Talk:Principia Moderni III (Map Game)

Labelled


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

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

Note rough, this image is far from perfect, but attempts (I feel effectively) to convey the different cultures within the PM3 world.
 * Dark Brown - North American
 * Light Brown - South American
 * Dark Red - Central African
 * Red - Southern Africa
 * Light Green - Arab
 * Dark Green - Turkish
 * Light Yellow - Mongol
 * Yellow - East Asian
 * Olive Green - Indian
 * Teal Blue - Indonesian
 * Dark Purple - Greek
 * Light Purple - Slavic
 * Dark Blue - Celtic
 * Light Pink - German
 * Dark Pink - Scandinavian
 * Red-Pink - British
 * Light Blue - Italian
 * Perwinkle - French
 * Blue - Iberian

Religious


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

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

HEY!
Hello Everyone, I'm Rcchang (talk) and I would like to join?!? How can join? Thanks.

Initial Discussions
We agreed that we would not make the page until 1 January 2014. Sorry that memo was not communicated here. Mscoree (talk) 19:31, December 23, 2013 (UTC)

Its under construction, these things aren't done overnight. Scandinator (talk) 01:44, December 24, 2013 (UTC)

Im claiming the Timurids just so ya know. DS|The Rainbow Machete 22:42, December 27, 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being mostly useless last game, I'll try to use my brain this time :D Airlinesguy (talk) 15:15, December 28, 2013 (UTC)

One last warning to anyone claiming anything in Italy. Don't want to ruin the game for anyone, but your game will be pretty short if you're in Italy. CrimsonAssassin- "I have special eyes" 14:03, December 29, 2013 (UTC)

Korea is not a vassal to china. Japan owns korea. ShadowKnights1234 12/29/13 10:20 (EST)

Aborigines? Mafia CBA doing his signature. Don't judge Him. This Sig is inspired by Guns. 16:05, December 29, 2013 (UTC)

The nation list is not complete. This page is under construction. Mscoree (talk) 16:12, December 29, 2013 (UTC)

Can I add the Aborigines? And under what name should I add them, if I can add them? Mafia CBA doing his signature. Don't judge Him. This Sig is inspired by Guns. 16:13, December 29, 2013 (UTC)

Shadow, Korea was always a vassal of China up until the 1910s. Japanese never able to successful invade and conquer Korea, and it remained under Chinese protection until 1912 when Japan annexed it following the collapse of the Qing Empire, which could no longer defend Korea. And besides, the first Japanese invasion of Korea didn't take place until 1593, two hundred years from the game start, and before that, Japan wasn't even unified. As of 1400, both China and Korea are in better positions that Japan. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 22:26, December 29, 2013 (UTC)

Maybe in PM4 Ill be a mod lol DS|The Rainbow Machete 12:54, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

^Weep for this game's future.

Genoa is not a French vassal, hell it even was a naval supperpower at that time. OCT MARIUS, HAIL HIM

Actually, Oct is right. Genoa wasn't a vassal until the Doge (wow such Genoan. Much naval. Wow) of Genoa signed Genoa as a French vassal in 1458. That being said, Oct, it really went downhill since it had a really costly war with Venice. That and the rising Ottomans killed the power Genoa held in the 14th century. That being said, it isn't impossible to get it back. CrimsonAssassin- "I have special eyes" 16:20, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

Of course, Genoa will most probably be devastated after with someone else, am I right, Crim?

17:31, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

lol. Doge... Much Map Game. Many ASB. Very PMII. 17:58, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

So Caliphate. Such Wales. Much ASB wow doge.

18:11, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

GUYS, can we just get this organized? I swear, the Soviet Union was better off then this.

I believe Lx claimed Novgorod. Out of tradition we should respect this claim.

21:09, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

Numerous parts of Eastern Europe seem to be missing from the list. For example, I don't see Poland-Lithuania or Moldova anywhere. 77topaz (talk) 23:42, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

The nation list is not complete. This page is under construction. Mscoree (talk) 23:44, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

Mmmm... a Labelled map please. because france is certainly causing some confusion to me. 0.o to many states and idk for sure which ones i control. Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 00:23, December 31, 2013 (UTC)

Once the official map is done and colored, a labeled map will likely follow. Mscoree (talk) 00:29, December 31, 2013 (UTC)

@Oct, My apologies, I took information from the wrong source.

@Everyone else, I'm creating the nations list as I work trough what is on the map and what isn't, the map is slightly larger and much more complex this time around with the borders completely accurate to the start of the 15th century. A labelled map will follow the completion of the game map to my satisfaction. Scandinator (talk) 04:43, December 31, 2013 (UTC)

The Luxembourg states have their own section, but Luxembourg also appears in the main HRE list; and, Limburg appears twice in the HRE list. 77topaz (talk) 05:43, December 31, 2013 (UTC)

Scandinator, why you do this? Mscoree (talk) 15:49, December 31, 2013 (UTC)

The extra Luxembourg section should be removed (it is superfluous now) and Millgy's stuff should be moved around to the new section(s). 77topaz (talk) 19:56, December 31, 2013 (UTC)


 * Consider it done.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 07:32, January 1, 2014 (UTC)
 * I was halfway through cleaning the HRE list... Its a nightmare. Scandinator (talk) 14:04, January 1, 2014 (UTC)
 * What did i do wrong? I just took off the Luxembourg-ruled states section, seeing that all of the states already had a counterpart in the rest of the list.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 15:54, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

Sicily
I saw the discussion on Sicily's status.But, to clarify, since we can't use the sign-ups list to do that:

According to Feudalplague: "Dynastic union means owned as far i know.. that means Aragon pretty much owns Sicily"

Sine replied with: "Not quite, Otherwise Half of france would already be mine lol) Personal Union does mean Aragon Owns Sicily. Else means that if Sicily's king dies it means Aragon may take over it. or that Aragon and Sicily are allied or just Sicily is under its influence."

According to Scan: "Dynastic Union means the two nations are governed by two different people that are related somehow, it meant almost squat in European politics though"

However, i noticed that Sicily is a different case.in 1400, the Sicilian monarch is, who will rule until 1401 in OTL.of course, after 1400 anything can happen here, but, as of 1440, Maria is married to and as of 1 January 1400, has a heir,, that in OTL will die between August and November 1400.However, Martin of Sicily is the heir of the King of Aragon, , who in OTL became King of Sicily in 1409..Okay, all of this looks like unnecessary exposition, but: This is a case where the Dynastic Union will lead to a Personal Union in a few years, regardless of what happens (Maria of Sicily is the last legitimate scion of her branch of the House of Barcelona, and niece of Martin of Aragon, so even if the heirs do not survive, Sicily falls back into Aragon anyway.).So,what should we do?--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 13:11, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

Spartian300 (talk) 13:45, January 1, 2014 (UTC)Let the Papal States turned it into a Vassal. It's the only solution.

I didn't understand.I have done this section because DatStar is selecting Sicily, but, if he keeps his choice, he will have no nation to play with, as Aragon and Sicily will fall into personal union relatively soon.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 13:55, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

Peter died in an accident. ATL he will likely survive as most 2 years dont get spears through the head as a cause of death. Thus Sicily can remain independent from Aragon. Scandinator (talk) 14:07, January 1, 2014 (UTC)


 * What i was saying is that regardless of his survival, Sicily will enter a personal union under Aragon.After all, he is his father's only heir, and said father is also the only heir of Peter's grandfather.So, if Peter dies, as soon as Martin of Aragon dies, Martin of Sicily becomes king of Aragon, and when Martin of Sicily dies, Peter becomes King of Aragon and Sicily.Considering that Martin is 44 years old in 1400.And if Peter dies, Martin of Sicily most likely will become King of Aragon and Sicily anyway. So, Sicily will have a very short run as a independent state on this game (no more than 30 years, probably).And i don't know what should be done in this case.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 15:42, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

Should we  start the game now? It IS January 1st. - Spartian
 * Not yet.Neither the map nor the rules are ready.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 15:42, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

So in conclusion the nation of Sicily is open for someone to play as it, however their playtime may be cut short by Aragon taking them over. Mscoree (talk) 14:29, January 1, 2014 (UTC)
 * That was Spartian who asked that. Mscoree (talk) 16:10, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

Don't bother asking me; I'd be biased in such a situation, but Martin of Aragon has no direct heirs, so really it has to go to them (Sicilian monarchs) sooner or later after which they are in union.

18:40, January 1, 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, Martin's only heir is married to the Sicilian queen and will keep the throne in case of her death.Anyway, I am trying to figure out whether i should advise DatStar to move to another nation, since Sicily is not going to last too long.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 19:46, January 1, 2014 (UTC)
 * Anything can happen on ATL, Peter and Martin can have new heirs, and the 2 kingdoms may take separate ways Quashi (talk) 01:34, January 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * No not at this point. You can't just change the family like that; also, Martin needs to get married and make new children or some BS law that passes over the Sicilians, which is really BS.
 * 01:41, January 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * Is not change the family, is just make them live longer Quashi (talk) 03:00, January 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * That does not change anything. The throne will still pass to them.
 * 03:19, January 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * Who knows... Quashi (talk) 04:27, January 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * No.I wouldn't be making this section if there was any possibility of this happening.Martin of Aragon most likely won't marry again, because he has his succession secured and has no motivation to do so.In OTL, The only reason why he married Margaret de Prades was exactly because Martin of Sicily had died recently.Martin of Sicily, with his succession secured, also would have no reason to remarry, and thus, the only way that Aragon and Sicily can become separate again is if Peter has more than one son and he divides the kingdom between both.But, by the time that Peter dies, Sicily has been under Aragonese control by almost 30 years (one month).Do you think that the Sicilian player will wait that long to play again?--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 15:34, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

Choosing a nation
I chose Ming-China yesterday, but today I look again and Scandiator erased my name and put his name there, did he reserved it or something? Some clarity please.

Mr YOLO (talk) 15:43, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

I told you on your talk page.Scan claimed China officially two days before you, and had claimed it unofficially three months ago.However, you didn't see it because he was reworking the nations list at the time.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 15:47, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

Indeed.

18:36, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. I will pick another nation.Mr YOLO (talk) 08:13, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

Yo!
Hey guys! I think I'm having a good timing on returning, eh? :P Wondering if anyone still remembers me. o.O Lots of new faces.  Doctor261  (Talk to me!) 16:12, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

You do realize those new faces find this creepy?Spartian300 (talk) 16:33, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

Creepy is my profession. ;)  Doctor261  (Talk to me!) 16:38, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

I see the Doc is back in town. ;)  Imp (Say Hi?!) 16:50, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Imp, Indeed. ^.^  Doctor261  (Talk to me!) 17:35, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

Just shut up, dear God, I feel like I'm Griff from Red vs Blue.

Spartian300 (talk) 16:33, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

Sign your posts Spartian, as per regulation.

And don't be rude.

"This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. "

Good old brotherhood sense. Love you guys!  Doctor261  (Talk to me!) 18:05, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

Look at Spartan, thinking he is an important user, swaggering around like his 171 edits mean something. Welcome back Doc, just hang around this time round lol. :P  Imp (Say Hi?!) 18:36, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

Good to see you back, but this is not the place for this conversation. CourageousLife (talk) 18:37, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

^ thats how i feel about this conversation.Spartian300 (talk) 18:43, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

Spartian,



That's new.I don't think i ever saw a player making trouble before the game even starts.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 19:43, January 1, 2014 (UTC)


 * ^ Where on earth is this side of Collie? I would like to see this side of Collie more often please ;) [[Image:1.png|23px]] Imp (Say Hi?!) 19:06, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

Wosshappening here??
Woah! I guess the vote was a success... but I can't make heads or tails of what happened! Someone want to fill me in?

Also, can I say that it's not really fair that the votes were carried out over break? I, for one could not post. I don't really care about myself, the modships look alright, but there were many users who could not post.

22:00, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

Also, didn't Lx claim Novgorod?

23:27, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

No. Mscoree (talk) 23:33, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

Well that expressed worlds, and those worlds better not be the worlds I think they are, or else, you sir are in for a world of hurt.

23:37, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

The nations list is still under construction, and there are claims all over the place. 77topaz (talk) 23:57, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

I was talking about other worlds. Those too though.

At this point, I need to drop that metaphor.

00:02, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

A Question
Forgive me for being an ignorant newbie, but what do the dark gray states mean on the map? Is the meaning different from PMII (fragmented)? Yawgmoth, Lord of the Wastes

Hi Bfo, good to see that you are back! Dark gray states are still fragmented as they were in PMII. This is UglyTurtle, Signing off. 01:41, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

Yup, rejoined at just the right time. Was worrying about missing the PMIII bandwagon. Yawgmoth, Lord of the Wastes

Hey!
So I thought that since I finally had access to the Internet for the first time in ages, I'd check out what had happened on PMII. Well, boy was I in for a surprise! Anyway, since PMIII is going ahead, I just want to Briefly say a few things. Firstly, the current working map is really very nice; the German Kleinstaaterei are much more accurately portrayed this time around. Secondly, seeing as we aren't meant to edit the German States section, I'll use this page to advertise the fact that I (un)officially claimed the County of Oldenburg on the PMII talk page, and fervently wish to play as that state this game. My final point is that I don't think the "Australian Aborigines" should be a playable nation. I think that the whole Koori Union thing really took away a lot of PMII's plausibility. The simple fact of the matter is that the Aborigines (through no fault of their own) simply did not have any domesticable animals or plants (or oftentimes enough water) to independently create a state-based agricultural civilisation. That's not to say that someone couldn't play as one of the individual tribes and carve out a regional kingdom. So that's all I have to say, I'll be back to normal activity in about five days. Callumthered (talk) 09:59, January 2, 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't need domesticable plants or animals to establish a state. The Comanche relied on buffalo while the Tonga relied on fish. All you need is a food source, and if the Aborigines run across southeastern Australia, then they can find some type of food source to use to feed their people. If not, then there is always the sea. A nation-state isn't a simplistic "Option A" or "Option B" thing. It can be established under any circumstances regardless of environment. The Inuit could have established their own nation, but they lack the will and motive, as well as communication over vast distances. Same with the Aborigines. They need a reason first, then everything else comes after. Finding and exploiting a stable food source could be the business of such a government. As time passes and need increases, it could begin to stretch out its responsibilities to grow into a nation-state one would recognize, should as developing a standing army to end disputes between tribes, a common currency for easier trading, and a system of laws that could be enforced in all tribes so that travelers need not adapt themselves to the customs of a foreign tribe. Flag of the Hurian Federation.png Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 16:51, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah it was a bit of a mess. As for the Aborigines, I don't think we should strike them from the playable list just because of the Koori Union. You can plausibly build something there if you want, just not as quickly as some would like. I actually gave some thought to playing as the Papuans myself  this go-round (not much, but thought about it). Plus, the Selk'nam were in about the same shape as the Aborigines when I started with them and I was able to semi-plausibly ramp them up based on interaction with neighboring colonies. It's a bit of a strech, but if you really wanted to, you could spend a few hundred years domesticating wallabies (Roos might be a stretch) and staging some sort of Neolithic Revolution in what is now Victoria - or wait until post colonizatin and adopt technology from the colonists. Anyone who is crazy enough to play there would be very heavily supervised, and in that particular region we have a good number of self-proclaimed Australians palying the game who could help regulate it (that and I do quite a lot of Australian-related stuff myself). But I think we should leave tribal options open for those who want to hack it. Commandante Lemming (talk) 16:06, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

These are good points, which is why I said at the end that I thought people could play as an individual tribe and carve out a regional kingdom for themselves. What I'm really opposed to is people signing up as "the Australian Aborigines" as though they are one homogenous group of people, forgetting the fact that they spoke over three hundred different languages. If someone played as the Eora people, for example, I think it is possible for them to eventually (independent of any outside help) expand to take the whole Sydney-Parramatta area and even stretch up to otl Newcastle. What I'm opposed to is people signing up as the "Australian Aborigines" and within like two turns somehow uniting all the hundreds of different nations and discovering agriculture and writing and metalworking and domesticating kangaroos or something. What made the Selk'nam thing nicely plausible and cool was that, as Lemming said, their success was based partly on careful interactions with neighbouring colonies, which provided them with the technology to expand in a plausible way and become a recognised member of the international community. If, say, the Eora player expanded to have all of the Sydney area and some of the adjacent hinterland by the time of the arrival of European (or East Asian or Middle Eastern or Ethiopian) colonists, then like Selk'nam, they could, through careful negotiation and interaction, use the modern technology brought by the colonists to expand further; and through adaptation of agricultural practises, grow their population. It is interesting to note, Viva, that the Aborigines already had fairly stable food sources; Kangaroos don't migrate. I was doing a research assignment on the aborigines a few months ago, and I read (in a book!) that Aborigines at the time of European contact had some semi-agricultural practises of their own. For example, some tribes replanted yams in places well-adapted to yam-growing. Many utilised fire to clear bush land, thus giving kangaroos and wallabies more open land to feed on, therefore giving the Aborigines more food. And some tribes built quite complex eel farms in rivers and streams (the author went on to say that had they been left alone for another thousand years, some tribes could have had fully-developed agriculture). So the motive of finding a food source really isn't enough to stimulate the creation of any sort of government other than the one they already had (a sort of elder-dominated loose tribe system). It is interesting too to note that the Aborigines had trade networks which stretched over vast distances, proven by archeologists finding seashell piles in desert areas and various types of ochre in places they should not be found. And through the message stick system, messages (for example about an upcoming feast) could be sent over hundreds of kilometres. But even with the ability to move goods and messages over long distances, the Aborigines of otl did not create any sort of nation state. Finally, I definitely agree with Lemming that anyone who does choose to play as an Aboriginal group needs to be supervised heavily and needs to fully understand the limitations of their chosen group, so we avoid another Koori Union. Callumthered (talk) 22:10, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. I agree with all of those points. Well researched Cal. Kudos. By the way, what's a "book"? Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 22:23, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

I hear it's like an e-book, except it has actual pages. Weird. Also, it's big. And the words don't change. It's the latest fad!

22:26, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

Oh I agree that someone would have to pick a single Aboriginal group (which in fairness, the Koori Union was a at least based on the Koori grouping).The label "Australian Aborigines" should probably remain as is just because there are so many groups (I'm working on a grad school thing about the Northern Territory so I've had to look at that ethnic map a few times). Obviously if someone actually plays, we'll have to make sure they sign up as the Warlpri or the Arrente or the Tiwi (who would be particularly fun from a geographic perspective) or whatever - but in the interest of simplicity on the map I'm fine leaving overarching terms like "Australian Aborigines"...or "Papuans" for that matter. Commandante Lemming (talk) 23:36, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. If possible, perhaps "Ausalian Aborigines" could be a heading to avoid confusion? The Torres Sait Islanders would also be really cool to play. I've read that they sort of terrorised the mainland Aborigines of Cape York with their better technology. Callumthered (talk) 01:06, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

Category
Is there a reason why Lordganon changed the "Principia Moderni III" category to "Principia Moderni III map game"? It's been an unofficial rule that game categories are specifically not named that, and games have been renamed from it in the past. Unless Lordganon wants to rename basically thousands of items, I advise against this move. Mscoree (talk) 15:14, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

The Principia Moderni category was agreed to only be put on the (hasn't happened yet) timeline version. Same with PMII. And I think it will be the case with PMIII. It has always happened, so I am not sure what you are talking about Ms, sorry. Imp (Say Hi?!) 19:04, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about, but PM2, PM, and PM3 until now all did not have "map game" in the title. Neither has pretty much any other map game that did it correctly (a few examples: NotLAH, AvA, and all its other games in the series) Mscoree (talk) 19:13, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

Are you joking? Of course it needs to have "map game" in the title... that's always been the rule. Just let it be, and stop second-guessing everything anyone does.

22:13, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

Not the title, the category. As you can see the title of this section is "Category", not "page title". Mscoree (talk) 22:40, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

Where?
Where is my beautiful Hungary? :'(  Imp (Say Hi?!) 19:09, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

The map isn't done yet. Mscoree (talk) 19:14, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

Well, Hungary is on the map, at least.However, it still isn't in the sign-ups list.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 19:23, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

I have a better question. Where's my beautiful Oyo? Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 22:04, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

The [insert aspect of the main page not done yet] isn't done yet. Mscoree (talk) 22:42, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

Start Date
I see that this is coming along, and I am wondering if we have a rough idea of when this is beginning. Is there a set date? Yawgmoth, Lord of the Wastes

There's no set date as of right now. Once we get everything done it should start soon, so probably in one to three weeks. Mscoree (talk) 22:37, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

WE WILL NEVER START! It's a trap! The Force is strong within this one! Han shot first! (Scraw, help me, I'm out).

22:44, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

Just so you know, if you don't actually have anything to contribute you don't have to say anything. Tr0llis (talk) 22:53, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

And if the world all went like that, nothing interesting would happen.

Besides... I'm Guns, Troll. Now shoo.

23:08, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

The game should be starting in 1400. CrimsonAssassin- "I have special eyes" 23:22, January 2, 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope you're trolling. Mscoree (talk) 23:32, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

And as for the calendar date I assume as soon as we get it up and running - kiboshing PMII almost 90 years early made it a little less seamless lol Commandante Lemming (talk) 23:26, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

1400, in-game.If you are talking about day on real life, late January, probably.i am waiting fro Scan to finish the map and the rules.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 14:12, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear...
We need to do the mod elections over! A bunch of users could not post over Christmas! Come on! Even if it doesn't affect anything this is a democracy!!

22:08, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

I guess now you know what it's like to be cheated by a supposedly unfair voting system. Tr0llis (talk) 22:52, January 2, 2014 (UTC)


 * We don't need this kind of negativity. CourageousLife (talk) 23:07, January 2, 2014 (UTC)
 * Guns trolls Tr0llis a lot. Mscoree (talk) 23:09, January 2, 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be equally unfair to forfeit the last mod vote for a second time along with the choice of the newest players, to include new voters. Most of the community voted on the mods, and there are still some votes that need a swing vote to get new mods, so they can vote on that. Flag of the Hurian Federation.png Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 23:44, January 2, 2014 (UTC)
 * Trollis deserves said trollings exactly for negativity like this.  23:46, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

If any users feel that the need to endorse or dispute one or more of the mods elected, they can feel free to do so below. If not, it can be assumed that the users have given their consensus that the mods are adequate. If any new nominations are to be made, they can be made below as well. CourageousLife (talk) 23:07, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Cour. I believe that has been the standard upto this point. Mscoree (talk) 23:10, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

Almost everybody with any interest got to vote. I missed it, raised the issue after returning, and was given a special election by Collie in whicdh there were a good number of votes. I personally would have no problem submitting the current mod-panel to individual Yes/No votes again before the game starts, but it's not a terribly controversial slate. Also, at the end of the day I don't think there's an dispute that Collie is Mod-In-Chief, so if we trust him to run the show then I guess we can trust his decision on moderation. Commandante Lemming (talk) 23:22, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

I want to rerun only one vote, and now I feel bad about it, but after his past track record as mod... I want to hold MSCOREE's vote once more.

23:46, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

How about no? Everytime Ms runs for goddamn anything it starts an argument, which has you on one side and some idiot on the other and all the poor blokes in between. Then there's both sides attempting to convince other people (ie, myself) to change their vote or vote for their side. Really, it starts a little battle in our civil war every damn time. Even if we add your vote to the supporters, he still loses, so ye.

15:51, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

Liberals shall win this time.Spartian300 (talk) 16:25, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

If there is ever a new mod election i would like to throw my hat in the ring of consideration. I am a long time wiki member and have generally tried to be plausable and attempt to mediate often in conflicts. I feel I would be an excellent choice not to toot my own horn so to speak. Very Good, Much No ASB. Wow. Doge approved.Trust Me, I'm The Doctor (talk) 02:18, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

^ Good point, why isn't he already? Ok, so two votes: An impeachment of Ms and a nomination of Andy. 02:21, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

I already won the original election. Mscoree (talk) 16:27, January 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * MSCOREE won, Scraw. I wish him to lose. He proved quite nicely in NotLAH that he starts arguments by the shite-load. We're adding my influential vote to the detractors. A-HEM.
 * 00:55, January 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * No offence, but, at least on this game, you have been starting more arguments than him.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 07:26, January 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * And I'm also not a mod, Collie :D.  18:08, January 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * You didn't even play NotLAH. Tr0llis (talk) 03:05, January 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * Any retard can go back and read the page, Ms.
 * 03:07, January 4, 2014 (UTC)


 * I will create a new section for Andrew's nomination, since he asked. As for the impeachment of Ms, I will not be making a section. Let him prove his worth here. If he proves incapable, then we will address this when the issue arises. Give him a chance. CourageousLife (talk) 18:03, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

Andrew

 * Aye
 * CourageousLife (talk) 18:03, January 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * 18:08, January 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * Yank 01:39, January 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * Commandante Lemming (talk) 05:44, January 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * This is UglyTurtle, Signing off. 05:46, January 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * Callumthered (talk) 07:14, January 5, 2014 (UTC)
 *  Doctor261  (Talk to me!) 07:41, January 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * Tob
 * phyrexia_symbol.png Yawgmoth, Lord of the Wastes phyrexia_symbol.png
 * 22:13, January 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * Flag of the Hurian Federation.png Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 00:34, January 6, 2014 (UTC)
 * Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 01:25, January 6, 2014 (UTC)


 * Nay

So far no nays, when will voting end? Much Amaze, such voting. WowTrust Me, I'm The Doctor (talk) 23:36, January 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

From where this "Much X, Such Y. Wow" meme comes from? you guys seem very fond of using it lately.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 07:46, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

It's a very popular internet meme called Doge look it up on knowyourmeme. Trust Me, I'm The Doctor (talk) 16:21, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

I think we can safely say that Andrew is an excellent choice for modship. Welcome aboard. CourageousLife (talk) 00:56, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

Much excellent, such mod. Wow. 00:58, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

I would like to thank the academy and Guns for this chance to be a mod. *holds golden globe above head. Thank you all* does bow and exits stage rightTrust Me, I'm The Doctor (talk) 01:10, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

Still more awards than DiCaprio.

04:14, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

Why?... Cos DiCaprio can't act for shite. 23:26, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

DeanSims
can i nominate myself for modship? Or no? DS|The Rainbow Machete 00:53, January 7, 2014 (UTC)
 * Aye
 * Tob
 * Daeseunglim (talk) 01:51, January 7, 2014 (UTC)
 * CourageousLife (talk)
 * MP This is actual MP, too lazy to sign in...
 *  Doctor261  (Talk to me!) 05:13, January 7, 2014 (UTC)
 * phyrexia_symbol.png Yawgmoth, Lord of the Wastes phyrexia_symbol.png
 * Eiplec - ಠ_ಠ (talk) 18:19, January 7, 2014 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Flag of Russian Alaska (HR).svg |40px|link=User talk:Octivian Marius]] OCT MARIUS, HAIL HIM  [[Image: Flag of Italy (Federalist Italy).svg|40px|User talk:Octavian Marius]] 19:49, January 7, 2014 (UTC)
 * Nay
 * 01:48, January 7, 2014 (UTC)
 * Guns
 * Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 13:20, January 7, 2014 (UTC)
 * Commandante Lemming (talk) 17:25, January 7, 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

It's been done before. CourageousLife (talk) 01:01, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

No offense Dean but you don't exactly have an awesome track record.

01:55, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

He may not have a great rack record but perhaps you could give him a shot? If it doesn't work out remove him.Trust Me, I'm The Doctor (talk) 02:01, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

No, we have our Olympians already. He's not cool enough to be Hestia anyways.

02:07, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

I understand I am happy to be the Doctor now where's my fez? Bowties are Cool (talk) 02:25, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

Give Dean a chance to prove himself. He's been getting a lot better lately. You never know, he could surprise you all. CourageousLife (talk) 04:47, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

I have been in Principia Moderni for almost three years already.When it comes to plausibility, I haven't seen any improvement on his part in any of the two games.Considering his track record in the past game, he doesn't fit into the "Not having expanded implausibly for fifteen turns, as determined by other moderators." criterion.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 13:28, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

Dean has been on the wiki and playing map games for quite some time. He, despite plausiblity issues in the past has been trying immensely to improve his plausibility, and I believe he deserves a chance. I for one vote for him. If this doesn't work out, we can decide again later. Yawgmoth, Lord of the Wastes

I'm voting no primarily becasue I think we need a cap on the number of mods. 12 is pretty high as is, and if everybody is a mod then you have chaos. If the main question is improvement in plausibility, I say let's revisit this nomination the first time we have a mod position come open and see wheher those improvements have been made (which, given that this is a new game, might be soon). Commandante Lemming (talk) 17:25, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

I am not going to vote officially because 13 mods would be a little cramped, the fact I was able to squeeze in was amazing enough. Also 13 is a bad number. The Doctor only had naturally 12 regenerations. Bowties are Cool (talk) 17:42, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

Come on, 13 mods? Whats one more gonna hurt. Ill probly be told no on most of my motions by the other mods anyway. DS|The Rainbow Machete 17:47, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

Dean - give it a little time, play the game solidly for a month or two, and you shouldn't have a hard time getting in. If nothing else, I am always open to creative event suggestions and I'm sure others are as well. Commandante Lemming (talk) 18:10, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

Scraw. You're Hestia.

23:26, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

It is done. There shall be 14 mods. DS|The Rainbow Machete 04:49, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

If everyone is hung up over the number of mods, we could always move Von to a provisional spot. He hasn't been on regularly for a few months. CourageousLife (talk) 05:00, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

Why don't we have a couple of mods whos specific job is to monitor other mods for metagaming, fairness, and for lack of a better term, modship. In response to complaints about a lack of mod participation in PMII, simply overflowing the game with mods is not enough when these mods seem to have no way of checking themselves. Eiplec - ಠ_ಠ (talk) 07:01, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

Well actually we should just have a rule that mods can't take actions that would harm another nation to allow their own to enlarge. That said, Collie is mod-in-chief so technically we already have someone whose job is to mod the mods. Although I do think it would help if we have the official policy that Collie can delete mod events at will. Commandante Lemming (talk) 15:18, January 8, 2014 (UTC)
 * This first proposal of yours (mods might not make events with the sole purpose of benefitting their own nations) is not exactly a rule, but well, is common sense.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 17:49, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

That and we should have regional mods who arent allowed to be players from the region - for instance the Asia mod would have to be a Europe player etc. That and I think we could have subject matter mods like an "Environmental Mod" and a "Religion Mod" etc. Giving people fiefdoms might mean more and better quality mod events. Granted, at the end of the day a lot of these things should be done by committee. Speaking of which, are we building a mod page? Commandante Lemming (talk) 15:21, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

I have been elected. Am I now allowed to put my name on the list? DS|The Rainbow Machete 17:29, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

You can be on probation or someshit, cause while you have been becoming better recently, you're still kind of in Mehistan. Or we could remove another controversial mod. There is, in fact, one mod whom I see to be greater risk than Dean.

22:26, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you too? I see one. Really, I want to re-do his election.

00:03, January 11, 2014 (UTC)

Lx

 * Aye
 * Guns
 * Nay
 * Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 09:34, January 11, 2014 (UTC)
 * Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 09:34, January 11, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
Since I missed the "hype" during the mod election last time(only about 5 people voted in my section combined, the rest simply did not vote, Hopefuly this fares better and peoiple actualy vote...)-Lx (leave me a message) 01:11, January 11, 2014 (UTC)

The Curious Case of the Lx in the Russia
It has come to my attention (*people shudder*) that some of the claims on the nations on the old PMII talkpage have been disregarded. Lx called Russia in general formally and stated that he wanted Novgorod unofficially multiple times.

Now having taken a look at the editors what took Novgorod, I've noticed that he has not been very- ahh- active. RazorFangZ14 has a mere 103 edits.Basically, he's a "Flash Player" (Credit to Yank), meaning he's probably just signed off and will not edit, at all- you all know that this happens, especially with really big map games.

So can I suggest, that in order to prove that he actually remembers the existence of this game, he posts a message under this- and if not you give Novgorod back to Lx, who appears to be on vacation at the moment but I'm sure will get back and note his position.

Hey?

21:57, January 5, 2014 (UTC)

I support this motion.

22:10, January 5, 2014 (UTC)

Scraw, you know Bauglir had that sig before you, right?

22:12, January 5, 2014 (UTC)

And how do you know that? Oh, I speak baby--the DoctorTrust Me, I'm The Doctor (talk) 22:27, January 5, 2014 (UTC)

NO MORE!! 22:27, January 5, 2014 (UTC)

I'll support this motion. CourageousLife (talk) 22:32, January 5, 2014 (UTC)

He did? Well it looks better like this anyways :P

23:11, January 5, 2014 (UTC)

I'm Razorfangz14, and I would very much like to play as Novogorod. I may not be the most experienced, or the most active upto this point, but I would still like to play as Novogorod in this upcoming PM game. Thanks, RazorFangZ14 (talk) 00:04, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

Rex and P-L
So, I have planned to play in PM3 for a couple of months now (really since the discussion started up), and I have been really excited in changing my experience. I have played as Middle Eastern nation (Persia) and a Western power (Brython), and this time I wanted to play as an Eastern European, Slavic nation.

I have been on the line between Bohemia and Poland-Lithuania, but I have been leaning more towards P-L. When I came back from a week-long camping trip, I noticed that the page has been made and both Bohemia and Poland-Lithuania have been taken.

Now, since I have wanted to play as Poland, this is what I shall focus on. Now, I have plans of consolidating P-L and making an economically based nation that trades in grain (pretty much not letting P-L go into decline). I have a few pages made up for Poland, but I need the ok to put them into place.

Mr YOLO has 250 some edits, compared to 3.5k edits. YOLO's self-proclaimed favorite pages are: Evidently, none of those games came close to matching the illustrious PM series. I am here, I am dedicated. I have the pages ready.
 * Rebuild (Map Game)
 * Industrial Revolution: Reborn (Map Game)
 * And There Was Light (Map Game)

Any objections to allowing me to remove Mr YOLO and replace him as the player for Poland, Lithuania, Mazovia, and Moldova? Thanks, 23:32, January 5, 2014 (UTC)

I believe you should ask him. That would be the right think to do considering it's up to him. Mscoree (talk) 23:37, January 5, 2014 (UTC)

I have left him a message on his talk page, also. 23:42, January 5, 2014 (UTC)

Objection. I support Mr YOLO's claim to the nation.

23:54, January 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * As do I. Mscoree (talk) 20:05, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

It would be unfair to simply remove him without the chance to properly present his case. I say let him keep his position until proven there is a lack of interest. Leave him a message and await a response before proceeding.Trust Me, I'm The Doctor (talk) 00:06, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry if what I wrote came across too much like asking to remove Mr YOLO. That is what I did say, but what I should have done was contact Mr YOLO first. 00:58, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

One potential solution - have we considered bringing about and early end to the union of Poland and Lithuania? We could have a Polish player AND a Lithuanian due to some mod-caused disaster shortly after the Point of Divergence. Commandante Lemming (talk) 16:34, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

This actually would not be all that hard - one of the major agreements cementing their young union was the Pact of Vilnius and Radom, signed conveniently in 1401. If we wanted to, we could have the negotiations for said pact catastrophically fail for some reason and the breakdown could result in the disolution of the Union and two playable nations.Commandante Lemming (talk) 16:41, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 19:46, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

That sounds ASB, but okay. Mscoree (talk) 20:07, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

It's actually not at all ASB. Actually it's rather amazing that the union survived into the 1400s. Poland and Lithuania at the time were in a loose union forged only 13 years earlier by the marriage of Lithuania's Grand Duke Jogaila to Poland's 11 year-old queen Jadwiga. That queen then died in childbirth in 1399 which made her Lithuanian husband the sole king (as Władysław II Jagiełło)  and gave him major legitimacy problem seeing as he was Lithuanian. At the same time he has only in 1392 finished the Lithuanian Civil War in a Stalemate with his cousin Vytautas - who he basically alloowed to become Grand Duke of Lithuania in exchange for recognizing Władysław II Jagiełło  as supreme king (Vytautas got control of all Lithuanian domestic affairs). The offices of King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania had ben disunited and would not re-unite again until after both men were dead - and this whole arrangement was formalized in 1401 with the Pact of Vilnius and Radom - conveniently right after our point of divergence. Heck, the failure of the pact could actually BE our point of divergence if we want.

There are two really easy ways this thing could go down. Either Vytautas the great could re-ignite the Lithuanian Civil War (which seems plausible, especially if his pact breaks down). OR Władysław II Jagiełło, now an illegitimate Lithuanian king over a Polish population and nobility, could suddenly face a POLISH civil war that ousts him (or just get straight-up assassinated) and replaces him with an ethnically Polish king - which of course would prompt Vytautas to delcare independence for the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The place was a powder keg at this exact period of history, and all we would be doing is re-igniting the fuse that the OTL combatants nicely put out.

So then the question becomes who wants Poland and who wants Lithuania. There could be some plusses and minuses. Poland was dominant in the Union but smaller in land area, and the Polish player will have to sort out the fact that they have a Lithuanian king who only became monarch due to a marriage to the Polish queen (who is now dead). So Poland will have to sort out a legitimacy crisis. But I think both will be pretty strong playable nations.

Here's a map laying out the breakdown between the two circa 1387. Lithuania probably has the upper hand, but Poland would be a not-insubstantial player and probably more densely populated than Lithuania.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lietuva_ir_Lenkija.Lithuania_and_Poland_1387.png

The Lithuanian player would also have to chose whether to retain Wladyslaw and Vytautas' recent conversions to Catholicism from Paganism, convert to Eastern Orthodoxy in the face of a Teutonic threat, or revert back to paganism and create a non-Christian power in the heart of East Europe.

Commandante Lemming (talk) 20:36, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

Talking about the possibility of a Polish king to succeed Jogaila, there are some candidates available: one of the Dukes of Masovia,  and, who would be the closest relatives to Casimir III, who was the last Piast king, or  (the son of Bogislaw III), whose line in theory would be the senior line of the Piasts, compared to the Kuyavian-Masovian line.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 22:05, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

Well having read the bios, Semowit IV would be unlikely to rebel due to his marriage to Jogaila's sister...but if Jogaila were somehow pushed of the map, he would be a natural choice to ascend to the throne - and doubt Vytautas would stay under the thumb of "King Semowit" very long. Commandante Lemming (talk) 22:31, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so Mr. YOLO offered to let me have both Poland and Lithuania. I accepted, because it is both the most plausible and the least meta-gaming of all potential solutions. Now, there are two main events that led to the preservation of the Union prior to 1400, that would make it ASB for the Union to split. The first it the Lithuanian Civil War. As a result of the war, Vytautas was permitted to take over the Grand Duchy as Viceroy (sometimes he was also referred to as the Grand Duke, but it is recognized that he was subordinate to Jogaila, if not at least de jure). The Ostrów Agreement ended the war.

The second is the Battle of Volskra River. As Wikipedia puts it, "Lithuania was drifting away from Poland, but the defeat of Vytautas army in the Battle of the Vorskla River against the Golden Horde in 1399 forced to renew the union and conclude the Union of Vilnius and Radom in 1401."

This makes it sound as if anything other than the Union of Vilnius and Radom would be ASB. Even prior to the Pact/Union in 1401, the assumption was Jogaila and his heirs would assume leadership over Lithuania after the death of Vytautas. Thanks, 22:36, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

Well if YOLO's cool with it (I should probably rephrase that) then What's the problem? I thought this was a dispute over who controlled it...

22:38, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

We thought that there was going to be a dispute.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 06:54, January 9, 2014 (UTC)

Request For Wallachia
I'm new to Map Games, though I have read several from start to finish, and would like to claim Wallachia, as it is a lesser power. Wallachia seemed to be unclaimed, and in a region I have an interest in.Stephanus rex (talk) 00:48, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

Claim it, it is yours.

"This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 01:03, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

Right. If there is no dispute over who controls it, it's all yours. Have fun, and see you around!

22:06, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

Claims
Just since this has come up several times - we should have a firm discaussion on whether or not to respect claims made on the sign up sheet from the old PM2 page. We have used this as a running tally, and I personally think it should be respected. Lx signed up on the old sheet as "Russia" - which I take to mean either Novgorod or Muscovy. Since he played as Novgorod last game I think we should assume that he was reserving his same nation until and unless he tells us otherwiase (although honestly I think it would be fun having a power player like him in another area of Russia).

As for Rex and Poland-Lithuania we need to establish who technically had claim to what. Rex, did you sign up on the original sign up sheet - and if not how did you establigh dibs. I know you've talke about it for a while, and if you cleared your reservation with Collie or something like that, then you would have a solid claim. I  don't think this new signup sheet on the PM3 page should be totally respected until we actually declare the page open. That said, we also have to respect the rules on how signups are supposed to go.

Commandante Lemming (talk) 16:07, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

Well, originally, he signed as Bohemia, and he never asserted his claim on Poland-Lithuania on PMII's talk page until now, and he never mentioned anything like that to me.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 20:03, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

To end this confusion we should just add the definitive claims from the PM2 talk page to the official claims. Mscoree (talk) 20:05, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

Well, i support that.But if a player has changed his nation, just keep him on his earlier choice if somebody else had claimed that nation before him. (Ex: move Shadowknights to Vijayanagar.He had claimed Vijayanagar before he moved to Japan, that had been already claimed by Kogasa.)--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 20:19, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, the we should just open it up and let the problem sort itself out. First come first serve. When we first drafted the claims, it was explained that they were not official they were semi official. What made them official was if the same person got to their nation first then it was officially theirs. If Lx wants Novogrod then he should have tried to get it.(excepting if the person in qeustion is on holiday, in which case you can be more lenient). Trust Me, I'm The Doctor (talk) 20:14, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

Lx is on holiday. I believe he mentioned on chat something of that sort, that he couldn't post for quite a bit.

22:05, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

I think Ed  (Moscow) and Lx (Novgorod) would play out for an interesting scenario as opposed to Ed (Moscow) and noob (Novgorod), who will leave quickly and let Ed steamroll the entirety of Russia. Also, Lx is to be back around 1/10.

22:25, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

To put it more politely than Scraw (always fairly easy), Novgorod is a fairly important nation, and I'm not sure someone with such little experience could handle it. I mean, worst case you get an OTL Muscovian domination of Russia, but that could cause endless arguments. It could end up as the GCC of this game...

22:33, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, we've all been noobs. Can't we, you know, give people a chance? Fed (talk) 22:36, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

Fed, please. You're the oldest map gamer around. No one remembers when you were a noob.

Tell you what. Lx returns on the tenth. Let's raise the question again then, and maybe he'll choose to play a lesser Russian state. I know a couple months ago I did suggest to him playing as a Kievan revival.

22:40, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

Well - honestly we don't know which Russia Lx plans to play as. I know I talked with him a little about it over on PM2's tlak page and he awas still thinking, seeing as he's already played both Mucovy in PM1 and Novgorod in PM2. If Lx is indeed planning a third different scneario, there could actually be some fun with RazorFang playing Novgorod, Ed playing Moscow, and Russia-master Lx staging a surprise attack from, say, the Republic of Pskov or the Principlaity of Ryazan (or one of the post-Horde Khanates for that matter). If RazorFang is ruled to be the legitimate first sign-up as Novgorod, then he shold play as Novgorod and see how it goes. The only complicating factor is what we make of Lx's claim on "Russia" on the old sheet. Personally (and Lx may correct me on this) I think it's not unlikely that he intended to persue a scenario OTHER than Novgorod for his third Russo-centric round of PM. If that's the case, then noone should dispute RazorFang's claim on Novgorod. Commandante Lemming (talk) 22:46, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the above, both parts. The proper term isn't noob, it's "Experientially Challenged".

22:49, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

Claims for PM4
"Let us never speak of this again". --Rarity (talk) 12:56, January 9, 2014 (UTC)

THE GREAT GODS OF OLYMPUS AND TIME LORDS!
We have twelve mods. One mapmaker.

There are twelve Olympians. One outsider.

Twelve Doctors. One outlier again.

LET'S DO THIS SHIT.
 * 1) Zeus - Collie: King of Olympus/Head Mod
 * 2) Hera - Ms: Queen of Olympus, bickers with Zeus/expected to bicker with Collie (traditional PM thinking vs newfangled nonsense)
 * 3) Poseidon - Scan: Stormbringer, earthshaker/disaster mod
 * 4) Demeter - Sine: y'know ynot
 * 5) Ares - Von: Skillful, planned warfare, almost always victorious
 * 6) Athena - Fed: self request, also Fed is smart
 * 7) Apollo - Callum: popular dudes
 * 8) Artemis - Cour: again ynot
 * 9) Hephaestus - MP: self request
 * 10) Aphrodite - Crim: nuff said
 * 11) Hermes - Andrew: self request, not the warring types
 * 12) Dionysus - Commandante: do not involve themselves with war
 * 13) Hades - me: outliers

02:11, January 7, 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) First Doctor - Commandante: ynot
 * 2) Second Doctor - Von: most British
 * 3) Third Doctor - Collie: set down the basics for future mods/Doctors
 * 4) Fourth Doctor - Callum: amongst the most popular
 * 5) Fifth Doctor - Cour: undercredited
 * 6) Sixth Doctor - Sine: also undercredited
 * 7) Seventh Doctor - Ms: ynot
 * 8) Eighth Doctor - Fed: end of the old
 * 9) War Doctor - me: outliers
 * 10) Ninth Doctor - Scan: scary-ish, brings war and destruction and whatnot
 * 11) Tenth Doctor - Crim: popular favorites, very cool
 * 12) Eleventh Doctor - Andrew: newer to the wiki, also popular
 * 13) Twelfth Doctor - MP: not seen much on the PM scene

How am I the village whore? I do like the Tenth Doctor though! CrimsonAssassin- "I have special eyes" 04:22, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

You suck. I just wrote up a whole blog on this at the exact same time. Meh. CourageousLife (talk) 04:25, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

And I'll put this out there - I know there's slim pickings, but Artemis? CourageousLife (talk) 04:36, January 7, 2014 (UTC)


 * It's ok, she's a badass.


 * 23:55, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

You forgot Real Doctor.  Doctor261  (Talk to me!) 04:38, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

Why am I automatically a girl and assumed to bicker with Collie? When have I ever done that? At least in Cour's blog I am Ares. Mscoree (talk) 11:27, January 7, 2014 (UTC)
 * He is predicting we are going to do that, judging by your attempt to implant a algorythm per battle system, which i opposed.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 13:23, January 7, 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, you have serious daddy authority issues.  23:59, January 7, 2014 (UTC)
 * I am the authority. I am Hera. Mscoree (talk) 03:07, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

I am Thanatos, god of death! Spartian300 (talk) 12:30, January 7, 2014 (UTC)
 * You are not a mod.You don't enter this list.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 13:23, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

yeah, but if im correct, the mods are the major gods, and thanotos is a minor god, so.... my logic wins!

LOL I'll take Dionuysius - especially seeing that as long as you have me on the mod panel, reality may seem to have had a few too many drinks. Not that anything implausible is going to happen...just that some of the less probable outcomes may occur without warning :-P 15:53, January 7, 2014 (UTC)Commandante Lemming (talk)

Problems with certain claims
um i know this sounds a bit harsh but im seeing alot of no names (less then 10 edits ) or new players taking nations that are either important or already claimed by other countries, example japan being taking by shadow when another player had claimed it, or the bohemia player who has only 5 edits to his name. Nkbeeching (talk) 18:43, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

Well, Japan is a problem, considering that Shadowknights had already claimed an other nation before.However, the other most likely either won't show up when the game begins or won't last long here.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 19:53, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

The rules are the rules. Either these people will show up and play...or they won't show up and some powerful OTL nations may end up getting steamrolled early and lesser nations may become powers. Either way, it will make for an interesting timeline. Commandante Lemming (talk) 20:03, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

Did we ever have a rule about neccessary edit counts to play as a major nation on this game? I know it was there on other map games, but it seems that it would be very useful here. CourageousLife (talk) 00:49, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I really feel we should institute something like "Either you're a mod or you have 4000 + edits to play this nation".

00:59, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

And enforce it on Italy. CrimsonAssassin- "I have special eyes" 02:38, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Guns and Crim and Cour.

02:39, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

Wait, I don't have 4000 edits, in that case I have to play with some affrican tribe? I don't agree Quashi (talk) 03:02, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

This sounds incredibly unfair and bias. Institute a policy that all the other players have to leave Italy...so that Crimson can conquer them unchallenged. I strongly disagree. Let the noobs play, we all were once in their shoes. Mscoree (talk) 03:09, January 8, 2014 (UTC)


 * Crim was joking (I assume). CourageousLife (talk) 03:51, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

As a noob I agree that forcing new players out so that others can prosper is unfair. I intend to play as my selected nation. Millgy (talk) 03:24, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

4000 edits for control of nations isn't really what we're getting at. We're getting at the point of letting reliable contributors play as major nations who have a significant impact on the history of the game. And just because one starts out as a small nation does not mean they will stay small. It's what you do with that nation that proves your worth. Survivial of the fittest - the players who have shown that they are fit will ensure the survival of these nations, not run them into the ground. I have nothing against noobs, but I don't think that they should get that much power right off the bat - you have to earn it. CourageousLife (talk) 03:51, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Crim, Cour and Scraw. Certain nations are simply too important to risk it being played by an inexperienced player, or by irrational players. I believe we need to insitute a limit on bigger more powerful nations. That does not mean that you can't start small. Im PMII I started as the city state of Bayern-Munchen, so small it was hard to see on the map, by the end of the game, I united Germany and was a major player on the global scale. Anything is possible. Bowties are Cool (talk) 05:10, January 8, 2014 (UTC)



This is basically what we had to work with last game. And half of those nations got busted into tiny pieces anyway. We started small. Some of us are still starting small this game. CourageousLife (talk) 05:27, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

I agree. This results in a longer game that in turn means a better time developing the nations and ensuring plausibility at every step of the way. Smaller moves can be scrutinized, thereby preventing implausibilities such as the Caliphate and the Koori Union, which appeared out of nowhere and spread everywhere. Besides, starting at the bottom and climbing to the top is much more entertaining that starting at the top and trying to figure out where to go from there (hence the reason I dislike European and East Asian nations so much).

But we need someone like Lurk. He was a boss at modding, the best mod the PM franchise ever had. Without him, things are more secceptable to breaking down into arguments, deadlocks and indecision. Imp (Say Hi?!) 07:27, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

About the 4000 edits, number of edits isn't enough to determine the reliability of a player.Take Dean.he has over 7000 edits in the wiki, but have you ever seen any positive contribution that he made to this game in terms of quality?--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 07:39, January 8, 2014 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree about the edit count, but if we were to have a "you must have this many edits to ride" system, I think 4000 is too high. I mean, I've been on the wiki since late 2011, and I only have 2300 edits. Callumthered (talk) 09:51, January 8, 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm also against an  edit count rule. I'm not a big player on the larger wik and I only play PM. Granted it wouldn't affect me as a tribal specialist - but I don't think anyone here would have  a problem with me playing, say, Japan.  Commandante Lemming (talk) 15:07, January 8, 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually Collie, I have. The last time Dean played PMII, he was focused on developing his nation and expanding his influence slowly and in a controlled fashion. He did not have a single war or unfavourable event for which he was responsible for. He does have times when he regresses as a player, but there is no doubt he is a better player than before. [[Image:1.png|23px]] Imp (Say Hi?!) 10:02, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows I highly disagree with the edit count for certain nations thing. Mscoree (talk) 13:10, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

Let the noobs play. It will  be a war of attrition just like real history, and if by chance major powers are played ineffectively, minor powers will rise to take their place (also like real history). If a new player signs up as a major power and then doesn't show up, we have a process for the nation going into dissarray - and we could make a slight exception that, if a major power goes dark, another player can drop their smaller nation and shift. Problem solved. Commandante Lemming (talk) 15:04, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

True, 4000 is a bad example. And anyway edit count isn't really a symbol of reliability- look at Scraw, and he's got nearly 15,000 (only joking).

But really, we should institute some rules. I mean, were we to start in 200 AD, you wouldn't let someone with limited experience and an edit count of 400 play as Rome? Of course not. There are limits to what 'noobs' (can we not use that term?) should play.

Note that I'm talking about the current superpowers, which are few. Things like England (for example, I'm not calling you a 'noob', Andy), which are future massive powers, but are right now just a bit dingy, are fine. But we can't let something truly massive be played by an idiot with a week's experience. Especcially since they are highly likely to drop the game in boredom and not actually play.

22:06, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect - great powers in the real world often fell becasue they were led by idiots with a week's worth of experience. I see no reson why our created world should be any different. Great powers also rose becasue of surprising acts by "noobs" like Alexander the Great. I for one am excited to see how this world proceeds.

Commandante Lemming (talk) 22:27, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

Schism
Well, as many of you know, in 1400, we are in the middle of the Great Western Schism, and most of Catholic Europe has taken sides.Since this will hamper diplomatic relations in Europe, and waiting until 1418 would be too long, i was thinking in the possibility of ending it sooner.One possibility to end it was: what if the Council of Pisa actually ended the Schism instead of just introducing another antipope? Would this be possible?--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 10:59, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, but how could they end it? I think we could have Avigon and Rome become two rival churches with those supporting each side becoming allied with those supporting one church and enemies of those supporting the other church. Otherwise if the Council could figure out a way to end it (perhaps what happened in 1414 happens earlier?), that could be a good ending too. Imp (Say Hi?!) 11:24, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

I am talking about this exactly to stop the first scenario from happening, because some nations would end up completely isolated on their areas.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 11:45, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

I'm cool with the Counci of Pisa not electing a new Anti-Pope. However, I do think that competing Rome and Avignon papacies might actually be fun. It would actually prevent what we had last-time which was an overblown Reformation with lots of nations leaving the church so that they could pursue the player's desires regardless of the papacy. Having two popes would actually create some fun religious alliances without breaking up the church entirely. Then again, I'm playing in Asia this time so I really don't have a stake in the Catholic Church. If we do re-unite the church, I think the papacy should stay in Avignon rather than ever returning to (or have the Papal States stay loyal to the Roman pope but all the other countries pledge to Avignon). But on the whole I like the two-headed church idea. Commandante Lemming (talk) 14:59, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

I came up with a list of nations that support either side:


 * Avignon: Castille, Aragon, Scotland, Sicily, Savoy, Wales, Naples, Cyprus
 * Rome: England, Portugal, Kalmar Union, Poland, Hungary, Venice, Northern Italian states, Flanders
 * Neutral: France, Navarra, HRE (theoretically.since it is comprised of many small states, it is up to each state to define its orientation)

--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 15:22, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

That's actually a really interesting spray of results. Keeping it in place could prevent the formation of the Uniited Kingdom, halt the unification of Italy, and prevent any consolidation of Spain and Portugal (which didn't happen OTL but did happen in PM2). Commandante Lemming (talk) 15:25, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. I want England to be more Avignon aligned. Simply due to my distaste of Rome. Not to mention that places like England are further off, and often not well represented. Avignon is closer. ( unlike otl, I want England to remain Catholic).Bowties are Cool (talk) 15:34, January 8, 2014 (UTC)
 * So, if you align yourself with Avignon, this theoretically means that i have to follow your alignment to keep our alliance going on.And considering that all the rest of Iberia is following Avignon, this is starting to sound better than being isolated in my area.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 17:38, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

The only problem with that is that you are in the middle of the Hundred Years War with France. Good luck getting the English (especially their monarchy) to accept a French Pope while you are at war with France. Granted, you are in the middle of the second temporary peace in that war, so maybe you could make it the 75-years war and never have the third phase. Commandante Lemming (talk) 15:46, January 8, 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe not.The Antipope is Aragonese, and France withdrew its support for him in 1398.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 17:44, January 8, 2014 (UTC)


 * But the Scottish support him, as do the Welsh rebellion against England. That might be a bigger sticking point. Commandante Lemming (talk) 17:46, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

Or we could find some way for the Rome pope to get run out of Italy (maybe by the Pisa claimant) - which would of course result in an offer of refuge from someone like the British

....and then we have a LONDON PAPACY! :-P

The second option is cool. Back to number one for me. Sine and I have come to a peace term to end the war.Bowties are Cool (talk) 15:57, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

Commandante Lemming (talk) 15:52, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

I have my own plan for the schism, and france was the main supporter of Avongion. OCT MARIUS, HAIL HIM

Well, Oct, you're only one person.

I say, let's go massive schism. Split 'er up like... ehh... *Insert analogy here*

I have to say, though, I was planning for the Kalmar to split off from the Catholic Church fairly early. Guess a schism will make it easier :D

22:13, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

I think I'll take the side of Rome.

22:22, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

Oh Antipope is my man. Fuck it, you're disowned, bitch. #ChurchAtZaragoza

22:23, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

Im a Roman Catholic, so that's why im the Papal States. Going to reunite the Church hopefully, then Italy. Pro-Catholic reforms of course, but i will not have Two Popes. Spartian300 (talk) 09:38, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

Locations
Now I have been looking for my vassals on Wikipedia - and I have become extremely confused. Now I know Croatia was in PU with Hungary, but there is no mention of the nation of Croatia. As well as this, from what I can see, Split is in disarray while I cannot find which areas Garay is refering to. Could someone please help me out and tell me where these nations are? :L  Imp (Say Hi?!) 11:41, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

Well, apparently, in the map, Garay is probably that nation between Croatia and Hungary, and those lands are ruled by the Hungarian noble house of Garay.Croatia must be somewhere in the list.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 11:50, January 8, 2014 (UTC)


 * Its not. So could I add it to the list please? :) [[Image:1.png|23px]] Imp (Say Hi?!) 11:55, January 8, 2014 (UTC)


 * Have you really looked? it is there.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 11:57, January 8, 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh it is. The last time I looked, it wasn't. Sorry Collie. ;) [[Image:1.png|23px]] Imp (Say Hi?!) 12:01, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

Navbox Template
I was sick today and for some fun i decided to draft a navbox template for the Principia Moderni franchise, mods be free to edit as you wish. OCT MARIUS, HAIL HIM

Focusing on PM3 alone might be better. Mscoree (talk) 17:34, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah but this is not a bad project for Oct - honestly I would love to have this expanded to a point where it includes archives and nation articles from each game. I may be a lone in this but I do a lot of archive reserach when I want to do something major, and having a tool for that would be aweome. For instance, before I launched the Selk'nam project I did a ton of research on the previous tribal players (Lakota, Apache, Koori) so that I could craft a Selk'nam strategy that avoided some of their missteps. I also did archive research on the origins of Kappelism and New Judea several hundred years aftter the fact (neither of those projects went anywhere for me, but I did it). This is a history game and having tool for in-game history reading is very helpful. I know I will have to do that sort of stuff again - especially if I'm modding now (I have every intention of reviving storylines that people have forgotten about several centuries after they are dropped by their wiriters - movements and cultures don't just dissapear.)

Commandante Lemming (talk) 17:44, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

How about we have one for thr whole franchise which appears on the map game page and one for PMIII. OCT MARIUS, HAIL HIM

Looks awesome, Oct, you are good at this, but, just saying, it should be Genoa (Principia Moderni III Map Game), not just Genoa (Principia Moderni). Because this is a franchise, and only one game, Genoa may be radically different in other games. Also, this is a map game, and it needs to have a map game wosscalled.

22:08, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

Koloro Pretendoj (There, now it's Esperanto so we can be globalist)
I would like to claim the colour I have used in this map of Te Wai Pounamu, for use as the colour of Te Wai Pounamu in the overall game map please. Hailstormer (talk) 21:39, January 8, 2014 (UTC)



I would like to claim the color "Tropical Rain Forest" for Nivkhia (
 * 1) 00755E)  Commandante Lemming (talk) 21:46, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

I don't care what color everyone gets, just make them bright. Last time, my color was so dark, you could hardly pick out my nation on the map until I got bigger. CourageousLife (talk) 21:51, January 8, 2014 (UTC)
 * But not too bright.After all, Guns' colour as Muscovy back in PMII doesn't fit in a littoranean nation.It'll be hard to pick out his nation on the map because we will end up confusing his nation with the sea, so you can get a idea of how bright it is.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 14:19, January 9, 2014 (UTC)

If this is official, I'd like to claim aureolin/gold/yellow, since it's the Golden Horde after all.

But I agree, what really matters is that please make as many countries possible bright. Fed (talk) 21:53, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

I'd like the purple colour I had as Vietnam.--Yank 22:08, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

I want the same color I had in PMII. #0000FF or 0, 0, 225 ni RGB.

22:20, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

I would like to keep the color I had in PMII. As Muscovy. Sort of a light beige. Don't really care, though, so long as it's bright!

22:22, January 8, 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? This colour will make you hard to see, considering that your country will be touching the sea.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 06:52, January 9, 2014 (UTC)

Is it a British thing to put an unneccessary u in every other word? Colour, labour, etc... CourageousLife (talk) 22:24, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

No. It's an American thing to lazily take them out! :D

22:28, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

Can I have Italy's color it had last game? CrimsonAssassin- "I have special eyes" 22:41, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

No it's an American thing to sensibly take them out in the name of preserving ink.

22:43, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

It's an American thing to change words needlessly as a particularly petulant form of rebellion from Britain. --Yank 22:47, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

Well you have to agree that some British words are nonsense and better in American form. But we'll add the Us back if you drive on the right side of the road.

22:49, January 8, 2014 (UTC)]

Americans... you do know that EVERYONE else drives on the 'wrong' side of the road....

It's like a joke I heard:

A man comes up to a British tourist in Hungary and says "Ahh, you are foriegners, how wonderful!"

To which the Brit replies "Indeed not, sir! We are British!"

22:58, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

Look here you little shit 90% of the world drives on the right side of the road. The 10% is you stupid British assholes who screw up every continent they visit for 300 years to come.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Countries_driving_on_the_left_or_right.svg

23:02, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

I might as well jump on the bandwagon. As I am part of Ireland (Desmond), I call Shamrock Green #009E60. As a backup, I call Salmon #FA8072 ~Bfox

Fine Scraw. Fine.

And Aluminum, the Brits were being stupid.

But when it comes to other things, I pity the English language.

Spelling, firstly. My theory was that the 'U' in all these words got dropped when American students, unable to spell, did so. I mean, have you seen your school system? 20% of Americans still believe the sun goes round the Earth!

New York is like a special little enclave in what is otherwise popularly known as "Redneck Land".

23:08, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

99% of Brits assume the sun never sets on them, so yeah. Also Pennsylvania has no rednecks.

23:12, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

That's because of conceitedness. Conceitedness I can handle. Conceitedness I like. I AM Conceited! Idiocy I can also handle. Just not in a pleasant way.

Beg differ. I have a cousin there.

23:17, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

I claimed some time ago the use of the colour red. It is the traditional colour of the British Empire.Bowties are Cool (talk) 23:32, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

Jesus, didn't know my spelling of the word colour would lead to a debate. Also, Andrew, the traditional colour of the British Empire on maps was in fact pink. Hailstormer (talk) 23:54, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

Also where is this claim for the color red? Hailstormer (talk) 23:59, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

I call navy  OCT MARIUS, HAIL HIM

I want my old russia blue from PM1!-Lx (leave me a message) 00:40, January 9, 2014 (UTC)

Back when I first started playing. but i suppose your right, I didn't mean red, but a more off toneBowties are Cool (talk) 00:48, January 9, 2014 (UTC)

Whoever said Pennsylvania doesn't have rednecks has never been to my ancestral homeland in Western Pennsylvania (or "Pennsyltucky" as they call it). Commandante Lemming (talk) 00:54, January 9, 2014 (UTC)

I would also prefer a Roman reddish color, but since there is a lot of reds going around, I will accept the standard Byzantine purple.

"This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 00:54, January 9, 2014 (UTC)

I prefer blue.In particular, the blue that Portugal has in this map:



If it isn't too much bother, would it be possible for Oldenburg to have a slightly darker colour than on the provisional map? I just find it slightly hard to see. If the colour Saxony had last game is free, it's be my preference, but I don't have my heart set on it. And Scraw, to me as an Australian,  the "u" represents the Commonwealth's last stand against the ever-encroaching threat of global Americanisation, a stand for which I am prepared to die! *salutes, presents sword and charges into battle against evil redneck American horde* Callumthered (talk) 07:09, January 9, 2014 (UTC)

YAY FOR CALLUM! FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT!

Also if I'm allowed to have a hex code colour could I have #2ACEBD? If not I'd like any form of blue if that's okay :D Airlinesguy (talk) 10:57, January 9, 2014 (UTC)

For the Timurids color i would like a  Blueish/turquoise, that or something blood red. DS|The Rainbow Machete 16:40, January 9, 2014 (UTC)

I would like the colour of Hungary in PMI please. I really like that colour. And India drives on the left, India is a growing market too. :P  Imp (Say Hi?!) 17:07, January 9, 2014 (UTC)

MURICA! Commandante Lemming (talk) 18:13, January 9, 2014 (UTC)

Blue and Visible if possible

Id like saxony to  be a Medium Spring Green (#00FA9A)TOby

As for me, the color of Wales/Persia/De Mor Tir would be my preference. I have really grown to love that beautiful shade. Thanks, 06:09, January 10, 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with any color personally. Willster22 (User talk:Willster22)

Russia and the Mongols
Just so you guys playing Russia know, you're currently Fed's vassals, and the Golden Horde is pretty strong right now. It could take decades in game- like around 40 years- to chuck off his holds- so, I mean, it's not like you can't play, just to a limited extent you're under his control. (Novgorod is the exception, they are NOT under Horde control at this point. Too far north.)

22:10, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

Actualy, the mongols were fine with sittting in their yurts and collecting tribute from all other russian princes and let them be on their own buisness. Also, Pskov would be out of the Horde's Shpere of influence because it broke away from Novgorod something in the mid-1300s-Lx (leave me a message) 00:45, January 9, 2014 (UTC)

Yay Lx is back! Which russia are you playing as soe we can sort this out (Please tell me you're playing as Pskov - would make my day) Commandante Lemming (talk) 00:56, January 9, 2014 (UTC)

I dont want to cheat a beginer of his first choise, since, lets face it, Everybody that plays this game was a beginer at some point, and it would be incredibly unfair if an established contributor takes away a nation just because he is "more reliable". After about a week of dicovering this wiki I discovered map games and PM1 that reminded me of something I did with my friends at school...so I created my account...but under this "4000 edits" logic then I would not have been able to play as Russia...so esentialy I dont want to be a hypocrite... but I also dont want a "flash player" to control a major power in the Russian region...for reasons of Power vaccum etc... so, can I reserve the right to switch to one of the major russian powers(Novgorod of Muscovy) in the case that the people that signed up for them turn out to be "flash players", and in the meanwhile play as Pskov for Independnace reasons...although playing as something like Kievan Rebels(with permission of the Poland-Lithuania player of course) would be more interesting than Pskov...-Lx (leave me a message) 15:16, January 9, 2014 (UTC)

That could make things fun - or you could get the Horde's permission to play as the Crimean Khanate lol :-P But having you on board as Pskov will be fun - espcially seeing as Russia is going to be a much, much more crowded speace in this timelie (I count five players based in OTL Russia - Novgorod, Muscovy, Pskov, Golden Horde, Nivkhia) Commandante Lemming (talk) 15:38, January 9, 2014 (UTC)
 * Fifteen states in Russia right now.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 20:07, January 9, 2014 (UTC)
 * But only five have players if I'm counting right - or there are five players whose home base is in OTL Russia. Commandante Lemming (talk) 20:14, January 9, 2014 (UTC)
 * I know.just adding to the crowdedness.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 20:19, January 9, 2014 (UTC)
 * I love it personally - it's a huge landmass that would be a lot of fun with competition. Commandante Lemming (talk) 20:58, January 9, 2014 (UTC)
 * And honestly the only real competiton early will be between the ethnic Russian states of Muscovy, Novgorod, and now Pskov. The Horde has it's own agenda to the east, and while Nivkhia is technically on territory that became Russian in OTL, functionally it's a lot closer to China and Korea than Russia proper. I don't expect to deal with the Russians/Horde at all for a century or two.Commandante Lemming (talk) 21:01, January 9, 2014 (UTC)

Also I wouldn't having a problem giving you first dibs in the event that either Novgorod or Muscovy lacks a player, but I think it would be more fun if we phrase the agreement in such a way that - in the event of a Novgorod or Muscovy collapse, we will write it in such a way that those nations actually collapse and the power vacuum is filled by a surprising takover by Pskov (meaning that in the event of collapse, Pskov would be the center of the new state, not Moscow or Novgorod). Granted, I'm hoping our new players stick around and enrich the game so it doesn't come to that. Commandante Lemming (talk) 15:38, January 9, 2014 (UTC)

But there is one problem.Pskov right now doesn't have a independent ruler.it has Viceroys appointed by Moscow.So, it should be classified as a Muscowite vassal, and this might mean that Lx has to find another nation to play.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 20:07, January 9, 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure we could get the Muscovite player to grant full independence if it irons out the situation. Commandante Lemming (talk) 20:15, January 9, 2014 (UTC)

Another thing that i forgot to mention is that throughout the mid-to late 14th century, Pskov was under Lithuanian influence.the last Knyaz before Moscow started to appoint their viceroys was Jogaila's half-brother, for example.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 20:19, January 9, 2014 (UTC)

Well whereever Lx ends up I'm sure we can manage something nice for him in exchange for downgrading. I think Pskov only moved from Lithanian influence to Muscovite influence in 1399 so we can mess with that event. Also we should make sure Mr. YOLO is given a nice start in India in exchange for pulling out of the P-L dispute. Commandante Lemming (talk) 22:29, January 9, 2014 (UTC)

I'd recommend Tver, or Ryazan.

22:34, January 9, 2014 (UTC)

Well if we're taking suggestions, Great Perm is also not a bad spot as it's east of the others - small country but good real estate that' not totally boxed in Commandante Lemming (talk) 22:50, January 9, 2014 (UTC)

Ooh... True. All in all, though, I'd still go with Tver- it was fairly powerful, and you might get some Euro support, whereas out in Great erm you'd have to do it by yourself..

22:55, January 9, 2014 (UTC)

Well Perm would need support either from another Russian player or the Horde, but if organized correctly could become a regional power. And let's not discount the Pskov option - that one gives you a Russian speaking power that's strictly european in orientation and has more to do with prussia and poland-lithuania than the Golden Horde or Asia. Having a strong independent Pskov with ambitions to the West could really shift the dynamic in the Baltic -plus of all of them, Pskov has the most plausible route to the sea. Commandante Lemming (talk) 22:59, January 9, 2014 (UTC)

Pskov is governed by the same type of mechanism(veche) as russia, and could easily sack the viceroy if they wanted...or demand that either P-L or Muscovy leave. Since it is the year esentialy between both influences, instead of going to moscow it could plausibly go independance...in any case, can I get confirmation on my right to change to the larger states in case of Falsh-player?-Lx (leave me a message) 23:10, January 9, 2014 (UTC)

Are there are major regions still "missing" from the nations list? 77topaz (talk) 00:50, January 10, 2014 (UTC)

They haven't been totally filled in with lists if that's what you mean. The listing is mostly Europe. Commandante Lemming (talk) 01:08, January 10, 2014 (UTC)

^ Right. Though I'd imagine that would be big part, the rest mostly being tribal...

What I want to know is, where's the damn map?? Scan hasn't touched it since- haha- last year.

01:10, January 10, 2014 (UTC)
 * Scan is on a vacation and only will be back next week.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 06:37, January 10, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah but if memory serves there would be a lot going on in Southeast Asia around this time -India looks splintered too. Arabia will need marked etc. I just can't wait to get my nation on the map (which unfortunately has to wait until the start as I'm playing tribal) Commandante Lemming (talk) 01:28, January 10, 2014 (UTC)

Final Lx-Russia Stuff Resolution
Just to tie this whole Russia thing up with a bow - Does anyone object to Lx having "dibs" if another Russian player falls out of the game? I think this is a fine resolution to the whole Russia kerfuffle, although I personally would want the agreement written such that:

'''1.If Muscovy or Novgorod collapses due to player inactivity, the mods agree that Lx's Pskov will conquer that territory. '''

'''2. Lx agrees that, in such an event, his capital will remain at Pskov. '''

3. Lx also agrees that, even in the event of two collapses, he will only have a free pass to take over one of the two large Russian states, not both.

I think this is a nice settlement personally. It would ensure at least one strong Russian player at all times, and in the event that one of the major powers does collapse, we would keep continuity and say that it actually did collapse and Pskov took over. It would also technically means that Lx never switches nations in event of collapse, and that he commits to retaining the Republic of Pskov as his primary player-nation even if he takes over a larger state.

Obviously all of us (including Lx), hope our new players are successful with their Russian states and that this agreement is never enforced, but having the agreement should be tolerable to everyone.

Any objections?

Commandante Lemming (talk) 16:29, January 10, 2014 (UTC)

Nope. :)  Imp (Say Hi?!) 18:50, January 10, 2014 (UTC)

I have no objectionsBowties are Cool (talk) 21:32, January 10, 2014 (UTC)

No objections here either. Glad we could sort this out easily and good luck to our Russian players. Fed (talk) 22:07, January 10, 2014 (UTC)

It also means that Muscovy will agree to lift the vassalization initally and treat Pskov as an independent Principality.

22:51, January 10, 2014 (UTC)

Beginning the Game
It seems that we are just about ready to begin, although lately we have been waiting for Scandinator to finish, who insists on redoing everyone's work, so until then, let's compile a list of everything that still needs to be completed and finished up. I for one already have the first moderator event prepared for when the game begins. I believe we are waiting for the final map and an agreed upon algorithm. Anything else that needs to get done? Mscoree (talk) 00:58, January 11, 2014 (UTC)


 * Elsewhere on this page I read that Scandinator is still on vacation for a few days, so the map wouldn't be finished before then. 77topaz (talk) 05:08, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

I also have some moderator events myself for 1400.Let's see if i can remember...Ah, Malacca, Vietnam, Wales, Germany and Korea.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 07:02, January 11, 2014 (UTC)

What you got for Wales?Bowties are Cool (talk) 07:22, January 11, 2014 (UTC)


 * The start of Owain Glyndŵr's revolt.After all, until September 1400, Wales is still is ruled by England.This event will enable the Welsh player to play as Wales.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 09:31, January 11, 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's just hope he doesn't plan on playing for long....Bowties are Cool (talk) 09:32, January 11, 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think that he will be here for too long.The Welsh player (Ratc3333) is the same guy who was banned from chat once, and then LG banned him for two weeks for harassing him and Crim on their talk pages because of this ban.Just look at their talk pages to see his level.He either won't show up or he is going to get banned faster than Twisty.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (TO THE MOON!) 09:47, January 11, 2014 (UTC)
 * Ratc3333 is listed as playing Friesland (though it is stated there is currently no central authority). The Welsh player is Andr3w777. 77topaz (talk) 05:12, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
 * When i said that, he was still listed as Wales.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 11:18, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

Before you guys start, can you guys give me a little info on the current situation of Kingdom of Cyprus? Thanks.  Doctor261  (Talk to me!) 11:50, January 11, 2014 (UTC)


 * Dominated by Genoese merchants to the point that a part of your territory (ex:the cities of Famagusta and Kyrenia.Don't know if this is a continuous territory.)is under Genoese control.It aligned itself with the Avignon papacy because it expected the French, who back in the day supported Avignon, to drive out the Genoese.However, the French don't support Avignon anymore.It is up to you to decide your future aligning.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 12:48, January 11, 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, Collie! :)  Doctor261  (Talk to me!) 13:04, January 11, 2014 (UTC)

Any events occurring in Switzerland? And when can I completely unify Switzerland from the Swiss Confederacy? Daeseunglim (talk) 12:50, January 11, 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't know.Your original confederacy of Uri, Schwyz and Unterwalden has expanded to include the territories of the cantons of Galrus and Zug, and the cities of Bern, Lucerne and Zürich.It is a kinda small territory compared to OTL Switzerland, and the afore mentioned cities are enclaves of your territory .The members of the Confederacy can enlarge their territory at the expense of local counts, primarily by buying judicial rights, but sometimes by force.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 12:59, January 11, 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I sound dense, but I don't get it. I contol the olive green and the army green, but not the blue, grey, or light green? Daeseunglim (talk) 13:03, January 11, 2014 (UTC)
 * Not exactly.You need to watch out for the dates.But, forget that map.This one is better.All the green territories are yours.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 13:13, January 11, 2014 (UTC)

Collie would you like to read through me events and compare them? I can send them to you somewhere. Mscoree (talk) 13:12, January 11, 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you mean?--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 13:13, January 11, 2014 (UTC)
 * What I mean is, do you want to read the moderator events I wrote? Mscoree (talk) 13:48, January 11, 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay.Send them to my talk page.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 14:08, January 11, 2014 (UTC)

Please organize the papal states.Spartian300 (talk) 13:37, January 11, 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, it's not my fault that your state is not exactly organized.and plus, since it is your state, it is your responsibility to estabilish authority within your territory.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 13:46, January 11, 2014 (UTC)

Could we please start in February. That would allow Scan enough time to get stuff sorted out and it would allow me to be able to edit properly. Thank you. -- Imp (Say Hi?!) 17:49, January 11, 2014 (UTC)

Scan said that by 20 of January, the map will probably be ready.The game will start some days after the map is ready, to give time for Scan to add nations to the list.I would give a estimate of 1 February for the start.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 17:59, January 11, 2014 (UTC)

1 February seems like a good start, especially since it is a Saturday. This is UglyTurtle, Signing off. 18:32, January 11, 2014 (UTC)

Yes. February 1st is a good date. CourageousLife (talk) 16:14, January 12, 2014 (UTC)

That's my brithday! i get first move!Spartian300 (talk) 17:00, January 12, 2014 (UTC)
 * Good luck posting at midnight.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 18:38, January 12, 2014 (UTC)

No.

17:27, January 12, 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to the suggestion of starting in 1st of February or to Spartian's random comment?--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 18:36, January 12, 2014 (UTC)

I think he was referring to Spartian pulling an Oct.

18:38, January 12, 2014 (UTC)

What is it (pulling an Oct)?--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 18:39, January 12, 2014 (UTC)

Making a random, badly spelled, idiotic comment for no good reason.

19:56, January 12, 2014 (UTC)

No for real, that's my brithday. im serious.Spartian300 (talk) 10:13, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
 * We ain't saying that this isn't true.we are just saying that your comment was badly spelled, and its second part was random had no good reason for being there.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 11:18, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

HRE
If the game goes as in OTL, there is going to be a succession problem with the HRE in the years 1411 and 1419. In 1400 Jobst of Moravia is the  Duke of Luxembourg, Magravate of Moravia, and Elector of Brandenburg (my nations) and in 1410 is the Holy Roman Emperor and dies in 1411.With Jobst dead, Sigismund, the King of Hungary  and Croatia (Imp's nations) becomes the Elector of Brandenburg while Elisabeth becomes Dutchess of Luxembourg and the Magravate of Moravia is left without a ruler. In 1415, Frederick 1 becomes the new ruler of Brandenburg, solving the succession issue. In 1419, however, King Wenceslaus IV of Bohemia dies and Sigismund becomes King of Bohemia (Miligy's nation) and the Magravate of Moravia (my nation) and stays the King of Hungary and Croatia (Imp's nations). Sigismund was also the King of the Romans from 1410-1437 and the Holy Roman Emperor from 1433-1437. So the question is, what do we do with Imp's, Miligy's, my, (and possible other's) nations during the reign of Sigismund? This is UglyTurtle, Signing off. 05:43, January 12, 2014 (UTC)

I think that the fact that it occurs a full 10 years afterwards kind of makes it a non-issue; if Jobst dies as per OTL you can just elect one of the princes of the HRE as Emperor, and decide what happens to your countries by yourself.

I'd personally butterfly away the complicated succession and make one person inherit Brandenburg and Moravia and another be elected Emperor, but I believe it's entirely up to you. Fed (talk) 06:24, January 12, 2014 (UTC)

Well, in OTL, Jobst had no heirs, but theoretically, you could avoid this by say, his second wife dying and him marrying again.Then there would be a possibility of him having heirs and avoid this succession crisis.This will solve your situation.However, Millgy's situation is not so easy to solve, But, Sigismund is only King of Hungary because of his previous marriage to Mary of Hungary (dead since 1395), that produced no issue.In fact, Sigismund's hold on the Hungarian throne is very unstable, to the point that in OTL ,he was deposed twice just in 1401.So, the Hungarian nobility deposing Sigismund and choosing someone else (the main choice would be Ladislaus, King of Naples, who is son of Charles III of Naples, who ruled Hungary briefly between 1385 and 1386) as king is a very real possibility, and we could avoid a personal union between Hungary and Bohemia this way.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 07:08, January 12, 2014 (UTC)

I think Collie's idea is the best. As Switzerland I don't want to see the HRE collapse and be vulnerable due to leadership roles. Daeseunglim (talk) 13:05, January 12, 2014 (UTC)

Hey about this succesion issue, there is gonna be succession wars? because as ruler of Provence, i have some claims over south italy Mawilda (talk) 18:57, January 12, 2014 (UTC)
 * Naples also has a claim on your nation.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 20:15, January 12, 2014 (UTC)
 * Omg, really? I have no idea. Ty Collie Quashi (talk) 21:03, January 12, 2014 (UTC)

Your idea is very good Collie, solving the Brandenburgian and Bohemian succession crisises. This idea, however, creates a succession crisis between Hungary (Imp's nation) and Naples (Quashi's nation) since they will share the same king. This is UglyTurtle, Signing off. 19:44, January 12, 2014 (UTC)

Well, a succession crisis is almost unavoidable, then.There would be the possibility of the Hungarian nobles electing somebody that is neither related to the Anjous or the Luxembourgs, À la Matthias Corvinus.Still, this would be a slim possibility.Then again, considering the lack of direct contact, theoretically, they (Naples and Hungary) could just share the same ruler and have different foreign policies except for being allied, for as long as Quashi is active.Back in PMI, when i played as Hungary, Naples entered into a personal union with me, and we did just that.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 20:15, January 12, 2014 (UTC)


 * As long as Quashi is active????? Quashi (talk) 21:03, January 12, 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, you don't have a history of being active for most of a game.of what i remember, you just spent less than 200 turns in PMII as Netherlands.Anyway, you might like to change nations later, because Crim might end up invading your nation in order to unify Italy.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 07:08, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that. [[Image:1.png|23px]] Imp (Say Hi?!) 21:30, January 12, 2014 (UTC)

So just to clarify, my king will not get involved in HRE matters (god yes). Does Naples have a Queen or something so that my king could marry and have a kid? -- Imp (Say Hi?!) 12:13, January 15, 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are asking whether the king is married, no.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 11:58, January 17, 2014 (UTC)

Labelled map
Ideally we should have a labeled map before the game starts, because of all the tiny HRE states. 77topaz (talk) 05:16, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

But there is nobody who can do it.I don't have any idea how to do it.Scan is only going to be back late in the week.Von is not going to show up.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 07:10, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

He'll probably show up in March (Von). Imp (Say Hi?!) 11:29, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

I could make a labeled map, but not until Scandinator at least finishes it. Mscoree (talk) 11:34, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

i could try.Spartian300 (talk) 12:27, January 13, 2014 (UTC)


 * Please god no Flag_of_HRE_(The_Kalmar_Union).svg.png Labarum.jpg CrimsonAssassin- "I have special eyes" 13:44, January 13, 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think that it will be too different from mine when it comes to quality.his will have on misspellings what mine will have in white squares around the nation's names.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 15:21, January 13, 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed.Spartian300 (talk) 14:05, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow.You managed to write two sentences with no spelling mistakes in a row.Now you just have to try sentences bigger than three words.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 15:24, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you just burn somebody? I've never seen you burn anybody. Flag_of_HRE_(The_Kalmar_Union).svg.png Labarum.jpg CrimsonAssassin- "I have special eyes" 15:56, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

I think I have gasoline for that burn if it's needed.Bowties are Cool (talk) 16:38, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

I have not been able to find any labelled maps of the Holy Roman EMpire from the 1400s, or even any maps which show all the borders of the member states. The closest I've been able to find isthis one from 1618: admittedly an over 200-year difference, but if used in conjunction with the PMIIII map, it should be able to serve as at least a rough guide to where places are. Callumthered (talk) 17:33, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
 * I have something better; this one.from 1400.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 20:38, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

I'm quite knowledgeable on the Holy Roman Empire, so I can do that region if needed. Mscoree (talk) 18:52, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

Could we focus on Europe for now?Spartian300 (talk) 21:35, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

Well, we have no choice.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 21:41, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

If it helps, I can do Greece and the Aegean, as I have studied in that area in preperation for my nation. But Albania and Anatolia, not so good.

"This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 21:45, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we could have different people label different sections, that way it isn't one or two guys labelling whenever they feel like it, and more of an assembly line of labelling. Eiplec - ಠ_ಠ (talk) 23:12, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

That's a good idea. When the final map is out everyone take turns adding labels. I'll take central Europe. Mscoree (talk) 02:55, January 14, 2014 (UTC)

I guess I will do South Asia? Eiplec - ಠ_ಠ (talk) 06:00, January 14, 2014 (UTC)

Map making definitely not my strong suit. I can get maps and lists but actually making hte thing...no. Commandante Lemming (talk) 20:47, January 14, 2014 (UTC)

It is mine, if we have turns and regions i want western europe or north africa. Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 19:36, January 15, 2014 (UTC)

Having a labeled map would be especially useful for Europe, since many of the states are small and easy to confuse. 77topaz (talk) 23:15, January 15, 2014 (UTC)

As I have done in the previous game, I intend to continue with my religion maps, and maybe expand into the realm of cultural maps (Iberian, Frankish, Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Dutch, Scandinavian, German, West Slavic, East Slavic, and on, and on). Also, additions/edits will be accepted as always, and I do not claim them to all be canon. Any objections? 03:31, January 16, 2014 (UTC)

I'll work on regional maps similar to my Ireland map. I'm already planning an Italy one. Yawgmoth, Lord of the Wastes



Inactivity
I have been thinking: There are many players who have signed up, but there will be some who aren't going to show up immediately.But some won't even show up at all.But when the game starts, after which point is it safe to take the names of those who don't appear out of the sign-ups list so they don't clog up the list?Because last game, Enclavehunter signed up as the Zulu in 1450, played some few turns in a very erratic way (after posting somehwat regularly during the 1450's, he started to skip turns in the 1460's and 1470's, and then spent 35 turns until posting again, and after that, posted only once [1525] before going inactive) went inactive but his name was still up in the list as of 1600.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 14:49, January 14, 2014 (UTC)

Maybe give each player a 15 year(in game) grace period, if it appears they will not post, or the posts are irregular, then we remove them from that nation. Should they be interested in the game later on, allow them to pick a lesser nation from the map. We already have guidlines in place for inactivity after all, unless otherwise noted on the talk page.Bowties are Cool (talk) 18:07, January 14, 2014 (UTC)

I'm okay with a 15 year startup grace period but after that revert to normal rules - five years with no excuse and you're screwed in terms of nation stability. 15 before we actually throw you off the list? Commandante Lemming (talk) 20:45, January 14, 2014 (UTC)

May I suggest something? After the 5 year grace wears off, someone could leave them a message on their talkpage. Be more likely to get 'em in. Hell, I can do it if you want.

01:51, January 15, 2014 (UTC)

Go for it. Mscoree (talk) 11:29, January 15, 2014 (UTC)

Mod Page?
Random question, are we going to have a Mod Page or what is the best way of kvetching, collaborating, and otherwise hobnobing with my fellow wizards. I've never modded a game before so I just want to make sure I know the communication channels. Or do we basically just post mod events at will?

(And yes, part of me is posting this just to have something to discuss lol)

Commandante Lemming (talk) 19:54, January 15, 2014 (UTC)

We need one. It would be nice to have one that's not accessable by everyone in the game, but we may have to settle for another talk page again. CourageousLife (talk) 21:06, January 15, 2014 (UTC)

I think that it would be good.But activity is necessary.the mod page of PMII fell into disuse as soon as Von left, and after AP left, the only people who still posted regularly there were me and Von.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 21:12, January 15, 2014 (UTC)

Well, you made the mistake of putting a chatterbox serial-brainstormer like me on the mod panel - so unless I'm on vacation there will not be a risk of inactivity lol. That and we have a lot of excitable new blood. Commandante Lemming (talk) 21:34, January 15, 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, mod-page, it's a must have. Metagaming is FUN! (Note that this was sarcasm, and I don't intend to metagame, haha.)

22:02, January 15, 2014 (UTC)

Wish there was a way to password protect the page or something lol! Commandante Lemming (talk) 22:05, January 15, 2014 (UTC)

Are we going to create it now, or wait until the game starts? CourageousLife (talk) 22:19, January 15, 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 22:41, January 15, 2014 (UTC)

Well... if all the admins were TSPTF members, you technically could- just admin protect it. But they aren't, alas.

22:40, January 15, 2014 (UTC)

There's also this neat new invention called live chat (don't be afraid of it). It allows you to chat with whoever others privately. We could even go on a private chat on one of my other wikis to have a real time group conversation. Mscoree (talk) 23:04, January 15, 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid of it. Everytime I go on, the whole thing's either in uproar over an argument- that normally has nothing to do with althistory-, or dead. It's not worth the shitstorms. Besides, talk page is a lot easier.

23:40, January 15, 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't work for me.Whenever i go, the page is completely blank.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 07:19, January 16, 2014 (UTC)

Chat is OK for brainstorming but suggestions and projects should be kept somewehere permanent. 198.187.147.254 15:23, January 16, 2014 (UTC)

Mod Powers
Can we just take a second to clearly outline mod powers - what can we specifically do? Which ones are specialy reserved for disaster mods and the head mod and such. Do we already have this list (I feel like we do but don't know where to look). CourageousLife (talk) 23:47, January 15, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Cour's question is a very good one, which mod will have which task? Sine dei gloriem &#34;Ex Initio Terrae&#34; (talk) 00:16, January 16, 2014 (UTC)

Yes. What can we do, so i dont violate my power on my first time as a mod on a good game lol. DS|The Rainbow Machete 18:08, January 16, 2014 (UTC)

Collie, which browser are you using? CrimsonAssassin- I have special eyes 18:25, January 16, 2014 (UTC)
 * If this is a answer to the chat thing,Firefox.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 19:12, January 16, 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you tried using another browser (Chrome)? Flag_of_HRE_(The_Kalmar_Union).svg.png Labarum.jpg CrimsonAssassin- I have special eyes 12:29, January 17, 2014 (UTC)
 * No.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 13:07, January 17, 2014 (UTC)

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

23:45, January 16, 2014 (UTC)

We talked earlier about implementing the causi belli and objective system from NotLAH. If we do that should help the motive thing a bit. Mscoree (talk) 00:00, January 17, 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Guns on all counts.

00:02, January 17, 2014 (UTC)

Problem is that the thing from NotLAH requires a stability system.

00:03, January 17, 2014 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Stability in some fashion is part of the algorithm, so the system can just determine points to be factored into the algorithm. Mscoree (talk) 00:06, January 17, 2014 (UTC)

Or we could use the AvA algo, which would not require any changing?

00:10, January 17, 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with Location. Location, location, location. If there is no easy access, there is no combat, and so there is no realy war. 00:21, January 17, 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. No Vivempires or IMPlausogasms here.

00:27, January 17, 2014 (UTC)

The combined term is Vivimpires, which no one wants or will tolerate anymore, I hope.

00:30, January 17, 2014 (UTC)

Lol? Never heard of these terms but I do understand.Bowties are Cool (talk)

Its a term built upon my username (Vivaporius) and another user (Imperium Guy), as a way of insulting our strive to develop an empire in an alternate history setting. We built massive empires (no bigger than the other empires), though since we had territories everywhere (same as the others), we were villified for our actions, giving birth to the name above. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 07:28, January 20, 2014 (UTC)

You two helped off the previous game.

15:53, January 20, 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you did. Your desire to start a new game was the reason it was offed, not because Imp and I built large empires using algos that everyone else used. How exactly does one cheat using an algo? I never got that. That's like saying someone cheated using standard dice (not the loaded ones). Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 23:45, January 20, 2014 (UTC)

How did I do it? Yank proposed it, Scraw seconded it, and so did everyone else, because of YOU. You don't seem to realize that Africa has around 10,000 different tribes, and that if you annex half of it, you'll be dealing with the mother of all civil wars.

Also, you took over a North American nation from the other side of Africa in 1900. That's so ridiculously implausible, it's not even funny. It wasn't for another 50 years that it became possible, forget easy, to transport gigantic numbers of troops over that distance. America barely managed to do it in WWI, and they didn't send that many troops anyway.

00:25, January 21, 2014 (UTC)

Also, you took over a East Coast North American nation from the other side of Western Africa in 1900. Ethiopia controlled a huge chunk of Africa and had a major navy with colonies and ports everywhere. So to correct your statement again, my capital was in Eastern Africa. You somehow forgot (or purposefully ignored) the fact that I controlled Lagos, Accra, Abidjan, Monrovia, and Dakar, all of which were and are major WEST AFRICA ports, unless you were blind of course. Plus, Ethiopia was the first nation to develop dreadnoughts and cheap steel, while Orissa was the most powerful nation on the planet by the 1900s. And your ignorance betrays you yet again. The United States military in WWI wasn't geared toward invading foreign nations while the British and French militaries were. The United States had to build an entire system designed for that purpose, and when they did, it took them nine months to move 170,000 soldiers to France. A mere year later, they had 1.5 million soldiers in France. They built their navy throughout the 1890s to become one of the world's largest, while before that it wouldn't have stood a chance against a European power. Also, large-sccale warfare far from home had already been accomplished well before WWII. The British sent 100,000 troops to fight the Indians in the 1850s. The tiny Dutch sent 50,000 soldiers to fight in the Java War (versus 100,000), and 25,000 to fight in the Aceh War (versus 100,000), even though it had a population of only two million. So the term "barely" is both ridculously ill used when referring to a nation that ended a conflict that three of the foremost world powers could not achieve on their own. Do your research before you start to make assumtions and accusations based on nonsense. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 04:17, January 21, 2014 (UTC)

Hey, none of this nonsense here. What's done is done, and what's dead is dead. No sense beating a dead horse. Let it lie. All of you. CourageousLife (talk) 04:53, January 21, 2014 (UTC)

I say that Viva is not even answering Guns' main point.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 12:19, January 21, 2014 (UTC)


 * There was no main point, just a collection of varies statements about implausibility. His secondary points, however, I did answer. He said that Ethiopia couldn't invade American plausbility, and I showed that it could. He said that America couldn't invade Europe properly/easily, and I showed that it could. He said that large-scale warfare wasn't possible under the 1940-50s, and I showed that he was wrong. Nice of you to not notice as always. Flag of the Hurian Federation.png Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 19:20, January 21, 2014 (UTC)


 * Viva, leave it! CourageousLife (talk) 19:25, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
 * No one cares. This is no place to start an irrelevent argument. Even if you were to "win" it, nothing would be accomplished. Tr0llis (talk) 19:44, January 21, 2014 (UTC)

However true this may be, just let it alone. CourageousLife (talk) 18:45, January 21, 2014 (UTC)

And what about the thousands of tribes who all hate each other that you have under your command? You think those tribes in Western Africa will like being ruled by some people who have NO culture at all in common, and who are 1000s of miles away- across land? You'd be facing 8 minor and 3 major civil wars at any point, and you'd be destroyed.

22:22, January 21, 2014 (UTC)

QUIT IT! Any arguing beyond this point is prohibited. You hear? CourageousLife (talk) 22:42, January 21, 2014 (UTC)

I agree. For God's sake, guys, any Vivimpire that might or might not exist and might or might not be plausible is water under the bridge. I believe I can speak for everyone when saying that discussions over the plausibility of PM2, especially due to the euthanisation, are not welcome here. Fed (talk) 18:54, January 22, 2014 (UTC)

Amen Fed! This is a massive map game - players are always going to do things that other people think are ASB and the mods are going to make decisions that people disagree with. It's the nature of the beast - now let's just enjoy it for what it is. And I know you are going ot enjoy it - and that it will be very different from PM1 and PM2 ;-) Commandante Lemming (talk) 14:42, January 23, 2014 (UTC)

And this thread was dead until Viva took offense to Guns' remark.Just to show how much of a drama-generating issue this is.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 19:24, January 23, 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I added myself.

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

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

Questions about claims and nations available.

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

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

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

<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:15px;">Commandante Lemming (talk) 21:48, January 23, 2014 (UTC)

<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:15px;">I'm just touching up Asia now. I'll have everything done for the map soon, Europe and Africa are mostly done with Africa needing cosmetics and the Americas are like no work at all. Scandinator (talk) 16:08, January 26, 2014 (UTC)

<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:15px;">The nations list is almost complete with only Africa missing. I'll touch up on the last few things today and tomorrow in the rules and the final map will be uploaded tomorrow night. I request that no-one edit the main page from 00:00 UTC on 2 February till 01:00 UTC on the same day as I require time to upload the mod response to the first turn. In addition can mods start sending messages to players to warn them of the 1st of February start? Scandinator (talk) 07:17, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

Questions about Claims and available nations.
Umm, are you allowed to make nations that haven't been added to the wiki yet? For example, if you knew that Japan existed but hadn't been added to the wiki yet, would it be appropriate to create the nation for the game?AlternatitivLee (talk) 21:45, January 20, 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand your question. Could you perhaps explain it in a different way, as it sounds like you are talking about the entire Wiki instead of just the game.

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 22:03, January 20, 2014 (UTC)

There's a distinction that needs to be made here. PM3 is an entity inside of the wiki. If the nation hasn't been added on the page yet, you technically can add it. However, I would refrain from doing so, unless you have explicitly talked to either Scan or Collie, who are working on the map. Also, you should check these claims first to see that it has not already been taken. CourageousLife (talk) 04:57, January 21, 2014 (UTC)

If the nation existed in 1400 and had borders - yes. If the nation did not exist in 1400, then you would need to either pick a nation (or a tribe) that existed in 1400 and build them up from where they were. Commandante Lemming (talk) 15:27, January 21, 2014 (UTC)

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

22:42, January 23, 2014 (UTC)

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

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

I said:

I propose the following Algorithm changes. Currently- Well, then, this is the talkpage- Scan can reply here.
 * 1) Location should be done in Multiples of 5. Currently, it doesn't matter at all what the location is. Over time, the differences should get smaller, but frankly, currently, it's ridiculous.
 * 2) The Motives are somewhat hopeless. I can think of many wars that would be hard to fit into these categories. Instead, may I recommend using the Motive system from AvA: R-word?
 * 3) Military aid. It's the same penalty for military aid and leading in a war?? What??
 * 4) Nation Age. This just encourages players not to switch governments, because otherwise they get a -10 in everything.
 * 1) Location barely matters at all. A country right across the world can easily annex another thousands of miles away, if they have some strength. What's a 4 point difference when you have every other advantage?
 * 2) The motives only apply to certain circumstances, and cannot really be applied everywhere. The motive system I suggested, from AvA R-word, is far better.
 * 3) Recent wars give a penalty of the same size for leading a war- as in sending a giant army- and giving military aid, as in sending noncombatant trainers or arms or anything of that sort. Makes NO sense.
 * 4) Currently, players do not change governments, as would be plausible, because they do not wish to incur a -10 penalty. That penalty should be lowered to the same as the "Ancient nation" one.

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

22:10, January 24, 2014 (UTC)

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

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

23:59, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

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


 * If I may:


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

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

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

17:16, January 26, 2014 (UTC)

Here is the AvA motive system...  18:58, January 26, 2014 (UTC)
 * Economic (Gains land, resorce, etc): +2
 * Defending territory not owned by nation more than 20 years: +3
 * Defending territory not part of heartland but held for more than 20 years: + 4
 * Taking territory of similar culture but not part of nation: + 4
 * Aiding an Ally: + 5
 * Pre-emptive Strike: +5
 * Taking back territory recently held by nation but since lost: + 6
 * Aiding Social/Moral Kinsmen who are being oppressed: + 6
 * Attacking to enforce politcal hegemony: +6
 * Defending Heartland from attack that will not cripple/ destroy nation: + 7
 * Major Ideological/Religious beliefs
 * Defending Core/heartland from possibly fatal attack + 8
 * Defending from nuclear armed nation that has a motive over 5 and has not yet used their weaponry: + 8
 * Defending from nuclear armed nation, regardless of motive, that has used said weaponry: + 9
 * Defending from attack that will wipe out nation and culture: + 10
 * Modifiers:
 * Non-democratic Government supported by people: + 3
 * Democratic government supported by people: + 4
 * Government not supported by people: -5
 * WAR not supported by people (democratic) : -3
 * WAR not supported by people (non-democratic): -2
 * Troop Morale high (requires motive over 5, chance over 6, and stronger development scores in at least one category): + 5
 * Troop Morale low (any of the above: chance below 1, lower development scores in all categories, recent war penalty over 8): -5
 * Fighting Guerilla War: -5 attacker, + 1 defender
 * Warning: Negative motive scores are possible!!
 * Lead nation's motive, not average.

You have to admit, it is much more thorough.

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

19:07, January 26, 2014 (UTC)

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

I would like to recommend that a non-democratic government gain an edge over the democratic government. Democratic nations tend to suffer from public unrest over prolonged wars, while dictatorships are able to keep the people under control during equally long conflicts. Also, in dictatorships, the population is often conditioned from youth to accept the war (depending on the age of the government) or highly supportive of their nation (nationalism at times), while democracies often spin into debates over whether or not the conflict is worth the risk. Given the more open and more vocal media in democracies, the people will often complain faster than those in nations where the press is censored or at the very least, moderated. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 02:31, January 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * That is by and large not true. A government, democratic or non-democratic will be on the same footing, a democratic government not supported by the people however is on a better footing than a non-democratic one as in a democratic nation they can simply change the government in an election whereas people will just go directly to overthrowing a non-democratic one. Further one conditioning youth to accept war in non-democratic/democratic nations, please look to the USA (pronounced Oo-sah).


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

That is bullshit.

02:38, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

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

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

This should fix the problem.

22:06, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

Kingdom of Cuzco/Cusco?
Hello, i was wondering if i could join as the Kingdom of Cuzco, the state preceding the Incas? I didn't see it on the nations list or the claims page.What is this????Is this a signature??? (talk) 02:24, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

Given that the Kingdom of Cusco is an OTL nation, I believe you're welcome to join. Just add the nation in in the region where it's meant to be (in this case, South America). Fed (talk) 02:30, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

Hamburg?
Could I join as Hamburg?

I am that guy (talk) 02:28, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

First edit conflict for me in this map game, lol. Yes, you can join, I believe, as long as it is independent in 1400 and not taken by any other player. Fed (talk) 02:30, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone know the borders of Hamburg in 1400?

I am that guy (talk) 17:11, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

I hope you are creative enough to play this game with a nation whose territory is comprised by only one city.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 21:00, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

What was the Timurids population in 1400?
I need to know in order to do my demographics for them, does anyone know? If not then an estimate? DS|The Rainbow Machete 14:53, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

I would guess, fairly low. A couple million, maybe, which given the size isn't that much.

14:59, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

So like 4 or 5 mil? DS|The Rainbow Machete 21:29, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

One or two, more like.

22:01, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

Grand strategy games
Have any of you played games like Europa Universalis 4, Crusader Kings 2 or other grand strategy games from Paradox Interactive? Mr YOLO (talk) 15:43, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

Would Hex Empire count? Cause im a master at it. I consider myself a gifted strategist. Spartian300 (talk) 15:48, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

I tanked Hex Empire. It was way too easy. Imp (Say Hi?!) 17:18, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

it is a brutally easy game XD Nkbeeching (talk) 17:22, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

The New one, Hex Empires: Grave Consqences, is really hard. Spartian300 (talk) 17:43, January 27, 2014 (UTC

I used to play EU3.But i had to stop.After some years, invariably, the sizes of the save files started to balloon from about 10 MB to over 200 MB, and each attempt to save the game took 5 minutes.And if i played for more than one hour or so, the sea went black.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 21:08, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

No. But AoE was fun!

22:02, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

I loved Victoria II. My friend is really into Paradox Games. Me? I like them, but they're not my #1 favorite. Victoria II is one of my favorites though. I own Crusader Kings II, but I never really got into it. Yawgmoth, Lord of the Wastes

I play Hearts of Iron 3 and Europa Universalis 3. Scandinator (talk)

DeanSims
While I have high hopes for Dean in this game, I doubt he's progressed enough in his rehabilitation into a good (or at least somewhat better) player to make giving the enormous power and responsibility of modship. --Yank 18:34, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

Speaking from the back end - I'm extremely impressed by Dean's contributions on the mod page. Most of the limitations on  Timurid expansionism are being suggested by Dean himself. Commandante Lemming (talk) 18:50, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

If you wish, you can vote for removal DS|The Rainbow Machete 21:27, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

Please no more votes - the mod panel is set. People not happy can deal with it. The game hasn't even started yet. I'm not for any more additions but I'm ESPECIALLY not for any impeachments without cause or evidence. If anyone does crazy stuff to help themselves or attack other players in the game, there are ways of dealing with that and I will be happy to lead the impeachment mob myself. Right now we have a lot of synergy and collaborative editing amond the mods and a very active mod page that is vetting future events to temper the passions of individuals. So, can we please put away the guillotines for now? Commandante Lemming (talk) 22:29, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

Noting Dean's past, the mods will be keeping an eye on him. That being said, Dean has become more trustworthy, and enough people thought so that they voted him to be a mod. If you give him a chance, he could surprise you. Just don't automatically write him off. Cour (talk) 22:54, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

Moldavia
I was doing some research, and I came across a wikipedia page which claimed that Moldavia was not a vassal of Poland until 1402, making it an independent country at the start date of the game. The information can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_I_of_Moldavia under the foreign policy category. Stephanus rex (talk) 04:27, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

OBJECTION! Information on Petru_II_of_Moldavia states that Moldavia was a fief of Poland from 1387 to 1497. Alexander merely re-affirmed the alliance and vassalship. Scandinator (talk) 07:13, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

I see, thank you for clearing up the confusion. Stephanus rex (talk) 13:15, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

As the player for Poland, I can affirm to that Moldavia was most definitely a vassal of Poland in 1400. Just my opinion after a few weeks of studying medieval Polish history :) 23:39, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

Roman Empire dependency of Genoa
So recently I have been reading up on Genoa, and I have found that the Roman Empire could be considerd a dependency of Genoa. My source is this. <font color=Purple face="Algerian">OCT MARIUS, HAIL HIM

No where on that page do I see it say the Roman Empire was a dependency of Genoa. Tr0llis (talk) 18:12, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

Umm......no. Commandante Lemming (talk) 18:52, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

That is 51 years before the start of the game... Imp (Say Hi?!) 19:52, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah no Oct.

20:02, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

So, obviously, as the Roman player, some potential bias there...

Yeah, that page mentions nothing of a conclusive treaty or agreement being signed, so the outcome of that war and its political effect on the Empire regarding Genoa cannot be determined.

Either way, Roman dependency on Genoa would become mute when the Empire became a vassal of the Ottomans, something that the Empire legally remains at present, despite the two nations' current...difficulties.

"<font color="#AACC99">This is not your grave  but you are welcome in it. " 21:52, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

I think you mean "moot", not "mute".

01:39, January 29, 2014 (UTC)

Indonesia
So I just saw that note that the Delhi Sultanate was collapsed, so I decided that I want to play in Indonesia. But... to get to the point, what was the strongest Kingdom/Sultanate in Indonesia? Mr YOLO (talk) 16:11, January 29, 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. Aceh? Borneo?

17:03, January 29, 2014 (UTC)

Looking at a map of the region in 1400 the two main centralized states there are Majapahit and Pajajaran/Sunda. Majapahit is heading into decline but was historically a big player in the region - no reason they can't be rehabilitated. That and having a surviving state called "Majapahit" just counds fun.

Map: http://www.worldhistorymaps.info/images/East-Hem_1400ad.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majapahit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pajajaran

-Commandante Lemming (talk) 18:42, January 29, 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I think I'm going to try to rehab the Majapahit Empire Mr YOLO (talk) 19:56, January 29, 2014 (UTC)

The alliances, if you please.
i noticed that people are in a lot of alliances. i know i have one with Mscoress, but who else is my ally? Im the Papal States, so who supports me? Come to think of it,what are the alliances?Spartian300 (talk) 09:12, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

Well, i don't know, but Portugal, England, the Kalmar Union, Flanders, some other undetermined HRE states (Austria must be one of them), the Italian states north of you, Hungary, Poland and possibly Arborea are aligned to the Rome papacy.France and Navarra are neutral.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 13:07, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

It's usually best to not divulge secret alliances on the talk page. Tr0llis (talk) 21:02, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

Umm no. Kalmar (Which, BTW, was not their actual name) is not Roman aligned yet. As of yet, it's neutral.

22:06, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

ROME 4EVA! Imp (Say Hi?!) 22:28, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

AHEM IMPO there are DELICATE Alliances being worked out and you need to get with the party line, hmm?

22:31, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

Something else
Shouldnt the Native American powers be able to name the Americas? Or is that a no? I mean theyve been calling the contintents something as long as Europeans have called there continent Europe. DS|The Rainbow Machete 12:59, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

Well, this is not exactly relevant yet.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 13:07, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

OTL the reason why the Natives did not name the Americas was because in the end, the Europeans won out, as you probably know already. It's not politically correct, but it's true. Still, the Americas are practically inundated with Native American-based place names, from Miami, to Ohio, to Utah, and many more. I personally see no reason why not if either the Native Americans win out somehow, or the settlers use their name. Yawgmoth, Lord of the Wastes

Well, anyway, it's too early to think about that, and, we don't even know how they would call it.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 19:48, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah let's make that call when we get there. We'll have to see what sort of exploration and mapmaking those civilizations engage in. Commandante Lemming (talk) 20:52, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

Maps
Why does the labelled map not acknowledge the existence of Scandanavia (the Kalmar)?

According to Wikipedia, the KU controlled All of Norway and Sweden, Denmark, several Scottish Isles including the Orkneys and the Shetlands, Iceland, and part of Finland- in 1397.

The current map shows these as seperate nation, none of which, by the way, is the Kalmar Union.

22:10, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

The map shows different kingdoms. When the map is colored all those areas will be the same color. Tr0llis (talk) 22:13, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

Oh, ok, good.

Though technically it was one nation? I mean, only one King (or at this point Queen)?

Well, as long as I control em all. :D

22:14, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

it was actually 3 seperate countries at the time under a single crown it was a large personal union. Nkbeeching (talk) 22:16, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

I still control em all.

22:23, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

A couple of things about Poland-Lithuania's map. (Well, mostly Lithuania, but oh well!) Two states, Chernigov and Smolensk are listed as independent, however both cities and their respective duchies are either to be considered occupied by, vassals of, or a part of Lithuania. Personally, I think that a status as vassal is the most accurate, but that is just based on my recent endeavors to study the western Russian region. (I hope it ends up paying off!)

First, Chernigov. Directly from Wikipedia's page on Chernihiv (modern name for Chernigov) states, "<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:19px;">The area fell under the  Grand Duchy of Lithuania<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:19px;"> in 1353. The city was burned again by  Crimean khan<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:19px;">  Meñli I Giray<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:19px;">in 1482 and 1497 and in the 15th to 17th centuries it changed hands several times between Lithuania,  Muscovy<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:19px;">(1408–1420 and from 1503), and the  Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:19px;"> (1618–1648), where it was granted Magdeburg rights<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:19px;"> in 1623 and in 1635 became a seat of  Chernihiv Voivodeship<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:19px;">. "

What I take from that is that from 1353 to 1408 (when it fell under Muscovy), Chernigov was under control of Lithuania, probably as a Duchy, which in the Rus' states would be a vassal. Futhermore, this map of Lithuania in 1434 (admittedly a few years out of place) shows Chernigov under Lithuania. Link

Now, for Smolensk. It is a fact that Smolensk was under Lithuanian boyars from 1395 to 1401. Since the POD is in 1400, Smolensk is a Lithuanian vassal. A quote from Wikipedia, "<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:19px;">In 1395, while Yury was visiting his father-in-law,  Oleg Korotopol<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:19px;"> of  Ryazan<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:19px;">, Grand Duke  Vytautas the Great<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:19px;"> (Vitovt) of Lithuania took Smolensk and installed his governor there. Four years later, Vytautas was routed by the Tatars in the  Battle of the Vorskla River<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:19px;">. In 1401, Yury and Oleg made use of his plight to retake Smolensk and  Bryansk<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:19px;">, where the pro-Lithuanian boyars were promptly executed. " Also, in the image link above, Smolensk is shown as being a part of Lithuania via extension. Even according to Wikipedia, Yury of Smolensk ruled as Grand Duke of Chernigov "<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:19px;">1386–95, 1401–04 ". 00:45, January 31, 2014 (UTC)

This is true, as far as I can tell...

00:47, January 31, 2014 (UTC)

From what I've seen on Wikipedia about the Kalmar Union (Or Union of Calmar if you wanna get freaky with it). It described it as "Legally the countries remained separate sovereign states, but with their domestic and foreign policies being directted by the same common monarch". It also described a "perpetual struggle between the monarch, who wanted a strong unified state, and the Swedish and Danish nobility which did not". Given that language, it can be assumed that it was not at the point of a strong unified state OTL, and should not be thought of as one large, Scandinavia, in the game at the start date. I'd compare it to the HRE, with a few princes and kings, under one large King of Kings who would be the common monarch that rules them all. That being said, they are most certainly not completely seperate nations, but also are not one big unified state. Their personal union was an odd one. Eiplec - ಠ_ಠ (talk) 01:43, January 31, 2014 (UTC)

Not quite an HRE- just more like England during the War of the Roses. That is, one monarch, but he doesn't have much control over what's happening.

That will change, though- :D.

01:44, January 31, 2014 (UTC)

One more complaint about this beautiful, beautiful map; according to this map of the world in 1400 the Golden Horde owns Circassia,and all of Crimea instead of the south and east edges. Fed (talk) 22:08, January 31, 2014 (UTC)

About Japan
Why do I only have one of the lands in Japan? In the civil war there was to side, so I should have one of the side. So All of the territory that is on the side of the emperor should be mine. - ShadowKnights1234 1/31/14 8:58 (EST)

Music
As a throwback to an old post, does anyone have any music for one to listen to before the beginning of the game? Yawgmoth, Lord of the Wastes

OTL events
Will (unimportant) OTL events happen even if one doesn't mention it. For example will a Chinese Admiral discover Java even if this isn't mention by the player (Just a random example). Mr YOLO (talk) 15:00, January 31, 2014 (UTC)

NO. All actions of a player country are controlled by the player. If the player doesn't discover Java, then China doesn't discover Java. Non-player countries are under control of the mods and will also not follow OTL unless the mods steer them that way (which in some cases they will, others not). The  butterfly effect basically ruins the timeline from a human perspective - once it's done there's no going back. The only things that will flow normally will be natural disasters. Commandante Lemming (talk) 15:08, January 31, 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Maybe the Majapahit Empire isn't doomed :) Mr YOLO (talk) 16:22, January 31, 2014 (UTC)

If you're playing, you're not doomed. Commandante Lemming (talk) 16:23, January 31, 2014 (UTC)

Amen to that! Mr YOLO (talk) 16:25, January 31, 2014 (UTC)

Well, not doomed by the mods, anyway. *laughs evily*

18:00, January 31, 2014 (UTC)

Well here's hoping that people aren't totally doomed by the players either. I'm sure there wil be some early wars and a few knockouts - but on the whole this is AltHistory not freaking Wrestlemania. If players do get blown off early I hope they will then be placed in strong defensible states in the interest of keeping them in the game. Commandante Lemming (talk) 18:04, January 31, 2014 (UTC)

Prepare to bow to the might of Hamburg! I am that guy (talk) 18:34, January 31, 2014 (UTC)

Time
We have two and a half hours before the beginning of the game, just so you know.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 21:30, January 31, 2014 (UTC)

Well, just saying.. IT IS HERE!!! 00:19, February 1, 2014 (UTC)

Coallition of the North

 * Location: 14
 * Denmark: 10 (far from location)
 * Sweden: 15  (close to location)
 * Norway: 15  (close to location)
 * Poland: 15  (close to location)
 * Lithuania: 15 (close to location)
 * Golden Horde: 15 (close to location)
 * Tactical Advantage: 1 (1 (Attacker's advantage)


 * Nations in Side of the War: Denmark (L), Sweden (L), Norway (L), Poland (L), Lithuania (L), Golden Horde (L), Smolensk (MV), Chernigov (MV), Mazovia (MV), Moldavia (MV) Hunagary (M), Timurid Empire (M): 38/12 = 3


 * Military Development: 6
 * Denmark: 2
 * Sweden: 2
 * Norway: 2


 * Economic Development: 10
 * Golden Horde: 2
 * Poland: 2
 * Lithuania: 2
 * Scandinavia: 4 (Øresund, Stockholm)


 * Expansion: 0


 * Infrastructure Development: 0


 * Motive: +66
 * Denmark:  Aiding an Ally: + 5 Modifiers: High Troop Morale + 5 = 10
 * Sweden:  Aiding an Ally: + 5 Modifiers: High Troop Morale + 5 = 10
 * Norway:  Aiding an Ally: + 5 Modifiers: High Troop Morale + 5 = 10
 * Poland:  Attacking to enforce politcal hegemony: +7 Modifiers: High Troop Morale + 5 = 12
 * Lithuania:  Attacking to enforce politcal hegemony: +7 Modifiers: High Troop Morale + 5 = 12
 * Golden Horde: Attacking to enforce politcal hegemony: +7 Modifiers: High Troop Morale + 5 = 12


 * Chance: tba


 * Nation age: -2
 * Denmark: -5  (Young nation)
 * Sweden: -5  (Young nation)
 * Norway: -5  (Young nation)
 * Poland: -5 (Young nation)
 * Lithuania: +5 (Mature nation)
 * Golden Horde: +5 (Mature nation)


 * Population: +28


 * Participation: +60 (+10 * 6 Leaders)


 * Recent Wars: 0


 * Vassals and Puppets: -4
 * Poland: -2 (Smolensk, Chernigov(vassals))
 * Lithuania: -2 (Mazovia, Moldavia (vassals))
 * Denmark:  *1.25 (only nation)
 * Sweden:  *1.25 (only nation)
 * Norway:  *1.25 (only nation)
 * Golden Horde: *1.25 (only nation)

Total: 182*1.25 = 227,5+CHANCE

Muscowy

 * Location: 25


 * Tactical advantage: 2 (Coordination)


 * Nations in Side of the War: 1 (Muscowy (L), Great Perm (L), Ustyug (MV), Pskov (MV))


 * Military Development: 0


 * Economic Development: 0


 * Infrastructure Development: 0


 * Motive: 9 (Defending Core/heartland from possibly fatal attack)  not counting modifiers  Low Troop Morale : - 5= 4


 * Chance: tba


 * Nation Age: +5 (Mature nation, 117 years)


 * Population: 7


 * Participation: +10


 * Recent Wars: 0


 * Vassals and Puppets: -2 (Ustyug, Pskov (vassals))

Total: 52+CHANCE

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

The Coalition can take up to 62.7% of Muscovy.

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

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

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

Pskov will be granted its independence.

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

I did the basics for the algo, but Rex modified it a bit after I showed it to him. Do you guys think that Sweden and Norway should get a L or an LV? Fed (talk) 01:33, February 2, 2014 (UTC)

According to the changes to the Norse governance as set out by Guns himself last turn, there appears to be a great deal of equality between the nobles of the different nations. This would suggest equal status, and therefore no vassal status. 01:38, February 2, 2014 (UTC)

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

18:51, February 2, 2014 (UTC)

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

Venetian Empire

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

Total: 187

Epirus

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

Total: 61*1.25=76.25

Results

 * Calc: (0.4193548387096774)*(1-1/(2*3))=0.3494623655913978% of territory can be taken by the Venetian Empire
 * P: ((187/(76.5+187))*2)-1=0.4193548387096774
 * Years: 3

In 1402 the government of Epirus will fall.

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

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

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

Insert doge joke here.

18:12, February 2, 2014 (UTC)
 * God no. Kunarian TALK 18:33, February 2, 2014 (UTC)

Population of Cuzco and South america?
Does anybody know the population of the various south american tribes? i can't find a source for them before the Incan

emire. What is this????Is this a signature??? (talk) 13:48, February 2, 2014 (UTC)

It is doubtful that anyone here knows.I'm not Peruvian, so i am not even able to give you any information.--Collie Kaltenbrunner (talk) 20:08, February 2, 2014 (UTC)

So what should I do for algos?What is this????Is this a signature??? (talk) 22:05, February 2, 2014 (UTC)

About Civil Wars
Do I have to do an algo for a civil war. - Shadow

No, you do not. Local Mafia Boss (Talk) (Blog)

MODS: Standing armies
There seems to be an issue with Standing armies as many nations are developing them far too early, most likely to try and represent a turn of military development. However standing armies didn't come into play as the mainstay of military forces until the late 1600s, before that rulers relied on levies and mercenaries to beef out their forces. Of course everyone had a standing army, however it was normally no bigger than the lord down the lane's army not to also mention that everyone who could afford a standing army had one in some form (retinues as they were called back then).

Of course heavily centralised states with heavy taxes could easily raise and fund standing armies of a reasonable size however there is an issue when feudal kingdoms start creating large standing armies (out of men whom A) should be working the fields and B) would more than likely be loyal to their local lords and willing to fight for them). Feudal kingdoms also cannot tax heavily as it is almost certain peasants or worse lords will rebel and overthrow their ruler.

I feel like I'm becoming the ASB paranoia guy in this game but I just really don't want this Principia Moderni to get out of hand like the last did nor do I want it to get unrealistic as I love this as some sort of collaborative rewriting of history. Kunarian TALK 18:33, February 2, 2014 (UTC)

The concern is noted. However there isn't anything in the rules that goes against the raising of armies. While what you've mentioned in regard to feudal states is true, it can't really be monitored, too many nations. We can however monitor the size of nations, for instance France and England could conceivable raise small to mid sized standing armies, but the states in Ireland cannot. If we monitor which states then perhaps. Any other ideas ideas my fellow mods?Bowties are Cool (talk) 19:14, February 2, 2014 (UTC)

actually standing armies arouse after the 30 years war, but apart from thati do agree one can make a levied army easier to establish but it isnt a standing army until roughly late 1400s to late 1500s i think. Nkbeeching (talk) 19:23, February 2, 2014 (UTC)

This ridiculous "alliance"
So for those of you who don't know, the UNC, Golden Horde, and P-L recently invaded- and annexed- the state of Muscovy.

All of us had perfectly good motives. Pskov and Poland-Lithuania were both good allies of Scandanavia (UNC)- and Pskov was unfairly annexed by Muscovy a mere three years past. This is a pretty damn good Cassus Belli. Poland has been a traditional enemy of Muscovy, and the Golden Horde decided to invade it's 'tributary' while it was weak.

Anyway, after this, a bunch of states which COULD NOT have had ANY connection to Muscovy- who probably wouldn't have even had HEARD of the annexation yet- decided to 'liberate' it, despite being WAY too far.

These claim that they were 'allied' with Muscovy. In fact, this is impossible. With the exception of Milan, all of these states are landlocked- including Muscovy- and even Milan cannot possibly reach Muscovy, as it would have to cross hundreds of miles of hostile territory to reach Muscovy. What's more in these times it could take MONTHS for news to reach ANY of these states, possibly even years.

On chat, no less than FIVE mods- Fed, Andy, Scraw, MP, and Crim- agreed that this alliance was ridiculous. Only Fed could be accused of bias, and for that matter since Crim is allied to several of these "alliance" states, even HE thinking that it's ASB should be a clear warning.

So seriously, can we get this crossed out? Fed crossed it out several times- and then Troll undid that, which I believe is not allowed?

00:13, February 3, 2014 (UTC)

Hi Guns. Thank you for your concern regarding this matter. I would like you to know that the moderators have done much discussing on the matter on the moderator page and have decided to let this event remain, although heavily altered. For example you will notice that instead of a coalition to liberate Muscovy, it is a coalition against Poland, to whom the Holy Roman Empire borders. It is a separate phase of the war, grouped together together purely for their concurrency, similar belligerents, and regional similarities. I hope that helped to clear things up. Let me know if you have any other questions! Mscoree (talk) 00:17, February 3, 2014 (UTC)

Still makes no sense, since Milan, for instance, cannot actually send troops over that distance. What is more, why would these nations gang up against Poland? I mean, you're fellow Catholics... you have been friendly over past years... they just got rid of some backwater starved underpower which was NOT Catholic... so apart from that fact that Metagaming is fun, why ARE you joining several states in an alliance?

00:23, February 3, 2014 (UTC)

Please note that this war isn't the "Liberation of Muscovy" as it was previously referred to as. That was part of the decision the moderators decided. This is basically a separate war against Poland considering they are distracted in Russia. Mscoree (talk) 00:32, February 3, 2014 (UTC)

Two things.

A) My bad, it was SEVEN mods. Forgot Dean and Impo. MY BAD.

B) Ahh, I get it. You're invading an ally for no reason. MAKES PERFECT SENSE.

00:35, February 3, 2014 (UTC)

See, UNLIKE the Three Against Muscovy, Austria and Bohemia were traditional ALLIES of P-L. Whereas ALL of the nations in the war on Muscovy were allies- and two had been at war with them in the last 20 years.

00:42, February 3, 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is doing this for proper reasons. It's pretty much a flimsy excuse to gang up on Rex. Metagaming bullshit like that shouldn't be allowed. --Yank 00:43, February 3, 2014 (UTC)

Just recently these people also used similar reasoning to invade Muscovy. We are just doing something similar against Poland. Mscoree (talk) 00:44, February 3, 2014 (UTC)

Umm, no? All of our nations have been at war with Muscovy in the past? Two in the last 20 years?

Whereas Poland is your ALLY. This is massive META BS.

And your Moldavia mod event? WHY WOULD IT JOIN THE EXPANSIONIST NATION? ONE of these nations has annexed a neighbor in the last 10 years. Why would Moldavia join that one?

In conclusion, you've been back for two hours, and in that time you've pulled a series of the MOST META BULLSHIT I HAVE EVER SEEN.

You're making me long for the Caliphate.

00:47, February 3, 2014 (UTC)


 * STOP RIGHT F***ING NOW! DONT YOU EVER USE THE C WORD EVER AGAIN! Sereously, if you use it, I feel it is like the godwin's law for implausibility in the Principia Moderni Series...(please not the all-caps was done in a joking manner)-Lx (leave me a message)Azarath Flag.png 01:17, February 3, 2014 (UTC)

ATTENTIONS. As a compromise I have decided to completely throw out the idea of the coalition. It is being removed as we speak. Mscoree (talk) 02:04, February 3, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that Ms. Fed (talk) 02:16, February 3, 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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