mods-emiritus section, and dump Von, Cosman, and Kenny there- along with all the others? Then we might be able to nominate some more active moderators, such as Yank and Impo.

22:52, February 5, 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm game. [[Image:1.png|23px]] Imp (Say Hi?!) 00:18, February 6, 2014 (UTC)
 * Same. Flag of the Hurian Federation.png Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 19:46, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

I think having an emeritus section like previous games would be a good idea. Mscoree (talk) 00:27, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

I think we should jus take Von into the emeritus category with Kenny, Cos, Lurk, AP, and Pita. Then we shall have the perfect number of 13 mods. Besides, we have enough mods as it is.

02:08, February 6, 2014 (UTC)


 * You're not a mod. [[Image:1.png|23px]] Imp (Say Hi?!) 12:57, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

I have copied the honorary section from PM2, and have added Von to it. Hope that helps. Mscoree (talk) 02:54, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

I support the officers emeritus category, and believe that we have a decent amount of mods as it is. Cour (talk) 03:19, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

Castile (Attacker)

 * Location: +15
 * Tactical Advantage: +2
 * Nations:  Castile(L) Venetia (L) Naples (L) France (M) Swiss Confed (M) Andorra (M) =21/12 = 2
 * Military Development: +18/4 =4.5 = 5 (together)
 * Economic Development: +18 /4=4.5 =5(together) +5(Gibraltar, i was told i had it by 1405)
 * Expansion: -4 (castile)
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: +9 (Pre-Emptive strike non dem supported)
 * Chance: 2


 * Edit count: 4,133
 * UTC: 12:25 (0) = 10
 * Total: 4133/10*3.14159265359 = 1298.42024373
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Population: +8  +10 (5 times more than morocco)= +18
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Vassals and Puppets:62*3*1.25

Total:= 232.45

Marinid Morocco Two (Defender)


 * Location: +25
 * Tactical Advantage: +3
 * Nations: Morocco (L)  Algiers(S) Tunisia (S) Zab (S) Gafsan (S): 12 = 0
 * Military Development: +4 = 0 +5 (mod event)
 * Economic Development: +4 = 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: +4 = 0
 * Motive: +5 (taking back territory recently held, non dem supported govt Low morale)
 * Chance: See above : 0


 * Edit count: TBD
 * UTC: 0 (0) = TBD
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Population: +5
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: +0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 58*1.25

Total: 72.25 ~72

Result

 * (232/(232+72))*2-1 = 52.6%
 * (52.6)*(1-1/(2*2)) = 39.45%

The Castillians may take 39.45% of blah blah if the war last two years, toppling the govt.

Discussion
Still up to change not everythings done yet ill have it all finished by the end of tonight hopefully.

Here is what I see the algo to be...

The primary issues have to do with Mil score, Econ score, and Aid score, all of which were not divided. 04:51, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

^Sorry that algo he posted was not supposed to be removed i really have no idea what happend Sorry Rex :(

'''You not a mod and i dont appreciate anyone other than a Mod handling the Algos. -Feud'''

'''Fuck it can a mod just do this, i told like 4 mods i needed help and nobody responded. not to mention i feel like the whole alliance against me is a tad ridiculous considering Algiers and Morocco fought a decent amount AFAIK Also i may be expanding this Coalition Algo currently to include Naples. This algo system is seriously weird '''

'''This algo will be only edited by mods from now. For both of you Rex and feud. Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk)'''

Just to clarify, I never once editted the algo. I simply posted a suggestion, now removed by Feud, as to what I felt the algo should read, in the Discussion section. This is a practice that is established and accepted in the form of posting suggestions, however I felt the whol algo was so messed up that I would provide an alternative, or a new starting point, so to speak. 05:58, February 6, 2014 (UTC) 

To be honest very few people, inlcuding mods know how to do the algorithm. Especially coalition. For instance, Nations involved is not an average, and neither is motive. The only averages are Location and Nation age. Bonuses such as high ground can only be earned if 75% of the coalition can get it and such.

All in all the algorithm in the rules isn't the algorithm most people end up using. And too many people seem to be ready to try and make up rules on the fly. Kunarian TALK 06:56, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

'''MODS! '''I have a lot of experience editing algos. Can I have permission to fix this one up?

22:16, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

I am giving Guns permission to edit the algorithmBowties are Cool (talk) 22:17, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

'''The algorithm is WRONG. Castille DOES NOT GET THEIR SCORE MULTIPLIED BY 3 IN THE PUPPETS AND VASSALS SECTION. Scandinator (talk) 22:13, February 7, 2014 (UTC)'''

Kun's Estimate (not sure)
According to my calculations the Castile-Venice side of the algorithm should look something like this, I haven't added Naples cause I only realised at the end they are leaders too and many parts are incomplete but clearly we should have a higher score:

Castile-Venice Estimate

 * Location: 120/9=13


 * Castile: 25 (at location)
 * Granada: 25 (at location)
 * Venice: 10 (far)
 * Aegina: 10 (far)
 * Athens: 10 (far)
 * Corfu: 10 (far)
 * Epirus: 10 (far)
 * Naxos: 10 (far)
 * Negroponte: 10 (far)
 * Tactical Advantage: 8


 * Coalition bonus: 4 (attackers, larger colonial empire)
 * Castile: 2 (central)
 * Granada: 2 (central)
 * Venice: 0 (remote)
 * Aegina: 0 (remote)
 * Athens: 0 (remote)
 * Corfu: 0 (remote)
 * Epirus: 0 (remote)
 * Naxos: 0 (remote)
 * Negroponte: 0 (remote)
 * Nations: 47


 * Castile: 4 (L)
 * Granada: 3 (LV)
 * Venice: 4 (L)
 * Aegina: 3 (LV)
 * Athens: 3 (LV)
 * Corfu: 3 (LV)
 * Epirus: 3 (LV)
 * Naxos: 3 (LV)
 * Negroponte: 3 (LV)
 * Military Development: 5?


 * Castile: ?
 * Granada: ?
 * Venice: 1
 * Aegina: 0
 * Athens: 0
 * Corfu: 2
 * Epirus: 0
 * Naxos: 2
 * Negroponte:
 * Economic Development: 16?


 * Castile: 5? (Straits of Gibraltar)
 * Granada: ?
 * Venice: 3 (Venice)
 * Aegina: 2
 * Athens: 2
 * Corfu: 0
 * Epirus: 2
 * Naxos: 0
 * Negroponte: 2
 * Expansion: -2?


 * Castile: ?
 * Granada: ?
 * Venice: -2
 * Aegina: 0
 * Athens: 0
 * Corfu: 0
 * Epirus: 0
 * Naxos: 0
 * Negroponte: 0
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: 82/9=9


 * Castile: 9 (pre-emptive, non-dem gov)
 * Granada: 9 (pre-emptive, non-dem gov)
 * Venice: 10 (aiding an ally, dem gov)
 * Aegina: 9 (aiding an ally, non-dem gov)
 * Athens: 9 (aiding an ally, non-dem gov)
 * Corfu: 9 (aiding an ally, non-dem gov)
 * Epirus: 9 (aiding an ally, non-dem gov)
 * Naxos: 9 (aiding an ally, non-dem gov)
 * Negroponte: 9 (aiding an ally, non-dem gov)
 * Chance: 0?


 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 (0) =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: 0?
 * Population: 0?
 * Participation: 10*9=90  +10
 * Recent Wars: -14?
 * Vassals and Puppets: -7

Total: 95?

Wallachia (Attacker)

 * Location: 20
 * Tactical Advantage: 2(major road to borders/attackers agvantage)
 * Nations:+4 Wallachia (L) = +4/1= +4
 * Military Development: +2 (2/0=2)
 * Economic Development: +6 (6/0+6)
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 1
 * Motive: +3(economic)+4(similar culture)+6(religious kinsmen)+4(non-democratic government supported by people)+5(morale)=22
 * Chance: 8


 * Edit count: 28
 * UTC: 0 (0) = 3:22
 * Total: 12/7*pi (3.14159265359) = 5.385587406154286...
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Population: 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 0

Total: 79

Poland (Defender)

 * Location: +25
 * Tactical Advantage: +2
 * Nations:+4 Poland(L) -1 Moldavia(V) = +3
 * Military Development: 0
 * Economic Development: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: +1
 * Motive: +4(Non-democratic government supported by people)
 * Chance: 5
 * Edit count: 12
 * UTC: 0 (0) = 3:22
 * Total: 12/7*pi (3.14159265359) = 5.385587406154286
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Population: +2
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: -5
 * Vassals and Puppets: -1

Total: 37

Result

 * ((79/(37+79))*2) = 1.36207...
 * (36.21)*(1-1/(2*1)) = 18.11%

Discussion
As it stands you get 40%. --Yank 18:27, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

Great, if somebody could tell me how to do the chance then that would be good, I'm still not exactly sure how to do it. Stephanus rex (talk) 18:35, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

Can I force Poland in to a treaty that makes Moldavia my vassal, and creates a non-agression pact, with the percentage that I got? Stephanus rex (talk) 00:21, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Do so if you wish. Imp (Say Hi?!) 00:40, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

Several mistakes here, Wallachia should win but by a slim margin, Population and Strength and development are all wrong. ~unknown

What exactly needs to be fixed? Im open to reevaluating it, as this is my first algorithm, and it is definitly not perfect. Also may I know who I am addressing? Stephanus rex (talk) 21:31, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

Yay Map!
Nice work on the map, Scan! Although adding color just clarifies what a MESS Europe is. I'm liking Siberia a lot right now lol. Commandante Lemming (talk) 18:31, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

Um...why am I pink? Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 19:47, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

Don't mean to be that guy, but I would like to point out that Milan did not own Pisa or Sienna. The two were under Visconti influence, but they were not part of Milan. CrimsonAssassin- I have special eyes 20:52, February 6, 2014 (UTC)
 * Pisa, okay, it wasn't, but Siena was ruled by the lord of Milan until 1404.So, it had to be under Milan's color since it was in a personal union under it.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 21:13, February 6, 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Banner_of_the_Holy_Roman_Emperor_with_haloes_(1400-1806).svg Labarum.jpg CrimsonAssassin- I have special eyes 21:24, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

Wrong colour. It not the colour I wanted. Could this be changed? Imp (Say Hi?!) 20:55, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

The map's great (thanks for remembering to unify Desmond with its southern neighbors and a giving it a good Irish color) Yawgmoth, Lord of the Wastes

On my computer, it's showing Bengal as a very light, two shades away from gray, blue, and on my phone it shows Bengal as purple. Which is real life and which is the dream? Eiplec - ಠ_ಠ (talk) 21:11, February 6, 2014 (UTC)
 * the computer's colour.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 21:19, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

Is #4B0082 being used by any of the nations on the map? If not, could I have that color? Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 21:41, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

Participation
Ok, though, seriously, let's get a ruling here on this.

If you look at the algos from PMII, ALL OF THEM give a FLAT participation score.

The number of nations on each side is covered in the nations section.

I am aware, yes, that the Lithaunian war on Muscovy was done erroneously as a result of this, and I apologize for that, because had I noticed it, I would have corrected it. Alas, I did not.

Can I have a senior mod rule on this? *Ahem* Collie?

22:08, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

Considering the number of algorithms messed up as a result of this, perhaps it would be better to apply your rule from now on. Mscoree (talk) 22:23, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, we have the problem that is being addressed (mostly in chat) about the *3 bonus applied to the coalitions. I think this is nothing but a wholesale corruption of our algo system.

Even in the rules, the Coalition algorithim rules state that a multiplier is only applied if 3/4 of the warring states have the bonus applied to them. Therefore, I find the *3 to be contrary to this rule. 23:03, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

@Ms so according to that argument, since there has been one murder, all murders hsould be allowed? No. We should leave it in past algos, but fix it in the future.

@Rex Why is that difficult to understand? In chat only you had a problem with this. Because there are THREE LEADERS, all of whom have the *1.25, you must multiply it by 3.

23:10, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

I meant, from now on we should apply the rule you proposed of only adding +10 for participation. Mscoree (talk) 23:22, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

OHH. Yeah, that's what I was suggesting.

23:23, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

What happened?--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 07:03, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

Hungary

 * Location: 20
 * Tactical Advantage: 3
 * Nations: Hungary (L) : 4 = 1
 * Military Development: 10 = 10
 * Economic Development: 10 = 10
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: N/A
 * Motive: +21 (political, high troop morale, non dem support, similar culture)
 * Chance: 8
 * Edit count: 18623
 * UTC: 11:50 (=7
 * Total: 18623/7*(3.14159265359) = 8357.9828554
 * Nation Age: Mature : +5
 * Population: 7 digits + 5x size = 17.
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: *1.25

Total: 130

Bosnia

 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage: 0
 * Nations: Bosnia (L) = 4/4 = 1
 * Military Development: 0
 * Economic Development: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 8 (defenidng from potentially fatal strike)
 * Chance: 2 (see above)
 * Edit count: 0
 * UTC: 0 (0) =
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: -10 (were in chaos)
 * Population: 5 digits = 5
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: *1.25

Total: 51.25 ~ 51

Result

 * (130/(125+51))*2-1 = 47.7%
 * (47.7)*(1-1/(2*2)) = 35.78%

Hungary can annex 35.78%, and vassalize Bosnia.

Discussion
Ahh, well, Impo, don't feel too bad, even if you are #4EVARALONE.

23:45, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

I got vassals and a state in PU? :P  Imp (Say Hi?!) 23:47, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

I think you'd acually be higher without them, whatevs, you can add those. 23:59, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

Dear mom,

I've just started my first map game as Bosnia. It's alright, I've been opening trade routes and making friends in Italy. And now I'm dead and everything I worked for is on fire.

Love LefthandedLunatic (talk) 03:41, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

Cool. Welcome to PMIII. Choose another nation if you wish to play on - perhaps in an isolated spot this time. Imp (Say Hi?!) 17:29, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

Impo, you're being mean.

Stoppit.

LLL, can I recommend something in Africa?

23:25, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

Colours
Some of them are really similar. Strong feeling people will get the wrong idea about what they control. Also I'd like to know why some random nation in Central Asia has the color which I requested.

00:16, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

I wanna know why I didn't get the colour I requested! :(  Imp (Say Hi?!) 00:17, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

That is the color Hungary had in PM.

00:19, February 7, 2014 (UTC)


 * No, its not. The colour it had is on the map I posted above. The colour on the main map is different! -.- [[Image:1.png|23px]] Imp (Say Hi?!) 00:23, February 7, 2014 (UTC)


 * I can confirm.i had to see this color for 18 months, to the point that was already tired of that color by the time that PMI ended, and the color on the map is not the one of PMI.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 10:02, February 7, 2014 (UTC)


 * Collie! Such heresy? I loved that colour on the PM map. But I also liked all the colours I have had for PM maps lol. ;)

I was under the impression I was getting golden poppy, not some sort of dull brown. Mscoree (talk) 00:48, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

I shall be touching up and maybe switching colours next map. Stay tuned ;) Scandinator (talk) 14:23, February 8, 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Scan, lol. :P [[Image:1.png|23px]] Imp (Say Hi?!) 14:24, February 8, 2014 (UTC)

H-H reclamation of the Duchy of Brabant
Hainaut and Holland

Treaty of Cairo
Signed between the Malmuks and Timurids Signatures:
 * The Timurids will make Syria a semi-autonomous area within the Timurid Empire.
 * No persecution of the native culture will be made
 * All libraries of Damascus, Aleppo, or other cities of Syria will be able to be used by both the Timurids and the Mamluks.
 * The Mamlukean citizens will have free access into and out of Syria.
 * The Malmuks will officially recognize the annexation of Syria by the Timurids.
 * The two nations will sign a 30 year non-agression pact.
 * The Timurids will aid the Malmuks in future expansion into Africa.
 * Timurids:  Sims -The Rainbow Machete Piq 28524 400x400.png
 * Malmuks: 00:56, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

Treaty of Ankara
This treaty is offered to the Ottomans by the Timurids Signatures
 * Timurids will not expand past Georgia, Erzincan, and Eastern Turks/White Sheep, (Black Sheep have been annexed).
 * Timurids will not expand into any Malmuk lands after this treaty has been signed.
 * Ottomans will allow Timurid traders to reenter Ottoman lands
 * Trade will be restored
 * Ottomans and Timurids will sign a 25 year non agression pact
 * Upon the ascension of Amjad to the throne of the Timurids, he will pick an Ottoman wife from the Ottoman royal family in order to solidiy our nations new relations.
 * The Ottomans may annex the remaing states in Anatolia that are not influenced by Timurids (essentially you get everything except the Timurid vassals)
 * Timurids: Sims -The Rainbow Machete Piq 28524 400x400.png  01:05, February 7, 2014 (UTC)
 * Ottomans: ChrisL123 (talk) 02:30, February 8, 2014 (UTC)

Coalition

 * Location: 22


 * Naples: 25
 * Provence: 20
 * Savoy: 20
 * Tactical Advantage: 2 (Coordination)
 * Nations in Side of the War: Naples (L), Provence (L), Savoy (L) = 12/4=3
 * Military Development: 21/2 = 11
 * Naples: 7
 * Savoy: 7
 * Provence: 7
 * Economic Development: 21/2 = 11
 * Naples: 7
 * Savoy: 7
 * Provence: 7
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure Development: 0
 * Motive: +42
 * Naples: +14 (Pre-Emptive strike non dem supported morale)
 * Savoy: +14 (Pre-Emptive strike non dem supported morale)
 * Provence: +14 (Pre-Emptive strike non dem supported morale)
 * Chance: 9
 * Edit count: 368
 * UTC: 0 (0) = 3:22
 * Total: 368/12*pi (3.14159265359) = 96.33933
 * Nation age: 5
 * Population: 16
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: *1.25

Total: 164

Genoa

 * Location: 25
 * Tactical advantage:0
 * Nations in Side of the War: Genoa (L) 4 = 0
 * Military Development: 2 = 0


 * Genoa: 2
 * Economic Development: 2 = 0
 * Genoa: 2

Total: 60
 * Infrastructure Development: 0
 * Motive: +4 (Defending Core/heartland from possibly fatal attack low morale)
 * Chance: 3
 * Edit count: 2173
 * UTC: 0 (0) = 3:22
 * Total: 2173/12*pi (3.14159265359) = 568.87329
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Population: 5
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassal and puppets: *1.25

Results

 * (164/(164+60))*2 - 1 =

Discussion
I would say you need to add Venice in however its pretty clear that the 34% required will be reached with Venice's help. I've stated what Venice would want on the main page, which is just the Genoan vassal of Kaffa, the bit far off in the black sea, european lands I'm not interested in really. Kunarian TALK 09:24, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

No more! PAPAL STATES ARE HELPING GENOA, BUT IM GOING AGAINEST SAVOY ONLY! NOT VENICE!Spartian300 (talk) 13:56, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

Uhmm, Spartian, im sure that is not possible, you will be leading against all the coalition Quashi (talk) 14:44, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

Hey, im only going to war with Savoy. Im dening Naples troops movement through my territory. What's wrong with that? Add me in the algo for Genoa. Spartian300 (talk) 15:35, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

Spartian, if go to war and become leader, you will have to fight the entire coalition, not just Savoy, and if you do, Venice and Bizantine Empire may join; but is up to you. Quashi (talk) 18:14, February 7, 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm already part of the war btw, I answered the call just like you. :) Kunarian TALK 18:52, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

He will have to fight the entire coalition but I will not accept him losing anything but minor sections of land and I will not be partaking in any taking of land from the Papal States. Kunarian TALK 18:26, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

Good to know Kuna Quashi (talk) 18:41, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

No guys. After the war is over, i take what Savoy took from Genoa, and give it to whoever is Genoa. Spartian300 (talk) 19:58, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

Fook it, im neutralSpartian300 (talk) 21:39, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

After the war, the division of Genova will be as follows: Genova will become a duchy under the tripartite control Savoy, Provence and Naples. The title of this new Duchy, shall rest in the house of Naples. The Aegean island will form a duchy, and pass into the hands of Savoy. The island of Sardinia pass into the hands of Provence. The island of Corsica passed into the hands of Naples. The lands of Crimea pass the Venetian hands. Zengu (talk) 15:00, February 8, 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a good. Venice is glad for this arrangement. Kunarian TALK 22:08, February 8, 2014 (UTC)
 * Good news, im happy to see you get what you want. Mawilda (talk) 22:51, February 8, 2014 (UTC)


 * Sardinia isnt Genoan its Aragonian... so thats a no go.

Recent wars let's see Venice has 1. OCT MARIUS, HAIL HIM

Ashikaga
Total: 73.75 = 74
 * Location: 20
 * Tactical Advantage : 1 (attacker)
 * Nations: Ashikaga (L): 4/4 = 1
 * Military: 12 = 12
 * Economy: 12 = 12
 * Infrastructure: NA
 * Chance: 2
 * Edit Count: 460
 * UTC time: 12:45 = 12
 * Chance: 460/12*3.14159268 = 120.4277194
 * Expansion: -6
 * Motive: 7 (economic, high morale)
 * Age: -5
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Participation: 10
 * Population: 7 (5 + larger)
 * Vassals & Puppets: *1.25

Toki:
Total: 65
 * Location: At the location of the war: 25
 * Tactical advantage: 1 (connected capital)
 * Military: 0
 * Economy: 0
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Motive: Defending Core/heartland from possibly fatal attack + 9
 * Age: -5
 * Chance: 7 (see above)
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Participation:10
 * Population: 5
 * Vassals/Puppets: *1.25

Result

 * (74/(65+74))*2-1 = 6.4%
 * (6.4)*(1-1/(2*1)) = 3.2%

Not sure if this is correct but I tryed my best - Shadow

\ FIXED

Discussion
Oh god! Viva made a template for the algo - and you go and do this? -.- -- Imp (Say Hi?!) 17:36, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

Do I still win the land that I fought to take over - Shadow

Get either Guns or a mod to sort it out. I canne be bothered. Imp (Say Hi?!) 22:16, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

Das Guns of Navarone have arrived.

EVERYTHING HERE IS WRONG.

Fortunately, I have fixed it. :D

00:48, February 8, 2014 (UTC)

Removal of turn
Could I remove my turn (Ragusan one) since I didn't know that Genoa wasn't. I just joined and screwed up my whole game in one turn. SkyGreen24 (talk) 19:06, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

After thinking it through I realise that this is probably a bad idea since I should have read the older turns. Therefore I believe that I must face the consequences of that and admit defeat.

Treaty of Fez
This is a treaty dealing with the end of hostilities between Algieria, Tunisia, and Castile and her allies the terms are as follows Signatures: 
 * 1) Morocco will be split into a larger Castilian Gibraltar Settlement, Larger Granadan Settlement, and the creation of the Vassal states of Morocco and Fez.
 * 2) The North African alliance remaining between Algeria and Tunisia shall be Disbanded.
 * 3) Algeria is to allow Castilian and Castilian allied merchants and Castilian tradeing posts on the Coast hence establishign a Trade Agreement among other things.
 * 4) Castile and her allies will pay out to Algeria and Tunisia for any destroyed supplies or equipment hence reimbursing their investment into Morocco
 * 5) Respect for all Christians in Algeria and Tunisia is to be implemented. Otherwise any christians that wish to immigrate are to be granted safe passage to Morocco, or Castile.

Castile:

Venetia:

Naples: Quashi (talk) 23:59, February 8, 2014 (UTC)

Algiers: Algiers agrees to the aformentioned terms.(MOD RESPONSE)

'Tunisia: Tunisia agrees to the aformentioned terms.(MOD RESPONSE)

'''Btw Tunisia (Carthage) is currently under Aragonese influence. However, I, Scraw the Great, acknowledge this treaty as it disbanded Carthaginian relations with Castilian vassals. In the name of peace and sanity.'''

'''You cant influence nations of a differing religion. its just a region of interests. if anything i made it easier for you to take Tunisia. '''

Who is this?

I want Algeria and Tunisia to both grant Venice complete trade rights, further Venice will not pay for any destroyed supplies as we've lost enough with this war anyways. Kunarian TALK 08:34, February 8, 2014 (UTC)

Tunisia was not in this war, it is only in this treaty to acknowledge Castilian control over Algeria.

22:10, February 8, 2014 (UTC)

You have your trade in Algeria... Tunisia is a no go cause it doesnt border anything i now control. Algeria and Morocco are opened to Castilian and her allies trade per this treaty... no demands needed. Also Castile Split the spoils of war into thirds and gave each nation its share. So Castile, Venetia, and Naples all gained considerable profit from the war as well as pretty much total trade access to Morocco, Fez, and Algeria.

There was an algorithm mistake. The final result is basically a tie. Scandinator (talk) 13:14, February 12, 2014 (UTC)

Expansion
How much am I allowed, as Ulster. I can't find it anywhere.

Ashikagawa expansion and an early Sengoku
due to the Shogun trynig to annex the vassals so quickly id like tro propose to the mods that an event begin sparking the start of the japanese civil war that started otl in the late 1400s due to the fact that the daimyos would have never allowed this to happen. whoever comes out on top comes out on top. but i feel that easy annexation of the daimyos is highly implausible and would bring extremely negative effects to japan leading to the destabalization of an already unstable shogunate.

Nkbeeching (talk) 22:45, February 8, 2014 (UTC)

As one of the daimyo's I support this proposal SkyGreen24 (talk) 22:47, February 8, 2014 (UTC)

I support this too. hes expecting that uniting Japan will be an utter breeze.. i dont see how that happening when there was like 150 years of civil war OTL is plausible or doable at all.

I do feel like a few daimyos at least would unite to overthrow the main one if such a course continued.

What say the others?

"This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 18:24, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

andorra and foix
would I be able to have andorra and foix merge into a bigger nation?

No.you don't even control Foix.you are in a personal union under them, when to control them you should have them under a personal union with you.And this isn't even a full personal union that you have.it is a half-personal union.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 07:28, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

Timurids and vassals
Hey no offense to dean or anything but i think hes kinda overdoing it with all the vassals. in most games after you vassalize a couple states the rest organize against you and Dean is sitting here influencing 3 states at once with 6 current vassals and little to no issues being faced whatsoever shouldnt he have some hostility by this point? Tell me what you guys think


 * I thought you could only vassalise one state at a time. Kunarian TALK 09:22, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, there is nothing on the rules specifiying about this, but there is this about time: "[diplomatic vassalization] will take one year for two percent of what that state is in size compared to your home nation, with a minimum of three years. [...] The religion, culture and geopolitics of a region will effect how long it takes to vassalise or if vassalizing is even plausible." Dean, and everybody else who is trying to vassalize somebody diplomatically [ex: Yank] need to take these aspects into account.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 13:33, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

Can somone play for me?
Can someone post for me the next 2-3 days? I've got my roommate to cover AvA, but I need someone to post for this game.What is this????Is this a signature??? (talk) 15:15, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

I Would Like To Switch My Nation
I would like to play as the principality of achaea pleases Japan is boring to play as since nothing happens a lot. I still want the color of my nation to be dark green - Shadow

It is your job to make stuff happen.

20:43, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

I know that but I have a good idea, but it only works if i was in europe. Plus nothing happens in Japan anyway. I want to make a Jewish nation in Europe. - Shadow
 * What's with all those players wanting to be pariahs of Europe today? --Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 22:34, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

Nothing happens in Japan because you don't write anything, Mr. Brilliant. You're in the middle of damn civil war and you still have nothing to write about?

21:02, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

Is not so much in "writing" as in "doing".When you start to do things, you'll have something to write.if i was in your situation, my posts would be even shorter, since i have no creativity and know nothing about Japan.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 22:34, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

Lol. A bit of research helps, however - like I know have an idea what Hungary was like in the 1400s - so I am changing that lol. :P  Imp (Say Hi?!) 16:08, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

The problem is when you choose a country in which research will be not so useful.right now, i am playing as Portugal, and i don't have no idea of what specifically was happening in each year because i can't find it anywhere.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 19:27, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

A Quiet Note on the Principles of Economic Dominance.
Firstly, I would like to point out that this is purely defensive. Can't really be used in an offensive sense.

That said, let me explain.

Look, because of the UNC control over the Oresund, I have succeeded in setting up a rival trading guild to the Hanseatic League, pushing them largely out of business and taking over trade in most of their large cities- Hamburg, Lubeck, Danzig...

Because of this, I have managed to get a virtual monopoly on trade in the Baltic- close to about 90%. I assure you that this is plausible- after all, the Crown's Merchants aren't a single group, merely a loose association of traders, who pay some dues to the Crown, and agree to follow Crown laws on trade, and in exchange get free passage through the Oresund, or at least at significantly reduced prices. It's not even restricted to Scandanavian traders, though they will make up the bulk of this.

In addition, I would like to point out that 90% of Baltic trade is probably about equal, in terms of revenue, to 20-30% of the trade in the Med, which is much larger and much less populated. Now, 20-30% is about I'd say the Venetian market share in the Med.

Anyway, the point is this; in the event of a DEFENSIVE war of the UNC- eg, the UNC is the Defender- the logical move of said nation would undoubtably be to cut off all trade to the attacking nations- possibly even throughout the Baltic, by closing off the Oresund and withdrawing the Crown's Merchants.

In the first about month of war, this would not matter. However, as 90% of the trade in the sea vanishes, in about 2-3 months, the cities on the Baltic will start to show signs of economic distress. With most trade gone, large parts of the economy would collapse. Six months after the start of the war, serious food problems would break out, and another few months later, the government of said city would be forced to default on it's probably quite large debts.

Now, this COULD be forestalled by larger nations, who are not as dependant on trade- the question is, how long? How long can one nation support the military AND populace of 5 others in addtion to itself?

The answer is not long.

My point is, waging an UNPROVOKED offensive war against the UNC would be almost impossible for nations on the Baltic.

Note that this does NOT cover a Provoked war or a defensive war against the UNC.

20:22, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

I think this does make a lot of sense as other nations next to the Baltic have not really worked on their navies while Guns has effectively built a monopoly. However, I think at least a decade or two should be spent on this in game for it to become effective. Imp (Say Hi?!) 20:35, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

Of course. There are still many cities in the Baltic which are NOT Free Ports for the UNC. But economic pressure will eventually leave them little choice. After all, would you rather be really, really rich, or would you rather control a land that is mostly frozen wasteland? The benfit to cost ratios for attacking the UNC are actually quite low.

20:39, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm still confused. The Union has several ports that were members of the Hanseatic league. I understand you want it dead, but you've created something that's essentially the same, minus the defensive aspect of the Hanseatic League. If you could, please explain to me why you did this?

I don't care if it's dead or not, I just want it's market share, which I have successfully seized. You could think that in a sense, I have economically "vassalized" (not really quite, but that's the best erm I suppose) the Hanseatic League.

22:39, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

um you guys got something wrong ive been working on my navy since day one, and have also absorbing the hanseatic former trade, though in my case im on extremely friendly terms with the unc.Nkbeeching (talk) 22:51, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, and you DO have significant financial control, you control half of Europe's finances- see, it's not just the navy, it's the economy and what you do with it. THis applies to you too, in a sense. Austria for instance can't attack you, you control their money. I mean like over time they might change that, but for now, this applies to you too. I only gave MYSELF as an example.

22:53, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

Assassination Algorithm
This is a proposed algorithm on how to handle assassination attempts.

Position of target:

Leader of Major Power~+6 for score of target

Leader of Minor Power:~+4 for score of target

Leader of Other nation~+2 for score of target

Pope: +3 for score of target

Else: no effect

Popularity of target:

Supported by the people: +2 for score of target

Supported by nobles only: +1 for score of target

Autocrat ruling through military: +2 for score of assasinator

Motive:

Acquiring the throne: +3 for score of assassinator

Rival country: +2 for score of assassinator

Revolution: +1 for score of assassinator

Personal Vendetta: +1 for score of target

Wealth of nation:

Major Power~+3 score

Minor power~+2 score

Other nations~+1 score

Location of target:

Fortified location (e.g. castle): +2 for score of target

Ship: +1 for score of target

Travelling in own land: +1 for score of target

Travelling in neutral land: +0

Travelling in enemy land: +1 for score of assassinator

Misc.:

Highly trained royal guard: +2 for score of target

Poisoning the food: +1 for assassinator Age of target
 * +1 for target if he has a food tester
 * +1 for assassinator if the poison doesn't take effect immediately

0 years - 14 years~+3 for score of assassinator

15 years - 21 years~+1 for score of assassinator

22 years - 50 years ~ +2 for score of target

50 years - ~ +2 for score of assassinator

Medical status of target:

Healthy: No effect

Ill: +1 for score of assassinator

Bed-ridden: +2 for score of assassinator

Crippled: +1 for score of assassinator

Coma/Unconscious: +3 for score of assassinator

Depending on which user has the bigger score x=bigger score y=smaller score

If 1.25>x/y>1 the target is greatly injured

If 2>x/y>1.25 the target is killed

SkyGreen24 (talk) 22:05, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

I kind of understand what you're getting at here. However, some of these circumstances simply cannot be applied in-game or would be too hard to determine and would cause fights amoung players. Cour (talk) 22:09, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

Not Feeling this at all... no offense but lets keep this a non complicated as possible

Yeah, this is REALLY complex.

We should have a simpler one, though... I see, what should I remove then? SkyGreen24 (talk) 16:10, February 10, 2014 (UTC)
 * 23:09, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

Impeachment of Scandinator (CANCELLED)
He is implausible, while telling others not to do the same thing, he abuses his mod power to take down other nations, taking vassals in a short amount of time while telling others they cannot do so. Overly biased torwards himself. We move to impeach Scan from his position as event maker, but still allow status of mapmaker and stay as a "mod".

Sims -The Rainbow Machete  01:21, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

Those For

 * Sims -The Rainbow Machete Piq 28524 400x400.png 01:21, February 10, 2014 (UTC)
 * Eiplec - ಠ_ಠ (talk) 01:30, February 10, 2014 (UTC)
 * Yank 01:41, February 10, 2014 (UTC)
 * Scandinator (talk) 04:09, February 10, 2014 (UTC) I don't like that Scan character, he makes mod events against me too. He gave me so many earthquakes last game. He is soooo biased. He is the worst.
 * Can we not? ^ seriously that was unneeded and Childish.
 * [[Image:Flag of Russian Alaska (HR).svg |40px|link=User talk:Octivian Marius]] OCT MARIUS, HAIL HIM  [[Image: Flag of Italy (Federalist Italy).svg|40px|User talk:Octavian Marius]]

Those Against

 * Fed (talk) 01:37, February 10, 2014 (UTC)
 * Cour (talk) 01:59, February 10, 2014 (UTC)
 * Hailstormer (talk) 02:55, February 10, 2014 (UTC)
 * 03:42, February 10, 2014 (UTC)
 * Banner_of_the_Holy_Roman_Emperor_with_haloes_(1400-1806).svg Labarum.jpg CrimsonAssassin- I have special eyes 03:50, February 10, 2014 (UTC)
 * Bowties are Cool (talk) 04:03, February 10, 2014 (UTC)
 * Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 06:14, February 10, 2014 (UTC)
 * Why not an impreachment of Dean? I have been hearing a lot of things recently [[Image:1.png|23px]] Imp (Say Hi?!) 12:47, February 10, 2014 (UTC)
 * I second that motion...however this is not a vote due to my non-modship-Lx (leave me a message)Azarath Flag.png 00:59, February 11, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
I'm abstaining here, because though Scan does appear a little biased here, I think his track record merits another chance. Also, he's the best mapmaker out of the 60 people editing this game, so...

01:39, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

I am abstaining in this instance. I understand there may have been, some bias, however. I do not have all the facts one, and his track record merits some leeway. As guns said he is the best map maker we have.Bowties are Cool (talk) 01:41, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

Likewise, hes a great mapmaker but hes running around vassalizing stuff and taking stuff without wars, getting complaints left and right, and then tells people they havent spent long enough on vassalizations when hes doing the complete opposite. His track record is great but the bias and meta comming off this game not ever 10 turns it in absolutely ridiculous.

If those for would post some specific examples of Scan's offenses (below please) I'm sure that we would all have an easier time of making an informed decision. Although, I will say that, without Scan, we would not have our maps or many of our preceedents. Cour (talk) 01:45, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

I abstain, I do see bias and all, and i believe there can be other good mapmakers but he's probably the only one to make a good map on time and he does have another chance as far as he cuts the bias i have no issue with him keeping his modhood. Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 01:54, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

I also see the bias, but firstly we all have b ias, and Scan's offence is only slightly worse than all of ours' and second, an impeachement is WAYY too extreme. Fed (talk) 01:57, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

When it comes down to it, everyone elected him. There is no need for this extreme this early in the game. If you have specific complaints, you should bring them up to all of the moderators. But the mods are here for a reason. The people are that reason. Cour (talk) 01:59, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

Well maybe if mods would listen when about 4 respected players are asking you to take a look at something and then just let it sit for 5 days without addressing something. Between me and Eiplec ive called out about the same if not more than most mods when it comes to posting BS. So please punctual responses would be nice

Who are these players and what is the issue? I'll admit that I've been busy the past couple days and haven't been on much except to post my own turn.

And a note to everyone - please use concrete examples when making accusitions - leave the ambiguity out. Cour (talk) 02:05, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

Can we adjust this to simply removing Scan's ability to post mod events?--Yank 02:33, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

Everyone is just making the assumption that it is just Scan making these events. ALL of the mods review them. And to ask the mods to stop posting is defeating the purpose for having mods. Cour (talk) 02:37, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

I agree that some of Scan's recent actions as China should have been prevented, and that some of his moderator work has been biased. However, he put extremely large amounts of time and effort into making not only the game map, but the labelled maps as well.I believe this shows commitment to the game not matched by many. So whilst I believe some of his recent actions as China are rightly being called into question, as well as some of his actions as moderator, I believe this is balanced off by his positive actions to the game and make this impeachment unnecessary. However I believe greater regulation by the other mods is needed. -- Hailstormer (talk) 02:55, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

^ ^ ^ This right here. Couldnt have said it better myself.

The commitment that not matched by many comes from him not allowing a single person to work on the map but himself, delaying the game a month, yet saying he only spent two weeks on the map. Also, it states that we simply want to remove his ability to post his mod events, and NOT remove his position as mapmaker. We have 13 mods, and they are having trouble responding to complaints, monitering each other, and being aware of what is happening in game. We seriously need to create specialized mod jobs, instead of just throwing out the title "mod" and expect things to get done. Eiplec - ಠ_ಠ (talk) 03:11, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

One of the things that killed PMII was everyone editing the map, sneaking in extra expansion. We couldn't have that this time around. I would much rather wait longer and make sure the map was fair than have the game ruined by over expansionism. Now, do you really think he would want to continue making maps if he was stripped of his moderator status? I wouldn't. I'm also pretty confident neither would he. What you are suggesting there at the end is not the fault of Scan, that is a fault with the system, removing Scan will do nothing to solve it. Instead you should raise a vote calling for specialised mod titles and responsibilities, rather than kicking out the moderator who is literally putting the 'map' in the term 'map game' at current. -- Hailstormer (talk) 03:22, February 10, 2014 (UTC)
 * No so much.everyone could edit the map, but i did everything in my power to keep implausibilities from appear.and that's why i didn't use the versions that the other players posted.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 06:19, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

Let's break this down:

Scan and Collie both contributed to the map. However, aside from the difficulty of working on a map by more than two people, there would have been a clashing of ideas. One trusted person handling the map is the more logical decision.

You would remove Scan's position as a mod, but still keep him around as a mapmaker? That's not fair. If he's not a mod, why on earth would he want to be a mapmaker?

If you have an issue with ALL of the mods, bring it up or leave. Blaming one person for all of the problems is hardly a solution.

We collectively decided against specialization of jobs because it allows us to have a broader influence. Some of us focus more on one area than others, but we all have powers that can be used in many situations, making us versatile rather than limited.

Cour (talk) 03:31, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

I'd just like to say, this is a move by Dean thanks to the event I championed that breaks off the western quarter of his Empire. The reason behind that event is the 17 million Persian deaths and his rapid conquest and annexation of large areas of the Middle East including, but not limited to, the Jalayirids, Georgia and the northern part of the Mamluk Sultanate. ATL Ming China is also smaller in size than its OTL counter part. By now the Ming Dynasty would have also obtained the Champa and large areas of Manchuria and Inner Mongolia. In regards to the map taking a month, I was forced to spend two weeks afk on holidays with parents. I cant work on a map without a computer. The move to delay the start to February was agreed to amongst the mods. I also work full time and attend uni so cramming PMIII into my sechdule is something I do out of passion. I apologize if I cannot help out everyone with a question but I do try where an answer is wanting. Furthermore, as the disaster mod and the one that does history at UNSW, I believe it is within my power to call out when an empire is too large to continue functioning and ACT as I have done with Dean and the Timurids, this was not a personal attack nor will it be the last, my events are harsh, definitely, but mostly fair and are even directed at myself at times; something few other mods will do.

FYI with the Dai Viet senario, I am releasing them in a few turns. I wanted to reinstall the Tran Dynasty. I still haven't used them in a war and with the amount of power and influnce the Ming had (a standing army of one million soldiers) its not far fetched. ~Scan

Then lets see more of that and less of this overblown nonsense. I abstained for a reason but lets make sure it never gets like this again please. with 13 or 14 mods id feel like this whole situaton couldve been handled much sooner and in a much more civil fashion than it having to get here. Also when it comes to controversial mod events make sure more than 1 or 2 mods can do an explanation behind what happened instead oh "Oh Fedelede wrote that one i dont now the reasons behind that" or "Scan wrote that etc etc etc idk why your nation is burning itself to the ground." So lets just keep it calm, civilized, and less personal cause that seems to be one of the largest issues comming from this. If anyone has anything else to say to this whole deal lets deal with it. If not i'd say case closed

Not this again.Didn't we had one of these in the first game?--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 06:19, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

I wrote at least 1000 words or reasoning and explanations on the mod talk page but when I beat all his arguments, Dean started insulting me and the next thing I know he's trying to impeach me as a mod >.>  Scandinator (talk) 07:56, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

I'm not for impeachment because of events, I'm for it because he sockpuppeted a nation into becoming his vassal, and went to war without an algo. I just assumed there were rules to follow, but apparently, I was wrong. In my support of Scan's actions as Ming China, the next Bengal turn with read as such: "The Eastern Bengali army marches to the capital of Orissa and sieges the city. We are victorious and Orissa asks to become our vassal, which we accept." Eiplec - ಠ_ಠ (talk) 14:11, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppeting is the use of an online account for deception. I have done do such thing. In addition, Dai Viet underwent a regime change from the Ming-friendly Tran Dynasty to the Ho Dynasty in 1400 with the Ho family overthrowing their king. Ming China intervened on the side of the (at 1402) sever year old Vietnamese king. Furthermore, the Ming have a standing army of one million soldiers. That is the size of the OTL US military. China in 1400 has the same level of power in its region as the USA does, the power ratio is huge, with Bengal and Orissa, it is equal. Scandinator (talk) 16:34, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

Just saying, but this still doesn't excuse you from using an algorythm.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 17:10, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

Like I've said I'm happy to do one. I'm not going to kick and scream the whole way, I'm fairly reasonable. Scandinator (talk) 17:44, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

Alright, lets come to an understanding. I don't understand what sockpuppeting is, and algos are good. Everyone good? Eiplec - ಠ_ಠ (talk) 20:34, February 10, 2014 (UTC)


 * Sockpuppeting is when one person holds multiple accounts, using them both for the purpose of extra votes/to promote oneself/to cheat on map games etc...-Lx (leave me a message)Azarath Flag.png 02:00, February 11, 2014 (UTC)
 * Then what is called when a person controls the actions of another nation they do not control within their own turn? Eiplec - ಠ_ಠ (talk) 04:37, February 11, 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no actual name for that.I call that implausible expansion.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 10:37, February 11, 2014 (UTC)

Re-Electing Yank as Mod (CANCELLED)
I'd like to take this opportunity to throw my candidacy in the ring for modship. Unlike Scan I never used mod power primarily for my own benefit. At the end I was just combatting the ridiculously heavy pro-Russian bias.--Yank 01:44, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

Aye

 * Sims -The Rainbow Machete Piq 28524 400x400.png 01:48, February 10, 2014 (UTC)
 * Fed (talk) 01:53, February 10, 2014 (UTC)
 * You have two players... versus the rest. [[Image:1.png|23px]] Imp (Say Hi?!) 12:43, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

Nay

 * Cour (talk) 01:56, February 10, 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not entirely sure of your recovery yet. 03:39, February 10, 2014 (UTC)
 * Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 14:29, February 10, 2014 (UTC) Sorry, but the mod number is full.try again when/if we have another mod election.

Discussion
Yank, you're a nice guy, but you were (in my opinion) very biased and opinionated in the last game, and harbored some prejudices against players. Besides, we need no more mods, we have plenty. This is just a quick move for power because Scan is under questioning. Cour (talk) 01:47, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

It only got that way because of all the coddling that Lx got. He basically was allowed the effects of mod events on his nation. It only started because I did the traditional "player is inactive, nation gets ruined" event. Which happened because not only did he not have a note saying that he would be inactive, but he was clearly able to post on other map games.--Yank 01:50, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Yank here. His bias was just opposing the extreme Russophilia that PM2 (and this wiki as a whole) suffers from. Fed (talk) 01:53, February 10, 2014 (UTC)
 * But Lx is always Russocentric.so Russocentric that it gets ridiculous sometimes.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 06:37, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

Regardless, we have already elected mods, and we need no more. Everyone elected our mods months ago, and we have no immediate need that Yank could fill. Cour (talk) 01:55, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

Russophilia FTW!!

01:56, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

The thing is not if you stopped him or not, i believe that if it was just a revolt from ethnicities breaking free and going into complete isolation everyone would be fine, but you annexed what Russia had in OTL sweden when i would guess that those regions would have become Saami or Slavic. but you as far as i know annexed them in the mod event. they don't overreacted on your event, if not in you taking advantage out of it. Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 02:00, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

I've learned from my mistakes, and I promise to not make any bald-faced power grabs like that in the future.--Yank 02:16, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

We need no more mods Yank. You can't offer anything we don't already have. Too many mods will only make things worse. Cour (talk) 02:20, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, there was the drama with France in PMI and then the drama with Scandinavia in PMII where on both occasions you seized player territory via mod event to add to yourself. I have never done the same. In addition, the current accusation of bias is due to an event I wrote that broke away a portion of the Timurid Empire. Thus Dean is accusing me on bias for breaking a recently conquered, hetero-ethnic, hetero-religious area, away from his empire that was built on a reign of tyranny and terror. Scandinator (talk) 04:19, February 10, 2014 (UTC)
 * To be honest scan his bias claims are mostly cause he has this grudge on you for destroying him in PMI and then again in PMII the first one out of (probably) your douche expansion that i've been told of and in PMII for his rushing into revenge siding with the Koori against the worldpowers. lol Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 06:37, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

Fine. I'll drop this then.--Yank 06:31, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

)

A Note on Impeachments
Just in the future, I'd like to point out that the rules state that: ... Whereas in the impeachment of Scan, everyone voted.
 * Moderators may be impeached. The impeachment procedure can be initiated by any player but must be approved by at least two other mods. Only moderators (minus the one being impeached) can vote on whether the impeached mod will or will not be removed.

00:13, February 11, 2014 (UTC)


 * Unlikely that it would have passed either way-Lx (leave me a message)Azarath Flag.png 00:58, February 11, 2014 (UTC)
 * I think people are just afraid of scan Jbwncster (talk)
 * @Lx I know, and I actually would be against it, that's not my problem- just that in the future, we should adhere to this.
 * @Jb How can you be scared of Scan? Have you seen his avatar? lol...
 * 01:07, February 11, 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not scary...In fact... too many people IRL call me cute... urk... Why can't I be called handsome... Also Avatar was requested so I'll leave it here . Scandinator (talk) 12:22, February 12, 2014 (UTC)

Daeseunglim
The user Daeseunglim has informed me on chat that he will be away from the game for an unknown amount of time. He has asked me to leave a note on the talk page here to inform everyone of this, and to ask that his nation not be destroyed while he is gone. Thanks, Mscoree (talk) 00:29, February 11, 2014 (UTC)

Majapahit (Attacker)Edit
Location: 20 Tactical Advantage: 3 Nations Per Side on the War: 6
 * At to the location of the war
 * Attackers Advantage:1
 * Co-ordination: 2

Majapahit:4, China:2

Military Development: 5 Economic Development: 4
 * 10/2
 * 8/2

Expansion: -1

Motive: 9 Chance: 7
 * Taking territory of similar culture but not part of nation
 * Non-democratic Government supported by people

Nation Age: 5 Population: 8 Participation: 10
 * Declaration of war: 16:25 UTC
 * 226/14*π=50. 7 142814079495
 * 1410-1293= 117
 * Mature nation (75-200 years)= +5
 * 150.000
 * +2 to the larger nation that is less than five times the population of the smaller

Recent Wars: -1

Vassals and Puppets: *1.25

Total: 75*1.25=93.75

Sunda:
Location: 25 Tactical Advantage: 2 Nations Per Side on the War: 7
 * At to the location of the war
 * Co-ordination: 2

Sunda:7

Military Development: 0 Economic Development: 2
 * 2/10

Motive: 12 Chance: 1
 * Defending Heartland from attack that will not cripple/ destroy nation
 * Non-democratic Government supported by people

Nation Age: -15 Population: 5 Participation: 10
 * Declaration of war: 16:25 UTC
 * 226/14*π=50.7 1 42814079495
 * 1410-668= 742
 * Antique nation (more than 500 years)= -15
 * 50.000

Recent Wars: 0

Vassals and Puppets: *1.25

Total: 49*1.25=61.25

Discussion:
Do I get 23.2%, or 2.32%, or 0.23%? Mr YOLO (talk) 19:05, February 11, 2014 (UTC)

You get 23.2%. In any percentage you get, you move the hundredth and thousandth numbers to the left of the decimal, and that's the amount you get. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 19:07, February 11, 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thank god, and you ofcourse Mr YOLO (talk) 19:09, February 11, 2014 (UTC)

Nicely done. I only skimmed it, but just BTW only defenders get the 25...

22:26, February 11, 2014 (UTC)

Slight error, I'll still give you 20% in the results Scandinator (talk) 13:24, February 12, 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean at location? Mr YOLO (talk) 18:38, February 12, 2014 (UTC)

More Algo Changes
OK, by now I'm probably getting really annoying, but I just thought of three new ways to improve the algo without making it too complex... Again, I must be really annoying by now (sorry about that), but really, I think these would help make the game more plauisble, and it's not like they're very complex.
 * 1) Firstly, an add-on to the Economic section. This is pretty simple; basically, it would look like this.
 * 2) *Industrial Economy booming:  + 30
 * 3) *Trade-based Economy booming: +20
 * 4) *Textiles/Non-Agricultural Economy Booming: +10
 * 5) *Agricultural Economy: 0
 * 6) *Economy Slowing (regardless of type): -5
 * 7) *Nation in recession: -10
 * 8) *Nation in depression: -20
 * 9) *Government Defaulting upon debt: -30 (but this could only be used for the defender, as there is no way a country that is defaulting on it's debt is going to invade another.)
 * 10) Secondly, a minor change to the Puppets and Vassals section. Also, simple.
 * 11) *For Every Vassal: -1
 * 12) *For Every Puppet: -3
 * 13) *If there are NO leading vassals, then for each leader, the final score shall be multiplied by 1.1, BEFORE the puppets/vassals penalties are removed.
 * 14) **Ex: If there are 3 leading nations and 1 puppet, and the final score is 100, then you'd get the following: (100*3*1.1) - 3 = 327
 * 15) *If there are NO vassals or puppets at ALL, then it's the same as above, only with a 1.15 multiplier.
 * 16) *There will be NO vassals allowed following the rise of Nationalism.
 * 17) Third and final is the simplest. The Nations sections are not divided by each other.
 * 18) And lastly, a nation fighting a multi-front war (like Germany in WWII) will suffer a -15% penalty per front.

23:01, February 11, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
Just to note, the 2nd one, when I said no vassals, I meant no vassals. Puppets would still be allowed.

23:03, February 11, 2014 (UTC)

I like these, I would love to see these implemented, even if we have to tweak them to make them fit better. Kunarian TALK 23:31, February 11, 2014 (UTC)

I like it too, espescially the economic section since it should matter if a nation has no money or lots of it. Mr YOLO (talk) 10:50, February 12, 2014 (UTC)

So can I edit the algo? (Mods?)

I disagree with a few parts. Firstly the economic section since that is already factored into economic development. If anything those two things should be merged. Also the thing with deficit. Deficit can be a very good thing, like in times of economic boom, so it shouldn't necessarily subtract so many points. As you have it this basically just hands out free points to nations who already get points for economy, and subtracts heavily from superpowers (such as the OTL modern US) who might have a deficit. With the vassals, you can't keep subtracting from vassals. They already have a negative effect in most instances. Speaking of which, I believe the algorithm should be amended in that sense. I know we are all slightly afraid of people spamming vassals, but as it stands, getting aid from you vassals actually decreases your score. I also disagree with nation age in the existing system. I know that's supposed to simulate the eventual breakup of an empire, but time isn't the only factor that determines a nation's stability. Most nations in Europe (especially central Europe) are at least 500 years old, so gaining help from German allies subtracts dozens of points. Personally I feel that should be removed/amended since the age of your nation has nothing/little to do with how you fight in a battle. I can understand a slight curb for young nations as they mature, but not a downward curve as they get older. There are some thoughts on Guns' proposals and on the algorithm in general. I hope we can amend the algorithm slightly based on this, and until Guns answers to these problems I vote no. Mscoree (talk) 00:01, February 13, 2014 (UTC)

22:09, February 12, 2014 (UTC)

Ok, my answer.

A) The Economic section factors in development, but not actual size. A small backwater that suddenly doubles the size of it's economy in a few years thanks to massive development is still economically inferior to a superpower that has been lax.

B) Fair enough. Not deficit then- negative growth, shall we say. The minus ten would be for a recession, then, and the -20 for a depression. I have edited that.

C) Umm I haven't changed the penalties for vassals. The -1 for vassals and -3 for puppets already exists. What I've done is changed the multipliers.

D) Nation Age is there to encourage players to change their governments and not just keep with the current ones. Also, older dynasties and governments do tend to get decadent over time.

E) No, vassals do not. Military aid from a vassal will now only give you a plus one on the Nations section, so it reduces the chance of spamming. Also, again, that is CURRENTLY in the rules.

F) The economic section IS just another part of the Development section, like control over a vital channel.

I hope this assuages your problems.

00:13, February 13, 2014 (UTC)

These need a lot of tweaking to work and they won't as it currently stands. How would the economic points be enforced? Nation age does not need much of a change, it works as it is, France swept aside the HRE and German states in the 1800s. Nations getting divided is to ensure that 20 Andorras can take out France on nation score alone. The algorithm works pretty well as it is. There have just been a lot of mistakes with new players so far and mod action on that is being taken. Scandinator (talk) 15:55, February 13, 2014 (UTC)

Nothing you said has been changed, except for the new economic sections...

And at this point, some backwater in the Third World with good econmic dev but with 20 years of hyperinflation that's just clawing out of defaulting on it's debt will beat a lax Superpower with a giant economy.

22:09, February 13, 2014 (UTC)

Those in Favor

 * MODS
 * "This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 00:37, February 13, 2014 (UTC)
 * Fed (talk) 00:38, February 13, 2014 (UTC)
 * NON-MODS
 * Guns
 * Eiplec - ಠ_ಠ (talk) 23:55, February 12, 2014 (UTC)
 * phyrexia_symbol.png Yawgmoth, Lord of the Wastes phyrexia_symbol.png
 * (even if Ive got almost no influence) Stephanus rex (talk) 01:27, February 13, 2014 (UTC)
 * Quasi Mods (basically only Scraw)
 * Scraw
 * Quasi Mods (basically only Scraw)
 * Scraw

Those Against

 * MODS
 * Scandinator (talk) 15:50, February 13, 2014 (UTC)
 * NON-MOD

This Prussian Incident
Ok, so there was a small incident with Prussia, and on the basis of a 1407 mod event written by Collie, I managed to convince Yank that in fact he was not under any "stranglehold" from the UNC- he had free passage, after the event, in which Danzig allowed CM merchants and recieved the free passage via the Oresund.

Anyway, Ms then claimed that it was vandalism and removed it, despite the fact that it was nothing of the sort.

I copy pasted before that, fortuneately, and present it here.

 Lübeck and Danzig accept the Danish offer. 

'What the hell is this "Danish offer"? And why is one of Prussia's biggest ports apparently accepting an offer independent of the national government?'
 * Look, I don't have any idea, but Guns needed an official response to his request or he was going to rage all over the page. The "accepting" part is because Andrew had already made an unofficial answer stating the same. And, I think that Danzig is a free city.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 18:44, February 8, 2014 (UTC)

'Danzig was under the control of the Teutonic Order until 1410 in OTL when Poland took over. You want me to sign this? I'm afraid I can't do that  '

A) Danzig is basically a free city. The Order was very loose.

B) The 'Danish' offer is just to allow free trade in the Baltic, controlled by me. :D

Please note that the first comment was written by Yank, who didn't sign it.

00:53, February 12, 2014 (UTC)

It's not vandalism. That was a mistake, as I was reading something else, and it has sense been fixed. Mscoree (talk) 00:56, February 12, 2014 (UTC)

Well then, that's that.

01:09, February 12, 2014 (UTC)

Bengal (Attacker)
Total: +86
 * Location: 15
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations: Bengal (L), Orissa (M), Arakan (M), Yemen (M), Garjat (S) = 23/15 = 0
 * Military Development: 12/62= +0
 * Economic Development: 12
 * Expansion: -3
 * Infrastructure: 0
 * Motive: 7 + 4 + 5 = 16
 * Chance: 9
 * Edit count: 1416
 * UTC: 1:51 = 7
 * Total: 1416/7*(3.14159265359) = 635.499313926
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 9 (7 digits + larger)
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: 69 x 1.25 = 86.3

Jaunpur (Defender)
Total: +58
 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage: 2
 * Nations: Jaunpur (L) Delhi (L) Ladahk (LV) Kashmir (LV) Multan (LV) Sind (LV) Kangar (LV) Jangledesh (LV) = 23/15= +1
 * Military Development: 62/12= 5
 * Ladahk:+12
 * Kashmir: +12
 * Multan: +14
 * Sind: +10
 * Jangladesh: +14
 * Jaunper: 0
 * Economic Development: 0
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure:
 * Motive: +10
 * Chance: 9 (see above)
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Vassals and Puppets: -6

Result

 * (83/(83+68))*2-1 = 0.0993377483 = 9,9%

Bengal can get 9,9% of Jaunpurite territory.

Discussion
Participation is not multiplied by quantity of nations.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 16:46, February 13, 2014 (UTC)

In the rules it states each nation gets +10 for participation, i thought this meant +10 for each nation that was a leader and participating in the war. No matter, the wars still won and the land wasnt going to be annexed anyway. -Sims

Jaunpur shouldn't get any infrastructure, military, or economic bonuses. They have been a disorganized nation since the game began, and cannot upgrade anything while disorganized. Eiplec - ಠ_ಠ (talk) 17:19, February 13, 2014 (UTC)

Also, Jaunpur has only been independent since 1394, which is 17 years by 1411, and 18 years by 1412, so they'd get a -5 in the algo. However, I'm not going to attempt to remove the Jaunpur military, infrastructure or nation age without mod approval. Eiplec - ಠ_ಠ (talk) 18:16, February 13, 2014 (UTC)

Vijayanagar needs to be added to the algo for Bengal 108.232.8.243 20:28, February 13, 2014 (UTC)

I believe that all the nations should have a -5, since Timurid influence basically reformed their governments as vassals, and that's been in the last 15 years. Fed (talk) 22:34, February 13, 2014 (UTC)

Posting as Sicily
DatStar has informed me that he is currently too busy to post on most days of the week and would like me to run Sicily for him in the meantime. Unless there is an objection then I shall do that. Scandinator (talk) 16:24, February 13, 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to point a few things wrong with your post. The main one is that Sardinia is already a constituent part of the Crown of Aragon.

16:37, February 13, 2014 (UTC)

They are culturally closer to Sicily though. It would make more sence if they went with Sicily when the kingdom separates. In addition, Sicily is technically the one leading the personal union.Scandinator (talk) 15:03, February 14, 2014 (UTC)

Yes, with a Aragonese royal house.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 17:59, February 14, 2014 (UTC)

UNC (Attacker)
Total: 56
 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage: 3 (Attacker, connected capital)
 * Nations: Norway (L) Denmark (L) Sweden (L) Bremen (MV)  Holstein (MV) Lubeck (MV) Schleswig (MV) Bavaria (L) Bavaria-Munchen (MV) Bavaria-Straubing (MV) Golden Horde (L) Perm (MV) = 42 => 0
 * Military Development:
 * UNC: 18
 * Bavaria: 26
 * Golden Horde: 22
 * 66/92 =0
 * Economic Development:
 * UNC: 18
 * Bavaria: 26
 * Golden Horde: 22
 * 66/40 = 1.5 ~ 2
 * Expansion: -8 (Saami)
 * Infrastructure: NA
 * Motive: 16 (Hegemony+High Morale+Non-Dem Support)
 * Chance: 8
 * Edit count: 6736
 * UTC: 10:46 = 11
 * Total: 6376/11*(3.14159265359) = 1820.98134175
 * Nation Age: -10 (New Nation)
 * Population:7
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: -8
 * Vassals and Puppets:45*1.25

Lüneburg (Defender)

 * Location: 20
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations: Luneburg (L), Austria (L), Padua (SV), Salzburg (SV), Aquileia (SV), Gorizia (SV), Sundgau (SV), Breisgau (SV), Bohemia (L), Brieg (SV), Falkenburg (SV), Glogau (SV), Liegnitz (SV), Oels (SV), Opole (SV), Rativor (SV), Severien (SV), Strehlitz (SV), Teschen (SV), Troppau (SV), Moravia (L), Brandenburg (L), Luxembourg (L), Cologne (L), Heinsberg (SV), Mainz (L), Trier (L), Spoonheim (SV), Muscovy (L), Novgorod (L), Pskov (L), Ukraine (SV), Pereslavl-Ryazanski (SV), Hamburg (L), Tver (M), Hesse (L), Oldenburg (M) = 80/42 = ~2
 * Military Development: 94/44 = 2
 * Luneburg: 2
 * Austria: 20
 * Padua:0
 * Bohemia:4
 * Brandenburg:6
 * Moravia:4
 * Luxembourg:2
 * Cologne:10
 * Mainz:2
 * Trier:14
 * Muscovy: 4
 * Novgorod:13
 * Pskov:3
 * Hesse:0
 * Economic Development: 42/62 = 0
 * Luneburg: 2
 * Austria: 2
 * Padua:0
 * Bohemia:0
 * Brandenburg:0
 * Moravia:4
 * Luxembourg:4
 * Cologne:0
 * Mainz:0
 * Trier:0
 * Novgorod: 3
 * Muscovy: 20
 * Pskov:7
 * Hesse:4
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: 16
 * Motive: 10
 * Luneburg: Defending from attack that will wipe out nation and culture: + 10
 * Hesse: Defending Core/heartland from possibly fatal attack + 9
 * Austria: Attacking to enforce political hegemony: +7
 * Bohemia: Aiding an Ally: + 5
 * Brandenburg: Aiding an Ally: + 5
 * Moravia: Aiding an Ally: + 5
 * Luxembourg: Aiding an Ally: + 5
 * Cologne: Aiding an Ally: + 5
 * Mainz: Aiding an Ally: + 5
 * Trier: Aiding an Ally: + 5
 * Novgorod:
 * Hamburg: Aiding an Ally (in this case, a family member): + 5
 * Chance: 6
 * 15,710
 * 15,710/40=392.75
 * 392.75*pi=1,233.8605146973912944
 * Mscoree's edit count was used since Luneburg has no player.
 * Nation Age: -15
 * Luneburg: +5
 * Austria: 0
 * Padua: 0
 * Bohemia: 0
 * Brandenburg: 0
 * Moravia: 0
 * Luxembourg: -5
 * Cologne: -5
 * Mainz: -5
 * Trier: -15
 * Novgorod: 0
 * Muscovy +5
 * Pskov: +5(de facto independent since 1328 or 1329)
 * Hamburg: + 5
 * Hesse: +5
 * Population: +10
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: -8
 * Austria: -1
 * Bohemia: -1
 * Brandenburg: -1
 * Moravia: 0
 * Luxembourg: 0
 * Cologne: -1
 * Mainz: 0
 * Trier: -1
 * Novgorod: -1
 * Muscovy: -1
 * Pskov: -1
 * Hamburg: + 5
 * Vassals and Puppets: 33 *1.25

Total: 52

Discussion
I've used the algorithm suggestions I proposed except for the economy part, which is the only bone of contention far as I can tell. 22:52, February 13, 2014 (UTC)

Aww... almost thought you were winning 350 to 50 vs the actual Austrians... 23:44, February 13, 2014 (UTC)

It has been decided by the moderators that this algorithm is invalid in its current state and must be fixed. Also you may not use the proposals you proposed as they have not been accepted yet, and are still under construction. Mscoree (talk) 23:51, February 13, 2014 (UTC)

Correction: It has been decided by YOU that is algorithm is invalid. Also, the only problem raised was with the economic section, which I have not used here.

00:47, February 14, 2014 (UTC)

Actually at the time of that message Fed and others agreed. That was before I was even in the war. I ended up keeping your side pretty much intact anyway. Mscoree (talk) 00:53, February 14, 2014 (UTC)

WOW SUCH BS!!!

Motive is AVERAGED between the leading nations, NOT ADDED.

You can give either military aid OR supplies but NOT both.

Economic and Military development is divided by both sides.

And BTW if Russia is getting involved I have other allies who will be coming in once they post.

00:57, February 14, 2014 (UTC)

Can someone add Hamburg? 00:58

So I fixed the parts above...

But wait a sec.

HOW DOES MS SUDDENLY USE THE ENTIRE HRE IN THIS WAR, WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSIONS?

Most of these nations hated each other. Many of them would actually side with the UNC here just to get more power.

This is BULLSHIT. I DEMAND a neutral moderator here, cos this is just absolute, 100% idiocy.

01:01, February 14, 2014 (UTC)

Also, I would like this algorithm to be locked down so no one except non-affiliated mods can edit it until we resolve this, and deal with it like the GHW.

01:14, February 14, 2014 (UTC)


 * I second this motion-Lx (leave me a message)Azarath Flag.png 01:39, February 14, 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to note that this is not a coalition war (or at least it's not supposed to be) and therefore the nations per side should not be averaged. Mscoree (talk) 01:17, February 14, 2014 (UTC)


 * Im not sure of the HRE situation, but Like it or not, with the addition of Russia, it is a coalition war-Lx (leave me a message)Azarath Flag.png 01:39, February 14, 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay I guess that makes sense. Mscoree (talk) 01:49, February 14, 2014 (UTC)


 * Neutral Mod standing by. "This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 01:45, February 14, 2014 (UTC)


 * To me, I think it is a coalition, as Lx said. Once another nation declares war, it becomes a coalition or it is fought as two separate wars. And since it would be better to have 1 big war than 8 small ones, this is how it is normally done, Ms. 01:50, February 14, 2014 (UTC)


 * Alright I agree to it being a coalition. Also Tver needs to be added. Mscoree (talk) 01:50, February 14, 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, but then change you *1.25 bonus. You have many vassals included. 01:52, February 14, 2014 (UTC)
 * They are not actually in the war (unless Guns changed that, someone please change it back), just sendint support. Mscoree (talk) 01:56, February 14, 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that *1.25 goes. It's not fair that you're spamming HRE vassals and you keep it "because they didn't join the war". Fed (talk) 03:26, February 14, 2014 (UTC)
 * Those aren't vassals of the HRE, those are just personal vassals of our nations. Also Guns did the same thing. Like Guns our vassals are only sending support, and therefore we keep the 1.25. Mscoree (talk) 03:30, February 14, 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be a pain, but Oldenburg sent military support this turn (1413). I would add it, but in doing so I have become an affiliated mod. Callumthered (talk) 06:50, February 14, 2014 (UTC)

In a coalition algorithm according to the rules page only the motive, location, and nation age is averaged, everything else gets added up to the final score of the algorithm. I have fixed this issue. User:Edboy452    (talk) 20:25, February 14, 2014 (UTC)
 * You forgot that military development, quantity of nations and economic development are also supposed to be divided.Ah, and motive is not supposed to be averaged (we are supposed to use the lead nation's motive.the lead nation is Brunswick-Luneburg.everybody else joined after them), and neither location.nation age is a incognita.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 21:53, February 14, 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't necessarily for this algorithm in particular, but it seems like if anything stuff like military development (which shows the quality of a nation's military) shouldn't be averaged while stuff like nation age should. That's perhaps for a future update. Mscoree (talk) 21:57, February 14, 2014 (UTC)
 * Still, this system fails when confronted with coalition wars.After all, if military development is not averaged, twenty Ragusas could theoretically beat the Ottoman Empire.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 22:04, February 14, 2014 (UTC)


 * Wait so umm this is a tie?
 * Kun, Imp, Fed- WHERE WERE YOU?
 * But regaredless, may I then recommend we solve this via treaty? Ms?
 * 22:17, February 14, 2014 (UTC)

Quick question from an un-biased point of view - how are there 14 leaders on one side of the algo? Cour *talk* 22:19, February 14, 2014 (UTC)

Ms decided a bunch of nations he didn't control were awesome and should be involved.

ALSO, pretty sure that you cannot give BOTH supplies and Mil aid... so someone should fix that... like you Cour... you're a mod...

22:23, February 14, 2014 (UTC)

Ms, what do you have to say about this particular issue? Cour *talk* 22:28, February 14, 2014 (UTC)

By the way, has this EVER happened before? Can anyone here recall a perfect tie occuring on ANY map game?

22:43, February 14, 2014 (UTC)

In my position as quasi mod, I declare this algorithm complete and utter bullshit. In the name of peace and sanity, it must be fixed.

23:32, February 14, 2014 (UTC)

I agree.

For starters, the GOlden Horde just took advantage of this war to sack Moscow. That should be factored in.

What's more, you CANNOT give Mil Aid and Supplies!

23:39, February 14, 2014 (UTC)

I have added the Golden Horde and Bavaria to the algo. Apparently, Austria's lack of control over the HRE is showing. :D

00:42, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

So wait a minute. You averaged our nation per side score, but decided to not average yours? User:Edboy452    (talk) 01:01, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

I is here Guns. Add me in as full participant. Imp (Say Hi?!) 01:10, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Ed, and why are all the states that have declared war, only listed as giving supplies?

I agree with both Edboy and I Am That Guy, someone please fix the algorithm. Razor (talk) 01:27, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain to me what the Horde or Perm has in this?

Whoever made the whole entire algo headings, you and me are going to have some issues. Just saying. Cour *talk* 01:59, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

Okay after a nice long chat between me and MS we have concluded (and myself being well versed in how military logistics operates from most eras) The Golden Horde and Perm have no stake in this and this is a war that is a war over Northern Europe (Germany) If you want to fight between UNC her random asian friends and the Russians then that would require a seperate algo... the distance betweem war locations is far enough to warrant it and the UNC can reach by sea. For the most part though its Within logistical ability of the states involved over there to be legitimately involved. the G-H would in no way however be able to send in forces to aid the UNC in northern Germany... thats absolutely ridiculous.... So final say off of me is that a Russian front requires a seperate algo. and the German stuff requires and algo. This is based off of the fact of ideological differences and the fact Medeval logistics were god awful... then yeah two algos

So that would mean all those Russians states would not be on Ms' side in this algo either. Imp (Say Hi?!) 12:10, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

Guys pay attention. ON guns' side of the algorithm, nations have more points in MIlitary and Economic than any of them should. It was definitively extablished in PM2 that even if you have "extra turns" due to Personal UNion, you only have one development point counted per year, and you dont count development points during war, that counts as "past wars" and is negative points.

Impeachment of Mscoree as Moderator (Closed and Rescinded)
I Request to Impeach Mscoree of all moderator dutues for the following.While Generally behind Mscoree for a decent amount things and a friend to him, as a concerned member of the game i really dont want to do this but it seems needed. As of late MS's sarchastic attitude among other things seems to have really annoyed some moderators and he modded in an event which essentially wrote off the fact he needed an algo for a war (which considering i worked it myself since i thought i may be involved) he would have lost quite handily. This is not the conduct i expect of a Moderator in this wikias high class game which we all waited a decent amount of time for. Also the fact of the Metalliances, using moderator status (as per my own knowledge this may have been resolved) to pass off these alliances as legitimate. Finally the Mod Event which essentially gave him a blanket causus belli to invade the entirety of the HRE is absolutely ridiculous and when challenged about it he pretty much seemed to brush it off. Im not Trying to be a dick or anything but considering all the things i heard about this game and the fact that probably 85 to 90% of the mods dont use events to further their own national goals... this seems warranted.

~Feud

For

 * Fed (talk) 00:35, February 15, 2014 (UTC)
 * The For is strong with this one. 01:39, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

Against

 * Sims -The Rainbow Machete Piq 28524 400x400.png  01:37, February 15, 2014 (UTC) why not an impeachment of Fed?

Discussion
Just to point out, the rules state that while anyone may start an impeachment, only mods may vote.

00:04, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

While I respect Ms a good deal, I feel that he has been overstepping his role as a plain moderator. Not to mention, this is his first real PM experience, and the election to modship was largely backed by his close friends IRL. He acts almost as if he is the head-mod, and has more influence than any mod, minus Collie.

I also feel that he can grow into modship in the near future should he prove himself plausible. In my opinion, a powerful player should not be a powerful mod (a minor one, maybe), and Austria and Ms as mod do not make me super happy from that standpoint. With that said, I hope that he does not leave the game. 00:13, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

There's too much of an interwoven relationship between MS's modship and his play. He's practically driving the HRE into nationhood with both his mod powers and player powers when its incredibly implausible, so much that Germany was one of the last nations to truly unite. Kunarian TALK 00:19, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

I think I have to agree with Kun. The relationship between Ms' modship and his nation is wayy too close for him to act as a plausible mod. Fed (talk) 00:35, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

I am slightly upset because Ms has lied to me several times about events he claimed were occurring that were not. I feel that he needs to be removed as he is making ASB turns and mod events while removing plausible ones that don't suit him. Daeseunglim (talk) 00:45, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe it should be the policy of any moderators to make events that directly affect their nations unless absolutely necessary. Anyone else agree? (If so, voice your support below). Cour *talk* 00:47, February 15, 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed, Cour. 00:49, February 15, 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Thus the impeachment, cos Ms clearly can't seperate em.


 * 00:50, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

I would just like to note that Kunarian and I agreed to a truce before the war really began (basically we cancelled the war). We agreed to a treaty and ended the war diplomatically without having to do an invasion or an algorithm. That wasn't me trying to go around an algorithm (Kunarian actually proposed the peace), but rather it was not needed since we had already ended the war as a draw basically. That moderator event I made basically summarized that, announcing to everyone that the war was over. The moderator event itself was not ending the war, but rather announcing that it was already over. That other moderator event I made did not give me a free casus belli, or whatever you may be thinking, rather, it was more of an observer stating that it seems like Austria will not tolerate invasion. Again, that was an event summing up foreign policy in the region, stating that to an observer it seems like Albert II will rule in a certain manner. As always I welcome discussion on my moderator events, so if you guys don't like those events I would be happy to rewrite them or even remove them. Please talk to me next time rather than jumping to impeach me. Also, to Dae, I have not lied to you about what was happening, nor have I removed any events. Anyway, I hope that helps to clear things up. Mscoree (talk) 01:20, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

Is anyone opposed to working out this issue in a timely manner rather than just impeaching me and not getting it fixed? Mscoree (talk) 01:43, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

If it's any consolation several people and I peacefully worked out all these problems independent of this in a google document, as Feud and others I think can attest. Mscoree (talk) 02:20, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

I come from a different background of events. Where I'm from people make events summarizing things that happened last year to state their conclusion. It seems here people are used to events that only take place in the future, therefore they thought the thing with venice was a mod event unfairly ending the war, when in reality the war was over but I was summarizing that it was over. I apologize for this misunderstanding, and I will refrain from doing so in the future. Mscoree (talk) 02:43, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

''' All major problems have been resolved and we have gotten all sides to agree and civily talk out these issues or resolve the misunderstandings. This Impeachment is hereby closed to voting. Further may result in the reopening of the Impeachment and a re casting of votes. '''

Yemen (Attacker)

 * Location: 15
 * Tactical Advantage : 1
 * Nations: Yemen (L): 4/4 = 1
 * Military: 14/14=1
 * Economy: 10/10=1
 * Infrastructure: NA
 * Chance: 2
 * Edit Count: 777
 * UTC time: 12:40=8
 * Chance: 777/7*pi=305.127186
 * Expansion: -5
 * Motive: 3
 * Age: -5
 * Recent Wars: -1
 * Participation: 10
 * Population: 7
 * Vassals & Puppets: *1.25
 * 30*1.25=37.5

Mamluk Sultanate (Defender)

 * Location: 25
 * Tactical Advantage : 5
 * Nations: Mamluks (L): 4/4 = 1
 * Military: 14/14=1 
 * Economy: 10/10=1+5=6
 * Infrastructure: 6
 * Chance: 2
 * Edit Count: 3969
 * UTC time: 12:40=8
 * Chance: 3969/7*pi = = 1558.62266
 * Expansion: -3
 * Motive: 8 (Defend) + 4 (Sipported Gov) +5 (High Morale) = 17
 * Age: 5
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Participation: 10
 * Population: 8+10 = 18
 * Vassals & Puppets: *1.25
 * 87*1.25=108.75

Results
If results stand, the defending Mamlukean army can overthrow the Yemeni government in 2 years. (I have yet to decide what to do with Will. I may just repulse the attack and not carry on.)
 * ((y/(z+y))*2)-1*(1-1/(2x))
 * ((137.5/(37.5+137.5))*2)-1*(1-1/(2x))
 * 0.5714*(1-1/(2(2))
 * 0.4286

Discussion
Yeah for the sake of not killing people off and the sanity of the middle east not becomming the way the HRE and central europe was, you maintained your honor, you drove them off, i dont see any reason to carry on really.

Yes I agree with Feudal.

01:42, February 15, 2014 (UTC)