Algorithms—the hard part of map games. This is where all of them are placed. It is mandatory to follow all the rules and strictly follow the procedure, rules, and computation of an algorithm, both of which can be seen here. You can see every algorithm below.
It's vital that you use exactly this format when writing or computing an algorithm, as it helps organization tremendously.
|Principia Moderni IV Algorithm Archives|
|15th century||16th century||17th century||18th century||19th century||20th century||21st century|
|Back to Game ● View ● Edit|
Name of War (Years of War) [Use Heading 4]
Front Name [Only use this if there is more front in the war] [Heading 5]
- Pre-War Stage
- Side I Name (Attacking or Defending)
- War Exhaustion:
- Casus Belli:
- Side II Name (Attacking or Defending)
- War Exhaustion:
- Casus Belli:
- Battle Stage
- (Battle or Siege Name)
- Side I Name (Attacking or Defending)
- Army/Navy Size:
- Great General:
- Side II Name (Attacking or Defending)
- Army/Navy Size:
- Great General:
- Final Stage:
- Side I Name
- Cities Occupied:
- Side I Name
- Cities Occupied:
- Overall Result:
Discussion [Heading 5]
Changes to Current Map
This is the section where you add expansion, complaints, or changes for the map in the PMIV Map Game. Please make it easy to understand for the mapmaker the expansion that you committed. This means including the name of your nation, and maybe an OTL location, and sometimes a reference map. Note, color requests will not be granted, as we already follow a color scheme.
Requested Changes/Errors for Next Version
Changes in Bahmani vassals: For reference, the Kingdom of Burma has been renamed Pegu, and the Maldives now include Addu (the tiny 2px island just south of the Maldives' box). The Guardian of Forever (talk) 21:24, October 22, 2016 (UTC)
- The shogun should own Shiba, Hatakeyama, and Ouchi, along with the entirety of Kyushu Island (there is a reference map of the daimyo in the reference map section.) Also, the Mariana Islands (excluding Guam) have been claimed by Japan. Saipan, however, is the southernmost island to have any trading posts if this makes any difference. Curmudgeonly yours - Crim 04:34, October 25, 2016 (UTC)
Gurkani expansion in the Caucasus for the last 20 turns need to be added
Changes Completed/Fixed in Next Version (1495)
This section is only for the mapmaker to post which changes were added to the next map, PLEASE DO NOT WRITE YOUR REQUESTS HERE.
- Assam: Fixed Chutiya
- Iberia: Fixed Malta, changed Morocco, merge of the two kingdoms
Leaves of Absence
If you plan on leaving the wiki for a while and will not be able post in the game for a while, please leave a message here telling us for how long you will be leaving and whether or not you have someone else you would like to play as your nation.
I will be leaving today (thursday) and will return on sunday. It will be very nice if someone does my turns for me. - Scarlet Outlaw
I'll be on holiday for 4-5 days, so I'll leave control of Pskov with Thewolvesden for the time being. EDIT: Seems my laptop is breaking down, battery dead and one of the two hinges is destroyed. Unknown when it will be fixed. Supergamer1 (talk) 13:10, July 24, 2016 (UTC)
I have to break off my Pacific Northwest trip due to a bronchitis. I need to fly back to Vienna and I need people to post for me and the guys I promised to post for, Rex and Super. AM, the King of the Banat (talk) 06:45, July 25, 2016 (UTC)
I could do that Andy, just tell me what should i post on chat.
I am dealing with some issues IRL and the Past few days have told me that the likelyhood of me being able to post untill at least monday will be hampered significantly.-Lx (leave me a message) 23:48, August 5, 2016 (UTC)
I will be gone canping from August 7-August 13, if someone could post as Denmark that would be grest. -KawaiiKame.
Due to my obvious over-involvement in the game (leading to some bad cases of bias), I am taking a week off from the game. Please, someone (probably Rimp, I trust him the most) leave me a message on my talk page if my nation is critically needed at any time -Oh, I didn't mean to push that button! † Oh, well leave a message I guess 23:24, August 8, 2016 (UTC)
As it stands today i found out some very bad medical news concerning one of my family memebers and i will be withdrawing from PMIV on these grounds. I will probably not be on as much but might still be around as i work on my TL and such. Feudy McPlagueface (talk)
Alright, THAT IS IT! I officially quit. I want nothing to do with PMIV and I much less want anything to do with any of the moderators involved and their rubbish. You know that? If you think I am arse, then you NOW made me one. For all I care, this game better be dead by the time I come back. And honestly, hopefully, I avoid this game like the plague and any subsequent games. Now, I am honestly done. D-O-N-E. Done! So, honestly, I can at best give you the mother of all insults if I could come up with one. Lousy wankers! Now, to the rest of you, I suggest you do the same. So, if anyone wants to boycott this game, feel free to. I know I will. Through Stars We Rise. (Welcome to the Universe). 03:24, August 14, 2016 (UTC)
I will be absent from 26/09 to 3/10, and again from 22/10 to 17/11. During these times I am giving full control of Aragon to Edgeofnight. I request that he play according to the following criteria:
- Continue centralisation of Aragon (without too much bloodshed if possible)
- Continue military expansion
- Ensure the complete destruction of Italy and Naples
- Everything else we discussed on chat today.
I just noticed the Roman Empire's post for this year and it seems the player is ignoring what happened when I was the Roman Empire.Such as the fact that in growing fear of Papism we cut funding the Catholic ones when earlier the Romans were reconciliating with the Catholics. Weird. --The Epic Dragon (talk) 17:43, July 27, 2016 (UTC)
Still possible to join?
Hi. I missed the start of the game due to injuries (wasn't able to use my PC because of it), so just wanted to know if it was still possible to join the game. Zamarak500 (talk) 02:57, August 3, 2016 (UTC)
It is still possible to join the game! It's never too lae. -KawaiiKame
New Reference Maps?
Can we get some more reference maps, specifically for south america and central america? -Nova
I fully agree on this proposal. Also, on the reference map of India, there seems to be more states than on the signup list for South Asia, and no sign of Delhi? Could we have a more labeled version of that?The Guardian of Forever (talk) 02:57, July 28, 2016 (UTC)
We need some reference maps over here. [North-Central-South America]
Am I a Vassal?
Ok, can someone tell me if the Duchy of Athens (which I'm playing) is a vassal? Cause I got my post cancelled because I was said to be a vassal. However, when I read the list of nation, the Duchy of Athens is independent, although Athen is a vassal. I'm confuse, so if someone could help me on that, it would be great. Zamarak500 (talk) 07:11, August 12, 2016 (UTC)
Yes the Duchy of Athens is a Vassal of Genoa, the mods jus haven't updated the nation list so that is why Athens is still on there. -Oct
Yes I listed some condtions on your tlak page. Prince Octavian , of Jerusalem, Sicily, and Swabia, and Duke of Amalfi.
Is The Roman Empire still a playable nation?
I was just wondering is the Byzantine Empire still playable and what is its curent state? I was just wondering as I have a deep love of all things Byzantine Related and when I saw it was open as a faction is such a popular map game I was a bit surprised if not a little suspicious. Thus I just wanted to check before I got my hopes up and posted as the Roman Empire in game. Thanks. The.Brick.Battle (talk) 01:36, August 21, 2016 (UTC)
No it is not. It got conquered by the Otties and then liberated by the Pope, you should talk to MP if you wanna play as his vassal.
Grivances with Certain Actions
I have some major complaints about how some things in the Ottoman War have gone. This has been brought up by a couple people other than myself. Anyway, in case you didn't know, there has been a war going on between the Ottomans and some Christian nations as of late. Here's a brief timeline of the war:
- Bohemia/Hungary invades the Ottomans, attacking Serbia.
- Bohemia/Hungary captures Serbia and moves to take Greece, but their forces meet an Ottoman force, and essentially cancel each other out, and both armies are destroyed.
- Bohemia/Hungary reinvades with the larger half of their forces (they split them before the war began), along with Polish and Neapolitan forces.
- The European nations capture the Balkans as the Ottomans make no further attempts to reseize the lands.
- European nations hold the area for a couple years (the algo at this point was over 500%, meaning an unconditional surrender for the Ottomans)
- Bozi stalls and delays, refusing to sign the treaty although it was an unconditional surrender
- The Abbasids back up the Ottomans, after the time given to them by Bozi's stalling, sending 50k troops and their great General to the front
- Abbasids defeat the Bohemian/Hungarian forces, triggering an unconditional surrender by the Europeans, and then demand that we sign the treaty
Now, here is a list of the grievances I have with this.
- The Ottomans lost the algo by over 500% and the algo remained that way over I believe 2 or 3 years, which should have been more than enough time to trigger an Ottoman loss in the conflict
- For further reason for an unconditional surrender, the Ottomans have been at war with at least one party constantly for like the past 10 years, and have been losing all the while. (My last casualty count put them at 150k+ dead)
- Bozi stalled and delayed and refused to sign a treaty (which he was obligated to do because of unconditional surrender) for enough time for Nate to come and send troops
- Nate's great general is supposed to be dead
- Bozi's argument of "Victory or death" for not signing the treaty is bullshit, and has been called out as such by numerous people (including mods)
- The Europeans are being forced to sign an unconditional surrender after a single battle, while we have occupied the Balkans for years and have triggered the unconditional surrender all the while, but Bozi has refused to sign any treaty.
- Regarding above, I believe it's mandatory (at least from what I have been told) for a nation to sign unconditional surrender if there is a case of unconditional surrender, so this war should have been done a few turns ago when the Europeans originally defeated the Ottomans
- Bozi later changed his argument from "victory or death" to "the treaty is a scam" although the treaty had been reviewed by more than one mod, and had been found to be legitimate. The treaty in question also demands nothing unreasonable for an unconditional surrender.
A few of us argued about this for 6 or so hours the other night, where Bozi finally ended up agreeing to sign the treaty the next day, but the next day he failed to do so. The mods that were there for a majority of the argument were Scraw and Nate. (Josh joined in later, however). This resulted in a few minor tweaks to the algorithm, which still put the Europeans above the unconditional surrender point, meaning the Ottomans should have surrendered.
I was told to do this via Skyboi and was also told to grab Rex, MP, and Nate and tell them to look at this, although everyone else can contribute to the conversation I believe. Thanks. Blocky858 (talk) 22:19, August 30, 2016 (UTC)
I'll try my best to give a definite answer on this, but here at least are my points:
- The casualties in the Persian War were broken, due to the disproportionate numbers on both sides. In the past (for other wars involving Persia) the mods have agreed to take common sense to estimate instead. As Persia only won by 110% in Mosul (not even achieving objective), it is unlikely very many people were lost, and certainly not the most important person there for both religious and secular authority.
- The Persian War ended in 1439 (confirmed with Rimp), so Bozi has plenty of time to recover his military lost in that campaign.
- Speaking of troop numbers, where are you getting yours? Your post at the beginning of the war implied you had 48,000 total military. But the algo shows you coming in with 64,000 in total. Ah, of course, mercenaries. If you can nearly double your army with mercenaries (while you are in an economic crisis I might add), the Ottomans certainly can recruit mercenaries from among the African imported from Benin, making up any margin of error
- The Ottomans did in fact lose unconditionally in 1442, allowing you to annex the vassals you invaded. However, nothing in the rules compels a player to sign a treaty, as not every war has to end in a treaty (none of mine have). For instance, if I invaded the Jaylarids and beat Persia over 200%, I could annex the Jaylarid vassal. But I could not force Persia to stop fighting unless I invaded Persia itself. This has been done in previous wars already.
- So after the Ottomans lost these lands, the Abbasids bailed the Otties out and retook them
- Oh, I didn't mean to push that button! † Oh, well leave a message I guess 00:16, August 31, 2016 (UTC)
I'll now attempt to thoroughly rebut Nate's arguments, because it is quite evident he is grasping at straws with this one.
First, let's look at the Battle of Mosul (the one that the mod events ended up being based upon, not the one Nate did). The difference between the two sides (in the favor of Persia) is 7.467. From the rules, every 1 score differential in battle means 20% of the army is lost. In this case, about 149% of the losers died, or since you cannot lose more than 100%, an estimated 80,000 Abbasids (including al-Najm) and 30,000 Ottomans died at Mosul. This also didn't "break the casualties algo" as Nate implied, because the Persians only lost 49% of their men (the algo breaks when the victors lose over 100%, implying that they were destroyed).
- That's still breaking it in my opinion but I'd let a neuteral mod decide. Just ask Josh, who made that rule himself, and he'd say since 1420 ish it's only used on occasionally now and with battles of smaller size -Nate
- As the rules currently stand, what Rex says is correct. I would also like to say that you cannot change the rules without a majority of the moderators agreeing. Just because you don't think it is correct doesn't mean you don't have to enforce it. If it bothered you that much, then you or Josh should have brought it up and had the moderators vote on it. Not just conveniently choose not to enforce the rule when your own army and general got wiped. - Blocky
Secondly, the Persian War ended in 1442, with the mod event effectively forcing an end to the war. This meant the Ottomans were actually fighting two major wars simultaneously across their empire. So, no, Bozi couldn't recover his manpower in such a short period of time especially after losing 30,000 men at Mosul just a few years prior.
- There was no battles after 1439, so these years don't count as part of the war. In OTL, World war two lasted diplomatically until the 1980s -Nate
- The fact still stands that they were at war until 1442. Per the rules as currently written, the war was still going on, meaning you could not have raised anymore men. Also, what Rex says is correct, Bozi was fighting two major wars simultaneously, and I also doubt that their manpower reserves would have recovered in such a short period of time, especially since they lost over 100k in the Persian War alone. - Blocky
Bohemia never claimed to have 64,000 men as far as I can tell based off the algo. He has reported 50,000 which is within a narrow margin of error of 48,000.
- They sent 24,000 initially followed by another 30,000 later, with an additional 10,000 to Epirus. That's a total of 64,000 -Nate
- It was originally split 24,000 and 24,000, as the economic crisis in Europe was giving me a -10% modifier to my max. army size. However, since the crisis has been resolved, I can field my full army of 54,000. The additional 10,000 comes from HRE Mercs. I hope that clears things up. - Blocky
Now, for the penultimate point, thank you Nate for admitting that the Ottomans lost uncondititionally in 1442. The vassals could be annexed, as Nate conceded, at which point the war would be over. Furthermore, in this particular geographical situation, the Ottomans would've been beaten back beyond the Bosporus, since they lost all of their European lands and don't own Constantinople.
You also point out that the Abbasids "bailed" the Ottomans out. This amounts to a new war, in which the Abbasids would be invading recently-liberated Greece. This would have massive implications across Europe, as the Caliphate is attacking a set of Christian nations in Europe. The main point here, however, is that this would be a brand new war, between whichever nation the Abbasids choose to invade (be it Greece, Bulgaria, or whatever).
- Both the Ottomans and Caliphate were in the counterattack, with the Caliphate merely aiding the Ottomans to retake what was recently lost. The battles won by the Christians, if I'm reading this right, would only be taking the vassals of Epirus and Serbia, so not completely pushed out of Europe unless Bozi allowed you by treaty
- Also, past precedent has had results be year-by-year, not war-by-war. It's confusing as most wars in a PM game last only one year. I adapt for algos which try to make it war-by-war as much as I can usually. So while the Ottomans may lose in one year, they can still retaliate the next provided they have resources left, which thanks to the Caliphate they did -Nate
- As the algo stands right now, only the Abbasids were invading. Also from what Bozi's posts look like, it seems more that he is following you than you following him. For the battles won by christians, the algo is currently not done yet. The Polish have taken Wallachia, and the Neapolitan army took the rest of Greece while Poland took the rest of Bulgaria. The algo is not yet finished. Also, we won by 200%, which renders an unconditional surrender. Since we had 200%, we could enforce any demands if wanted to. - Blocky
- According to what you said earlier, Nate, about the Ottomans did unconditionally surrender, according to that, then the war should have been over right then and there. The Ottomans didn't need to sign the treaty, as you said, not all wars end in treaties. If anything, the new invasion by the Abbasids two years later should be a whole new war, as the Ottomans surrendered in the original algo. However, the Abbasid intevention I am somewhat questioning, as they too were apart of the losers in the war against the Persians. I doubt that only a couple years later they would want to go back and fully support the Ottomans in another presumably costly war all the way across the Mediterranean. - Blocky
As someone who got invaded by Nathan and Bozi roughly 5 turns ago, a war that occurred about around the same time as this war, I personally believe I would be quite impartial and neutral on this issue. Since I like getting into arguments, I'm just going to go ahead and write a wallie xD.. Heres how everything happened in this war
- 1440 - The Bohemian Army, roughly 24k invaded Serbia and conquered it. The Ottomans did not send any troops to defend it, and I personally believe that this would allow the Bohemians to easily sweep through Serbia.
- 1441 - The Bohemian Army, roughly 24k or less at this point invaded Greece. The Ottomans responded by sending 40k to defend Greece and defeated the Bohemian Army. Simultaneously, they attacked Serbia with 10k men and conquered it. This practically trapped the Bohemian Army in Ottoman territory. The difference between the battle scores for the Battle of Greece is about 6.3, so I doubt the battle resulted in the destruction of the Bohemian AND Ottoman army as Blocky said earlier. Quite frankly, it would be the Bohemians who would suffer a more severe defeat.
- 1442 - The Bohemian Army that was trapped earlier would be annihilated, as stated by the Mod Event. The Bohemians invaded Serbia once more, with an army of 50k men whilst Naples simultaneously invaded Epirus and conquered it. The Ottomans would be defeated on both fronts but that would be all that would be lose territorially. As admitted by SkyGreen24 himself, the Mod who answered the Bohemian call for help to the Polish, Poland did not in fact invade Wallachia, they merely aided the Bohemian army at taking Serbia. So no, the Ottomans were not in fact driven from the Balkans. When we further consider that the Ottoman capital prior to the Fall of Constantinople was Edirne otl, it would mean that an attack upon Edirne would be required to drive out the Ottomans from Greece. So I quite honestly doubt Bozi lost any territory in the Balkans excluding Serbia and Epirus. Blocky's Timeline states that the Ottomans make no further attempts to retake their territories, and that the European nations hold the area for a couple of years. Blocky's Timeline also accuses Bozi of delaying his signing of the Treaty of Belgrade. This is a complete and total lie, as stated following
- 1443 - The very next year, the Ottoman army, 40k men invaded Epirus to retake the territory from the Neopolitan forces. Simultaneously, the Abbasid army, 50k invaded Serbia from the Bohemian forces. Meanwhile, Naxos invaded Beirut but their invasion was repulsed. All battles resulted in victories for the Muslims. There literally was no 'stalling' by Bozistanball for the signing of the Treaty of Belgrade. He suffered defeats in Serbia/Epirus and he responded by invading the very next turn. I would also like to raise the issue of Reximus suggesting that Nathan would be invading a set of 'newly liberated nations' and that it would constitute as a new war. I would like to question this because first of all, neither Bohemia nor Naples turn mentions the establishment of Serbia and Epirus as independent states. Whilst Naples turn does mention that the Neopolitan forces style themselves as 'Liberators of Epirus', it still does not in any way hint at the establishment of new Christian Kingdoms. Moreover, even if we were to assume that new Kingdoms were established, it still does not mean that it would constitute a new war. Nazi Germany established numerous puppet states throughout Europe during WWII, but that does not mean that the conquest of each individual puppet state was termed a 'seperate war', completely distinct from WWII. No, that is not what happened.
- 1444 - The Abbasid army, approximately 55k men invaded and conquered Naxos.
- 1440 is correct. 1441 is incorrect. The mod event for 1442 states that the Turkish forces were obliterated as well as the Bohemians. 1442, both armies were killed by mod event. Yes, Serbia and Epirus were taken. And no, the Polish never helped the Bohemians, I asked them to take Wallachia and in exchange they would keep it, and they responded and said yes, per Sky. The Ottoman capital atm is Ankara. Bozi DID stall, because by that point we had won the algo by over 500%. The Treaty of Belgrade, which was the treaty that was written to end the war, establishes the Christian kingdoms, and was signed by all the Christian nations involved. This effectively establishes the Christian kingdoms even without Ottoman consent. - Blocky
With that cleared out, I would like to quickly address the issue of the Tigris War, and Al Najm. Now, as far as the duration of the Tigris War is concerned, it last de jure from 1439 to 1442. The timeline of that war is as follows
- 1439 - The Abbasid and the Ottoman forces simultaneously launched attacks upon the cities of Mosul and Trebizond. 80k Abbasid, and 30k Ottomans (~110k) invaded the city of Mosul. 50k Ottoman and 20k Abbasid (~70k) attacked Trebizond. On both fronts, the invading armies were defeated and their attacks repulsed. I will not be going into the detail of how many casualities they suffered because I don't have the slightest clue on how it works. Rather, my prime motive at the moment is to clear out the Timeline
- 1440 - The Russian armies invaded and overran much of Crimea.
- 1441 - The Russians retreated back to their territories after encountering the Gurkani military in the Caucasus and signed white peace.
- 1442 - The Ottoman Empire signed white peace
That is about all that happened. Hope this clears out any issues regarding the duration of the war and what not. As for Al Najm, like I said, I don't have a clue how casualities work. As per Nathan, SkyGreen24 has stated that Al Najm is not in fact dead. Now finally, the issue of the Ottoman 'unconditional surrender' and being driven out from the Balkans.
Like I said earlier, the Bohemian army conquered Serbia and the Neopolitan forces captured Epirus. This not in fact mean that the Ottomans have been driven out from the Balkans. As stated by SkyGreen24 himself, the Polish never invaded Wallachia and that the Ottomans have not lost Bulgaria. The presence of the Ottoman capital, Edrine in Thrace further means that to truly drive out the Ottomans from Greece, it would be required of the invading forces to mount an attack on Edirne. When Nathan refers to the term 'unconditional surrender', I believe he is referring to the fact that the Ottomans had been defeated at Serbia/Epirus and were not in any condition to negotiate the return of Serbia and Epirus. To truly enforce an unconditional surrender on the Ottomans, it would be required of the invading forces to push out the Ottomans from the Balkans, destroy their navy and possibly even attack their cities in Anatolia. Simply conquering two vassals of the Ottoman Empire, territories that are not even integral parts of the Ottoman Empire does not in any possible way constitute an unconditional surrender. This would be like Nathan conquering Sicily and then enforcing a Treaty where he is given all of Naples. Moving on, when Nathan uses the term "The Abbasids bailed out the Ottomans", he is merely referring to the fact that the Ottomans were on the verge of defeat and they were saved by the Abbasids. I don't see how or why an issue is being out of this statement lol.. This very same statement could be applied to WW1 and a person could simply state "The United States bailed out the Triple Entente". Finally, to address Blockys criticism of Nathan helping out Bozi. First of all, each and every state has the right to make their own choices and Nathan has every right to decide who he wants to help and who not, as long as it is plausible. When we consider that the Abbasid/Ottoman forces fought side by side against the Persians not too long ago, that they fought side by side against numerous crusades and that the Ottomans are the only allies the Abbasids have in the region, I don't see why the Abbasids won't help out the Ottomans.
Sky is then telling us both different accounts of what is going on. The Ottoman capital is Ankara, and has been stated as being Ankara by Bozi multiple times. Poland in fact did invade, as shown by a mod event in 1443. At this point in time, the Ottomans had suffered a defeat of over 500%, which is more than enough to force them to give up their Balkan territory. Especially since they have only held these areas for a small amount of time. Once again, the Ottoman capital is Ankara, so there is no need to siege the city of Edirne itself. The Ottomans weren't on the verge of defeat, they were in fact, defeated. You can ask Scraw, as the other night he came on arguing to Bozi saying that he had lost the war, and to just sign the treaty. The analogy of Sicily to Naples is not applicable. The European nations have taken all the surrounding lands of the Balkans in the algo, and have support of the people of the regions in question. And as rules currently written say, that 200% or more in an algo is grounds for an unconditional surrender. The fact that even with just the Serbian and Epirus battles in the algo that gives us over 500%, I would definitely say that is grounds for surrender. Also, from what I have seen in other wars, you don't need to state that you go and conquer every region/town individually. For the casualties in the Persian war, what Rex said was correct. The armies of the Persians and Ottomans were destroyed, so Al-Najm should be dead. - Blocky
Hi I'm Sky-
I've been told to weigh in my two cents. In 1442 the Crusaders basically achieved an unconditional victory, yet Bozi, from what I have been told, stalled signing it because Nate was sending Al-Najm to attack with Bozi's forces. This in itself I consider an unfair turn of events, as by the same logic the Crusaders can just continue fighting as well.
Moreover, I had told Nate that I expect Al-Najm to be alive. But I forgot that Crim's Russian involvement in Mosul was retconned, hence the casualties were much greater than I thought they were when I said to Nate that Al-Najm is alive. Therefore, I believe there's a high chance for Al-Najm to have been dead since the battle of Mosul and the issue with re-attacking rendered moot.
Order in the court, order in the court. Edge shall weigh in. In the past games, pm3 included, if a player got 33% in an offensive war, akin to an uncondtional surrender, they could impose whatever terms they wanted as long they where within the realms of plausblity. Let it be known from this day forward that 200%+ victories will use this same rule. Players who get a 200% Victory from an offensive war can take whatever they want, while those who get a 200% defensive victory may impose things such as reperations in a treaty, but they can not take more than small tracks of bordering land. Now the way I see this issue is that the Bohemians and there fuck buddies invaded and got the uncondtional surrender, and than the Ottomans staged a counter attack. At best right now, although I haven't reviewed the algo, the Ottomans can get a white peace. I will post more when I have looked into this more.#BRINGBACK THESQUIRREL
The issue was resolved earlier today when Sky signed the Treaty of Belgrade retroactive to 1443 (pre-Abbasid invasion), effectively retconning Abbasid involvment as the Crusading forces already had the requisite 200%+ to win an unconditional surrender. Reximus | Talk to Me! 00:30, September 1, 2016 (UTC)
The Concentration system is new to Pm4. In this system, nations will either pick a concentration between the Army or the Navy, as no nations, with some extreme exceptions, could afford both at this period in time. How it will work is this:
- Nations will pick a concentration, assuming they have a choice. Nations that are landlocked can only pick Army, while nations like Genoa or OTL Venice can only pick Navy. You will need to recive mod approval for which ever you pick
- Your concentration can be officially changed every 30 years, although the mods may change it via event depending on the actions of your nations or wars you get involved in. An example of this would be something along the lines of the Spanish Armada. After a destruction like that, Spain would have to switch from Naval to Army because its prized navy was destroyed. Events like that can and will force changes in your concentraction.
- Your concentration will give you a 10% boost in the respective algorithim as long as it is changed without mod event.
- Simply add it to the table below to declare it (Add more rows if needed)
- If the cell with your concentration is green, that means you are currently getting the bonus. If it is red it was forced to change by a mod event. If it is gray it was never approved in the first place.
EDIT:Since there was some confusion on chat, I will explain. In AP Euro one of the thigns we discussed was what led to the rise of France and England as two of the dominant powers in Europe, and what made the two nations different. One of the things brought up is how even France, which during the rise of nation states, was among the richest and most powerful nations in Europe and the world. However, even they could not afford a powerful army and navy, so they where forced to choose between the two. France picked their army, and England picked their navy. Both nations had capable Armies and Navies, but the French navy was noticably weaker than the English navy and the English army was noticably weaker than the French Army. This doesn't mean you can't develop both, but at this time, nations focused on one, often at expense of the other.
|Nation||Concentration||Year Changed||Can be changed normally in:||Mod Approval|
|Grand Boyardom of Russia||
|Kingdom of Scotland||Naval||1410||1440||~Edge|
|Kingdom of Denmark||Army||1440||1480||~Wolves|
|Kingdom of France||Army||1410||1440||~Edge|
|1441||~MP with some other supporters|
|Earldom of Desmond||Army||1440||1470||-Edge|
|Kingdom of Burma||Navy||1457||1487||~Nate|
|Sultanate of Bengal||Navy||1458||1488||~Nate|
Explanations of lack of Approval
Feel free to dispute it in a civil manner, and if it gets out of hand you will get a three day game ban.
- While I understand West Africa had a history of ship building, I find in highly unlikely that, at this point in time, your nation would allow its Land Based power to take a back seat to Naval based power. ~Edge
- Same situation as above, Burgundy doesn't have really any reason to focus on its navy. I understand Flanders gives you acess to the sea but by the same vein, the bulk of your nation is land locked. ~Edge
- Denmark's power has always been with the navy, by which it maintains its colonies abroad. It only has a slim border by land with the continent ~Nate
- Tribal nations will not be given a concentration, due to the fact that specialization of occupations are not established at this stage of development ~Nate
The reason I made burgundy navy focused is because it's set a new focus on its maritime economy by way of the low country possessions, already wealthy trade cities on their own. It's been expanding its merchant fleet these past few years, and when there's a large merchant fleet, a sizable navy is needed to maintain its merchants safety. Since the income from the low country territories is quite substantial, safeguarding the sources of that income would be a reasonable course of action, hence, naval focus. I am that guy (talk)
I decided on the naval focus given that Benin's army is the largest in West Africa and the nation has no major enemies on its borders to contend with. Given that the Oba has the last say on all military affairs, he can easily define the needs of the nation's defenses now that Oyo (Benin's only real enemy) is gone. Benin has jungles on both sides, two weak kingdoms to its north, and nothing but water to its south. As the Oba knows of the wider world around Benin, and does not trust Mali with trade with Morocco and North Africa, using the sea route Benin discovered would have been the most realistic choice for the nation, securing the trade needs of the empire. The army is strong, but not needed for the foreseeable future. Focusing on the sea is the only rational choice for Benin at this time. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 19:55, July 28, 2016 (UTC)
Can you explain where you got those ship designs from? I looked online for historical West African ships and found nothing of that size.
There is a Nigerian forum which pulled together the research on traditional West African ship designs here. I based the designs of the Benin vessels off of that information, as well as the information that states such as Mali and Benin had sailing vessels for trade along the Niger River, while Mali itself had ships not unlike those in North Africa and Iberia. Given Mali used the Niger for trade with the south, Benin would no doubt have routinely witnessed these vessels firsthand coming down the river, and learned from their designs and operation. Further, an excerpt from the Journal of African History states that African war canoes were rather massive at 80 ft in length and 7-8 ft wide and typically had sails for navigation. Also, they had to be deep to carry 100+ men, their food, equipment, sleeping mats, and weapons so as to prevent capsizing ("...sharp pointed ends, rowing benches on the side, and quarter decks or focastles build of reeds, and miscellaneous facilities such as cooking hearths, and storage spaces for crew sleeping mats." –Journal of African History). Such vessels like these here have been built for ages in West Africa (the latter image showing a traditional shipbuilder), and were typically equal to are larger than vessels such as the caravel, which itself was typically about 40-50 ft long. These vessels here were actually built for deep-water seafearing and are rather large in size, and their designs have not deviated from those of the past. Though these modern designs use motors, in the past sails would have been present on them. Thus, it would not have been to difficult based on the knowledge possessed at the time to increase the vessels in terms of size and depth, as the knowledge was fairly common for the West African kingdoms of that time. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 03:30, July 30, 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I saw those designs on the actual website that you mentioned earlier, but the main question I have is where you are getting the size. You mention yourself that these vessels could manage 100 or so men, but I question the notion that you are able to build ships with five times that number or the motivation to do so. If you could provide some sort of proof in those issues that would be good.
Can you add the Chimu Empire, and give us concentration on Army Building? -Nova
I'm changing Benin's focus from army to navy given that following its civil war, downsizing the army was the most logical thing to do. However, as ships and crew are cheaper to maintain in large numbers than an equally large army, Benin could shift its additional funds into the navy. Furthermore, the rationale is two-fold. Combining with the cheaper cost of the navy, the worldview of Kuzirism - bringing the faith to as many lands as possible - necessitates the need for a strong navy to project power of a theocratic state overseas and into other lands. As I mentioned in the post for Benin, the Bini are turning to a global view not only because they must for their religion's growth (they are "hyper-devout"), but also because they can, given the vast wealth of the empire. They believe they must turn to the sea because their god wills it. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 22:48, September 23, 2016 (UTC)
Mod Elections of 8/11/2016
Hi all. We have decided to have mod elections for a new moderator. Now the three canidates in question are Callum, Cour, and Nic, and they where decided from a list of 9 possible canidates selected by the mods.
To Vote, you need a google account. Either make one or use an existing one. If this is a problem reach out to me and we will talk. You will use this link.
The way voting works is simple. You rank the canidates based on your prefrence. Only ONE will be chosen as mod, so you need to rank them as your first, second, or third choice. If you select two first choices, your vote will be thrown out.
Every First choice gets a canidate three points, every second gets a canidate two points, and every third gets a canidate one point. This is to avoid a plurality.
Going On Vacation
Since i will ot be here I would need someone to do my turns for me from Friday to Sunday. - Scarlet Outlaw
Mod Event Complaints
After the last couple of years of Benin's internal instability, lack of charismatic leadership, and crushing military defeat to the Songhai, the Kuzir religion begins to distabilize with 60% of the former empire converting to Islam (mostly under Songhai's control), a remaning 25% staying with the Kuzir religion (making a majority in the core of the empire), and the rest returning to the African traditional polytheism (mixed within the core and northern regions). Fearing the lack of popular support, the clerics among the regency council pressures the adolescent Oba to officially abolish the Kuzir religion and return to absolute rule, in hopes of restoring order.
Just make my game a "little difficult" as MP said, huh?
- "...Benin's internal instability..." Which you caused. You killed off the young, healthy Oba for no reason, and sparked an unrealistic rebellion during a regency over a 12-year old who wasn't old enough to rule as the source. The people would never rise up over a minor unfit to rule yet. Also, you have a group of people conquered by Songhai decide that the nation that improved their lives was worse than the nation that marched in and violently oppressed them.
- "...lack of charismatic leadership..." How are Prince Uwaifiokun (the man who opened Benin's view of the world), Okpara Maduka (the man who explored that world), and Mohammed Benken (a great military leader who saved Benin) not popular or charismatic leaders?
- "...crushing military defeat to the Songhai..." Songhai exploited a rebellion in Benin to declare independence, and was destroyed the following year. How as that a "crushing military defeat"?
- "Fearing the lack of popular support..." From the people who think God saved them from defeat by multiple enemies, and point to the three aforementioned men as saints for saving them?
- "...the clerics among the regency council pressure the adolescent Oba to officially abolish the Kuzir religion and return to absolute rule..." Why would the clergy want the religion that sustains them abolished? How did the 16-year old become Oba when he is not yet old enough to rule? What makes you think that Uwaifiokun would allow that when he and the warriors support the religion? Why would the people who see the Oba as the leader of their faith (in OTL and ATL) want him to destroy his own religion? And as a theocracy, the Oba is by default an absolute ruler, making the clergy's reasoning either ignorant or completely retarded.
Not a mod or anything, but to be fair, Viva has made some very good points - it would be very illogical for the Kuzir clergy to demand to the leader of the Kuzir faith to abolish the Kuzir religion. That's utter nonsense. However, it is plausible that several high-ranking people discontent with the ruling family could trigger a succession crisis over an heir too young to rule or to understand the implications of such a conflict. ~Tim
All I can say is that Viva is being targeted through Mod Events a lot. Like.. a lot and there isn't even a genuine explanation behind it. Lets see
- On Turn 1427, the Mods killed off Viva's Oba for no reason at all, who was seemingly perfectly healthy as Viva has mentioned. The very same Mod Event then established a regency to control the state whilst Ministers and Generals fought to expand their influence at court. A reasonable Mod Event, excluding the shady sudden death of a young ruler.
- On Turn 1428, officers and priest fearful for their life suddenly staged a revolt because they didn't like the regency and wanted the 12 year old controlling the state. This doesn't even make sense and it sounds almost as if whoever is writing these Events is adamant on destabilizing Vivas Empire by hook or by crook. The previous Mod Event established a regency and promoted infighting amongst nobles. Viva responded by empowering Prince Regent and stamping out on the disloyal nobles in order to restore stability which seems as a smart move. Somehow that resulted in priests and officers becoming fearful that the stability was a threat to them, and somehow this attracted the military and urban classes. Wow.. like .. wow. I wouldn't have complained if the Mod Event had stated something along the lines of "The nobles keen on restoring their influence in the regency council, hoping to remove XYZ Prince Regent stage a revolt" or anything even close to that. But no, the priests want the stable regency removed so that a 12 year old who doesn't have a clue how to govern starts to rule. Tell me, who exactly in Benin gains from a 12 year old ruling the nation? No one but the enemies of Benin and Kuzirism. If only the enemies of Benin benefit from it, why would the urban and military classes revolt? It doesnt add up
- On Turn 1429, the rebellion turned from one that wanted a 12 year old to govern the state into one with religious and ethnic elements. Good thing the Events are making sense atleast, yet there is so much left out. Lets see, somehow a random local with the name of an otl future Emperor becomes Songhais ruler? What? So basically, all the other major families, religious leaders and military commanders in Songhai just decide to hand control to some most likely lowborn guy named Sonni Ali cause why not? What further makes little sense is that this Sonni Ali is suddenly a great politician and military strategist. Its almost as if they just wanted the rebels to have a +45 in the algo so they decided to magically make a random guy a Great General. Yet surprisingly, Viva isn't allowed to have a Great General and the one that Viva did have awhile ago was killed off prematurely.. I guess we now know why he was killed off so suddenly.
- On Turn 1430, well Vivas already mentioned that year so I don't have to
- What he said ^ -Bozistanball
- I agree with Rimp, Viva recieved multiple events that made less sense year after year and they all were to dismantle Benin. [[User:KawaiiKame|카와이카매] ([[User talk:|카와이카매talk]]) 22:04, August 16, 2016 (UTC)
I can see some valid points in the above complaints. I definitely agree with Tim that the idea of the Kuzir clergy pressuring the Oba to abolish their own religion seems somewhat absurd (I always personally had an issue with the Kuzir religion just literally being made up one day and imposed on a whole state, but that's unrelated and canon anyway). So I think that bit at least needs to be removed. I can see how a religion created from scratch 15 years ago could quickly lose supporters, especially after the death of its charismatic founder and some internal instability. Now, as to the plausibility of past events, keeping in mind Rule 3, anything before 1428 (or 1429, I guess, depending on the construction of the phrase "two turns") should be deemed canonical. I can, however, see how this run of events looks like "targeting" or some such. I can also see how, what with the very fast pace of social change in Benin, some internal division would not be unwarranted. I would like to see the replies to the above complaints. Callumthered (talk) 13:05, August 16, 2016 (UTC)
Frustrated by the difficult terrain and slow travel for caravans heading to areas hit by the famine, many in Central Asia begin to seethe with discontent. This only intensifies as bands of riders begin attacking the food caravans, making off with their valuable contents before they can reach the major cities.
Now, I would just like to list a few points stating why the Mod Events make little sense.
-First of all, I would like to mention the 'Great Famine' I was given via Mod Event yesterday. The Event supposedly created a famine in Central Asia which stunted my population and threatened thousands of lives. This came as a surprise to me, especially when we consider that Central Asia has rarely ever been hit by a Great Famine throughout its history. Agricultural output has been sufficient to such a degree in Central Asia that the only otl Central Asian state to ever suffer a major famine was Kazakhistan, that too was because it was an artificial famine created by the Soviets. Moreover, when we consider the fact that almost all otl CAR states are agrarian in nature, it completely settles any question or debate in regards to the agricultural sufficiency of Central Asia. When we further consider that my nation controls the Fertile Crescent, the region known for being the most fertile and agriculturally important area in the Middle East; it clearly highlights the fact that my nation cannot be hit by a major famine because I obviously have the resources to feed my people. The reason I never raised the issue was because I assumed that the famine was perhaps similar to the ones European nations suffered every decade or so (which they aren't getting for some reason in PM4) so I decided not to outright criticize it. But after reading the very recent Mod Event, I've come to the conclusion that this is no more than a step by step process to promote unrest and discontent in my nation.. A plan who's very basis doesn't really make sense.
-Moving onto the 1431 Mod Event. I would first like to question what the Event means by "difficult terrain". Given that this Mod Event is centered in Central Asia, the logical conclusion is that it is referring to its terrain which has absolutely no major natural barrier of some sort that could obstruct transport. The area can easily be transvered through so I'm not sure where the difficult terrain part came into being. If the terrain was truly difficult to move through, it would never have served as the epicentre of the silk road. If anything, it would have been impossible for the Mongol armies to pass through this land to move South and West. Clearly, that isn't the case because there is nothing about the terrain that makes it impassable.
-The second part of the Mod Event speaks of slow travel for caravans heading towards area hit by the famine. Once again, this comes as a surprise to me as the area which has been supposedly hit by a famine was the same area that was full of routes that made up the Silk Road. If the area was truly so difficult to pass through, merchants would've utilized a sea route from the port city of Basra to India and onwards. They didn't because clearly, there is nothing wrong with the routes. When we further consider that I've been diverting funds towards developing the routes connecting the major cities of the Empire in order to promote the Compact of Iskenderun, for roughly 20 years now, it leads to further confusion as to how the caravans could supposedly not reach in time.
-Finally, something connected to my very first point. When we go through the list of major famines, the great majority lasted little more than a year. In fact, they ended within the same year. Yet somehow, Central Asia; a region that was never historically touched by major famines has somehow been hit by a famine in PM4.. and somehow the effects of that famine are now extending and stretching on and on. Hmm..?
The travel is slow because it needs to travel from areas such as inner Persia and Iraq to Central Asia. While it can be done, yes, that doesn't change the fact of the matter that it takes time to do so, especially when crossing the Persian mountain ranges. With trade goods like silk and porcelain, time is hardly important. When it comes to food, time is very important, especially to people who may be starving.
Secondly, I think it's important to point out that one, Kazakhstan was not the only place to suffer famine in Central Asia's history, nor were all of them a result of manmade issues. It should be pointed out that the famines in Kazakhstan that you mentioned, as well as the others that you did not, took place in the modern era, when advances such as irrigation should have helped mitigated the droughts that started them. Droughts can still happen, both now and then.
Thirdly, I find it interesting how everyone assumes that because they get one bad event, they are going to suffer major problems. That is not the case and people should know that there are examples of that, even as there are examples that prove otherwise. The point is, a single bad event or two should not be viewed as the disaster that it apparently seems to be viewed as.
Finally, if in the future you get another bad event that you believe to be implausible, by all means provide a feasible alternative that you believe is much more plausible. The mods cannot know every single aspect about every single nation, but as mentioned before, every nation will be smited from time to time. If you agree with that concept but disagree with the means, then provide an alternative.
Angered at the draconian measures enacted during a time of crisis, many inhabitants of Central Asia begin to resent the continued occupation against raiders that no longer frequent the area. Some begin to grow angry at what they see as a Persian threat against their ways of life.
Now I don't want to criticize every single Mod Event that hits me but I would just raise some issues. First of all, I don't have a clue what draconian measures or which occupation this Mod Event is referring to. Not so long ago, Central Asia was hit by a famine and the people nearly died to famine due to raiders constantly attacking caravans carrying food. I responded by having the caravans armed, and ordered the Amirs of the Central Asian provinces to round up all those suspected of having engaged in attacks upon the caravans. I don't have the slightest clue why these people would sympathize for the raiders. As far as 'no longer frequent the area' is concerned, the people are still there. Raiders can't magically disappear and appear wherever they want. I'm going to assume that it means the raiders stopped raiding, which once again means that they're are still there.. they just aren't raiding anymore because it's not in their interests to attack the military. Like I said, I don't want to complain about every Mod Event and I decided to partially go ahead with this one by ordering the Amirs to no longer target suspected criminals which sounds like a dumb move but that is what this Mod Event is asking me to do... doesn't add up. Moving onto the second part, could you clarify what the Mod Event is referring to when it states "Persian threat against their ways of life" ? Which threat? Do they belong to completely different cultures which has resulted in a somewhat clash of civilizations? Not at all. Do they belong to completely different religious groups with one religion considering the traditions of the other religion as blasphemous? Not all all.. They're both Muslims. So I'm not sure what 'threat against their ways of life' means. Most importantly, when have I enforced Persian culture on the people in Central Asia? So I would really appreciate if this was clarified. Thanks
Now I complained against this event but never got a response. I didn't understand why but now I know the answer with the recent rebellions I got. It seems to me that the Mods couldn't even justify the uneasiness and discontent in my state because they knew they had no valid reason. Seems to me they chose to ignore my complaint so they could go ahead with the eventual revolt instead of properly explaining it.
Angered at continued rule by what they perceive to be Persian aristocrats and spoiled Turks, a general revolt breaks out in Central Asia. The appointed relatives of major cities like Samarkand and Bukhara are evicted or executed as they are seen as emissaries of the corrupt and foreign. The Gurkani Sultanate ultimately divides evenly in half by population, the western half (mostly in Iran) under Persia while the eastern half (mostly in Central Asia) under the newly formed Uzbek Sultanate.
Alright, so this is one of the worst Mod Events I have ever seen. Let's point out the very first thing about this Event.. The Mod Event created a revolt, executed all the Gurkani administrators appointed in those cities and then handed over the Event to me. Basically what the Event is telling me is that people decided to magically revolt for no reason, execute everyone whilst the Sultan and everyone else just kept watching. Lmao what? What Persian aristocrats is this Mod Event talking about? Each province has an Amir, Qazi and Dewan appointed from that respective province to represent their own people so I don't have a clue where the Persian part is from. When we further consider that a Majlis e Aam exists that consists of representatives from various tribes across the Sultanate to bring up any issue or problem directly with their Amirs or even the Sultan, it further makes little sense as to where the Persian aristocracy part comes from. As for spoiled Turks, what? There has not been a single mention of corruption in my nation, which while it may exists as it is natural, has never been extreme. This Mod Event literally has no valid casus belli for a revolt lmao. Basically, what the Mods are telling me is that the people woke up randomly angry one day, decided to kill all their rulers and declared themselves the Uzbek Sultanate. Why? No reason at all. Like, please explain to me how I am supposed to respond to this..? I doubt the Mods themselves have any clue what they would put in casus belli if they were asked to do the algorothm roght now. Finally, the Mods decided to just divide my nation evenly in half. As Viva mentioned, when has a nation ever magically split into two historically? The Events say it takes plave in Central Asia, and the successor state declares itself the Uzbek Sultanate but somehow the population is split into two. Now I know why the Mods did it.. They realize I have one of the largest armies so they decided to split my nation into two so that I won't be able to outnumber or even equal my opponents. Yet, they fail to consider that Persia abd the surrounding regions have always had a greater population than Central Asia. When we further consider that naming the rebel state 'the Uzbek Sultanate' gives the rebellion an ethnic element, we quickly come to the conclusion that other Turkic groups would never support the revolt. The Tajiks in particular are in fact culturally and linguistically Persian so that takes them out too. Are the Mods telling ne that a Pan-Uzbek rebellion somehow has 26 million people supporting it? That too ignoring how the revolt itself makes no sense and how the rebels somehow siezed major cities whilst the Sultan and the Imperial authorities 'silently watched'.
Meanwhile, the Jalayarid Sultanate declares its independence, and seeks the protection of its Arab brethren in the Caliphate against potential Persian invasions.
Once again, another classic case of Mods giving players rebellions but never bothering to read the playets turns even once. Remind me why there are Mods assigned for each specific region anyway if they aren't even going to read the turns of the nations in those regions..? So basically what the Moderators are telling me is that the Sultans niece, the Queen of the Jalayirids and her spouse (The Sultans son) decided to revolt against the Sultan. Why? No reason at all. Seems to me they woke up one morning as well and thought "Lets just revolt cause its funny LOL". Why exactly would they revolt against me? Have I persecuted them? No. Have I oppressed them? No. Have I promoted Persian or Turkic language/culture l in their territories? No. So why exactly are they revolting..? Lets look at it from a Mods perspective.
"Hey! We just gave Rimp a rebellion that split his population in two so he can't beat those rebels. But you know.. Rimp might find a way eventually.. I got an idea! We will give him two rebelliobs at the same time!"
That is honestly how I see it going. I honestly can't see how the Mods can justify this revolt. But thats just the first part. The Mods had to get Nathan involved in this revolt as well ofcourse as they needed to get a valid casus belli for Nathan to join in. So what do they do? They make the Jalayirids ask the Abbasids for help. What the Mod Event is bsically saying is that the Abbasids who have a historic claim on Iraq and particularly Baghdad are being asked for help against a nation that transformed the Jalayirids from a underdeveloped area constantly under Oghuz Turkic attacks to one that touched the Mediterranean and the Black Sea at the same time.. a nation whos navy was rapidly developed and for whom a massive trade network was developed to facilitate the spice trade. Why in the world would they ask the Abbasids for help? That too ignoring how the revolt has no valid casus belli in the first place. This makes as much sense as Finland asking the USSR to help invade Germany in WW2.
What does it have to be me though? Why didn't the Galicia magically (Jalayirids in this case) revolt when Edge got a Moroccon revolt? Why didn't the people of Grenada revolt for that matter? Why didn't the people of Tunis revolt after they freed thenselves from European rule only to be subjugated by Nathan? Why didn't Nathan get two revolts at the same time, perhaps a Tunisian revolt coinciding with his Coptic revolt? Why didn't he get a revolt when he drive thousands of Turks from his nation? I don't want to point fingers at other nations but all I am saying is that there are so many nations in this game, many players often performing implausible actions... yet it has to me getting these massive revolts simply because my nation is large and strong. Its almost as if there is a rule that states that if you become strong, you need to get a revolt but if I were to start pointing out how extremely implausible the nations of various Moderators were in the last major Map Game (PM3), they wouldn't be able to justify their actions other than a "Everyone else did it so why not me?". Its not about getting a revolt for me.. but if you want to give revolts, they should at the very least make sense. If there aren't any qualified Mods for specific regions in the Map Game, assign new ones. I would quite honestly prefer getting revolts from a Mod that knows what hes doing regardless of whether he borders me or not instead of a Mod whos only source of information is a 5mins skimming through the Wikipedia page.
Other than the general issue that these Mod Events make no sense, the following pictures prove that not only did Nathan abuse his position as a Mod by making sure his regional rival got negative events, but he also metagamed by informing his ally Bozistanball about it amd pre-planned an invasion to coincide with the revolt
Hi I'm Sky and this is Sky's solution™ to map game issues.
Ok so Rimpboi my good man, you need to choose an area in which you'll focus, be it east, west, center of whatever of the Gurkani Sultanate Empire thing. Then we should crumble the rest of your nation in such a way that you're separated from people like Nate and Crim. Not because you'd be ganked, which you would but anyways, because those regions were recently conquered and could easily be smashed into a series of smalll to mid-sized nations ready to refresh the region.
Next up, you will probably still get internal turmoil due to rapid decrease of size of your nation which'll probably last about 5-10 years and make you incapable of conquering anyone without having your army and economy cut down even more after you do.
Multiple revolts sounds a bit right but losing a lot of territory in a short period of time needs to be done in a plausible manner. First of all, I believe this Uzbek Sultanate needs to be dealt with. Somehow the Uzbeks have declared independence, starting a Pan Uzbek Movement. Somehow these Uzbeks have the support of every single Turkic group in Central Asia without any proper justification and somehow even the Tajiks who are a Persian ethnic group are supporting Uzbeks as well. Whats further worse is that somehow, the Central Asian areas revolting means I lose 50% of my population even though those areas have historically been sparsely populated and would definitely not constitute 50% of the population. Finally, all of this needs to be done asap. At the moment, its basically Nathan controlling two nations. He controlled the Uzbeks to annihilate every single official in one of the most important cities of my nation which makes no sense at all. Why would the Uzbeks revolt for no reason all of a sudden? Moreover, how can they just take over cities without any algo? Lmfao wat. Whats further worse is that Nathan is basically controllung the Uzbeks via Mod Events to further invade me. So yeah
I agree with Rimp. There is no way the Uzbeks would have taken half of his nation over a "general revolt" and managed to build a perfectly functioning military overnight. Remember, most of Rimp's military is most likely Persian, meaning that siding with the Uzbeks would have been out of the question. If that is the case, they'd have to draw from locals who lack combat experience. If this was done plausibly, and the part that rebelled was not half of the Gurkani Sultanate, then the rebel army would be tiny if drawn from the Uzbek lands. Furthermore, the event was implausible as it magically turned all Uzbeks into a hive mind that somehow decided to automatically support an Uzbek state unanimously, and for some reason, 50% of the population in the nation decided they wanted to rebel at the same time for reasons unknown. And Rimp is correct yet again. How did the rebels manage to overpower at the same time perfectly all of the Persian military forces across half of the empire without any problems? We know BS when see it. Nate, the person who made the event, is in the process of invading Rimp's lands. He has the most to gain from the ASB event, and he is the one who made it. This is a huge conflict of interests. It seems that whenever you create a rebellion in someone's nation, you either give them a great general from out of nowhere, boost their population to unrealistic levels, or create as many implausible issues for the player to deal with to prevent them from saving their nation, all to give the rebels a boost in the algo. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 19:40, August 26, 2016 (UTC)
Bohemia's army is stuck in enemy territory and mostly slaughtered as they retreat from Greece after being surrounded by the Ottoman Turks. News of the infamous “Massacre at Xánthi” spreads throughout Europe, leading many to call for a new crusade to liberate the continent from the Muslim influence.
After costly battles to defend Mosul and recapture Trebizond, the Persian Army is largely worn out. Advisers to the Shah suggest taking a brief respite before later pursuing the smaller eastern rebel statelets.
The algo was already finished and approved by a mod. Also, I extremely doubt that Wallachia could raise 50,000 troops on its own, and I doubt it would willingly raise them to fight against someone who is liberating them. I also doubt that given the economic situation in Europe, they could raise that much. Further, I also doubt that after many years of war there would have been any troops willing or able to fight in against the Bohemian army. Also, Epirus could not have attacked as they were liberated as part of Greece. Serbia was also already occupied by time of 1441, and therefore could not "raise an army" and link up with Wallachia's. Also, if the mod who I think wrote this actually did, there could be bias against me. Also, the algo has multiple problems since it was edited with. The Ottoman Empire's army should be in shambles after the Persian war, and after the riots that happened a few years ago, the population of the vassals of Wallachia, Serbia, etc. should be helping me if anything, not attacking me. I also doubt that Wallachia has a population close to seven million to support a 50,000 strong army, which is the population of both Bohemia and the Ottoman Empire itself. - Blocky
Oh seriously??? This must be the second most biased event in the game, after the collapse of the Guarkani Sultanate... Jeez i wonder who wrote this stuff??? So lets recap on this event, so after the Otties faced annihilating defeated, they suddenly recover and an army magically appears out of thin air, that ultimately crushes the Bohemians, sure and if that wasn't enough to justify this, you restrict Guarkani ability to continue its war with the Otties, basicly saying "now that things are NOT going our way as we hoped they would go, when we collapsed the Guarkani Sultanate just to invade it and grab some land, lets make sure that we won't lose any land with another BS event."
I concur. To suggest that the Ottoman and Abbasid forces can continue fighting despite losing the war but that the Gurkani cannot launch a counter-offensive after crushing the invaders makes little sense. If a 'worn out' penalty is being given that restricts people from further engaging in war, the Ottomans and the Abbasids should definitely suffer it too.
First, 50% of my population was taken away from me and I was stripped of my vassals without any justification. Simultaneously, Nathan was given a Great General for no reason at all. My only ally, Bahamani was not allowed to intervene in the war, once again wkthout any explaination. In contrast, Nathan's main ally, the Ottomans were allowed to freely invade me. The Russian Intervention in the war was also allowed after Nathan called upon Russia to join in. Nathan also wrote up Mod Events where he controlled the Uzbek army and made them march on my capital. In spite of all this, when I finally repelled Nathans and the Ottoman Invasions, I am no longer allowed to counterattack. So I would quite frankly request that this issue is cleared out. If the Mods (Some, not all) are adamant on having Nathan win by hook or by crook, then they should just clearly mention it so that I'll go ahead and pick another nation accordingly. I don't really see the point of being given false hope.
While most of Europe has now recovered from the economic collapse of 1439, the nation of Aragon faces its own, smaller banking crisis. This is caused by the Royal Bank of Barcelona, being capitalized by the Royal Family, attempting to collect on debts owed by Aragon’s royal family. In effect, they had loaned out money to themselves and others in sort of Ponzi scheme. This bank collapses drastically, and most Europeans grow wary of banking, causing branch closures of the Bank of Prague and Bank of St. Birgitta.
Okay, what the fuck is this? This is so random and sudden. First of all, the Royal Family never took any loans from the bank, and they never loaned a single cent to themselves. Did I ever say I did that? No. Did I ever loan money out to my own government from the Royal Bank "in sort [sic] of Ponzi scheme"? No. If there was a build-up to this "spectacular collapse", I would have accepted this. If I had actually been "capitalising on the bank" in the manner this event says I did, I would have accepted this. But I HAVE NOT. This is total BS and probably a deliberate attempt by a certain mod to sabotage me. I wonder who. ~Tim
The government injects a large loan equivalent to $500,000 into the bank, and raises the Common Base Tax to 4% to bring in more revenue to fund the bank. You put half a million into the bank as a loan from the government and now because just giving out loans to banks is a silly idea, the bank can't pay back. - Person
Well, that's a good point. But surely the bank isn't so incompetent that it can't pay back the loan. The bank's been quite successful over the years; such a bank doesn't just crash like that. ~Tim
Where does it say it's been successful. It was just some bank created 10 years ago which expanded rapidly and was propped up by the King when people lost their money and the bank got in trouble. Now the King wants to know where his money has gone but it all went trying to keep all the branches open. Everyone has been building to many banks to quickly and naturally massive over expansion is going to lead to you owing people money and the people who owe you money not being able to pay back because you lent to much. - Person
http://i.imgur.com/29JDTA0.png Basically without the invention of Bank Accounts and Aragon's money focused elsewhere it would have to be entirly funded by the royal family which would get the Money from Loans. Prince Octavian , of Jerusalem, Sicily, and Swabia, and Duke of Amalfi.
Your point is moot; I've already accepted the mod event on advice from Person and Bear. ~Tim
Crim 1 - Japan
Looking over the Chinese-Japanese relationship, it's insane how it does a complete 180 for no reason whatsoever. First Korea rebels from China and Japan moves in to aid China in its quest to prevent Korea from renouncing its tributary status. Evidentally the Chinese just let Japan take care of this instead of moving in, but whatever. Prior to this war, Japanese/Chinese relations were at a high, certainly the highest in the region. Which brings my concern to an event years later; the Tondo renouncement of Japanese protection.
Ming not only allowed this to happen in a mod event (due to a mod event because of players switching, but it still makes no sense in-game), they invaded their ally's protectorate for no reason other than 'they were asked to' in 1438. This event makes absolutely no sense. Furthermore, there is no reason why Japan would sell Ryukyu to China in 1434. I'm posting mod events to illustrate what exactly happened. I am requesting a moderator to examine these and to consider retconning them completely. There are some shenanigans regarding Ming and Korea going on right now that don't really make much sense, but that's not a mod event so that doesn't go here.
1434: The Ming Emperor buys the Japanese colonies of Ryukyu for twelve tons of silver.
1438: The Ming Emperor sends his full support for the Kingdom of the Tondo against Japan
You got it all wrong, absolutely wrong. Early in the game, I subjugated Korea as a protectorate, under Chinese suzerainty and thus it is no longer obliged to pay tribute. I did this as a protective measure against Japan. Later, I wanted to reverse the decision as I felt I was strong enough, so I sent tribute and emisarries to the Ming and wanted to receive full independence again in exchange for the reestablishment of the tributary system (Korea would have to pay tribute again).
Now my guess is meatpuppeting between the player of the Ming and Japan happened, because the former made this exaggerated response to my humble request for independence to which the latter suspiciously hopped in and readily invaded me. What is also funny was that the Ming's goal was to "surpress Korean revolts at independence" (yet I did not mention anything), yet its player said, "Japan, if you subjugate Korea I will give it to you". Anyways, the part about the Ming participating and a Korean rebellion was retconned. It basically became Japan invading Korea for some reason, which Japan lost. So basically most of what you are complaining about is obsolete or misinterpreted information. – † ⌒⌒⌒＼(;ᄋ;＼)三(ﾉ>ᄉ<)ﾉ ~ ("니가먼저키스해!")
You'll note that most of my grievances come from things not regarding the Japanese-Korean War. Furthermore, it's been a good three days since I posted that. By this point, I'm well aware of the details concerning that war.
Good that you understand the (messed up) situation by now. Anyways, I agree with the implausibility of Japan selling the Ryukyus to the Ming. – † ⌒⌒⌒＼(;ᄋ;＼)三(ﾉ>ᄉ<)ﾉ ~ ("니가먼저키스해!")
Seeing the senseless use of the Empire’s wealth in the Balkan War, most of the states in western Germany switch their favor toward the Elector of Brandenburg against a perceived Bohemian dynasty.
The Empire had nothing to do with the war. All troops were Bohemian/Hungarian and all funding for the war came from Bohemia. If anything, the states in the Empire would be happy to know that the Ottoman Empire, being heathens, were pushed back. I would also like to point out that this was mostly a war for the Hungarian part of my realm, not for Bohemia's own benefit. I also see no reason for the western states to turn towards Brandenburg of all people, who only really has influence in the north eastern HRE. I also see no reason as to why the HRE would be upset at Bohemia, as my efforts in establishing the Bank of Prague and establishing branches across the HRE for the Bank contributed to getting the HRE out of the economic crisis. I also have defended the HRE against outside forces, and the western HRE should be looking towards a powerful nation with a good track record of protection to insure that they will be protected if any forces from the west choose to invade. To emphasize these two points, Bohemia is regarded as one of the great powers (at least according to Edge), the full list being Castile, France, Bohemia, Milan, and Persia in no particular order. Bohemia has also defended the Empire against French aggression before, and (to my knowledge at least) has participated in every war where a member of the HRE is being attacked by an outside force, and my recent attempts at trying to return unlawful territory (largely in the west) shows that I am caring about the princes. I don't see why this event was made in the first place anyway other than someone trying to undermine me for biased reasons. Blocky858 (talk) 20:06, September 1, 2016 (UTC)
1.19 Desmond attack on Ormond and LeinsterEdit
- Pre-War Stage
- Result: +7,3
- Population: +0,4
- War Exhaustion: 0
- Casus Belli: +4
- Government: +3
- Ormond and Leinster
- Result: +8,2
- Population: +0,2
- War Exhaustion: 0
- Casus Belli: +5
- Government: +3
- Battle Stage
- Siege of Capital
- Result: +4,45
- Army/Navy Size: +0,45
- Location: +4
- Great General:0
- Blunder: 0
- Ormond and Leinster
- Result: +1,225
- Army/Navy Size: +0,225
- Location: +4
- Great General:
- Blunder: -3
- Final Stage:
- Cities Occupied:
- Result: +7,3 +11 = 18,3
- Ormond and Leinster
- Cities Occupied:
- Result: +8,2 - 3,225 - 15 = 0,975
- Overall Result: 1876% in favor of Desmond, Ormond and Leinster completely rekt
Princess Arianne of Aragon is reported to be pregnant while away at Malta. She continues to write her manifesto about government, but when her term comes due, she dies of childbirth. Sancho, upset at the passing of his wife, declares himself to be the sole heir of Aragon but the elders of Aragon, including John of Aragon, declare that responsibility falls to Eleanor of Aragon. The crisis is brought to a head when King Alfonso V dies due to heart failure upon hearing the death of his daughter
What the heck is this here? This is an absolutely unbelievable clusterf**k of a mod event! I suspect a mod-supported plot to destabilise my regime, because this single mod event conveniently destroys the possibility of an Iberian Union. There are a number of inconsistencies with this mod event here:
- Crown Prince Sancho never went to Malta with Arianne. While he was invited to Malta, the Castilian government never agreed to this, and thus Arianne and Sancho would have remained separate and so Arianne never would have become pregnant to begin with.
- If Arianne were to die, the succession would immediately fall to Arianne's younger sister, Eleanor. This is correct, and Sancho would know it. He wouldn't "out of heartbreak" claim the throne of Aragon. That makes no sense whatsoever.
I believe that one of the mods is against me and may be under the influence of a particular player. This is outrageous and I will not tolerate this mod event, which so quickly and effortlessly produces a succession crisis and could so easily lead to a war of succession. — T I M (TSW • AH • MGW • Contribs) 05:39, September 6, 2016 (UTC)
A simple solution. Why not have Sancho and Eleanor marry each other?
I'm going to side with Tim on this one but recommend Rimp's idea as a good solution.
07:23, September 6, 2016 (UTC)
I would agree with this, but only if Arianne died of childbirth, which never happened anyway because of reason #1 in my complaint, negating the possibility of this mod event. — T I M (TSW • AH • MGW • Contribs) 08:23, September 6, 2016 (UTC)
I'm also going to side with Tim on this one but recommend Rimp's idea as a good solution.
Whilst the idea of Sancho claiming the throne "out of heartbreak" does sound somewhat absurd, the idea of a widower of an heiress aparent claiming the throne generally is nowhere near as ridiculous. Phillip II of Spain held onto the idea of being king of England after Mary I's death. Admiteddly he had been married to her whilst she was queen, but it's not too great a stretch to imagine a widower of an heiress apparent getting angry enough at losing his chance at the throne that he would just go ahead and claim it. So I think the event should stand. But Rimp is right: Tim, you can very easily get around this by having the pair marry. Callumthered (talk) 12:11, September 6, 2016 (UTC) (Lictor, Maester &c.)
I'm sorry Tim, this event is clearly leveled at me in an attempt to drive me away from my allies. I mean, 2 turns in a row and 2 events that drive Castile away from an ally? Needless to say I have a solution. #BRINGBACK THESQUIRREL.
Several states forced to vassalize to Bohemia in the past now see the instability of the region their chance to denounce the Emperor, although no hostility is taken at this time.
I didn't force vassalize anyone. I only have 3 vassals in Germany, one of them was done diplomatically, while the other two were done more aggressively, if that's what you were referring to, but that was many years ago. Blocky858 (talk) 07:05, September 8, 2016 (UTC)
A group of nobles in Ming China, aggravated by years of favouring barbarians over people in the Middle Kingdom, gather an army in rebellion of the Emperor under general Xinlan Liu. Liu declares the Emperor has lost the Mandate of Heaven, and one third of the military comes to his banner. Another fifth of the military remains undecided in their allegiance.
I am contesting this due to the fact we are not in conflict and we have been confronting Korea for acting agressivley against one of our allies, which is ruled by Candies, a friend of Nate which in turn makes this seem more biased than anything. -Nova 05:46, September 12, 2016 (UTC)
The Ming has historically always favoured Korea over Japan, as Korea is more submissive and actively pays tribute. The only time Korea has ever engaged war with China was in the Silla–Tang wars over the remnants of Goguryeo, and that culminated in a Korean victory. Aggravating a zealously pro-Chinese ally, one that is considered Hua (not Yi), which means sinicized and thus "civilized", does not come without consequences. Being a Hua, the Chinese see the Koreans as an extension of the Middle Kingdom, and if the Chinese Emperor would choose to attack them they would lose the Mandate of Heaven.
Meanwhile, the Japanese pay little tribute, and are reluctant to send their royalty to the Ming to do prostrations nor achnoledge Chinese superiority and nominal suzerainty, so technically, it isn't a tributary state. Nor is the Japanese strategically valuable to the Chinese, as Korea is also a centre of gunpowder making and supplies much of the precious metals to Chinese banks. Furthermore, the Japanese have attacked Korea, a Chinese vassal, in 1433, so the Korean reluctance to be friendly towards the Japanese is clearly plausible and understandable.
Also, seeing that you're demanding to Korea to cede its Taiwanese colony to Japan, yet those sorts of actions have no historical backing. Never in Chinese history has China demanded its tributary to cede territory. Good day. – † ⌒⌒⌒＼(;ᄋ;＼)三(ﾉ>ᄉ<)ﾉ ~ ("니가먼저키스해!")
One third is entirely too much. You want to give China a BS event, do it with the Mongolians. Candies, along with the author of this poorly-written event very clearly fails to understand that the Ming aren't choosing one vassal over the other. They're mediating and Korea was disrespectful and disobedient. Not punishing these actions is a better way to lose Mandate of Heaven. To consider them choosing sides is lazy and silly at best.
Candies is emotionally invested in this and she speaks from a point of wank-based ignorance and stubbornness. Her arguments contain as much merit as Viva's do: little to none.
This event shows very clear bias towards her, as she has enjoyed for the entire game. I call for the immediate removal of Nate as East Asian moderator and his installation as a moderator of an area he is both familiar with and containing players for which he is not biased in favor of or against.
No, what the Ming has done so far is obviously been in favour for the Japanese, even though it is historically known that the Ming has preferred Korea over Japan, which has no strategic value whatsoever. No, providing input to what is thought to be a dumb move is not disrespecting. Korea has continued to pay tribute, and has not renounced its subordinate place. Thus, the Chinese could not launch a punitive expedition because it has no incentive to. The Chinese are aggravating what is seen as an extension of the Middle Kingdom, and it will not go unnoticed.
And I talked with a couple of moderators, and they have also concluded the shitstorm that is East Asia is implausible. Just because the mod events are against your interests does not deem it automatically implausible. – † ⌒⌒⌒＼(;ᄋ;＼)三(ﾉ>ᄉ<)ﾉ ~ ("니가먼저키스해!")
The former Mongol leaders gather support to take over the vassal of Mongolia, pushing the Chinese back out.
Same message as above, we have occupation troops in Mongolia, they have no way of pushing us out and even then they wouldnt do it. The event in itself is not an option. -Nova 05:46, September 12, 2016 (UTC)
The Mongolians have the tactics, and could pool their troops because as a nomadic people it would not affect their economy. Also, you would probably lose in the event of battle, as Chinese troops are ill-fitted to fight within the desert. That is why 300,000 Ming soldiers lost against 20,000 Oirat soldiers in the Tumu Crisis. – † ⌒⌒⌒＼(;ᄋ;＼)三(ﾉ>ᄉ<)ﾉ ~ ("니가먼저키스해!")
Candies is right, yet this will be an easy win for the Ming according to algo rules. Should speak for how terrible the algo is in the first place. Crim de la Kremlin - "This is my signature. That means I just posted." 06:26, September 12, 2016 (UTC)
The Byzantine Emperor, now with title only, requests the King of Greece an autonomous state within his nation
I just think it unlikely that the Emperor would ask to be subsumed into the Kingdom of Greece, accepting subordinate status to a mere king. I think a merging process, probably achieved through marriage, where the Emperor-ship and King-ship are joined would make sense, but I just can't see the Byzantine emperor, even if he only controls Constantinople, offering to accept a demotion to mere Grand Duke of Thessaly as the Greek player wants to happen. Also, isn't there still a Crusader army in Constantinople?Callumthered (talk) 13:07, September 12, 2016 (UTC)
A succession crisis occurs in western Europe with the Spanish nobles in Morocco pushing for the claim of Portugal to the throne, instead of Castilian domination
The Azores Islands, governored by a member of the House of Aviz, declares itself the Kingdom of Portugal in exile
Ok, so I formally took possession last turn, and the first thing I did was make everyone not willing to swear loyalty to Burgundy leave for Portugal. What I would never do is let someone with relation to the Portuguese king stay in control, precisely for this very reason. It makes no sense for the Portuguese to flee to the Azores when Portuguese loyalists are being forced to leave those islands. I am that guy (talk) 20:38, September 18, 2016 (UTC)
Um there never was a algo for the Azores nor do you have the ship tech to reach them. Prince Octavian , of Jerusalem, Sicily, and Swabia, and Duke of Amalfi.
I do have the ship tech, seeing as the Netherlands were a hot bed of naval technological advancement (which I have continued). Plus, there was no need for a separate algo for the Azores since Portugal was conquered and they were awarded to Burgundy I am that guy (talk) 21:55, September 18, 2016 (UTC)
Alright IATG, let me put it this way..... You are not welcome in the Azores. Of the many people living in the Azores, too few would want to live there. TOO FEW. You'd have to take away 5000 people away from a region and then repopulate it. This is the reasoning. You'd have to had depopulated THE ENTIRE ISLANDS. ENTIRELY. AM, the King of the Banat (talk) 17:24, September 23, 2016 (UTC)
The violence in Taiwan escalates as neither the Chinese nor Japanese have intervened to stop their people from fighting.
Last turn I changed my position in Taiwan to avoid issues with Japan, so I feel like this isnt correct. -Nova 23:18, October 4, 2016 (UTC)
Anti-foreign sentiments begin to grow among the native population in Taiwan, as Japan, Korea, and China all establish colonies, encroaching further onto the island.
- First off, Korea sold its Seotaeman (Taiwan) colony to Japan years ago, and yet, it has not been reflected in the map despite numerous requests to do so (with a renewed map given).
The nomadic Mongols and Manchu begin to grow dissent against the Chinese and Koreans, especially as small hamlets and villages begin to pop up bordering the steppe, which has historically been the land of horses and nomads.
- I have given the Manchus cultural recognition, removed laws enforcing assimilation, and encouraged a Manchu cultural movement–and this is what the I get? Ironically the mods I've talked to said the opposite would happen if I gave them more autonomy and cultural recognition so that they will integrate easily rather than resist assimilation. Also, Manchuria may be deep inland, but is not steppe. It is actually very fertile topsoil suitable for farmland, and actually, Heilongjiang, Jilin, and Liaoning otl rank highly among Chinese provinces with the amount of cultivated/arable land (Heilongjiang ranks first while the other two are in the top ten).
An Open letter to my fellow mods and players.
Before I begin, I must preface this with the following message. Not a single other soul knows I am writing this. But there is an issue among the mod team that I must adress.This was origonally going to be my mod event compliant, but I have found that there are too many overarching issues that I must adress.
To my fellow mods:
When PM4 was first announced, I was adamantly against it. However, I agreed to mod and join the game, my hope being that I could solve the issues I had from inside of the mod team better than I could from the outside. It is clear to me now that I can not solve these issues, from the inside or the outside.
In many ways we have improved upon PM3, the mod team is more orginized (belive it or not) and there is more communication between mods. However, in many ways we have failed to improve. I would argue that this algo, while being more "historic", is more flawed than the PM3 algo. And despite the increased orginization, the mods can't seem to get anything done.
Maybe we haven't put our foot down hard enough. Maybe we have done it too hard or too often. Maybe we have done it wrong. Who am I to say what the problem is. What I know is this. This game has deviated far to much from OTL, and everyone, and I include myself when I say that, has overexpanded. Viva gets his shit thrown at him because his is the most notable difference from OTL, and he has a history of overexpanding, but Nate, Nic, Josh, Crim, Every player in the Americas, Viva, and I are all overexpanded as well. We can't place Viva as the sole reason for this game falling off course. Everyone is at fault. Once one person starts over-expanding, everyone must do so to keep up.
There is no problem with drawing out event arcs, and I can and will deal with mine right now, but the problem is that mods don't talk to the players enough. Rather than say "Hey, I think you are being implausble, here is why..." We jump right to mod event arcs, and when people feel they are being persecuted unfairly, of course they are going to lash out and complain and accuse us of being biased. We aren't explaining ourselves clearly enough and we are just trusting that the players will understand. I will go more into the arguments that the players use later. I told several mods that I would be away at school, and yet I still get mod events leveled at me. I know Josh thinks that my alliances made me overpowered and that i would become a second Feud, but when I confronted Josh for more information and more arguments, all he said was that was reason enough. We can't do this. I'm not trying to pick on Josh or anything, but his example gives me the clearest warrant.
To the players:
Its ok to protest an event, but you need arguments that make sense. Just saying "Its ATL I can do it because its ATL." Is not a valid argument. Just because its ATL doesn't mean I can conquer all of Europe. Viva may abuse fallacies and strech sources and twist sources to make his points, but at least he tries to put out coherent arguments. When I tried to come down on the Americas, I was met with people saying "Its ATL". The other argument I got is my next point. When a mod gives you a negative event, if your first argument is that they are biased in someway or for some reason, the mods are not going to listen to you. Much like you don't like to be called ASB in events and retcons, the mods don't want to be personally attacked either. They are simply doing their job to the best of their ablity. If the roles where reversed, you would realize why this arguments are ridicolus and you would realize that the mods are mostly just trying to enforce plausblity. I challenge any player who calls a mod biased to try to put together a game to the size and caliber of PM3 and PM4. Hell, Scan drew the PM3 blank map. Now this is not to say that mod bias doesn't exist, but it isn't the root of every event ever given to you.
Now normally this is where I would draw up a plan for a solution, but I don't have one that everyone is going to like. Which is why this is being written. My desire is to see the game restarted from turn 1, a new algo designed, new expansion rules written up, new everything. Or we can slap the ASB label on this and continue playing as is. Or we can do something else. I feel the need to vent this all publicly. Thank you all for your time, and I hope you all do consider the things I have said. #BRINGBACK THESQUIRREL 22:02, September 6, 2016 (UTC)
I actually have an alternative to propose here, how 'bout instead of just restarting the game or ASB label, we go back to turn one and start a massive campaign to rout out implausability, with revising with player and mods consent, or simply crossing out and removing stuff. Of course this is not the easiest way and requires a lot of effort and team work, but it will yield us the best result. Or instead just go ahead and erase like 50 days work.
While I agree with many of your points, I would ask what sources and how I abuse and stretch them, along with using fallacies. This much I would love to see in act rather than a rather thinly veiled jab at my defense of my actions. I am pleased to know that I'm not being blamed for the game's state however. Nice to see a moderator take some responsibility. I salute you Edge. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 22:13, September 6, 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the game has some issues, but I really don't think anyone wants to go back and erase everyone's effort from the past fifty days. I think we need a threefold solution. 1) the mods, in cojunction with the relevant players, need to sort out some of the overexpansion. Like Italy (I never really understood how that happened)(Yes I know I will be accused of bias for singling out Italy). I'm not suggesting that the entire countries be destroyed, just that they are whittled down by adding another NPC here and there through rebellion or what have you. But these rebellions should be made through consultation with the player and with history to see which parts should rebel and for what plausible reasons. The next two points are common to all map games: 2) People need to stop thinking that the only way to "win" a map game is through expansion. It. Is. Not. A bit of plausible expansion here and there, complex vassalisation that takes place over decades and through intricately orchestrated marriages and economic dependence, are of course valid and fun parts of the game. But I think there is a mentality that the only way to get ahead is through expansion, often implausible. 3) Wars in map games tend to result in the total (or near total) destruction of one side. OTL there have been many, many wars where little territorial exchange has occured. Additionally, a lot of otl wars finish through negotiated settlements. I think the new algo, with its multiple tiers of victory, helps fight that common map game problem to a certain extent, but I believe more can be done to make the results of wars more plausible, probably by adding a tier of "military defeat with negotiated settlement" or something (I've never really been good at algos). Anyway just my two cents. Callumthered (talk) 23:39, September 6, 2016 (UTC)
Viva, I don't have specfic examples of you abusing sources, but I have a running list of fallacies you comitt. Of course I don't keep chat screenshots so if you ask for proof I don't have it except for other witnesses.
- Shifting Goal Post
- Argument from Ignorance
- Appeal to stone
- Appeal to Probiblity
- Masked Man Fallacy
- Association of Casuality and Correlation
And your two personal favorites, Argument from Silence and Shifting the Burden of Proof. and I'm not saying you aren't partially at fault for what has happened this game, but many mods and players ignore their own issues while believing that tearing you down will solve all their problems. Anyway. this is distracting to the main point. #BRINGBACK THESQUIRREL 00:28, September 7, 2016 (UTC)
None of these are actual examples, and your claims seem to be more of a big tent issue than an actual specified issue. Odd you mention shifting goal posts, because when I mentioned I was building roads, you stated I had to prove I had the money, and when I did that, you stated I had to explain where the money came from, and when I did that, you demanded to know who I was trading with. When I stated that, you said I didn't have access to the Mediterranean, to which I stated I was trading through Tangier which MP permitted. As to the argument from ignorance, how so? Did I not provide the source to Benin's population from Princeton University when I started? Did I not provide the source to the size of Benin's army from an OTL firsthand account? Did I not state Benin's government from a source linked to a doctoral paper from the University of Hamburg? I ask, what argument did I make purely from ignorance? You demand sources, but you discount the ones I provide even when they come from universities and historians. It seems that you are bent on ensuring that no matter what source I provide, the goal post you have set is forever out of reach based on whatever silly prerequisites you have set. You set the post, but then you complain when that post has been reached, and on your own terms might I add. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 01:48, September 7, 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it's time for me to get going while the getting is good. The mods will say it's because of the population dispute with Benin, but that simply opened my eyes to just how corrupt the mods really are and how little they have changed since PM2. As I stated February 26, 2013 for PM2, nearly three and a half years ago: "I fear this is a recurring theme across all of the wiki. Even in plausible situtations, the mods still shoot down ideas they themselves use them in ways that make no sense or couldn't happen, such as Scraw having Sweden force the USSR to become a puppet state, and becoming a superpower when many larger nations had the same tech but no potential. This isn't limited to just a few games, and I feel that this has to be resolved on the wiki on general." My warning and foresight on the issue remains the same today. I should have gone with my gut feeling and avoided this game like kyptonite like the others, but I made the mistake of defying my better judgement and joining up anyway. So long as you the players keep supporting the same biased users as mods, you will continue to end up with dying, one-sided map games such as PM4. I'm not going to waste anymore time with this game, and I will follow Wild, KK, and Feud out the door leading to the light of freedom from corruption on this wiki. At least on some random map game. Gentlemen. Mi'lady (Candie). B) Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 04:22, September 7, 2016 (UTC)
You are just too stubborn to admit you are wrong and ASB. Thanks god you are leaving so you won't dominate this game like you did with PMII with your ASBness.
Strange, I don't seem to recall you were even a member on this Wiki when PM2 was being played. I'm going to assume your entire argument on Viva's "ASB" actions are completely dependent on the last PM2 Map, so let me ask you this.. Why did you only mention Viva? Why not Georgia colonizing much of Canada and Northern US territories? Heck even Alaska. What about Indian colonies in South America, North Africa and Southern Africa? What about the Kalmar Union taking over roughly otl Germany, Poland and the UK? So many other examples. Don't blame Viva for all that happened in PM2 when you weren't even there to experience the Map Game. As far as PM4 is concerned, you always spoke against Viva and criticized Benin whenever the topic came up yet I don't seem to recall you ever confronting Viva with the issue on chat nor do I remember seeing you engage in a proper argument with Viva over the topic. If you really had a problem with what Viva was doing, why didn't you bring up the issue?
I did confront Viva about this several times but all Viva told me is that he is done with providing everyone with proof and tried to twist my words cuz he knows that the only way to win an already lost arguement, by never discussing it. And pls you are almost never there when Viva is online...
Now about PMII i will admit that there were many other ASB nations except Viva but none of the players that controled those nations has a nation of the size that Viva has in this game. The only person i know played both games (except Viva) is Scraw. Scraw is almost never active in this game, i think he quit or something and he never come close to the overextension Viva did or the ASBness that Viva contributed to this game.
Crim and Callum members of this game and were both moderators for PM2. And as I showed on the map, Ethiopia was larger as a connected nation, but in terms of sheer size, Italia, India, Germania, China, Portugal, and Arabia were far larger, and were the largest nations for most of the game. But to know that, you would have actually had to known that from experience, looked it up, or have someone tell you. Either way, your own statement proves you are speaking from ignorance. You use a lot of buzzwords such as "ASBness", but you could not provide a single account of my actions that were ASB. And you mention overextension, but completely ignore the overextension of Nate, clearly proving that you don't care about the act, but the person claimed to be performing the act. As for Rimp, he has been on several times when I use on, but again, you'd have to be active to know that, and clearly you are not that person. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 17:58, September 7, 2016 (UTC)
For the record neither Rimp nor BearCavalry was on the wiki at the time of PM2.
Also for the record I am involved in this game, I have elected to not play as a nation and only be a mod so I can spend more time moderating.
18:32, September 7, 2016 (UTC)
I never stated I was on the wiki at the time of PM2. Rather, if Bear is going to accuse Viva of "ASBness" based off the PM2 Map, then he should have gone ahead and criticized all the other players too instead of specifically pinpointing Viva.
Oh pls don't try to deny the obvious, thats going nowhere... PMII WAS ASB AND ITS CLASSIFIED AS SUCH. As for Crim and Callum, Callum was playing as the Papal States which is a very small state, nowhere near your overextended size. As for Crim, he is having his overextended nation collapse, through mod events, as he was the one to argue that his nation should collapse. Crim had a nation (Russia) same size as yours with 1/10 of the population you claim to have. So none of these players you mentioned have a so overextended nation as you do. They might have learned from their mistakes and chose not to repeat them, you however are keen on doing the exact same thing. Το summarize none of these players are trying to repeat their actions in PMII, unlike you.
Ngarrindjeri's domestication of animals
I'd just like to express my concern over the plausibility of the Ngarrindjeri people domesticating wombats and emus and such. Unlike many other peoples, Aboriginal Australians believe that all natural objects possess a soul. They believe that many animals and plants are interchangeable with human life through re-incarnation of the spirit or soul, and that this relates back to the Creation Period when these animals and plants were once people. (Source: http://www.aboriginalculture.com.au/religion.shtml) Thus, I highly doubt that Aboriginals such as the Ngarrindjeri people would be so treacherous as to essentially condemn their ancestors to slavery through the domestication of animals. — T I M (TSW • AH • MGW • Contribs) 04:59, September 12, 2016 (UTC)
A very good point that I was not aware of. However, that doens't necessarily prevent the Aboriginals from domesticating animals, as many other cultures that believed in reincaration found it within themselves to adopt animal resources (like India, Southeast Asia, and Mesoamerica). In OTL, aboriginals in Southern Australia did not utilize resources outside of hunting-gathering mostly because they were isolated from any civilization that did (the nearest is Papua) Oh, I didn't mean to push that button! † Oh, well leave a message I guess 03:11, September 13, 2016 (UTC)
After discussing the issue with Edge, we came to an impasse over the matter. He has decided to leave the issue to the mods, to whom this post is directed. I shall be immediately since the topic is already understood by now.
My argument is that Benin's population is not excessive, given the main issue being that outside of OTL Mali and Benin, large-scale agriculture was not commonplace. Concepts such as plowing, manuring, irrigation, and crop rotation, were not known to the tribes that inhabited the regions of West Africa beyond Mali and Benin. Edge asked how is it that Benin had this information, but the rest of West Africa did not. The answer is simple. There was no communication with the tribes outside of Benin, because there were next to no people to relay that information too beyond the borders of Benin. Outside of the Niger Delta, there were no major population centers beyond those in Mali, meaning that there was no knowledge of any societies outside of the delta that Benin could communicate with due simply to the sparseness of the population in the region. Giving an example, assume that there are two major cities and nothing by hills all around you. If everyone you know either lives in one major city or that one other major city 500 miles away, are you really going to bother exploring the hills if you think no one lives there? Likewise, if all you know of are the hills, are you going to know there are two major cities outside of the 25 square miles you know of? Technology spreads through communication, and if you don't have anyone to communicate with, technology cannot spread. Large-scale farming methods spread to the Niger Delta from Mali because of the Niger River, the same river Benin used in OTL to trade slaves and ivory to Mali in exchange for salt and gold. No such natural corridor for trade existed in the region.
Now concerning the population boom. Mali and Benin had vastly different methods of farming compared to the rest of West Africa. Both relied upon large-scale agriculture which allowed for Mali and Benin to host populations of 15 million and 8 million respectively. However, the rest of West Africa relied upon subsistence farming, which in spite of the regions extreme fertility, only allowed for a population of 3.5 million people. The concept of large-scale agriculture did not exist in this region because there was no natural trade corridor such as the Niger River to allow for the spread of technology and ideas into the region. Benin and Mali and rice and wheat respectively as their main crops, while the main crops for the rest of the region was that of yams, corn and cassava. Subsistence farming revolves around feeding a single household for a year, while large-scale agriculture revolves around feeding an entire nation at any time of the year. Benin and Mali had the government infrastructure which allowed for farming on a scale that supported millions of people, while the tribal populations of West Africa simply had nothing of the sort. When Benin expanded into these regions, it's superior mode of governance and greater manpower allowed for better use of the land. You could compare this to the reason there were no more than 4 million Tupi in all of fertile Brazil, where as there were nearly 30 million Inca along a narrow strip of highly mountainous land.
The area of uncultivated and tribal West Africa was rather large, but only had a population density of 1.1 person per square kilometer. Using Mali as the source for an equivalent population density, just assuming the region had large-scale agriculture, the population could increase to 53.5 million. Mind you, this is using Mali's much lower population density as the bulk of its land was desert. The reason for this is simple. Subsistence farming is limited by drought, flooding, and soil erosion. Large-scale agriculture entails the use of irrigation to combat drought (OTL Ethiopia is famine-prone because it lacks irrigation in spite of having huge amounts of water), and crop rotation to combat soil erosion (the use of a single type of crop typically leads to sapping of the fertility of the soil). By introducing agricultural methods Benin already possessed for centuries prior to the game's beginning into the rest of the region, within fifty years, West Africa's population could plausibly increase do to no other reason than the fact that more food was available. In line with medieval demographics, as food become more accessible, the population increased. And with the lack of people in West Africa to resist Benin's expansion, Benin's growth was also very plausible as well, as there were no societies in the area beyond a few small villages capable of combating 180,000 heavily-armed and armored Bini warriors.
To wrap up my heavily over-explained point (something I have been struggling with since childhood), West Africa's population was so small because the bulk of the region lacked the agricultural means outside of Mali and Benin to exploit the highly fertile arable lands of West Africa. With more food, you will always have more people, hence the reason hunter-gatherer societies always expanded in size with the advent of agriculture. As a result, West Africa's population could easily exceed 100-200 million people prior to the Industrial Revolution, as the entire region is suitable for farming thanks to fertile grounds and high levels of accessible water. There is no reason an introduction of a vastly superior method of farming into a highly-fertile region that lacked farming as a whole, would not witness a sustained growth in the population. Thank you for your time. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 00:14, September 13, 2016 (UTC)
Viva knows where I stand on the issue and has seen a majority of my arguments against his claim. Unless people continue to circle jerk him because "Le mods are biased", than I won't waste my time or energy posting them again. #BRINGBACK THESQUIRREL
I completely understand Viva's argument, but that doesn't really change the current ruling on his population being 26 million right now. Certainly, with enough agricultural development greater than OTL, Benin could get up to 290 million by the 20th century in my opninion. However, there are a couple of points never addressed here. First, the majority of West Africa had low populations OTL not because it had lesser agriculture per se, although that may have been a factor, but mostly because the majority of West Africa (at least the region between Mali and Benin) is part of the Sahara desert. There is very little ability to make agriculture in that region as good as it is in Benin proper. (Here's proof , note the "inadaquet percipitation" in areas outside of Benin proper, and a few other regions). As Viva's argument basically stands, he assumes that the area from Mali to Benin is homogenous in terms of climate, so the agriculture across it should be the same. But it's not, as most of it is Arid. Almost all states in the world in arid regions (if not all states) have historically less population than other regions. Even nations in 2016 which are varied in climate (like the US and China) have low populations around the arid parts.
Second, even assuming Viva could accomplish homogeny of agriculture from Benin to Mali, it would not double his population in the ten years he claims. No nation in the history of the world, including areas with much better resources and longer history of urbanization, have had such a high rate of growth. So assuming Viva can make his popualtion increase grow to that large as he claims, it would take a much longer period of time.
So in conclusion, I encourage all the mods to read Viva's argument and consider what he claims. If the majority don't see it the way I do, then fine. Until then, the earlier ruling on Viva's population should stand. Oh, I didn't mean to push that button! † Oh, well leave a message I guess 23:33, September 18, 2016 (UTC)
First off, to clarify, Edge before stepping down as mod acknowledged that the population would stand at 35 million. Second, I do not assume that the climate is the same from Mali to Benin, but that the soil itself if fertile from Mali to Benin. Benin has governed this region for nearly 50 years, long enough to develop the land in such a way that the number of people the empire could support could double within that timeframe. There have been cases where a population doubled across a region following the introduction of large-scale agriculture. These were Roman Gaul and the Inca Empire. In the case of Gaul, prior to its conquest by Rome, it had a population of 2.5 million people, and the inhabitants relied upon subsistence agriculture. When the Romans took over, within fifty years and the introduction of large-scale agriculture, the population doubled to 5.5 million people. In the case of the Incas, the majority of the empire was conquered within a span of 50-60 years, and most of the land was untilled by humans. When the Inca conquered the region, the population shot up from 12 million to 20 million, and many other sources put its pre-European population as high as 30 million, all because of the introduction of large-scale agriculture within a span of 50-60 years. And mind you, most of the Inca Empire was mountainous, meaning that the Inca had a far more up-hill battle to fight with regards to feeding a population compared to Benin with its flat and fertile land.
On the topic of geography and climate, once you reach the Niger River coming south from the Sahara, you are no longer in the desert. It is important to remember that the bulk of the "desert" you mentioned Nate, was located in the Mali Empire, yet it still boasted a population of 15 million people. Once you head south of the Mali Empire, there is not sand or desert, just lush forest and plains. The region is extremely well-watered and has plenty of rivers which flow from the area and into the Atlantic. West Africa's population was low because of the lack of agriculture, not environment. If that were the case, Mali's population would not have been as high as it was given it was located almost entirely in the region you defined as the Sahara Desert. It should also be noted that the largest cities in the region, Gao, Timbuktu, Djenne, and Koumbi Saleh, were all located in the hinterlands of the Sahara. The most densely populated region was in the Niger Delta, where Benin is located. Most of the region simply lacked a method of farming, and we know this based on the fact that large civilizations did not arise outside of the Niger Delta and Sahel regions of West Africa where farming was practiced. Along the Volta River and the regions of Liberia and the Ivory Coast, the population remained sparse and tribal because farming never penetrated the region. As the NatGeo map shows, West Africa is entirely capable of supporting agriculture. It's potential simply wasn't tapped outside of Mali and Benin in OTL. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 22:42, September 19, 2016 (UTC)
I have decided after much thought to step down as PM4 mod. When writing this, I tried to find creative, grandoise ways to put this, but I have a very simple justifcation: I've grown up. My life has moved forward, and there simply isn't a place for Pm4 any more. When I first joined AvA, I was a Sophmore in highschool with all the time in the world. Now, I'm a freshman in college and I have to make choices about what I choose to spend my time on. I'm not leavin the wiki, nor am I giving up on the game. I will continue to play Pm4 as Castile, but I don't have the energy anymore to have the long, drawn out debates, and the countless hours designing rules and an algo when that isn't what I want to do with my time. #BRINGBACK THESQUIRREL
Although I may be exaggarating, these last four weeks have felt like the most stressful of my life. I know I've complianed and whined a lot on chat how I've wanted to resign for a while now, and for that I apologize. After much thought, I realize that such actions are an insult to those people who appointed me to this position, and continued to depend on my modding work. I must also apologize, at the same time, that I disapointed those people.
After much reflection, I know (as many other people also know) that I'm not bad at judging map games, and neither am I bad as a mod in general. However, map games at this scale and with this many players are simply beyond my skills, and just too overwhelming for me. I have a high-end job and graduate school to worry me enough without being pestered for mod responses and algos every waking moment. That being said, I know there are many people on the wiki with just as stressful life, and still manage to do enough modding to make my work look pathetic. All I can say is those people are much more skilled at this than I. Again, I know I'm not bad as a mod, but this scale is just too much.
Before PM4 began, I knew I just wanted to help coach it along, with my knowledge of historical dynamics and repository of atlases. I never expected to be given much of the work, let alone doing 90% of the mod events every turn. I knew my level of skill, and since day one I determined to quit as mod when the game has gotten firm on its feet, which is around this time.
I was desparately hoping to become lictor, so I could still fulfill my goal of coaching the game along without the stress, but I guess Edge beat me to it. At any rate, someone is soon going to be elected mod so you all won't have trouble replacing me. Oh, I didn't mean to push that button! † Oh, well leave a message I guess 00:18, September 19, 2016 (UTC)
A Complaint on Concentrations
This has nothing to do with the concentrations system, which I think is wonderful. What I find frustrating is that Ten people are waiting, some for over a decade for a mod to look at their proposed concentrations. (My vassal, the Kingdom of Burma is one of those.) I understand that you all have real lives, but c'mon! Regards, The Guardian of Forever (talk) 00:43, September 14, 2016 (UTC)
I agree. It doesn't seem that the mod checks on India all that often. The only reason I was only able to buy Odisha was because thankfully, LM switched to Bengal.
Is it too late to join?
I would like to join this map game. I have had minimal experience in map games, but the time i have played them I have enjoyed it a lot. So, I was wondering whether I could still join, even though the map game is no longer in its early stages. And if so, could I join as Armenia?
These are legitimate votes. Voting is only open to current players.
Do you support Callumthered ascending to full mod?
- Bozistan I guess
- Personally Callum is knowladgable but he needs to be more assertive in situations he belives to be impalsubile. Nonetheless he has my vote. Prince Octavian , of Jerusalem, Sicily, and Swabia, and Duke of Amalfi.
- – † ⌒⌒⌒＼(;ᄋ;＼)三(ﾉ>ᄉ<)ﾉ ~ ("니가먼저키스해!")
- -Lx (leave me a message) 04:12, September 16, 2016 (UTC)
Do you support Edgeofnight becoming a lictor?
This is conditional and will only take effect if Callum becomes a mod. A lictor is a half-mod in case anyone didn't know. They watch the mods, provide backup, and review all actions. They cannot particularly make rulings.
- – † ⌒⌒⌒＼(;ᄋ;＼)三(ﾉ>ᄉ<)ﾉ ~ ("니가먼저키스해!")
Do you think we should add another moderator?
If yes wins, we will have votes for new mods.
- -Nova 10:19, September 15, 2016 (UTC)
- 18:32, September 15, 2016 (UTC)
- – † ⌒⌒⌒＼(;ᄋ;＼)三(ﾉ>ᄉ<)ﾉ ~ ("니가먼저키스해!")
As per the last round of voting, Callum will become a mod and Edge a lictor beginning in the 1462 turn. Additionally, a majority of voters support a new mod.
Who should be the new moderator(s)?
You can vote for more than one candidate. Anyone can nominate a mod. Just sign your name under a name to vote.
- I am that guy
- Help a nigga out -Bozistanball
- – † ⌒⌒⌒＼(;ᄋ;＼)三(ﾉ>ᄉ<)ﾉ ~ ("니가먼저키스해!")
- 23:04, September 17, 2016 (UTC)
- Andreas Martonsoy (Thewolvesden)
- GINGERPOWER – † ⌒⌒⌒＼(;ᄋ;＼)三(ﾉ>ᄉ<)ﾉ ~ ("니가먼저키스해!")
- Honestly hes one of the few people who would actually deal with people as a mod. Prince Octavian , of Jerusalem, Sicily, and Swabia, and Duke of Amalfi.
- -Nova 08:46, September 17, 2016 (UTC)
- Ace009 (Ace Einstein)
- Crimson Assassin
- -Nova 09:32, September 20, 2016 (UTC)
- United Republic
Scraw your system sucks. Also why is Viva being nommed when he was against increasing the mod team? Also why can't I vote against people? Why is Nova being nommed after her stint as a Pm3 mod? Why are random people allowed to nom mods? Why isn't there a limit on the number of mods we are bringing in?
I was against increasing the mod team because the bulk of the mods tend to be old mods who don't do their job. Most of the players often believe I am a mod for the game because I go out of my way to provide sources for algos, double-checking actions made in turns, and assisting with issues between players. Unlike Nate, Josh, and Rex, I immediately move to address issues players may have rather than ignoring them because I might be wrong. I'm being nommed because players know that I am an effective moderator based on past behavior compared to what we have on the mod team at the moment. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 01:07, September 17, 2016 (UTC)
To somebody: Last time we voted on new mods, people complained because they weren't given many choices. I did not nominate Nova.
02:08, September 17, 2016 (UTC)
Why hold elections if you guys will just veto the nomination of any candidate you don't like?
Why is Viva getting vetoed? This seems very biased. – † ⌒⌒⌒＼(;ᄋ;＼)三(ﾉ>ᄉ<)ﾉ ~ ("니가먼저키스해!")
I don't know who vetoed the nomination, especially since I was the one who did the nominating.
18:10, September 17, 2016 (UTC)
More voting 2
Please read the instructions carefully before voting. Vote here.
14:38, September 19, 2016 (UTC)
Voting is over. I will share the results in a few hours.
15:35, September 20, 2016 (UTC)
Is the Teutonic Order Available?
Is the Teutonic Order available as the player has not posted for over 2 weeks? I might be interested in switching from Ireland to the Teutonic Order. RedDragon2000
South Asia and Islam
This muslim alliance in southern Asia is going completely out of control. We've had Persians invading Burma, and now Delhi invading Malaysia. Southeast Asia is poorly developed, and would not be worth the effort of crossing such large distances and over such trecherous terrain just for the sake of attacking a religion which has never actually attacked any of of these nations. Like seriously, the closes Majapihut ever got was invading Burma, which has 0 muslims in it.
Now, as the most BS of all, we have Khmer, which also has 0 muslims in it, deciding to ally with an already OP Muslim alliance to attack Majapihut with no plausible cacus beli. Did Khmer suddenly convert to Islam? Cause why does it agree to help the Muslim nations disenfranchise HIndus and Gunterism, when it is a Hindu nation and the most active proponant of Gunterism?
I say the entire conflict should be retconned, at the very least such that only Hindu nations are involved. Oh, I didn't mean to push that button! † Oh, well leave a message I guess 11:13, September 20, 2016 (UTC)
Hold up. Persia invading Burma? I would honestly appreciate if my nations name isn't tossed around and smeared with wild accusations. Persia has not invaded Burma, and this a complete and total lie. Please refrain from accusing me of having engaged in an implausible act when the truth isn't even close to what you're suggesting. I'm going to assume that you're referring to the previous Majapahit - Indian War in which Persia assisted its allies, the Bahamanid and Delhi Sultanates. In that war, Persia sent 30 ships to aid the Bahamanid fleet in a naval battle that took place in the Bay of Bengal. Later, when the Mods or rather Nathan specifically criticized Gurkani involvement, I requested that the 30 Gurkani ships be retconned because I wasn't keen creating a major issue out of a minor problem. Until or unless Nathan can somehow provide evidence to prove that the Gurkani Sultanate sent its military to attack Burma, it is without doubt that there is absolutely no truth to these accusations by him
I thought Khmer was allying with Majapahit. Also, I explicitly stated no Gurkani involvement in the region.
15:35, September 20, 2016 (UTC)
And there hasn't been any. Unless ofcourse Nathan shows that the Gurkani sent troops to invade Burma
I've already rebutted most of this at one point or other, but...1. As Rimp stated, Persia never invaded Burma. 2. Gunturism has attacked India. Let's go down this list: a) Majapahit supported the Hindu rebels in 1416, which were an existential threat to the Bahmanids. b) Majapahit and Gunturist missionaries were attempting to convert the Hindus to Gunturism and than have them revolt. c) Majapahit was attacking and sinking Bengali and Bahmanid vessels. d) If the rules (and mods) hadn't stopped him, a Gunturist was trying to assassinate my monarch. e) Majapahit violated the Andaman neutral zone. f) The most recent war started with Majapahit rejecting a Bahmanid ultimatum to stop sinking Muslim ships g) Pegu, which the Majapahit invaded, was a direct threat to India, because it bordered Bengal. h) The Muslim nations have been waging propaganda campaigns against Gunturism and Majapahit for years. i) The Indian Muslim states believe that Majapahit is planning an invasion of India to restore Hinu rule there-see the discussion on the Andaman War for details. j) Majapahit killed several Muslim priests sent by the Indian States. k) The Hindus in India (esp. in South India, because of worship of Kali) believe that the Gunturists want to destroy their religion, as shown by the anti-Gunturist riots in the Bahmanid realms. This list could go on for a long time. (I only compiled major things and stuff from the past few years.) 3. On Khmer: Catholic France sided with the Protestants during the Thirty Year's War and the fact that there's been years of (mod-event made) violence against Gunturists in Khmer, it's altogether logical for the Khmer to turn on their allies who already wasted (mostly) Khmer blood in a disastrous turf war with India. 4. I've already said this somewhere around 8 times but: KHMER IS NOT MY ALLY, NEVER WAS, AND NEVER WILL BE. If you read Fires' proposed terms, he essentially asks for the Muslim to leave him alone, and vice versa. As for why he would turn w/o an alliance-simple: Ace threatened him with invasion if he didn't support Majapahit, and thus they had little choice. The Guardian of Forever (talk) 03:52, September 21, 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Guardian on this. First of all, he has said so many times that Khmer is not an Indian ally. This is more than just a religious war, anyway; the Maja threatened to invade Khmer if they didn't support the Maja, so Fires took on another option: offense for defense. Ace has been showing clear acts of aggression and hostility to the Indian states, sending Gunterists into India to try and overthrow the Muslim rule there. Wouldn't it be natural for us to retaliate? The Maja have been sinking Muslim ships, killing off Muslim missionaries, and perhaps breaking the rules by trying to assassinate the Bahmanid Sultan! I would certainly call that an act of aggression. And if the whole fuss here is about Khmer, we have said millions of times: KHMER IS NOT OUR ALLY.
State of the Ottomans
I am curious as to the current state of the Ottoman Empire. From what I've seen, they've been driven out ot the Balkans, and have mainly seem to control just about Anatolia. So, what are my relations right now? KingSparta300 (talk) 08:31, September 22, 2016 (UTC)
Challenging Wolves Strike and Retconning
Earlier this evening Wolves left a message on my talk page and in game, removing my fort from northern Borneo, and completely reducing my colony in Luzon to an outpost. This he resulted in me getting a second strike. I would like to challenge this and revert the retcon and my strike. The region in Borneo I have my fortress on is for ships in my navy to dock while exploring the surrounding regions, therefor making it necessary as a refueling base for food and other materials. Secondly the rising of such a base would at least have some sort of population to man it and defend it from raiders looking for a target.
On to Luzon, in Luzon the need for more naval bases in the region more than excuses the having of a colony there, which has been steadily growing over the past few years. There is no justification or reasoning in my eyes to remove a colony there, in fact I think the colony is necessary to establish a firm Chinese presence in the region. We have a colony, we are not expanding by force, it was a naval town that flourished economically which lead to many people to move there. This colony has been there for nearly if not over a decade.
I ask that this Retcon of my years of work and my strike be removed.
Thank you, -Nova 14:12, September 25, 2016 (UTC)
PS: Sorry if not the right spot
You want me to allow China, who usually lifted not a finger, to do this? Fine. I can allow the colony on Luzon, but not the Borneo outpost. Alright? AM, the King of the Banat (talk) 14:20, September 25, 2016 (UTC)
If you remove the strike as well yes I'll agree to it, say the colony is destroyed in a storm or something, or just remove the Borneo thing altogether..-Nova 14:22, September 25, 2016 (UTC)
On Viva's Ban
Well, well, well. Looks like SOMEONE decided to abuse moderator powers. So, if you are wondering about this, yes, this is exactly what it sounds like: an appeal to remove Viva's ban and all the rubbish surrounding it.
So, where do I start? Oh, yes. What about the fact that (per Edge), a moderator had the lousy idea to abuse his moderator powers and use Viva's error in sending Kuzir missionaries to Europe as an excuse to remove him?
And......back to neutral tone. So, that aside, Viva did manage to remove his mistake and yet next thing we know, they banned him anyway. And all because of the stupid, lousy, disgusting and outright demeaning rivalry/hatred: Viva's Ethiopia in PMII, which was two games ago.
So, after two games, you still want to blame Viva for all the problems you have with yourselves instead of taking responsibility? Well, I have a suggestion: stop. It is not helping the community and it is certainly not helping the game. So, what about this: we can remove Viva's ban and we can all move on with our lives. Alright?
So, all in favour of Viva being unbanned? If so, place your signatures down here:
- If Yank and I could get over our issues from games ago and let bygones be bygones a year ago, then so can Viva and others. We all did dumb things in PMII, lets not have grudges over that stuff, m'kay?-Lx (leave me a message) 01:49, September 27, 2016 (UTC)
- 20:40, September 25, 2016 (UTC)
- This thing is written stupidly but I do not believe Viva should be permabanned and a ban overall is conteious at best. Person67 (talk) 21:34, September 25, 2016 (UTC)
All opposed? Place your signatures below:
Want to know more? Here is the discussion section below:
These votes have no holding power same way votes on the TSPTF page dont..
I support Viva's unbaning, but I don't think this vote holds any weight. -Unsigned comment added by Fires
A permaban is harsh, Yes Viva is overaggressive and annoying and the mods find him hard to work with but you can't permaban someone on the basis they're an ass to you. Yeah I am also not sure this holds any weight. Person67 (talk) 21:34, September 25, 2016 (UTC)
Even though if fucking hate this game due to the mod ABSOLUTE FUCKING LAZINESS TO REMOVE NATIONS, this shit is just like, really, do you have to ban someone for doing what they are supposed to do, plus out of the 60 some years, what is the evidence of the permiban.--Orwell
First, I will confirm that this "poll" has zero weight. The mod council voted and unanimously found Viva guilty of a third plausiblity strike, which equates to a ban. Second, as for the length of the ban, that is still to be determined (as it is clear Viva isn't a trollish figure, as Bibleboyd was). Some are pushing for a permaban, while others prefer a 90 day period. We will keep you all (and Viva) updated on the status of his ban, but rest assured that it is not going away before the ban has duly expired. Reximus | Talk to Me! 00:19, September 26, 2016 (UTC)
Since I am being name dropped, I will step in.
First of all, there is no abuse of power, and even if you want to make that argument that an abuse of power exists, than it wasn't breached by a single mod. What happened was that a mod council was called, and the active mods voted uninimously to ban Viva. That's right, as much as he can deny it Wolves was made aware of this issue before it occured. There is no abuse of power by a single moderator here.
Now, there are problems with this poll: Why the hell, are UR and LL voting? They don't play PM4 this issue has no impact on them. This is like asking a Canadian Citizen to vote for the Massachussets State Rep. It doesn't impact them,so they get no say. Second, not a single mod has backed this poll, and even if they did the votes to ban him still outweigh any rouge moderator who flips sides on this issue. Third, I have never claimed that Viva is the only one over expanded in anyway. If you read a few sections above, you will see that I call out several people who have over expanded. Viva may get some unfair slack directed at him, but his ban has nothing to do with that. He hit his three strikes, he gets punished. Maybe thats a 30 day ban, maybe thats a permaban. Its not my juristiction to judge.The mods went through a completly legit process on this ban, and as lictor I will continue to ensure that the process employed will remain legit. #BRINGBACK THESQUIRREL
Viva has received three strikes and has been subsequently banned in an unanimous decision by the Moderators. The reason for his ban primarily relates to issues regarding Benin, its population; expansion; influence; level of technology etc. Naturally, most players are unaware of these issues because it isn't their job to concern themselves with these problems and therefore, those players consider this ban as no more than a blatant abuse of power.
Now I personally realize that the vote cannot truly lift Vivas ban because that would essentially destroy the authority held by the Moderators. I propose that instead, the issues for which Viva has been banned should be discussed on the Talk Page to clear out the problem and then once a verdict has been reached in regards to each individual issue, the term for Vivas ban is decided. Because quite frankly, I have noticed that most issues go unsolved and the great majority of players are left clueless of whats happening because the issues are rarely discussed on the Talk Page and even when they are, most Mods just ignore them. This results in those players then confronting the Mods on chat which just leads to random arguing for hours but no ground results
I can personally speak as a first hand witness because even to this day, nobody has a clue as to why I received those massive revolts back in 1440. My complaints on the Talk Page were more or less ignored and whilst multiple Mods did pay heed to my complaints on chat, nothing was eventually done. One Mod in particular who I'll not name tried to avoid discussing the issue at all, refusing to answer any complaint and saying that "He had made his decision" because obviously Mods are perfect and can never make mistakes.
So yeah, I personally suggest that the Talk Page is used more often to raise issues and every Mod should try to respond to complaints by the players, either speaking in favour or against. Because quite frankly, it makes no sense that a Mod should ignore the complaints on the Talk Page by lets say Player X, but then make decisions regarding Player X in the Mod Council. It's almost as if those particular Mods just can't defend their decisions and have to resort to hiding between the "Mod Council". I'm not complaining about the Mods or criticizing any particular Mod because tbh, we have multiple Mods who are doing a great job. I'm just saying that it would be great if those Mods properly addressed player issues on the Talk Page, and that the Mods properly justified their actions. Saying that the decision had been made and that there was no room for criticism or any amendment doesn't help at all.
This "democracy" (happy no mod actually took the vote seriously) is shit – people take in social relations when voting, and many voters are meat-puppets fed with second-hand information, and have not fully reviewed the context of the problem. I agree with Papa Rimp's points, you voters could go fuck yourself rather than trying to defy authority (that itself should be penalized). – † ⌒⌒⌒＼(;ᄋ;＼)三(ﾉ>ᄉ<)ﾉ ~ ("니가먼저키스해!")
Now now, lets not be too extreme. What I am essentially proposing is more use of the Talk Page by players to bring up their concerns, and by Moderators to respond to those problems. This will help clear out any and all issues whilst simultaneously giving the other players an understanding of whats going on. Like I mentioned earlier, why should a Mod have the right to ignore complaints on the Talk Page by a particular player but then get to make decisions in the Mod Council regarding that same player. Doing so essentially leads to those Mods ignoring the problems and just hiding behind "we unanimously made the decision". Alright, we know that you all unanimously made the decision. Now could you please explain to us why you made the decision? Thats the whole problem.
We aren't told why certain decisions are made at all. Theres this whole 'secrecy' behind the Mod Councils lmao. Here's what more or less happens
When a player criticizes a Mod Event, he goes ahead and complains to X Mod on chat. X Mod says that Y Mod did it. Y Mod says Z Mod did it and Z Mod says that he doesnt know anything and that perhaps W Mod did it. When you go to W Mod, he tells you to post a complaint on the Talk Page and that the Mods will look into it. Then, after a week you are told that the Mods unanimously decided in the Mod Council that the event will stay. Theres literally no attempt to justify contents of the Event. Just a "we have reached a verdict and there will no more talk about this. If you continue arguing, you will be kicked from chat/banned from PM4"
This is why most issues happen and I understand why they happen. In most, if not all cases, players select nations that they know a lot about. Usually, they know more about it than the Mod appointed for that area. This often leads to the player exploiting loopholes and conveniently ignoring multiple issues because the Mods will never find out. This results in the Mods then being forced to watch as that particular nation drastically expands in size and influence. When that happens, the Mods have to resort to coming up with implausible scenarios to break up that nation. I'll be very honest, issues like these are rarely one-sided and are caused by problems on both sides.
So yeah, in regards to Vivas ban, I personally suggest that each issue that was taken into account during the Mod Council be discussed on the Talk Page until a verdict is reached. For example, when Viva complained about an issue a few weeks ago, the complaint was left unaddressed after one of the Mods (Nathan) just stopped replying. Basically it was like a "We aren't even going to reply to your complaints".
An unknown player enters the fray!
It should be noted that only one of my strikes was my fault, sending warriors to Portugal. However, the second one was not legitimate as I had done nothing wrong. However, Rex the mod who gave me the strike said he wouldn't remove it until he spoke to Edge, and Edge refused to address the issue until time had passed. Once Edge and Rex agreed the strike was not right, both told me that they wouldn't remove it because "two days had passed and it was now 'canon'", as if they had been waiting for the strike to become permanent. The third strike was also unwarranted as I reversed my action as soon as possible. However, the mods had been looking for a reason to ban me according to Edge, which explains their dragging their feet on the second strike, and unusually quick response to the third one (even though it had been retconned by me), as if they had been waiting. So in the grand scheme of things, I should only have one strike. Everything I have done as Benin has been plausible, like it or not.
I've provided evidence one each and every topic from Benin's population, military, government, wealth, and technology, yet I've been hit by technicalities, double-standards, and outright refusal to acknowledge the information because it proves my point. Just yesterday Rex laughed when I said Benin was civilized (mind you West Africans had interior plumbing while the Europeans were throwing waste into the streets). Edge spread the rumor that I was trying to invade Europe. When I asked which player controlled Burgundy, his first response was "You can't invade Burgundy Viva". He knew that wasn't the reason I asked, but he was trying to promote the idea that I was. The mods have complained about me overexpanding, but I've done so plausibly. I didn't see any series of rebellions in Nate's Caliphate save the Coptic one, nor any civil wars and crippling plagues. Neither have I seen the rulers of Castile die because they were great generals. I saw no complaints about Milan unifying Italy 400 years early, and not a single word about old libraries being used to advanced the nation. Yet, whenever I did any of these things, the mods pulled out all the stops against me.
When Edge was targeted by the mods trying to start a war between him and Portugal, he was out complaining about it. When Candie was faced with a war with Japan via mod event, she was quick to say something about it. It's different when its you in my seat. Why is it perfectly okay when it's me? This isn't some conspiracy I'm making up. We have proof that the mods are targeting players they have issues with rather than for in-game violations. You've all seen it and spoken out against it. I reversed course on my mistake, but I got a third strike anyway because the mods were waiting for the chance to give it to me. If that doesn't show intent, I don't know what does. I'm not telling people to defy the moderators. But there is a time when wrong is wrong, and this is one of them.
- >fixes mistake in turn
- >gets banned anyway
No conversation of the such occured between Rex and I. I believe what I said was that another mod may overturn it and talk to me, which Rex did when I issued Oct a strike for the same abuse that netted viva his first strike. Second of all your evidence is dubious at best, and doesn't meet the burden of proof in a traditional debate sense (Not starting this again Viva, we spent several hours on this issue).
Now I seem to be name dropped quite a bit here, but nothing brought up really helps your stance Viva. First, this "rumor" I spread was not unfounded. Several times during the Iberian conflicts, you claimed that you could "End it all", a thinly vieled way of saying that you could invade. The Topic of You invading Europe had come up quite a bit, so when you inquire about a European Nation that just aquired a very lucrative territory, one that they are (for some unknown reason), having trouble holding, you inquring who owns it is very suspicious. Later questions about Burgundy's military capablity and population may be victim to confirmation bias, but they seem to legitamize the idea that you where seriously considering invading Europe. Second, I have complained about overexpansion among the mods and players several times. The problem is that, given both the way map games work and the way that people work, when one player over expands, everyone has to follow suit to keep up. Third, Castile hasn't had any great generals die because Castile hasn't had an great generals or admirals to be killed. Even than, the mods attempted to break up a future Union and alliance, while forcing a war to start, by killing off the Queen of Aragon. Fourth, I have complained since the 1430s that Rex's Milan was overextended, and when I provided evidence the mod council was indifferent and Rex patronized me and dicked me around with it.
- 1. You interpreted from my statements what you wanted me to say but knew that I didn't. I don't believe you are a stupid person, so I know you were fully aware of the Portugal strike I had. So I ask again; why would I try to invade a region deep within Europe if I knew the mods would give me another strike? So I am correct in saying you spread a rumor that had no basis.
- 2. This issue is that long before I began to expand my nation, Nate was already invading other nations as were you. In fact, before I had done anything with my first invasion of Oyo, you had already invaded four nations. You and Nate were expanding across the board while I was taking my time. I never overexpanded, and I even tried to explain how I wasn't overexpanding. You simply held me to a different standard because you knew you could get away with it, as evidenced by the series of destructive events I got long before I had even done anything in the game.
- 3. Ditto.
- 4. And here we have a prime example of mod bias. The person who spearheaded the attempt to have me banned by your own words, was breaking the very rules he accused me of breaking. Benin had a far larger military and a practically empty region around it, but expanding into it was deemed overexpansion. Rex expanding into Italy with a tiny military war into a densely-populated region, and that's perfectly okay by him. That is bias. The same bias that I and countless other players have been complaining about.
- The vote to have the ban repealed isn't stupid. The players have seen the evidence I've provided, and seeing that I corrected an issue I made only to be banned anyway, is deemed unjust in their eyes. At this point, I'm being banned for something I did in the past, not for my actions in the present. How can you ban someone for something they fixed before the ban was passed? No one believes that is justified. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 00:46, September 27, 2016 (UTC)
So basically here's the course of events:
- Rules were laid out
- Players were given three chances to not mess up royally in the span of fifty years, which is VERY lenient
- Viva somehow does it
- He is banned
- Now people think the mods are being too strict
I swear, you people...
I would like the ban completely nullified. There exists no legitimate reason I should have been banned for an action I noticed and removed long before any of the mods did. In keeping this ban, you are actively demonstrating bias against a player by punishing them for something they already fixed before you even noticed it. I am being retroactively punished for something that was retconned, because the mods had been scowering the game for a reason to ban me, and banned me using the flimsiest of reasons. The players from both sides of the table regarding their views of me, have spoken, and have thus far agreed with my request. My ban has no grounds for standing. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 12:23, September 27, 2016 (UTC)
Quite frankly, it's more or less like Viva said. Other than the first strike, there doesn't really seen to be any valid justification for the other two strikes. The important question is, why did Edge or Rex delay making any decision until two turns had passed? It's almost like the two turn rule is now being abused to make sure that bad decisions remain valid. Imagine if Viva had mentioned in his turn "We develop tanks and nuclear weapons" and lets assume nobody noticed. Would this all then become canon after two turns? No. The Mods would just go ahead and retcon it once they noticed. Yet in this situation, it seems that Edge and Rex were somehow apparently bound by the "two turn rule" so they couldnt take any action. If the two turn rule was really that important, why didn't they come to a decision earlier? Its a Map Game not a real life "Should I invade xyz?". Two days is ample of time to reach a decision and then implement it yet either carelessness or purposeful delay on the Mods part created this issue.
Notice how the mods simply choose not to respond, either hoping the issue will blow over or because they know they are wrong but can't muster up the backbone to admit it. Edge's statement is a glaring indictment of their behavior. Rex is guilty of over-expansion, over-development, and implausible behavior – all the things he accused me of, yet he was the first one to ban me and cross out my posts. Nate expanded across an entire region home to tens of millions of people, and not a word is said, but when I expand into a region home to practically no one, there are screams of bloody murder. This ban has no basis. I will not accept a 90-day ban, nor a 60-day ban, but a complete removal of my ban as it was unjustified from the beginning. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 00:44, September 28, 2016 (UTC)
First of all, again, I don't know why you are assuming anything about me abusing the two turn rule. I issued viva a single stike, one which I told Rex about when I issued it and said that Viva may discuss with another mod about removing the strike. However, I only issued Viva a strike based on what had occured by another moderators action. Rex very well may have abused the two turn rule. Second of all the two turn rule doesn't apply to strikes and bans, only actions. A Strike can be retroactivly removed even after two turns have passed, at least this was my understanding of the rule.
Now I will apologize to Viva. I jumped to conclusions. However, I still believe my concern to be reasonable, but I will admit that I jumped to conclusions about you invading Burgundy. But I don't understand how you think you where held to a different standard than I. I did the math out back while I was mod, and you are around 20 times larger than you where when the game started. At the peak of Aragon and Castile, neither of them expanded that fast. But even still my issue has never been with your land size, but your population and growth of infrastucture, as well as the appereant invinciblity of your empire. Empires have crisis and issues, it seems that Benin however was immune to them. Now of course you had the Songhai revolt, which was mostly nonsense anyway but thats a story for another time, and the self given civil war, of which your empire only gains in the long term.
Now I make no secret that i believe Rex to be overexpanded just as bad if not worse than Viva. And before anyone claims that this is just because I lost a war against him, I for a long time have stated this, even before he invaded me. I have no alterior motives here. I once asked LG if Italy could be unifed early, and he concluded that it would largely be impossible. However, Rex did not act alone on this ban, and therefor to call this ban an example of his bias is wrong.
Starting off, the second strike I had, I was informed by Rex of all people, that the strike could not be removed because the action was canon, and therefore so was the strike. As I told Rex, I tend to believe you more than he. So that could only mean Rex was lying, and just tacking on strikes to get me to the bannable stage he was looking for. In this entire game, I have only one strike which I accept as legit. The second you and Rex said was wrong and should be removed, but no action was taken, and the third strike I earned inspite of having removed the action that led to it. So the two-turn rule was abused, though not by you.
Next, I accept your apology. I understand why you felt as you did, and I apologize if my behavior led you to believe such a thing in the first. Moving on, I'm twenty times larger because I conquered three nations and I settled the practically empty land around me. This isn't like Milan sending a few thousand soldiers to conquer a region just as densely-populated as itself. This was Benin sending 180,000 soldiers to conquer what was basically an empty region that was waiting to be tamed. The population of all pre-industrial societies exploded whenever more food became available. It was a simple cause and effect. Benin gained new land, developed it, and had more food, which led to more people. This didn't happen over night, but over the course of sixty years mind you. As for infrastructure, it don't take centuries to build a road from one city to another. Benin had the manpower, wealth, and rationale to do so, and mind you, in a region the size of Belgium with a population the size of New Jersey's, having and maintaining infrastructure was a vital part of Bini society. So I had the technology and resources as well.
And tell me, what event did I not have? I had two civil wars, a smallpox epidemic, I had two Obas die, and a spat of rebellions across my nation. I notice that no such statements are made of the Caliphate, Italy, France, or Iberia, but only of Benin. The Caliphate had a Copt rebellion, and that was it. It's been expanding ever since. But I have not yet gotten through a single decade in this game without being harassed about "what disaster has Benin not had yet?" I had Oct and Person asking how many people I lost in my civil war, and badly damaged the economy was. They weren't asking because they really wanted to know the details, they just wanted to know to make sure I was losing something. No such issue was posed to any of the other players, just me. And for the civil war, mind you, I told Josh about the civil war before it happened, expecting a mod event for it, but since I wasn't given one, I held true to my end of our agreement, and went through it anyway. So what exactly is the complaint here?
In the end, my ban is completely illegal, as I did nothing deserving it. I removed the issue that led to the ban, and I acknowledged it was wrong before I did so. However, in spite of these actions, I was banned after the corrections I made, and the mods are standing by it as if they did something worthy of praise. I have players who think everything I've done was implausible saying that the ban is BS, yet the mods seem to believe the ban is perfectly fine. I want it removed because it has not weight. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 02:07, September 28, 2016 (UTC)
- 02:56, October 4, 2016 (UTC)
- 22:14, October 1, 2016 (UTC)
There was a majority, you just decided to involve yourself in the ban after it was repealed. Prior to this, only you and Scraw opposed the repeal, and when it actually went through, you all of a sudden felt the need to vote. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 22:36, October 1, 2016 (UTC)
New Page: Adelphinian Reforms
I'm not sure what you guys want to do with this kind of page (perhaps put it under Religion somehow), but I don't want to mess with starting a Religion page, so here's the page on the Adelphinian Reforms , which are key to Catholicism at this point in time. Nonsensicaljourney (talk) 15:04, September 26, 2016 (UTC)
Complaint about Ngarrindjeri
I would like to file a complaint about Ngarrindjeri. Nate's actions as Ngarrindjeri have suggested that he knows next to nothing about Aboriginal culture, which given that he is playing as an Aboriginal country I as an Australian find rather offensive. Now, I'm not going to claim that I am an absolute authority on Aboriginal culture, because I am far from being that. However, I will say that Nate trying to breed horses out of kangaroos is total nonsense, even if one doesn't take into account the cultural ramifications of this. Today, we can create new breeds quite quickly because we obviously have a lot more knowledge now about genetics than in the 15th century - and even then we can't create entirely new species. And even then, I dare say that Europe would be much closer even in the 15th century to genetics than Aboriginal Australia ever was. Even assuming the Aboriginals were armed with the knowledge of genetics (which they most certainly were not) it would have taken decades, if not centuries, to breed quadrupeds out of bloody kangaroos, if it were possible at all. And then there's the culture. Aboriginal culture, based on what I have learnt, holds animals as extremely sacred, even more so than Europeans. To tamper with the animals of the land is to abuse it, I would imagine, and so would be considered virtual heresy.
Another thing I would like to know is how Ngarrindjeri managed to become a nation in the first place. In case you didn't know, Nate, Aboriginal Australians were divided into hundreds, if not thousands of what we call "language groups." While these language groups and "tribes", if you will, do mingle and inter-marry (women were often required to marry outside of their tribe), I cannot recall of any circumstances where enough tribes merged all at once to form a nation-state, which in itself is a concept the Aboriginal Australians would have been unlikely to understand (not being racist or degrading in any way, just stating the blunt truth). And anyway, even if they could, why would they? There were few conflicts between different tribes, because they often just moved around their own territory and rarely infringed on another's. So forming even a defensive alliance makes little sense for Aboriginal Australians, unless they knew of peoples across the seas that in the future would very much like to have their land. Nate has the benefit of this knowledge. The Aboriginals, however, do not. There is absolutely no reason why the Aboriginals of the Ngarrindjeri people would form a country.
Quite frankly, it seems that Nate is assuming the Aboriginals are much like the Native Americans, which they are certainly not.
Surely if Viva can get banned for over-expanding and rounding the Cape too early or whatever it was, Nate should not be able to get away with the even more ludicrous act of making new species in 15th century Aboriginal Australia and creating an unnecessary nation-state.
Anyway, those are the main points I want to bring up. On these, I'd once again like to stress my concern about the plausibility of Ngarrindjeri's existence and actions, and I'd also like to suggest that Nate do more research on the Aboriginal people and culture before he goes and makes up random nonsense on the Dreamtime - which, by the way, is now officially known as the Dreaming. I sincerely hope the mods will take action on this as soon as possible. Thank you. — T I M (TSW • AH • MGW • Contribs) 04:30, September 30, 2016 (UTC)
Yes I share your concerns about the kangaroos issue and have brought it up with Nate in the game. Simply domesticating foxes took Soviet scientists like fifty years, so the sort of changes he was suggesting...
I would dispute your assertion that conflicts between tribal groups were rare, I recall that there were commonly battles over women (quite small, admittedly). From what I have understood from following Nate's turns, effectively the reason they have formed more of a nation-type polity is because they have changed from a nomadic to a more settled lifestyle. Whilst that is a significant change, it is not, in my opinion, so absurd as to have been impossible. Aborigines are known to have used quite sophisticated land management techniques, and did 'farm' yams and tubers, albeit in a far less organised way than European or American farming. Additionally, eel and fish farming through quite complex stone traps was also a common feature of many Aboriginal groups, making it even more reasonable that they could settle more permanently in one area. Furthermore, relatively sturdy huts were not totally unknown to the Australian continent prior to colonisation (if I remember correctly). My point is that the structures for becoming a more "settled" society were available.
So I think it's important that we continue to be vigilant in ensuring that he does not go overboard, but I think for now he has not yet reached that point. If you want to dispute anything I've said above, I am happy to hear you out. Callumthered (talk) 05:35, September 30, 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for responding so quickly. I admit that I was unaware of the Aboriginals' farming capabilities. But despite that fact that the Aboriginals has the potential to form a settled society, doesn't mean that they would. They did not do so in our timeline, and I don't see what exactly could have changed in the Aboriginal mindset to suddenly have them start making villages, towns and eventually cities. — T I M (TSW • AH • MGW • Contribs) 06:03, September 30, 2016 (UTC)
Actually (and this surprised me), upon further research, I have discovered that there effectively was a settled, semi-agricultural society in parts of pre-contact Australia. According to this paper published in Australasian Science (that's the only free version I could find, but I have confirmed through my uni's databases that it is a legitimate academic article), European explorers reported coming across "Numerous villages with populations of 'over 200'". In these communities, according to the article, "the inhabitants exhibited high levels of sedentism, from 'multi-seasonal' occupation to full sedentism." So with this being the state of things otl, the idea of an "inspired" individual promoting a fully sedentary, agricultural-based lifestyle (as I believe Nate did through some prophet or something) is not actually that bizarre. Callumthered (talk) 13:14, September 30, 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Well, to be honest I'm all for an Aboriginal nation, so I'm not really in a position to complain anymore about that. However, the kangaroo to horses issue still very much irks me. I hope the mod team will do something of substance about that soon. — T I M (TSW • AH • MGW • Contribs) 14:07, September 30, 2016 (UTC)
I trust Callum's judgement on this matter since he is our local expert on Australian matters. However, breeding of kangaroos into horses is not happening.
21:51, October 1, 2016 (UTC)
MGOC Warning and Oversight Committee
Due to the poor operation of this map game, I have given it one week to fix itself before termination. I have also created the Oversight Committee of appointed non-players to help operate the map game in better condition.
17:42, October 2, 2016 (UTC)
Removed the tag as the map has been updated and a moderator strike system has been implemented. I will continue oversight to prevent further downturn of this map game.
19:55, October 2, 2016 (UTC)
Non beneficial revolts
Can we please have some much needed revolts, i can think of many countries (including my own) that can have one or more revolts. The most glaring issues are Italy, Iberia, Korea, Benin, and England all of which have a combination of potential peaseant, personal union breaking, and completely detrimental revolts that could happen that havent been happening. too many of the revolts from what i see end up nation building which seems like a pretty bad gaming of the system
I second this. -Nova 04:40, October 5, 2016 (UTC)
Manchurian Invasion of Korea
- Pre-War Stage
- Population: +4?
- War Exhaustion: 0
- Casus Belli: +7 Patritoic Rebellion
- Government: 3 (Warlord)
- Result: 30
- Population: 18
- War Exhaustion: 0
- Casus Belli: +7 (Existential threat and country's existantce at threat)
- Government: 5
- Battle Stage
- Battle of Heilongjiang
- Army size: +6 (20,000)
- Location: +1 (Near River)
- Great General: +45 (General Shu)
- Blunder: 0
- Attrition: 0
- Result: +10
- Army/Navy Size:+9 (30,000)
- Location: 1 (River)
- Great General:
- Blunder: 0
- Result: Korea: -12 (30 -42)
- Manchuria: 14
- Manchuria wins by 216.666%, Korea is conquered.
The New Algo is now Formated(by me)
So, Um, I took the liberty of formating the new algo for wiki. Made some minor syntax/spelling changes (ex. reare -- rare). If I screwed up too much please tell me, but I think that it would be best to give players access to the new algo proto, right?
Some of the things people wrote...lets just say I cleared some things up, wrote some explanations a bit more eloquently. If I screwed up too much, please let me know, and in the case that I did, well, its a good thing that This is not the official algo format then, eh?-Lx (leave me a message) 23:16, October 21, 2016 (UTC)
There will be one algorithm, for every front, every year a war carries on. This carries on until a treaty is signed or total victory is achieved by the victors. There are two stages to every algorithm—the pre-war stage, and the battle stage. The battle stage may be repeated up to six times per year, depending on how large the war is, in population and nation size. It is extremely important to read this page: War Mechanics, as it has more specifics on how the algorithm will work.
Location is Determined by your location relative to your combatant.
The percentage of your population which can count towards the algo will change in relation to the region you’re located in. At maximum your population will count in full in one connected region from your home region. Sea zones do not count, and will be considered a detrimental region to all unless you maintain a naval concentration. Which negates this. While negating the sea attrition to your population score will be in full as you land on the land region.
For each movement beyond your initially no detriment region allowance. so moving from Say Eastern Europe to Western Europe (which has to go through central europe) 20% of your population will effectively not be counted in the algorithm to symbolize the difficulty of resupply of a major army abroad infrastructural issues etc etc.. If your invading another continent then you suffer an automatic 35% reduction of your population involvement. Unless your an empire which stradles continents (Byzantines, Ottomans, Russia just a few examples)
Extra continental invasions which are forced to cross more than 2 major sea regions will suffer from major penalties
The least percentage of population included will remain capped at 5%
Region penalties are cumulative (i.e. add all that apply)
- List of Region Modifiers for Attackers
- Same Region: 0%
- Bordering Region - Land: 0%
- Bordering Region - Sea: -(N)%
- Naval concentration: +(N)%
- Next Region over (add as applicable): -(P)%
- On Same continent:-(Q)%
- Other Continent:-35%
- Multi-continental Empire: +35%
- Hard Cap: -95%
- Naples with a naval concentration invades Southern France.
- Naples starting region: Southern Europe
- France Starting Region: Western Europe
- Sea attrition (Med sea) which is canceled out by naval concentration.
- Southern Europe to Western Europe with a naval concentration leaves out any attrition allowing the full force of the Neapolitan population to count.
- (note a map will be made which will discuss and work out the specifics of regions. However before this time, mods should be relatively able to answer the questions about which region your nation resides in.
The first thing done is an algo is that the population is found of the entire alliance for both sides—leading nation, allies, and vassals.
- (Total Population * 0.02)/5000 = Score
If the government of the leading nation is a ...
- Great Nomadic Horde - +8
- Celestial Empire (China, Japan) - +8
- Absolute Monarchy - +7
- Westminster Monarchy (England) - +6
- Absolute Feudal Monarchy - +6
- Elective Monarchy - + 5
- Feudal Monarchy - +5
- Iqta' (Islamic Feudalism) - +5
- Theocracy - +5
- Oligarchy/Council - +6
- Warlord/Tribal - +5
- Free City (Holy Roman Empire) - +5
- Merchant Republic - +5
(more types will be added as we progress through the game and more modern types of government are invented.)
- Tier I - +2
- Tier II - +3.5
- Tier III - +5
- Tier IV - +6.5
- Tier V - +8
- Tier I - +5
- Tier II - +7
- Tier III - +10
- Tier IV - +15
- Tier V - +20
Tiers will scale with the time period and will be subject to moderator approval as well as my own.
Note that tech tiers for coalitions will be counted as a weighted average based on troops sent to war.
This stage may be repeated up to six times, depending on the size and scale of the war. Note that in this stage, "Attacker" does not mean the nation that declared war first, but means the nation that is in the enemy's territory, attacking enemy cities or troops.
If you are having trouble with army sizes, or your suggested army size is implausible, ask any moderator for the maximum army size you can field. Army size includes all allies and vassals on the same front.
- 0.3+ Per 1,000 Men
- 0.3+ Per 10 Ships
- Feudal Nations: 0.0075 times population
- Absolute Feudal Monarchies: .01 times population
- Absolute Monarchies: .02 times population (cannot be achieved until at least 1620)
- Nomadic Hordes: 0.01 times population
- Non-feudal Nations: 0.02 times population
- Naval-concentrated, non-feudal nations: 0.01 times population
- Merchant Republic: 0.0018 times merchant republic's population
- Naval-concentrated nations: 0.0000936 times population
- Normal Nations: 0.00003 times population
PRO TIP: You can send your entire military strength abroad in a fight but this will incur penalties such as revolts at home of nobility, Peasants, separatists. It is highly encouraged that unless you are fighting within a good marching distance of your home territory (neighboring nations in the region) the threat of revolt will be a decent possibility.. The more forces you deploy, further away, the more unrest at home you will have unless you have established or left a strong policing unit. (roughly 15-25% of your nation’s armed forces would be expected to be retained within the homeland for an extended campaign abroad and will be used as the general rule of thumb. This is generally only deterrent for smaller revolts like peasants and your own nobility rather than separatists and claimants to your throne is applicable.
If you want to hire mercenaries to fight in wars, you must follow this formula. As all states hired mercenaries during this period well into the enlightenment age You have have a maximum 20% of your total military strength consisting of mercenaries. (Translation: you can multiply your troops by 1.25, but at a cost detailed below)
- A mod will run an RNG to determine the behaviour of the mercenaries.
- 1-3 = extremely professional fight on payment and promises of some sort of civilized loot system
- 4-7 = Semi Professional, will cause some scale of looting damage to your own territory or whatever territory your own. Loot system is relatively disorganized and semi violent. Their unruly behavior over long period of time may anger your allies.
- 8-10 = Unprofessional mercenaries. You have hired absolute scum, their looting system consists of burning the city, taking everything and murdering and raping the populous. Holding these troops on home soil can see national property damaged, and likewise for your allies lands. Your forces, and Allied forces will tolerate these men for a minimum of 5 years before the mercenaries are forced to leave the army for a different region.
Location of Battle
To find where land battle takes place, find the closest two major cities that is occupied by both sides. If the attacking player doesn't specify a plan, assume that the two armies will meet at a point between the two major cities.
All of the land categories are rather obvious, if a player has done their research then it should be relatively obvious what to classify everything as. A River of almost any type can be used, a Mountain range must be specifically labeled as a mountain range on historic maps, and if ignored mountain passes or river crossings in a different country could prove as a circumvention to your defense.
- Attacking-(Land Battle)
- Near a major religious site: +5
- Near the center of government/state: +4.5
- Near a city: +3.5
- Near a major river or the coast with naval superiority: +3
- Near a populated border: +2
- Near a major river or the coast: +1
- Near a desolate location far away from anyone: 0
- Attacking-(Land Battle in Hostile Mountains)
- Near Capital: -10 (note very few nations capitals are in the mountains.)
- Near/at City: -8
- Near Major Fortress: -6
- Near Religious site: -4
- Normal attacking: -3
- Decisive Battle: -3
- Attacking-(Assault on a City/Fort)
- Besieging a center of government/very well-fortified city: +8
- Besieging a Strategic Fortress: +8
- Besieging a major religious site: +5
- Besieging a major city: +4
- Near/at Capital : +10
- Near Major Fortress: +7
- Near a major religious site: +5
- Near the center of government: +4.5
- Near a city: +3.5
- Far from any coast: 0
- Defending-(Land Battle)
- Near a major religious site: +7
- Near the center of government/state: +6
- Near major friendly fortress : +5.5
- Near a city: +4
- Near a major river or the coast with naval superiority: +3.5
- Near a populated border: +2
- Near a major river or the coast: +1
- Near a desolate location far away from anyone: 0
- Defending-(Land Battle in Friendly Mountains)
- Near/At Capital (if applicable): +16
- Near Major Fortress/Majorly fortified city: +13
- Near/At City: +10
- Near Major River: +9
- Coastal mountains: +9
- Mountains: +7
- Defending-(Assault on a City/Fort)
- Besieged center of government/very well-fortified city: +12
- Defending major Fortress: +9
- Besieged a major religious site: +7
- Besieged a major city: +4
- Defending near landing site : +10
- Near a major religious site: +5
- Near the center of government: +4.5
- Near a city: +3.5
- Near the coast or in a major river: +1
- Far from any coast: 0
- Defending-(Battle on a Major River)
- Near Capital (if applicable) +10
- Near Major Fortress: +8
- Defended River crossing: +7 (army must have at least 1 turn to establish necessary fortifications)
- Contested River Crossing: +5 (army will meet the enemy at the crossing but has no built up defenses)
Standard Protocol for most sieges, for most armies, is to outnumber the defending garrison by 3 to 1. As such, battles which assault cities and other strategic locations will follow this example. In the case of major cities and strategic forts, YOU MUST capture the city of fort to continue on into the country from that avenue. If you embark on a military campaign, a well-fortified position must be taken in a siege with the minimum 3:1 ratio to incur no penalty and can only be circumvented by Great Generals and Great Leaders. Conducting a Siege means that the involved manpower will not be available for other combat operations unless you pull them from duty to another front, or break the siege.
- Penalties for Breaking Protocol
- If you have 3 to 1 odds during a siege you will incur no penalties
- If you have 2 to 1 odds, you will incur an extra 10% casualties and a 15% detriment to your score
- If you have 1 to 1 odds or less, you will incur an extra 20% casualties and 25% detriment to your score.
If you attempt to bypass a well-fortified position a 20% penalty will be added to your final battle section score due to the exposed rear or flank of your army due to the massive strategic disadvantage left by a large enemy garrison based around a well-fortified position and capable of Harassing the attacking army. This is specifically true due to the increased viability of asymetric warfare which would impart casualties, attrition and a loss of morale.
There is also an annual Marching Limit for your forces, meaning that the location of a Battle must be within the marching limit of friendly-controled territory
- Marching Limit Modifiers
- Base Value: IDK, like 1500 km?
- Insert other modifiers here
Great Leaders may maintain control/good use over all elements of a nations military this means planning for all fronts
Great Generals are only able to lead within one army/front
- Great General or Admiral
- Great Leader - +45 (this would be considered a great king such as genghis etc etc, Event decided extremely rare)
- General - +25 (Delegated via Event, can reach Great Leader status if they are able to take the throne. Much more common, usually requires distinguished service in a large good war.)
- Admiral - +20 (Delegated via Event)
- Winter: (determined by RNG by uninvolved mod and if not applicable mod supervised uninvolved player)
- Heavy Winter: 85% 1-2
- Moderate Winter: 25% 3-6
- Light Winter: 10% 7-8
- Low Impact Winter: .5% 9-10
- Contested Mountains: 50% (this means plain and simple doing a mountain crossing, no historically traveled pathways etc etc)
- Contested Mountain Pass 15%:
- Contested River crossing: 5%
RNG done by Unbiased, Uninvolved Mod
-0 to -5
All nations will gain a maximum amount of 4 Strategic defensive areas (hinging on their population) and are used specifically to guard strategic choke points such as mountain passes, gaps in terrain, or important territories in the nation. For every 3 million people you will gain a strategic defense point/fort which will give a major boost to the defensiveness to a region and can effectively deter an enemy from a major offensive. They take roughly a decade to construct and prepare, and are a significant investment by the country. Their placement is roughly the same as a heavily fortified city, and in order to place these (and determine their coverage or even necessity as you can be denied if you lack the necessity) you must give a legitimate area for this fort, and give a predicted region of coverage. If they do not match up you will be denied. This will be handled by the resident algorithm moderator.
- Battle Tier 1: 15% of the losing force is lost. This requires both nations being within at least 25,000 troops of each other in the battlefield. In a Siege battle 10% of the losing forces will be killed wiped unless on the 2nd algo or a resounding defeat.
- Victors: will incur 10% casualties in this Tier. In a Siege battle the Attacker will incur 13% casualties
- Battle Tier 2: 30% of the losing force will be wiped out or captured. In a Siege 25% of the defeated force will be destroyed. (not applicable in a second algo defeat or in this case a siege which equates to the necessary amount to take a strategic fort or city)
- Victors: Will incur 6% casualties. In a Siege they will incur 15% casualties.
- Battle Tier 3: 75% of the losing force is wiped out or captured. In a Siege the entire force is wiped out or captured
- Victors: Will incur 2% casualties. In a Siege 5% of the attacking force suffers casualties
- Battle Tier 4: Losing force ceases to exist. In a Siege the the Losing force also ceases to exist
- Victor: Attacking force takes minimal casualties. Siege, Attacking force takes .5% of casualties
If an enemy is not within the 25,000 mark on troop comparison then all these values will be halved for the attacker. If the enemy has 50,000 less than you then they are halved once again. (this applies to the attacker.) This applies in every order of magnitude (and will be subject to change when populations have expanded enough to warrant the changing of the numerical amounts)
If an enemy attacking you is not within the 25,000 mark all values will be halved for the Defender. At another order of 25,000 the values will be halved again. (this is subject to change following the increase in population which will change the numerical values)
Victory or Defeat
To achieve a victory or be subject to a defeat, a few things must happen. You must have seized or won decisive battles or sieges in the territory in question. No longer will 200% clear an enemy from the battle all together.
To win victories the enemy must be defeated in the field or beaten while sieging. Just showing up with an army will not guarantee you victory.
- Battle Tier 1 - 200-300% - Winner has won a battle with the enemy convincingly but not decisively (normal battles). Enemy can regroup and retreat in good order. In the case of Sieges a second algo is required as 500% will be minimum for sieges of fortified cities and major forts.
- Battle Tier 2 - 300-500% - Winner has won a decisive battle and the enemy retreats in good order but with a decent amount of casualties.
- Battle Tier 3 - 500-900% - Winner has won a crushing decisive victory enemy forces have suffered at least 40-50% casualties and are retreating out of the region. If caught in a city when this happens the garrison is entirely wiped out or taken prisoner.
- Ultimate Tier - 900%+ - Winner has shattered the enemy into a full scale retreat from this region and any adjoining ones. The army will attempt to retreat to the nearest fortified city to regroup 55-60% casualties are expected. In the case of a siege the entire force is wiped out with a significant surrender as well. -5 for the next algo for the loser in this situation due to the morale of such a significant loss. That -5 morale de-buff will last 1 year.
- Tier 1 +3
- Everyone not listed in the other tiers
- Tier 2 +5
- All other Player HRE states
- Tier 3 +10
- Papal States
- Tier 4 +15
- Tier 5 (best) +20
- Tier 1 +3
- (this is for tribes and non metalworking societies)
- Tier 2 +5
- Mexica triple alliance
- All Higher Native Civilizations, baring the Chimu, haven’t worked too much on metallurgy so I’m not sure if they would make the cut.
- Tier 3 +10
- Tier 4 +15
- Two Sicilies
- The Caliphate
- Tier 5 (best) +20
Thank you to whoever made the religion page - love your work!
However, Cologne/Westphalen/Kolschberg as outlined on the normal map as within the "HRE" which seems to have been made entirely Reformed Northern Rite in the map on the Religion page, and we're still Roman Catholic. If you could rectify this, that would be awesome, thankyou. :)
Also, I don't know if I missed something, but I don't remember so many states being converted to Reformed Northern Rite...? Can someone highlight for me when this happened? (Obviously Brandenburg and some Scandinavian countries, and some HRE countries near Brandenburg, but all of them, so quickly? I thought I might have noticed, haha.) Nonsensicaljourney (talk) 12:46, October 22, 2016 (UTC)
- I made the map, sorry about the mistake, I will change it; sometimes in regions that I was unknowledgable in, it was hard to tell who embraced what religion. From the people I asked in chat, it sounded like everyone north of Austria basically embraced the northern rite; I will fix it, my apologies. 13:28, October 22, 2016 (UTC)
While we're on the subject of the HRE map, Genoa is no longer part of the Holy Roman Empire, as it is now the Kingdom of Liguria within the United Crown; Italy has also been split apart, and I doubt all of the resulting Italian states would want to maintain membership in the Empire. — T I M (TSW • AH • MGW • Contribs) 14:16, October 22, 2016 (UTC)
Hey, is this live? I've just come across this site, and it looks kinda fun, if you're accepting new people.
Yes, this Map Game is currently ongoing. If you want to join, you can sign up as a nation on the Nations Page.
Plausibility Strikes & Viva's Ban
As all of the moderators know, Vivaporius, the former player of Benin, was banned this month. Initially, I did not even know the reason for this ban (since I was off focused on other activities), but after some investigating and asking around, I found out that it was because of Viva's attempted invasion of Sofala, a region on the southeastern coast of Africa, 5,000 (more or less) kilometers away from Benin's mainland in west Africa.
Now at some point about two weeks ago, Viva came onto chat to ask the moderators, and specifically, me, about the invasion. When I asked who he was invaded, Viva responded, saying he was invading Sofala. I didn't raise any qalms about this, and Viva, as well as any other player, could have assumed that the invasion was fine and that he was not breaking any rules. At some point following this, Viva asked Scraw to give blunder numbers for the algorithim, telling Scraw who he was invading and where the nation he was invading was. Once again, Viva could have presumed that he was in the clear, espicially after asking two mods of the game. Viva then proceeded to ask another moderator, Edge, for possible estimates of Sofala's population. Viva's third strike only came after an argument in chat with Feud, and a subsequent ban by moderator Wolves with Feud's support, two moderators who had absolutely nothing to do with the proceedings preceding the argument. I'm going to propose that we unban Viva, since he rightly could have presumed that he was clear as he invaded Sofala, since nearly half of the moderator team knew about his invasion a week prior to Viva's ban. In addition to this, I strongly reccomend that there should be a strict set of reasons for plausibility strikes being handed out, so this situation does not happen again.
02:22, October 26, 2016 (UTC)
Here is the problem. A presumed yes is not a yes. I never explictly oked an invasion of Sofala, and if I did I must of been high or not thinking when I did so. Second of all, Josh stop lying to save face. You where there when Rex, Scraw, Feud, Andy, and I agreed to ban Viva. Your hands are just as dirty in this as everyone elses. You exemplify all of the issues with the mod team this game. They don't care about maitaining a decent game, they care about their image. If you didn't, you would have owned up to the fact that you supported banning Viva. Stop trying to save face. I get that maybe Viva convinced you to change your mind, thats fine. What isn't fine is you trying to not only wash your hands of this issue, but to appear as the white knight trying to end the injustice and fight the evil other mods to unban the helpless victim Viva. Andy tried to do this last time as well, so why did you think this would be a good idea to try it again. 5 mods intially voted, and than Andy came in later and voted for it as well. All 6 of the active mods voted to ban Viva, Players, Josh is not on your side, he just wants to maintain his image. #BRINGBACK THESQUIRREL 02:47, October 26, 2016 (UTC)
And this is why people want to attempt all sorts of things like these... the mod team is too split into factions, rivaling each other. We already have this bad image (wonder why?), but we can't continue on like this... We need to get together again and make decisions together, I fear, or the mod council will lose more and more legitimacy. AM, the King of the Banat (talk) 09:49, October 26, 2016 (UTC)
Maybe a simple solution would be not going after one particular player in hopes of getting him banned?
Or we could just ditch the current council, nominate and vote for a new one, and then have said new mod council replace the old one? It doesn't seem like our mods are going to kiss and make up anytime soon. We might as well start afresh. — T I M (TSW • AH • MGW • Contribs) 09:58, October 26, 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, that seens like an nice idea as well but idk. I think some Mods will probably try to resist your suggestion given that it would essentially threaten the position of the 'unpopular' Mods.
Well to be frank, this wouldn't be the mods' decision to make. A decision that threatens the position of the powerful will almost certainly be rejected. That's why I suggest we hold a referendum among currently registered non-mod players, to decide whether or not the council should be replaced. This must be a popular vote, and the mods should have no say in how this vote goes. If it does not pass, fine, the current council stays. If it does, we nominate and vote for new mods, during which time the current mod council will act as a caretaker unit until the appointment of the new mods. Current mods would also have the opportunity to seek re-election should the vote pass. — T I M (TSW • AH • MGW • Contribs) 10:44, October 26, 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to break your dreams, lads, but this ain't a democracy. Popular votes can be completely disregarded you know. Not that I condone this practice, but it's not going to happen realistically. Sorry to crush your dreams. AM, the King of the Banat (talk) 10:51, October 26, 2016 (UTC)
The mods own the page kind of or Crim and others own the franchise, we can't have a coup they own the intellectual property rights, calm down. they're doing a fine job other than for a few mods who need to pull their weight (I get they have lives and stuff though) in general most implausible actions are retconned and there are mod events quite often. This whole Viva thing is endless. If you unban him give him a couple of days and he will be banned again, no point in voting the cycle will contuine. Person67 (talk) 10:54, October 26, 2016 (UTC)
Of course it'll be disregarded: it's what the mods do. Of course they'll say "Oh well, it was just a popular vote", because they are mods. They are the powers that be. They will do anything to keep themselves in power. But you know what? They aren't meant to be dictators. They are simply a police force. It is the players that are important here. Mods aren't meant to have more say than players, or to render the rights of players downtrodden. If we don't like the mods, we should be able to take them down. I don't care if some guys "own the franchise." And anyway, if the current mods are doing their jobs, what is there to fear? The referendum will just be struck down by the players, problem solved. BUT, if the majority of players believe that the mods are not performing adequately, then they should have the right as players and as members of this community to voice their concerns and replace the mod council, so that this game survives to the end and doesn't come crashing down like so many others. — T I M (TSW • AH • MGW • Contribs) 10:58, October 26, 2016 (UTC)
They own the franchise, if your taking on the right to intellectual property that's a bit bigger than PMIV and our wiki alone. Calm down. If you don't like the game don't play, they aren't dictators for christ sake. They make the game run or they should be doing so. Stop pushing such a dramatic and uneeded line. Person67 (talk) 13:05, October 26, 2016 (UTC)
Sorry mate, I was just feeling very frustrated at that time. I agree that property rights should be protected. However, I still strongly believe that the players should have some say over who moderates their game. They are the ones playing it, after all. — T I M (TSW • AH • MGW • Contribs) 13:19, October 26, 2016 (UTC)
Thats like saying you have any say in how George R.R. Martin writes his books, If you dont like a particular point you stop reading. Same thing here, The intellectual rites of the game stand with one of the mods, and this isnt a democracy. Its a well known thing that modding is an inherrently thankless job and no matter how good we do were doing shitty. Now calm down and stop calling out ridiculous "boy who cried wolf" and "injustice" every time you perceive weve done something wrong
Edge, anyone who knows what I do here also knows that PM4 isn't my main concern on this wiki. I don't care that much about what anyone "thinks" about me here nor would I go out my way to make other moderators look bad. I simply changed my mind on the decision. It also seems that nobody has responded to the last few sentences of my original post. 19:41, October 26, 2016 (UTC)
- Popular Vote (Doesn't hold any final authority)
- Unban Viva
- Keep Viva Banned
- Moderator Vote
- Unban Viva
- 02:22, October 26, 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Viva Banned
Map and List of Regions
22. Europe North Sea (ENS)
23. Europe Atlantic North (EAN)
24. Europe Atlantic South (EAS)
25. Europe Arctic (EA)
26. Europe Central Baltic (ECB)
27. Europe Central (EC)
28. Europe Eastern (EE)
29. Europe Mediterranean West (EMW)
30. Europe Mediterranean East (EMA)
31. Europe Black Sea (EBS)
32. Africa North West (ANW)
33. Africa Sahara West (ASW)
34. Africa Sahara East (ASE)
35. Africa Red Sea (ARS)
36. Arabia Central Desert (ACD)
37. Africa West Atlantic (AWA)
38. Africa West Guinea (AWG)
39. Africa Central (AC)
40. Africa East Horn (AEH)
41. Africa West Central (AWC)
42. Africa East Central (AEC)
43. Africa West South (AWS)
44. Africa East South (AES)
45. Asia North and Siberia (ANS)
46. Asia Caspian Sea (ACS)
47. Asia Central Turkestan (ACT)
48. Asia India North (AIN)
49. Asia Arabian Sea (AAS)
50. Asia India South (AIS)
51. Asia Bay of Bengal (ABB)
52. Asia Central Himalayas (ACH)
53. Asia Central China (ACC)
54. Asia Far East (AFE)
55. Asia South China (ASC)
56. Asia South Pacific (ASP)
57. Asia Southeastern (ASE)
58. Asia Indonesia Pacific (AIP)
59. Asia Java Sea (AJS)
60. Australia West (AW)
61. Australia South (AS)
62. Australia East (AE)
A, B, C, D, E
G, H, J, K, P, Q, R
M, N, O
The Xs in North and South America will be replaced by whatever the continents are named. These regions are for use in the algorithm and in colonization.
00:54, October 27, 2016 (UTC)
Naming of the New World
This is the naming contest for the names of North and South America. You may vote for more than one option. You may nominate a new name. The top 3 names for each continent will move on to the next round of voting.
- Hesperia or Vesperia
- – † ⌒⌒⌒＼(;ᄋ;＼)三(ﾉ>ᄉ<)ﾉ ~ ("니가먼저키스해!")
- Laurentia (after discoverer)
- 00:56, October 27, 2016 (UTC)
- Brasil or Brazil
- Laurentia (after discoverer)
- – † ⌒⌒⌒＼(;ᄋ;＼)三(ﾉ>ᄉ<)ﾉ ~ ("니가먼저키스해!")
Do you want the continents to be named North and South something?
In that last question, you should only vote for one option. I think that's fairly obvious.
00:54, October 27, 2016 (UTC)
To Colonize the Americas, as a non-american state (read: european cuz le baised mods), you must be a confirmed colonizer. In addition to the rules on the rules on the rules page, there are five other rules that you must follow.
- You must follow all rules laid out in the rules page.
- You must show two things to colonize: Capability and Motivation. If you lack one, you can not colonize
- Your reasons must be confirmed by 3 mods. Even if you have waited 15 turns for an answer, it does not matter. Pester a mod into giving you a yes or no.
- Mods can say no. If one of them says no don't try and pretend they ignored it.
- You can only seek to confirm the nation you play as and nothing more.
- When seeking confirmation, you want to include the date you would begin colonizing. If you want to do it right away, put the turn of your request.
- If a mod finds this date to be too early or too late even, they should inform the player as such. Not every nation colonized at once so if you decide to try in jump in right away, even if you have the means and the motive to do so, you may be rejected because of the date.
Message me with any questions or concerns. Add more rows as needed
|Nation||Date Start||Mod 1||Mod 2||Mod 3||Comments from Mod|
|Japan||Anywhere from 1550-1600||Scraw|
|Norway||1520s to 1620 anywhere in that range though 1500s since I am very close to the new world||Scraw|
|England||1504- 1505- Well England in OTL did colonise within 5 years of Spain. Plus I have a list of other reasons I can produce.||Wolves|
Appointment of CrimsonAssassin as ModeratorAs of 10/26/2016 at 10:53 EST, I have been appointed as mod by orders of Scraw.
I resign from being a moderator due to the rampant infighting and terrible rules. I will still play the game. The moderation of this game has gotten out of hand and I refuse to be a part of it. I call on Scraw to put an end to this madness. Curmudgeonly yours - Crim 03:02, October 27, 2016 (UTC)