Talk:Principia Moderni III (Map Game)

=Resources=

Archives

 * Archive 1
 * Archive 2
 * Archive 3
 * Archive 4
 * Archive 5
 * Archive 6
 * Archive 7
 * Archive 8
 * Archive 9
 * Archive 10
 * Archive 11

Algo Template (WIP)
This algo template is being worked on in order to standardize algos, which will make it simpler for mods to check them and fix them. Once this algo template is declared official, a mod (probably me) will declare that at the start of the turn following the declaration, all algos must follow this format and if not, they will not be regarded as valid.

Feel free to comment about the algo template, suggest something that would increase it's effectivity, ask questions, or even suggest changes to the algo. Note that no matter what, nothing but the hundreth/thousandth digit of the Edit Count / UTC time * pi will be bolded in the algo.

Cheers, SkyGreen24 17:33, January 28, 2015 (UTC)

===Attacker=== *Location: **Location Bonus: *Tactical Advantage: *Nations Per Side: *Military Development: *Economic Development: *Expansion: *Motive: **Modifiers: *Chance: **Edits: **UTC (ABCD) = A * B * C * D = ** /  * pi = *Nation Age: *Population: *Participation: *Number of Troops: *Theaters of War: *Concurrent Wars: Total: ===Defender=== *Location: **Location Bonus: *Tactical Advantage: *Nations per side: *Military Development: *Economy Development: *Infrastructure: *Expansion: *Motive: **Modifiers: *Chance: **Edits: **UTC (ABCD) = A * B * C * D = ** /  * pi = *Nation Age: *Population: *Participation: *Recent Wars: *Troops strength: *Theaters of War: *Concurrent Wars: Total: ===Result=== ===Discussion===

Industrial algo update
Due to us beginning to drive into the industrial age, the algo needs to be updated accordingly, With this having happened in PMII with decent success (and one of our redeeming qualities that someone always updates the maps usually) we will be replicating this here (support was shown by multiple mods a few of which were PMII veterans.) This will be represented on a map much like the Game map, but with the colors replaced to represent differing industrial levels and when they started. A Chart to represent will go below this post and just above that a map (currently in progress) will be posted to represented our first industrializers. In extenuating circumstances the chart can be superceded to show a change in industrial development quicker than represented on the chart but this will only be for Meiji, or rapid German industrialization efforts.

In the algo a n algorythm multiplier would be applied to all wars with the side with a higher stage gaining 10% extra for each stage higher they are. an example would be in a war between Britain and France, the British are 3 stages ahead of the French in terms of industrial development (for whatever circumstance caused this) the British would multiple their ending score by 1.3.

If anyone is wondering, currently industrialization will be mostly in europe with a select few nations outside of the continent it would be currently taking place (nations with a realistic reason to adopt it as such such as asian nations with a extremely anti-colonial attitude, or something along the lines of Japan.) Industrialization in the Americas (when stuff goes independent) will depend on how the territory is when it gains independence and will more than likely have to be handled on a case by case basis like the outside of Europe industrializers. Stage 1= Stage 2​= Stage 3= Stage 4​= Stage 5= Stage 6​= Stage 7=
 * The Air Furnace is developed
 * Agriculture begins to rapidly shift with fertilizers and rest years for the fields
 * Chemistry develops in leaps and bounds
 * Steam Power is developed and water wheels are heavily utilized
 * Various chemicals are produced in large amounts
 * Health care and anatomic understanding improve, birth rates still high but death rates on a massive decline
 * Urbanisation begins on a significant scale
 * Paper mills develop with the tech to produce large reels of paper
 * Cloth factories begin using machines and steam power to increase productivity massively to keep up with population boom's clothing demand
 * Some revolutionary rumbles appear
 * Experimental Railways begin to crop up
 * Stronger cements are produced
 * Steel and Glass are avaliable
 * A few colonies and nations will have rebellions in this period
 * Ironclads and Artillery become widely used in combat
 * Revolutions by poorer citizens in cities become frequent
 * Wide use of civilian and military purpose use railways
 * Tanks and planes appear
 * Total War emerges with populations also targetted
 * Nationalism appears in larger multicultural nations
 * Atomic age begins a decade before the start of this age with certain nations able to make nuclear weapons
 * Wars between atomic powers CEASE, due to the threat and consequences of nuclear war
 * Colonies rebel for independence

Discussion
As Said Above, Industrialization aside from a few cases (and a case by case evaluation of tier jumps such as a US/German rapid industrialization, or a Japan Meiji or an Asian anti colonial reasoning) will be mostly within Europe and the Americas initially. As a relatively new person to the industrial tier buisiness i will be consulting PMII vets on how it was implemented but for right now due to ease the only two current industrializing states are France and Spain (and the other particulars will be worked out before another one joins the mix). Please bear with us while i gather the needed information to implement this properly.

The intended purpose of this is to prevent an unindustrialized state such as a disorganized tribe being able to deal a true and terrible blow to the Great industrial powers since this rarely happened, (and when it did it was usually due to vast numerical superiority, and even then it only happened once or twice). This is also to simulate a war and the vast advantages provided by industry in this case.

In the case of colonies, that can/will be handled by the mother nation. Plausibly most nations did not let directly owned colonies to industrialize (which is in fact represented by the fact that most colonies will be represented by the mother nations industrial colors). Colonies, under certain circumstances will be allowed to industrialize independently, and due to the access to technology and depending on their terms of industrialization (if they fought a 15 year war of independence like most of Spain OTL colonies) then industrialization will be a rather tough thing to propose to a new nation that would be essentially bankrupt right off the bat. Colonies that Gain Self rule or co-opting rule of any kind will also be able to industrialize in most cases due to the relatively open nature in which its being done. However a problem with this is how will you as a Colonial power manage your self ruling colonies industrial policy without inciting revolt.

This Era must be played carefully while the pertinent information is being discussed please be patient, but for now play on, enioy the game, and plan your moves Carefully

Map Issues
''' The issues of the previous map shall be cleared after each map to save up space, unless a discussion is still going on. '''

Emeraldie traded the Northern Bahamas for the Algonquian Antilles. They should also control Easter island, the Pitcain islands and the uncontrolled areas of French Polynesia. Dreamcaster1 (talk) 20:00, June 17, 2015 (UTC)

Hamburger, Dutch and British enclaves in India should be annexed into the respective 'vassals' they border. They shouldn't only be coloured lol. The only exception would be the British enclave surrounded by Venad, which should be coloured. Also, Burma has been conquered and should be merged with Bengal. Also, the Caliphate has expanded by 30,000 px in Africa. Also, India controls Seychelles.



Map of South Africa and Brazil by 1910. Fritzmet (talk) 00:53, June 22, 2015 (UTC)

As of 1910, the Moroccan Sultanate has expended a total of 45,000 px every 10 years, marking German West Africa no longer to expend anymore. Also, Morocco has conquered five West African countries during their colonial wars 1903-1905 and 1906 - 1908 and are annexed to Morocco immediately. Spain has expended African colonies highly so they blocked Morocco's eastern exploration. This is a map of Morocco in year 1910 right here.

Algonquia should look like this, including recent expansion and the 6% of the UNR (7000 px) won in the Second Winter War. ᐊ ᒋᐟᕀ ᐃᐣ ᕒuᐢᓯᐊ 15:13, June 25, 2015 (UTC)

I bought the French colony in Angola, not Crim. I also bought all the islands between Papua and Tahiti from the Dutch long ago, they're not Japanes. Also, I now control all of eastern New Mecklenburg. Thank you.Nathan1123 (talk) 00:50, June 26, 2015 (UTC)



Mongolia should be colored, and the state south of it should be colored a vassal. Harvenard2 (talk) 01:04, June 26, 2015 (UTC)

Labelled


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

Cultural


Now, I will attempt to list the myriad of cultures that are represented on the map. To do so, I will go by continent.

It is finished! 01:34, August 1, 2014 (UTC)

Religious Map
Alright, added another religion map. Map is based off of the 1655 Map. Same rules apply: List all changes below in the Notes section.

18:46, October 17, 2014 (UTC)

Color Key

All regions are shown according to their plurality religion.

Catholicism is yellow; the Western Church nations are shown in dark gold, and Catholic states whose churches function independently of the Roman Church are shown in pale yellow. Ludwigism is shown in bright gold. Eastern Orthodoxy is orange; Oriental Orthodox sub-branches are burnt orange. *Reformism is red. Sunni Islam is lime green, Shia Islam is forest green; Ibadiyya Islam is dark green, Assafi Islam is bright green, and Paganistic Islam is mint green. The Mastorava is teal blue, Hinduism is sky blue, and Buddhism is dark blue; the Bon religion is pale blue, and Mongolian Buddhism is grey-blue. Confucianism is purple, while Shintoism is violet. Other "pagan" religions are pink; the Mesoamerican pantheon is light pink, the South American pantheon is hot pink, the North American pantheon is fuchsia, and the African pantheons are all dark pink. Other religions will be added as needed.

Notes
 * Added Charismatic Christianity and Mogul Khanate is now Charismatic king Trevor 1 of wales (talk) 12:38, October 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * Added Lutherism for HollandDrPepperisbetter (talk) 22:27, June 2, 2015 (UTC)

Mod Event Grievances
Just so that it doesn't clutter the page, please post your mod event questions, comments and grievances here. This -should- be archived every five years.

=General Discussion=

Intro
As we all know, the PMIII algo is seriously biased towards the number of nations participating. And so, the mods (mostly me, Crimmyboo and MP) set forth to find a solution. And Pita suggested his new algo for AvA, which I decided to look into.

So I did. Since Pita is Asian, his mathematical skills are unsurpassed, which allowed me to more or less take the algo, with minor tweaks and adjustments. I hope you all read it through and give me your opinion on it.

Note: The industrial update will have a heavy impact on the algo, since we lack tiers. Second note: I'm using tabbers now, tabbers are cool. EDIT: Tr0ll doesn't like my tabbers. Third note: Numbers are not rounded up/down anymore. Everything stays the way it is.

Location
Location is a tricky one, since it usually only factors in the distance, while I also want to factor in the speed of transport etc.

Mostly, location goes by capital city, however I disagree with that. It will also include locations that are militarized (i.e. Rhein area pre-WW2). As you might've noticed, all but the 'at' locations are italicized. Why? Well, because the infrastructure and industrial development of a nation highly impact its ability to mobilize and get to a location in a set time period. Which is why each of the 7 stages will be given a multiplier that will affect the location.
 * At the location of war: +15
 * Next to the location of war: +8
 * Close to the location of war: +4
 * Far from the location of war: -4
 * Other side of the world: -8

Tactical advantage
This one will not be impacted by industrial stages, atleast not until modern times.
 * Attacker’s advantage: +2
 * Defender’s advantage: +5
 * Surprise attack: Attackers +6
 * Home is island: Defenders +4
 * Home is desert: Defenders +6
 * Home is jungle/tropical: Defenders +8
 * Home is tundra/arctic: Defenders +10 in winter, +12 in spring
 * Amphibious landing: Defenders +6

Strength
I decided to stay true to the ol' PMIII algo and thus, strength won't be that similar to AvA. Instead, a system similar to PM's Nation-per-side will be used.
 * L - +Industrial stage
 * M - +0.75 Industrial stage
 * S - +0.5 Industrial stage
 * V - -0.25 Industrial stage
 * 3 or more V and PU (PU=L) - -0.25 per extra V/PU (starting from the third one)
 * Much larger economy - +5
 * Larger economy - +3
 * Better military (weapons, armour, training, number etc.) - +3
 * Fully mobilized - +3
 * Naval dominance: +5

Motive
Motive was obviously going to be more PMIII-akin than Ava-akin, however I also decided to add a Sky twist to it. Vassal motive:
 * Economic (Gains land, resources, etc): + 3
 * Aiding Ally: + 3
 * Defending territory not held for more than 20 years: + 4
 * Defending territory not part of heartland but held for more than 20 years: + 5
 * Taking territory of similar culture but not part of nation: + 5
 * Pre-emptive Strike against a nation rapidly building military forces: + 5
 * Taking back territory recently held by nation but since lost: + 6
 * Aiding Social/Moral/Ideological/Religious Kinsmen who are being oppressed: + 7
 * Attacking to enforce political hegemony: +7
 * Defending Heartland from attack that will not cripple/ destroy nation: + 5
 * Defending Core/heartland from possibly fatal attack + 9
 * Defending from attack that will wipe out nation and culture: + 10 (pre-nuclear era), + 15 (post-nuclear era)
 * Defending from nuclear armed nation that has a motive over 5 and has not yet used their weaponry: + 10
 * Defending from nuclear armed nation, regardless of motive, that has used said weaponry: + 15
 * If a vassal that is fighting has revolted within the last 30 years, its motive is multiplied by 0.75

Motive is averaged

Morale
Morale is now separated from motive, as motive only affects the soldiers, while morale affects the whole population of a nation. Total morale is calculated in the same way as motive
 * Non-democratic Government: -2
 * Democratic government: +3
 * Government not supported by people: -10
 * WAR not supported by people (democratic) : -3
 * WAR not supported by people (non-democratic): -2
 * Troop Morale high (requires motive over or equal to 5, chance over 4, and larger strength: +5
 * Troop Morale low (any of the following: chance below 1, srength less or equal to 50% of opponents, recent war penalty over 8): - 5
 * Fighting Guerrilla War: -5 attacker, + 1 defender
 * Multiple concurrent wars: -10 (per nation and its vassals and PUs)
 * Defeat suffered within the previous two years: -2 per defeat

Chance
Good ol' chance. This one stays the same For NPCs, the chance will be defined as the thousandth place of z, using the exact same algorithm as the player nation.
 * Edit number = x
 * War declaration time digits multiplied (0s are treated as 1s) = y
 * x/y*pi = z
 * Chance = Hundredth place of z

Population

 * The population score is the number of digits in the population + the additional bonus, which is below:
 * +2 to the larger nation that is less than five times the population of the smaller.
 * +10 if the larger nation is between five and ten times the population of the smaller.
 * +20 if the larger nation is more than ten times the population.

Nation age
Goes by the last major change in the system of government.
 * Newborn nation (less than 5 years since gov change; 3 years if popular revolt) = -10
 * Young nation (5–25 years since government change) = -5
 * Maturing nation (25–75 years) = +0
 * Mature nation (75–200 years) = +5
 * Old nation (200–300 years) = +0
 * Ancient nation (300–500 years) = -5
 * Antique nation (more than 500 years) = -15

Recent wars

 * -2 for Leadership in any war in the past 15 years.
 * -1 for and Military or supply support in the past 15 years

Troop number
Same as old algo, the larger gets divided by the smaller.

Other stuff

 * Participation: +10
 * Treaty breaking: -5
 * Alliance breaking: -10
 * -1 per turn you have expanded.
 * If your nation has recently had a popular revolt soon after a new weak government was formed (like Adolf Hitler or Napoleon Bonaparte) your score is multiplied by 1.5 for all wars in the next ten years. However, you cannot have multiple popular revolts of this nature in a row without government changes in between.
 * City-states get a *0.5 modifier for the amount of territory they lose in the initial results algorithm and can take territory so long as the nation they take it from has territory to take close enough for the city-states to rule without it being considered a colony.
 * If you take 33.33% of your opponent's territory or more, you can topple their government and do whatever is plausible to their nation that you wish.
 * It may be implausible for a nation to take or lose the full amount of territory listed in the algorithm.
 * You can add together winning percentage scores in order to total 33.33% if all of the wars happened within a 30 year period.
 * A popular revolt requires over 33.33% to be put down, while one that isn't popular only requires a victory.
 * Small ports (e.g. Shanghai, Hong Kong), cannot be a nation in a war unless that port specifically is being attacked.
 * For measuring the length of wars, the turn war is declared counts as the first year if fighting takes place in it. So for example, if the algo says the war lasts three years, then the turn the war was declared counts as the first IF the target was also invaded. It is possible to not invade the turn war is declared, although this gives the enemy the possibility of mobilizing.

Result
The same as before.

(x/(x+y))*2-1=z

z*(1-1/(2*t))=%

Post your opinions below, hopefully with constructive criticism.

Algo reform discussion
Can we remove the tabs? All they're doing is hiding the content and making it harder to read. Also what does this reform do to address the actual problems that led to it? What does it do for vassals, for example? Also with this system an independent Gotland would probably repulse the entire Empire of Scandinavia, since they'd get +29 in tactical advantage alone. Tr0llis (talk) 16:25, April 5, 2015 (UTC)

Here's what I'd rather see, instead of basically all of this (EDIT: When I said all of this I meant location and tactical advantage. Sky has since edited to add more, which I have yet to read). Note I did not write this, and it is not finished. it's just a snippet I found: {{Hidden|snippet|

Location
Location goes by attacker's closest territory and defender's targeted territory, in which fighting actively takes place.

Attacker


 * 20 - Borders territory of enemy where fighting is actively taking place, in same continent
 * 15 - Attacking territory on the same continent, traveling primarily by land.
 * 10 - Attacking distant territory on the same continent or across major bodies of water; attacking neighboring subcontinents or regions (France to Russia, United Kingdom to Denmark, Germany to Syria).
 * 5 - Attacking territory on a distant continent (United States to Germany, Spain to Mexico).

Defender


 * 25 - Defending territory is part of core territory/homeland; area under attack is near capital or in easily accessible area from it.
 * 20 - Defending neighboring territory within home continent.
 * 15 - Defending distant territory or important/large territory on another continent (United Kingdom defending Canada or India).
 * 10 - Defending vastly distant or minor possession (United Kingdom defending Singapore).

Each nation or possession involved in combat gets a location, and each location is added up then divided by number of nations per that side.

Supply Lines
Attacker
 * 10 - Attacking an area that borders core sections of nation; easily accessible to troops and supplies.
 * 5 - Attacking distant area on continent, or via amphibious landing.
 * 0 - Attacking on the other side of the world, and/or with amphibious landing.

Modifiers
 * Added to each nation that is less than ten for supply lines:
 * 2 - Attacker has major empire at least twice as large as home nation.
 * 2 - Attacker has supporting fleet connecting their home nation to battlefield.
 * 2 - Attacker has intermediary territory between their home nation and the battlefield that can be used to supply or safe guard ships.
 * Added once:
 * -10 - Subjected to scorched earth retreat.
 * -10 - Blockade completely cutting off supplies to front lines.

Defender
 * 10 - Defending home territory or neighboring/nearby areas.
 * 5 - Defending disconnected or distant territory.

Modifiers
 * Added to each nation that is less than ten for supply lines:
 * 2 - Defender has major empire at least twice as large as home nation.
 * 2 - Defender has supporting fleet connecting their home nation to battlefield.
 * 2 - Defender has intermediary territory between their home nation and the battlefield that can be used to supply or safe guard ships.
 * Added once:
 * -10 - Subjected to scorched earth retreat.
 * -10 - Blockade completely cutting off supplies to front lines.

Tactical Advantage
Attacker
 * 25 - Utilizes blitzkrieg or rapid overpowering by advanced technology or superior numbers (WW2 Germany, Revolutionary France, European Subjugation of natives).
 * 20 - Is on equal footing to defender in terms of technology.
 * 15 - Amphibious landing or distant invasion; charge against superior defenses.
 * 10 - Raid or low quality attack.

Modifiers (Once per side)
 * Superior Numbers: 5
 * Siege weapons or artillery: 5

Defender
 * 20 - Defending

Modifiers (Once per side) }}
 * Superior Numbers: 5
 * High quality fortifications: 5

Tr0llis (talk) 16:30, April 5, 2015 (UTC)

Could've atleast waited till I finish it. However I will look into it. SkyGreen24 16:47, April 5, 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: I tried to implement the snippet version in previous algos, and it just doesn't cut it (note: I used 1 on 1 algos, to avoid the issues of the previous algo). I'm going to use the initial one, but with an adapted tactical advantage. SkyGreen24 18:17, April 5, 2015 (UTC)

Just a question, could we have a mock war with multiple nations per side just to see how its implemented for future reference?-Lx (leave me a message) 20:23, April 5, 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but I need ideas for participants, if you could help mayhaps? SkyGreen24 16:34, April 6, 2015 (UTC)


 * A war with multiple indian states perhaps? that area of the world is both fractured and devoid of player-states it seems.-Lx (leave me a message)Azarath Flag.png 19:48, April 6, 2015 (UTC)

Bengali Coalition
Result: 69.8
 * Location: +8+8+4+4+4/5 = 5.6
 * Tactical Advantage: +2 [Invaders Advantage]
 * Strength: +4 [Bengal] +4 [Jaunpur] +3 [Punjab] +3 [Bahamani] +3 [Udaipur] +5 [Much Larger Economy] +3 [Better Military] +3 [Fully Mobilized] +5 [Naval Dominance] = 33
 * Motive: +7+7+7+7+3/5 = 6.2
 * Morale: -2 [Non-Democratic] -5 [Low Morale] = -7
 * Chance: +0
 * Edits: 1674
 * UTC (08:53): 0*5*3*0 = 15
 * (1674/80)*pi: 350.601740141
 * Population: +8 [Population] +20 [More Than 10 Times Larger Population] = +28
 * Nation Age: +0 [Maturing Nation]
 * Recent Wars: -10
 * Number of Troops: 340,000/170,000 = 2
 * Participation: +10

Vijaynagara Empire
Result: 49
 * Location: +15 [At The Location of War]
 * Tactical Advantage: +5 [Defenders Advantage]
 * Strength: +3 [Vijaynagar]
 * Motive: +9 [Fatal Attack]
 * Morale: -2 [Non-Democratic] -5 [Low Morale] = -7
 * Chance: +1
 * ​Edits: 1604
 * UTC (08:53): 0*8*5*3 = 80
 * (1604/80)*pi: 62.9889327045
 * Population: +8 [Population]
 * Nation Age: +0 [Maturing Nation]
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Number of Troops: 170,000/340,000 = +0
 * Participation: +10

Results
(69.8/(69..8+49))*2 -1 =  0.17508417508

( 0.17508417508 )*(1-1/(2*2)) =  0.1313131313

13.13% of Vijaynagar now, and 22.5% of Vijaynagar from the previous war results in Vijaynagar getting toppled.

Algonquia
Total:
 * Location: 4
 * Tactical Advantage: 2+6
 * Strength: 4 + 3 +3 + 2.75
 * Motive: 7
 * Morale: +8
 * Chance: 8
 * Edits: 1620
 * UTC (17:27) = 1*7*2*7 = 28
 * 1620/28 * pi = 181.758
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 150,000/30,000= 5
 * Theaters of War: 0
 * Concurrent Wars: 0
 * Recent Wars: -6

Grand Union
Total:
 * Location: 11.68
 * Tactical Advantage: 5 + 5 + 6 + 4
 * Strength: 5 + 5
 * Motive: 5
 * Morale: -2
 * Chance: 3
 * Edits: 6399
 * UTC (17:27) = 1*7*2*7
 * 6399/28 * pi = 717.945
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Population: 8 +2
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars:
 * Troops strength: 0
 * Theaters of War:
 * Concurrent Wars: -10

Result
Not even going to finish this since Lx says he won't spend the resources defending the islands. If people want me to do it, I will later.

"This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 21:16, June 3, 2015 (UTC)

Roman Empire
Total: 99.5
 * Location: 8.5
 * Tactical Advantage: 2+6
 * Strength: 5+5+5+3+3
 * Motive: 7
 * Morale: +8
 * Chance: 6
 * Edits: 8845
 * UTC (19:37) = 1*9*4*4= 144
 * 8845/144 * pi = 192.962
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Population: 8+20
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 300,000/100,000=3
 * Theaters of War:
 * Concurrent Wars:
 * Recent Wars: -5

Africa
Total: 39
 * Location: 15
 * Tactical Advantage: 5
 * Strength: 5
 * Motive: 9
 * Morale -2
 * Chance: 2
 * Edits: 8845
 * UTC (19:37) = 1*9*4*4= 144
 * 8845/144 * pi = 192.962
 * Nation Age: -10
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Troops strength: 0
 * Theaters of War:
 * Concurrent Wars:

Result
(99.5/(99.5+39))*2-1= .4368 = .3688

Toppled in 3 years.

France
Total: 77x 1.5 = 115.5
 * Location: 8.5
 * Tactical Advantage: 2
 * Strength: 5+5+5+3+3+3
 * Motive: 3
 * Morale: -2
 * Chance: 9
 * Edits: 159
 * UTC (11:00) = 1*1*0*0= 1
 * 159/1 * pi = 499.499
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Population: 8+20
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 300,000/100,000=3
 * Theaters of War:
 * Concurrent Wars:
 * Recent Wars: -4

Brittany
Total: 63
 * Location: 15
 * Tactical Advantage: 5
 * Strength: 5
 * Motive: 9
 * Morale -2
 * Chance: 9
 * Edits: 159
 * UTC (11:00) = 1*1*0*0= 1
 * 159/1 * pi = 499.499
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars:
 * Troops strength: 0
 * Theaters of War:
 * Concurrent Wars:

Result
(115.5/(115.5+63))*2-1= .2941 = .2205

22.05% in two years, let me know if the situation changes.

Communist Coalition
Total: 31.17x 1.2 = 37.404
 * Location: 8.5
 * Tactical Advantage: 2+6 =8
 * Strength: 5+5=10
 * Motive: 3
 * Morale: -2
 * Chance: 5
 * Edits: 948
 * UTC (01:23) = 0*1*2*3= 6
 * 948/6 * pi = 496.357
 * Nation Age: -7.5
 * Population: 8+2
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: (390k+195k)/500,000= 1.17
 * Theaters of War:
 * Concurrent Wars:
 * Recent Wars: -5

Silesia
Total: 76
 * Location: 15
 * Tactical Advantage: 5
 * Strength: 5+5+3(Larger eco)+3(Better military)=16
 * Motive: 9+3/2=6
 * Morale -2+5+3=6
 * Chance: 7
 * Edits: 948
 * UTC (01:23) = 0*1*2*3= 6
 * 948/6 * pi = 496.357
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Population: 8
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Troops strength: 500k
 * Theaters of War:
 * Concurrent Wars:

Result
Next time, watch who you deal with.SkyGreen24

Discussion
Someone should really check my algos, I feel like I may be getting rusty, for some reason.

"This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 03:49, June 6, 2015 (UTC)

Invading a nation after giving them an ultimatum is hardly a surprise invasion.

Coalition of the East - Caliphate Front
Total: 77.5
 * Location: 8.5
 * Tactical Advantage: 2+6
 * Strength: 5+5+3+3+5 = 21
 * Motive: 3
 * Morale: -2+5
 * Chance: 8
 * Edits: 3925
 * UTC (16:07) = 1*6*0*7= 42
 * 3925/42 * pi = 293.58931346
 * Nation Age:
 * Population: 8+2
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 300,000/50,000= 6
 * Theaters of War:
 * Concurrent Wars:
 * Recent Wars:

Tartary
Total: 55
 * Location: 15
 * Tactical Advantage: 5
 * Strength: 5+3=8
 * Motive: 9
 * Morale -2-5=-7
 * Chance: 9
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Population: 8
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars:
 * Troops strength: 50k
 * Theaters of War:
 * Concurrent Wars:
 * Fronts:-7

Result
(77.5/(77.5+55))*2-1=0.16981132

Coalition of the East - Russian Front
Total: 76.5*1.5=114.75
 * Location: 8.5
 * Tactical Advantage: 2+6
 * Strength: 5+5+3+3+5 = 21
 * Motive: 3
 * Morale: -2+5
 * Chance: 7
 * Edits: 2056
 * UTC = 2*0*2*1= 4
 * 2056/4 * pi = 1614.778624
 * Nation Age:
 * Population: 8+2
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 300,000/50,000= 6
 * Theaters of War:
 * Concurrent Wars:
 * Recent Wars:

Tartary
Total: 54
 * Location: 15
 * Tactical Advantage: 5
 * Strength: 5+3=8
 * Motive: 9
 * Morale -2-5=-7
 * Chance: 8
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Population: 8
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars:
 * Troops strength: 50k
 * Theaters of War:
 * Concurrent Wars:
 * Fronts: -7

Result
(114.75/(114.75+54))2-1=0.36

Coalition of the East - Japanese Front
Total: 82.5
 * Location: 8.5
 * Tactical Advantage: 2+6
 * Strength: 5+5+3+3+5 = 21
 * Motive: 3
 * Morale: -2+5
 * Chance: 8
 * Edits: 91
 * UTC (00:01) = 1
 * 91 * pi = 285.8849315
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Population: 8+2
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 300,000/50,000= 6
 * Theaters of War:
 * Concurrent Wars:
 * Recent Wars:

Tartary
Total: 50
 * Location: 15
 * Tactical Advantage: 5
 * Strength: 5+3=8
 * Motive: 9
 * Morale -2-5=-7
 * Chance: 4
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Population: 8
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars:
 * Troops strength: 50k
 * Theaters of War:
 * Concurrent Wars:
 * Fronts: -7

Result
(82.5/(82.5+57))*2-1=0.245283018

Discussion
Toppled in 2 years I believe.

Czech-Polish Forces
Total: 52.5*1.2 = 63
 * Location: 15
 * Tactical Advantage: 2
 * Strength: 5+5+3+3+3=19
 * Motive: 7+3=5
 * Morale: -2-10-2-2=-16
 * Chance: 9
 * Edits: 960
 * UTC (00:24) = 0*1*2*4= 8
 * 960/8 * pi = 376.991118431
 * Nation Age: -7.5
 * Population: 8+10
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: (600,000+150,000)/150,000= 5
 * Theaters of War:
 * Concurrent Wars:
 * Recent Wars: -7

Czech Revolters
Total: 42*1.5=63
 * Location: 15
 * Tactical Advantage: 5
 * Strength: 5+3=8
 * Motive: 7
 * Morale 3-5=-2
 * Chance: 1
 * Edits: 960
 * UTC (00:24) = 0*1*2*4= 8
 * 960/8 * pi = 376.991118431
 * Nation Age: -10
 * Population: 8
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars:
 * Troops strength: 150k
 * Theaters of War:
 * Concurrent Wars:

Result
IATG informed me about recent war stuff I missed, it's tie now.

Invasion of the Falklands
 Andea  Total:69.5
 * Location:+8.5 (Andea keeps a stocked Military base on the Falkland Islands, as according to the new algo militarized territories can be used for location as well.)
 * Tactical Advanteges:+2
 * Strenght:+5+5+3+3+5=21
 * Motive:+3
 * Morale:+3
 * Chance:2*2*1*7, 2,119/28=75.67
 * Population:+8+10=18
 * Nation Age:+5
 * Recent Wars:-2
 * Troops: 90,000/10,000=+9
 * Multiple Fronts:-5

Dutch Falklands
Total:8.75
 * Location:+5.75 (Same logic as during the Hamburg War)
 * Strenght:+5
 * Tactical:+5 (Would not get the amphibous landing seeing as Andea has a base on the Island)
 * Motive:+5
 * Morale:+3?
 * Chance:8
 * Population:+7
 * Nation Age:0
 * Recent Wars:0
 * Troops:0
 * Multiple Fronts:-30 (From scraw)

Result
1 and done

Discussion
Alright so Amphibous Landing doesn't apply here considering I would use existing Andean Military presence to move troops into the war. Island also would probably not count, but if it does, it does. #PraiseRoosevelt.

Andea
Total:54.5
 * Location:-3.5
 * Tactical Advanteges:+2
 * Strenght:+5+5+3+3+5=21
 * Motive:+3
 * Morale:+3
 * Chance:2*2*1*7, 2,119/28=75.67
 * Population:+8+10=18
 * Nation Age:+5
 * Recent Wars:-2
 * Troops: 150,000/30,000=+5
 * Multiple Fronts:-5

Dutch South Africa
Total:17.75
 * Location:+5.75 (Same logic as during the Hamburg War)+3 (South Africa)
 * Strenght:+5
 * Tactical:+5+6 (Would not get the amphibous landing seeing as Andea has a base on the Island)
 * Motive:+5
 * Morale:+3?
 * Chance:8
 * Population:+7
 * Nation Age:0
 * Recent Wars:0
 * Troops:0
 * Multiple Fronts:-30 (From scraw)

Result
2 and done.

Discussion
#PraiseRoosevelt. 23:24, June 9, 2015 (UTC)

Algonquia
Total: 46.5
 * Location:+8.5 (Leased territory with heavily built up military infrastructure)
 * Tactical Advanteges:+2 +6
 * Strenght:+5+3+5
 * Motive:+7 (Beothuk)
 * Morale:+3
 * Chance:
 * Population:+7
 * Nation Age:+5
 * Recent Wars:-4
 * Troops: 250,000/30,000=+8
 * Multiple Fronts:0

Dutch Kolossland
Total: 10.75
 * Location:+5.75 (like Hamburg)
 * Strenght:+5 +3 +5
 * Tactical:+5
 * Motive:+5
 * Morale:+3
 * Chance:
 * Population:+7 +2
 * Nation Age:0
 * Recent Wars:0
 * Troops:0
 * Multiple Fronts:-30 (From scraw)

Result
(46.5/(46.5+10.75))*2-1= 0.62445414847 0.624*(1-1/(2*2))= 47% Collapsed in two years.

Discussion
Hmm?

Brazil
Total: 75.5*1.5=113.25
 * Location: 8.5
 * Tactical Advantage: 2+6
 * Strength: 5+5+3+3+5
 * Motive: 7
 * Morale: +3+5
 * Chance: 9
 * Edits: 960
 * UTC (00:24) = 0*1*2*4= 8
 * 960/8 * pi = 376.991118431
 * Nation Age: -10
 * Population: 8+2
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 100,000/25,000 = 4
 * Theaters of War:
 * Concurrent Wars:
 * Recent Wars:

Dutch Guinea
Total: 22.75
 * Location: 5.75
 * Tactical Advantage: 5+8
 * Strength: 5
 * Motive: 9
 * Morale: +3
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars:0
 * Troops strength:0
 * Conccurent Fighting:-30

Spain
Total: 30.25
 * Location: -3.5
 * Tactical Advantages: +2
 * Strength: +5 +3.75
 * Motive: +3
 * Morale: +3
 * Chance: +4
 * Population: +8+2
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Troops: 100k/20k = +5
 * Multiple Fronts: -5
 * Participation: +10

Dutch Africa
Total: 2.75
 * Location: +5.75
 * Strength: +5
 * Tactical: +5
 * Motive: +5
 * Morale: +3
 * Chance: +2
 * Population: +7
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Multiple Fronts: -30

Result
(30.25/(30.25+2.75))*2-1 = .83333333

.83333*(1-1/(2*2)) = .625 Discussion Hmm?

IT IS DONE

Spain & Japan
Total: 37.5
 * Location: -3.5
 * Tactical Advantages: +2
 * Strength: +5 +5 +3
 * Motive: +3
 * Morale: +3
 * Chance: +4
 * Population: +8 +10
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Recent Wars: -6
 * Troops: 200k/50k = +4
 * Multiple Fronts: -5
 * Participation: +10

Netherlands
Total: 6
 * Location: +5.75
 * Strength: +5 -5 (vassals and all) -.25 (for vassal 4)
 * Tactical: +5
 * Motive: +5 +9 (for the vassals)
 * Morale: +3
 * Chance: +2
 * Population: +8
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Multiple Fronts: -30

Result
(37.5/(37.5+6))*2-1 = .72413

.72413*(1-1/(2*2)) = .5431 Discussion Hmm?

Indian Empire
Total: 107
 * Location: +8
 * Tactical Advantage: +2 [Invaders Advantage] +6 [Surprise Attack] = +8
 * Strength: +5 [India] +5 [Much Larger Economy] +3 [Better Military] +3 [Fully Mobilized] +5 [Naval Dominance] = +24
 * Motive: +7 [Imposing Political Hegemony]
 * Morale: -2 [Non-Democratic] +5 [High Morale] = +3
 * Chance: +8
 * Edits: 1803
 * UTC (05:25): 0*5*2*5 = 50
 * (1803/50)*pi: 113.285831088
 * Population: +9 [Population] +20 [More Than 10 Times Larger Population] = +29
 * Nation Age: -5 [Young Nation]
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Number of Troops: 340,000/20,000 = +17
 * Participation: +10

Dutch East Indies
Total: 12.75
 * Location: +5.75
 * Tactical Advantage: +5 [Defenders Advantage] +6 [Amphibious Landing] = +11
 * Strength: +5 [Netherlands]
 * Motive: +5 [Defending Territory Not Part of Heartland]
 * Morale: +3 [Democratic] -5 [Low Morale] = -2
 * Chance: +5
 * Edits: 1803
 * UTC (05:25): 0*5*2*5 = 50
 * (1803/50)*pi: 113.285831088
 * Population: +8
 * Nation Age: -5 [Old Nation]
 * Multiple Fronts: -30
 * Number of Troops: 20,000/340,000 = +0
 * Participation: +10

Result
(107/(107+12.75))*2-1 =  0.787056

( 0.787056 )*(1-1/(2*1)) =  0.393528

''' That means, India can take away 39.3% of Dutch East Indies in a single year. Ofcourse I won't be taking all that but gives me the negotiating power. '''

UGK
Total: 67.75
 * Location: 5.75
 * Tactical Advantages: +2 +6
 * Strength: +5 +3 +3 +5
 * Motive: +7
 * Morale: +3
 * Chance:
 * Population: +8+2
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Troops: 100k/20k = +5
 * Multiple Fronts:
 * Participation: +10

Dutch East Indies
Total: 0.75
 * Location: +5.75
 * Strength: +5
 * Tactical: +5
 * Motive: +5
 * Morale: +3
 * Chance:
 * Population: +7
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Multiple Fronts: -30

China
Total: 6.5
 * Location: +8 .5
 * Tactical Advantage: +2 [Invaders Advantage] = 2
 * Strength: +5 (China)
 * Motive: +3 (Economic until said otherwise)
 * Morale: -2 [Non-Democratic] -10 (Government not supported by the people because of Civil War) -2 (WAR not supported by people (non-democratic (civil war) ): -10 (Concurrent wars)  - Low morale -5 (Chance below 1) = -29
 * Chance: +0
 * Edits: 106
 * UTC (15:21): 1*5*2*1 = 10
 * (106/10)*pi: 33.3008821281
 * Population: +9 [Population]  +10 if the larger nation is between five and ten times the population of the smaller.(Based on OTL 1900 estimates, China's population was about 6.69 times larger than Japan's population.) = + 19
 * Nation Age: 0 [Maturing Nation]
 * Recent Wars: -2 (Civil War)
 * Number of Troops: 10,000/145,000 = 0
 * Participation: +10
 * Alliance breaking: -10

Empire of Korea and Imperial Japan
Total: 107
 * Location: +15 (At location of the war)
 * Tactical Advantage: +5 [Defenders Advantage]
 * Strength: +5 Korea + 5 Japan +5 [Much Larger Economy] +3 [Better Military] +3 [Fully Mobilized] +5 [Naval Dominance] = +26
 * Motive: +5 [Defending Territory Part of the Heartland that is not a fatal attack) (Korea) + Aiding Ally (Japan) = +8 = 4
 * Morale: Democratic Government : +3  + 5 High morale
 * Chance:+8
 * Edits: 16,490
 * UTC (15:21): 1*5*2*1 = 10
 * (16,492/10)*pi: 5180.48628577
 * Population: +8
 * Nation Age:  +5 (Mature nation) 
 * Multiple Fronts: 0
 * Number of Troops:  145,000 + 5,000=150,000/10,000 = +15
 * Participation: +10

Result
(106/(106+20))*2-1 =  0.68253968252

(0.68253968252)*(1-1/(2*1)) =34.127%

The Chinese Invasion of Korea is decimated and the Chinese force is pushed back. Korea/Japan can claim 4% of Chinese land.

Imperial Japan

 * Location: +8 (Next to the Location of the War)
 * Tactical Advantage: +2 [Invaders Advantage] = 2
 * Strength: ) + 5 Japan +5 Korea +5 [Much Larger Economy] +3 [Better Military] +3 [Fully Mobilized] +5 [Naval Dominance] = +26
 * Motive: +7 (Attacking to enforce political hegemony: +7) +3 (Korea, aiding ally) = 5
 * Morale: -2 [Non-Democratic]  +5 (Troop Morale High) = +3
 * Chance: +9
 * Edits: 108
 * UTC (19:37): 1*9*3*7 = 189
 * (108/189)*pi: 1.79519580205
 * Population:+8
 * Nation Age: +5 (Mature nation)
 * Recent Wars: (Hamburg, Tartary, Dutch,) -6
 * Number of Troops: 442,000/50,000 (per Super's word of remants of loyalist forces)= 8.82 = +9
 * Participation: +10
 * Total: 79

Shun China

 * Location: +15
 * Tactical Advantage: +5 [Defender's Advantage] = +5
 * Strength: +5 (China)
 * Motive: +9 (Defending Core/heartland from possibly fatal attack)
 * Morale: -2-10-2-5-10-2= -31
 * Chance: +0
 * Edits: 106
 * UTC (15:21): 1*5*2*1 = 10
 * (106/10)*pi: 33.3008821281
 * Population: +9 [Population]  (Due to the Civil War Shun China could only realistically control about 100 million people, while Japan has about 72 million people = +2 = +11
 * Nation Age: 0 [Maturing Nation]
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Number of Troops:
 * Participation: +10
 * Total: 22

Result

 * (79/(79+22))*2-1= 0.564356435*1.5=0.846534653
 * (1-1/(2*1))= 0.423267326
 * 34.2%, Shun Chinese Government toppled in 1 year.

Chinese Coalition

 * Location: +8.5 (Next to the Location of the War)
 * Tactical Advantage: +2 [Invaders Advantage] = 2
 * Strength: 5 (Chinese Coalition, One Democratic Government, stated by Super)
 * Motive: Taking territory of similar culture but not part of nation (Beijing was never part of the Collition, it was only part of the Shun Dyansty, which collapsed earlier in the year): +5
 * Morale: -+3 Democratic -10 (Concurrent wars) -10 (Chinese Civil War) -3 (War not supported by people; you're wrecking what's left of your economy)-5 (Low morale)  = -25
 * Chance: +1
 * Edits: 111
 * UTC (17:10): 1*7*1*1 = 7
 * (111/7)*pi: 49.8166835069
 * Population: +9 + 2 (Japan now has about 80 million people while China now has 300 million people) = +11
 * Nation Age: -10 (New Born Nation)
 * Recent Wars: (Chinese Civil War): -2
 * Number of Troops: 600,000/500,000 =  +1.2
 * Participation: +10
 * Total: 1.7

Imperial Japan

 * Location: +15
 * Tactical Advantage: +5 [Defender's Advantage] = +5
 * Strength: +5 (Japan) +5 (Korea) +5 Much larger economy - +3 Better military +3 Fully mobilized +5 Naval dominance:  = + 26
 * Motive: Defending territory not held for more than 20 years: + 4
 * Morale: Non-democratic Government: -2 -5Lowmorale
 * Chance: +6
 * Edits: 112
 * UTC (17:10): 1*7*1*1 = 7
 * (112/7)*pi: 50.2654824574
 * Population: +8 (Japan  has about 80 million)
 * Nation Age: +5 [Mature Nation]
 * Recent Wars: -10 (Hamburg War, Tartary War, Dutch War, 2xSinoJapanese, )
 * Number of Troops: 500,000/600,000 = .83... = +1
 * Participation: +10
 * Total: 63

Result
(63/(63+1.7))*2-1= 0.947449768*1.5=1.421174652

1.421174652 X (1-1/(2*1))=0.14516129=0.710587326

After a hard fought battle, the joint Japanese-Korean defense of Beijing is successful. The joint Japanese-Korean defense may take 4% of The Chinese Coallition's land.

West Czechia
Total: 6.5
 * Location: 8.5
 * Tactical Advantages: 2
 * Strength: 5
 * Motive: 6
 * Morale: -2-10-5-10(Concurrent civil war)
 * Chance:1
 * Edits: 2412
 * UTC time:20:37
 * Result: 2412/42*pi=180.4171781
 * Population: 8
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Troops: 50k/100k =
 * Multiple Fronts:
 * Participation: 10

East Czechia
Total: 67
 * Location: 15
 * Strength: 5+3+3
 * Tactical: 5
 * Motive: 9
 * Morale: 3+5
 * Chance: 7
 * Population: +7
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Troops: 100k/50k=2
 * Multiple Fronts:
 * Participation:10

Result
Win in one year, counter-attack time.

East Czechia
Total: 62
 * Location: 15
 * Strength: 5+3+3
 * Tactical: 2
 * Motive: 7
 * Morale: 3+5
 * Chance: 7
 * Population: +7
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Troops: 100k/50k=2
 * Multiple Fronts:
 * Participation:10

West Czechia
Total: 12.5
 * Location: 8.5
 * Tactical Advantages: 5
 * Strength: 5
 * Motive: 9
 * Morale: -2-10-5-10(Concurrent civil war)
 * Chance:1
 * Edits: 2412
 * UTC time:20:37
 * Result: 2412/42*pi=180.4171781
 * Population: 8
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Troops: 50k/100k =
 * Multiple Fronts:
 * Participation: 10

Result
(62/(62+12.5))*2-1=0.66442953*1.5=0.996644295

0.996644295*(1-1/(2*1))=0.498322147.                  I am spending the day with my mom for her birthday and thus I will not be able to post by 5:00 PM PDT. May I please post after that? Thanks in advance. -KawaiiKame

Spain

 * Location: 4* 1.125
 * Tactical: +2 +5
 * Strength: +6 +5 +3
 * Motive: +3
 * Morale +3
 * Chance: 17895/24*pi = 2342.45002
 * Population: +8 +20
 * Troop Number: 70000/20000
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Participation: +10
 * Total: 75

Two West Africa countries

 * Location: 15
 * Tactical: +5
 * Strength: +4 +4
 * Motive: +9
 * Morale: -2 -5+1
 * Chance: 0
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Other stuff: +10
 * Total: 36

Result
(75/75+36)*2-1 = 0.351351351351351351...

35.13 * .75 = 26.3475 (another war coming later) gg west african kingdoms

wrong, mofo SkyGreen24

kind of right. biatch

Indian Empire
Total: 102.8
 * Location: +8
 * Tactical Advantage: +2 [Invaders Advantage] +6 [Surprise Attack] = +8
 * Strength: +5 [India] +5 [Udaipur] +5 [Punjab] +5 [Much Larger Economy] +3 [Better Military] +3 [Fully Mobilized] +5 [Naval Dominance] = +34
 * Motive: +7 [Religious Kinsmen]
 * Morale: -2 [Non-Democratic] +5 [High Morale] = +3
 * Chance: +8
 * Edits: 1875
 * UTC (19:23): 1*9*2*3 = 54
 * (1875/54)*pi: 109.08307825
 * Population: +9 [Population] +20 [More Than 10 Times Larger Population] = +29
 * Nation Age: -5 [Young Nation]
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Number of Troops: 640,000/50,000 = +12.8

Burmese Empire
Total: 27
 * Location: +15
 * Tactical Advantage: +5 [Defenders Advantage]
 * Strength: +5 [Burma]
 * Motive: +9 [Defending Territory Not Part of Heartland]
 * Morale: -2 [Non-Democratic] -5 [Low Morale] = -7
 * Chance: +3
 * Edits: 1875
 * UTC (19:23): 1*9*2*3 = 54
 * (1875/54)*pi: 109.08307825
 * Population: +7
 * Nation Age: -5 [New Nation]
 * Number of Troops: 50,000/640,000 = +0

Result
(102.8/(102.8+27))*2-1 =  0.58397534668

( 0.58397534668 )*(1-1/(2*2)) =  0.43798151001

''' That means, India can take away 43.7% of Burmese territory in two years. If there are any mistake with the algorithm, please fix it. '''

Brazil and Andea
Total: 110.19
 * Location: .66+3
 * Tactical Advantage: 2+6
 * Strength: +6(Andea)+5(Ferdinand)+5(Brazil)+5+3+3+5=32
 * Motive: 7+3+3=4.3
 * Morale: +3
 * Chance: 9
 * Edits: 960
 * UTC (00:24) = 0*1*2*4= 8
 * 960/8 * pi = 376.991118431
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Population: 8+20
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 180,000/25,000 = 7.2
 * Theaters of War:0
 * Concurrent Wars:0
 * Recent Wars:0

Zulu
Total: 41
 * Location: 15
 * Tactical Advantage: 2
 * Strength: 5
 * Motive: 9
 * Morale: -7
 * Nation Age: -0
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars:0
 * Troops strength: 0
 * Theaters of War:0
 * Concurrent Wars:0

Result
The Hesperian Coaltion collapses the Zulu in 2 years.

Discussion
No ambibous landing utlized as the troops would move through Cape Ferdinand

New Munich Pact
Total: 65.375
 * Location: 8+4/2 = 6.375
 * Tactical Advantage: 2+6
 * Strength: 5 + 6 + 2.75 + 2.75
 * Motive: 7+3 = 5
 * Morale: 3
 * Chance: +4
 * Edits:1,723
 * UTC (22:05) = 2*2*1*5=20
 * 1,723/20= 86.15 * pi = 270.648207107
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Population: 8+2
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 150,000 + 200,000/50,000 = 7
 * Theaters of War:0
 * Concurrent Wars:0
 * Recent Wars:-2
 * Treaty breaking (Art. 4 of Treaty of Reykjavik): -5

UNR
Total: 57.75
 * Location: 6
 * Helluland:15
 * UNR:  -4*.75=-3
 * Tactical Advantage: 5
 * Strength: 6 (UNR) + 4.75 (Helluand) + 5 (Econ) + 5 (Mil)
 * Motive: 9+5=14/2=7
 * Morale: 3+3/2=3
 * Chance: +8
 * Edits:6,855
 * UTC (22:05) = 2*2*1*5=20
 * 6,855/20=  242.75   * pi =  1076.78088202
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 8
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Troops strength: 0
 * Theaters of War:0
 * Concurrent Wars:-10

Result
(65.375-57)/(65.375+57)= 0.06843718079 6% can be taken.

Discussion
War declaration turn never said that it was declared in summer. Crim de la Crème 00:18, June 20, 2015 (UTC)

The twenty-year Nap from the Treaty of Rejkavik has expired. Could a mod look over this algo? Shikata ga nai! 02:15, June 20, 2015 (UTC)

Summary of complaints:

1) Scandinavia is far from location. If Crim is referring to Iceland, then that's stage 3 not 6 industrialization. You can't have it both ways

2) Helluland is not Scandinavia's "core" by any stretch of the imagination

3) Helluland is still land-locked

4) Borealia and Algonquia together have vastly mor popualtion than all of Scanidinavia

5) Tundra still cancels out

6) The Treaty of Reyjkavik has expired.

I think it's pretty clear crim is grasping at straws. Nathan1123 (talk) 02:36, June 20, 2015 (UTC)

(This algo is fixing up chance and the Treaty of Rejavik, I didn't change Nathan's complaints, I'll leave that to the mods.) KawaiiKame (talk) 03:00, June 20, 2015 (UTC)

I'm not the one who put the population/strength scores. Pretty quick to jump to that conclusion, I see. Helluland isn't landlocked by any sense of the word. If you can send a navy through the northwest passage (lol), I really don't see how you expect that argument to even stand. The tundra does not cancel out because the capital of Algonquia and Borealia aren't in tundras. Regarding the treaty, article 4 of the treaty does not have an expiration date. Crim de la Crème 03:46, June 20, 2015 (UTC)

Crim, even if Algonquia and Borealia don't have their capitals in tundra (I do, incidentally, good to see you never checked to see what my capital was), that's irrelevant. Their troops are attacking from tundra onto tundra, meaning that the penalty is cancelled out regardless of capital location. This is how it's always been done - look at the Mexacan-Californian War. Also, I'm assuming you agree with all of Nathan's other complaints, since you didn't respond to any of them? Shikata ga nai! 12:22, June 20, 2015 (UTC)

Crim, this isn't our first barbecue. You agreed to cancel out the tundra, and assume Helluland was landlocked the first winter war. Did geography change in 20 years? You yourself wish to retcon the decalration in summer, making the waters too frozen for any navy to be involved

Technically, this should come out the same way as the first winter war, except this time Scandinavia doesn't have the 1.5 multiplier. Thus logically Algonquia should win.

Also, I reiterate that Helluland is not Scandinavia's core, and is in fact far away from Scandinavia. If you're referring to Iceland specifically, then that's a much lower industrial stage then you gave. Nathan1123 (talk) 14:06, June 20, 2015 (UTC)

I personally agree with Nathan on the following.
 * 1) Helluland would be landlocked, just like it was in the original Algorithm
 * 2) Tundra would cancel out, just like it was in the original Algorithm.
 * 3) Since Crim emphasized on the point that the war had not started in Summer, rather Winter, than that would mean no presence of the Scandivanian navy in the Hudson Bay. However, it is quite possible for Scandivania to impose a blockade upon Algonquian Atlantic Trade.

It wasn't landlocked in the first war and it's not landlocked in this one. Looking at the algorithm, the tundra thing didn't cancel out. Hellulamd is fighting to defend its core and Iceland is aiding. Summer declaration wasn't retconned because it was never in the game to begin with. Crim de la Crème 16:07, June 20, 2015 (UTC)
 * I shall be quoting MP twice, in regards to whether or not Tundra should be cancelled out.
 * "Mexaca has desert as well, so I believe the respective bonuses cancel out, since both sides would know how to fight in desert." ~ Monster Pumpkin [1]
 * Yeah, the arctic thing should cancel, since both sides should know what they're doing, unless someone wants to initiate a challenge and suggest that they have no experience in arctic warfare. ~ Monster Pumpkin [2] 
 * The United Nordic Republic cannot expect to access Helluland via the Hudson Bay since it it frozen throughout Winter. There is no question of whether Helluland is landlocked or not [Which it is not] because the Hudson Bay being frozen prevents UNR ships from reaching Helluland regardless. The only case in which UNR troops could possibly arrive at Helluland would be in Summer and than, there would be no 'Tundra Penalty' for New Munich.
 * Regardless of whether the UNR can access the Hudson Bay or not, UNR can still impose a naval blockade upon Algonquia by blocking Algonquian Atlantic trade. Hence, UNR would receive 'naval dominance'.

Helluland isn't an independent entity. It's never been treated as independent, never been posted for independently, and never been anything more than a colony (which was established about 200 years too early). Setting that aside, however, Iceland's population in modern times is 300,000, and in 1900 OTL it was 82,000. Assuming a ridiculous rate of growth and a population probably living on the edge of starvation due to resource exhaustion and an inability to grow enough food to feed itself, Iceland could have maybe 150,000 ATL, plus about 25,000 apiece for Greenland and Helluland. This would mean Algonquia and Borealia have the +20 population bonus. Since economy follows from population at least to some degree, it's reasonable to assume Iceland's economy would be smaller, especially since it would be overcrowded and suffering from catastrophic erosion due to overpopulation. Shikata ga nai! 17:41, June 20, 2015 (UTC)

Crim, if you're pulling the card that "Helluland is defending it's core", (which would be stupid as it applies to everything) then you need to drastically take down the industrial strength, et. al. The rest of my above complaints still stand.

To be perfectly frank, I don't really care how this war ends up, I'm just sick and tired of Crim's cheating. Nathan1123 (talk) 21:14, June 20, 2015 (UTC)

So I removed the treaty breaking and tundra bonus and added the +10 for population. Shikata ga nai! 23:32, June 20, 2015 (UTC)

Tundra bonus needs to be discussed, as does the treaty breaking. Pop's a pretty decent estimate. Iceland has about 1-2 million, like in last war. As far as Helluland goes, it's counted separately, like in last algo. The cheating accusations are just lovely and always appreciated, so thanks for that. Crim de la Crème 23:37, June 20, 2015 (UTC)

Crim, we've discussed the tundra bonus. and thus far it's basically been you asserting it should be applied against logic and precedent. I'm not sure what else there is to say about that. The last algo was very wrong, so let's not use it as an example.

Iceland doesn't have 1-2 million. Iceland's carrying capacity, especially in the early 1900s, is not even remotely that high. As this source (http://www.academia.edu/3657970/Simulating_dynamic_carrying_capacity_of_the_Icelandic_environment_for_land_use_in_relation_to_past_and_future_climatic_fluctuations) says, Iceland's preindustrial carrying capacity was 30-60,000 people. Even assuming that this quintupled in the industrial era, which seems overgenerous, the maximum population Iceland could sustain would be 300,000 - roughly its current OTL population. Put 1-2 million people in Iceland and you'd get massive erosion, overexploitation of land, agricultural degradation and soon famine. It's absurd to think Iceland can have that many people.

Helluland isn't an independent entity. If you want to post for it separately, do so, but, as you said when you formed the UNR, "Iceland inherited Helluland". It's not independent. Assuming mods somehow let you treat it as such, the location bonus should be averaged between Iceland and Helluland, meaning it won't be 15. Shikata ga nai! 00:59, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

As previously discussed, the UNR is one entity in algos. I imagine that would explain the population, but if that's the case, then I want to know where the score for Helluland came from. Also the treaty thing is a bit iffy, but I see where both sides are coming from.

Everything else should be fixed. Let me know if there are any problems I didn't see.

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 02:27, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

If the UNR is fighting as one entity, algo should reflect that. Fix'd. Crim de la Crème 06:43, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

If UNR is to be treated as a single entity in the algorithm, than the following changes must take place.
 * 1) Helluland and Iceland must be removed from 'Strength' and replaced with UNR. Judging by the Industrial Algorithm Map, UNR would receive +6.
 * 2) While I am aware that the UNR is a heavily industrialized and modern state, I doubt UNR would receive "Much Larger Economy" in Strength. UNR should rather receive +3 for "Larger Economy".
 * 3) Unless the UNR opens a second front by attacking Algonquia and blockading the Atlantic, it is not possible for the UNR to maintain 'Naval Dominance' since the war is centered around the Hudson Bay and the Hudson Bay is frozen most of the year. Perhaps I should also mention that the UNR is currently engaged in conflicts in Helluland [New Munich Pact], Baltic Sea [France] and Namibia [Brazil]. Therefore, it is not possible for the UNR to expect to maintain naval dominance everywhere, and the UNR must state which conflict is it diverting its navy to.
 * 4) The UNR motive would be "Defending Territory not part of Heartland, but held for 20 Years". Hence, UNR should receive only +5 in Motive.
 * 5) Based off otl statistics, the population of UNR for 1905 would be 13,186,500 or roughly 13.1 million. Even if the Nordic population is vastly exaggerated and the population somehow tripled and became 39.5 million, I doubt the population of the UNR would be greater than that of Algonquia + Borealia. Therefore, the New Munich Pact should receive a population bonus, not the UNR.
 * 6) Finally, I would like to question whether the UNR has the capability to deploy and supply a force of 200,000 soldiers in Helluland. Given the geographical conditions of Helluland and the fact that the Hudson Bay is frozen most of the year, it would not be possible for the Nordic force of 200,000 to sustain the war. They'd collapse due to attrition.

What Rimp said. Also, the concurrent war penalty should be -20, not -10. And doesn't the fact that Helluland's industrial stage is 4 impact the UNR's overall industrial stage in some way?Shikata ga nai! 12:29, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

Note to MP: Crim undid your edtis, so you should revert his before adding the -20 penalty for concurrent wars. Thanks  Nathan1123 (talk) 18:05, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

I reverted to MP's version, with the single entity and full concurrent wars added.ᐊ ᒋᐟᕀ ᐃᐣ ᕒuᐢᓯᐊ 20:47, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

So I'm assuming this algo is done now.Nathan1123 (talk) 00:21, June 22, 2015 (UTC)

MP's version doesn't reflect the UNR being completely involved in the war in the slightest. Also, the concurrent wars thing is a flat motive debuff. It's not per war. Crim de la Crème 03:51, June 22, 2015 (UTC)

Crim, right now you're just reverting every single edit to the algorithm in order to have your version put in place. To clear out the problem, you can create a second algorithm under the name 'Crims version' because otherwise, you are just breaking the rules without any justification.

Crim, concurrent wars is per war. Ask any of the mods. Also, a large number of your reverts were blatantly wrong things like adding Helluland and Iceland separately and changing the location and recent wars penalties for New Munich. You changed the algo solely to increase your score, not based on actual algo rules. Regardless, all of Rimp's comments above still stand, in addition to your reverts being wrong in and of themselves, and I urge a mod to step in and prevent this from continuing. ᐊ ᒋᐟᕀ ᐃᐣ ᕒuᐢᓯᐊ 10:51, June 22, 2015 (UTC)

According to MP, the war is over. Crim lost. Now stop reverting the mods' edits.Nathan1123 (talk) 13:18, June 22, 2015 (UTC)

I've had zero contact with MP. Luckily, I have enough time to write my complete list of reasons why the current algorithm is completely and utterly incorrect. I'd like to first state that Iceland fights as a seperate entity. That's how colonial algorithms work. Mothernation plus colony. The fact that people seem to have forgotten this such a short period of time is alarming.

Let's start with location. Algonquia gets a 9 in that while Borealia, being separated by a fair stretch of land, gets a -4.5 in that due to the distance. The tundra shouldn't cancel out. Ditto for other locational mods. Wars aren't like chemical reactions or (ironically) equations. Things don't cancel each other out. Invading a tundra is hard, even if you're from the tundra. If Russia had to invade Siberia, you'd bet they'd suffer from attrition.

We aren't just fighting in the Hudson. We're also fighting in a stretch of land that Algonquia ceded to us last war. Even if they can't attack things in the Hudson/other northern areas, that doesn't mean Scandinavia isn't fighting in other seas. +5 naval dominance should stay like last time. Military dominance is a +3, not a +5.

Scandinavia has a population of 30 million easily around the world. Algonquia would be lucky to have the 5 million people Canada had around this time. The population of the western US around this time was about 10 million-ish. Even if they did get a population bonus, there's no way they'd get the +8 mod.

Borealia recently fought in a war in the last 20 years, so that's -2.

The concurrent wars mod is per nation involved, not per war. Now for Rimp's points. Helluland's the colony in question True enough UNR has arguably the largest navy in the world. Iceland's motive is -10. Algonquia is a culture with a history of genocide to European populations and aversion to its culture. The UNR's motive is 3, but even an 'aiding kinsmen' modifier could be applicable. Addressed in rant part un Not only true, but an endorsement for the universal tundra modifier.
 * Multiple concurrent wars: -10 (per nation and its vassals and PUs)
 * Helluland and Iceland must be removed from 'Strength' and replaced with UNR. Judging by the Industrial Algorithm Map, UNR would receive +6.
 * While I am aware that the UNR is a heavily industrialized and modern state, I doubt UNR would receive "Much Larger Economy" in Strength. UNR should rather receive +3 for "Larger Economy".
 * Unless the UNR opens a second front by attacking Algonquia and blockading the Atlantic, it is not possible for the UNR to maintain 'Naval Dominance' since the war is centered around the Hudson Bay and the Hudson Bay is frozen most of the year. Perhaps I should also mention that the UNR is currently engaged in conflicts in Helluland [New Munich Pact], Baltic Sea [France] and Namibia [Brazil]. Therefore, it is not possible for the UNR to expect to maintain naval dominance everywhere, and the UNR must state which conflict is it diverting its navy to.
 * The UNR motive would be "Defending Territory not part of Heartland, but held for 20 Years". Hence, UNR should receive only +5 in Motive.
 * Based off otl statistics, the population of UNR for 1905 would be 13,186,500 or roughly 13.1 million. Even if the Nordic population is vastly exaggerated and the population somehow tripled and became 39.5 million, I doubt the population of the UNR would be greater than that of Algonquia + Borealia. Therefore, the New Munich Pact should receive a population bonus, not the UNR.
 * Finally, I would like to question whether the UNR has the capability to deploy and supply a force of 200,000 soldiers in Helluland. Given the geographical conditions of Helluland and the fact that the Hudson Bay is frozen most of the year, it would not be possible for the Nordic force of 200,000 to sustain the war. They'd collapse due to attrition.

Crim de la Crème 04:02, June 23, 2015 (UTC)

Nice to see the total lack of sources there. To address the assertions plausible enough to actually deserve a response, let's start with Iceland. The UNR fights as one entity, regardless of whether its fighting in a colony or not. There's no reason fighting in a colony should give you an extra five points. The fact that you seem to have made this up, since it isn't in the rules, is alarming.

Yes, the tundra cancels out. This is how altos have been done throughout PMIII. If anything, given that you're shipping in a bunch of troops from mainland Scandinavia who have no idea what the climate and environment are like, in contrast to Algonquian troops who live in tundra, you should suffer the penalty.

I'd agree about the naval dominance. The population however ... Scandinavia's population OTL was 13.1 million, as Rimp said above. Adding in the Congo (280,000 in 1900 from the French Congo), New Zealand (500,000 on North Island) and Namibia (210,000 in 1900) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1900) increases it by about a million. There's no reason your population should have tripled ATL, and frankly, Scandinavia probably can't support 30 million people. Given that this is coming from someone who thought Iceland could support 2 million, it's safe to say we can discard these population numbers. But if Scandinvia can somehow have double its OTL population, so can Algonquia and Borealia. Pretty crazy double standard there, Crim.

Concurrent wars is per war, as I've heard from several mods. It doesn't make sense that a nation fighting eight concurrent wars would get the same penalty as a nation fighting one. Finally, your nation and culture are not under threat of being wiped out. Helluland is a poor outpost founded on genocide of the Inuit population. It's got at most 20,000 inhabitants, most of whom probably live on the edge of starvation (the fact that you somehow colonized Baffin Island in the 1700s is implausible in and of itself). Basically, it's as if you were living in a former gulag, but with the addition of no land connection to a friendly country. Algonquia isn't threatening to attack Scnadinavia and destroy the UNR. If you lose the war, your nation and/or culture will continue to exist. SO no bonus.

Finally, tundra has nothing to do with your 200,000 troops. The question is, how can you support 200,000 men in one of the world's most desolate, least populated regions, which barely supports a tiny population of hunter- gatherers, when you can't import food to feed them for more than half of the year? They'd be starving by January, mutinying by February, and collapse by March. I'm not sure what tundra has to do with that. ᐊ ᒋᐟᕀ ᐃᐣ ᕒuᐢᓯᐊ 12:03, June 23, 2015 (UTC)

Lose the arrogance, Kras. And disregarding people's arguments because they don't have a source is is a pretty bad idea. That link of yours assumes Iceland exists in a vacuum. If Iceland was on its own, yes, it'd be screwed. I'm really not sure where you're getting these ideas in your head, aside from the possibility that you're 'ignoring' it for more points.

You missed this point entirely. The tundra should not cancel out, yet it does. Sky and I have both raised this point.

Scandinavia has been a united power in Europe for centuries and the kings have issued decrees encouraging procreation. It's based its success on trade and its economy (giant navy notwithstanding). Algonquia is a nation of tribes that were somehow united and industrialized. It's killed a large portion of the population it gained through Arcadia. Borealia exists on the West Coast, which is a massive pain to get to.

The concurrent wars thing used to be per war, but the new algo changed it. I don't make the rules, I just enforce them. And you're assuming Helluland is poor when it's been a large trading colony in the Hudson for some time. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that the Inuit population was massacred when the capital city is literally called 'Inuit city.'

I should have been more clear on this point; I agreed that 50k was a decent number. Rex said that attrition would kick in with larger troop numbers. I noted that attrition happens to all sides, but attacking a target in the tundra is much harder than defending it.

These are descendants of the Vikings we're talking about. I think they know a thing or two about winter warfare. Crim de la Crème 13:30, June 23, 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, I should add in that the combined 2013 population for Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Nuuk, Faroe and Russian Karelia is 26.761 million. So, I doubt that the UNR would've above 30 million in 1905.

Also, I agree with Crim. Tundra shouldn't cancel out, and a notable example should be the Russian Invasion of Finland. However, since "Tundra getting cancelled out" was sort of a rule during the war, it shouldn't be added back to the algorithm now.

I'm guessing you agree with me about the population, since the only real reason you've offered for a doubled population is "decrees encouraging procreation". I'm not what that would do, since people tended to have the maximum number of kids they could support anyway until the invention of birth control. Kinda reminds of me of Scar's "our government encourages people to have more babies" ... but whatever. Iceland would under no circumstances have 1 million people or even half a million - even today, in an age of massive food imports and globalization, it suffers from chronic environmental degradation and erosion. Put a million people (or half that) there in 1900 and society would disintegrate in a couple years, no matter how much outside support it got. I'd agree that the population bonus should be +2, however, not +10.

If you agree tundra cancels, I'm not sure why it's even under discussion. I've been told by numerous mods that the concurrent wars penalty is per war, so I'm going to take their word for it rather than yours, given that you have a vested interest in that not begin the case, while they don't. Helluland isn't a "large trading colony" for the same reasons Nunavut isn't OTL - because it's frozen in for more than half the year, because it has nothing to trade except marginal amounts of ivory, and because any trade in Hudson Bay would probably go to Algonquia, it being larger, more accessible, and frozen in for less time.

Crim, the Inuit wouldn't have given up their land voluntarily, the same way Scandinavia wouldn't if a bunch of Inuit landed in Stockholm and tried to found a colony. The fact that you now control most of their land means that Scandinavians pushed them off it and let them die of disease, the same way that occurred OTL when colonization occurred (and incidentally, the same way I got rid of the Arcadians, not through active genocide).

You need to supply Helluland by sea, which freezes, cutting your supply lines for half the year. Algonquia has a railroad and supply chain constructed explicitly for the purpose of shipping food and military materiel to this region. Your troops are going to suffer a lot more from attrition, since they'll be basically starving for half the year, than mine. In short, I didn't discard your arguments because of their lack of sources, I discarded them because they make no sense. ᐊ ᒋᐟᕀ ᐃᐣ ᕒuᐢᓯᐊ 14:48, June 23, 2015 (UTC)

Spain

 * Location: 4* 1.125
 * Tactical: +2 +5
 * Strength: +6 +5 +3
 * Motive: +3
 * Morale +3
 * Chance: 17929/42*pi = 1341.086
 * Population: +8 +20
 * Troop Number: 80000/20000
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Participation: +10
 * Total: 74.5

Two West Africa countries

 * Location: 15
 * Tactical: +5
 * Strength: +4 +4
 * Motive: +9
 * Morale: -2 -5+1
 * Chance: 6
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Other stuff: +10
 * Recent Wars: -2 -2
 * Total: 38

Result
(75/75+36)*2-1 = 0.324444444444444444444....

32.44 * .75 = 16.2222%

16.2222 + 26.3475 = 42.5697

finally toppled after three years of bs

Tripartite Pact
<p style="font-size:14px;line-height:22px;">Total: 126.25
 * Location: +8 [Caliphate] +15 [Kingdom of Habsha] +4 [Udaipur] -4 [Formosa] = 23/4 = +5.75
 * Tactical Advantage: +2 [Invaders Advantage]
 * Strength: +5 [Caliphate] +5 [Kingdom of Habsha] +5 [Udaipur] +5 [Formosa] +5 [Much Larger Economy] +3 [Better Military] +3 [Fully Mobilized] +5 [Naval Dominance] = +36
 * Motive: +7 +6 +7 +3/4 = +5.5
 * Morale: -2 [Non-Democratic] +5 [High Morale] = +3
 * Chance: +9
 * Edits: 3950 + 1904 + 168 = 6022
 * UTC (17:37): 1*7*3*7 = 147
 * (6020/147)*pi: 128.698441904
 * Population: +9 [Population] +20 [More Than 10 Times Larger Population] = +29
 * Nation Age: +5
 * Number of Troops: 340,000/20,000 = +17
 * Participation: +10

<span class="mw-headline" id="Bengali_Coalition" style="border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-weight:inherit;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;">African Rebels
<p style="font-size:14px;line-height:22px;">Total: 48
 * Location: +15
 * Tactical Advantage: +5 [Defenders Advantage] +6 [Amphibious Landing] = +11
 * Strength: +5 [African Rebels]
 * Motive: +9 [Fatal Attack]
 * Morale: -2 [Non-Democratic] -5 [Low Morale] = -7
 * Chance: +8
 * Edits: 3950 + 1904 + 168 = 6022
 * UTC (17:37): 1*7*3*7 = 147
 * (6020/147)*pi: 128.698441904
 * Population: +7
 * Nation Age: -10 [Newborn Nation]
 * Number of Troops: 20,000/340,000 = +0
 * Participation: +10

Result
(126.25/(126.25+48))*2-1 =  0.787056

( 0.44906743185 )*(1-1/(2*2)) =  0.33680057388

'''Toppled in two years. '''

Brazil
Total: 59.5
 * Location: -4*0.75+8*1.125/2=3
 * Tactical Advantage: 2+6
 * Strength: 6 (Brazil)+5 (Brazil's colony)+3 (Better military) +3 (Fully mobilized)
 * Motive: 7=7
 * Morale: -2+5
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 8
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 150,000/20,000=7.5
 * Theaters of War:0
 * Concurrent Wars:
 * Recent Wars: -4

Namibia
Total: 51
 * Location: 15-3/2=6
 * Tactical Advantage: 6+6+5
 * Strength: 5 (Namibia)+3 (Larger eco)+6(Scandy I guess)
 * Motive: 9+5=14/2=7
 * Morale: -7
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 8
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars:-4
 * Troops strength: 20,000
 * Theaters of War:0

Result
(59.5/(56.5+51))*2-1=0.079069767

Why is my location changed for Porto Natal when it border's Crim's nation? Is that not "At the location of war"? Is my location multiplied by stage six, because I'm not sure how that works, but I think it should be. And please tell how Namibia has Scandinavia's full industry, even though the industry map shows it should have nothing, and even though Namibia being more advanced than most of Europe makes no sense.

Namibia isn't tropical it's desert. Why did you remove one of my nations, and all of the modifiers, like "fully mobilized". Brazil has naval dominance since it is blockading Namibia. For one Scandinavia claims it has several hundred ships, most moderators disregard the fact that Scandinavia has the navy the size of the modern United States; I believe MP called it "magic". On the other hand Brazil is (among) the only state with dreadnoughts and other advanced ships. I assume for Scandinavia to have hundreds of ships he must be counting every row boat as "flying the Danish flag". And do tell how Scandinavia can have naval dominance in a desert colony in Africa with hardly any ports due to half the coast of the nation being desert, while fighting several wars across the world. I could maybe see them having naval dominance in Europe, or even in the war with Borealia, but not in some obscure colony that he can't even remember the name of, when their actual homeland is at threat.

Before I declared war people joked in chat, "let's see if Crim teleports soldiers and supplies to Namibia anyway". Sure enough they apparently have 200,000 soldiers, even though at this time that is more than the entire population of Namibia and the surrounding area, and until the modern day the nation couldn't even support such a force. In the late twentieth century when Namibia was fighting for survival, they only had an army about one sixth of that. And with the naval blockade there is no way for Crim to get any reinforcements there. And why would he when Scandinavia proper is being threatened?

Why is my motive suddenly three when it is seven? It should be a seven because I am enforcing political hegemony, ie claims via the Conference of Alexandria. Crim needs a minus ten in morale since he's fighting multiple concurrent wars. Namibia should have minus one per every turn it expanded, right? Also Andea should be added. Fritzmet (talk) 14:19, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

'''THE VERDICT: Nobody gets naval dominance because both of you are more or less equalized. FRITZ does not get anything but Brazil and that colony bordering Namibia, for which he gets the location. FRITZ gets better military, CRIM gets large eco, atleast for now. I have no interest in editing this algo again, so both of you better be happy with the result.'''

Although you fixed a lot of stuff, there are still parts of the algorithm that Crim changed still there I believe. And regardless I'd just like some clarification. Firstly why does Brazil get -4 for location, and Scandinavia gets -3? I don't believe there is a -3 location, and Scandinavia is double the distance away.

In Crim's case I immediately multiplied 4 by 0.75, however I'll change it to -8*0.75

What are the tactical advantages here, how does Scandinavia have +17? Shouldn't that just be 2+6 for desert and defender's advantage? I mean if he's highly outnumbered and in some undefended, underpopulated portion of desert in a nameless colony, he hardly has an advantage.

As for tactical advantage, I forgot to remove amphibious landing.

I doubt Scandinavia has a larger economy when they're essentially in a mini world war. For their motive Namibia isn't exactly Scandinavian heartland, and this isn't a devastating attack, so +5; "Defending territory not part of heartland but held for more than 20 years" would probably be more applicable. What are the morale modifiers at play? Since there isn't a -7.

Scandy and Namibia have separate motives. He got +3 for democratic government and then -10 for concurrent wars.

Brazil should have a +2 in population since it has a larger population. And if we're only counting the population of the colonies then it would be +20.

Will do.

You forgot the concurrent wars. That's fairly important, he's fighting three wars at once.

He gets one -10, since it's morale, the other aspects of three concurrent wars affect his troops

I still kind of disagree on the naval dominance thing. I mean even if he had the world's largest fleet he couldn't do that. See the United Kingdom in WW2, they had one of the largest fleets ever, but they didn't have naval dominance in the Pacific Ocean. That goes to show how multiple wars can really draw away forces. And Crim is fighting three wars at once, including a primarily naval one, and one to defend his actual homeland. If he has a large navy almost all of it would be there, not in some colony with almost no ports and that he can't even remember the name of. And then not to mention that again he hardly posts at all and is presumably using wooden ships from last century. Even if he attacked me with a hundred of those they would probably all sink before they got to the battle.

He claims he develops his navy every time he posts, as for how often he posts, I leave up to you and crim to show me.

So I understand the need for compromise, which is why you're leaving parts out (although that also shows how far I can get with a tantrum), I think it's important to include parts you seem to have legitimately forgot. But I applaud your work during this stressful time Sky, and I hope the algorithm will finally be final. Fritzmet (talk) 13:54, June 25, 2015 (UTC)

Here is some proof of my naval development. Here is an exert from a single turn I've posted:

Further upgrades of the navy and its facilities continue, with modern shipyards having been completed in São Sebastião, Santa Cruz, Vitória, Belém, São Salvador, Santa Catarina, Fortaleza, and São Luís. Having become increasingly dominated by the battleship and its four heavy armament of twelve inch calibre, a secondary armament of six to eighteen quick-firing guns of between 4.7 inches and 7.5 inches calibre, and other smaller weapons, the navy becomes largely centered around these large ships. Experiences from the war with the Dutch concludes that medium-calibre armaments, around six inches, and quick-firing at short range, has become the primary weapon of choice at sea, especially after the Brazilian raid on the Guianas coast, in which firing did not commence until ships were within 4,000 meters. This range was gradually closed to increase accuracy, and with a high rate of fire these ships were able to achieve major success during the war. In order to increase the time in which Brazilian ships engage in the future, future designs begin to employ torpedoes effective in increased distances. The next evolutionary step comes when the quick-firing secondary battery is replaced by additional heavy guns up to ten inches. Possible refurbishing of older battleships is considered to match our current ships to this standard. A second plan is created that proposes the addition of eight, twelve-inch guns in twin turrets, or alternatively twelve, ten-inch guns in twin turrets, mounted at the ends and wings of the ship. The design focus of future battleships is forever changed to implement these larger configurations, increasing both the striking power and range of each ship. Each future ship is to have a more uniform caliber as well, helping to streamline fire control. A naval committee begins working on a new design for these so called all-big-guns battleships, a revolutionary new take on the ship’s design. The committee’s design calls for a twelve-inch main battery with anti-torpedo-boat guns but no intermediate calibres, with considerations made to reach an overall speed of twenty-one knots. Despite difficulties positioning the ships’ guns, the final design has twelve, twelve-inch guns, along with twenty-two, twelve pounders as secondary armament. The Committee also calls for steam turbine propulsion, a move considered unprecedented in a large warship. The greater efficiency of the turbines meant the twenty-one knot design speed could be achieved in a smaller and cheaper ship than if reciprocating engines were to be used. This new ship is laid down later this year, and is called the Fortaleza. In order to maximize construction resources are set aside before hand, or even pre constructed, and ships are constructed in an alternating pattern so that no one ship takes too much time.

Crim on the other hand has posted only three times in the last twenty years. You can search on the page and the archives for proof of that. So even if he does upgrade his navy every post, that's basically nothing, especially not in this day and age. And the closest thing to upgrading he's ever done is this:

"A new protected cruiser class, the Stejlt-Class, is produced. The Stejlt-Class is replacing the Jernskrog-Class cruiser, which saw heavy action during the Nordic Revolutions"

And you call that upgraded? Protected cruisers aren't even that great any more anyway. Fritzmet (talk) 15:00, June 25, 2015 (UTC)

Poland and Ruthenia and Romania
Total: 70+13/3=223/3
 * Location: 8.5
 * Tactical Advantage: 2
 * Strength: 5+5+5+3+3
 * Motive: 5+5+3/3=13/3
 * Morale: +3+5
 * Chance: 6
 * Edits: 1039
 * 20:29 = 36
 * 1039/36*pi= 90.66985464
 * Nation Age:-5+0/2=-2.5
 * Population: 8+2
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars:
 * Troop Strength: 1400k/700k=2
 * Theatres of War:
 * Recent Wars: -4

Pskov
Total: 54
 * Location: 15
 * Tactical Advantage: 5
 * Strength: 6 + 3
 * Motive: 9
 * Morale: +3-5
 * Chance: 5
 * Edits: 6498
 * 36
 * 6498/36*pi= 567.057474
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Population: 8
 * Participation: 10
 * Troop Strength:
 * Theatres of War: -10
 * Recent Wars:

Result
(78/(78+51))*2-1=0.209302325

Russia and Tartary
Total: 70.375
 * Location: 8.5+4.25/2=6.375
 * Tactical Advantage: 2
 * Strength: 5+5+3+3+3
 * Motive: 5
 * Morale: +3+5
 * Chance: 9
 * Edits: 2076
 * 21:25 = 20
 * 2076/20*pi= 326.0973174
 * Nation Age:-5
 * Population: 8+2
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars:
 * Troop Strength: 1400k/700k=2
 * Theatres of War:
 * Recent Wars:-2

Pskov
Total: 51
 * Location: 15
 * Tactical Advantage: 5
 * Strength: 6
 * Motive: 9
 * Morale: +3-5
 * Chance: 5
 * Edits: 6498
 * 36
 * 6498/36*pi= 567.057474
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Population: 8
 * Participation: 10
 * Troop Strength:
 * Theatres of War: -10
 * Recent Wars:

Result
(76.375/(76,375+51))*2-1=0.199214916

Croatian Dahomey/Spanish West Africa vs. Western GUK Holdings
<p style="font-size:14px;line-height:22px;">Total: 78.25
 * Location: 4.25
 * Tactical Advantage: 2+6
 * Strength: 5+5+3+3+3+5=24
 * Motive: 7+3=5
 * Morale: +3-2+5
 * Chance: 9
 * Edits: 3614
 * 20:57 = 70
 * 3614/70*pi=162.1959407
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Population: 7+10
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: -4
 * Troop Strength: 400,000/100,000=4
 * Theatres of War:
 * Concurrent Wars:

Pskov
<p style="font-size:14px;line-height:22px;">Total: 56
 * Location: 15
 * Tactical Advantage: 5+6+6
 * Strength: 5
 * Motive: 5
 * Morale: +3-5
 * Chance: 5
 * Edits:
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Population: 6
 * Participation: +10
 * Troop Strength:
 * Theatres of War: -10
 * Troop Strength:
 * Theatres of War: -10

Result
(78.25/(78.25+56))*2-1=0.1657335568

Dicussion
You guys never get tired from gangbang wars, do you...? Croatia participated in the previous offensive on Pskov and is also Communist, but why would Spain be getting involved lol.

Croatian Eastern Africa vs. Zlatobrezhie
<p style="font-size:14px;line-height:22px;">Total: 69.5
 * Location: 8.5
 * Tactical Advantage: 2+6
 * Strength: 5+5+3
 * Motive: 7
 * Morale: 3+5
 * Chance: 9
 * Edits: 3614
 * 20:57 = 70
 * 3614/70*pi=162.1959407
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Population: 7+2
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars:
 * Troop Strength: 200,000/100,000=2
 * Theatres of War:
 * Concurrent Wars:

Pskov
<p style="font-size:14px;line-height:22px;">Total: 53
 * Location: 15
 * Tactical Advantage: 5
 * Strength: 5+3
 * Motive: +5
 * Morale: +3
 * Chance: 5
 * Edits:
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: 10
 * Troop Strength:
 * Front:-10
 * Concurrent Wars:
 * Recent Wars:
 * Concurrent Wars:
 * Recent Wars:

Result
(69.5/(69.5+53))*2-1=0.134693877

Total result
(223/3/(223/3+153/3))*2-1+(70.375/(70.375+51))*2-1+(78.25/(78.25+56))*2-1+(69.5/(69.5+53))*2-1=

=446/376+140.75/121.375+156.5/134.25+139/122.5-4=

=0.646228906

0.484671679 in 2 years

Poland, Russia, Ruthenia
Total:  53.2(without recent war)
 * Location: 8.5
 * Tactical Advantage: 2
 * Strength: 5+5+5+3 = 18
 * Motive: 5
 * Morale: -2+5 = 3
 * Chance: 6
 * Edits: 1039
 * 20:29 = 36
 * 1039/36*pi= 90.66985464
 * Nation Age:-5-5+0/3= -3.3
 * Population: 8+2
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars:
 * Troop Strength: 1200k/1500k = 0
 * Theatres of War:
 * Recent Wars:-2-2-2 = -6

Pskov
Total: 72.25
 * Location: 15
 * Tactical Advantage: 5
 * Strength: 6+5+3+3 = 14 (lv6 industry, naval dominance, fully mobilized, superior economy)
 * Motive: 10 (nation will die, democracy will die, people talking about how to cut up my nation and make square puppets in chat)
 * Morale: +3
 * Chance: 5
 * Edits: 6498
 * 36
 * 6498/36*pi= 567.057474
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Population: 8
 * Participation: 10
 * Troop Strength:1500k/1200k = 1.25
 * Theatres of War: -7
 * Recent Wars:

Discussion
im sorry, but Russia and Poland are not seperate fronts, and dont give me any "Surprise attack" BS, because Poland was putting troops there for at least two decades, and I have been putting troops and fortifications as a response and in anticipation of conflict. Same with Russia. War was anticipated as soon as the "entire polish army" of 600k troops was at the DMZ. -Lx (leave me a message) 19:25, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

Croatian Dahomey/Spanish West Africa vs. Western GUK Holdings
<p style="font-size:14px;line-height:22px;">Total: 68.5
 * Location: 4.25
 * Tactical Advantage: 2+6
 * Strength: 5+5+3+3+5=21
 * Motive: 3+3=3
 * Morale: +3-2
 * Chance: 9
 * Edits: 3614
 * 20:57 = 70
 * 3614/70*pi=162.1959407
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Population: 7+10
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars: -4
 * Troop Strength: 200,000/50,000=4
 * Theatres of War:
 * Concurrent Wars:

Pskovian West Africa
<p style="font-size:14px;line-height:22px;">Total: 74
 * Location: 15
 * Tactical Advantage: 5+6+6 (West Africa, Pskov, Amphibious)
 * Strength: 6+5+3 = 14
 * Motive: 5
 * Morale: +3
 * Chance: 5
 * Edits:
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: +10
 * Troop Strength:
 * Theatres of War: -7
 * Troop Strength:
 * Theatres of War: -7

Dicussion
You guys never get tired from gangbang wars, do you...? Croatia participated in the previous offensive on Pskov and is also Communist, but why would Spain be getting involved lol.

Croatian Eastern Africa vs. Zlatobrezhie
<p style="font-size:14px;line-height:22px;">Total: 69.5
 * Location: 8.5
 * Tactical Advantage: 2+6
 * Strength: 5+5+3
 * Motive: 7
 * Morale: 3+5
 * Chance: 9
 * Edits: 3614
 * 20:57 = 70
 * 3614/70*pi=162.1959407
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Population: 7+2
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars:
 * Troop Strength: 60,000/30,000=2
 * Theatres of War:
 * Concurrent Wars:

Pskov
<p style="font-size:14px;line-height:22px;">Total: 62
 * Location: 15
 * Tactical Advantage: 5+6 (defender, Amphibious)
 * Strength: 5+3
 * Motive: +5
 * Morale: +3
 * Chance: 5
 * Edits:
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Population: 7
 * Participation: 10
 * Troop Strength:30k/60k = 0
 * Front:-7
 * Concurrent Wars:
 * Recent Wars:
 * Concurrent Wars:
 * Recent Wars:

People's Republic of France
Total: 30
 * Location: -3
 * Tactical Advantage: +2 [Invaders Advantage] +6 [Surprise Attack] = +8
 * Strength: +6 [France]
 * Motive: +3
 * Morale: -2 [Non-Democratic]
 * Chance: +4
 * Edits: 180
 * UTC Time (02:24): 1*2*2*4= 16
 * (180/16)*Pi= 35.3429173529
 * Nation Age: -5 [Young Nation]
 * Population: +8 +2 = +10
 * Participation: +10
 * Troop Strength: 50,000/50,000 = +1
 * Concurrent Wars: +0
 * Recent Wars: -2

United Nordic Republics
Total: 52
 * Location: -3 +15./2 = 6
 * Tactical Advantage: +5 [Defenders Advantage] +8+6
 * Strength: +6 [UNR] +5 [UNR Kongo] = +11
 * Motive: +5 +5/2 = +5
 * Morale: +3 [Democratic]
 * Chance: +5
 * Edits: 6,862
 * UTC Time (02:24): 1*2*2*4 = 16
 * (6,862/16)*pi = 1347.35054931
 * Nation Age: +0 [Mature Nation]
 * Population: +8
 * Participation: +10
 * Troop Strength: 50,000/50,000 = +1
 * Concurrent Wars: -10
 * Recent Wars: -6

Result
(47.85/(47.85+37.72))*2-1 = 0.11838261072

(0.11838261072)*(1-1/(2*2)) = 0.08878695804 = 8%

The French Peoples Republic should be able to occupy 8% of UNR Territory, within 2 years.

Vive la Scandinavie

Discussion
Seems fine now

Great War
I'm just putting all these algos under one big header to make it easier for me to edit the simultaneously {{Hidden
 * header=Germany vs France
 * content=

United Commonwealth of Germany

 * Location: +8 (Next to the Location of the War)  *1.125 = +9
 * Tactical Advantages: +2 Attacker's Advantage
 * Strength: +20 = +6 (Stage 6) (Germany) + 3 (Larger Economy) + 3 (Better Military) +5 (Naval Dominance) +3 (Fully Mobilized)
 * Motive: +5 (Pre-emptive Strike against a nation rapidly building up military forces)
 * Morale: +3 (Democratic Government)
 * Chance: +2
 * Edits: (Going off of IATG's edits here, since he declared war first): 3,544
 * UTC time: 23:50: 2 x 3 x 5 x 1 = 30
 * x/y*pi= 3,544/30 x pi =  371.126812144


 * Population: +8 +2 = +10
 * Nation Age: -5 (Established 1895)
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Troops:  2,000,000/1,500,000=1.33333...= +1.3
 * Participation: +10
 * Total: +57.3

People's Republic of France

 * Location: +15 (At the location of the War) *1.125 = 16.875
 * Tactical Advantages: +5 (Defenders advantage)
 * Strength: +9= +6 (France) +3 (Fully Mobilized)
 * Motive: +5 (Defending from non fatal attack)
 * Morale: -9 = -2 (Non democratic nation) -2 (Defeat suffered in last 2 turns) -5 (strength less than 50% of opponents)
 * Chance:+6
 * Edits: 183
 * UTC Time: 23:50 = 2 x 3 x 5 x 1=30 (Per IATG's declaration time, subject to change)
 * 183/30 = 6.1 x pi= 19.1637151869


 * Population: +8
 * Nation Age: Young Nation (24 years old) -5
 * Recent Wars: -2 (Kongo War)
 * Multiple Fronts: -5 (Spain)
 * Participation: +10
 * Total: 38.875

Result
(57.3-38.875/(57.3+38.875))=0.191577

19.16 * 5/6 = 15.96

Discussion
So, for future reference, Germany will always count as one country when going to war? Does this preclude any of the three player nations from fighting small wars by themselves? Just curious :) Callumthered (talk) 03:04, June 24, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Germany will always count as one nation, in all wars. Me and Guy have the idea that if any of us want to start a war, all three of us will need to somehow meet and discuss/vote on it. I was Normandy in PM2. It was great. (talk) 03:06, June 24, 2015 (UTC)

Seems fair enough, thanks! Callumthered (talk) 04:50, June 24, 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed 'Population' for you. Population doesn't get divided. Two fronts would give France -5, not -2. France also lost a war in last two years so that's a -2. Also, France never fought Hamburg War so removed that. Also, Japan invading you is a Concurrent War. }} {{Hidden
 * header=Spain and co vs France
 * content=

Lombardy, Spain, and Rome

 * Location: 8*1.125 = +9
 * Tactical: +2
 * Strength: +6 (Lombardy) +6 (Spain) +3.75 (Algeria M) +6 (Reme) +3 +3 +3 +5
 * Motive: +7
 * Morale: +3
 * Chance: 17966/8 * pi = 7055.231701
 * Population: +8 +10
 * Nation Age: -5+0+5/2 = 0
 * Troop number: 1M/500k = +2
 * Recent wars: -2
 * Other stuff: +10
 * 87.75

France

 * Location: 15*1.125 = +16.875
 * Tactical: +5
 * Strength: +6 +3 (fully mobilized)
 * Motive: +7 (non fatal)
 * Morale: -2 -2
 * Chance: 185/8 * pi = 72.64933
 * Population +8 +2
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Recent Wars: -3
 * Participation: +10
 * Multiple fronts: -5
 * Total: 44.875

Results
((85.75/(85.75+44.875)*2)-1 = 0.32327

(0.3233)*(1-1/(2*3)) = 26.93% in 3 years.

Discussion
This algo was so wrong it gave me cancer, so I fixed it.

As per Ace's post, France should get guerilla warfare.Nathan1123 (talk) 23:57, June 24, 2015 (UTC)

You care about that? I am more worried about how these guys are evading the -20 Concurrent War Penalty and how poorly 'Location' is done.

I fail to see why France would get a guerilla warfare bonus. I was Normandy in PM2. It was great. (talk) 00:30, June 25, 2015 (UTC) }} {{Hidden
 * header=India vs Rome
 * content=

Indian Empire
<p style="font-size:14px;line-height:22px;">Total: 86.5
 * Location: +8
 * Tactical Advantage: +2 [Invaders Advantage]
 * Strength: +5 [India] +5 [Vijaynagar] +3 [Fully Mobilized] +5 [Naval Dominance] = +18
 * Motive: +7 +7/2 = +7
 * Morale: -2 [Non-Democratic] +5 [High Morale] = +3
 * Chance: +8
 * Edits: 1945
 * UTC (13:56): 1*3*5*6 = 90
 * (1945/90)*pi: 67.8933079
 * Population: +9 [Population] +20 [More Than 10 Times Larger Population] = +29
 * Nation Age: -5 +0/2 = -2.5
 * Theatres of War: -5 [Caliphate Front]
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Number of Troops: 500,000/50,000 = +10
 * Participation: +10

Roman Empire
<p style="font-size:14px;line-height:22px;">Total: 40.5
 * Location: +15 -4 = 11/2 = +5.5
 * Tactical Advantage: +5 [Defenders Advantage]
 * Strength: +6 [Roman Empire] +5 [Roman Venad] +3 [Larger Economy] +3 [Better Military] = +17
 * Motive: +9 +5 = 14/2 = +7
 * Morale: +3 [Democratic] -5 [Low Morale] = -2
 * Chance: +5
 * Edits: 9020
 * UTC (13:56): 1*3*5*6 = 90
 * (9020/90)*pi: 314.857397
 * Population: +8
 * Nation Age: +0
 * Theatres of War: -5 [Caliphate Front]
 * Multiple Concurrent Wars: -10 [War with Russia]
 * Recent Wars: +0
 * Number of Troops: 50,000/500,000 = +0
 * Participation: +10

Result
(86.5/(86.5+40.5))*2-1 = 0.36220472

(36.220472)*(1-1/(2*2)) = 27.165354

That means, India shall be able to occupy 27.16 of Roman Empire land. I believe this means that Venad would easily be toppled considering that Venad would also fall within the 27.16% of the Roman Empire. Unless, the Roman Empire doesn't participate as L in which case only Venad would be affected and not the Roman Empire as a whole.

Discussion
}} {{Hidden
 * header=Russia and co vs Rome
 * content=

Russia-Poland
Total: 60.4
 * Location: 15
 * Location Bonus:
 * Tactical Advantage: 1
 * Nations Per Side: Russia (5) Poland (5) Tartary (5) Pskov 3  mobilized (5) =  23
 * Expansion: -2
 * Motive: 7
 * Modifiers: -3
 * Chance:  4
 * Edits: 9020
 * UTC (ABCD) = 1*9*1*4=36
 * x/y  = (3247.2) * pi = 786.744444
 * Nation Age: 0
 * Population: 8
 * Participation: 10
 * Number of Troops: 3 mil/1.25 mill =
 * Theaters of War: -5 (Japan)
 * Concurrent Wars:0

Rome
Total: 51
 * Location:25
 * Location Bonus:
 * Tactical Advantage:1
 * Nations per side: Rome (5) Georgia (5) Tartary  naval dom 10 = 205
 * Expansion: -2
 * Motive: 5
 * Modifiers: 5
 * Chance: 2
 * Edits: 2092
 * UTC (ABCD) = 1 * 9 * 2 * 6 = 108
 * / * pi = 60.8225
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Population: 10
 * Participation: 10
 * Recent Wars: 0
 * Troops strength: 1,250,000 (changeable estimate)
 * Theaters of War: -5 [Caliphate] -5 [lombardy] -5 [India]
 * Concurrent Wars:

Result
((60.4/(51+60.4))*2)-1 = 0.08438061041

(0.08438061041)*(1-1/(2*2)) = 0.0632854578

Russia can take 6.3% of Rome in 2 years as per the Russo-Japanese War.

Discussion
}} {{Hidden
 * header=Caliphate vs Rome
 * content=

Discussion
}}

Russia
Total: 59.5
 * Location: +15
 * Tactical Advantage: +5 [Defenders Advantage] +10 [Tundra] = +15
 * Strength: +5 [Russia] +3 [Fully Mobilized] = +8
 * Motive: +4
 * Morale: -2 [Non-Democratic] +1 [Guerrilla War] = -1
 * Chance: +9
 * Edits: 2,099
 * UTC (23:02): 2*3*0*2 = 12
 * (2,099/12)*pi: 549.691499
 * Population: +8
 * Nation Age: +0 [Maturing Nation]
 * Recent Wars: -4
 * Number of Troops: 2.000,000/1,000,000 = +0.5
 * Theatres of War: -5
 * Participation: +10

Result
'''(61.2/(61.2+59.5))*2-1 = 0.01408

(0.01408*(1-1/(2*2)) = 0.01056'''

This is what the results should be.

Discussion
This algo has many flaws. For starters, you didnt average the strength (divide the nation points by the number of nations)(acutally, conflicting sources on this so ignore this if its wrong). second, Im fighting in a tundra, so that, and I posted in my turn about guerilla war (Ive had a full guerilla corp since the first Pskov war). That is all Toby2: THEY CALL ME Mr. Awesome!!! 23:39, June 25, 2015 (UTC)

I fixed it, or tried to.

}} {{Hidden
 * header=India vs Kabulistan
 * content=

Indian Empire
Total: 118.9
 * Location: +8
 * Tactical Advantage: +2 [Invaders Advantage] +6 [Suprise Attack] = +8
 * Strength: +5 [India] +5 [Udaipur] +5 [Bahamani] +3 [Fully Mobilized] +5 [Much Larger Economy] +3 [Better Military] = +26
 * Motive: +7 [Hegemony in Asia]
 * Morale: -2 [Non-Democratic] +5 [High Morale] = +3
 * Chance: +8
 * Edits: 1851
 * UTC (07:35): 1*7*3*5 = 105
 * (1851/105)*pi: 55.3817
 * Population: +9 [Population] +20 [More Than 10 Times Larger Population] = +29
 * Nation Age:  +5 +5 +0/3 = +3.3
 * Concurrent Wars: -10 [War with Roman Empire]
 * Recent Wars: -4
 * Number of Troops: 2,300,000/75,000 = +30.6
 * Participation: +10

Kabulistan
Total: 41
 * Location: +15
 * Tactical Advantage: +5 [Defenders Advantage]
 * Strength: +5 [Kabulistan]
 * Motive: +9
 * Morale: -2 [Non-Democratic] -5 [Low Morale] = -7
 * Chance: +8
 * Edits: 4420
 * UTC (07:35): 1*7*3*5 = 105
 * (4420/90)*pi: 164.2871
 * Population: +8
 * Nation Age: +0
 * Multiple Concurrent Wars: -10 [War with Caliphate]
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Number of Troops: 75,000/2,300,000 = +0
 * Participation: +10

Result
(118.9/(118.9+41))*2-1 = 0.487179

(48.7179)*(1-1/(2*2)) = 36.53% in two years.

Discussion
Despite playing PM3 for around 400 turns, never have I dealt with this kind of bullshit where a flash player randomly joins to ruin a war and everyone keeps watching. So before I quit, fūúùüûuk you LL.

Where'd you get 2 million troops? All in Kabulistan?

08:28, June 25, 2015 (UTC)

I used my army to attack Kabulistan. The British Raj was able to recruit an army of 2.7 million during WWII despite widespread protests and riots. My nation is at peace, idk where's the problem. }} {{Hidden
 * header=Slavic League vs Poland
 * content=

Slavic League (Attacker)
Total:89.875
 * Location: 9+9+9+4.5/4=7.875
 * Tactical Advantage: 2+6
 * Nations Per Side: 6*4 (Croatia, Czechia, Slovakia, Silesia)+3 (Fully mobilized)+5 (Much larger economy)+3 (Better military)=35
 * Motive: 7 (Hegemony)+5 (Similar culture not part)+5 (Similar culture not part)+5 (Similar culture not part of nation)=5.5
 * Morale:+3+5
 * Chance: 9
 * Edits: 3671
 * UTC (9:46) = 9 * 1 * 4 * 6 = 216
 * 3671/216 * pi = 53.3925307
 * Nation Age: -5-5+0+0/4=-2.5
 * Population:8+2
 * Participation:10
 * Number of Troops:1800k/600k=3
 * Recent war: -4

Poland (Defender)
Total: 35
 * Location: 15
 * Tactical Advantage: 5
 * Nations per side: 6 (Poland)
 * Motive:9
 * Morale:+3-5-10 (Concurrent war)
 * Chance: 1
 * Edits: 1053
 * UTC (ABCD) = 1 * 9 * 4 * 6 = 216
 * 1053/216 * pi = 15.31526419
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Population:8
 * Participation:+10
 * Recent Wars: -2
 * Troops strength:600k

Result (Slavic League Invasion of Poland)
(89.875-35)/(89+35)=0.439439439439

This is just another formula for calculating, it's the same but a bit simpler for me to use.

Anyways

0.366199532 in 3 years.

Discussion (Slavic League Invasion of Poland)
}}

Quiting
Yeah, conquered Venad and destroyed Kabulistan... My job is done. Also before I leave, I would like to give a special "Thank you" to UT for ruining the war for Josh and Toby by attacking Russia. <3

Wait nvm. I can't quit until war is over... Who knows, the Mods may even allow LL to carry out his BS using India.

Mongolia
Total: 78*1.5=117
 * Location: 8*1.25=10
 * Tactical Advantage: 2+6
 * Strength: 6+3+3+3
 * Motive: 7
 * Morale: 3+5
 * Nation Age: 5
 * Population: 8+2
 * Participation: +10
 * Number of Troops: 100,000/20,000 = 5
 * Theaters of War:
 * Concurrent Wars:
 * Recent Wars:

Ugyhurs
Total: 43
 * Location: 15
 * Tactical Advantage: 2+6
 * Strength: 5
 * Motive: 9
 * Morale: -2-5
 * Nation Age: -5
 * Population: 8
 * Participation: +10
 * Recent Wars:
 * Troops strength: 20,000
 * Theaters of War:
 * Concurrent Wars: