Talk:Europe 1430 (Map Game)

Introduction:

Hello everyone!

This is the talk page for Europe 1430 (Map Game). Here you can post any comments or paragraphs related to the game. You may ask questions and answer questions. Please be detailed, organized, and respectful, and try not to get into edit wars. After every 42 sections (questions or answer sections, or comment sections), this page will be archived. The first 42 sections has been archived to a article linked below. Make sure to stay consistent, and try not to be rude or overely critical. This article will be divided into two major sections, Discussion and Archives, further sub-divided into three minor sections: Questions/Answers, Comments, and Debates. Archives maintains a list of pages of archives of this talk page, which is below. Please leave all questions and answers under the Questions/Answers section, all comments and reviews under the Comments section, and all debates concerning the article or it's contents under the Debate section.

--Catherine 02:16, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

Operator of Europe 1430 (Map Game) since User:ProfessorMcG handed over the postition to me

=Archives= The following is a list of all archive pages of this talk page.

Archive: Talk: Europe 1430 (Map Game) Sections 1-42

=Discussion= This is the discussion section, consisting of three minor sections: Questions/Answers, Comments, and Debates. Please list comments, questions/answers, and debates under the approiate sub-sections.

Questions/Answers
Please leave all questions and answers to questions about this map game here.

Alliances.
Who are allys with who? I have no clue here.Paaaad 19:41, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

BG is:


 * Britain


 * Navarre
 * Portugal
 * Andalusia


 * North Africa


 * Scandinavia


 * Denmark
 * Switzerland
 * Brunswick
 * Hanseatic Republic

They are also close allies of Livonia, Gotland, Muscovy, and the AA (anatolian alliance, with all the turkish nations except Angora) [BoredMatt]


 * Switzerland, Hesse, and Brunswick aren't members of the British group. Brunswick is Germanic, Hesse is Hussite, and Switzerland was neutral. Being members of the BG, and being allied with the BG are different.Oerwinde 19:05, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Noo.... look at year 1633 Switzerland was a founding member of the BG. BoredMatt 19:17, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

Any others?Paaaad 19:57, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Nitpick, Anatolia is the only turkish nation in the AA. Trebizond is Greek, Georgia is Georgian, Cyprus is Greek, Adana is italian.

Germanic Group is


 * Prussia


 * Wurzburg


 * Habsburg


 * New Germania


 * Amerika

Hussite League is


 * Hesse


 * Bohemia


 * Hungary


 * Italy


 * New West Venice


 * California


 * Mayan Republic


 * Kingdom of Pomona


 * Panama Republic


 * Colombia

Looks big but half of them are in the Americas and wouldn`t have much of an effect on the European theatre except to keep Britain in check in the Americas.

Bohemian Dominions (Autonomous nations who answer to the Bohemian King and Parliament) are


 * Grand Commonwealth of Lithuania (jointly ruled by the King of Bohemia and Grand Duke of Lithuania)


 * Dominion of Poland


 * Caribbean Commonwealth


 * New Bohemia


 * Aljaska


 * Kanada

Hanseatic Republic is officially a member of the Germanic group, but disagrees with them so often on policy due to their status as a trading nation and not wanting to go to war unless they are threatened that its mostly just a symbolic membership. They are also allied with Bohemia, and more recently Britain.

France was allied with Spain, Italy, Damascus, and Bohemia, but now Spain is in Indonesia and is a non-issue.

USA and Inca are allied.

Oerwinde 20:11, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Anatolian Alliance (Now Defunct):


 * Byzantine Empire
 * Anatolia
 * Adana
 * Georgia
 * Kurdistan

Eastern-Baltic Alliance:


 * Byzantine Empire (Dominant)
 * Scandinavia (Dominant)
 * Muscovian Empire
 * Damascus
 * Georgia
 * Estonia
 * Adana
 * Anatolia
 * Dal Raida
 * Swiss Confederation
 * Norway
 * Puppet State--Sassanid Empire
 * Puppet State--Norgard

The Knights of St. John are allied with Anatolia, and the Duchy of Morea with Byzantium.

Religion
I made up some maps depicting the religious makeup of the game so far. Keep in mind the religion maps do not conform to the political maps, because just because the country`s official religion is one thing, doesn`t mean the area it controls is.



Constantinople
Curious as to what the green territory around Constantinople is? It doesn't seem to be marked as part of a particular nation.--Emperor of Trebizond 19:35, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

It was part of Greece then someone posted that Greece released it as neutral international territory due to international pressure.Oerwinde 22:23, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

So it is impossible for a particular nation to ever claim Constantinople again? What about the city and its Greek inhabitants? That would not fit well into an international zone. Besides, it sounds a bit strange coming from this time period. I highly doubt that the nations of the world would really get together and agree never, ever, to make something a strictly neutral zone due to 'international' pressure. The world of the 1700's is not like the modern world, where that would be possible.--Emperor of Trebizond 22:43, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

i agree. i think it should be reannexed in Greece.

Well, there's no UN to defend Thrace's international status, so what's withholding the Greeks from just reclaiming it? In fact, I'll add that to the map if there are no logical objections about this anytime soon.--Emperor of Trebizond 23:12, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was stupid from the beginning, but there is so much stupid crap that I let it slide, so go for it.Oerwinde 23:14, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Midgard War
Just to clarify a few things about the Baltic war over Midgard. The allies of Midgard are:


 * German-Czech Federation
 * Bohemia, all Bohemian territories and puppet states
 * Commonwealth of Lithuania
 * Prussia
 * Dominion of Poland
 * Livonia
 * Commonwealth of Amerika (North America)
 * New Germania (North America)

The allies of Estonia are:


 * Great Britain, all British territories and puppet states
 * New Habsburg
 * Denmark
 * Gotland
 * Hanseatic Republic
 * Scandanavia

Strictly Neutral Countries are:


 * Norway
 * Norgard
 * New West Venice (North America)
 * Republic of California (North America)

As you can see, the tensions between the German-Czech Federation and Great Britain are rising to the point when the war is in danger of spilling to North and South America.--Emperor of Trebizond 02:19, September 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * New West Venice and the Republic of California are also allied with Bohemia via the Hussite League. If they are also allied with Britain that will likely keep them out of the war. Also, the Hanseatic Republic declared their neutrality not long ago, why did they violate it?Oerwinde 06:22, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, at first the GCF captured the city of Hamburg. Then they declared war on Midgard. I don't know if they were neutral before all of this... ProfessorMcG 16:12, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * They declared their neutrality when they left the British Group.Oerwinde 17:30, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, The German-Czech Federation occupied one of it's cities...so wouldn't that be why they entered the war? ProfessorMcG 20:15, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats an odd one there. Bohemia and the Hanseatic Republic have had a long history of friendship. Also Bohemia is acting way out of character. There is no Polish puppet ruler, its a Dominion, like pre-ww1 canada. The King of Bohemia isn't an absolute ruler, Parliament has more power than its king.Oerwinde 22:20, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that the Hanseatic Republic and Bohemia had a friendship. But I think the fact that the German-Czech Federation needed a port on the North Sea would have justified the occupation of a city in a trading republic like Hanseatic which honestly can't put up a fight against Bohemia or Prussia. ProfessorMcG 22:35, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know that Bohemia wasn't an absolute monarchy, since he was mentioned instead of Parliament in previous posts involving Lithuania, I assumed it was. Perhaps the Hanseatic Republic should give up and let the GCF take some of the territory, since they know resistance is an invitation to disaster. They could also work out a sort of compromise while they can.--Emperor of Trebizond 22:49, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

What happened with Bohemia was that the King converted to Calvinism or something from Hussitism, the King's brother with aid from Parliament overthrew him in exchange for greater powers for parliament. The prime minister then managed to manipulate himself into a position where he then overthrew the new King. More civil war resulted in the Hussite King returning to power, but a constitutional monarchy was put into place separating powers so that that couldn't happen again. Its government is pretty much victorian england at this point.Oerwinde 02:43, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Questions
Hello, I haven't played this map game since like the year 1520 or so but I want to start it again, I was the original creator. I just have a few questions, what religions are Trebizond, Anatolia, Adana, Georgia, Sassanid, Damascus, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Greek North Africa, Algeria, and Tunez? And what nation is North Afrika, is it the same as North Africa? And what are the two pink/purple nations in Iberia without a name? ProfessorMcG 13:56, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Trebizond is Greek Orthodox, Anatolia is Catholic, Adana is Catholic, Georgia is Orthodox, Greek North Africa is Catholic and Orthodox, Tunez is Catholic, Kingdom of Jerusalem is Crusader Catholic, the Sassanid Empire is Pagan, and I'm not sure about the others. The minor territories in Iberia used to be Albania, but now they are minor outposts of Portugal and Alexandria. Habsburg North Africa was conquered by the Greeks. Oh, by the way, the pink blob in Africa is the Kingdom of the Congo.--Emperor of Trebizond 14:08, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Yea I saw about the Congo, but the ones in Spain are the ones I'm wondering about. What are those? ProfessorMcG 14:14, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Pink is Aragon, purple is Anatalusia? I think it's a state left over from British occupation. Sorry, I got Iberia mixed up with Illyria in the Balkans.Emperor of Trebizond 14:21, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ProfessorMcG 14:26, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Sassanid Empire is Zoroastrian, not pagan. Greek North Africa is mostly Muslim with some catholic along the coast. North Africa is Catholic, North Afrika was what people were referring to Habsburg as.Oerwinde 19:38, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of the Kingdom of the Kongo, they are WAY too big. They have to control a good quarter of Africa to be able to be in this map.Oerwinde 19:38, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Comments
Look everyone, if you want to add something, fine. But stop just tacking another bit on the end of 1674. Its annoying. Bob 11:17, June 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed, its actually against the rules, but no one listened to me the 9 million times I've mentioned it. Half the time I just delete everything tacked on if its my turn they tack it on to.Oerwinde 21:01, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Comment
First off, whoever is tacking on little bits of information on the end of each year should stop it's getting annoying. And also we posted at the same time concerning Midgard and the northern war so we should fix the conflicting information. ProfessorMcG 02:04, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the conflicts. I'm working on creating a plausible Midgard war scenario. Until then, stop tacking extras to the page, please.--Emperor of Trebizond 02:42, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I think you deleted quite a bit I wrote concerning the German-Czech Federation. ProfessorMcG 02:47, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Cleaned up the page to be more realistic. Denmark cannot just be eliminated completely off the map within a year with all those allies around it. And this is a local Baltic conflict. It need not involve the entire world. Only nations with interests in the Baltic Sea would participate in it. Please, don't change anything else. It's much better off this way. If you want to add something else to the new 'cleaned up version', discuss it here and get replies before doing it. Other than that, let's not dwell on 'messing around' with 1733 anymore. And, Professor McG, feel free to add anything I may have deleted. As the previous game controller, I know you're a legitimate map player.--Emperor of Trebizond 02:49, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Re: Recent events, keep note that Lithuania and Poland are Bohemian dominions. Think Canada pre ww1. Also, Gotland is I believe a Livonian puppet state made up of mostly Midgardian citizens. Oerwinde 07:37, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Honestly I don't know what Gotland is. But I know that it is fighting the 'axis' (GCF) and the 'allies' (Britain, Hapsburg) want it as it is an important strategic position in the Baltic. Livonia has been persuaded by Prussia to invade Estonia, so I don't know what that makes Gotland if it is a puppet of Livonia and fighting Midgard. ProfessorMcG 01:22, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

Gotland is allied to Estonia, thus it is indirectly on the side of the Habsburgs and Britain, who have just liberated southern Gotland from Midgard. Gotland may have been founded as a Livonian puppet state (Livonia is Prussia's ally, by the way), but it has gotten used to its independence, as evidenced by its fierce resistance to Midgard.--Emperor of Trebizond 01:43, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

I find some of the things being added to the game very implausible, how would Prussia and Bohemia have so much power as to assassinate the Scandinavian government, and help fight a war with what appears to be absolute victory against everybody and isn't it "convenient" that they always have one up on their enemies? Ownerzmcown 22:16, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

User:Emperor of Trebizond has been very plausible with anything he's posted so far. I actually think that Prussia and Bohemia are the most powerful in north Europe. Britain is it's main rival and Britain is also very powerful. But as it's allies are

1. Hapsburg, which is despised my most Europe

2. Estonia, which was getting crushed by Livonia and the German-Czech Federation

3. Demark,which has a small population and army and only has a strategic position as an advantage.

Now Scandinavia enters the war, on it's own terms and without reinforcements by Britain, and has to fight the 'axis' navy all by itself in the Batlic... ProfessorMcG 23:40, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Trebizond, where d you get off?! First, you don't have the authority to delete my post. Second, how are they able to assissinate that much of the Scandinavian government that it would cripple them that much. Finally, why would they have a plan to fight a country who was indecisive, I think they'd be focusing on the current enemies. Ownerzmcown 01:29, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

No, when Estonia first offered Midgard land to Scandinavia a number of years earlier, the GCF had all that time to find out about it. Thus, they developed a counter-measure system. Similar incidents like this have happened in medieval history to strike at government authority and preventing them from entering the war. Besides, the capital of Midgard cannot fall within a year, they have held out fine with their food supply and all the British troops have left Midgard and retreated altogether from the front, haven't you read the post?--Emperor of Trebizond 01:52, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

How do the Scandinavian troops even get to the south? There's no way they can get there. ProfessorMcG 03:32, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is implausible for the Hussite League to all lend such direct aid to Italy. The more minor German states I can understand, but Bohemia should be indecisive due to the ties developing with both Italy and the Byzantine Empire. A good way for them to handle this would be to wait and see how the conflict between both their allies pans out. All of the Hussite American states are too far away or too small to spare troops. However, they can send supplies and ammunition. A more plausible twist are like I did with the nations of Anatolia, Georgia, Kurdistan, and such. They agreed they would fight with Byzantium only if provoked by an invasion of the East. I think they're more worried about that Black Sea outpost than anything else. That said, the Byzantines' only real allies in the conflict are the Duchy of Morea and Adana.--Emperor of Trebizond 23:04, September 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * The Hussite League is a defensive alliance, Italy is a member and was attacked. The member states are bound by the treaty to come to their aid in what way they can. Italy has been a Bohemian ally for a long time, the Byzantines have only become close recently due to a marriage. There is no formal alliance. The Byzantines basically destroyed relations between the two by attacking a close ally.Oerwinde 23:30, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I still say the American states are really too far away to concern themselves with this. Look at it like, in OTL, the British colonies in America sending troops to help Britain fight a war in Europe. What would peoples like the Mayas care for a conflict like this? They can send supplies, but actually armies?--Emperor of Trebizond 23:53, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

They aren't sending armies. The only North American country that is actively sending troops is Kanada. The rest are in more of a pre-declaration of war US situation, where volunteers make their way up to Kanada and sign up for the army there, or come over on ships of supplies. Oerwinde 00:01, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Thank you for taking the time to patiently explain this to me. I appreciate it.--Emperor of Trebizond 00:31, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

China
WTF......China would never change to European style ANYTHING at this time period (even with the several European countries people helping). In-Fact if china changed the style of anything and demanded like it dose that everyone do as the European's are, then it would be a bloody revolution near immediately from the now trained military (doesn't mind the training, but would HATE the fact that EVERYONE must do as the foreigners do). And the people would hate this even more. It is impractical, NAI IMPLAUSIBLE to happen.--DaBigUn 19:56, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

Also, what would the king or the country gain from this? From all the other posts Shaung seemes to be pretty intelligent, but this just seems to go against the grain of his character. This is like the PM of India suddenly privatising much of the government, abolishing the caste system (and upholding the abolition), forcing the entire nation to dress like corporate execs, and then converting to LDS. BoredMatt 20:12, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

It also seemed like there was no resistance at all to the changes aside from a few nobles who were crushed immediately. These kind of sweeping changes are possible without mass rebellion, but they would have to be gradual over like 200 years.Oerwinde 23:56, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

Peter the Great intiated reforms in Russia in less then 20 years. Shaung intiated reforms in China in about 15-20. --Catherine 00:34, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

Well yea, but the difference between the cultures of westeern europe and Russia are alot smaller than the differences between China and Europe. And Peter wasn't pretty much liberating 80% of his population from serfdom while he made said reforms, or changing his religion to one that most Chinese would never hae heard of, much less understand. He just centralized power and modernized. BoredMatt 00:53, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention he's giving equal power to women, something that people had a problem with in the 1900s let alone the 1600s.Oerwinde 16:52, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

Peoples, this is not implausible. India modernized and became one of Asia's most prosperous and powerful countries in this map game simply because of adopting European technology, ideas, and customs. China can do so as well. It is possible AND plausible to happen. --Catherine 17:24, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

India was essentially modernized by force. the British colonial rulers basically suppressed the native culture for several hundred years. this is not a good analogy. you're also underestimating China's attitudes toward western culture. the only reforms any Chinese emperor attempted were the Hundred Days reforms. they're called that because the Emperor was OVERTHRONE after 100 days. China refused to accept that western ideas were supperior until the twentieth century. Destroyanator 17:31, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

I am not talking about Real-Life India, I am talking about the India in the map game. Anyways, if China modernizes and westernizes, it can challenge the supermacy of India, and perhaps the Middle East-Europe. It is very well possible to happen. --Catherine 17:48, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

You're completely ignoring the culture of China. ANYTHING that wasn't Chinese was considered stupid and inferior. the minute Shuang proposed any of these reforms, he would be stabbed and a new emperor would be proclaimed within minutes. taking advice from westerners was like taking advice from dogs, to the Chinese Destroyanator 17:55, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

No matter how smart or how charismatic or how imaginative Shuang is, you simply cannot:

A: Give equal rights to women, to the Chinese it would be like giving dogs a lawyer (remember these are the same people who widely practiced foot binding in the 1930's)

B:Set up massive learning institutions and schools for the lower classes. I don't think there would be much opposition to it socially, but the sheer amount of capital and labour it would require would bankrupt the country. Even if you do take all the nobilitie's capital.

C: Set up huge water and steam-powered factories. Again, mainly for the same reasons as B.

D: Force the Chinese to adapt to European culture. It just doesn't make sense. It does nothing for you except get 90% percent of the population pissed at you, and has no good effects.

E: Convert to Christianity. Ok, imagine if Obama converted to LDS. Imagine how much his support would drop. And this is a religion that is almost entirely practiced in the US, and we're a fairly tolerant country. Now imagine him converting to Bhuddism.

F: The big one.

1: knocking down the nobility a peg or two. Think of what would happen if Obama made a law making all the corporate execs become cubicle slaves. Who's gonna run the company? I'm sure that ther are plenty of qualified people, but there are a whole lot more unqualified people. If Shuang handed over control of provinces and towns and such to commoners, how is he going to know who is the best one to choose to replace the aristocracy? Also, the nobility is alot more than just 1-2% of the pop, like in European nations. China historically had around 15% of their pop. as the nobility, and that's a pretty big number if you think about it. Not to mention that you're disrupting a socioeconomic system that has been in place for thousands of years, and the inertia of the Chinese culture would plow right through any resistance at this point.

2: Taking the nobilitys income. This is pretty much impossible, as, even up to around 1800 OTL, 80-90% of the chinese nobilities capital was in the form of perishable goods, such as rice. Once you take away the nobilities wealth, then you are basically taking away directly what the peasants have made through their hard work, which is the exact opposite result of what Shaun's going for. You can't pay for the construction of massive factories with only bulk rice, either, you have to find a way to convert it into cash, and, as China's currency was at this point actually tied to different amounts of rice, this would cause massive hyperinflation.

BoredMatt 18:33, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. However, reforming China is Shaung's life-long goal. Eventually, by the time he dies, pople across China will praise him for the success. China's economy and military would be number 1 in Asia, and it equals Europe-Middle East. By the time he dies in 1685 of old age, China is a European-style modern empire. --Catherine 23:57, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

Misc
What group are France and Navarre a part of?

Navarre's british, France and Spain are their own group.

'''That was only discussed, no post had established the spain group. France is still part of the Hussite group.'''

France has no reason to be part of the Hussites, they have nothing in common.

'''When the Marseille pact broke up, all the founding members except for Wurzburg were part of the Hussite group. France was a founding member, the Marseille pact was established by allied states from the 2nd Italian War as a mutual defence pact.'''

'''France is Catholic, not Hussite, and again, they would have no reason to be in the Hussite League, as they would be overshadowed by the Bohemians and Italians. France is quite capable of holding her own, and I doubt she would gain anything from being part of an alliance, Hussite or not.'''

Ok, I went back and read it. France wasn't part of anything, but Spain and Portugal were part of the Hussite group. Which makes even less sense than France because at least France was allied with Bohemia and Italy, which were the main members of the Hussite league. So lets create a 4th group for Spain, Portugal, and France.

Portugal's already with the British, mainly because they've had so many royal marriages in both OTL and ATL. Plus, Portugal was with the Germanics during the Second Italian War, as was most of the British Group. And yea, it's likely that france and Spain are gonna stick together.

I am the owner of this map game
Ownerzmcown, I am the owner of this map game, so you cannot ban me. How about I ban you! How about that!

How about Oerwinde swoops in like a soaring eagle of liberty and justice, and just bans YOU!! How about that? He has the complete right to do that, you know.



True, but keep me as the absolute authority of this game. I have not done anything to earn a ban, my turns maybe implausible, but I stick to them. --Catherine 00:18, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

But he can take away your ownership of the game. He has complete authority over anything in the realm of map games.

Again, give me three plausable reasons how this could happen, other than you owning the game.

If you just go in and delete posts because you are feeling down, it's not a map game, it's just some eighteen year-old-girl playing with maps.

1. It is possible to happen

2. I am the owner of this map game

3. It adds suspense

And anyways, Oerwinde was the self-proclaimed master of map games. My Ages of Europe 1200: (Map Game) is independently ran, and he has no offical authority over it. --Catherine 00:26, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not self proclaimed. I was appointed by Mitro and the other mods.Oerwinde 00:29, June 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh. I thought you were self-proclaimed. Anyways, we are having a dispute over plausiblity and ownership of this map game. --Catherine 00:31, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw. I don't think being the operator of the game means you can break the rules. Plausibility is a rule, and overthrowing all the monarchies in europe is implausible.Oerwinde 00:33, June 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * You deleted my work. Anyways, at least Ages of Europe is independent and under my sole control. --Catherine 00:38, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I deleted it because its implausible. Not only is it implausible, but its also impossible. And while the Ages of Europe is under your sole control, I'm still the moderator of the map games, and if I get complaints that you are breaking the rules you've stated for your map, I can take action there as well. You are notorious on this site for being belligerant, implausible, uncooperative, and just plain an unpleasant person to deal with. I suggest you clean up your act.Oerwinde 00:42, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Oerwinde. And Caltharina isn't that bad, I'm guessing she was just feeling paticularlly vindictive tonight. BoredMatt 00:45, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Also, should we have some set rules for this if it ever happens again?


 * But Oerwinde, I did not give you authority for my map game. As such, your powers over my map game are limited. You cannot take control of a map game I CREATE and control. My Ages of Europe is seperate from the other map games, and my powers are in scope. And though I may be hard to work with, it is because I am bitter. --Catherine 00:46, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * You are bitter because you are hard to work with. In the words of the eternal George Lopez, "It's a self-furfilling Propheletic"!!
 * But seriouslly, you wouldn't be bitter if you weren't acting like a rabid hedgehog right now.
 * And again, we should have some universal rules that apply to all map games, even to their creators/owners.
 * Well, I blocked her for a week. I'm sick of her, I'm sick of having people complain about her every week, I'm sick of her superior attitude. If she can't smarten up when she gets back, I'll permaban her.Oerwinde 01:02, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I blocked her for a week. I'm sick of her, I'm sick of having people complain about her every week, I'm sick of her superior attitude. If she can't smarten up when she gets back, I'll permaban her.Oerwinde 01:02, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I blocked her for a week. I'm sick of her, I'm sick of having people complain about her every week, I'm sick of her superior attitude. If she can't smarten up when she gets back, I'll permaban her.Oerwinde 01:02, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Can't say I'm not glad she's gone. BoredMatt 01:06, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Who's gonna admin the game, though?

Well, I've been doing it since day one, so I guess I'll keep doing it.Oerwinde 03:29, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Own it, I mean.

Why does anyone need to own it?Oerwinde 20:11, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Good point.

Ha, I'm glad I left this map game, although giving up my map game to Catherine maybe wasn't such a smart idea. Honestly, Catherine can do what she wants, let her be sole moderator fo Ages of Europe and let her see how many people are willing to deal with her nonsensical-ness, hopefully no one. It's her lesson to learn. ProfessorMcG 15:02, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

Scandinavian Colony
It doesn't make any sense for Scandinavia to form a colony in the middle of Canada. Especially with the British colonies being its springboard. This means it has to travel all the way around through the strait of magellan, then all the way up to OTL BC, then go through the rockies and across the great plains all without the benefit of railroads. It would make much more sense for them to colonize africa, or use the suez and find somewhere the spanish or Jerusalemi haven't colonized in the east indies. Then they at least have a port and don't have to rely on someone else's port. If relations sour between them and the british the colony is doomed. Oerwinde 08:52, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

So since no one seems to object to my point I should just revert the part about the central canadian scandinavian colony?Oerwinde 15:59, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Well, Atcually they do have a north coast. so as long as they have ships with strong enough hulls, they can simpley use the curcimpoler winds. Paaaad 18:43, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Well, modern Ice-breakers have a tough time, so I'm doubting ships in the 1600s can handle it.Oerwinde 20:12, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Paaaad 21:59, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Besides, even with the ships, the logistics of maintaining a port in that environment is daunting. There would be little to no food production other than fishing due to it all being tundra, and the ice floes would ensure that there would be no net fishing, so even fishing would be a smaller scale.Oerwinde 22:53, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

I surrender my authority
I hereby surrender my authority over Europe 1430 to Oerwinde. However, I request absolute authority over Ages of Europe. --Catherine 00:16, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Free at last, free at last, thank God almighty, we are free at last Ownerzmcown 00:21, July 3, 2010 (UTC) 00:21, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Portugal vs North African Republic
Why is Portugal invading the North African Republic?Oerwinde 17:40, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering about that as well. Wasn't NA more-or-less a vassal of Portugal, even after the split? BoredMatt 18:40, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

They split amicably, then someone who didn't read the history had them vote to join Portugal like 10 years later, so a rebellion was written in where the populace felt betrayed by their government giving up their sovereignty so soon after they had won it, and they regained their independence a few years later. They maintained close relations similar to the UK-Canada split.Oerwinde 07:51, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

Habsburg
When did Habsburg get powerful enough to take out Spain? Sure they had help from the British for the mainland, but North Egypt and Spanish North Africa have been Spanish posessions for hundreds of years, and they had been settling them extensively, these places have significant populations and Egypt is actually majority Spanish due to settlement and muslim expulsion. Spain had a much stronger hold on Africa than Habsburg's recent conquests. The Kingdom of Jerusalem is also mostly ethnic Spanish, and likely would have sided with Spain.Oerwinde 20:02, July 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * Re-reading it, this whole war is pretty ridiculous. Italy allies with Spain, who at one point enacted a policy of ethnic cleansing on Italians and attempted to completely cut off Italy from trade outside the mediterranean. And allies against France no less, who fought with them for their independence. Bohemia being allied with Italy and France wisely stays out of it, so that makes sense. And with the California/Amerika war, keep in mind California is allied with New West Venice and the Mayan Republic.Oerwinde 20:11, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Asatru Invasion
A) Why would the British Group after just finishing a decade long war with Spain, France, Italy, and North Africa begin planning an unprovoked war of agression so soon after such a long and costly war?

B) What possible reason would there be for invading? We're in the rennaissance, the age of Holy Wars is long over, half the british group are republics that are unlikely to go to war for religious reasons, and the Asatru haven't provoked anyone, they haven't been a threat economically since the Calvinists took over Sweden and Finland and the mormons defected in North America. Oerwinde 07:20, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

It's not the fact that they are Asatru that is the reason they're invading, it's mainly because Scandinavia and Denmark are looking to regain their territorial holdings, and Scandinavia (one of their founding members, and a large contributor of troops) cannot contribute any significant amount of troops or ships, with several hostile nations on the border. The fact that the Asatru are pagans is only a bonus. And also, it's not right away, the BG is probably gonna take 5 years (at least) for the invasion forces to prepare. BoredMatt 15:01, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Denmark still has a significant Asatru population, probably about 60% after they conquered part of Midgard. If anything, the Asatru would want to invade Denmark and Scandinavia to regain their territory, since they control significant chunks of Asatru territory.Oerwinde 16:05, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

GP, but i doubt the Asatru would attempt it. Denmark would be backed up by the entire BG, and i doubt the Asatru have the manpower to take down even the Danish fleet by itself. And the Danes would probably be supported by at least a few HR or Scandinavian ships. Also, I doubt Scania would remain very Asatru for long under Danish rule, it lies right next to a major trade route, which would bring a lot o Catholic, Calvinist, and Hussite influence to the area. BoredMatt 16:33, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

The Asatru have specifically rejected Christianity due to its corruption, especially Catholicism, it would be EXTREMELY difficult to convert them to a christian religion. Sweden and Finland falling to Calvinism was extremely unrealistic already.Oerwinde 17:34, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

New people in charge
how is the people in charge now because Calthrina950 is blocked, and now might I take her country, Great Britain? VENEZUELA 01:14, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

No one has countries in this game. You write general history for the whole thing based both on the liklihood of occurance and personal preference. For instance, I`ve mostly written for Bohemia, Italy, Hanseatic Republic, and the Asatru nations, but I`ve also written for Spain, France, Britain, Muscovy, and every german nation. As long as its plausible, its fair game. For instance, you may want to make Ukraine the most powerful country, but they have a low population, few allies, very little military, and strong nations around them. They exist because they are economically strong, and don`t piss people off, so attempting to expand militarily would be disastrous. Habsburg right now is suffering from overextension. People writing them had them conquer huge swaths of land, but they don`t have the resources to hold it all. For an example of implausibility that slipped through, look at the Swiss Confederation. A small country with low population surrounded by strong nations. Suddenly breaks out and conquers most of italy, which was allied with the giant populous advanced Bohemian empire next to it.Oerwinde 08:08, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

BG Betrayal
I'm sorry, Owner, but the entire Asatru invasion was a farce from the beginning. Think about it. The GP basically let the entire military of the BG into their ports. Withdrawing Heanestic, Brunswickian, Hessian, and Swiss troops on the Swiss road turn off the road into the agricultural heartland of the GP. Most of the GP military is trapped in the Med, and a Portuguese blockade of the Straits would prevent all but an all-out assault on the BG forces, in which most of the GP ships would be destroyed or too damaged to continue. The roads that Scandinavia and Denmark built are a double-edged sword;troops can not only move up to the battlefront quickly, but back to their ports and ships just as quickly. I'm sorry, but I thought it would "reawaken" the game, and Oer partially agreed with me on that one. BoredMatt 22:12, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Pardon my french but this is complete BULL! Don't you think that their is another way to reawaken the map game?! Besides, what does that even mean? This is just stupid I agreed to to all of the BG things because I thought that this would strengthen their bonds and walk them away from war! You are taking advantage of my hospitality and I think that is just wrong, besides what reson could the BG have for doing this?! If you ask me this is highly implausible and I object! Why don't you just pit them against the Asatru for real instead! Hey thats a crazy idea alright! Ownerzmcown 22:43, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

I was gonna go after the Asatru, eventually. And what I ment by "reawaken", I meant to basically liven up the game. It's been getting pretty boring lately (as most available land has been gobbled up, and everybody is afraid to go to war with anybody, because it would probably mean the destruction of both countries). Long term, I was thinking that the war would begin to split the alliances (The GP would just be completely destroyed by the war, the BG would split over the conflicting goals of it's members, and the Hussites would split over....well, i haven't thought of that yet, but possibly because they are all being overshadowed by Bohemia in politics (but that doesn't make much sense either.) Then it will get a lot more interesting, in the Chinese sense of the word. BoredMatt 22:51, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you read the previous posts leading up to the suprise attack, it makes perfect sense.BoredMatt 22:52, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

And I'm sorry if you're pissed (really, really pissed), and that you put a whole lot of work into the GP, but I prretty much guided the entire BG from the outset, and I'm planning their downfall. It's how history goes. In the long run, this is probably gonna favor the HL more than anybody.BoredMatt 22:55, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

I say that we put it to a vote, let the players decide whether the GP falls or not, let the options be let the GP fall or rollback to before the invasions preperations! Ownerzmcown 00:13, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me, I just wanted to change it up a bit. BoredMatt 00:34, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

Great, get it up ASAP! Ownerzmcown 00:44, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha, no joke I actually don't know how to put a poll up. I'm not stalling, I'm serious. BoredMatt 00:47, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

Then get Oer to do it. Ownerzmcown 00:53, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

So it shall be written, so it shall be done. BoredMatt 00:59, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

Should the BG war vs the GG be rolled back? Yes No

Stop using the main page as the talk page.

^^'This makes no sense, BG controls all of the Hapsburg ports, and most of the Prussian ones. To get to Prussia, you would have to sail all the way around Skagens Odde, which is heavily fortified and protected by the Danish navy (and probably a good bit of the other BG navies as well). Before that, even, you would have to get through the Portuguese and Heanestic fleets at Gibraltar.^^'

'They would land in former Wurzburg. a lot like the Normandy landings take occupied ports and then move closer inland to defeat occupying forces, and secondly, give me a list of reasons why the BG invading the GP is plausible at all!'

'Well, the BG needs a direct line of supply with Hesse, and they are looking, long term, to inch control of the Med away from Bohemia and Italy. Ports in Africa, and the Suez Canal, would be needed if anybody wants to truly control the Med. Also, it was the perfect oppurtunity to invade. You let us dock our navies and put most of our armies in your home country; It was an amazing stroke of luck that Oer(this is before I had told him about my plans) had written in the withdrawal of Heneastic, Brunswickian, Hessian, and Swiss troops, as this puts them right in the middle of your territory, on the Swiss Road. Then, the coup de grace, was you having a good bi of your troops preoccupied in the Med, allowing the Portuguese to seal it off to all but an all-out attack, in which both fleets would be annialated. It was, to quote Weezer, a "perfect situation" '

You gave the how, but not the why, they wouldn't attack somebody without good reason, just for the purpose of conquering isn't really a good reason.

'I just stated the reason!!! The whole goal of this isn't about Europe, it's Africa!! The BG is out to get your canal!!!(and any other savory port cities along the way)'

So why don't they just invade Habsburg's African colonies?

Anyway, heres the thing with the last post as well, not only is the Strait of Gibraltar blockaded, ensuring that only a trickle of troops would make it back from the mediterraanean, if any at all, but the mass desertions of mercenaries and conscripts in Habsburg controlled North Africa due to their bankruptcy, coupled with the emboldened resistance and talks of annexation by Jerusalem in Egypt would ensure Habsburg would end up with nothing left in Africa if they're pulling their professional army out.

Also, New Germania would pretty much give the finger to anyone asking for troops. They have the British and Portuguese to deal with in the Americas, and they are in a much stronger position than New Germania.Oerwinde 04:23, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

And why wouldn't the BG attack Africa first? The BG has little to no influence in the Med, and, again, it was a perfect situation to attack Germany. Once the GP homeland is broken up, it would be far easier to swoop in and take over some very confused ports, and the canal. BoredMatt 13:55, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

Can someone give me the low-down of what's happening so I don't have to read all the way back. What's the BG and who is in it? What is the GP and who is in it? ProfessorMcG 13:36, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

Look under the alliances section, near the top of the page. BoredMatt 13:51, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

Its seems to me, that the problem isn't that this is implausible, which it isn't, its that Owner adopted Habsburg as his single nation and is upset at it being smacked down. Whats implausible is the Hessian, Swiss, and Hanseatic troops joining in. The Swiss had nothing to do with it, the Hessians I screwed up and aren't part of the Germanics, they're Hussite, and the Hanseatics wouldn't be anywhere near Wurzburg. Also, can someone explain to me what the P stands for in GP?Oerwinde 19:15, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

The P is for Pact. And the Swiss were founding members of the BG. BoredMatt 19:18, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

Wait Brunswick is Germanic and Hesse is Hussite? WTF? In every other post I've been writing them in as being BG!! BoredMatt 19:21, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, my bad, I went back. Hanseatics and Brunswick are British Group. Hesse is Hussite though. Wurzburg was the only Hussite nation not to join.Oerwinde 19:25, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, ok, I had thought Hesse was Calvinist, nvrmind. BoredMatt 19:26, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, well 2 days later, poll results say no to a rollback, though close. So it stands.Oerwinde 05:58, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Britain vs. Japan
I find it implausible that Britain could just go into Japan and conquer it in one year. The main reason we never invaded Japan was because we knew their huge sense of nationalism and pride would eventually screw us over, and besides, the Japanese army would probably beat them anyway.

Especially considering they were in the middle of a war in Europe. And the Japanese got guns from the Spanish and were unified. Whatever islands of the east indies not colonized by Spain or Jerusalem are probably Japanese by now.Oerwinde 23:11, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

Uhh, also, Japan was an ally of the BG at large (I forget which year, but the Brits themselves helped them retake Hawaii). BoredMatt 23:44, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

Kingdom of Germany
Habsburg got smacked down the worst of all, they're not unifying anything. The Prussian royals are fine, Prussia peaced out and lost some of the west, they were the best off out of all of them. Wurzburg was taken quickly and likely escaped less damaged than the others, though the Duke was likely either replaced with someone friendly to the BG, or forced to agree to a silly surrender treaty. Habsburg fought the longest and would be the worst off. With the previous King abdicating so recently they don't have the political stability to unify themselves let alone Germany, especially with their situation in africa so unstable.Oerwinde 09:12, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Also, I doubt the rest of Germany would like a Calvinist monarchy, as Prussia is Catholic and Wurzburg is Hussite. BoredMatt 18:53, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

30 years war
So first of all there are some nations here that don't exist, and second, what is the reason these nations go to war, and 3rd what are the sides?Oerwinde 17:17, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

I would assume the Protestant countries against the Catholic countries, and one invasion of an alliance of nations might have sparked it. I wasn't sure whether to remove that add-on or support it. Do you have a concrete opinion?--Emperor of Trebizond 17:30, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

I think we should remove it. If its going to happen it needs a spark, not just to randomly show up out of nowhere involving random nations.Oerwinde 19:57, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Bohemian breakup
So with the riots receding and Parliament having most of the power, why would the King being assassinated A)Happen, and B)Result in the breakup of Bohemia?Oerwinde 17:45, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was implausible, too, but I couldn't bring myself to delete it. I think it was plausible, however, in the event of such of thing, that the Byzantines, who are already giving food to Hungary, could do the same with Bohemia if they abandon Italy. Since the Byzantines rule the Greek puppet government, they have access to the Adriatic Sea. If their ships hugged the coast of Hungary to get to Bohemia, I wouldn't doubt that it would be possible. But, the post about the breakup was deleted, so, the idea will never go into effect.--Emperor of Trebizond 18:01, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Sicilians
So they get destroyed by Italy-Bohemia and lose all of their territory in Tunez and then decide to declare war on Portugal and Adana (and allies)? They wouldn't do that... ProfessorMcG 21:13, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention it would violate the peace treaty with Italy.Oerwinde 22:25, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

User: Mumby posted that, but I was reluctant to remove it, especially since I was told I didn't have the authority to remove obviously implausible posts.--Emperor of Trebizond 22:51, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Well I think we just may need to grant you that authority now. ProfessorMcG 03:18, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

Look, I'm sorry if some of my posts have been implausible. Its just that the map was different then, and I thought that the Italians had been pretty soundly smashed and driven north of the Papal States. But why does this one misdemeanour mean that all my posts are deleted? Bob 16:50, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Byzantine Nitpick
If the borders were restored to under Basil II, they wouldn't control Naples.Oerwinde 00:50, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes, they would. Look at this map here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Byzantine_Empire_Themes_1025-en.svg

All Italian territory under Basil II, both during his early and late reign, are restored to Byzantium.

--Emperor of Trebizond 01:20, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, ok, the map I saw had his territory south of Naples.Oerwinde 04:59, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Georgia
Might I be Georgia, I want to invade the Sassanids, Kurdistan, and Damascus. VENEZUELA 19:56, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can be Georgia. No one person has a particular control over a specific nation in this map game. And Georgia is already hostile with Muscovy and Belarus-Ukraine to its north. To expand any further would be folly and unrealistic. --Emperor of Trebizond 20:34, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

You may have noticed that there are few people leaning towards Britain and a few more people leaning towards GCF. This may be so, but anyone here has to accept the effects of what happens in the Baltic and both sides are keeping the fight fair. ProfessorMcG 01:24, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

Also, the AA never broke up. Georgia is still allied with Kurdistan (against the Sassanids). BoredMatt 21:41, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Scotland
I don't know why but I always believed that even though the rebellion was crushed the British installed a new government, one more friendly and inclined to do what Britain wants. ProfessorMcG 12:43, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

That is exactly what happened. Scotland did rebel once against the new government, the British crushed it again, and virtually turned Scotland into a puppet state.--Emperor of Trebizond 13:57, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been on in a while, and am too lazy to read the past 60 years. Is the same royal family still ruling Britain? Because, if it is, then that royal family was half Scottish, half Swedish/Scandinavian.

Also, SE Scotland is about the most un-Scottish part of Scotland. I'd think that Argyle or the Hebrides would revolt.

BoredMatt 19:37, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

And can someone explain why Scandinavia betrayed their 2nd-best ally (Livonia), and started a revolt there? Then, the map shows Estonia taking part of Finland, and Prussia taking Sundsvall (which happens to be the capital of Scandinavia) with no mention of it? And then Midgard takes control? Up until my school started and I stopped playing (1700, I think), Sweden had the best defense-oriented navy in the world (not to mention a professional army modeled after the Swiss, and mandatory military training from years 10 and up).

Just wondering.

BoredMatt 19:46, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

The same family you mentioned is no longer ruling England. Not to mention The British have been organized into a federation of states where the current monarchy loses some of its power. Scandinavia did not betray Livonia. They were on opposite sides of the war over Midgard, but never actually attacked each other. Scandinavia was unable to completely win the war because their government suffered attacks by Bohemian and Prussian agents. For more on the war, see the 'Midgard War' section on this page. Now, about the Scandinavian capital. Scandinavia suffered from a Communist insurgency induced by the Utopian Civil Workers' Republic of Prussia, which claimed the capital. When the republic fell to the Prussian monarchy, Midgard claimed the UCWRP's overseas territories, but these claims are mainly nominal, except in Finland. About Estonia, after a secret treaty was made with Scandinavia, Estonia became an independent state from Livonia.--Emperor of Trebizond 20:44, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thank you! But how does that explain Estonia holding part of Finland? BoredMatt 21:19, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

When the UCWRP of Prussia fell and Midgard claimed their Finnish territories (which the Prussians had seized via socilaist insurgency), it was part of Midgard for a few years and then, when the Midgard monarchy claimed the throne of Estonia, the Estonians attacked this Finnish territory and captured it, due to the weakness of Midgard garrisons there.--Emperor of Trebizond 21:30, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

So it would be plausable for Scandinavia to annex it without resorting to war? BoredMatt 21:38, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Against Midgard in Scandinavia, yes (Since their claims are nominal). Against Estonia in Finland, no...unless they did it with diplomatic pressure instead of military action.--Emperor of Trebizond 21:43, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I had meant. Also, when you had said that Denmark preparing for war on Midgard was impossible, you said something about the GCF; what is that? BoredMatt 21:53, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Oh wait nvrmind I see what it is. Sorry! BoredMatt 22:01, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

GCF stands for German-Czech Federation (To oppose the British Federation) and is a loose federation of Bohemia and Prussia. Both just recently invaded Denmark to take the pressure off their ally Midgard when it was attacked by the British, Habsburgs, Estonians, Danes, and Scandinavians. The nations finally knocked the fight out of each other and ceased hostilities. It was the Midgard war that was sparked when Midgard tried to invade Estonia to force it to accept the king of Midgard as ruler of Estonia, upon the death of the Estonian king. (The Midgard monarch was the next closest relative). However, the Estonians ignored them and dragged all of northern Europe into the Midgard War.--Emperor of Trebizond 22:03, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Sassanid Persians and the British
Is it really plausible for the British Federation to reach Persia and form an alliance with them?--Emperor of Trebizond 01:52, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Byzantine Empire and Italy
Note: For the record, the goal of the war between the Kingdom of Italy and the Byzantine Empire is for the Greeks to restore their south Italian lands as they were under Basil II, not to conquer Rome. (That's the original goal; if I don't post this people will go overboard with implausibility and start posting that the Byzantines conquered Rome and restored the Roman Empire in a year or such nonsense.)--Emperor of Trebizond 23:14, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

New World Map
I've only filled in what I can see on maps, and only coloured in empires. I don't know Muscovy's borders. If I have missed anything else out, please just stick it on! Bob 17:58, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Bohemia has south Africa as well.Oerwinde 09:00, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

Navarre
In the game, Navarre is OTL Gascony. And Navarre was a republic until the Spanish invaded. After the French and British partitioned Spain into seperate nations, Navarre became Catholic majority and nobles led a coup and put in place a Spanish monarchy. When I said it didn't go into France I meant France in the game. BoredMatt 20:35, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

Let's just leave it be. Changing it now will contradict some of the posts afterwards about the territory. However, I changed 'Historical Navarre' to 'Northwestern Spain', so I hope that's a satisfying compromise. Your map had the label 'Navarran Rebels' pointing into mainland Spain, so it didn't make sense, either.

Since Navarre does not control all of historical Navarre, it would function better as a federal republic. Besides, 2nd Republic of Navarre didn't look quite right, and wouldn't on a map. If you really care so much that Navarre gets all of its historical territories back, then it'll actually get more land this way. Spain is bargaining for a ceasefire with Navarre, and they, in return, can demand all of the remaining Spanish territories in OTL western France.--Emperor of Trebizond 21:11, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

It just doesn't make sense that the Navarran revolt would occur in an area that's not technically Navarre. Navarre had only controlled northern Spain for the past ~100 years, while OTL Gascony is Navarre in-game. Also, the British settlers settled in Bearn and Armagnac, not in OTL Spain. Even if Navarre does control northern Spain, then there would be a Catholic/Basque majority that would be able to overpower the ethnic French/English Navarrans. For the sake of plausability, let's just change it back. It makes no sense that the Basques would revolt for Navarre. It would be like France taking back Nice from Italy, and the locals revolting against the French. BoredMatt 14:54, October 2, 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the population only sided with the Navarran rebels because they were dissatisfied with the new monarchy, instead of being all Navarran nationalists. The Spanish would want to eliminate nationalism in that part of Spain, and some oppression and suppression would occur. I can see the people there much happier with a federal republic (Where they get to do a lot of their own governing) than an absolute Spanish monarchy. The people were stirred up first, by the ethnic Navarran groups, probably promising a free federal government. After being Navarran for a hundred years or so, they would be mainly indifferent to the conflict between two competing factions in Iberia unless they were promised some sort of new satisfaction, or reason, to side with Navarre.--Emperor of Trebizond 15:13, October 2, 2010 (UTC)