Star of the Shogun: Realpolitik

There is a different solution, akin to Dem Taqat's peaceful policy. It is of my opinion that we should build up our military to levels akin to that of an invasion force, but use it only if France decides that it would like to see the tricolour flying over Kyoto. We must weaken them by denying them land to expand to! We must open up our frontiers and let the settlers pour through, and clog the ground so much that the French have no choice but to sit on their haunches.

So, you're calling for a settler race. You're actively going to provoke the French to starting a war?

We must preserve peace - this is a truth. It is something that we must hold dearly... "Those that live by the sword, die by the sword." A powerful military will deter attack from France. While they are a threat we cannot ignore, we must maintain the moral high ground. We must not be the aggressor's in this case - what will the world think of us? What will our PEOPLE think of us? If we send their fathers, brothers, uncles... friends, off to die in a foreign land, for a war we started? Wait for them to come to us. Settle the land before they can get their greedy fingers on it. We will maintain the moral high ground, and we will maintain Japanese dominance in our glorious and fertile land.

Morality has no place in international politics. On the domestic side, it is immoral to even give the French the ability to strike at Japan.

Let us fight a defensive war, and then turn to the offense, rather than fight an offensive war, and see our people revolt against us.

So, you say you do not want fathers, brothers, and uncles to die in a foreign land but you believe that letting a war reach the mothers, sisters, the aunts, and children is right? There is no such thing as a defensive war starting that doesn't start on the defender's soil. You're going to put Japan's children in danger simply so sate your own conscious.
 
If you heard me correctly, I said we would prepare a military force "akin to that which could invade." If the French struck, we would be ready to strike them from our lands and hit them hard, while still not losing our honor in a sneak attack.
 
Why would we take the fight to their lands, when our Japanese soldiers are thousands of times more effective defending our homes. Any soldiers they sent on our territory would be demolished at the hands of our cities and garrisons.

We should wait for them to attack us, no doubt we could stand their attacks easily, and then push on with less difficulty than striking them first.

Think about it. If they sent a majority of their army, and knowing the AI they'd do it poorly, they'd lose everything, weakening them and making them more likely to be the target of another foreign nation, and allowing us to attack them with far less losses.

I'd like to join captain Fargle's party if he'll allow it.
 
There is a different solution, akin to Dem Taqat's peaceful policy. It is of my opinion that we should build up our military to levels akin to that of an invasion force, but use it only if France decides that it would like to see the tricolour flying over Kyoto. We must weaken them by denying them land to expand to! We must open up our frontiers and let the settlers pour through, and clog the ground so much that the French have no choice but to sit on their haunches.

We must preserve peace - this is a truth. It is something that we must hold dearly... "Those that live by the sword, die by the sword." A powerful military will deter attack from France. While they are a threat we cannot ignore, we must maintain the moral high ground. We must not be the aggressor's in this case - what will the world think of us? What will our PEOPLE think of us? If we send their fathers, brothers, uncles... friends, off to die in a foreign land, for a war we started? Wait for them to come to us. Settle the land before they can get their greedy fingers on it. We will maintain the moral high ground, and we will maintain Japanese dominance in our glorious and fertile land.

Let us fight a defensive war, and then turn to the offense, rather than fight an offensive war, and see our people revolt against us.

You are sounding very similar to Cull and MN in RP1, and look at how that turned out. They left England with no army, no power, no influence. Next term, mine, we get attacked by Rome and lose our financial city.

Let us not repeat the mistakes of the past in Japan Immortals. You wish for us to let them come burn our lands, so that we have your 'excuse' to strike back? No.

You say we must maintain the moral high ground. But what about maintaining an army? Maintaining an Empire? Both are extremely expensive, and you wish for us to do both at once, with no financial base to speak of. You wish to bankrupt us, and make it easier for France to conquer us, rape our mothers, wives, and daughters, and for our brothers and fathers and sons to be brutally murdered on and off the field of battle.

Would it not be better to attack them on our own terms? Protect our families by striking at theirs? You say there is dishonor in a sneak attack: I say this. There is no honor in watching your daughter suffer the horrors of the french, simply so you can say we were attacked first. I don't care how we attack them, although let it be noted that it was YOU that brought up the concept of a sneak attack.
 
If you heard me correctly, I said we would prepare a military force "akin to that which could invade." If the French struck, we would be ready to strike them from our lands and hit them hard, while still not losing our honor in a sneak attack.

But if we had a force that could invade....why not invade? You're pretty much saying "I don't want to go to war with them, but I do want to do a bunch of things that'll force France to go to war with us down the line."

Why would we take the fight to their lands, when our Japanese soldiers are thousands of times more effective defending our homes. Any soldiers they sent on our territory would be demolished at the hands of our cities and garrisons.

Because unlike you, most people don't want a war on their soil and would gladly keep a war on someone else's soil?
We should wait for them to attack us, no doubt we could stand their attacks easily, and then push on with less difficulty than striking them first.

How many farmers and miners in the countryside will die simply because of this idea?

Think about it. If they sent a majority of their army, and knowing the AI they'd do it poorly, they'd lose everything, weakening them and making them more likely to be the target of another foreign nation, and allowing us to attack them with far less losses.

I'd like to join captain Fargle's party if he'll allow it.

This is probably one of the worst ideas I've heard in a while. We do not want a power vacuum in France that would result in an even more powerful outsider conquering France.
 
I meant if we were not able to or did not want to pursue a full scale counter attack.

I don't mean let them die to foreign nations, I mean that no matter what, a defensive war will eliminate France.


Also, the Japanese people would surely support a war the enemy started than if we invaded. Any miners or farmers that died in the country side would be avenged, and the people would channel their hate on the French, not on us.
 
I meant if we were not able to or did not want to pursue a full scale counter attack.

I don't mean let them die to foreign nations, I mean that no matter what, a defensive war will eliminate France.

Because foreigners will conquer them.

So far, we have two people who already know that yes, France will invade us eventually. Let's bleed them dry at the cost of God knows how many Japanese civilians so that way we can claim a nice like moral victory before conquering everything from her to Paris.

If we destroy their military, we would have to follow through with a counterattack. We would be doing Japan a disservice if we didn't and allow even more powerful nations to rip France to shreds, gaining power relative to ourselves. Of course, we wouldn't need to COUNTERattack if we hurried up, get our house in order, and crippled France now so they can never invade us.

By the sounds of it, you're going to use dead miners and farmers as political tools to make you look right later. Meanwhile, responsible politicians are coming up with plans that prevent Japanese peasants and aristocrats in the countryside from dying in the first place. We're not going to use dead Japanese as a political tool to gain support for a war that should've be prevented years before those Japanese civilians died in the first place.
 
What I'm saying is that IF, for ANY REASON, we did not counterattack, they would be destroyed anyways. Obviously I and everyone else would support a counterattack, I'm saying fighting a defensive war would screw them over.

A counter attack is the best way to handle things. If other powerful nations attack France, then they're hurting their military temporarily and making it easier for us to conquer France.

The AI is ridiculously bad, not that I have to tell you. If another nation did jump on France while we were at war, we'd probably beat them to most if not all cities.

If we let France attack us first, and wipe out their forces, we have won the war and can take all of France.
 
What I'm saying is that IF, for ANY REASON, we did not counterattack, they would be destroyed anyways. Obviously I and everyone else would support a counterattack, I'm saying fighting a defensive war would screw them over.

And leave dead Japanese civilians dead.

This is what it boils down to. Do you people want to see dead Japanese civilians or not? Because if you have to wait until a known threat is shoving rocks down your throat to kick him out of your yard, then you're the fool, not the weakling shoving rocks down your throat.
A counter attack is the best way to handle things. If other powerful nations attack France, then they're hurting their military temporarily and making it easier for us to conquer France.

False. If we have to wait until France invades to destroy their military, then the other nations won't be hurt invading France that much.


If we let France attack us first, and wipe out their forces, we have won the war and can take all of France.

At the cost of those pesky tools you call Japanese peasants who will bear the blunt of the major fighting of the war.
 
People die in war, the difference is why they die.

If people die due to an enemy force pillaging and raping, then they will rally and avenge those deaths. If we lose people fighting a war that the people don't support, then all hell will break loose.

If another force invades France, their reinforcements will be split between us and the other nations invading, if they don't have reinforcements to split, then we won already and therefore another nation shouldn't be that much of a problem, as the AI is terribly slow at taking cities.
 
You think another nation will invade France? The nation led by an expansionist warlord with a strong army while next door there lies a nation that is weak and isolationist?

Yes, France is certainly the more tempting target.
 
People die in war, the difference is why they die.

More of our people will die if we're invaded as opposed to us launching a pre-emptive strike against a known threat.

If people die due to an enemy force pillaging and raping, then they will rally and avenge those deaths. If we lose people fighting a war that the people don't support, then all hell will break loose.

It isn't the duty of those who are supposed to protect Japan's people to play to Japan's emotions at the cost of their lives. I'm trying to prevent loss of Japanese life while you're trying to use the possibility of loss of life as a political tool to further political gains.

If another force invades France, their reinforcements will be split between us and the other nations invading, if they don't have reinforcements to split, then we won already and therefore another nation shouldn't be that much of a problem, as the AI is terribly slow at taking cities.

Again, you're suggesting now we go to war with multiple nations as opposed to just France? The Strike First Policy would result in a moderate-fast war which cripples our only rival in the region while your policy would result in a long grueling war in which many Japanese will, by your political actions, die on our soil while we are forced to react to France's attack and possible go to war with several nations once a power vacuum is created.

Again, one idea is sane. The other will result in massive loss of life on our side of the border.
 
I would just like to remind all the Daimyos, Shinobi, Monks, and Samurai present. Everything we say is remembered by Holy Ibsen over there, who has taken over for his father when he died and so on and so forth. Holy Ibsen, as we all know, is a monk, and when the commoners ask what we have talked about, he tells them.

He can't hear us if we pass notes like tittering schoolgirls, though.

-Daimyo Nukeknockout
 
I do not support a war against other nations, as I am a firm believer that aggression only causes problems.

I do not want to use Japanese lives to further political gains, I want to have the Japanese live as they always have, and when an enemy legitimately attacks our nation, instead of just having the possibility of it, we destroy them.

This is what I am saying,

let France come at us, defeat their invasion, and launch a full scale counter attack.

If another nation does gang up on France, then France will have to divide its few remaining forces fighting both of us. Since we have the human advantage, we'd be able to take cities far more efficiently than the other AI, possibly beating them to every single city.

Japanese will die, but many more French will, and the Japanese people will be grateful that we avenged them. They will not be grateful is we spend lives on a war that they might not understand or agree with, causing them to dislike their government.

The Japanese need to trust us, and the only way to do that is to act responsibly. France has shown no signs of aggression yet, you guys are fear mongering to further your political gains.
 
I do not support a war against other nations, as I am a firm believer that aggression only causes problems.

Yes. French Aggression against us will result in many dead innocent Japanese.

I do not want to use Japanese lives to further political gains, I want to have the Japanese live as they always have, and when an enemy legitimately attacks our nation, instead of just having the possibility of it, we destroy them.

I do not WANT to use Japanese lives to further political gains? That means you ARE going to.


Japanese will die, but many more French will, and the Japanese people will be grateful that we avenged them. They will not be grateful is we spend lives on a war that they might not understand or agree with, causing them to dislike their government.

The Japanese need to trust us, and the only way to do that is to act responsibly. France has shown no signs of aggression yet, you guys are fear mongering to further your political gains.

This is proof that the Japanese people. People of Japan, don't worry. He will sacrifice your lives to prove a point and you will be GRATEFUL when he avenges something he could've prevented.
 
I could've prevented it, at the cost of a legitimate reason for a war. "Oh you have a couple warriors and border us, time to die" is that the mentality you want? That's the mentality that destroys nations.

You know what I meant. By "I do not want to use them" it means I wont.

French aggression will result in many dead on both sides, but will give us a reason to destroy them, and the Japanese people will trust their government because of it.
 
I could've prevented it, at the cost of a legitimate reason for a war. "Oh you have a couple warriors and border us, time to die" is that the mentality you want? That's the mentality that destroys nations.

I rather a million French die than a thousand Japanese just to prove a point.

You know what I meant. By "I do not want to use them" it means I wont.

But you already stated, several times, that people will be grateful because the government will avenge the deaths of farmers everyone already sees coming. While responsible members of the Japanese political institution are coming to terms with the idea that France will attack and already agree that we will go to war eventually, people like you insist that if a few hundred thousand Japanese die but you're "on the defensive", it makes those hundreds of thousands of deaths ok. I rather the Japanese have a mild distrust and hatred of the government to have the blood of hundreds of thousands of Japanese on my hands and use their souls as tools of influence over the hundreds of thousands of Japanese still alive.

French aggression will result in many dead on both sides, but will give us a reason to destroy them, and the Japanese people will trust their government because of it.

It comes down to, again, dead Japanese become living tools of General Bloodthirsty who seeks nothing more than to be a populist in the eyes of the voter instead of being a responsible leader of our nation.
 
I could've prevented it, at the cost of a legitimate reason for a war. "Oh you have a couple warriors and border us, time to die" is that the mentality you want? That's the mentality that destroys nations.

You know what I meant. By "I do not want to use them" it means I wont.

French aggression will result in many dead on both sides, but will give us a reason to destroy them, and the Japanese people will trust their government because of it.

What part of "Everything you say is being remembered by Holy Ibsen who goes down to the tavern to get Sake in exchange for non-censored discussions' does not reach you?

We're here to protect the people, and if we can see this coming, we have to stop it.

-Daimyo Nukeknockout
 
Top Bottom