Elysian Dream (Byzantium in the New World) (EU4 Quest)

[uju32]

From the update, there are around 10,000 Castillan settlers there.
We have five times as many people serving in our army as they have population. They're not really what you'd call a threat.

Click to shrink...

You're right.
Even assuming they grab every man between 16 and 60 when they are under siege, they'd omly be able to put maybe 2k on their walls in a defensive capacity. And even worse, that's spread across at least four towns.

I never said any of that.

Click to shrink...

I quote:

QM writes the updates from the limited perspective of the ruler, so it is entirely possible that it's been coloured by his 2 DIP weakness and the French empress's excuses.

Click to shrink...

That is what she wants you to think. Occam's Razor suggests that France's move is exactly what the court first suspected it to be, as noted in the narrative. The simplest explanation is that they are trying to limit us. As for our wife, the quiet ones are usually the most dangerous.

Click to shrink...

Those are your words. Not mine.
You have raised the spectre that the narrator is biased enough to be unreliable because of his wife. You have suggested that the assessment of literally everyone that our unnamed wife is a kindly ditz with no political experience or interest, is egregiously wrong.

Nothing I've said is an unfair characterization.

I don't understand what you are arguing here

Click to shrink...

The primary deterrence, as I have been arguing all this time, is the psychological and diplomatic pressure from France, not the threat of military force. We can easily win a war against them, even if France joined. The way that questers right now do not want to offend France proves that the deterrence is quite effective

Click to shrink...

Not how deterrence works dude.
There has to be a credible threat of consequences for a deterrent effect, which do not exist here. Elysia is too far away for military shenanigans, and has minimal diplomatic exposure on the European continent. Economic games will hurt France too.

First, there is nothing crazy about a country making an easy move that limits a potential future competitor that costs them essentially nothing. As I said before, this is a diplomatic ploy, and they don't need to think of us as important to test whether we're happy being an obedient dog.
Second, what you're doing now is the fallacy called shifting the goalpost. I quote your previous suggestion:

Click to shrink...

Easy move. Really.
There is nothing effective about declaring an alliance with a colony of 10,000 people to prevent a nation of 1.7 million from expanding.
I mean, it's certainly easy to write up a declaration, but backing it up is much harder.

This is the sixteenth century, not the twentieth. Logistics suck. The Spanish Armada of 1588 was only able to muster 17,000 soldiers to go from Lisbon to the Bay of Biscay. And that's coastal Europe. Trans-Atlantic military support is effectively impossible against a land power. Elysia has very little diplomatic interest in Europe, besides keeping the Euros on their side of the pond snd stealing knowledge.

I will remind you that OTL France sold the Louisiana Territory to the US in 1803.
The talk of limiting a future competitor who is quite literally thousands of miles away, using diplomatic agents who you won't talk to for years, is literally crazytalk in this day and age. No halfway credible strategist would countenance it.

You thought it was better to simply attack Mexico outright disregarding the French alliance, in response to my plan to make diplomatic inroads with other European powers, and I offered to support your suggestion if made into a plan. At the time, I didn't point out how your two statements contradicted each other from one sentence to the next, as war against Mexico clearly burns our former diplomatic strategy more than my plan. However, at this point I no longer understand what you're arguing for, as now you're talking about "an alliance allows both sides to strangle the Atlantic trade of enemies".

Click to shrink...

-Damn right I was for ignoring it, because it was a self-evident farce aimed at further humiliating Castille.
Provide a facesaving justification for the French and public consumption(they seized one of our ships, they supplied pirates et cetera, they requested aid), eat them and move on. The French won't care enough to say shit.
*points at the Falklands War*
Anyone who tells you that an alliance to a third party prevents two countries from having kinetic disagreements is not paying any attention to their history, ancient or modern.

-The alliance points out how Elysian-French relations have worked thus far.

France is big and prosperous enough to fund their ambitions out of their European territory; in this age a European population of 15 mill is Huge. Most of their rivals aren't, and require external trade and/or colonies for the economic boost to play in the big leagues. Hence it's in their interest that Elysia keeps Euros from settling in the New World and drawing resources from there.

And Elysia is advantaged by France keeping the European powers focused on defending their territory from French territorial ambitions, and not having the money to fund attempts to expand to other continents.

We saw this demonstrated when Elysia helped strangle Castille's economic lifeline from the New World, which allowed France to choke them in Europe. And the simultaneous pressure made Castille split it's focus, resulting in defeat in detail. This left Elysia as the only Euro-descended power in NorthAm and the Carribean, and allowed France to lop chunks off Castille, and keep it's SouthAm colony.


Self interest. Not some nebulous honor shit.

---

 

[Eiri Fllyn]

You have raised the spectre that the narrator is biased enough to be unreliable because of his wife. You have suggested that the assessment of literally everyone that our unnamed wife is a kindly ditz with no political experience or interest, is egregiously wrong.

Nothing I've said is an unfair characterization.

Click to shrink...

Really? How about the part where you said

You're arguing that after all this time, she's such a believer in the glory of France that she sabotages the country of her marriage to possibly benefit the country of her birth which she'll never see again. And you are asserting that she and the French are managing to coordinate her aiding French foreign policy across several thousand kilometres of hostile seas and Elysian subjects.

And you are arguing that this is the simplest explanation? Really?

Click to shrink...

I already told you why this was not what I said, and not my argument. You clearly strawmanned me, and now you're backtracking. Saying that the narrator is unreliable, that Occam's Razor agrees with the court's initial thought France's move was to limit Elysian expansion, and that the wife wants us to think she's family-oriented and uninterested in state affairs (as is normal for women in that era), is very different from what you characterized me as saying. This is called debating in bad faith. I'm not going to waste my time on this anymore if you aren't going to properly address my actual argument.

Not how deterrence works dude.
There has to be a credible threat of consequences for a deterrent effect, which do not exist here. Elysia is too far away for military shenanigans, and has minimal diplomatic exposure on the European continent. Economic games will hurt France too.

Click to shrink...

We have already been deterred, according to the leading vote, what your idea of deterrence should look like is irrelevant. Reality is right here. Everybody here who doesn't want to offend France is the proof of their deterrence working.

remaining snip

Click to shrink...

Nobody has argued about honor vs. self interest, nor have I disagreed about France's inability to send troops. This must be the third or fourth time I've said this by now, I agree that France cannot support the Republic and we can simply go to war against the Republic.

"Provide a facesaving justification for the French and public consumption(they seized one of our ships, they supplied pirates et cetera, they requested aid), eat them and move on. The French won't care enough to say shit."

Click to shrink...

Wow. That is what I have been arguing for this whole time. The only difference is that I suggested counter-revolution as the justification. Maybe you should actually read my plan and arguments before starting rants on things I never said.

 

[Donkey Hote]

[X] Plan: Administration

Click to shrink...

The thing that is most frustrating about your plan is that your paying ahead of time penalties on tech to buff our armies and then not doing anything with those armies.

 

[uju32]

Really? How about the part where you said

Click to shrink...

Dude, these were also your words:

I never said they made a mistake. That was you. France is employing the strategy you suggested that Britain used in India. How are you unable to see this? It clearly said that a French "merchantman" armed the Castilians, and then they allied soon after. They are trying to turn the republic into a puppet state, block off our southern expansion, and insult Castile all at the same time. It's the perfect move against a perceived weaker power like us. They are expecting us not to make a big deal out of it, avoiding confrontation as we vainly hope that it was all a misunderstanding.

Click to shrink...

Your quotes, combined with your assertions about the quiet ones and the French Empress making excuses possibly deluding the Emperor, make your intent pretty clear. You pretty clearly imply French government involvement in the whole affair.

Again, it is not an unfair characterization of your statements.

I already told you why this was not what I said, and not my argument. You clearly strawmanned me, and now you're backtracking.

Click to shrink...

Your words are right there.
Everyone can read them. Making claims of strawmanship doesn't actually change what you typed.

We have already been deterred, according to the leading vote, what your idea of deterrence should look like is irrelevant. Reality is right here. Everybody here who doesn't want to offend France is the proof of their deterrence working.

Click to shrink...

Not choosing to immediately knock over a 10,000 settler colony is not being deterred.
It's having more pressing issues to deal with. Military reforms, internal development, more naval transport capacity, better artillery for sieging settlements, consolidating conquered territory.

The juice is not currently worth the squeeze.

Nobody has argued about honor vs. self interest, nor have I disagreed about France's inability to send troops. This must be the third or fourth time I've said this by now, I agree that France cannot support the Republic and we can simply go to war against the Republic.

Click to shrink...

You asked. I explained.
It explains why the current alliance is in France's self interest, and why they have no motive to endanger it by fucking around on our borders this way.

Set out in excruciating detail.

Wow. That is what I have been arguing for this whole time. The only difference is that I suggested counter-revolution as the justification. Maybe you should actually read my plan and arguments before starting rants on things I never said.

Click to shrink...

That isn't what you said. Your words are right there.

Since the two-hour moratorium has passed, I am voting for my write-in plan unless Sayle says it can't be done:

[X] Plan Counter-Revolution
-[X] Fire the Ambassador of Elysia in France.
-[X] Send a battlegroup of 20 heavy ships and 50 light ships of a combined Elysian and Kykladian navy to France Guyana coast to perform military exercises.
-[X] Warn the Republic of Mexico against any attempts to attack their neighbours.
-[X] Send a gift of 200 hyperpyra worth of Elysian Silk to the English court.
-[X] After the above actions, proclaim the Republic of Mexico an illegal revolution, and send letters to all the monarchs of Europe and the Papacy warning them of the dangers of the rise of republicanism and anti-clericalism. Have our ambassadors subtly inquire as to the stance of the European powers and the scope of anti-French sentiment.
-[X] If the response from European powers is very positive, declare that Empire of Elysia will be the defender of monarchism in the New World and issue an ultimatum to the Republic of Mexico, that they accept: 1) the rule of a claimant of our and a council of European powers' choice, 2) hand over the ringleaders of the Republican Revolution for execution, 3) or we shall declare war on them on the basis of counter-revolution.
-[X] If Republic of Mexico refuses the ultimatum, follow through and go to war to conquer them.
-[X] If the response from European powers is negative, wait and observe closely for changes in sentiment. Fabricate documents purportedly written by the Republic of Mexico that suggest strong anti-monarchist sentiments and calling for overthrow of monarchs worldwide, while leaking "secret plans" to spread revolution in Europe with the help of a French faction, and attempt to spur violent conflicts between revolutionary mobs and royalists in the Republic. Amass troops at the border.
-[X] [140 Administrative] The increasing size of the militia and the more established tagmata is putting increasing strain on the supply system they rely on. By separating this portion of the military entirely from the central bureaucracy, we can improve efficiency at the cost of some oversight. Unfortunately our armies need this innovation if they are to continue at their present sizes.
-[X] [90 Diplomatic] Whiule our independent merchants have been a source of great wealth both to themselves and the treasury itself, some risky ventures are beyond even the ability of the increasingly wealthy Emporoi to fund and maintain. This is where the state should intervene, sponsoring trade expeditions and giving these new trade companies the right to exercise certain governmental powers. More sources of trade will only enrich the realm.
-[X] [120 Military] The proliferation of artillery in Europe has taught the continental powers the the old ways are no longer sufficient when it comes to protecting against cannon. In response they have adopted new techniques for construction to deflect shot and provide overlapping fields of fire as firearms became more common. We should adopt these new methods for the day when we must defend against the same, even if it requires larger and more expensive bastions.
-[X] [60 Administrative] The new world is empty. Barbaroi may live here or there, but the vast and untamed wilderness must be quelled and set to rights if it is to be of any use at all. We should encourage the establishment of new settlements on our far border to lay claim to these empty territories. [Expansion Ideas]
-[X] [60 Military] Morale is the cornerstone of military force. While tales of past glories are certainly helpful, the ancient skill of rhetoric is a key part of inspiring the men. With this in mind we should public military manuals of past exploits and tactics, so that our commanders and orators will have a solid foundation in what works and what doesn't. Tales of valour and victory can convince men to stand and fight against even hopeless odds. [Quality Ideas]
-[X] [100 Administrative] There is always room for tax reform, especially when it comes to poll taxes. Equally there are always projects that cost only time and effort that will improve conditions for the citizens and thus their health - public baths and aqueducts the most obvious among them. It can take a great deal of work on the part of the bureaucracy to put such plans into action, but the returns are worth it. (Increases development and tax income.) [Repeatable]
-[X] [2500 Hyperpyra] With the ongoing expansion of Elysia's navy there has been plenty of competition for state contracts among the great lumbermills and shipwrights of the coast. But the time has come to firmly endorse certain companies with imperial favour and subsidy in order to expand their operations. We must ensure our navy never lacks for vital supplies and skilled labourers for construction.
-[X] [55 Hyperpyra/-40 Expenses] [6 Vessels] The capability of a nation to defend its borders is often the most important factor in whether it will have to defend them at all. The same applies on the sea as it does on land. The commissioning and maintenance of heavy warships will show that Elysia is willing to fight to preserve her interests and provide her the means to do so.
-[X] [22 Hyperpyra/-4 Expenses] [16 Vessels] Trade made the merchant republics some of the richest in Europe, capable of toppling small nations if it meant more gold flowing into their coffers. Their large navies were in no small part responsible for this dominance, the sheer quantity of trade ships carrying goods giving them the money to finance their dominance of the sea. We would be wise to follow their example.

Click to shrink...

Your plan, the one you are currently voting for and arguing for, is named Counter Revolution.
You want to send almost the entire navy to threaten the French colonies at Guyana, then send 5% of our disposable income in trade goods to the French enemy in England.


You are attempting to start a much larger conflagration from what is a minor tiff in a part of the world where France has limited interest.


That is very different from having a bunch of ship captains claim they were attacked by pirates out of Mexico, or simply that they were abused by Mexican government officials, and upon making demands that aren't fulfilled, moving in troops and ships to "restore order and seek redress against maritime depredations".

Y'know, like the historical War of Jenkins Ear, where the alleged casus belli was the amputation of a British merchant's ear, leading to war between Britain and Spain. And much like now, France was officially allied to Spain in the Pacte de Famille.
They stayed neutral, despite England being literally less than a hundred miles off their coast.

 

[Eiri Fllyn]

Dude, these were also your words:

Your quotes, combined with your assertions about the quiet ones and the French Empress making excuses possibly deluding the Emperor, make your intent pretty clear. You pretty clearly imply French government involvement in the whole affair.

Again, it is not an unfair characterization of your statements.

Your words are right there.
Everyone can read them. Making claims of strawmanship doesn't actually change what you typed.

Click to shrink...

No, you are again strawmanning. What is this "whole affair" you're talking about? I said nothing about France coordinating with the empress, as you insist on saying I said over and over. You're treating the wife as an extension of France, and falsely characterizing me as having talked about a large conspiracy.

I said that France established the alliance deliberately, even knowing that we wouldn't be happy about it. This part you're quoting now about France's own actions, I stand by completely. But you're equating that to a conspiracy with the wife, which is false.

That Occam's Razor suggests the situation is exactly as it first appeared, which was expressly noted in the narrative as being the entire court's first reaction, that they are trying to limit Elysian expansion.

I also said that the Emperor is not a perfectly reliable narrator, particularly due to his DIP 2. I also noted that we don't know why the court changed their mind or why the emperor discarded the initial interpretation. You are focusing intently on the wife when I said clearly that it might have been her excurses, the Ambassador to France that I want to fire, or just the emperor's delusions. It could be anything, but we don't know because the change in interpretation was not explained.

People all have individual motives and interests. The part you quoted from me earlier in your last post, the full paragraph said "As for our wife, the quiet ones are usually the most dangerous. Perhaps soon the Emperor will mysteriously die, overconfident in his tyrannical administrative skills without realizing how much he has offended everyone in his court and his wife, leaving a 10 year old on the throne under the Regency of the Empress. We don't even know what her stats are."

There are 2 problems with your mischaracterization of my argument. 1) Being quiet, submissive, yet dangerous, and annoyed with the emperor doesn't imply that she is a part of a French conspiracy. She could be motivated by the simplest of reasons, like upset that the Emperor isn't spending time with her child, and wanting him to focus less on foreign affairs. 2) The core of the argument wasn't about the wife in the first place, but you're specifically focusing on this to the exclusion of all else. I noted that it was the court that first thought France was limiting Elysia. The narration says it really wasn't them wanting to limit Elysia, but it could just as easily be the emperor insisting on his interpretation and the court not willing to challenge him on it, despite their misgivings.

That isn't what you said. Your words are right there.

Your plan, the one you are currently voting for and arguing for, is named Counter Revolution.
You want to send almost the entire navy to threaten the French colonies at Guyana, then send 5% of our disposable income in trade goods to the French enemy in England.


You are attempting to start a much larger conflagration from what is a minor tiff in a part of the world where France has limited interest.


That is very different from having a bunch of ship captains claim they were attacked by pirates out of Mexico, or simply that they were abused by Mexican government officials, and upon making demands that aren't fulfilled, moving in troops and ships to "restore order and seek redress against maritime depredations".

Y'know, like the historical War of Jenkins Ear, where the alleged casus belli was the amputation of a British merchant's ear, leading to war between Britain and Spain. And much like now, France was officially allied to Spain in the Pacte de Famille.
They stayed neutral, despite England being literally less than a hundred miles off their coast.

Click to shrink...

Yes, my words are right here. In this case, you have a different idea of what would cause a "much larger conflagration" than me. I think it's self-evident that declaring war against a country allied to France is a bigger deal than some military exercises and sending a gift to a third party. My plan doesn't directly single out France -- we have colonies right beside their Guyana colonies and can perform military exercises there legitimately, and the Ambassador being fired is our Ambassador for incompetence. Hell, that's a great way for the French to save face, blame our ambassador for failing to communicate with us properly. Finally, when we attempt to establish a council of european powers, there's nothing that says France can't join it themselves.

 

[Arakhor]

Why would you fire the Elysian ambassador in Paris? Normally, you'd recall him or replace him.

 

[Eiri Fllyn]

Why would you fire the Elysian ambassador in Paris? Normally, you'd recall him or replace him.

Click to shrink...

Well, unless we plan to give them another role somewhere else, recalling or replacing them means firing them, does it not?

 

[Ptolemy]

No, you are again strawmanning. What is this "whole affair" you're talking about? I said nothing about France coordinating with the empress, as you insist on saying I said over and over. You're treating the wife as an extension of France, and falsely characterizing me as having talked about a large conspiracy.

I said that France established the alliance deliberately, even knowing that we wouldn't be happy about it. This part you're quoting now about France's own actions, I stand by completely. But you're equating that to a conspiracy with the wife, which is false.

That Occam's Razor suggests the situation is exactly as it first appeared, which was expressly noted in the narrative as being the entire court's first reaction, that they are trying to limit Elysian expansion.

I also said that the Emperor is not a perfectly reliable narrator, particularly due to his DIP 2. I also noted that we don't know why the court changed their mind or why the emperor discarded the initial interpretation. You are focusing intently on the wife when I said clearly that it might have been her excurses, the Ambassador to France that I want to fire, or just the emperor's delusions. It could be anything, but we don't know because the change in interpretation was not explained.

People all have individual motives and interests. The part you quoted from me earlier in your last post, the full paragraph said "As for our wife, the quiet ones are usually the most dangerous. Perhaps soon the Emperor will mysteriously die, overconfident in his tyrannical administrative skills without realizing how much he has offended everyone in his court and his wife, leaving a 10 year old on the throne under the Regency of the Empress. We don't even know what her stats are."

There are 2 problems with your mischaracterization of my argument. 1) Being quiet, submissive, yet dangerous, and annoyed with the emperor doesn't imply that she is a part of a French conspiracy. She could be motivated by the simplest of reasons, like upset that the Emperor isn't spending time with her child, and wanting him to focus less on foreign affairs. 2) The core of the argument wasn't about the wife in the first place, but you're specifically focusing on this to the exclusion of all else. I noted that it was the court that first thought France was limiting Elysia. The narration says it really wasn't them wanting to limit Elysia, but it could just as easily be the emperor insisting on his interpretation and the court not willing to challenge him on it, despite their misgivings.




Yes, my words are right here. In this case, you have a different idea of what would cause a "much larger conflagration" than me. I think it's self-evident that declaring war against a country allied to France is a bigger deal than some military exercises and sending a gift to a third party. My plan doesn't directly single out France -- we have colonies right beside their Guyana colonies and can perform military exercises there legitimately, and the Ambassador being fired is our Ambassador for incompetence. Hell, that's a great way for the French to save face, blame our ambassador for failing to communicate with us properly. Finally, when we attempt to establish a council of european powers, there's nothing that says France can't join it themselves.

Click to shrink...

Dude. Don't pretend your diplomatic response isn't outrageously provocative and aggressive, because it fundamentally is. Holding massive military exercises with a big Armada off the coast of France's colonies is not some casual move. It's incendiary sabre-rattling, as is the rest of your response. The QM has already stated that the Republic of Mexico are republicans through necessity, not because they fundamentally reject the sovereignty of monarchs. So please, just give it a rest. I can respect your determination and tenacity to fight your corner, but I think you're simply in the wrong here. You're cherry picking whatever you can to support your case, and ignoring all the overwhelming amount of other stuff in the update that contradicts it.

Also, for what it's worth, Occam's razor does not mean what you're saying it does. Occam's razor is essentially the idea that you should believe whatever requires the fewest unproven assumptions. That is by no means the same as believing whatever you first assumed. The fact that it was the court's first reaction doesn't mean it's more likely to be correct.

 

[Cornbeefz]

x Plan we keep growing and consolidating, and not pick aggressive diplomatic fights.

 

[Eiri Fllyn]

Dude. Don't pretend your diplomatic response isn't outrageously provocative and aggressive, because it fundamentally is. Holding massive military exercises with a big Armada off the coast of France's colonies is not some casual move. It's incendiary sabre-rattling, as is the rest of your response. The QM has already stated that the Republic of Mexico are republicans through necessity, not because they fundamentally reject the sovereignty of monarchs. So please, just give it a rest. I can respect your determination and tenacity to fight your corner, but I think you're simply in the wrong here. You're cherry picking whatever you can to support your case, and ignoring all the overwhelming amount of other stuff in the update that contradicts it.

Also, for what it's worth, Occam's razor does not mean what you're saying it does. Occam's razor is essentially the idea that you should believe whatever requires the fewest unproven assumptions. That is by no means the same as believing whatever you first assumed. The fact that it was the court's first reaction doesn't mean it's more likely to be correct.

Click to shrink...

I never said my plan isn't aggressive. It's supposed to be. I only said in response to uju32 that it's less aggressive in comparison to declaring war on Mexico directly. The military exercises show France that we had a strong reaction over their decision, and they can then choose to respond peacefully or raise tensions. They can void the alliance before we actually declare war, which is better than dishonoring an alliance when they are called to arms. I absolutely want an aggressive and provocative response, because the point is to conquer Mexico in a justifiable way and warn France not to do anything similar again.

That definition of Occam's razor is exactly what I said it was..."The simplest explanation is that they are trying to limit us." It just so happens that it was also the first reaction of the court. If you had no other information about France's motives, ie, discarding the unproven assumption that France wanted to insult Castile further for no particular gain, then the obvious conclusion is that it was targeted at us. The update didn't actually say if that was France's actual explanation or not.

EDIT:

Nowhere in here does it say that France actually told us that was why they did it, or who told us that:

This farcical declaration of good will from the French crown is not, as the court initially suspected, aimed at preventing Elysian expansion. The acknowledgement of a Mexican republic has merely rubbed the salt into the wound of the bankrupt court in Toledo, who have in the last months signed a humiliating peace treaty with Aragon that ceded vast swathes of land along the southern coast and interior of Iberia.

Click to shrink...

Hence, the insult to Castile is an unproven assumption.

 

[Arakhor]

Well, unless we plan to give them another role somewhere else, recalling or replacing them means firing them, does it not?

Click to shrink...

Why wouldn't we give them a different role afterwards? Singling out this particular member of the diplomatic corps for unemployment when in fact what you actually want to do is to close the Paris embassy seems needlessly specific.

 

[Star]

Do we even have embassies at this point in time?

 

[Arakhor]

You'd certainly have ambassadors, who'd probably be staying at or near the local monarch's palace. Whether they'd have a dedicated building for diplomatic work, I don't know.

 

[trooperist]

Do we even have embassies at this point in time?

Click to shrink...

It never really comes up in the game. You just send one of your diplomats to improve relations.

In real life though, the idea of having a permanent representative stationed near the government of a foreign power began in around the mid to late 1400s. By the late 1500s it had become the standard for diplomatic relations in Europe. But said representative isn't really an 'ambassador' as we would know them today, more like emissaries. They were almost always nobles of some importance (because if they're talking to Kings and Queens they need at least a little importance). Their quality also varied between useless fops and quality professionals.

 

[demonthese2211]

I never said my plan isn't aggressive. It's supposed to be. I only said in response to uju32 that it's less aggressive in comparison than declaring war on Mexico directly. The military exercises show France that we had a strong reaction over their decision, and they can then choose to respond peacefully or raise tensions. They can void the alliance before we actually declare war, which is better than dishonoring an alliance when they are called to arms. I absolutely want an aggressive and provocative response, because the point is to conquer Mexico in a justifiable way and warn France not to do anything similar again.

That definition of Occam's razor is exactly what I said it was..."The simplest explanation is that they are trying to limit us." It just so happens that it was also the first reaction of the court. If you had no other information about France's motives, ie, discarding the unproven assumption that France wanted to insult Castile further for no particular gain, then the obvious conclusion is that it was targeted at us.

Click to shrink...

1) Implicitly threatening French citizens, French territory, and French colonial ambitions is far far more provocative than knocking over a tiny republic across an ocean in the age of absolute monarchies.

2) The idea that your preferred interpretation of events is the one supported by Occam's razor is absurd. The F U Castille interpretation requires a grand total of two assumptions, 1 that the merchant was not acting under the orders of the French crown, and 2 that France would take the opportunity to further humiliate a rival given an option with essentially no direct cost.

3) Your panic over the empress is also absurd and trying to claim that it is supported by Occam's razor with a grand total of zero textual evidence quite frankly doesn't even deserve being debated.

4) It is intensely disingenuous for you to attempt to separate debate of the theoretical motives of the Empress from the debate over the motives of France given that you introduced the Empress into the debate as a source of the reevaluation of motive.

QM writes the updates from the limited perspective of the ruler, so it is entirely possible that it's been coloured by his 2 DIP weakness and the French empress's excuses.

Click to shrink...

 

[Eiri Fllyn]

Why wouldn't we give them a different role afterwards? Singling out this particular member of the diplomatic corps for unemployment when in fact what you actually want to do is to close the Paris embassy seems needlessly specific.

Click to shrink...

Actually, I specifically don't want to close the embassy. Firing our ambassador gives both our sides an out -- we can officially blame the rising tensions on miscommunications and incompetence, even if both sides know the truth wasn't like that. For example, we could say that the military exercises getting too close to French Guyana was an accident in planning and we had actually tried to get French permission to do it, while they could say that they thought we were in favor of the new Republic as well due to a misunderstanding caused by the ambassador.

Closing our embassy removes a line of communication and makes it seem like we're giving France the ultimatum instead of Mexico.

1) Implicitly threatening French citizens, French territory, and French colonial ambitions is far far more provocative than knocking over a tiny republic across an ocean in the age of absolute monarchies.

2) The idea that your preferred interpretation of events is the one supported by Occam's razor is absurd. The F U Castille interpretation requires a grand total of two assumptions, 1 that the merchant was not acting under the orders of the French crown, and 2 that France would take the opportunity to further humiliate a rival given an option with essentially no direct cost.

3) Your panic over the empress is also absurd and trying to claim that it is supported by Occam's razor with a grand total of zero textual evidence quite frankly doesn't even deserve being debated.

4) It is intensely disingenuous for you to attempt to separate debate of the theoretical motives of the Empress from the debate over the motives of France given that you introduced the Empress into the debate as a source of the reevaluation of motive.

Click to shrink...

1) We haven't threatened them.

2) Why is it absurd? You just proved my point by listing 2 unnecessary assumptions. We can come to the conclusion that France is limiting Elysia just by looking at the map.

3) There is no panic over the empress.

4) I did not introduce it as the source of reevaluation of motive, nor am I separating it from the debate. Here's a quote from the very first post I made on this subject:

This is an outrage. France formed an alliance with them without even bothering to consult us, recognizing them as "equals", but not us, even though we fought a war against their enemies? Whatever they're saying about the move not being aimed at checking Elysian expansion is obvious bullshit. I want to know who is the advisor that is making excuses for the French in our court and remove him or her from office. The French have betrayed us, they will pay the price for this insult.

Click to shrink...

And another one:

Our ambassador must have been bought off by the French and lied to our face, and our Emperor's 2 DIP is too low to realize it, hence the narration giving it a pass.

Click to shrink...

The wife is just one of many possible advisors who may have affected the Emperor's thoughts on the subject. My essential point is about the Emperor's 2 DIP and perspective. It is much more disingenuous to attack a position that I did not hold. The wife is certainly part of the possible problems I raised -- but not once did I claim that she was working on behalf of the French or coordinating with them in some kind of conspiracy and betraying Elysia, which is what uju32 claimed I did.

 

[Genji]

[X] Plan Develop and Save

We're extremely overstretched no? The last update has the barbaroi as the huge majority of the population. We're like 5-10% citizens only. Remember what happened to the Spartans when their slaves revolted? The situation as it is now cannot continue forever, as the barbaroi gain access to education and information, they will gradually demand more.

Better to consolidate now for the next few turns and fill our empty interiors with people than to court more wars and controversy. I laugh at the plan to do 'maneuvers' in front of the big blue blob. We're married to the Emperor's niece, the blue blob is our friend right now.

Although, can we do something about our population? Maybe invite peasant settlers from Europe? We'll disperse them throughout the continent and thereby assimilate them. I'm assuming Greek settlers are impossible of course because the Ottomans won't let them go.

 

[Star]

There really is no need for picking a fights here, we can simply extend diplomatic hand to the natives in central America and guarantee their protection, in case of Mexico attacking them we can intervene on their side by forcing Mexico to retreat. We are still top dog in America and our word alone will force Mexico to retreat or cede any gained territories back.

 

[Star]

[X] Plan Develop and Save

We're extremely overstretched no? The last update has the barbaroi as the huge majority of the population. We're like 5-10% citizens only. Remember what happened to the Spartans when their slaves revolted? The situation as it is now cannot continue forever, as the barbaroi gain access to education and information, they will gradually demand more.

Better to consolidate now for the next few turns and fill our empty interiors with people than to court more wars and controversy. I laugh at the plan to do 'maneuvers' in front of the big blue blob. We're married to the Emperor's niece, the blue blob is our friend right now.

Although, can we do something about our population? Maybe invite peasant settlers from Europe? We'll disperse them throughout the continent and thereby assimilate them. I'm assuming Greek settlers are impossible of course because the Ottomans won't let them go.

Click to shrink...

If we call on settlers from Europe we will probably have to take them from Orthodox lands.
As for marriage and alliance, well while we are married nothing is definite, remember both Russian and German monarchs held a lot of power, were cousins and russian Czar was married to a German princes jet they were on oposite sides. There are no friends among the nations only interests and while i agree to stay on good relationship with France we should still look in possible alliance with other powers like England because while we want good relationship with France we don't want their enemies.

Add to that that from the looks of it France sold of its allies in Germany for separate peace and free hand in Iberia.

 

[Genji]

Can't be the English because they can't beat France on land. Russia is a good all to have. Plus they are orthodox and have a lot of poor serfs that we can draw on?

And their colonial activity is strictly towards asia..

 

[Star]

Can't be the English because they can't beat France on land. Russia is a good all to have. Plus they are orthodox and have a lot of poor serfs that we can draw on?

And their colonial activity is strictly towards asia..

Click to shrink...

Why do we need to beat France when we are good for now and they don't show interest in colonies.
English on other hand do and they and French were arming native tribes to fight each other in proxy wars.
So if we don't want them to undermine us we need to make it clear that we are not their enemy and having us as their allies means that their colonies in South America are safe and they don't have to worry about us invading them, plus they will be the biggest naval power of the world so it better to be on their good side.

 

[instantia]

[X] Plan Develop and Save

 

[Sayle]

​

 

[Star]

Is it me or France doesn't even sees itself as our ally?

 

[Sayle]

Is it me or France doesn't even sees itself as our ally?

Click to shrink...

You're married to a French princess, you don't have a treaty of mutual alliance.