Contents 1 Labeled Map 2 War Algorithm 2.1 Tactical Advantage 2.2 Strength 2.3 Motive 2.4 Chance 2.5 Other 2.6 Discussion 3 Maximum Industrialization Levels for the World's Nations - effective 1775 3.1 Stage 1 3.2 Stage 2 3.3 Stage 3 3.4 Stage 4 3.5 Discussion 4 Stability for non-player nations 5 Stability for Player States 5.1 System on Stability 5.2 System on War Algorithms 5.3 System on Rebellions 5.4 Discussion 6 Independence Movements 7 Map Problems 8 Karafuto/Sakhalin 9 Franco-Wolof War (1735) 9.1 France 9.2 Wolof 9.3 Result 9.4 Discussion 10 Glitch 11 Taking WikiBreak 12 2nd Ethiopian-Sennar 12.1 Ethiopia 12.2 Sennar 12.3 Result 12.4 Discussion 13 Industrialization 14 Map Issues 15 Division of Sweden 16 Division of Madagascar 17 Hello May I join? 18 War of Swedish Succession (1743) 18.1 French-Supporting Swedes 18.2 Russia-Supporting Swedes 18.3 Result 18.4 Discussion 19 Joining as Japan? 20 World Religions in Principia Moderni 21 Scotland 22 Map 23 No editing turns after they are complete 24 Caliphal Elections 25 Russo-Polish War(1751) 25.1 Russia 25.2 Poland 25.3 Result 25.4 Discussion 26 Second Wolof-French War (1750) 26.1 France 26.2 Wolof 26.3 Result 26.4 Discussion 27 Something off topic... 28 Scandinator and Africa 29 Brunei 30 Independent Colonies on the Map 31 Adal on map 32 Neapolitan-Bharat War 32.1 Naples 32.2 Bharat 32.3 Result 32.4 Discussion 33 Persia Shahzrur War (1758) 33.1 Persia 33.2 Shahzrur 33.3 Result 33.4 Discussion 34 RandomWriterGuy 34.1 Supporters (Moderators Only) 34.2 Opponents (Moderators Only) 34.3 Discussion (All Players) 35 Turan-Bulgaria War 35.1 Turan 35.2 Bulgaria 35.3 Result 35.4 Discussion 36 I'm Back! 37 Early Industrialization 38 Status of Client States on the World Map 39 Update 40 French-Lombard War (1766) 40.1 France 40.2 Lombardy 40.3 Result 40.4 Discussion 41 Future of AGC 41.1 Keep it as it is 41.2 Divide the AGC 41.2.1 Split England only from Brandenburg 41.2.2 Split Prussia, England, Czech, Austria from Brandenburg 41.2.3 Total split with at least 10 German States and England 41.3 Discussion 42 Stability 43 France's inactivity 44 Industrialization Update

Labeled MapEdit

The map will only be up-to-date for five years at a time, and I'm not planning on doing it more than every few decades. This is just a guideline to help people understand the situation of the countries. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 04:16, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't somebody updating that map above? RandomWriterGuy 06:51, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

I tried to do it, but is impossible to add those letters.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 12:34, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

War AlgorithmEdit

An updated algorithm can be found on the rules page

Location goes by capital city.

• at the location of the war: 5
• next to the location of the war: 4
• close to the location of the war: 3
• far from location of the war: 2
• other side of the world: 1
• Antarctica: 0

Tactical AdvantageEdit

• attacker's advantage: 1
• high ground: 2

• Note: A country receives high ground if:

1) Its capital has a high topographical prominence, meaning it is surrounded by areas of significantly lower elevation. Even plateaus count, but it must be so that the enemy has to climb the mountain to capture the capital.

2) For countries being invaded from the coast, they get high ground if their capital is 300 m or higher.

3) A country invading via sea does not get high ground.

4) A country gets high ground if their capital is more than 300 m higher than the capitals of the neighboring countries.

5) A country invaded from a bordering country, and its capital is 500 m higher or more.

StrengthEdit

• each country on a side of the war: L for leader (+4), M for military aid (+3), S for supplies (+2), V for vassalization or subordination (-1) and then W for withdrawal (-1). So a list of belligerents read like China (L), Zhuang Warlords (MVW), Japan (M), Korea (MW), Hawaiian rebels (MV), Mali (SW), creating a score of 13
• country has developed military: 1 for each turn dedicated to military or military technology in the last 15 years
• expansion: -1 for every turn used for expansion in the past 10 years

MotiveEdit

• motive is life or death (country's sovereign existence is threatened): 10
• motive is religious: 7
• motive is social or moral: 6
• motive is political: 5
• motive is economic: 3

If there are multiple motives, the one told to the army will be selected.

ChanceEdit

0 to 9 points will be awarded to each person based on chance. Factors will be the opponent's edit count (on Althist's main articles) and the precise time when the country declares war or acknowledges the other's declaration of war. The product of the non-zero digits of the time by UTC (0:00 yields 1) will be written as a percentage of the opponent's edit count at the exact time of the declaration. If the resulting number is less than one hundred percent, the reciprocal is taken. The result is multiplied by pi and the hundredths digit is the amount of points that person gets (e.g. 123.8377% yields 3). The algorithm is online for fairness, but I will be the moderator.

OtherEdit

• Countries in civil disarray are able to resist invasion by a factor of 1.5. However, they may not take territory in another country.
• If X countries attack another country, they have to take 100X/(X+2)% of their opponents' territory to facilitate a full government transplant.
• Expansion into countries not fully united is multiplied by 1.5, but it does not affect how well the country fares in war if it wins the war.
• Stability bonus points as calculated by the stability moderator.

DiscussionEdit

Vassals no longer have an effect on war? Kunarian 20:46, September 23, 2011 (UTC)

They do. They may be used as combatants, but expansion in countries with vassals is multiplied by 1.5. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 23:20, September 29, 2011 (UTC)

Maximum Industrialization Levels for the World's Nations - effective 1775Edit

Stage 1Edit

• AGC
• Hungary & Greece + colonies
• France + colonies
• Persia + colonies
• China + colonies
• Hanthawaddy + colonies
• Rest of Sweden + colonies
• Naples
• Joseon
• Itsaygahi
• Turan
• Finnish colonies

Stage 2Edit

• All of Russian territory + colonies
• Swedish Scandinavian territories
• Finnish home territories

Stage 3Edit

• None.

Stage 4Edit

• None

DiscussionEdit

• Don't nations have to mention something about the expansion of industry to be able to get it? Because Persia never posted anything to do with them building up any industry or anything, so I think Kenny said they get -10 years if they never post anything/are NPC. LurkerLordB 23:27, December 16, 2011 (UTC)
• No its player nations/areas that can industrializeScandinator
• So they can industrialize up the point on the map, but if they don't post that they do so then they don't get the benefits until later? LurkerLordB 03:32, December 26, 2011 (UTC)
• Exactly!Scandinator
• Naples is the same color as France on the map, so ought't they to industrialize the same time? LurkerLordB 22:09, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
• Aren't you confusing Sweden with Naples?--Collie Kaltenbrunner 06:44, January 5, 2012 (UTC)
• No, see the most recent map: France is the color of Naples, but it is now put on the same level as Anglo-Germany. LurkerLordB 22:04, January 5, 2012 (UTC)
• I thought that you was talking about the conventional map, not the industrialization map.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 16:52, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
• That is because of their occupation of Sweden. Scandinator

Stability for non-player nations Edit

Just to clarify: from this point on, the population and time ruled factors in the algorithm will be replaced with bonus points for player nations. For non-player nations, it will go as follows:

2.5*Number of digits of population*Time

Time is:

1. Number of years ruled / 10.
2. Plug into: x^1.25/1.25^x.

So take the current United States: 9 digits in population. Ruled for 235 years. Thus:23.5^1.25/1.25^23.5*2.5*9 = 6 points

Any problems with this system?

Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 23:25, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I tweaked it slightly just a second ago, and it is correct as above. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 01:16, October 31, 2011 (UTC)

Graphical representation. Red is 6 digit in population, green is 7 digits, blue is 8 digits, and yellow is 9 digits. The horizontal axis is years and the vertical is bonus points. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 01:36, October 31, 2011 (UTC) {C}{C When you archive the page again,please don't remove this section. i need to remind how the stability curve is done.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 20:15, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Stability for Player States Edit

Okay, time for the new system. This should be a lot more simple and a lot fairer.

System on StabilityEdit

The new system will distinguish government stability score (GSS) from common stability score (CSS). The sum is overall stability score (OSS).

Government stability score is basically the stability curve. The formula is 10*d^1.25/1.2^d where d is the number of decades the government has been in power, rounded to the nearest year. It is rounded to the nearest 0.1.

Common stability score starts at zero, and measures the stability of the common people. This number starts at zero. Economic improvements, propaganda, and religious revivals are +0.5 per year. Expansion and war are -1 per year. Make the most out of your expansion, and choose wisely guys.

When OSS reaches 0, you get a mod rebellion, so you can always change governments before then to keep this from happening.

System on War AlgorithmsEdit

The new equation for gains from war algorithms is (p)*(1-1/(2x)), where x is the number of the years the war goes on and p is the amount of territory determined by the algorithm. So if your war lasts one year, you only get 50% of the territory, but if you let the war last five years, you get 90% of the territory. But you still lose -1 CSS for each turn you take during the war. However, it should be noted that the person who chooses how long the war is going to last is the winner. The winner may not hold the war if their OSS goes to zero. A country fighting on multiple fronts will lose twice as many OSS each turn.

If your OSS reaches zero during a war, you will have a rebellion during the war but it will not affect your overall score.

System on RebellionsEdit

For mod rebellions or rebellions for new players who want to join, a specific area will be selected. For new players, it has to be a specific ethnic, regional, or national area, but for mod rebellions it will depend on the situation (i.e. for homogenous countries). The algorithm will continue normally, except the territory "owned" by the rebellion will equal half the disputed territory. If the war is a tie, the rebellious country may choose territory from 1/2 of the disputed area.

Why this works:

• The stability scores are much lower and much less variable.
• It actually takes into account usage of resources.
• It prevents people from accumulating huge stability scores and wielding them against blank player nations who only have the stability curve.
• It discourages too many changes of government because countries are most vulnerable as soon as they change government.
• Rebellions have a good chance but they won't necessarily take over the entire country or completely be annihilated.
• It's possible to keep your stability score artificially just above zero, but if you get invaded, you're screwed.

DiscussionEdit

Please discuss here. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 05:28, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

... after all my effort... ah well i understand. Especially since Hungary was going to get 114 points if I updated now Scandinator 06:22, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

I like this system much better. The old one would have worked good in theory, but there were too many things which opinion could effect or were complicated. It would work well in a videogame or something though. LurkerLordB 21:59, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

My only question is how drastic does it have to be to be considered a change in government? LurkerLordB 22:14, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think mod rebellions should be like a civil war. CrimsonAssassin 00:01, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well, I can't think of a better way to give rebellions a chance without taking too much territory out of the nation. Got a better idea?

And a change in government would mean that the previous government wouldn't have wanted the change to happen. This is different from say, a new king that is much more well liked than his predecessor. Instead, the way you make your king more well-liked is with propaganda, which adds

One problem I am running into. Take the scenario: someone works on their economy one hundred years straight, and their stability is at 50 by the end of that period. Then, they go on a rampage, and because their stability is so high, they conquer about 20 countries with about 2 years each, and still have about 10 stability left, which makes it hard for them to be invaded. The only solution I can think of is another curve (yay). So when your Common Stability Score gets above 5 or below -5, additional quantities are square rooted. So instead of 8 stability points, it would be 5+√(3), and the person in the example would have 5+√(45) stability, which is about 11.7 instead of 50. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 02:12, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

If someone was working on their economy for a hundred years straight, they deserve a successful rampage if you ask me. CrimsonAssassin 02:30, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Crimson, both to make it fair to nations that works on their economy for a hundred years straight, and because I am tired of math. LurkerLordB 02:56, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

Independence Movements Edit

in response to some concerns, I'll address the issue of colonial independence here. I'm giving the honor of the first independent colony to Hungary, where possibly Öböl or Újfunlandi could be the first, or he can pass the honor to someone else. This should take place between 1750 and 1800. This will set off a series of rebellions. You are not forced to give up your colonies, but you can still control your independent nations. At that point, having a lasting cultural impact is more important than just having more territory. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 02:32, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to judge whether or not a colony is old enough to break away.

1. It needs to be old enough to have a significant amount of people who were born in the colony and identify with it rather than the mother nation
2. It needs to be big enough to pose a credible force capable of breaking away. A 10 px size colony is not going to be capable of breaking away by war, and at this time period, no peaceful break aways will work.

One question: I assume this applies just to colonies, and not to other subjugated territories. LurkerLordB 02:53, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can have a subjugated territory declare independence at any time. I chose Hungary because they have a long colonial history and extensive settlement in Újfunlandi and Öböl. I am leaning towards Újfunlandi because it is literally the most largely settled colony in the game, but as you said, Lurker, there has to be a good reason for a break, so it is up to Collie. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 05:44, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "you can still control your independent nations."?--Collie Kaltenbrunner 07:54, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

I think what he means by that is the player has the option to control what their former colonies do even after they rebel. Question: if we made a colony out of a subjugated territory, (Aztecs, Incans, ect.) what would you say is a good time for them to rebel? CrimsonAssassin 12:34, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

I say that for colonies to rebel, they ought to have been old enough for a whole generation to have lived and died in it. LurkerLordB 21:55, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

I'd say at least a century since the establishment of the colony. CrimsonAssassin 23:33, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

Map ProblemsEdit

Adal belongs to Ethiopia.Scandinator 09:32, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

No, he said on his post that he annexed 13,5% of Adal.not all of it. and Ethioipa led the war, not Sweden.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 12:34, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

And Vietnam has conquered Joseon's colonies in East Asia.

Yank 14:59, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, this was because i added on the original, and i started to edit on other file, and i thought that i'd added it.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 15:46, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

And China puchased Tibet a while ago actually. CrimsonAssassin 16:53, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

Another issue is that the new government in Itsaygahi has merged the vassals as autonomous provinces into Itsaygahi. Could this be shown on the map. Also, an autonomous province should exist for the Hurons which were a Itsaygahan protectorate under the Old Kingdom. Thanks. Mumby 14:18, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

How should a autonomous province be depicted?--Collie Kaltenbrunner 16:38, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

Karafuto/Sakhalin Edit

I want to know who founded the outpost on Karafuto, as I want to make a deal with them.

• Solution A: The island is divided similar to how it was divided between Russia and Japan in OTL. The other nation (presumably Hanthawaddy) gets the northern half, and Nippon gets the southern half.
• Solution B: Hanthawaddy gets the current area around their enclave, and the Nipponese get the remaining 95%.

Yank 20:18, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine just to take the two peninsulae on the east of the island. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 21:02, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

Franco-Wolof War (1735) Edit

FranceEdit

• Location: 2
• Attacker's Advantage: 1
• France(L)/Burgundy(MV)/Algeria(MV)/Hungary (M):11
• Expansion:-3
• Military Expansion:6
• Stability: 20.8^1.25/1.25^20.8*2.5*7=7
• Motive: (Political) 5
• Participation: 10
• Chance:8
  • Editcount: 417
  • 2*3*4*9=216
  • 417/216xpi =62.3830541
• Total=42

WolofEdit

• At the Location of the War: 5
• Wolof(L): 4
• Expansion: 0
• Military Expansion: 0
• Stability: 37.5^1.25/1.25^37.5*2.5*7=0.377095757=0
• Motive (Life or Death): 10
• Participation: 10
• Chance: 8
• Total= 37

ResultEdit

French Victory, France can take (42/(42+37)*2)-1=6.32% of Wolof

DiscussionEdit

I classified the expansion into Arabia and Inca and Songhai as being expansion, because it was beyond the normal limits of colonial expansion. You would think that France would need to incorporate the Songhai territory into their own for a while first before any expansion, and that they would have trouble dividing their forces between the Arabian war and this one. I used the stability curve for Wolof, but I need someone else to make the French one (aka Detectivekenny) LurkerLordB 15:31, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

Use the stability curve. The new stability will probably not be implemented until 1750 or later. And I will appreciate the war being written as Wolof War (YEAR), because it makes things a lot more convenient. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 00:30, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

Glitch Edit

After I did my edit, a glitch occured. How did that happened? RandomWriterGuy 06:59, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

This used to happen with Zagoria and Lx.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 09:48, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

What glitch? White screen glitch? If yes, I get it very often too.

^{(Talk to Doctor!)} 09:53, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

No, there is a glitch where the guy edits the page, and the page turns into a mess of code, especially where the images are.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 11:26, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

Taking WikiBreakEdit

This year I am entering 9th Grade at an early college high school, and am taking college classes in addition to a full curriculum of AP High School classes. ince I have been having insane amounts of homework, I have simply not had the time to edit posts satisfactorily. I will attempt to come back during winter break and in the spring if I get more used to my college classes. Until then, the AGC is in a period of inactivity (and please don't invade my territory).Zagoria 01:05, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, College classes can be a pain. I know your pain. Good luck with them! CrimsonAssassin 01:01, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

Hope you come back as soon as you are able! LurkerLordB 01:05, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

2nd Ethiopian-Sennar Edit

EthiopiaEdit

• Close to the location of the War: 4
• Attacker's Advantage: 1
• Ethiopia(L)/: 12
• Expansion: 0
• Military Expansion: 3
• Stability: 7
• Motive (Religious): 7
• Participation: 10
• Chance: 1
  • Editcount:144
  • Time:2*1*2*5=20
  • (144/20)*pi=22.6194671
• Total= 43

SennarEdit

• At the location of the War: 5
• Sennae(L): 4
• Expansion: 0
• Military Expansion: 0
• Stability: 200^1.25/1.25^200*2.5*6=4
• Motive (Life or death): 10
• Participation: 10
• Chance:2
• Total=35

ResultEdit

Ethiopian Victory. Ethiopia is entitled to (43/(43+35)*2)-1=10.26% of Sennar

DiscussionEdit

I changed the military expansion number to fit in with the turns I used, but I'm not sure where that factors inFlagmania 02:39, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

Industrialization Edit

Is Joseon under the "Beijing area" thing? PitaKang- (Talk|Contribs) 02:39, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

Detectivekenny ruled that the Beijing area thing was no good, but Korea wasn't part of it anyways. Korea will begin industrializaton at 1775. LurkerLordB 02:45, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

When was this decided? Besides, Russia gave China a steam engine years ago and nobody spoke up until now. CrimsonAssassin 02:49, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

Read what DK posted on the last page when you did speak up:

The area around Beijing should be red due to a deal I had with Russia a few years back. CrimsonAssassin 13:42, November 18, 2011 (UTC)

That is true, it was for a "recolutionary piece of technology" to only be used in the capital, that tech is the steam engine, thus accelerating industrialization in Beijing.-Lx ^{(leave me a message)} 14:29, November 18, 2011 (UTC)

If everyone made a deal with Russia, then we'd all be industrialized by 1800. Sorry, but you just have to wait. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 03:55, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

He says you have to wait. LurkerLordB 03:09, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

Two things: 1. The deal has been put in the game. Sorry, but it'd be stupid to go back ten or twenty years to when I made the deal. I can't wait if it already happened. 2. It's just Beijing being the city of tomorrow. (-unsigned)

I'm sorry, but if I let this one go then everyone will want to do the same. Maybe a deal was reached twenty years ago, but back then no one "knew" exactly what would come up. Beijing can still be a city of the future, but in other ways. As players of this game, we are biased in that we usually try to do what will create the best outcome based on what occurred in real life.

We explore alternate history with given assumptions about what would happen. Many timelines create a better outcome for a particular country by using OTL. For example, take a hypothetical alternate timeline (I'm cutting out a lot of historical precision) where the US never joined the Vietnam War and instead used the money to create digital technology, and by 1990 everyone had iPhones and iPads, and the US dominates technology instead of Japan. It seems like this was right to do, because the US did end up losing the Vietnam War, but hindsight is 20/20, and it's not like anyone could have foreseen the US losing (and disgracing itself to certain people) with 20/20 accuracy.

Almost everyone wants to become a liberal democratic, industrialized, technologically advanced, and developed nation. Face it.

Same situation here. Crimson, you and the rest of the community happen to know, assuming we have a decent knowledge of history, that the industrialized nations all had huge amounts of power (and still do). We all seem to know that's what's best. But if you are to journey into this timeline and ask your average mandarin what would be the best way to make China great, you might be surprised at what you hear. Very few Chinese without a Western education during this period wanted to industrialize. Industrialization, western ideas, etc. was either "useless" or "poisonous." Maybe they put more weight on moral achievements and it bit their back in the long run when the Europeans started dividing China into spheres of influence and China lost power.

So that's why I'm putting restrictions, because even in all plausibility, I can't have it so everyone takes the direct route to being a "liberal democratic, industrialized, technologically advanced, and developed nation," because not only would that be implausible, but we would be in science fiction realm by the time we get to present-day.

The rules are there for a reason.

No saying that Beijing cannot be the city of the future. Maybe there are a lot of progressive minded individuals in the city. But maybe their idea of "city of the future" is different. Maybe their idea is to look into navigational technology, city transportation, efficient city planning or government, or anything. If the purpose of this game is to be creative, I don't see how I am stifling creativity in any way. But industrializing just to get ahead in the game, and additionally bending the rules, is a no-no. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 05:31, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

The deal was a revolutionary piece of technology. China got the steam engine, but nothing else. I do see where you're coming from though. CrimsonAssassin 15:07, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

Then let's say that Beijing found it useless until later. In Alternate History we sometimes neglect things that don't move the plot forward. By the way, I saw your nomination a little while ago, so thanks, I appreciate it. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 00:16, December 8, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that seems fair. Oh and you certainly earned that nomination! Good luck. CrimsonAssassin 21:12, December 8, 2011 (UTC)

Map IssuesEdit

Sweden's Arabian claim is not the agreed one. Sweden should get more of Saudi Arabia as shown in the map.

I assume that you are Scandinator.anyway, there are three maps proposed; this, one in which France gets OTL Qatar and the UAE area, and other one in your talk page (or it was Galaguerra's), and you and Galaguerra never agreed in which one to use, if i'm correct.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 12:32, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

I'm agree with this proposal, I will control the coast of the Persian Gulf anyway. --Galaguerra1 14:37, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

The image right there is the right one (it also has Jerusalem in the lighter color, which is good too. LurkerLordB 22:38, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

I will add it now that you agreed with one proposal.

Nippon has annexed the various island chains formerly owned by Japan, and has begun the process of absorbing Sakhalin/Karafuto.

Yank 15:29, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

Division of Sweden Edit

It is my (sad) understanding that Sweden is going to be divided between France and Russia. Ethiopia would like to prevent a possible war and act as a mediator. So we have a proposal

France Gets:

• The Netherlands (Part of Sweden)
• Scotland
• Western Denmark
• A little bit of Norway
• Thorland
• Hodland
• New Sweden
• Arabian part of Swedish Afrika
• Southern two thirds of Fjordland

Russia Gets:

• Rest of Swedish Homeland
• Estonia
• Asgard
• Swedish India
• Northern Third of Fjordland

Hungary Gets:

• African part of Swedish Afrika

I gave Hungary that coast on Libya because I'd already given enough to both France and Russia, and thought another nation close by should get that. You can use my map as a basis for negotiations.Flagmania 23:17, December 8, 2011 (UTC)

I've started a local republican regime for the express purpose of allowing the leadership of Sweden to stay in Sweden's hands. Rest assured, I have no intention of making the Republicans a vassal or puppet of Vietnam, unlike every other nation interested in Swedish affairs. I just cannot sit back while France and Russia cut themselves enormous pieces of the Swedish pie.

Yank 01:34, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

I am going to say that this will most likely be a civil war...thats right a civil war, not somebody taking over another nation but one trying to get influence over its governement, and will most likely result in the war of Swedish Succession faught over on one side by russia and the other france... and one nation will gain religious(france=Catholic, Russia=Orthodox)/some other influence on the other nation. Not annexation, we(or at least Russia) wants to keep a sovreign(or in-confederation) Sweden!-Lx ^{(leave me a message)} 02:36, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

There would be a third faction, being the Republicans funded by the Vietnamese. I promise that, if the Republicans win I will not curtail Swedish independance at all. Regardless of what either Lx or ---- say, the fact of the matter is that Swedish independance would be infringed apon as a puppet of either Russia or France.

Yank 03:12, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

I'm strognly desagree. Finland enter in a union with Russia already and the independence of it has not be infringed. As semi-democratic state, France will give even more freedom to the swedish than they already have. Anyway, is not my intetion go to war because of it, and I want you to not go to war neither. --Galaguerra1 05:13, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

No Sweden is NOT going to be split up. An there will be a War of the Swedish Succession, like the OTL Spainish one. I am still playing so the nation need not be carved up, Flagmania.Scandinator 05:48, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Scandinator. The divison of Sweden is very unfair. RandomWriterGuy 05:56, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

I'm down with Scan. we shouldn't jump to conclusions.it's like trying to divide my nation when they got into a civil war.But, about the war; there will be only two factions?--Collie Kaltenbrunner 06:39, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

No. There will be three factions. The Pro-French Nobles, the Pro-Russian Clergy and the Nationalist Republicans I funded because Vietnam wants Sweden independant. I also agree that the division plan is unfair. It's not like what happened to the Ottoman Empire or Joseon, as Scandinator is still playing. I created the Nationalist Republicans to provide Scandinator with a "neither of the above" option.

Yank 06:45, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

If there will be a war, I'll obviously win. I have more allies and any of them will be benefited with a russian defeat. The swedish people will obviously support me. I'm a democratic state and historical ally of Sweden, I have even blood right to the swedish throne. Insted Russia is an autocratic empire under constant civil disarray and the traditional enemy of Sweden. And Vietnam, though is a powerful nation, is not so important in the swedish policy. The balance of power is on my side. Still, I must say it again... I want not to go to war But, if it's necessary, I'm gonna fight. --Galaguerra1 06:49, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

You know how you sound right now Gal? You sound like a hypocritical pompous thug who cares nothing about anyone else but yourself, and will not hesitate to step on everyone to get your way. Vietnam has not given support to the Republicans to gain control of Sweden. They gave support to help Scandinator fend off two greedy opportunists interested in taking the lion's share of Sweden for themselves. The Vietnamese are not interested in Sweden for the sake of territorial gain, but to help safeguard Sweden's sovreignty from foreign threats. Which is way more than what I can say for France or (to a slightly lesser extent) Russia.

Yank 21:10, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

Does this mean it's loo late for me to ask for Sweden's Hawaii colony? CrimsonAssassin 21:14, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

Mmmm...YES, I sound a little (little ¬¬) bit hypocratical...Sorry. I was just saying that I have more in-game possibilities to win, or at least have the support of the swedish states. Anyway, you are not supporting officially the republicans, so I will not attack you (Vietnam is an ally of France, and is more suitable to me an allaince than a enmity). And I want not obtain territorial gains. It is anyway impossible, the war if for obtian the government of Sweden, not it's territory. I already have plans to give to Sweden a new independent monarch after the death of my current king (It is in the event of I win the war). --Galaguerra1 21:44, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

Well, Sweden's been very helpful to Ethiopia thus far, so Galag., Ethiopia's one nation that's going to fight with the Republican Swedes and Vietnam.Flagmania 22:15, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

If you check the history line, France has been the most feithful and helpful ally of Sweden in the last century. One of the kings of Sweden in fact was member of the House of Bertrand. So, the king of France is the legitime king of Sweden. Anyway, if you want to fight with the Republic, I'm no one to stop you. --

I support the French! they have the only legitimate claim to sweden. Kunarian 22:28, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

Actualy, Charles Peter Ulrich of Holstein-Gottorp(Peter III of Russia)'s Granduncle(Great Uncle) is the late charles XI, so he has legitimate claim to the throne.-Lx ^{(leave me a message)} 03:34, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

I say the vote thing should happen, but how? Each option gets a number, and we use a random number generator to see what the people choose? LurkerLordB 22:32, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

What if the Republicans re-establish an independant Republic of Scotland in exchange for renouncing their claim to the government of mainland Sweden?

Yank 00:16, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

I would accept that offer, but I seriously doubt that Venice be happy with it. --Galaguerra1 01:42, December 10, 2011 (UTC) As far as I'm concerned the only users who need to accept it are you and Scandinator. Kunarian needs to keep his nose out of other people's business. Besides I lost the ability to care what he thought when he decided genocide was a better way to get me to back down than actual diplomacy. He's on thin ice and he doesn't even know it. -- Yank 03:29, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

Division of Madagascar Edit

I just noticed that Naples already has a colony on Madagascar. Just to make a boundary, I thought Ethiopia and Naples should make a deal.

Option A: Naples gets just what it already has, Ethiopia gets the Rest of Madagascar

Or, more likely

Option B: We divide the island halfway.

Flagmania 22:08, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but King Carlo VII will make no treaty with the Ethiopians, and claims the island of Madagascar to be under his sole dominion. LurkerLordB 22:32, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

He will give the Ethiopians money for the colony however, equal to the amount it cost to found it. LurkerLordB 23:45, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

Hello May I join? Edit

I would love to join this map game. If it's alright.

Yes you can join! I joined here recently-You just need to put your name next to one of the unclaimed nations, and create a page for your nation.Flagmania 02:55, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

Wow, Kurdistan. A surprising choice. You do know which nation on the map is Kurdistan? LurkerLordB 04:42, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Islamic World, north of Persia. ~~Conwarlod96~~

War of Swedish Succession (1743) Edit

French-Supporting SwedesEdit

• Location: 5
• Purple Faction(L)//France(M)/Burgundy(MV)/Estonia(MV)/Arabia(MV)/Netherlands(MV)/Naples(M)/Papal States(MV)/Jerusalem(MV)/Vietnam(M)/Nippon(MV)/Venice(MW)/Fuzolia(MVW)/Milan(MVW)/Scotland/Ethiopia(M)/Nubia(MV):39
• Life or death: 10
• military dev: 0
• Expansion: 0
• Stability:((0.2^1.25) / (1.25^0.2)) * 2.5 * 9 = 2.87798158=3
• Chance: 6
• Total:60

Russia-Supporting SwedesEdit

• Location: 5
• Green Faction(L)/Russia(M)/Lithuania(M)/Finland(M)/Kazakhstan(VM)/South Armenia(MV)/Iroquois confederation(MV)/China(M)/)/Venice(MW)/Fuzolia(MVW)/Milan(MVW)/Denmark(Charles Peter Ulrich)(M):32? I'm having adding problems
• Life or death: 10
• Military dev: 0
• Expanion: 0
• Stability:((0.2^1.25) / (1.25^0.2)) * 2.5 * 9 = 2.87798158=3
• Chance: 7
• Total:56

===Republican Swedes ===

• Location: 5
• Republican Faction(L)/Vietnam(M)/Nippon(MS)Ethiopia(?)/Sennar(?)/Naples(M)/Papal States (MV)/Jerusalem(MV):12
• Life or death: 10
• Military dev: 0
• Expasnion: 0
• Stability:1.23734702=1
• Chance: 7
• Total:41

ResultEdit

Swedish Nobility Victory

DiscussionEdit

Okay, I have a few corrections to do with this algorithm. First of all, Venice has as vassals the Crusader States, Montferrat and...Siena? Anyway, there are three more countries on my side (two more, counting my vassals of Arabia and Algeria and Burgundy has sent military support). The name of my faction must be chaged to "Robert IV Bertrand" and a third republican faction must be added. May be the factions of Sweden (green, red and purple) should be added as vassals, and I thought the green faction was the pro-russian and the purple the pro-french. --Galaguerra1 05:34, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

The Venetian vassals ar Milan, Fuzolia, and the Crusader states (counted as one). You can edit the algorithm yourself you know. LurkerLordB 05:38, December 10, 2011 (UTC) How do we handle a three-way war? LurkerLordB 15:18, December 10, 2011 (UTC)'

Also, if Ethiopia joins (and currently we're probably going to join the Republican side, but we really just want a peaceful compromise) then our only Vassal, Nubia will join too.Flagmania 15:30, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

All of Venice and its vassals are joining in militaristically. 86.24.9.183 15:32, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

For Military development the leader should be counted. same with everything else. Kunarian 17:01, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, only problem is that the war is being fought through proxies (Vietnamese-controlled republican faction, French controlled monarchy faction, Russian controlled clergy faction) which makes it harder to determine who the leader is. LurkerLordB

We would use France for the french led faction as it is actually the french army and political leadership there leading the front and Russia for the russian led faction as for the same reasons however the Republicans would have no mil dev, expansion minuses and standard stability due to the fact that Vietnam hasn't actually sent troops or led the revolution politically, its the Republicans alone who rose up with Vietnamese supplies alone, they are doing the hard work alone unlike the other two factions. 86.24.9.183 20:13, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

no do it by the time the players who support it, theres too much room for manipulation of results. Plus the main armies of the factions should be the representatives as they are the ones fighting, the clergy and monarchy won't be on the frontline anytime soon. 86.24.9.183 22:38, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

It's the factions that are fighting, even though they are puppets of other nations. They are NPC's, therefore they will do the NPC chance. LurkerLordB 22:42, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't trust the NPC chance you have done, if Ethiopia and Semnar join you and Vietnam win, it would seem that you have manipulated it to your own ends. First you deny the advantages Russia and France hold then you give the French the worst chance so the Russians beat them and give yourself the highest so that you can win by 1 if Ethiopia joins. 86.24.9.183 22:45, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about it, it should probably be the factions for all of them. LurkerLordB 21:54, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

For chance I'll just do a random number generator for all, as they have no players. LurkerLordB 22:20, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

I redid chance as there were complints of bias.Scandinator

I am happy with the results. However if detective kenny feels that he should redo it in case of more accusations of bias, then I am fine with that. Kunarian 22:57, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

I did no bias, if I did, I would have given Russia low enough to not win. But if you don't trust me, I guess you can. Technically, sinc eits a civil war Scandinator could decide the outcome however he wanted LurkerLordB 00:47, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

I'm still concerned how we will do the results. Unless something very strange happens, none of the sides will be able to get a majority of the points, which would make the result algorithm messed up. So how would the war result be decided (unless the three sides reach some sort of compromise)LurkerLordB 00:57, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

I have an idea. We divide the nation into three portions. The Repubicans get Scotland, the Russian Clergymen get Norway and Denmark, and the French get Sweden proper and Sweden's colonial empire.

Yank 01:07, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

the republicans get nothing. Its Frances and Russias decision on what happens. 86.24.9.183 01:19, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I was trying to start a civil discussion Mr. Doe. If you have nothing good to say you shouldn't say anything.Yank 01:26, December 11, 2011 (UTC) {C Exactly why would it be France and Russia only deciding? Because according to the new algorithm, Russia isn't winning either. I also didn't see where you were appointed in charge of this war, Kunarian. If anyone should decide, it should be Scandinator (as it is both his nation and he is a moderator) or a joint agreement by everyone involved, not just a normal user deciding what will occur in another nation just because he pleases. LurkerLordB 01:29, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

The Republicans have made a deal with the French. They will back them in the War of Swedish Sucession in exchange for an independant Republic of Scotland. I think the addition of Republican forces and their allies is more than enough to sway the scales in favor of the Pro-French faction.Yank 02:51, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

Huzzah, Nobility Victory comes! Scotland is now an independent NPC. LurkerLordB 03:28, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

OMG the french might just win a war! its the appocalypse!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1(this is a joke....interpret it as such!)-Lx ^{(leave me a message)} 03:36, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

I won a war AGAINST RUSSIA!!!! I'm more than glad. I hope you will not attack me in revange D_D. Well, If you won't, you can consider the "northern wars fever" of the last century ended (by now). Anyway, when will I crush m weak and pathetic enemies? (It's a joke, please don't take it as vanity) When will the war end?--Galaguerra1 04:07, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps next year (1746)? Make it a three year war? That or the next year ('47). LurkerLordB 04:30, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

I'll audit the algorithm once finals end (on Wednesday, time permitting), because it appears we have this issue under control. Unfortunately I will be on vacation starting next weekend and for two weeks, so during that time I will have Collie in my position, and he will have final say. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 05:02, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

The war ins't over til the turn is over, so if russia accepts Venetian assistance, he can win. 86.24.9.183 13:36, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

You're telling me that Venice has withdrawn it's support of the French and their Swede allies just because I joined the bandwagon? Has anyone told you that you are disgustingly fickle? Yank 14:18, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

Add China to Russia's side. CrimsonAssassin 14:19, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

good one yank, your response would be one reason why Venice does not wish to be on your side. Besides Venices greatest ally was Sweden, France was simply an ally and by betraying Venetian interests without adressing the Venetians themselves they lost an ally in exchange for an oppurtunist. Kunarian 14:24, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to say this one last time, Kun: lose the attitude. Lordganon 14:32, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

Wait a moment, he calls me distgustingly fickle, a clear insult and then my response is simply to explain why i did so and simply call him an oppurtunist which isn't even an insult but a character trait and you are telling me to lose the attitude? tell me what I need to stop please and I will. Kunarian 14:38, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

I was going to apologize to you Kunarian, but I realized that I shouldn't. You are the very definition of "fickle"! You were one of the people who said "France is the only legit one!", and when I decided that I agreed with you you immediately changed your tune to "France sucks!". I would have thought you would have wanted to see France win at all costs.

Yank 14:43, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

I think you'll find that what I wrote was that it is Russia and Frances situation to sort out. You sided with France to grab an ally in europe in the form of a Republican Scotland. After the re opening of Vietnamese aggression towards Venice, we don't want you to have an ally in europe or to interfer in affairs that would not be yours (seeming as the two sides to begin with were actually russian and french and because of how much you complained when I got involved in anything that was mildly outside of europe or my territories). My attitude is not France sucks but one of "France made a poor decision" they would have most likely won without Republican assistance and if Venice did not make it clear enough that it was opposed to the Vietnamese funded republicans then I geuss that it could be my fault too. We aren't suddenly going to start jumping into wars on the side of Russia and we aren't going to suddenly start being aggressive towards France, we simply feel that it would be better if Russia won this one, at least then Venices interests are protected and if Russia were to also make a treat with the Republicans then Venice would sit this one out and eat cake. Its all a matter of situational politics, no matter how fickle Venice seems. Kunarian 14:55, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

Yank hit it on the head with the "fickle" comment. Nor was that offensive.

You and Lx had a discussion. You were the one that made that ugly, too.

Past that, you have consistently been offensive, and just mean in general, to the players of this game, especially to Yank, for no reason.

If you can't see where/how, at this point that is on you.

So, I repeat myself. Cut it out.

Lordganon 15:08, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

OK, this is official: you, Kunarian, have a vendetta against Yankovic. There is no way you are just roleplaying your nation correctly, you have a vendetta against him. I don't know why, but you have developed an irrational hatred against your fellow user, and this needs to end now. LurkerLordB 15:18, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

Also, nice try, but your help is still counted, just a point taken away from each thing, if you withdraw. LurkerLordB 15:20, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

Untill he officialy sends troops or ships its not military aid is it? and one more thing, Lets keep the kunarian discussions out of the war duscussions! its starting to irritate me, please have those non-war related dscussions outside of the war discussion section. is that OK with everybody?-Lx ^{(leave me a message)} 15:49, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

Frankly Lordganon you have not stated what part of my attitude is a real problem so seeming as my last post seems to not have set upon anything then I assume it has solved something. By the way I hardly have a vendetta against him, I tried to re-intiate relations however he cut this off, if anyone has the vendetta it would seem to be he. Anyway, yes Lx is right we need to get back to the war not why me and yank find ourselves on opposite sides of a trench again. Kunarian 16:00, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

Also, good try Kunarian, but the Republican faction still exists as Scotland, so you can't remove that either. LurkerLordB 16:04, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

good one. Kunarian 16:11, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

No, Kun, it has not.

I and others have told you repeatedly that you need to quit treating others as you are. You have failed to do so, despite having been told what the problem is, and it being obvious.

You do it one more time, and you will have a block. There is absolutely no reason at all for it, and it needs to stop.

Lordganon 16:18, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

Can you give me a detailed explanation or just outline the problems with my attitude that you find on my talk page so that we can do principia moderni here not moderating. Its a reasonable request and should end the arguing here. Kunarian 16:23, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

I see absolutely no point at all in that. Everyone else can see it here, each and every time you have done it, and that's more than good enough. Lordganon 16:29, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that its not good enough. If you want me to stop something I am finding hard to see then you need to tell me what I am doing wrong. Its kinda like seeing someone throw a javelin wrong then just pointing at them and going "look at what they are doing wrong and if they do it wrong again, no more javelin throwing." If you truely want something to stop something then you tell someone what they are doing wrong. Kunarian 16:37, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

With the recent deal, Ethiopia and its vassal Nubia will give support to the French side.Flagmania 16:53, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

That settles it. Even with China (whose involvement makes no sense) and Venice involved the French still win. Next turn the war should be over and done with.

Yank 19:26, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, China is with Russia for several reasons. The first reason is that they have an alliance with Russia. The second reason is that they are getting steel and textile mills out of this deal. CrimsonAssassin 20:23, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

Yank, signing posts like that is screwing up pages.

Kun, the simple fact is that it is. If you fail to get it by now, that's on you. It's been pointed out to you more than enough, now.

Lordganon 23:58, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

Joining as Japan?Edit

Hey I want to join this game, and Japan seems to be free for me to take over. That o.k with the rest of you? VonGlusenburg ^{(talk to Von!)} 11:57, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

Welcome, But well, Japan (or what is left of it) is a vassal of Vietnam right now.If you still want to play as Japan, you may have to ask to Yank (he controls Vietnam)--Collie Kaltenbrunner 12:55, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

I'm planning on having the Nipponese declare independance in a few years, so you can have it then.

Yank 13:56, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

Welcome. Please make yourself familiar with the rules. Other than that, have a great map game! CrimsonAssassin 21:55, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I'll just take it once Vietnam gives Japan independence, I can wait :) VonGlusenburg ^{(talk to Von!)} 23:46, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

The only problem is that Japan was renamed Nippon by the Vietnamese (which is actually much closer to the name for Japan in Japanese) so maybe you should keep Nippon to reflect the long period of Vietnamese rule and to make it more accurate. LurkerLordB 00:07, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

The name "Nippon" is a more formal reading of the kanji referring to Japan. I just decided I liked the sound of Nippon better than Nihon. It was just a way to distinguish independant Japan from my Japanese vassal state. --Yank 01:16, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

It's not necessarily more accurate, though. What you name your country is whatever you want the Brits to call it :P And nice to have you VonGlusenberg, welcome back to map games! Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 02:24, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

Japan, Nihon, Nippon... all the names for the same thing; but I'll keep it Nippon since it is actually a Japanese reading of it, and to show the previous period of Vietnamese rule. Why do we call countries not by the actual name the country itself calls it anyway, I wonder?

Also Kenny I've been playing Greater Europe, Imperial Europe 2 & Fractured America. I just got bored with Imperial Europe 2 & decided to join this one instead :P But nice to be playing with you again :) VonGlusenburg ^{(talk to Von!)} 15:37, December 13, 2011 (UTC).

Because it is more simple, i guess.Look at Hungary, it is difficult to spell "Magyarország" correctly for a brazilian like me, for a example.especially because Hungarian is a difficult laguage to learn.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 19:36, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

I'm waiting until Hungary has their colonies (or colony) declare independance. I thought that Hungary was going to lead the way.

Yank 22:09, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

Yo, i'm going to.for now is just the prelude, because the revolution will happen soon.(around 1755)--Collie Kaltenbrunner 05:55, December 17, 2011 (UTC)

World Religions in Principia Moderni Edit

I'm planning on making a map of World Religions for the year 1750. I know some differances (like Schmittism) but what are the other major differances I should know about? Are the largest religions in China Buddhism, Taoism, or Confucianism? Has much of the middle east converted to Christianity (since Persia is christian, and Europeans are controlling parts of it)? Has chritianity splintered in different ways?

Wow. That was a lot of questions....Flagmania 21:45, December 14, 2011 (UTC)

I'm making a map of religions in France. I'm gonna put it on the page soon. --Galaguerra1 22:02, December 14, 2011 (UTC)

Confucianism is prevalent in Canton and West China. Buddhism is prevalent in central China. Small parts of Eastern China have large Taoist populations. Christianity is somewhat prevalent, especially East Asian Christianity. Good question. CrimsonAssassin 22:32, December 14, 2011 (UTC)

I imagine that it will be hard to graph China, as there people could be Taoist, Buddhist, and Confucian, or any combination, at the same time! I guess you could choose what would be their top preference.

Schmittism will be the largest in Doitmania (the small little part of Denmark that sticks out to the side) the Netherlands and Prussia, due to all being former Japanese colonies, and they will have many in some French Colonies (I don't know which) and perhaps a group in South France?. And Istoias.

Meanwhile, by then Hussite Christianity will dominate the rest of Eastern Germany, Austria, Poland, and the northern parts of Hungary. Waldensian Christianity will be in the non-Neapolitan controlled parts of Italy and perhaps Burgundy. Eastern Orthodox Christianity will be in Russia & Colonies and Greece and Sweden, Roman Catholicism in Spain & colony, Portugal, Naples & Colonies, France & some colonies Scotland, the rest of Hungary, the Rest of Anglo-Germany, Belgium (or whatever its called) and maybe Ukraine? (because Lx mentioned there being some Eastern RIte of Catholicism there). Ethiopian orthodox would be in Ethiopia competing with Schmitttism. East Asian Christianity-Vietnam and Colonies. I believe Joseon would be part Christian.

Judaism-only in Israel.

Shinto-only in Japan, competing with Buddhism and Schmittism

Buddhism-Need to ask China how to depict China & Colonies, Mahayana competing with Christianity in Korea, Theravada in Hanthawaddy and Sri-Lanka and the free nation east of Hanthawaddy and possibly the parts of Vietnam taken from Hantawaddy in the war (ask Yank), TIbetan in Tibet.

Sunni Islam would be primarily in the north Africa (competing with Catholicism in Tunisia and Eastern Orthodoxy in Egypt and Tripolia) and Turkey, Kurdistan, French Songhai, most west African nations, and Arabia (ask France for French Crusader states). Sunni and Shia would compete in Shahzur and Assyria and Yemen. Shia would still probably lead in Persia, the merging faith just began. Shia also leads in Itsaygahi.

Hinduism in the Free parts of India, Chinese India, competing with Christianity in the colonies, ask Hanthawaddy for the statistics in Hanthawaddian India.

Tribal religions in the black areas (except for the black areas in north Africa, those would be Sunni Islam). Tribal religions may also have large sway in recently colonized areas and Siberian Russia, and they will dominate the Independent nations of South America and in the non-western or northern Africa. LurkerLordB 22:46, December 14, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the imputs so far! I'm making a map now....I'm going to post it in 1750.Flagmania 23:15, December 14, 2011 (UTC)

The nation of New Lithuania, though a Vietnamese vassal state, has a majority of it's population practicing Eastern Orthodox Christianity. This is due to the fact that a majority of the population is descended from pro-independance refugees from (where else?) Lithuania. The purity of ancestry varies wildly, of course.

Yank 00:45, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

About Hungary: Othodoxism is big on parts of Ultraylvania, Serbia and Southern Balkans.Islam is the bigger religion on Tripolitania and Egypt.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 06:28, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

Russia is very difficult, sunni islam would dominate in Kazakhstan and Armenia, and rpobably around Kazan, probably the size of OTL Tatarstan. um...I think that in the russian colonies it would be a mix of orthodox amongst russians and converts and paganism. The Russian siberia, once again, mostly around populated areas like the coasts and around major rivers would be orthodox, and lithuania prodominately orthodox except for mabe the border with Poland and Some parts in OTL West lithuania and Livonia might be catholic where the 13% would reside...Otherwise all unmentioned regions of Russia are orthodox and FInland in the parts that used to be russia orthodox and used to be sweden catholic except for the large cities witch would be mixed by this point. -Lx ^{(leave me a message)} 17:32, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

Armenia is primarily Armenian Orthodox Christian, not Sunni Muslim. LurkerLordB 22:04, December 17, 2011 (UTC)

Scotland Edit

It's getting annoying how Sweden is trying to return Scotland being a puppet state of Sweden. One of the conditions of Vietnamese aid is that Scotland remain an independant republic.

Yank 04:07, December 16, 2011 (UTC)\

Actualy france is doing nothing, its sweden that is doing it, you aided france...and they arent doing anything against their word.-Lx ^{(leave me a message)} 17:37, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

Sweden is violating a pact signed by France,and France is the main country of the Franco-swedihs empire,a nd I signed the pact in name of the winner faction. So, If Sweden continues this conduct, is a kind of act of treason against the Emperor. --Galaguerra1 17:55, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

Sweden has become ridiculous. I sent him a warning when he did it last turn, but apparently he decided to ignore the statement. Of course, if he keeps editing the years after they happen, he's not going to get anywhere as that is against the rules. Once Naples settles down, they will join with France and Vietnam to help crush any treason by the Swedes against Scotland. LurkerLordB 23:39, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

I just crossed out Scandinator's post, because he unrealistically had all of the Scottish people who just fought a war for freedom change their minds and rejoin Sweden, despite the fact that the government of Sweden agreed to not take back Scotland, and the current king of Scotland, controlled by Galaguerra, not Scandinator, has pledged to allow Scotland to remain independent. LurkerLordB 22:23, December 18, 2011 (UTC)

MapEdit

There are some issues with the map.No, i'm not mocking the users who say that. i'm talking because actually i have added Japan (plain red), but else, i'm running out of colors to use.Somebody has ideas for Kurdistan and Turan's colors?--Collie Kaltenbrunner 17:00, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

Light orange, crema? May be, now that Kunarian is gone, one of them can take the color of Venice. --Galaguerra1 17:11, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

You should probably use Kunarian's green for Turan, as they had a similar shade when they were still the Ottoman Empire.

Yank 17:15, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. Kunarian was banned for 6 months. i bet that he is going to come back again in 1930.I guess i should use the former color of the Ottomans to Turan, but the problem now is Kurdistan.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 18:53, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

Use light orange, like the color of the judaism in the religious map of my country-page. --Galaguerra1 19:42, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

No, orange is already being used by Brandenburg. maybe i should make them the color of the Mughals.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 20:03, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

Isn't Ethiopia already plain red? Also how about candy green, candy pink, dark maroon? Those colours ain't been used VonGlusenburg ^{(talk to Von!)} 21:39, December 16, 2011 (UTC).

No, Ethiopia is dark red.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 05:35, December 17, 2011 (UTC)

Kunarian said he was quitting forever right before he comes back, so you should just use his color then, because he was going to leave forever even if the ban didn't go into place. Also, Burgundy's color can now be used as Burgundy is now joined with France (although Burgundy's color is awfully close to the Neapolitan puppet state, so maybe not that). Is any nation using brown? LurkerLordB 21:54, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

I said it before. I think that, in the map of 1750, Sweden should be colorated blue to represent the union between our two countries. The same as Russia and Finland. --Galaguerra1 06:55, December 17, 2011 (UTC)

I'm still thinking.but i need Scandinator's approval to make sure that nobody will complain.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 09:15, December 17, 2011 (UTC)

The western part of Venie Naples gave to Asli (that small nation between it and Burgundy) so that border should be removed now. And I don't know if everyone missed Kunarian's blog post he made before he was banned, but he stated in that he was quitting the wiki forever and was never going to return, whether or not he was banned or unbanned or anything, so Milan should be colored grey, because Kunarian is never coming back. LurkerLordB 22:01, December 17, 2011 (UTC)

And there's the fact that the map has yet to adress the Incan-Columbian Republic.

Yank 02:01, December 18, 2011 (UTC)

The Inca appears. although they are tiny, and the colotr is dark. However, i think you are confusing with the key.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 06:13, December 18, 2011 (UTC)

No editing turns after they are complete Edit

You should not edit turns after they have been completed. I'm going to just start undoing any edits to past turns beyond moderator rulings or spelling. LurkerLordB 23:31, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

You miss a turn, you miss a turn. Sorry, but that's the deal. LurkerLordB 02:19, December 17, 2011 (UTC)

DK has some level of tolerance with these things as for me, I can only edit at 0500 UTC on some days and none on others so at times I am 5 hours late.Scandinator

I agree with scan, there was only one post in 1750 when I posted my 1749 turn, and even then it was just an update on industrialzation and a royal wedding!-Lx ^{(leave me a message)} 13:28, December 17, 2011 (UTC)

So can't you do the reverse, where you edit the turn at the very beginning instead of at the very end of the last one? Because if you edit the turn late, the other one has already began, so you should just edit it instead. Not being able to get to the computer until very late is no excuse, as there will be an active turn you can edit, no matter what time you get on. Lx, you could have just editted that onto the 1750 turn, as it had already began there was no reason to go back and edit already finished turns. LurkerLordB 15:23, December 17, 2011 (UTC)

Caliphal Elections Edit

I have a proposal for you, owners of Islamic Nations. I recently made the system of the caliphal succesion elective. This means that the Umma votes to elect the new Caliph after the death of the former one. I already thought a system to elect the caliph between us, the Islamic states. The idea is that, every time that a Caliph dies, the owner of Muslim States vote to elect one of themselves as new Caliph. That state which is elected caliph makes Arabia (the caliphate, currently mine) its vassal/puppet. It's a interesting idea to avoid that I be the unique payer that controls the Islamic Cults. As I just told you, I have thought a system to elect one of us as Caliph, but first I need to know if you think it's a good idea or I just keep Arabia as my vassal. --Galaguerra1 07:26, December 17, 2011 (UTC)

I don't know.if, hypothetically, the user of a Islamic nation is knowingly implausible, he will keep the Caliph alive for as long as possible to not relinquish control over Arabia.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 16:02, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea. As Collie said, there is too big of a risk of people bending the rules to have their candidate rule as long as possible. I think we either need to have Arabia become someone's vassal state or remain open for any new user to potentially use.

Yank 16:41, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

Russo-Polish War(1751) Edit

RussiaEdit

• Location: 5
• Attacker's Advantage: 1
• Russia(L)/Lithuania(M)/Finland(MV)/Armenia (MV)/Kazakhstan(MV)/Iroquois Confederation(MV)/Turan(S)/China(M)/Greece(SV)/:22
• Expansion:-0
• Military Expansion:3
• Stability: 6.2^1.25/1.25^6.2*2.5*7=42
• Motive: (Life or Death)=10
• Participation: 10
• Chance:2
• Editcount: 1768
• 1*9*4*3=108
• 417/216xpi =51.42
• Total=95

PolandEdit

• At the Location of the War: 5
• Poland(L)/Sweden(M)/Estonia(MV)/Damascus(MV)/Flanders(MV)/France(M)/Arabia(MV)/Burgundy(MV)/Edessa-Antioch(MV)/Algeria(MV)/Vietnam(M): 27
• Expansion: 0
• Military Expansion: 0
• Stability: 6.6^1.25/1.25^6.6*2.5*7=42
• Motive (Life or Death): 10
• Participation: 10
• Chance: 1
• Total= 95

ResultEdit

Tie.

DiscussionEdit

Ok ,when are we going to count russia as starting to exist, the start of the Ruruk dynasty(862), Vladimir-Suzdal(11??), Muscovy(13??), Tsardom of russia(1564), UGR starts(1493), or Russian Empire proclaimed(1708) or union with FInland(1714)? there are alot of dates that can be used for "time ruled"-Lx ^{(leave me a message)} 01:18, December 19, 2011 (UTC)

Union with Finland seems more like it would affect Finland than Russia. What happened when the Russian Empire was proclaimed? Did anything really change? Other than just in-name? LurkerLordB 03:08, December 19, 2011 (UTC)

Actualy, Peter I changed alot of things on how the empire was run, look up his reforms, they are basicaly the same as what I made them do...changed how the country was governed, administrative divisons, more court positions, court positions, new army, loads of crap...pretty much the same as OTL except if I mentioned something earlier...like the navy being created by Ivan III the Great out of 20 trade ships, also there were no church reforms...-Lx ^{(leave me a message)} 03:37, December 19, 2011 (UTC)

Would the previous Tsar and the previous government officials have wanted this to happen? LurkerLordB 03:43, December 19, 2011 (UTC)

I would believe that you could use 862, as it is the official begining of Russia. But since this is about who gets to rule a reunited Poland-Lithuania it might be best to use the year Russia began to rule Lithuania.

Yank 05:58, December 19, 2011 (UTC)

Well, the general ruling is that it just has to be the current government, so for example, I could use 1751 for Naples, as the old absolute monarchy government was overthrown and a new constitutional monarchy was made. I think that Kenny said that it had to be a huge change that the government before the change would not have liked. Generally, the old government needs to have fallen. LurkerLordB 15:47, December 19, 2011 (UTC)

Well, there actualy ahve been 4 Rus' or Russias, and their eras, novgorodian, witch became kievan in 886(this was practicaly just a change of capital), and then, after the mongol invasion the vladimir-suzal era began, witch had people compete for power for the title of grand prince of a loose confederaiton at best(lots of wars between these 15-or-so russian principalities for the seat in vladimir), then, moscow was able to unite more of these waring principalities, and in 1389 it basicaly passed the torch to moscow, making it the best of the principalities, and then over time moscow became the UGR, then the tsardom, then the Empire. so the start of the current governement we could count as the start of the muscovian era, witch began as it grabbed the torch from the vladimir-suzdal era in 1389. Simply put, during the tatar era, russia was a jumble of tribiutary provincves that wer e all finaly united under moscow in 1492 with the Union of Moscow and Novgorod. You can say that that year is the start of a new united governement, or 1389 is becasue that is when moscow started to dominate, or you can use 862, the official start date of the russian state, or the tsardom start, they are all equaly valid, and complicated as crap to decide the begining of the current russian "regime", but I would say that it would make mor sence to start with Peter's singular rule in 1689 or moscow's becoming the supreme russian principality in 1389.-Lx ^{(leave me a message)} 03:58, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

1492 seems to be th biggest change of the dates you listed. For Poland, I used the date they broke away from Hungarian domination to become independent (1685). Now, Kenny said that expansion in nations with Vassals was *1.5, so I multiplied that to the percentage that Poland would gain normally. Since this causes Poland to overthrow the government of Russia, what do we do? It seems obvious for them to take all of Lithuania, but what else? It seems unrealistic for Poland to be capable of controlling all of that territory, so maybe they should just get the part of Russia that was part of OTL Poland-Lithuania, as they would have a cultural connection there? LurkerLordB 04:24, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

wait...I looked at the curve and polish stability is not supposed to reach over like, 35...and russia stability 3 looks kind of wrong...although I can argue that Peter created esentialy a totaly different type of governement during his rule witch started truely in 1689, I will not persue this matter but will urge somebody to double check these things and for kenny to do the stability as he is the one that invented it. Also, why is it that in russia's chance it is highlighted 2 but the chance is 8? and also, in the russian census of 1897 the polsih polulation was -Lx ^{(leave me a message)} 05:14, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

sorry about the stability part, I thought it was about the number of zeroes...ignore that...but I find it quite wierd that RUssia's stability is 3 and poland's is 42...even then Russia as fone thoruhg some pretty big "regime canges in my time, going from quasi-oligarhic to the system of governement that The russian empire had...and if we did use 862 as a start date, russia's stability would be like, probably closer to 0... but I say some mistakes(like russia updating military for many more than 1 turn...), could anybody check them over...-Lx ^{(leave me a message)} 05:22, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

The easiest solution to this conflict is for Russia to hand control over Lithuania to Poland as they have earned the right to preside over (frankly stolen) half of Poland-Lithuania with blood, tears and sweat. I hope that this war has taught you a lesson Lx. Coupled with the War of Swedish Sucession it should teach you that you can't keep fighting wars and hopng it'll turn up all right for Russia. Besides I think it's about time you returned to worrying about your colonial empire, and leave other nation's business alone.

Yank 05:24, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

Makes no sense that Russia could lose like that to such a tiny state. Lordganon 05:48, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

You know what...Im just not going to argue this untilll tomorow morning cause im not thinking strait right now...-Lx ^{(leave me a message)} 06:03, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

Kenny said that we would start to use the New Stability system in 1750.so, that part of 3 is the GSS.the CSS still wasn't calculated, so the OSS wasn't calculated.and given the formula for the GSS, the Russian stability is 10, not 3.Still, your CSS is 1,5, at best.at worst, 0,5.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 08:59, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

No, not another northern war again.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 09:36, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

As overlord of Sweden I join the war, but just France and Arabia are military supporting Sweden. Burgundy is sending aid but not military support. --Galaguerra1 17:18, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

So wait, peter's reforms and my industrializations dont count as anything? is it just religious revivial and economic(i think industrial fall into that category) that count for the CSS. Im not arguing, just wondering. Becasue nearly every turn since 1650 I was either improving conomy after war of imporving military or improving industrial standards or reforming the russian governement.-Lx ^{(leave me a message)} 17:34, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, since the New Stability sytem started to be used in 1750, so the points should be counted from 1750 on.You ain't the only. I have a CSS of 2, at best, and 1, at worst.i guess that industrializations can be counted as economic improvements.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 18:48, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

But if thats true then what was the point on improving my nation before 1750, since it doesnt count anyways? and if the new system starts and the CSS resets at 0, then souldnt the GSS also reset at 0 years in 1750? If one counts years before 1750, why doesnt the other?(why do I always have to be the first person to have a war with new stability systems! it makes all sorts of arguements of this no make sence! it annoying!) -Lx ^{(leave me a message)} 18:54, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

Kenny never officially stated the new system was starting, he said that it wouldn't happen until "1750 or maybe later". Therefore, I think the old system should still be used, because the new one wasn't officially announced, even now, and especially several turns ago. So we won't use the new system until it is officially declared to have begun, and since it was not officailly declared to have begun at the time of the start of this war, we won't use it. LurkerLordB 19:21, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

so then what stability do we use for player-states? the old one that began in 1700? because the new system was supposed to replace that one.-Lx ^{(leave me a message)} 19:24, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

The stability curve would still be used, until the new one was implemented. LurkerLordB 19:33, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

That still doesnt make sence becasue player states, unlike NPCs(unless directed by mod action) th player-states actualy work on the stability of their nation! witch is why there is a CSS section in the new stability and not just the curve. that is my resoning on why the NPC curve shouldnt be used on the player-states. and why it souldnt be uswed for russia in this war. -Lx ^{(leave me a message)} 19:41, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

It's sad, but it wasn't implemented when the war began, therefore it can't be used. And having some reforms in the government is still the same government of the nation, the 1492 date will be used unless you can find a date later where the Russian government changed more. LurkerLordB 20:50, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure that there never was any toppling of the Russian government between 1492 and 1751? Any coup or dynastic war that caused someone else to get to power might be able to do. The main criteria was that the old government would have to have not supported the change. Of the list of dates you provided earlier, 1492 was the most recent one, so unless you provide an earlier one, we'll have to use it. LurkerLordB 21:04, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

well, there was the "time of troobles" between the death of Dimitri and the new romanov dynasty in 1610...can that be counted...remember the suiskyt guy? he came to power and ran things becasue the old dynasy, well, died...and he got assasinated by OVVR coup and then they decided to put Mihail Romanov in the throne...does that work?-Lx ^{(leave me a message)} 21:16, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

Aha, a coup should work, as he wouldn't have wanted that to happen, so his government would have fallen. What year exactly was it? Was 1610 the beginning or end of his reign? LurkerLordB 21:20, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

1610 he ended...and also, there was a coup against Peter's Sister Sophia in 1689...thats when she wanted more power officialy, even if she already had the de facto, she wanted the de jure, and peter and the army said NO and sent her to the convent if that works as a coup also...Sophia wanted to be Tsarina instead of her brothers...but they sent her to a convent(she had the de facto power from 1682-1689, her brothers Peter and Ivan were mere figureheads). does that work also? or are we using 1610? Now I actualy have a chance at winning...-Lx ^{(leave me a message)} 21:30, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

Don't may Sweden be counted as vassal for its position as "weak part" in the personal union with France (the court of the emperor is located in Paris) --Galaguerra1 02:33, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

It seems that Russia's defeat is inevitable, and that the easiest solution is to give up Russian Lithuania.

Yank 02:57, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

What the?!?!

Poland defeated Russia? I'm suprised that Poland can continue to exist...let alone take Lithuania!

If Poland is aided by Sweden and France, then thats a lot more plausible. Flagmania 13:58, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't the start date for the stab numbers be the date of union with the Finns? Lordganon 14:15, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

The Russian government wasn't really changed though, the Finnish government was affected more, and in any case, no one in Russia really lost any power, they just all stayed in power with a new vassal state being added. But, I think Lx is actually right, maybe 1689 would be a better date to use, as it was an overthrow of the old government as well. LurkerLordB 15:38, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

It is not fair that a nation can pick a date for their establishment based on past governmental changes. I seriously doubt anything less than a civil war resulting in a government or dynastical change should be counted and thus the 1689 date which offers Russia it highest score is invalid as it was removing the puppet yet the leader stayed the same.Scandinator 22:53, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

So no matter how much lx quibbles about it the result is clear. Russia loses and Poland gains an unknown portion of Russian territory.

Yank 02:30, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Yank, I know you have always disliked me, but nows not the time to troll the discussion. Thing is, The Russian change in 1689 is a bit more than just changing the ruler. from the death of Feodor in 1682, Peter and Ivan were crowned, but only becasue all of Peter's family was murdered by Sophia, who assumed power as the de facto ruler of russia, the regent. She intended to stay that way untill her death. this was a rivalry beteen the two families, from Tsar Alexi's first and Second wives. Sophia held power for 7 years, untill 1689 when she finaly pushed her power to the limit. Peter and Ivan revolted, not wanting to stand, even after both of them had reached the age of majority to have a woman(in that time prohibited by law for a woman to hold power, other than be a regent untill the rulers become of age) in the place of true power, pupeteering them. They finaly had enouhg in 1689, and guess what? revolted and orgonized a coup d'etat and managed to gather enough followers. He then sends after a bit of rambles Sophia to the convent, attempting to shut her off, and hoping that she will not get and try to come back to power. Peter Then sets off modernizing the nation, and in one of his reforms, he disbands the old strelets force, witch was BTW on Sophia's side, and in their place creates the standing army loyal only to the tsar. He gets rid of the old Boyars, only letting them keep theri title, but making it ilegal for them to transfer it. He then mankes the criteria for becoming a Dvorian, the new nobility, a matter of merit, not roots. As a concequence, the old nobility lost practicaly all power, the old army did aswell(the strelets didnt like not having power so they made a failed revolt in 1699). The governement was completely reorganized and their became na new court and new laws, and finaly, Peter was crowned Emperor and proclaimed the russian Empire, most of this was to make sure that people like Sophia dont come to power agian, and, amongst other things, to stabilize the naiton's economy and modernize russia. Everything changed from the foundation. THis all started in 1689. I'm pretty sure its damn close to a change of goverement, so therfore, 1689 is the date of the new regime start(after the fall of Sophia)-Lx ^{(leave me a message)} 02:54, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Removing a troublesome sister doesn't qualify as a total regime change, as the same Czar from before remained in power. It would only qualify as a regime change if Peter had instead been killed in the coup and another Czar had been crowned. That being said, it is still unfair for you to be able to pick and choose the date, as it skews the algorithm in your favor. I was actually biting my tongue on the last post, as I had some rather unflattering things to say about Russia. I was not "trolling". I was merely protesting your attempted manipulation of the algorithm. You can't just simply call your enemies "trolls" to demonize them. Kunarian was a troll. Eldwolf was a troll. RebelSoldier was a troll. I, for all my flaws, am not a troll and I am deeply offended by your statement. For one thing, a troll wouldn't be nearly as verbose in their retorts. They would just call you a string of offensive and badly spelled insults and do everything in their power to sabotage your efforts in anything. Have I done any of that? No I have not, as there are times when Russia makes it easy to have diplomatic relations with them.

Yank 19:13, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

My declaration this year forces Flanders and Damascus (the Swedish Arabia) to send military support too --Galaguerra1 20:09, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

@yank ,FIne, I takeback the troll comment but the thing is that the start date of modern russia has been placed in different times by different historians. thats why this is even an issue. and sophia was not just troublesome, she would have killed peter if she had the chance, but didnt as it skewed the possibility of her having any power. and peter actualy, as I mentioned, proceeded to totaly from the foundations change how the governement worled and who was in the governement, how they got there, their powers, and how even the administrative divisions were handeled. thats basicaly a regime change, and dont think there wasnt oposition, a large bulk of the old nobility disliked his changes and wanted Sophia back, thats why he got rid of them! -Lx ^{(leave me a message)} 20:36, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

I consider a total dynastical change with a huge rebellion and civil war (OTL Ming to Qing) or an event like the OTL French Revolution to be a government change. A sibling battle for power was common and does not constitute a regime change as then the OTL Ottoman Empire would not have been counted as 1356 to 1919; but a series of short empires as after the death of every Sultan there was a power struggle. Scandinator 22:48, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but thers also a very good reason why the Tsardom of Russia and the Russian Empire are considered different states...is there not? and the russian empire started to emerge in 1689, and was finalized TTL in 1708. Peter's reforms basicaly destroyed the old pre-petrine regime and rebuilt his own from the foundations up!-Lx ^{(leave me a message)} 00:23, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's a big enough change. It's maybe 80% there to qualify as a change of government but it really needed more clashes and total political or dynastical change.Scandinator 00:27, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

You know lx, that all your struggles are just bringing more people against you. Next turn Vietnam is sending their usual involvement package. A near-infinite supply of volunteers and weapons to arm them with. The easiest way to end this war is to accept any territory loss and return to expanding in Siberia and your colonial empire. I swear you spend more time picking fights than doing anything with your colonies at all.

Yank 00:27, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

yank, I think you have a point there and I hate myself for not colonizing siberia as much, but lets face it, whenever I tried I just made a lot more people angry(ok, fine, I agree that Kunarian was probably the one that started the anti-siberia-expasion thing) by actualy expanding into siberia, also considering that it took almost every war I was in like -10 or -7 points for it so I stopped...but if everybody promises not to declare war on russia untill it has all of siberia, russia's rightful realm, I will start(the last time I re-started expanding, sweden, venice, and the lot just all out declared war on me...and I dont want that to happen agian,,,)-Lx ^{(leave me a message)} 01:10, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

I hate myself because of that, but I think Lx is right. A creation of a new guvernamental system must be consider after the overthrow of a coup d'état government. For example, the current regime of Argentina started in 1983, with the end of the Military Government. Is the same if a ilegitimate monarch took the government and was overthrow by the true monarch. Especially if it monarch was a reformist who change the government a lot. --Galaguerra1 00:39, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

Just a question, does making a governement a constitutional monarchy count as a govenement change? becasue I'm planning to do that in 1825...-Lx ^{(leave me a message)} 01:10, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

It depends more on how the change comes about. If there is some sort of revolution that takes out the current czar and replaces him with a new one who makes it constitutional, yes, but if its just the czar saying "I'll make the senate have real power" then no. LurkerLordB 03:30, December 26, 2011 (UTC)

Its going to be complicated, but heres whats going to happen: alexander is going to die..look up decembrist revolt...thats whats going to happen...except it is going to be successful for reasons of army swearing allegiance after...and constantine will replace nicolas...so...yes that will work...-Lx ^{(leave me a message)} 03:35, December 26, 2011 (UTC)

Also, from looking at it, I really do think that taking the sister (who was the one in power) out and then having massive reforms, the two alone wouldn't be enough, but since the reforms were tied into the coup, and the anti-coup actually changed things, it should count as a change in government. LurkerLordB 03:41, December 26, 2011 (UTC)

I still don't like the idea of users choosing their own dates. I think it establishes a bad precedent, as what's to stop the user from altering the date to suit their needs?

Yank 03:45, December 26, 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I'm just using a thing I wanted to happen to russia in OTL happen in TTL...its just a question if wether or not it resets or not...even if it didnt reset...I would still have done the decembrist revolution. And I started the conversation in this discussion about witch date to use for the russian empire...becasue its a very legitimate question...becasue russia has and official "begining" as a state(862) but witch date for this regime(862, 882, 11??, 1389, 1492, 1547, 1610, 1689, or 1708)? and it was decided at 1689...and it will stay that way untill 1825...when the decembrist revolution will happen(just check russia's moves on the old imperialist america game around 1824-1827...I was planning to do approximatively the same things in this game...but a bit different...since now I know a bit more on what actualy happened and why...) if that is counted, or else...well, whatever...i'm not sure what do do bout the bolsheviks...mabe i'll have them initiate a soviet union...or a whatever...in 1917..if there's a WWI...-Lx ^{(leave me a message)} 04:04, December 26, 2011 (UTC)

I checked the math, and the stability for Poland is the same as that of Russia, 42. LurkerLordB 04:06, December 26, 2011 (UTC)

thats wierd...i did it on my calculator three times and it gave me 20.5...how did you calculate it? I used my scientific calculator...-Lx ^{(leave me a message)} 04:12, December 26, 2011 (UTC)

my bad... I put power 1.5 in stead of 1.25...my bad guys...-Lx ^{(leave me a message)} 04:26, December 26, 2011 (UTC)

Okay so now Russia wins the war, but they win a percentage of Poland small enough to make the whole undertaking more trouble than it was worth. I think the best he can really expect is status quo anti bellum. This whole war is the very definition of a waste of time. I hope this turns Lx off fighting wars for the forseeable future. @ Lx? I'm perfectly fine with you expanding into Siberia if you go at a more reasonable pace than before.

Yank 04:22, December 26, 2011 (UTC)

WAIT! The sweidsh arabia and flanders are sending military support so tuey must be counted as MV (not SV). And, about the last russian post, how did your fleet come to the western mediterranean sea? Although you have a deal with Hungary and Greece, you will be attacked by the fleets of Edessa. And Corsica is a neapolitan territory. If you attack it, I will call for neapolitan support against Russia. --Galaguerra1 04:26, December 26, 2011 (UTC)

The battel of corsica is a naval battle, and those are named after places they are near...they were close to corsica...so it was named the batle of corsica, it had nothing to do with troops on land...-Lx ^{(leave me a message)} 04:29, December 26, 2011 (UTC)

It's still neapolitan territorial waters --Galaguerra1 04:32, December 26, 2011 (UTC).

the mediteranian sea is big...just casue its close to corsica doesn;t mean that it was in neapolitan waters!-Lx ^{(leave me a message)} 04:56, December 26, 2011 (UTC)

Naples isn't going to join in the war. Also, I'm going to have to rule against Evenkia joining. It seems sort of cheap to drag in another nation, especially when its not even vassalized or anything. If I let that go, then I would have to let someone splitting their nation briefly into 50 small nations to win the war go, so I will have to say you can't use Evenkia. It's not like they would be any help anyways. LurkerLordB 04:42, December 26, 2011 (UTC)

ok then

Second Wolof-French War (1750)Edit

FranceEdit

• Location: 2
• Attacker's Advantage: 1
• France(L)/Burgundy(MV)/Algeria(MV)/Arabia(MV)/Sweden(M)/Denmark(MV)/Flanders(MV)/Edessa-Antioch(MV):19
• Expansion:-5
• Military Expansion:6
• Stability: 22.3^1.25/1.25^22.3*2.5*7=5
• Motive: (Political) 5
• Participation: 10
• Chance:1
  • Editcount: 503
  • 2*1*1=2
  • 503/2*pi =790.11
• Total=44

WolofEdit

• At the Location of the War: 5
• Wolof(L): 4
• Expansion: -0
• Military Expansion: 0
• Stability: 39.0^1.25/1.25^39.0*2.5*7=0
• Motive (Life or Death): 10
• Participation: 10
• Chance: 4
• Total= 33

ResultEdit

French Victory, France can take (42/(42+33)*2)-1=12% of Wolof

DiscussionEdit

I assume all of France's vassals/dynastic union nations are aiding? Subtract/add anyone else. LurkerLordB 16:43, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, I'm considering having russia aid wolof in revenge...but only after this scramble with poland is done...-Lx ^{(leave me a message)} 16:58, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Sweden aided Poland as Poland was a major ally of Sweden's in the 17th century, if you attack Wolof prepare to be invaded... again.Scandinator 09:24, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Judging by his post, he will not invade Wolof, yet, help the (independent) nation against the french.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 18:51, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Something off topic... Edit

BTW, do any of you have xbox live????-Lx ^{(leave me a message)} 19:44, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, though I'm too cheap to buy Gold. Is anyone playing Star Wars: The Old Republic? CrimsonAssassin 04:35, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

whats ur xbox name?.-Lx ^{(leave me a message)} 04:44, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

i pretty much used my gamertag for my username... except that the L is lowecase(lxCaucassus)...and BTW for live, you just need to look out for the weekly or monthly or whatever xbox live cheap sales...All you need is a credit card or paypal and you can get those deals no problem...easy way to get gold for a cheap price.-Lx ^{(leave me a message)} 04:44, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Scandinator and Africa Edit

Recently, Scandinator has apparently decided to make himself supreme master of Africa, going as far as crossing out other moderators' posts that could affect the way civilizations in Africa form, making it different from his vision, and then replacing their posts with his. I am sorry, but I don't see anything where Scandinator was appointed "Supreme Overseer of all unclaimed territories and supervisor of all other Moderators". I don't see anything giving him sole authority over Africa. Two years before my post, he declared that communications with West Africa had been restored again by a bunch of explorers, and he said nothing about communications closing down again. Even then, I could always just add that the new information was given by refugees fleeing from the disaster areas, so his thing about no one other than him knowing what is going on is worthless.

Now, he may at this point level the accusation at me that the sole reason that I made that moderator post was because it contradicted his plans for Africa. Well, I'm sorry Scandinator, but I didn't like the way that you decided that you were the head of Africa and no one else's opinion mattered. You only contacted Collie because she was the mapmaker, and you didn't have the authority to just add your additions onto the map without reporting to anyone. I decided that I didn't like your plan (mostly because it makes no sense for nations to expand and get larger in famines, if anything they would break apart, shrink, and get weaker), so I decided to make my own post. Mine was just a valid moderator action as yours, and you had no authority whatsoever to decide whose actions were valid and whose were not. You are of no authority to lord over other moderators.

His next comeback to this may be that as "disaster mod" he has the authority to control disasters like famines and say what they do. However, that means he can post "there is a famine in West Africa" because it really happened, and if he is lucky, no other moderators will have posted any actions, so he can implement his. It doesn't mean he can post "there is a famine in West Africa, now I control all nations in this area and can decide what to do, and no one else, moderator or not, can change anything". It most definitely does not mean he can post "there is a famine in Prussia, that area breaks away from another player nation and joins up with me" (as he attempted to do earlier, before I called him out on it).

In conclusion, Scandinator's authority over West Africa is no higher than mine, therefore he cannot declare himself sole master of this area and block anyone else from changing it at all. If he can just boss around all of the other moderators to get his way over matters whose authority he has none greater than any other moderator, then it reinforces my conclusion that Scandinator has too much power and authority in this map game (power whose misuse of almost got the administration of this wiki to interfere and change the rules of this map game earlier). This is, as can be seen, only the latest string in a series of incidents which I have found Scandinator to have too much power over players of this map game, moderators or normal players. LurkerLordB 20:08, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

Note that I am crossing out his moderator post, as its sole existance was to discredit all of what I wrote, even though he possesses no authority to do so. I kept the part about cannibalism and whatnot, but the part about communications all failing was obviously just put in so he could have an excuse to cross out all of mine. As my post was first, he shouldn't be able to remove it and replace it with another without first contacting me or making a reasoning on the talk page. LurkerLordB 21:19, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is a fact that the entire West Africa region has had 16 years of famine and cannibalism is wipespread as a result. I doubt any surveyors or cartographers would dare to enter territory like that... Also, I had no intention of retaking Prussia, I was trying for an independence movement and kinda make a mistake (it was late). AND PLEASE STOP PICKING ON THAT!! I only crossed your post as it contradicted the previous one about how the famine resulted in a communictions breakdown with West Africa as many countries have collapsed and how tribal warfare and cannibalism is common.Scandinator

Wait, then who posted that a group of mapmakers came to enter it? Because just a couple years before, 1752, there was a post saying there were explorers entering it. Yeah, I probably shouldn;t have mentioned the Prussia thing, I was on the subject of you being disaster mod and got carried away along that path. But how would it stop refugees from fleeing Takrur to New Songhay? They are right next to eachother. LurkerLordB 21:34, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find any prior moderator post talking about how there was no communication, the last post was the one about the explorers, the ones before that were just border changes, so communications had to still be up then. LurkerLordB 21:41, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

It was not a bunch of mapmakers, just an expedition. I mistook Takrur for Tuaregs - an easy mistake at 12am. And I swear I put a mod post on communication breakdown... maybe it didn't go through or someone deleted it.Scandinator 03:20, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I just discovered this. Anyhow, someone needs to change the map....Saamwiil 03:51, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Scan, you say that you have a backstory for Guinea.does this involve they declaring war against the Hungarian colony?--Collie Kaltenbrunner 10:24, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

No, Guinea is formed in 1756 by the former Burgundian colonists who escape persecution in Akon. No-one attacks the European settlements in Africa as the cost is too great.Scandinator

Wait, but how it will get so big? (in your perception, it occupies the whole part of West Africa that is still tribal)--Collie Kaltenbrunner 15:43, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

It starts in 1756 as a bunch of small settlements, but then the Burgunians convert the tribes around them and using guns and more technology they get those first tribes to subjudicate the entire region and form a huge slave class Scandinator 22:45, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

The Burgundians do have the advantage of better technology. LurkerLordB 02:10, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Still, Lurker is right. even if the states expand, they will not be able to hold those borders for long, and if the famine goes to a certain point, they will not even be able to expand.then, those states will probably shrink and get weaker. the last case of a in-game famine happened on india, and the states remained 10% weaker on algorythms for 10 years.although one may argue that the Indian states were more well-orgnized than the Africans, and the existance of Puntland and the expansion/ceation of states in East Africa can be explained, this does not explain why a new state like Kidal exists, and why the other (and other new) states got so big, to the point that this couldn't be achieved with a famine.Given your map, Gao was basically, the only who actually achieved what was expected of it on a famine.Like i say, in the proposed map, some states have to be shrunk.especially Benin, Tunjur and Morocco.Nothing against them, but if they grew, would be not that much.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 11:55, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

Acually, Tunjur can stay with its size. since it is too out to the center of the continent, it probably wasn't affected by the famine anyway.However, i guess we should let those West African states form themselves on the future, since it wouldn't be realistic to have tribes going to nodal mode in the middle of a famine.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 11:52, December 25, 2011 (UTC)

BruneiEdit

Right now, that this player joined as Brunei, i noticed that Brunei existed even before the start of the game and it was never added to the map.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 06:33, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Should we just give it OTL Brunei's borders? LurkerLordB 14:58, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Depend in which borders are you talking about.in 1740, Brunei had basically the all territory of OTL Malaysia on Borneo.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 15:18, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

I guess nothing has come up that would make a smaller Brunei, so I'd just give them that. LurkerLordB 18:54, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Could you give me Brunei a color on the map.

Just wait. i need to know that you are not the kind of player who enters, then only posts for 5 turns or so, then disappears.we had a lot of them.the mst recent was the Kurdistan one.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 10:06, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

Independent Colonies on the Map Edit

How will Independent colonies be represented on the map? If the player doesn't control the new nation, it would be grey like normal, but I know that we are allowed to control at least one, maybe all, of the independent colonies from our nation (that we make independent ourselves, not forced to be independent due to a war). But what color would they be? Keeping them the same color as the old nation would be misleading, but we'll run out of new colors so fast if every new nation is its own color. LurkerLordB 17:49, December 26, 2011 (UTC)

For now, i don't know. for now, i will put Újfundlandi as grey.but i figure that it may be put in the country's lighter color.like a puppet state.although my theory has its flaws, this is my best guess. along with the grey.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 19:01, December 26, 2011 (UTC)

Adal on mapEdit

Adal is a member of the UAA, so it should be red. Also, the name Ethiopia should be changed to 'United African Allies' or the 'UAA' Flagmania 15:18, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

Neapolitan-Bharat WarEdit

NaplesEdit

• Location: 1
• Attacker's Advantage: 1
• Naples(L)/Florence(MV)/Siena(MV)/Jerusalem(MV):10
• Expansion:-1
• Military Expansion:8
• Stability: 1.1^1.25/1.25^1.1*2.5*7=15
• Motive: (Social/Moral)=6
• Participation: 10
• Chance:1
• Editcount: 2095
• 4*4*8=128
• 2095/128*pi =51.41
• Total=51

BharatEdit

• At the Location of the War: 5
• Bharat: 4
• Expansion: 0
• Military Expansion: 0
• Stability: 0.7^1.25/1.25^0.7*2.5*8=10
• Motive (Political):5
• Participation: 10
• Chance: 0
• Total= 34

ResultEdit

(51/(34+51)*2)-1=20%

DiscussionEdit

Just take the 20% of the Southern Areas that the Neapolitan colony borders to give to Naples. LurkerLordB 04:58, December 29, 2011 (UTC)

Persia Shahzrur War (1758)Edit

PersiaEdit

• Location: 4
• Attacker's Advantage: 1
• Persia(L)/Sweden(S):6
• Expansion:-0
• Military Expansion:0
• Stability:((1.1^1.25) / (1.25^1.1)) * 2.5 * 8=17
• Motive: (Religious)=7
• Participation: 10
• Chance:7
• Editcount: 1074
• 5*1*9=45
• 1074/45*pi =74.9793447
• Total=52

ShahzrurEdit

• At the Location of the War: 5
• Shahzrur: 4
• Expansion: 0
• Military Expansion: 0
• Stability: ((8.1^1.25) / (8.1^1.1)) * 2.5 * 7=23
• Motive (Life or Death):10
• Participation: 10
• Chance: 5
• Total= 57

ResultEdit

Shahrzur Victory. Shahrzur defeats the Persians within the Shahzrur Empire but decided not to attack Persia itself for fears of a massive relatilation.

DiscussionEdit

I just looked at the page's history.and some editings on the page, about Persia, are on the period in which RandomWriterGuy was banned.so, i looked, and i noticed that he edited past turns (again).

A comparison between his posting on 1756 and the previous one.he apparently edited all the turns from 1751 to 1756, although previously, he did not post, because of his blocking

--Collie Kaltenbrunner 20:45, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

I say we shouldn't count any military buildup he added on those passed turns. LurkerLordB 03:57, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

Again.if counted the previous war too, you just lost 9,34% of your territory to Sharzur.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 10:52, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

RandomWriterGuyEdit

Recently. RandomWriterGuy, apparently in an effort to boost up his nation before a war, went back and edited five turns that had been completed for days due to the fact that he was banned off the wiki. Now I push for a stricter enforcement of this rule, to say all edits passed the beginning of the next turn should be undone, but I got a great big pushback when I tried to stop it. However, this is clearly over the line. As this is not his first offense, and he has had numerous other plausiblity problems while playing this game, I move to ban off of this game him for three days as a punishment.

Supporters (Moderators Only)Edit

1. LurkerLordB 06:24, December 31, 2011 (UTC)
2. Scandinator 21:38, January 1, 2012 (UTC)
3. Yank 21:47, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

Opponents (Moderators Only)Edit

Discussion (All Players)Edit

Please, I am very sorry for my actions about the implauisibility thing (the militay buildup on years I wasn't there). I ever knew weweren't allowed to do th. RandomWriterGuy 06:14, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

Last time you did it a while ago (see Collie's post above) you were told you weren't allowed to edit past turns from several different moderators. You had to have known. LurkerLordB 06:24, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the action should be completely banned. Some of us have scheduales that do not coincide with UTC. For adults, jobs, and for children, school. I think there should be a limit of 4 hours. Moreover, I know by experience that people do not start the new turn right on UTC 00:00. I've seen the new turn start about 6 hours late... Which I consider unacceptable, but I think that a limit like 4 hours would fit the needs of non-UTC participants.Saamwiil 16:49, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

This is not the issue.This was already talked about before on "No editing turns after they're complete".the problem is that he edited all the turns from 1751 to 1755 in 1756, and he was blocked until 1755.Editing various past turns (presumably) to benefit yourself on a algorythm is completely different from editing one past turn because you were late.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 17:32, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with Lurk's sentiment here. Lordganon 18:38, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

I too agree with Lurk VonGlusenburg ^{(talk to Von!)} 19:32, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

Please, I beg you no! RandomWriterGuy 07:51, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

I think the ban is harsh as not being able to play the game is the reason why he went back to edit in his turns; you say he's done it once before? I say one last chance, and if he does it again then ban him. VonGlusenburg ^{(talk to Von!)} 20:00, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

It was his own fault he wasn't allowed to play for those past two weeks. We could make a consensus, if any other moderators would vote. So do we close the voting after the day and ban him, or do we wait for more comments? LurkerLordB 20:16, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

As two days have gone by, and all moderators who have voted have backed the ban, and none of the remainders have expressed any imput as to this discussion, I guess we should just carry out the temporary ban now? I'll wait a spell before enacting it though. LurkerLordB 02:07, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. if 14 days didn't taught him, 3 probably won't either.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 10:20, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'll implement the ban now. LurkerLordB 17:04, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

Turan-Bulgaria War Edit

TuranEdit

• Location: 3
• Attacker's Advantage: 1
• Turan(L)/Ottomans(MV)/Mesopotamia(MV)/ICR(M)/Russia(M)/Lithuania(M)/Armenia(MV)/Kazakhstan(SV):20
• Expansion:-1
• Military Expansion:13
• Stability: 3.9^1.25/1.25^3.9*2.5*7=40
• Motive: (Political)=5
• Participation: 10
• Chance:3
• Editcount: 232
• 3*2*6=36
• 232/26*pi =2.03
• Total=94

BulgariaEdit

• At the Location of the War: 5
• High Ground (it's being attacked from the sea): 2
• Bulgaria (L), Naples (M), Siena (MV), Florence(MV), Jerusalem (MV):13
• Expansion: 0
• Military Expansion: 0
• Stability: 1.6^1.25/1.25^1.6*2.5*7=22
• Motive (Life or Death):10
• Participation: 10
• Chance: 6
• Total= 70

ResultEdit

Turkish Victory, Turan is entitled to (94/(94+70)*2)-1=14.63% of Bulgaria.

DiscussionEdit

I am unsure as to which allies of Turan are helping it, so if there are others, feel free to add them to the count yourself LurkerLordB 00:28, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

ICR is giving military support. Russia & Hungary are my allies, but they really haven't said anything... -Saamwiil

I assume that the territory taken from Bulgaria will be made into a colony or puppet state? Because it is too hard to get there (sailing around the Anatolian Peninsula) to be part of the main nation. LurkerLordB 03:22, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

Russia is helping.-Lx ^{(leave me a message)} 03:47, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

Not really. Turan is able to overcome hardships. Bulgaria will integrate with the state.

I'm Back!Edit

I'm back in this game, guys! PitaKang- (Talk|Contribs) 22:10, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back! How's school going? CrimsonAssassin 23:03, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I guess. I got about 30 mins per day of free time, and I come here for it! PitaKang- (Talk|Contribs) 23:15, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

That's good to hear. My day is usually pretty hectic. We have periods of time after our college classes so we can study what we just learned or study for our next class, and I need to do more work in OTL and not in ATLs. CrimsonAssassin 23:37, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

Early IndustrializationEdit

NOTICE TO ALL: STEAM TRAINS AND RAIL ARE ONLY AVALIABLE IN STAGE 2 AS EXPERIMENTAL TECHNOLOGY. They do not become common till Stage 3.Scandinator

Finally, because it's getting strange that you are talking about railways and it an't 1830 yet.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 16:54, January 6, 2012 (UTC)

theyre not commonplace, there is one and its a tourist attraction. and itrs from two big cities 3 hour drive apart. the RZhK is planning, and they will fail to get stuff across the marshlands and te northern territories. russia is cheduled to reach this stage 3 in 1800. earlier than anyone else.-Lx ^{(leave me a message)} 16:57, January 6, 2012 (UTC)

Sweden and the red areas also will reach this stage in 1800.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 18:50, January 6, 2012 (UTC)

I am only experimenting and planning it. The actual construction with start in the 80s and completed in the late 90s and then expansion of the network will start in the 00sScandinator 13:11, January 7, 2012 (UTC)

Status of Client States on the World Map Edit

What I want to know is how are we to distinguish the client states (nominally independant by still under foreign influence) from the vassal states and NPC nations. I know vassal states have simmilar colours to their masters, and NPC nations are plain grey. How do we distinguish the nominally independant client from the vassal state, which functions mostly as another limb of the controlling nation?

Yank 02:19, January 7, 2012 (UTC)

How do we distinguish player controlled nations (that are break away colonies) from the main ones? Give them a new color? I put this before but one knew what to do. LurkerLordB 05:03, January 7, 2012 (UTC)

In the key , in the corner of the bar with the color of your country, there is the color that may be used for pupet/client states.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 06:26, January 7, 2012 (UTC)

Update Edit

Well, I'm back for a day, I am very glad to see that everything is still in proper order, as far as I can tell. I regret to say that I am extending my Wikibreak another month in order to deal with school and other things. I will be back in the second week of February. If you have any immediate concerns, I can address them now please… Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 00:34, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

The new stability system for Player-states with the OSS and The CSS and the GSS is it in place?-Lx ^{(leave me a message)} 00:43, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

Yes please, I didn't think we should start using it until you officially said the system was complete, but currently the curve is sometimes yeilding,.. strange results (like Poland beating Russia in a war almost!) LurkerLordB 00:46, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

It would add a bit of realism, as sometimes reality is stranger than fiction. Fiction has the need to make cohesive sense plot-wise, but reality doesn't have that restraint.

Yank 00:49, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

Well if it's unanimous, I can't argue. Although I might take it over once I get back. Scandinator showed interest, so is there any objection to him controlling it? Yank, I was thinking the same thing when I saw the map that had a large portion that was green and blue, and most of the map is only of a small collection of colors. But didn't the same thing happen in OTL around the same time, as Britain and France started gaining huge empires? That doesn't seem to cause huge problems, as any empire could be destroyed with a large enough coalition.

And as for industrialization, I'm sorry if I never got around to saying this, but I want everyone from now on to declare themselves going into different stages, because not everyone necessarily will want to industrialize. And another thing, if a country declares independence, it's still yours (see rules), that's what lighter colors are for. Gray countries mean only mods can choose what happens to them. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 01:14, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

So the Hungarian colony needs to be shown as the lighter color. Speaking of that, Collie ought to start saying what's going on there. LurkerLordB 01:46, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

Where you mean there?if you mean Newfoundland/Újfundlandi, i'm posting about it.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 06:30, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and, if one colony becomes independent, and you still has six colonies and two vassals, your maximum expansion is 3500 or 3800 sq km in a half turn?--Collie Kaltenbrunner 06:44, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

I see, I thought that they would be in a seperate bullet point, but I guess not. Would that be better to do? LurkerLordB 03:52, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

French-Lombard War (1766)Edit

Can somebody make a algorythm?--Collie Kaltenbrunner 19:08, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

As this was made way before the new stability was implemented, we'll use the old one. LurkerLordB 22:40, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

FranceEdit

• Close to the location of the War: 4
• Attacker's Advantage: 1
• France(L)/Burgundy(MV)/Algeria(MV)/Arabia(MV)/Sweden(M)/Estonia(MV)/Flanders(MV)/Arabia(Swedish)(MV)Hungary (S): 21
• Expansion: -2
• Military Expansion: 5
• Stability: 23.7^1.25/1.25^23.7*2.5*8=5.2
• Motive (Political): 5
• Participation: 10
• Chance: 3
  • Editcount:562
  • Time:1*8*4*9=288
  • (562/288)*pi=6.13
• Total= 52

LombardyEdit

• At the location of the War: 5
• Lombardy(L): 4
• Expansion: 0
• Military Expansion: 0
• Stability: 0.2^1.25/1.25^0.2*2.5*7=2
• Motive (Life or death): 10
• Participation: 10
• Chance:5
• Total=36

ResultEdit

42/78 = 0.538461538 - 0.5 = 0.038461538 0.038461538 x 2 = 0.076923076 = 7.69%

French Victory.France has right to 7,69% of Lombard territory.

DiscussionEdit

I assume that the Lombard portion will be somewhat independent, or at least will be after another war when they get more territory? Because Naples will side with them if they think France is going to destroy the Italian language and culture. LurkerLordB 01:44, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

Hungary is only joining because they want to reestabilish Verona.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 09:55, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned the Lombard Confederation was founded to act as a political counterweight to the powerful nation of Naples, and were not the expansionalist warmongers that Kunarian turned the Venetians into. The event describing Lombardy's expansion suggest that the expansion into the neighboring states was bloodless, again unlike Venice. For all we know the residents of Verona were absorbed into Lombardy without local resistance.

Yank 23:38, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

Future of AGCEdit

With Zagoria probably not returning. I was wondering what we shou.d do with the AGC. Everyone please vote mod votes are worth two. If you vote to divide the AGC please put it in the correct area

Keep it as it isEdit

Divide the AGCEdit

Split England only from BrandenburgEdit

Split Prussia, England, Czech, Austria from BrandenburgEdit

1. CrimsonAssassin 22:26, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

Total split with at least 10 German States and EnglandEdit

1. VonGlusenburg ^{(talk to Von!)} 12:35, January 11, 2012 (UTC)
2. Yank 05:07, January 12, 2012 (UTC)
3. Scandinator 11:46, January 12, 2012 (UTC)
4. LurkerLordB 01:23, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

I don't know. in case that he returns in spring, i will vote for only England to be separated. if is definitive that he won't come back, i will vote for the 10-state option.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 11:25, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

When is the spring brreak in the US? We could have the German states separating instead of uniting in OTL. Scandinator

Sincerely, i don't know, i'm brazilian. but in the northern hemisphere, spring extends from March to June.But, if the 10-state wins, which wll be the states formed?--Collie Kaltenbrunner 21:18, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

The states would be Saxony, Brandenburg, Rhinish-Walienstein, Austria, Czechland, Prussia, Bavaria, Heveltic Confederation, Rhinland-Saarland, Flemland and maybe more. I will post a map when I get home. Scandinator 11:35, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

Austria is already independent. Also, Switzerland should be independent (it is the sort of corner-area that borders Burgundy and Lombardy) LurkerLordB 01:14, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

Spring break in Quebec is 5-9 or 5-16 of march depending if your school has alot of ped days or decides to use them to prolong breaks-Lx ^{(leave me a message)} 01:50, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

Also, this had better not turn into some sort of giant power-grab for Sweden. LurkerLordB 02:14, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

If Austria is already independant, why isn't the nation on the map? The 1775 flag clearly has the Austrian region under Anglo-German control. I believe that Anglo-Germany should be "balkanized" for precedent's sake, at least. The last time a major user went away and never came back was the Ottoman Empire, and we mercilessly cut them to shreds. Why should Zagoria get special treatment?

Yank 05:32, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

Austria is not independent. Moravia is.Oh, and he mentioned the Heveltic Confederation (ie Switzerland)--Collie Kaltenbrunner 07:16, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

Collie is right. Austria is not independant. And the Helvetic Confederation is the offical name for Switzerland. Here are the maps.Scandinator 11:35, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

Two to seven. It looks like at least Enlgland will go and the process will begin in 1777 and end within two decades.Scandinator 11:47, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

I believe that prussia and brandenburg need to be united...prussia was the dominant state before...although if you dont want it like that its fine.-Lx ^{(leave me a message)} 11:58, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to call for Welsh independence too, if the Welsh nationalists saw all of those German states gaining independence from England, then the Welsh would want independence too. VonGlusenburg ^{(talk to Von!)} 12:07, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

I am with VonGlusenberg on the Wales issue.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 12:14, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

I like the name Bohemia better than the "Czechland" label given for it.

Yank 16:49, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'd thought that independent nation had been Austria. It seems strange for Prussia and Brandenburg to stay together. Remember, in this timeline most of Prussia was taken by Japan, then Sweden, then Anglo-Germany, so it wouldn't be the dominant state like in OTL. Czechland sounds fine to me, but I don't really care. I agree on the Wales issue. My only question is why are there two nations with long panhandles just to border France? I'd break the two panhandles aqay to be independent. Also, that map is very old, what year did you use it from? (I'm still voting for it to remain together, as my nation is sending so much aid). LurkerLordB 22:27, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

Here is my proposal for the division (which also has an updated surrounding map with the new states being Wales, England, Hanover, Brandenburg, Prussia, Rhineland, Westphalia, Saxony, Flemland,Helvetic Confederation, Austria,Bavaria, and Czechland. The colonies can be divided among the four with coastlines. LurkerLordB 23:04, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

Explication of my changes: I had Wales break away (because many people requested it, and in-game it is getting the most support. I had the Rhine areas break away and united to form one nation to make it look prettier, and I had the rest of the merge to form Westphalia. I had hanover break away from Saxony, I had Bavaria shrink a little as Saxony made up for lost space, and I had Brandenburg bigger as they are the most powerful area (the seat of power of Anglo-Germany, there's no way tiny weak Prussia would take so much of them. Other than that, the changes are just me not being able to perfectly recreate the old borders. LurkerLordB 00:10, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

Fun facts: religions of my map:

• Wales, England, Rhineland, Flemland-Solid Catholic
• Westphalia-Mostly Catholic, Waldensian Minority
• Bavaria-Mostly Catholic, Hussite Minority
• Helvetic C.-Solid Waldensian
• Austria-Catholic/Hussite Mix, small Waldensian minority
• Czechland-Solid Hussite
• Hanover, Saxony,-Mostly Catholic, Schmittist Minority
• Brandenburg-Mostly Catholic, Schmittist & Hussite Minorities
• Prussia-Mostly Schmittist, Hussite Minority

I assume the Freedom of Religion policy was kept. LurkerLordB 00:20, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

Naples has changed it's postion, and I change mine, under the condition that we use my map. LurkerLordB 01:23, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

I vote for using Lurker's map.--Collie Kaltenbrunner 05:09, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

StabilityEdit

As according to DK and with no objection I will take over stability again and start from this turn (1775). I will be using the new system that is there and keep track of the CSS off the website as it is too much of a pain to update with my computer disagreeing with the wiki format. The new system including the new war algorythm will be fully implemented with me keeping track of the years. Scandinator

Can't you just have a list of nations, so we can see whether it would be practical to go to war with another nation? Just like

• Naples-30 algorithm points

so we can estimate if victory is achievable. LurkerLordB 01:25, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

France's inactivity Edit

Hello! Sorry for not advise before, but I'm on vacations, and the wireless of my hotel is not very good. Anyway, France will be inactive until my return in sunday. So, when I come back I will read the posts and all the stuff. Bye --Galaguerra1 23:54, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

Industrialization UpdateEdit

Industrialization and its perks beyond Stage 1 will not be given unless an announcement of stage upgrade is made. I will post another update of the industrialization map and Collie - I will send a pure copy of the PM map from 1775 (no minor colour variations) on Sunday so colour counter will work.Scandinator 11:44, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

Naples will get to stage 1 in about 1780, and then will stay on schedule. LurkerLordB 01:26, January 13, 2012 (UTC)