Talk:Principia Moderni III (Map Game)

Archives

 * Archive 1

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)

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

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

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...  18:58, January 26, 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.

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

 * 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)

Total: 182*1.25 = 227,5+CHANCE

Muscowy

 * 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))

Total: 52+CHANCE

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

The Coalition can take up to 62.7% of Muscovy.

After 2 years, the Coalition can take 47.025% of Muscovy, resulting in an overthrow of government.
 * (62.7)*(1-1/(2*2))= 47.025%

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

 * 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)

Total: 187

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

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. 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.
 * 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.

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

22:11, February 4, 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
 * Close to the location of the war

Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Attackers Advantage

Nations Per Side on the War: 0

Military Development: 0
 * Development: 0

Motive: 7
 * Economic (Gains land, resorce, etc)

Chance: 9
 * Declaration of war: 15:04 UTC
 * 213/10*π= 66. 9 159235214626

Nation Age: 5
 * 1403-1293= 110
 * Mature nation (75-200 years)= +5

Population: 16
 * 150.000
 * +10 if the larger nation is between five and ten times the population of the smaller

Participation: 10

Recent Wars: -

Vassals and Puppets: *1.25

Total: 62
 * 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) = 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
Total: 122
 * 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

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.

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]]

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)

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
Total: 245+Chance
 * Location: 17
 * 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
 * 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))

Total: 41+CHANCE

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. Bye, bye Europe!!! 20:20, February 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * Ed - Go get Russia!
 * Ms - Go get Germany!
 * Everyone Else - Go have fun!

UNC(Attacker)
Total: 144.5 145l
 * 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

Hamburg(Defender)
Total: 69*1.25 = 89
 * 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

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)

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)

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)
Total:=140
 * Location: +20
 * Tactical Advantage: +2
 * Nations: +25 = Castile(L) +4 Venetia (L) +4 Naples (M) +3 France (M) +3 Angoulme (M) +3 Swiss Confed (M) +3  Ferrara (M) +3 Mantua (M) +3 Andorra (M) +3 =8/2=4 +21 = 25
 * Military Development: +12 (together)
 * Economic Development: +12 (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: TBA
 * Edit count: 4,133
 * UTC: 0 (0) = 12:25
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: 129 (+5)
 * Population: +8  +10 (5 times more than morocco) +18
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Vassals and Puppets: x1.25

Marinid Morocco Two (Defender)
Total: 90
 * Location: +25
 * Tactical Advantage: +3
 * Nations: +10 = Morocco (L) +4 Algiers(S) +2 Tunisia (S) +2 Zab (S) +2 Gafsan (S) +2
 * Military Development: +2
 * Economic Development: +2
 * Expansion: 0
 * Infrastructure: +2
 * Motive: +10 (taking back territory recently held, non dem supported govt)
 * Chance: TBD
 * Edit count: TBD
 * UTC: 0 (0) = TBD
 * Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) =
 * Nation Age: +5 (161)
 * Population: +3
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: +0
 * Vassals and Puppets: x1.25

Result

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

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... Castile (Attacker) Location: 20 Tactical Advantage: 2 Nations: Castile(L) +4 Venetia (L) +4 Naples (M) +3 France (M) +3 Angoulme (M) +3 Swiss Confed (M) +3 Ferrara (M) +3 Mantua (M) +3 Andorra (M) +3 = 29/16 = 2 Military Development: 12/9=1 Economic Development: 12+5/4=4 Expansion: -4 (Castile) Infrastructure: N/A Motive: 9 (Pre-Emptive strike, non dem supported) Chance: TBA Edit count: 4,133 UTC: 0 (0) = 12:25 Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) = Nation Age: 5 (129) Population: 8 Participation: 10 Recent Wars: -2 Vassals and Puppets: x1.25 Total:=55*1.25= 68.75= 69

Marinid Morocco Two (Defender) Location: 25 Tactical Advantage: 4 (Coordination, High Ground) Nations: 0 Morocco (L) +4 Algiers(M) +3 Tunisia (M) +3 Zab (M) +3 Gafsan (M) +3 = 16 Military Development: 0 (9/12) Economic Development: 0 (4/12) Expansion: 0 Infrastructure: 4 Motive: 13 (defending from possibly cripplling attack, non dem supported govt) Chance: TBD Edit count: TBD UTC: 0 (0) = TBD Total: 0/0*pi (3.14159265359) = Nation Age: 5 (161) Population: 7 Participation: 10 Recent Wars: 0 Vassals and Puppets: x1.25 Total: 64*1.25=80 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)