Star of the Shogun: Realpolitik

Captain Fargle said:
The reason to destroy them is that Napoleon is aggressive, expansionist and needs to be dealt with.
Click to expand...

Clearly, a blood sacrifice using Japanese blood is the only thing that will let Japan do what is needed to protect Japan. Here is the reasonable solution.

Japan has 10 people
Japan hits France first.
Japan loses 2 people.
Japan now has 8 people.

This is the opposition's idea.

Japan has 10 people.
France hits Japan first.
Japan loses 4 people.
Japan counterattacks
Japan loses 2 more people.
Japan now has 4 people.

General Bloodthirsty and his ilk will sacrifice four more people just to look like saviors to the remaining four. Meanwhile, we will save 8 people. Now, take these numbers and add five zeroes and you can see the stakes. I don't know about you, but I rather save 8 people than sacrifice 4 people alone just to prove a point.
 
"Everything you say is being remembered by Holy Ibsen who goes down to the tavern to get Sake in exchange for non-censored discussions"

I have no idea what that means, is that supposed to be Politik or is it a rule that an admin made saying we HAVE to go to war with France?

If we're here to protect the people, then we should do it justly. Perhaps France thinks we will attack them and are building to defend themselves. We have no right to start a war over something we have no proof of.

Japanese people dying in order for us to start a war does not make them tools, it makes them victims of a foreign nation, so we must avenge them. If we have no justification for our war, Japanese fathers, mothers and daughters will not support the war! Why should we risk our people's trust in the government for a pre-emptive strike. we should atleast wait for France to move a military to our border, or denounce us before we push with any sort of military actions.
 
OOC: That was me being nice to you and reminding you that everything not in OOC or SPOILER tags in this thread is public record.

-Nukeknockout /OOC:
 
What Lord Bloodbath is saying that before we can defend ourselves, our people have to be killed. That our crops must be fed with blood of those who can actually die so that Immortals may save face.
 
OOC: Oh thanks for clearing that up, although that still doesn't give the war legitimacy even if the people understand it's a preemptive strike.

That doesn't really work Sonereal, why would we lose the same amount of people in a counterattack if we already killed their army?

If we lose the same amount in a counter attack as we do in a preemptive strike, then we shouldn't be fighting...also, what if the French have 10 people?

Japan attacks, killing 4, losing 2.

France now has 6, Japan 8. We attack again, losing 2 killing 4

France now has 2, we have 6.



Although a defensive war would be more costly, they're both so costly that we should atleast wait until we have better methods of warfare
 
You think Napoleon will wait until you decide that you're ready to repel him? Dear sir I fear you have not the slightest concept of warfare.
 
Captain Fargle, you are arguing for a preemptive strike, meaning us starting the war. If Napoleon hasn't even shown interest in a war yet, we still have time.
 
Dirk_Diggler said:
OOC: Oh thanks for clearing that up, although that still doesn't give the war legitimacy even if the people understand it's a preemptive strike.

That doesn't really work Sonereal, why would we lose the same amount of people in a counterattack if we already killed their army?

If we lose the same amount in a counter attack as we do in a preemptive strike, then we shouldn't be fighting...also, what if the French have 10 people?

Japan attacks, killing 4, losing 2.

France now has 6, Japan 8. We attack again, losing 2 killing 4

France now has 2, we have 6.



Although a defensive war would be more costly, they're both so costly that we should atleast wait until we have better methods of warfare
Click to expand...

Victory is measured not by how many French are killed. It is measured by how many Japanese lives are saved. The Four are just farmers, miners, and countrymen killed during the invasion. The Two are soldiers who will die pushing out the invaders and fighting to Paris. You would sacrifice Six to Become a God to Four.
 
If it only takes 2 in this representation to kill France, then they don't have the military to pose a threat, therefore negating the entire debate that if we do not declare war, we are in danger.
 
Dirk_Diggler said:
If it only takes 2 in this representation to kill France, then they don't have the military to pose a threat, therefore negating the entire debate that if we do not declare war, we are in danger.
Click to expand...

Again

You're admitting that the four don't matter.
 
No I'm not. I'm admitting that a war will cause deaths no matter what, but we can minimize them by upgrading our defenses. Archer garrisons can prevent deaths if used correctly. Hit and run tactics, Guerrilla warfare.

If we allow them to attack us, and engage in key moments, we can kill many and lose few.

Alternatively, we could attack now and engage in deadly urban combat, although the urban combat will come sooner or later, by attacking them first, we are attacking full blown armies in Urban centers, that will cost many lives.
 
No, it actually wouldn't. This isn't the damn 1940s. This in the ancient era where the difference between our high-trained forces and bands of scattered peasants is the difference between our sun and Pluto. Again, attacking sooner will result in minimal civilian deaths and minimal military deaths while attacking later will result in maximum possible civilian deaths possible in a conflict with France the maximum possible military deaths possible. The rule of thumb is that if we wait until THEY'RE ready to actually consider going after them, we done goofed.
 
If we attack now, they'll have their military still.

If we waited for them to attack us, we wouldn't necessarily have to engage them on Japanese soil, we could always hit them between our lands or on the border. Defensive fortifications, archers on hills, swordsmen in forests or in forts. If our archers are always 1 or 2 steps ahead, we can bombard and not engage. The AI will retreat wounded soldiers, all it takes is a couple men to hold them off.
 
The best way to preserve peace is to prepare for war. If we maintain a standing military, but don't engage in a war, we can prevent a war for a very, very long time. Once we have more sophisticated weaponry, we can annihilate the French.
 
The French attack an equal if not stronger army? If we're weaker than the French, we will lose a preemptive strike, if we're stronger they wont declare war on us, atleast for the time being.
 
Then they will doom themselves to attacking us. Odds are, they would attack a weaker nation though, right?

I will admit though, that is the best logic I've ever seen. If you had said that earlier, I'd be all for beheading them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

stfoskey12
Strategic Party Affiliation
2 3 4
Replies
73
Views
3K
Core Imposter
C
NinjaCow64
Republican Bidens and the Failure of the Democratic Party
21 22 23
Replies
443
Views
12K
Lexicus
Lexicus
S
World Congress Review: Part 1 (Standard Mechanics)
Replies
11
Views
1K
caudheur
C
Recursive
Update on the Voting for Session #6 (& Cheating Discovery)
Replies
13
Views
2K
Tekamthi
Tekamthi
Zardnaar
Who To Vote For?
2 3
Replies
54
Views
2K
Zardnaar
Zardnaar
Top Bottom